Atheism and Science

Dim

On another thread I've noticed Atheism and Science being linked
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055822215&page=19

Why are the two being linked? There had to have been atheists in existance before science was created. The most scientific people of the community were probably the medicine men (for example Shaman) are they considered atheists?
I think it was in the thread linked above that someone said that science has been proven wrong as much as religion has. To think that science is infalable ... its like creating an all knowing god.

If you consider yourself an atheist, do you condsider a link? Not all scientists are atheists, but do all atheists consider themselves people of science?

If you feel there is a link, please explain why?

DogmaticLefty

Without science, atheism implodes like a house of cards.

GLaDOS

Dim wrote: »

On another thread I've noticed Atheism and Science being linked
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055822215&page=19

Why are the two being linked? There had to have been atheists in existance before science was created. The most scientific people of the community were probably the medicine men (for example Shaman) are they considered atheists?
I think it was in the thread linked above that someone said that science has been proven wrong as much as religion has. To think that science is infalable ... its like creating an all knowing god.

If you consider yourself an atheist, do you condsider a link? Not all scientists are atheists, but do all atheists consider themselves people of science?

If you feel there is a link, please explain why?

Quite simply, an atheist rejects ideas that cannot be proven, science proves ideas, therefore an atheist puts their trust in science

Zillah

Science doesn't know everything; otherwise it would stop.

Any time a scientific theory has been proven wrong it was science that proved it wrong. Science is a process, not a body of knowledge. It is science that updates and corrects our body of knowledge. Conversely, every time religion has been proven wrong...it was science that did so. Show me all the instances where religion has corrected science and I'll consider the point

As for the link between atheism and science: They are both derived from scepticism. Science is a formalised process of sceptical inquiry into the natural world. Atheism is a result of sceptical inquiry in philosophical thought. Both function by sitting back and saying "The correct answer is likely to be the one that is consistent with fact and logic, not the answer we want to be true."

And yes, religious people can be scientists. Science is a process and anyone can follow it. How they rationalise the need for sceptical inquiry in their work but not in their philosophy is a matter for their therapist, not us.

WeeBushy

Zillah wrote: »

And yes, religious people can be scientists. Science is a process and anyone can follow it. How they rationalise the need for sceptical inquiry in their work but not in their philosophy is a matter for their therapist, not us.

I think you summed it up very succinctly.

I just wanted to highlight this bit, it made me laugh quite a lot, thank you :pac:

biko

As said before, science is based on empirical evidence such as gravity.
Science does not stop looking when it hits a wall and goes "We cannot explain this, it must be magic/a higher power". Up until quite recently many scientists were Christian, as it was herecy to say something else. There is a famous quote by Pierre-Simon Laplace, "I have no need of that hypothesis" - reputed reply to Emperor Napoleon I of France, who had asked why he hadn't mentioned God in his discourse on secular variations of the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter.

You can still practice good science and be Christian, just as long as your science isn't clashing with fundamental ideas like the origin of species or the planets etc. There Christian scientists just go "Ah sure, it was God"...

Turtwig

Hmm...

100,000 years of Religion versus ~300 years of empirical science (ok let's say 1,000 years to be generous ).

Religion : Gods everywhere (Sun,moon,planets....).
Religion : Creation Myths Galore.
Religion : Human beings are inherently flawed.
Religion : Males are superior.

Science : The moon is not a light.
Religion (Christianity) : Genesis 1 is actually prose (before Christ was born).
Science : Sun may just be a rock not a God.
Religion : Kill the heathen (True Story : Greek Philosopher killed for declaring the sun is a rock!)
Science : Creation Myths are rubbish!!
Religion (A) : Umm......it's meant to be metaphor/prose.
Religion (B) : Blah Blah Blah *Not Listening*

Science : Females are active in the reproduction process.
Religion (B) : Males are Superior Dammitt!!
Religion (A) : Ummm.....it's meant to be metaphor/prose.

Science : Perfection is just an immature idealism.
Religion : Human beings were perfect, but there was some sort of lapse : God will make us perfect again.

Science : Homosexuality is naturally occurring and not always a choice.
Religion : Blah Blah, not enough evidence yet need to find the exact gene that says this...

So let's summarize.
Religon : World Flat, God moves sun around the earth, Only Humans, Humans are superior to all creatures, Earth is center of the universe, Earth is fine tuned for life.

Science : World Round, Earth moves around son, Humans might not be alone, Humans are the same the other creatures, Earth is not the centre of anything, Life tuned itself to deal with a harsh barely habitable Earth...

So errr.
Religion explains human existence better?

Kinda explains why a larger proportion of scientists are atheists.

Dim

Any time a scientific theory has been proven wrong it was science that proved it wrong

so science is the height of our current proven knowledge, but knowledge is constantly expanding therefore it is likely to be proven that what we think we currently know for definite we do not know at all?

I can see this relating to atheism. We just don't know. Not a definite anything?

As said before, science is based on empirical evidence such as gravity.

Can this empirical evidence be subjective? (I'm relating to the Shaman mentioned in initial post)

Turtwig

American Academy of Sciences believes in the theory of Relativity and implores all its followers to do so,
Japan's Academy believes that there were no such thing as dinosaurs,
Africa's Association of Sciences believes that M Theory is the correct path,
After a schism, America's Academy of Sciences is split between American Foundation of Relativity and Reformed Academy of Sciences of the Newtonian Physics - the former being deemed too counter intuitive for some.
China's Science Foundation holds firm that dinosaurs existed, but were wiped out by humans.
India's Academy, however, believes that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor.
Iranian Academy of Sciences issues a fatwa against all those who fail to believe that the black hole exists.
DPRK Academy ,however, argues that they are dark energy stars.
Australian Society of Mathematics and Statistics, uses a sexagesimal number system.

DogmaticLefty

Malty_T wrote: »

Hmm...

100,000 years of Religion versus ~300 years of empirical science (ok let's say 1,000 years to be generous ).

Religion : Gods everywhere (Sun,moon,planets....).
Religion : Creation Myths Galore.
Religion : Human beings are inherently flawed.
Religion : Males are superior.

Science : The moon is not a light.
Religion (Christianity) : Genesis 1 is actually prose (before Christ was born).
Science : Sun may just be a rock not a God.
Religion : Kill the heathen (True Story : Greek Philosopher killed for declaring the sun is a rock!)
Science : Creation Myths are rubbish!!
Religion (A) : Umm......it's meant to be metaphor/prose.
Religion (B) : Blah Blah Blah *Not Listening*

Science : Females are active in the reproduction process.
Religion (B) : Males are Superior Dammitt!!
Religion (A) : Ummm.....it's meant to be metaphor/prose.

Science : Perfection is just an immature idealism.
Religion : Human beings were perfect, but there was some sort of lapse : God will make us perfect again.

Science : Homosexuality is naturally occurring and not always a choice.
Religion : Blah Blah, not enough evidence yet need to find the exact gene that says this...

So let's summarize.
Religon : World Flat, God moves sun around the earth, Only Humans, Humans are superior to all creatures, Earth is center of the universe, Earth is fine tuned for life.

Science : World Round, Earth moves around son, Humans might not be alone, Humans are the same the other creatures, Earth is not the centre of anything, Life tuned itself to deal with a harsh barely habitable Earth...

So errr.
Religion explains human existence better?

Kinda explains why a larger proportion of scientists are atheists.

For an atheist who puts his faith in science, you'd think you'd come up with something a little bit more rigorous.

Dim

Religion (A) : Ummm.....it's meant to be metaphor/prose.

I can see why a large population of the scientific community are atheist, but they aren't mutually inclusive. I have mentioned a shaman as an example because to the best of my knowlege this is not a religion but an early from of scientist, learning through whatever means were available (I could be way wrong here).

do you think we may be loosing our ability to learn by narrowing our knowledge base to science? I don't know if its an appropriate association. An atheist knows that the theist is wrong, but does not hold any other belief for definite.

Science is associated with facts and truth, it all seems so definite.

Dades

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Without science, atheism implodes like a house of cards.

Actually, without religion, atheism implodes.

Turtwig

Dim wrote: »

I can see why a large population of the scientific community are atheist, but they aren't mutually inclusive. I have mentioned a shaman as an example because to the best of my knowlege this is not a religion but an early from of scientist, learning through whatever means were available (I could be way wrong here).

do you think we may be loosing our ability to learn by narrowing our knowledge base to science? I don't know if its an appropriate association. An atheist knows that the theist is wrong, but does not hold any other belief for definite.

Science is associated with facts and truth, it all seems so definite.

I think you misunderstand what science actually is. Science is skepticism. Every "truth" we have in science is only a relative one. You cannot prove anything 100%, and you have to assume that everything that you have learned has the chance of being wrong. Popular opinion means nothing, having the correct hypothesis means nothing: Testable empirical evidence is everything.

From an earlier post in a different thread.:
Science thrives on skepticism. However, there is skepticism and then there's amateurs who like to profess their beliefs on a subject. Distinguishing between genuine skeptics and "wannabes" is the trouble when in the comes to a politically heated topic such as AGW. In science, what a person believes, is all well and good, to them the person, but meaningless to science. Even if you are 100% correct in your asserted hypothesis, if you have no evidence to support it, then you're going to be drowned alive. Slowly but surely, as data is obtained and analysed, the good science will come to the fro and the bad science will be filtered out.

Science is about broadening your horizon, correcting mistakes, having an open mind and, most importantly, remaining open to new ideas. (Just not so open that your brain falls out )Your theory is only ever at best less wrong than the its predecessor : you have no way of ever possibly declaring that it is right.

King Mob

Dim wrote: »

do you think we may be loosing our ability to learn by narrowing our knowledge base to science?

Well science is a process of learning about the universe that specifically excludes personal biases, deliberate deception and other things that obscure the truth, It is also the sum total of the knowledge gathered by that process.
If anything it increases our ability to learn.


I feel that it has to be said that not all atheists are scientifically minded, there where plenty of pre-scientific atheists and then there's guy's who have no excuse like Bill Maher.

Turtwig

King Mob wrote: »

I feel that it has to be said that not all atheists are scientifically minded, there where plenty of pre-scientific atheists and then there's guy's who have no excuse like Bill Maher.

Indeed, many atheists are big into the irrational pseudo science of pseudoclimatology and pseudo immunology. That's why I don't like calling myself under the broad term of "atheist".

King Mob

Also I'm pretty sure the Raelians are by every definition atheist, yet also promote intelligent design.

cavedave

If you feel there is a link, please explain why?

I do not think there is a direct link. There is probably a correlation between being a scientist and being an atheist but that does not mean one causes the other.

Mechanics, technicians, grannies well pretty much every group that I know contain atheists. I also know some committed Christian and Muslim scientists. Physicists, chemists, biochemists, mathematicians but oddly no biologists, (anyone know any theist biologists?).

Philosophers seem to be mainly atheists from here.

There is a list here of nobel prize winning scientists who they claim believed in god. If you look at the quotes though most seem to be deists/pantheists rather then full on there will be pie in the sky when you die theists.

King Mob

cavedave wrote: »

(anyone know any theist biologists?).

Not personally but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller

Turtwig

King Mob wrote: »

Not personally but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller

He's class.
*Wants to give him a hug!*

DogmaticLefty

King Mob wrote: »

Also I'm pretty sure the Raelians are by every definition atheist, yet also promote intelligent design.

Yeah, but who listens to them?

Zillah

Haha I'm famous! ^^^

This is what it looks like when a man loses an argument and throws his toys out of the pram.

chozometroid

Zillah wrote: »

Haha I'm famous! ^^^

This is what it looks like when a man loses an argument and throws his toys out of the pram.

I get you, but for those (how many?) who actually use the "ignore feature," it's actually a good thing to list people you ignore in case they wonder why you are not replying to them. :pac:

King Mob

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Yeah, but who listens to them?

About 2,300 people according to wikipedia.

But with the amount of tits and free sex they wave in faces, I can understand why.

DogmaticLefty

King Mob wrote: »

About 2,300 people according to wikipedia.

Fair play to them.

Dim

Malty_T wrote: »

Indeed, many atheists are big into the irrational pseudo science of pseudoclimatology and pseudo immunology. That's why I don't like calling myself under the broad term of "atheist".

an atheist is in persuit of what is real? nothing fully believed unless proven.
a scientist is in persuit of what is real but has a specific standard and method of quantifying what is real?

both want proof. so is an atheist the scientist of the spiritual world? (or lack of if the case may be) how do you prove or unprove something like that by scientific means? is it more the lack of scientific study?
If the only thing atheists have in common is that they agree theists are wrong, does this mean they are open to believing anything else? parallel universes, inorganic beings, aliens created earth (from that Raelism link-thanks) ?... as long as they have proof. Can this proof be subective? as each do not have to have the same belief structure?

Zombrex

Dim wrote: »

On another thread I've noticed Atheism and Science being linked
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055822215&page=19

Why are the two being linked? There had to have been atheists in existance before science was created. The most scientific people of the community were probably the medicine men (for example Shaman) are they considered atheists?
I think it was in the thread linked above that someone said that science has been proven wrong as much as religion has. To think that science is infalable ... its like creating an all knowing god.

If you consider yourself an atheist, do you condsider a link? Not all scientists are atheists, but do all atheists consider themselves people of science?

If you feel there is a link, please explain why?

Science and the philosophy of science, exposes theism for what it really is, invented stories used to explain what could not be explained.

The philosophy of science and in a more general sense the philosophy of knowledge (Epistemology) shows that what theists claim to know they can't know.

And biology (a field of science) shows us why we invent deities and other supernatural agents to explain the world around us.

That is not to say all scientists are atheists. Humans are great at compartmentalizing the various aspects of their lives, a scientist can be very good at understanding the limits of knowledge as understood by science and yet go home each night and think he knows God exists.

It is like a statistician who still each week plays the Lotto.

Flamed Diving

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Without science, atheism implodes like a house of cards.

I know you probably won't see the point in this picture. But I will relish that.

King Mob

Dim wrote: »

an atheist is in persuit of what is real? nothing fully believed unless proven.

It's important to get your labels right. An atheist is someone who has a lack of a belief in a god.
That's all.

What you're describing is closer a rationalist, which most atheists tend to be as well.
Both a rationalist and a scientist are in pursuit of what is real. The difference is that a scientist does active work in the field of science.
You can be a rationalist and a scientist or just a rationalist.
I suppose you could be a scientist but not a rationalist but I imagine it'd involve a lot of mental gymnastics.

Dim wrote: »

Can this proof be subective? as each do not have to have the same belief structure?

No, by definition proof must be objective.

Imagine someone says to you that 2+2=5 but only for him.
But the reality (2+2=4) can be proven by anyone to anyone at anytime.

chozometroid

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I know you probably won't see the point in this picture. But I will relish that.

Without God...

I wanted to make a point about this pic, though.
The second pair, "Is he able, but not willing, Then he is malevolent" make the pic an epic fail. The conclusion "he is malevolent" does not automatically follow from "able, but not willing to prevent evil." Allowing evil does not mean you wish evil on others....just as "not believing in something" does not mean "believing something does not exist."

DogmaticLefty

Epicurius's philosophy lives on today: it's called consumerism. He must be proud. Are you a happy little consumer who lines up every Saturday to buy "stuff" from the shopping malls so as to fulfill your every material desires? I'll bet you have a cinema loyalty card, car loan and a subscription to FHM magazine.

Turtwig

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

I'll bet you have a cinema loyalty card, car loan and a subscription to FHM magazine.

No, no and no. Have a subscription to a few science mags though.:)

DogmaticLefty

Malty_T wrote: »

No, no and no. Have a subscription to a few science mags though.:)

I read science mags too. I also read the Brandsma Review, the New Oxford Review, Damian Thompson's blog, as well as keeping myself up-to-date with vatican.va and the vatican youtube site.

fitz0

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

I'll bet you have a cinema loyalty card, car loan and a subscription to FHM magazine.

Whats wrong with any of those? I rather like going to the cinema and if I can get cheaper tickets by signing up to a card then I will. If I wanted to buy a car, not being rich, I would take out a loan. FHM, meh theres better out there.

So why the condescending tone? Is there nothing to be gained from material possessions?

Dim

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

I read science mags too. I also read the Brandsma Review, the New Oxford Review, Damian Thompson's blog, as well as keeping myself up-to-date with vatican.va and the vatican youtube site.

Why are you trashing this tread? you are distracting from the answers to my questions. I'm not finding you very helpful at all. Is there nothing else you can be doing?

King Mob

chozometroid wrote: »

The second pair, "Is he able, but not willing, Then he is malevolent" make the pic an epic fail. The conclusion "he is malevolent" does not automatically follow from "able, but not willing to prevent evil." Allowing evil does not mean you wish evil on others

You never read Spider-man?
Peter Parker doesn't stop a robber from getting away despite fully being able to stop him with little to no danger or cost to himself.
This robber goes on to kill Peter's beloved Uncle Ben, and learn the lesson that "With great power comes great responsibility."
A lesson God doesn't seem to have grasped.
It's not the same kind of malevolence, but it's still bad enough to warrant laws about negligent death and endangerment.

Why would he possibly not be willing?

2Scoops

Wicknight wrote: »

It is like a statistician who still each week plays the Lotto.

<.<

>.>

....:o

fitz0

OT, I wasn't all that interested in science up until a few years ago. Id settled on agnosticism long before. And then I discovered Carl Sagan. And so was born a fascination with science. If only school science teachers had half the passion the world would be a better place.

So for me science had little part in me losing my faith, but a greater part in my decision that lack of faith was the right idea.

All those Isaac Asimov stories helped as well.

strobe

To the Op, the following videos I think sum up my opinion on the matter but do so in a clearer way than I'm capable in my own words:
(could also have posted in the atheist evangilism thread)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yegqAONXIDE

chozometroid

King Mob wrote: »

You never read Spider-man?
Peter Parker doesn't stop a robber from getting away despite fully being able to stop him with little to no danger or cost to himself.
This robber goes on to kill Peter's beloved Uncle Ben, and learn the lesson that "With great power comes great responsibility."
A lesson God doesn't seem to have grasped.
It's not the same kind of malevolence, but it's still bad enough to warrant laws about negligent death and endangerment.

Why would he possibly not be willing?

To use your Spiderman analogy, if God intervened and stopped the bullet, then Spiderman would not have learned a life-changing lesson, and would not have turned out to be the unstoppable driven superhero he is today. :pac:
Allowing evil is allowing free will, and it also allows man to see that he does in fact need God. God is just, so any evil will be recompensed.

Sorry this is OT, I won't continue.

fitz0

chozometroid wrote: »

Allowing evil is allowing free will, and it also allows man to see that he does in fact need God. God is just, so any evil will be recompensed.

I don't get this. Why would anyone think they need a bystander?

King Mob

fitz0 wrote: »

And then I discovered Carl Sagan. And so was born a fascination with science. If only school science teachers had half the passion the world would be a better place.

Carl Sagan's Cosmos should be required viewing in every school.
If he can't instil how ****ing awesome science is into kids, no one can.

chozometroid

fitz0 wrote: »

I don't get this. Why would anyone think they need a bystander?

That's like calling a fish aquarium owner a bystander when, at times, they allow the fish in the tank to fight each other, kill their prey, etc. and "live their life," but other times intervene and prevent some weak fish from being molested by other violent fish, or provide treatment for their illness. The fish don't think they need a bystander, but the fish aquarium owner sure as hell knows better than they do.

Galvasean

I miss Jakkass. Such a polite guy to debate with.

fitz0

chozometroid wrote: »

That's like calling a fish aquarium owner a bystander when, at times, they allow the fish in the tank to fight each other, kill their prey, etc. and "live their life," but other times intervene and prevent some weak fish from being molested by other violent fish, or provide treatment for their illness. The fish don't think they need a bystander, but the fish aquarium owner sure as hell knows better than they do.

So we don't know that we're being helped along. We may not be getting any help from anything, but we should praise this absentee overlord lifegiver just in case. I don't buy it. If there is some smug fish tank owner in the sky he can go his way and I'll go mine. The difference in how I live my life will be negligible.

King Mob

Maybe the mods can spilt this:

chozometroid wrote: »

To use your Spiderman analogy, if God intervened and stopped the bullet, then Spiderman would not have learned a life-changing lesson, and would not have turned out to be the unstoppable driven superhero he is today. :pac:

So the only way for Spider-man to learn his lesson was for his Uncle to die, and leave poor old Aunt May out in the cold?

But you don't see Spider-man not helping people or not stopping bad guys because some innocent bystander might learn a life-changing lesson.

chozometroid wrote: »

Allowing evil is allowing free will,

That might explain why he might allow people to be **** to each other.
It doesn't and can't explain why natural disasters.

chozometroid wrote: »

and it also allows man to see that he does in fact need God.

So he's withholding safety and happiness to teach a lesson he does actually have to teach?
You do that to your kid you'd be done for child abuse.

chozometroid wrote: »

God is just, so any evil will be recompensed.

That doesn't make any sense.
If God in omnipotent (ie can do anything) and all knowing (and therefore knows how to do anything), why can't he teach all these supposed lessons without contravining free will and without anyone ever suffering evil.

Galvasean

King Mob wrote: »

It doesn't and can't explain why natural disasters.

To inspire people to be kindto their fellow man? To make people appreciate what they've got?

King Mob wrote:

So he's withholding safety and happiness to teach a lesson he does actually have to teach?
You do that to your kid you'd be done for child abuse.

Go on then Billy, stick the fork in the toaster. See how I care.
*ZAPP!!!*
Now what did you learn?

chozometroid

King Mob wrote: »

Maybe the mods can spilt this:
So the only way for Spider-man to learn his lesson was for his Uncle to die, and leave poor old Aunt May out in the cold?

But you don't see Spider-man not helping people or not stopping bad guys because some innocent bystander might learn a life-changing lesson.

Spiderman is not all-knowing, so he can't make these decisions.

That might explain why he might allow people to be **** to each other.
It doesn't and can't explain why natural disasters.

There are consequences to constantly interfering with the natural course of things. God's intervention is done carefully with all factors known to Him and with the knowlede that things will not be thrown out of wack.

That doesn't make any sense.
If God in omnipotent (ie can do anything) and all knowing (and therefore knows how to do anything), why can't he teach all these supposed lessons without contravining free will and without anyone ever suffering evil.

Maybe because those lessons can only be taught that way. All-powerful doesn't mean you can make someone sad by making them happy.

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

All-powerful doesn't mean you can make someone sad by making them happy.

Why not?
Doesn't omnipotence imply that God is can do anything?

King Mob

Galvasean wrote: »

To inspire people to be kindto their fellow man? To make people appreciate what they've got?

Surely there's a way to do that without inflicting a horror like the Haitian Earthquake of the South Asian Tsunami.

Galvasean wrote: »

Go on then Billy, stick the fork in the toaster. See how I care.
*ZAPP!!!*
Now what did you learn?

If I was omnipotent I would beam the exact and complete knowledge of toasters and why they hurt you when you stick forks into my kid's brain.

But the thing is a toaster is a mild electric shock, an earthquake causing children to lose their entire family and everything else in their world with neither and explanation or a reason.
I think you see the difference.

Galvasean

King Mob wrote: »

I think you see the difference.

I do indeed. However, i do enjoy playing devil's advocate by times.

King Mob

chozometroid wrote: »

Spiderman is not all-knowing, so he can't make these decisions.

But you think God is and that he does make these decisions all the time.

But if Doc Ock is tearing **** up, should Spidey leave the cops on their own so they can learn how to take down super-villains?
Or should he use his great power to stop Doc Ock before anyone gets hurt?

chozometroid wrote: »

There are consequences to constantly interfering with the natural course of things. God's intervention is done carefully with all factors known to Him and with the knowlede that things will not be thrown out of wack.

But he's God why couldn't he make the "natural course" not have natural disasters when he made it?
And why does he have to worry about the wack?
He's God, he controls the wack.

And he does control the natural order or balance (and therefore is not all powerful) surely being all knowing he could figure out a way that teaches what he wants but where no one suffers.

chozometroid wrote: »

Maybe because those lessons can only be taught that way.

So he can't do it another way.
So therefore he's not all powerful

Or he can't figure out another way.
So therefore he's not all knowing.

chozometroid wrote: »

All-powerful doesn't mean you can make someone sad by making them happy.

Yea it does.
All powerful means being able to do anything.

The point is God cannot logically be All powerful and benevolent.