[Ichneumon]

[He could if he wanted it that way, right? Think carefully before you answer that one.]

Could God do evil?

If he chose to, sure.

No, there are some things God can't do because they are logical impossibilities

Then he's not actually omnipotent. You'll have to find a more accurate word to use.

- that is not the omnipotent God embraced by classical Theists, unless your a Calvinist.

A God which actually can't do some thing is not, in fact, omnipotent. Perhaps you could settle for "very powerful".

The moment God does evil is the moment he ceases to be "God."

And why would that be? Are you saying that God could not decide to start a new covenant of some sort? What a curious notion.

Since God is infinite and eternal, and there is a point at which he ceases to be God, then it stands to reason that he was never really "God" to begin with.....and the wheel goes 'round.

You have yet to establish that deciding to commit evil would cause him to cease to exist.

But in in case, you're talking in circles -- you've now embraced the notion of omnipotence which is not omnipotent, God who is not "God", and the end of the infinite and eternal. You've now equalled Alice's record of what she can believe before breakfast.

There is no force in the universe that is beyond God's power because they are creations of God; He has absolute power over them.

Oh, so he *is* omnipotent, even though he's not omnitpotent. Got it.

The proposition that an omnipotent being would create a force that would act in a manner unbeknowst to Him would imply that an omniscient God chose to no longer be omniscient and thus no longer "God."

I must have missed the part where God is required to always exercise his omniscient abilities, even when he prefers not to.

It would be the equivelant of a man raising a gun in a crowded area, closing his eyes, firing, and then hoping for the best.

No it wouldn't, but you keep believing that if you want.

What theist worth his salt would claim a belief in such a deity?

I don't think that any would believe in *your* odd version, certainly, but that's not the kind *I* was talkinga bout.

Think carefully about your claims.

Oh, *I* have...

[mike182d]

If he chose to, sure.

Then you're claiming God could cease being God. If it is possible for a perfect being to become imperfect, then that being is no longer "God."

Then he's not actually omnipotent. You'll have to find a more accurate word to use.

I think you misunderstand what "omnipotent" means. It does not mean the ability to do anything, it is the ability to do all that is possible.

A God which actually can't do some thing is not, in fact, omnipotent. Perhaps you could settle for "very powerful".

No. You are defining "omnipotent" in such a way that the word is nothing more than gibberish. It is not possible for God to exist and not exist at the same time. Is this, then, a limitation of God's power because that's something He can't do? I think you need to better understand what it means for God to be omnipotent.

And why would that be? Are you saying that God could not decide to start a new covenant of some sort? What a curious notion.

God's Law, or Covenant, is not arbitrary; it is not defined by God's whim. By definition, all that is good is of God. Evil, subsequently, is whatever is not of God. God cannot do something that is not of Himself. You're speaking nonsense. This is not a "limitation" in the true sense of the word. When I tell a child not to jump on the bed, he is being "limited" in his power because jumping on the bed is something he can do. If I told a rock not to jump on the bed, I am not "limiting" the rock's power because it is not capable of jumping on the bed in the first place. Thus, to say it is not possible for God to exist and not exist at the same time is not a limitation of His power because it isn't something that could be done in the first place.

You have yet to establish that deciding to commit evil would cause him to cease to exist.

The definition of God is the source of all that is good. If God became "evil," what we perceive as "evil" would then be "good." Thus, since moral qualifiers are dependent upon the nature of God, it is not possible for God to do something that is not of Himself, and therefore impossible for Him to do "evil." A God who could cease being Himself is by no means a "God," or anything worth being worshipped for that matter.

But in in case, you're talking in circles -- you've now embraced the notion of omnipotence which is not omnipotent, God who is not "God", and the end of the infinite and eternal. You've now equalled Alice's record of what she can believe before breakfast.

I'm merely clarifying what is meant by "omnipotence."

Oh, so he *is* omnipotent, even though he's not omnitpotent. Got it.

You are arguing over semantics. What you perceive to be omnipotence is nonsense because of the logical conclusions that such a meaning would necessitate.

I must have missed the part where God is required to always exercise his omniscient abilities, even when he prefers not to.

Omniscience isn't a coat that you can hang in your closet and forget about until its back in season. Furthermore, if you're willing to believe that God can withhold His power, could He not also withhold His love, or His knowing? Would not such a God be schizophrenic?

I don't think that any would believe in *your* odd version, certainly, but that's not the kind *I* was talkinga bout.

Every proponent of the God of classical theism believe that God cannot do evil. Apparently, you're the only one hung up by this issue.