I think it's time we nailed down this attack on the verity of Christian belief. An exposition of this atheist argument can be found at

www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_krueger/krueger-mchugh/krueger1.shtml

Within this online document Douglas E. Krueger presents the argument (essentially) that by definition God possesses attributes which are contradictory, for example, an omniscient and omnibenevolent being cannot both know and fail to know the pleasure that some have been known to take in killing large numbers of innocent people. Krueger therefore concludes that such a being cannot exist.

Within this topic we can explore effective rebuttals against this argument.


Arythmael

First off, the argument is valid, given that a definition of any object or entity as having contradictory properties implies that the thing being defined cannot exist in reality.

We will attempt to show that God does not have contradictory properties.

For the sake of this argument, in order to show that God does not have contradictory properties, we will refute Krueger's examples which attempt to describe such properties.

I will begin with the one implied in the opening topic post.


Arythmael

Krueger opens his argument with the following mistake:

(1) He defines omniscience as meaning "at least ... that god is not ignorant of something known to some other person." The common semantics associated with the phrase "ignorant of" is "lacking awareness of". This refers to the knowledge of something's existence, its nature and its properties.
(2) He uses this basis to make it sound reasonable that we will require this one-to-one mapping of things people are "aware of" to things God is "aware of".
(3) However, he then broadens the scope of what "knowledge" of something means to include such things as "direct experience of", and then essentially tries to apply this one-to-one mapping of people knowledge to God knowledge.

In doing this Krueger has cleverly escaped our requirement to feel comfortable with mapping all people experiences to God experiences. We can accept that his description of what omniscience must "at least" mean is valid (awareness of all things people are aware of). But we do not have to necessarily accept that omniscience must go farther to include the co-experience of the grand, self-contradictory set of all human experiences.

Krueger admits himself that "It is not exactly clear what is meant when one says of god that he is omniscient, or all-knowing." That means that a clear case can not be made that Christians believe God co-experiences evil spiritual activity with humans, for example. In order to make his claim, Krueger must show ample proof that this doctrine is a genuine part of the Christian religion -- which it is not.

Our counter-claim is that the generally accepted concept of God's omniscience within Christianity is that He is aware of, and is able to "follow along with", the experiences of all human beings throughout time, but that His experiences of those things are in response to (or in reference to) His own pure and good spiritual nature. So He is aware of the actions and thoughts of one who takes pleasure in killing innocent people, but unlike that person, He responds with pity, grief, anger, etc., based on all truth-centric points of view, within an eternal "now". The Christian concept of omniscience which is ascribed to God does not include the co-experience of spiritual activity that is contrary to His nature, as ascribed elsewhere within Christian doctrine.


Arythmael

Firstly, very interesting topic. As I am somewhat familiar with the work and arguments of Krueger, I may from time to time jump in here to assist in the understanding of his case, and to help hone your skills against it.

One point that Krueger has commonly made time and again is that there are different kinds of knowledge. There is for example book knowledge, that is knowledge acquired by learning or some other means. And then, there is also experiential knowledge, that acquired by the act of doing something.

So, while one can have knowledge of the sport of tennis, for example, through learning in the formal sense of the word, one would lack the experiential knowledge of having played the game, and thus would lack some knowledge.

The typical atheist tack with this line of reasoning is to show that God, through virtue of His inability to act in the human sense, cannot have experiential knowledge in the sense that humans do, and since there would be a set or subset of knowledge that God cannot know, then God cannot be omniscient.

Krueger takes this even further by using experiential knowledge to set up contradictory attributes, thereby disproving that definition of God. I think this is what he is after when he allows for God to have the experiential knowledge of taking pleasure in killing innocent people.

The point being made here is that if God has experiential knowledge of taking pleasure from killing innocent people, then at some point God must have experienced this knowledge, as the only means of acquiring said knowledge is through experience. However, since taking pleasure in killing innocents is generally considered to be malevolent, if God were to have this type of experiential knowledge, then God could not be said to be omnibenevolent.

Quote: › Our counter-claim is that the generally accepted concept of God's omniscience within Christianity is that He is aware of, and is able to "follow along with", the experiences of all human beings throughout time, but that His experiences of those things are in response to (or in reference to) His own pure and good spiritual nature.

While this counter is a good one, it skirts the issue of what experiential knowledge means at its base, and thus only partially answers the problem presented.

I hope this proves helpful to your endeavor.

Nator7821,

A wonderful summary of Krueger's argument; I should have done this myself for the readers here, but I was too lazy. Thanks for filling in so nicely for me.

Nator7821 wrote (View Post): › While this counter is a good one, it skirts the issue of what experiential knowledge means at its base, and thus only partially answers the problem presented.

If it appears that way, it is my fault for failing to explicitly state what I thought was the obvious conclusion from my argument: that God does not have direct experience of such evil as the "pleasure" some have experienced in the killing of large numbers of innocent people. Krueger makes the same mistake that secularity made in his argument recently refuted by me with this post. The Bible does not use any such term as "omniscient", and the theological view of most Christians is that God "is aware" of all things, but participates (if you will) only in the spiritual reality of perfect goodness as it relates to what He knows. Actually He defines perfect goodness, and the rest of us merely brush up against this once in a while, by His grace.

The atheist may be inclined to argue that God then could not possibly empathize with mankind, since He does not directly experience all things that man does. But it is only true that God does not empathize with those who do evil. Why should He? He holds judgment for them. He measures out the depth of their evil and will repay it with the full measure it deserves ... but He does not empathize, as if they were helpless victims. Those who repent from their evil He has mercy on, and forgives. Those who are themselves victims He has compassion towards, for He does grieve over our pain. But He does not move away from His character and in any way co-experience with evil doers the very spiritual lies which they are partaking in. You have to remember that what they are doing is participating in, and investing their hearts in, spiritual blindness and falsity.

The atheist may be inclined to argue that God then could not know how to judge evil men, or plan what should be their fate, if He does not truly understand by direct experience what they are going through. But one should not overestimate the value of direct experience when what one is experiencing is evil and spiritual blindness. God knows all aspects of the mind such an evil man is working with. He sees each dying body just as the man sees it. He knows the families of each victim, and number of hairs on each of their heads. But what He "feels" is vastly different from what the evil man feels. There is no truth, no reality, to what the man is telling himself in his head ... how powerful this makes him, how great he will be because others will fear him, etc. He is completely blind to the pitiful and wretched abomination he is making of himself, but this is what God sees and directly experiences, because that is the only "real" thing that is happening here.

Experiential knowledge can be broken down into factual knowledge (raw sensory input) and spiritual knowledge (participating with ones heart). God has all of the first kind of knowledge (more complete than does the man himself), and He perfectly measures the depth of the second kind. Furthermore, that measurement is in reference to Himself: He is the spiritual standard. What "knowledge" is there in experiencing what evil man does, participating with his heart in something that is far away from God spiritually? His "knowledge" is of lies (which is to not actually "know" anything that is real at all). So what does God lack in not having this direct experience of participating in lies as if they were true?

However we attempt to analyze the metaphysical aspects of God's experience, one thing we Christians agree upon is that God does not directly co-experience evil thoughts or actions with the evil men that do them. If others are determined to argue that this is the meaning of "omniscience", then Christians would rather say, fine, take your word and apply it to something else, but not to God. Whatever it means to "know" things that are spiritual lies (e.g., self-centered emotions based on false constructs of reality), God does not "know" through direct experience what such things feel like, He knows what such things should feel like, if understood properly.

So once again, in summary, God does not directly experience evil as do evil men. The essential corollary is that there is nothing true and nothing of value that God is missing by doing so. And if the word "omniscient" is forced to take on that extra meaning, then it no longer applies to God, who is wholly good and knowing of all truth.


Arythmael

Quote: › A wonderful summary of Krueger's argument; I should have done this myself for the readers here, but I was too lazy. Thanks for filling in so nicely for me.

Well, I am quite familiar with Krueger, so it wasn't a problem.

Quote: › If it appears that way, it is my fault for failing to explicitly state what I thought was the obvious conclusion from my argument: that God does not have direct experience of such evil as the "pleasure" some have experienced in the killing of large numbers of innocent people.

This is where I thought you might be going, which I why I regarded the counter as a good one that only partially answered the problem presented.

I agree that by allowing the application of human experiential knowledge to God that Krueger opens his arguments to just this criticism. And that is why I find the argument against God's omniscience to be the stronger case even though that likewise could hinge on definition. It just has more oomph with less likelihood of encountering your objection.

Quote: › The atheist may be inclined to argue that God then could not possibly empathize with mankind, since He does not directly experience all things that man does.

Good reasoning in this paragraph, though I would find it difficult to make the argument that God cannot empathize wih mankind simply because he lacks human experiential knowledge. One person can in a limited manner empathize with another person when the former has not undergone the same experiential knowledge as the latter if the former has some other knowledge of what the latter is going through. And since God would have another form of knowledge (despite lacking omniscience due to a lack of human experiential knowledge) He would be fully capable of at the very least a limited empathy.

Quote: › The atheist may be inclined to argue that God then could not know how to judge evil men, or plan what should be their fate, if He does not truly understand by direct experience what they are going through.

Another bit of solid reasoning, but for similar reasons as mentioned above, I would avoid taking that route on the atheist side.

Quote: › Experiential knowledge can be broken down into factual knowledge (raw sensory input) and spiritual knowledge (participating with ones heart).

With this I will partly disagree. I think it is a mostly correct assessment, but it fails to recognize that experiential knowledge is different from observational knowledge. Observational knowledge can likewise be broken down into sensory input and feelings as the knowledge is interpreted.

Experiential knowledge is the combination of sensory input with feelings associated due to interpretation while in the active phase. Examples will help here.

A person learns the game of tennis by watching (observing) it being played. For some reason, the person is fascinated and loves the game. So far, we only have observational knowledge. Soon, the fascination leads this person to attempt to play the game, whereby the person discovers that they have no natural talent for the sport, and during the course of practice develops a life-long injury, thus leading to a loathing of the sport. This is experiential knowledge based on first hand experience.

Now, the atheist argument is that since God cannot have the same kind of first hand experiential knowledge that humans can (God does not know the experience of stubbing a toe or burning a hand or winning a game first hand), then God lacks a form of knowledge and is not omniscient. Of course, this may be splitting hairs a bit, but it follows the strictest definition of omniscient.

Again, though, I think you made some good points.

Quote: › However we attempt to analyze the metaphysical aspects of God's experience, one thing we Christians agree upon is that God does not directly co-experience evil thoughts or actions with the evil men that do them.

And I certainly would not base an atheist argument on the premise that God does for that reason. However, I would take your admission that God has no first hand experiential knowledge of evil thoughts or actions as an entry-point to argue against God's omniscience. I don't think such an argument harms Christianity so much as it harms the more modern notions of the Christian deity.

Quote: › If others are determined to argue that this is the meaning of "omniscience", then Christians would rather say, fine, take your word and apply it to something else, but not to God.

This is exactly what I was getting at in that last paragraph of my response.

I guess a funnier way of saying it would be to quote Fezig from "Princess Bride."

"You use that word a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Quote: › Whatever it means to "know" things that are spiritual lies (e.g., self-centered emotions based on false constructs of reality), God does not "know" such things through direct experience, because He only knows what can be known: the truth of all things.

I would argue in response to this that your statement is nonsensical since evil thoughts and actions are part of the subset of all things, and since they are part of all things, then experiential knowledge of those things would be necessary to know the truth of all things.

Quote: › So once again, in summary, God does not directly experience evil as do evil men. The essential corollary is that there is nothing true and nothing of value that God is missing by doing so.

I would argue that there is definitely something of value missing by not having direct experiential knowledge of evil thoughts/actions. The value of knowing those things is in understanding how, what, and why those who commit evil thoughts/actions are capable and motivated enough to do those things, and leads to avenues that curb those desires in the first place.

Now, the more difficult question is whether or not the value of that experiential knowledge is worth the price paid to have it? I would agree with you in saying that in the case presented that it is not, and with that, you may have a good case.

Quote: › And if the word "omniscient" is forced to take on that extra meaning, then it no longer applies to God, who is wholly good and knowing of all truth.

The word omniscient, by its direct defintion, is already forced into that meaning. It is not an additional meaning.

And the admission that it does not apply to God is one that atheists have been seeking for quite some time, especially from literalist inerrantists, whose case for reliability on the Bible is shaken by having to admit that God is not omniscient.

All in all, I think you have a good case here. And, honestly, I don't think surrendering the omniscient concept harms the majority of Christianity in the least. In fact, it may help alleviate some pressure to answer questions like those presented by Krueger and other atheists because they will be seen as no longer relevant to the discussion.

Nator7821,

Although it sounds like the essence of this first argument is resolved (at least between you and I), I would like to briefly look at some of the intermediate points you mentioned.

Nator7821 wrote (View Post): › Now, the atheist argument is that since God cannot have the same kind of first hand experiential knowledge that humans can (God does not know the experience of stubbing a toe or burning a hand or winning a game first hand), then God lacks a form of knowledge and is not omniscient. Of course, this may be splitting hairs a bit, but it follows the strictest definition of omniscient.

I still limit the "knowledge" that God does not participate in by direct experience to that of spiritual evil. I think a deeper exploration of what it means that God created every aspect of man will obviate the recognition that He has a far more in-depth understanding of what it means to stub ones toe or win a game than we could possibly imagine. I don't think there is time and space here to do that, but I would like to some time. We must remember that unlike us, God did not borrow materials and experiment while designing the human being. He understood every minute detail, it's essence, its rules, its sub-particles, its actions and reactions, its limits, its breaking points ... everything! He knew exactly how much pain it would take for that person to decide that they loathed the sport. Because it's a function of his pyschology, his physiology, his history, his context, and much more, including yes, his spirit. And God knows the interactions of all of these things.

In short, God designed the experience of stubbing ones toe. And He didn't borrow materials or experiment, looking to in some limited way understand how they might result in what He was hoping for an outcome. He designed it from the ground up. So how could He not understand the complete nature of the experience? It's hard to prove, but it makes intuitive sense to me.

Nator7821 wrote (View Post): › Quote: › Whatever it means to "know" things that are spiritual lies (e.g., self-centered emotions based on false constructs of reality), God does not "know" such things through direct experience, because He only knows what can be known: the truth of all things. I would argue in response to this that your statement is nonsensical since evil thoughts and actions are part of the subset of all things, and since they are part of all things, then experiential knowledge of those things would be necessary to know the truth of all things.

I saw that and changed the wording even before I read this response. You are right, the former wording wasn't sensible. Please see the updated version.

Nator7821 wrote (View Post): › I would argue that there is definitely something of value missing by not having direct experiential knowledge of evil thoughts/actions. The value of knowing those things is in understanding how, what, and why those who commit evil thoughts/actions are capable and motivated enough to do those things, and leads to avenues that curb those desires in the first place.

But God does understand how, what, and why ... because He designed the entire interworkings of those things from the ground up. And not only does He know what avenues curb those desires in the first place ... He is the avenue!

Nator7821 wrote (View Post): › Quote: › And if the word "omniscient" is forced to take on that extra meaning, then it no longer applies to God, who is wholly good and knowing of all truth. The word omniscient, by its direct defintion, is already forced into that meaning. It is not an additional meaning.

Perhaps in theory, but in practice, in religious discussion where this word most frequently occurs, it is understood to mean "aware of all things". Otherwise, why isn't the atheist position just a simple statement of the fact that by definition, an omniscient God equates to a form of pantheism (He who is the direct experience -- or existential 'being' -- of all things in the universe)?

Anyway, that's more hair-splitting.

The essential issue is that you are right: Christian belief holds just as much validity if we take the direct (false, or lie-based) experience of evil out of the meaning of "omniscient" as it does if we leave it in and say that God is therefore not this pantheistic omniscient thing, but rather, understands all things, yet defines and thereby only directly participates (He is spirit) in the spirit of perfect goodness and love that is associated with that understanding.


Arythmael

[quote]
We must remember that unlike us, God did not borrow materials and experiment while designing the human being. He understood every minute detail, it's essence, its rules, its sub-particles, its actions and reactions, its limits, its breaking points ... everything! He knew exactly how much pain it would take for that person to decide that they loathed the sport. Because it's a function of his pyschology, his physiology, his history, his context, and much more, including yes, his spirit. And God knows the interactions of all of these things.[/qoute]

Ah, but God's knowledge of those things is in what sense? Would it be observational knowledge, inherent intuitive knowledge, or experiential knowledge? I can concede that it could have been either of the first two, but since God does not have a physical human form, God cannot have the experiential knowledge of stubbing a toe. Would that knowledge be important in designing a human when the other two forms of knowledge are already had? I think not.

Quote: › If it appears that way, it is my fault for failing to explicitly state what I thought was the obvious conclusion from my argument: that God does not have direct experience of such evil as the "pleasure" some have experienced in the killing of large numbers of innocent people. Krueger makes the same mistake that secularity made in his argument recently refuted by me with this post. The Bible does not use any such term as "omniscient", and the theological view of most Christians is that God "is aware" of all things, but participates (if you will) only in the spiritual reality of perfect goodness as it relates to what He knows. Actually He defines perfect goodness, and the rest of us merely brush up against this once in a while, by His grace.

This makes much more sense, but it surrenders the attachment of the concept of omniscience with God. In the end, that may be a good thing for Christianity as a whole.

Quote: › But God does understand how, what, and why ... because He designed the entire interworkings of those things from the ground up. And not only does He know what avenues curb those desires in the first place ... He is the avenue!

This may well be true, but it is not experiential knowledge.

Again, though, how important is it that God have experiential knowledge and be omniscient? I think the best case for Christians is to abandon the omniscient notion and make the claim that experiential knowledge is not all that important to God.

Quote: › Perhaps in theory, but in practice, in religious discussion where this word most frequently occurs, it is understood to mean "aware of all things".

This definition is not omniscience, but something else. Using the term omniscience for this concept only adds confusion. Perhaps another term is required, but at this time, suffice it to say that the best interests of Christianity are served by abandoning the usage of omniscience.

Well, this was a lovely discussion. I look forward to more like it in the future.

Let's be clear about the ground that's been gained in terms of argumentation.

The matter is simple: the Bible makes clear, and Christian doctrine asserts, that God does not actively participate in the practice of evil. If having this experience is to be considered a form of knowledge (which itself remains in question), then Christians understand that neither God nor anything has this property called "omniscience". Thus there is no grounds for this particular case against the existence of God based upon this supposed property of omniscience.

As for God knowing what it's like to stub ones toe, let's not forget one huge bit of doctrine missing from the discussion so far: God entered into the world as a man. With no less the physical frailties that you and I have, Jesus lived the life of the average carpenter (so we have reason to presume) up until He began His preaching; then He suffered persecution, scourging, and death by crucifixion. This was foreknown by God from the foundation of the world, and God -- existing unbound by time -- had direct experience of all these things in a way that does not allow us to say that He somehow experienced creation "before" He experienced suffering and death.

In this manner we can easily say that God always knew what it's "like" to stub ones toe ... or hit ones thumb with a hammer, to feel a whip against ones back, etc. Although this is all a matter for another discussion, it is important not to assume automatically that this element is lost by admitting the obvious fact that God does not commit evil. To talk about one experience being "like" another, we are saying that the two are different in particular, but the same in essence. This could easily be argued as the case with such experiences as stubbing ones toe and hitting ones thumb with a tool.

In summary, this argument about omniscience is only a clarification of two definitions: God as never committing evil, and omniscience as including the experience of committing evil. All else must be argued separately and carefully. But in this argument there is not the least proof that God cannot exist. I shall move onto a few of the other cases Krueger brings up, shortly.


Arythmael

Perhaps this is dumb reasoning...but with regards to Nator's opinion.

The Bible seems pretty clear about applying the character of God to be one and the same with Christ...and Jesus lived on earth as a human, if I recall correctly...

Therefore, wouldn't that give God experiential knowledge from experiencing life as a human being?

Just a thought

Josh

Poet, my response to you is in my second response to Arythmael. Sorry about not writing a new response for this, but I feel better getting two birds with one stone.

Quote: › The matter is simple: the Bible makes clear, and Christian doctrine asserts, that God does not actively participate in the practice of evil. If having this experience is to be considered a form of knowledge (which itself remains in question), then Christians understand that neither God nor anything has this property called "omniscience". Thus there is no grounds for this particular case against the existence of God based upon this supposed property of omniscience.

This part is agreed upon.

Quote: › As for God knowing what it's like to stub ones toe, let's not forget one huge bit of doctrine missing from the discussion so far: God entered into the world as a man. With no less the physical frailties that you and I have, Jesus lived the life of the average carpenter (so we have reason to presume) up until He began His preaching; then He suffered persecution, scourging, and death by crucifixion. This was foreknown by God from the foundation of the world, and God -- existing unbound by time -- had direct experience of all these things in a way that does not allow us to say that He somehow experienced creation "before" He experienced suffering and death.

I'm a lot less sold on this one, because even when I was Christian, I always had difficulty reconciling the notion of a triune God with what the Bible directly stated. In other words, I see only hints in the Bible to support the trinitarian view, and I don't think those hints are strong enough a base for trinitarian beliefs.

Therefore, since the trinitarian view can still be contested (and actually is by some sects), I find this reasoning, while good, to be ineffectual.

Quote: › In summary, this argument about omniscience is only a clarification of two definitions: God as never committing evil, and omniscience as including the experience of committing evil. All else must be argued separately and carefully. But in this argument there is not the least proof that God cannot exist.

With this, I can agree.

Would it not be prudent to define Good and Evil themselves?
I would take the position, for example, that evil does not have independent existence and is therefore not something God needs to experience in order to qualify for "omniscience".
If good is defined by His very nature, then evil is simply the exercising of free will by His own creation in reaction against God's nature. The ability to exercise said free will is only available because by creating humans "in His own image" God gave mankind an aspect of His own nature (the ability to choose actions beyond instinctual reactions to environment). God cannot become something other than His own nature, therefore the idea of Him experiencing evil is nonsensical?how can He experience a reaction against Himself? The point is mere sophistry; the argument makes no sense in the first place.
God is not ?in the universe?; rather the universe exists in God, which automatically grants Him first hand experience of all things. Nothing exists that does not have its source in Him, and evil does not exist as an independent entity. The moment all beings cease to reject God and surrender to His will evil (as a reaction against the creators will) ceases to exist. View this from the context of being outside of the limitation of linear time and evil never truly exists even in potential. Evil can never completely triumph over God unless God ceases to exist, and that is impossible since all existence itself depends on God.
I rattled this off rather quickly?so please do poke holes in it and point out any errors, I?m less interested in saying something clever at this point than in benefiting from a more clear headed analysis from such excellent minds as yours. This is a fabulous discussion, and I don?t want to impede its progress.
s.h.

Quote: › I would take the position, for example, that evil does not have independent existence and is therefore not something God needs to experience in order to qualify for "omniscience". God cannot become something other than His own nature, therefore the idea of Him experiencing evil is nonsensical?how can He experience a reaction against Himself? The point is mere sophistry; the argument makes no sense in the first place.

I find this to be a nice attempt, but that does not solve the problem presented by experiential knowledge. In fact, it may actually make the case against God's omniscience stronger. It may even hurt the case for God's omnipotence.

I say this because if evil is choosing to go against God's nature, and if God cannot go against God's nature, then God cannot have experiential knowledge of performing acts of evil. Since this would be something that does not know, then God could not be defined as omniscient.

Furthermore, if God could not commit acts of evil (not because of choice, but rather because of inability to go against His nature), then we may have recourse to argue against God's omnipotence, because here we would have a clear-cut case of something that humans can do that God cannot. And if there is something that God cannot do, then in what sense would omnipotence fit?

No, I would not use this argument against anything other than the rookie atheist. Using it against a seasoned atheist is likely to get you burned.

Quote: › God is not ?in the universe?; rather the universe exists in God, which automatically grants Him first hand experience of all things. Nothing exists that does not have its source in Him, and evil does not exist as an independent entity. The moment all beings cease to reject God and surrender to His will evil (as a reaction against the creators will) ceases to exist. View this from the context of being outside of the limitation of linear time and evil never truly exists even in potential. Evil can never completely triumph over God unless God ceases to exist, and that is impossible since all existence itself depends on God.

This appears to be an unassailable tautology based on the assumption that because the universe exists because of God, then God must have first hand experience of everything in the universe.

Unfortunately, it fails to mesh with the first part of your argument where you claimed that "the idea of Him experiencing evil is nonsensical." If evil acts and experiences are a part of the universe (which they most assuredly are), and if "the universe exists in God, which automatically grants Him first hand experience of all things," then we have to admit that the very idea you previously stated was nonsensical is indeed the case, because it would be even more nonsensical for God to experience everything first hand and not experience acts of evil and their feelings first hand at the same time. This is a blatant contradiction, and by the law of noncontradiction, we can claim this line of reasoning invalid.

Ok, another *possibly dumb* consideration...

This is similar to what seeking said, but looking at it in a different light.

We have words...such as dark, cold, etc....that are not an existence at all...but rather a lack of something else. (i.e. there is no such thing as cold energy...cold is a lack of heat energy...as dark an absence of light)

So...with that in mind...if evil was defined not as an actual attribute but rather as a lack of good...and God is defined as the ultimate Good...then wouldn't assuming God to commit *evil* acts first be illogical?

And secondly, wouldn't this mean that, in being Good, God would know what a lack of Himself would be like...therefore giving God knowledge of *evil*, still allowing for omniscience.

Finally, free will would allow the Creation to do as it desired, and while God *could* stop it, He would merely *choose* not to, allowing for *evil* acts that are not truly *evil* because *evil* in itself could not exist, but rather a lack of *good* because they are not after God's desires. So, in essense, by removing the very existence of evil and defining it as a nonexistance...

Does this make sense?

It just dawned on me that the notion of an omnibenevolent God does not fit with the Biblical depiction, so there is another point upon which Krueger's argument is moot. Well, it would be if he were arguing against the Bible alone. However, since he is arguing against the generally accepted Christian beliefs of today regarding their definitions of God, his arguments may be less moot than I think.

As evidence that God is not omnibenevolent and does have first hand knowledge of evil (experiential), I present Isaiah 45:7.

Quote: › Isiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Here God states that He creates evil, and one cannot create evil without gaining experiential knowledge of evil acts and the feelings associated therewith.

So, after all that discussion, I would say our arguments are moot from a scriptural standpoint, but from a dogmatic belief standpoint, they may have had merit.

BTW, I read Isaiah 45 from 1 through about 10 or so to make sure I wasn't getting the context wrong.