Critical Reasoning

source:- "BTG practice question" (difficult one)

In the early days of Christianity, religious leaders were questioned repeatedly by devotees to explain why God allowed natural disasters and the attendant human suffering to occur. Fire, famine, floods, and the destruction they caused were a mystery to followers who perceived the deity as all-powerful and all-good.

The playwright Archibald MacLeish wrote J.B. a modern-day rework of the Book of Job that contains these famous lines, the play's central paradox:

"If God is God, He is not good."
"If God is good, He is not God."

To best understand this paradox, which of the following must be assumed?

A. A deity cannot be both all-powerful and all-good at the same time.
B. A deity must obey the laws of nature that the deity created.
C. A deity is a supreme being who has the gifts of total power.
D. Early religious leaders had a variety of explanations for the calamities that befall humankind.
E. Religious zealots throughout history have struggled with this paradox.

Answer is C

Thanks & regards
Vinni

imo: E?? :-s

please elaborate!

I would have to guess Answer C. Here is my reasoning:

While A is a convincing argument, it is simply a rehash of the paradox itself. The problem is that the deity has a choice in the matter, not the outcome.
B takes the control over the situation out of the deity's hand. How can the deity be responsible if it doesn't have control?
C Ties the early part of the passage to the paradox itself. For it to be a paradox, there would have to be some confusion regarding the statement. If the being has the power to change these things, then allowing them creates the paradox.
D and E are both out of scope.

I am confused between A and C. This is tough assumption.

tuanquang269 wrote:I am confused between A and C. This is tough assumption.

Yes, this question is tough. Even i was also confused between A and C.
The explanation for A is more confusing. It says:-

(A) is incorrect. This choice seems to undermine the paradox, not help us understand it. In other words this is the opposite of the paradox.

If anyone of the experts help us in understanding the difference between A and C, then it will be great.

Please experts if you can look into this question.

Thanks & Regards
Vinni

Experts can you please help in this question.

Not an expert, but here are my thoughts on this.

Background:
In the early days of Christianity, religious leaders were questioned repeatedly by devotees to explain why God allowed natural disasters and the attendant human suffering to occur. Fire, famine, floods, and the destruction they caused were a mystery to followers who perceived the deity as all-powerful and all-good.

Paradox:
"If God is God, He is not good."
"If God is good, He is not God."

The paradox is in reference to the observation in the passage that there exists human suffering in the world and that there exists a deity that is perceived by followers as all-powerful and all-good. In other words, if there is an all-powerful and all-good deity why does he allow human suffering to occur?

The answer to this question is the paradox:
"If God is God, He is not good."
"If God is good, He is not God."

Rephrase the paradox to make it easier to understand.

"If God is all-powerful, He is not good." (because He allows for human suffering to occur)
"If God is good, He is not all-powerful." (because He cannot prevent human suffering)

Question Stem:
To best understand this paradox, which of the following must be assumed?

Between A and C.

A. "A deity cannot be both all-powerful and all-good at the same time". INCORRECT. As stated in a prior post, this answer choice undermines the paradox.

If we assume that a deity cannot be both all-powerful and all-good at the same time then it is possible that God is all-powerful AND all-good just not at the same time. In this case the paradox is undermined because God would be both all-powerful and all-good (just at different times).

As stated in the earlier post the question stem asks for an answer that helps us understand the paradox. This answer does not add to our understanding of the paradox.

C. "A deity is a supreme being who has the gifts of total power". CORRECT. If we assume that "a deity is a supreme being who has the gifts of total power" the paradox makes sense. For example, if God is all-powerful then the human suffering that occurs in the world can be prevented by Him. The fact that suffering exists implies that God CHOSE not to intervene and therefore He is not good.

Notice that in the paradox the word God has two meanings. The first meaning of God refers to the deity itself. The second meaning of God refers to having total power. You can see this in my rephrasing of the paradox (I changed the second meaning of "God" to "all-powerful").

This answer essentially provides an explanation for the second meaning of God in the paradox. This clarification of the word "God" helps us understand the paradox.

Hope this helps...

what an explanation....thanks so much rkanthilal.

rkanthilal wrote: C. "A deity is a supreme being who has the gifts of total power". CORRECT. If we assume that "a deity is a supreme being who has the gifts of total power" the paradox makes sense. For example, if God is all-powerful then the human suffering that occurs in the world can be prevented by Him. The fact that suffering exists implies that God CHOSE not to intervene and therefore He is not good.

Notice that in the paradox the word God has two meanings. The first meaning of God refers to the deity itself. The second meaning of God refers to having total power. You can see this in my rephrasing of the paradox (I changed the second meaning of "God" to "all-powerful").

This answer essentially provides an explanation for the second meaning of God in the paradox. This clarification of the word "God" helps us understand the paradox.

(C) helps understand the first statement in the paradox: "If God is god, He is not good". But I'm a little confused as to how it helps with the second statement.

If God is good, He is not God.

santhoshsram wrote:

rkanthilal wrote: C. "A deity is a supreme being who has the gifts of total power". CORRECT. If we assume that "a deity is a supreme being who has the gifts of total power" the paradox makes sense. For example, if God is all-powerful then the human suffering that occurs in the world can be prevented by Him. The fact that suffering exists implies that God CHOSE not to intervene and therefore He is not good.

Notice that in the paradox the word God has two meanings. The first meaning of God refers to the deity itself. The second meaning of God refers to having total power. You can see this in my rephrasing of the paradox (I changed the second meaning of "God" to "all-powerful").

This answer essentially provides an explanation for the second meaning of God in the paradox. This clarification of the word "God" helps us understand the paradox.

(C) helps understand the first statement in the paradox: "If God is god, He is not good". But I'm a little confused as to how it helps with the second statement.

If God is good, He is not God.

Hi Santhoshsram,

Let me try to explain it a different way. According to the question stem we are looking for an assumption that helps us better understand the following paradox:

"If God is all-powerful, He is not good."
"If God is good, He is not all-powerful."

The reason we need help understanding this paradox is because we cannot come to any conclusions about God based on the information in the paradox alone. We do not know if God is good or bad, or if God is all-powerful or not all-powerful.

Answer (C) tells us that God is all-powerful. With this information we can plug it into the paradox and come to a conclusion about God. The first statement is straightforward.

"If God is all-powerful, He is not good."

If we assume that God is all-powerful, then the first statement tells us that God is not good. The second statement is just the opposite of the first.

"If God is good, He is not all-powerful."

This statement tells us that if God is good then he is NOT all-powerful. If we assume answer (C) that God IS all-powerful then, according to this statement, God must NOT be good.

So, if we assume answer (C), then both lines of the paradox lead to the same conclusion: God is not good. Since we have a definitive conclusion, we now understand the paradox.

Hope this helps...

rkanthilal wrote:

Hi Santhoshsram,

Let me try to explain it a different way. According to the question stem we are looking for an assumption that helps us better understand the following paradox:

"If God is all-powerful, He is not good."
"If God is good, He is not all-powerful."

The reason we need help understanding this paradox is because we cannot come to any conclusions about God based on the information in the paradox alone. We do not know if God is good or bad, or if God is all-powerful or not all-powerful.

Answer (C) tells us that God is all-powerful. With this information we can plug it into the paradox and come to a conclusion about God. The first statement is straightforward.

"If God is all-powerful, He is not good."

If we assume that God is all-powerful, then the first statement tells us that God is not good. The second statement is just the opposite of the first.

"If God is good, He is not all-powerful."

This statement tells us that if God is good then he is NOT all-powerful. If we assume answer (C) that God IS all-powerful then, according to this statement, God must NOT be good.

So, if we assume answer (C), then both lines of the paradox lead to the same conclusion: God is not good. Since we have a definitive conclusion, we now understand the paradox.

Hope this helps...

That definitely helped. Many thanks.

I though it was C because , for the paradox to be true we need to assume that
god has all the power , to alter and to keep it as it is. This will help us to conclude the paradox.
A is just a repetition of the paradox

(A) is just the repetition of the paradox