Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[sojourner]

Because if you are all powerfull, you can't have any unfullfilled desires anymore.

"I'm hungry? Nope, I'm not anymore!"
"I'm bored? Nope. Not anymore!"
"I want somebody to talk to? Nope, not anymore!"
"I want somebody that worships me? Nope, not anymore!"

There is no reason to do anything at all, because there is no "wanting" anything. Because "wanting" is the results of being in the position of currently not having something...
Which is impossible, if you are all-powerfull, because you already have everything, at the tip of your finger.

I think you're misapprehending the concept of omnipotence as it is generally applied to God.

 

[sojourner]

Mountain: If you want to go to where waters divide between two rivers, you go to the watershed divide between them. It is a line between the rivers. The continental divide is the biggest one in America. For a division among four rivers, it has to be a higher point, a hill or mountain. At such a high point, there is a single point that divides the Mississippi, Colorado, and Rio Grande basins. Look on Google Maps and you'll see that only at Karacadag does the watershed divide into four rivers/streams. This includes the Khabur River (mentioned in the Bible) which winds before entering the Euphrates. The fourth river circles up past Cayonu past ancient sources of gold and flint, before entering the Tigris.

Fig trees: Look at the center of wild diversity of the figs that became the domestic figs. They are in Syria but extend into Lebanon, Israel, and Southern Turkey. Scientists state they never made it over the Taurus Mountain barrrier before humans carried them because of the cold. They are also limited by a need for at least 250 mm of rain per year. There is only a small region that is between the Tigris and Euphrates that meets these requirements, and Karacadag is in the center. Wild figs grow in that region, and best in the center of it.

Bread: Adam is condemned to eat bread by the sweat of his brow. only wheat has gluten and is used to make bread. Prior to the invention of the farming package, humans gathered wild wheat. This did not involve cultivation. They say that wheat grew so prolifically on Karacadag that one family could harvest enough in two weeks to feed themselves for a year. Thorns and thistles were not a problem. When wheat was altered (and they say it could have been altered in one generation.) It could not survive on its own. Scientists state there were two key genetic changes. After that, land had to be plowed, Thistles which grow in such disturbed land became a problem, and farming became much more labor intensive. A good starting point is Heun, et al. on the domestication of wheat. Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel has some interesting things to say about the invention of Agriculture. He shows how the region is a food producing Garden compared to the rest of the world.

There is no geography where four rivers are present as described in the story, nor are mountains mentioned. Rivers don't have to lie along mountains. There are no mountains where the Missouri and Mississippi, or the Mississippi and Ohio converge.

Bread doesn't have to be made from wheat.

You're reaching.

 

[RichardParker]

A God who doesn't want anything, has no wants. What if he wants wants? He can't want or get wants if he doesn't have any, so he still would be unfulfilled since he's missing out on desires.

If he is all powerfull he could just turn all his desires being fullfilled.
That's why I'm saying: If your protagonist is all-powerfull, you have no plot.
You NEED to put limits onto your god, otherwise he won't do anything, won't move anything...
And what you've done here, in your description, is exactly that: Putting limits and rules onto that god.
"What if he wants...?"
Well, he can turn himself into not-wanting... and being equally fullfilled.
"But what if he wants to want...?"
He could just turn off that desire too, without losing any of the fullfilment.

See, that's what "being all-powerfull" means. EVERYTHING, all desires, all "wanting" can just be wished away... without any loss.

 

[RichardParker]

I think you're misapprehending the concept of omnipotence as it is generally applied to God.

Really?
So, "omnipotence" doesn't mean "having all power, and no limits" when it comes to god?
Because that's usually the concept people want to attribute to their god... and this is also the definition of the word, just as a side-note.

So, what do you mean when you say "omnipotence" in regards to god?

 

[Ouroboros]

If he is all powerfull he could just turn all his desires being fullfilled.

Sure. Or he could create a world that would fulfill what he wanted.

That's why I'm saying: If your protagonist is all-powerfull, you have no plot.
You NEED to put limits onto your god, otherwise he won't do anything, won't move anything...
And what you've done here, in your description, is exactly that: Putting limits and rules onto that god.
"What if he wants...?"
Well, he can turn himself into not-wanting... and being equally fullfilled.
"But what if he wants to want...?"
He could just turn off that desire too, without losing any of the fullfilment.

See, that's what "being all-powerfull" means. EVERYTHING, all desires, all "wanting" can just be wished away... without any loss.

And one way of wishing it away is to create a world that would be something that he couldn't predict.

An all-powerful being would have everything except non-power. The opposites attracts.

 

[Aman777]

There is no geography where four rivers are present as described in the story, nor are mountains mentioned. Rivers don't have to lie along mountains. There are no mountains where the Missouri and Mississippi, or the Mississippi and Ohio converge.

Bread doesn't have to be made from wheat.

You're reaching.

Dear Readers, The Garden of Eden was on top of the highest point on Adam's world, and that small world was only 22 1/2 feet at it's highest elevation. Gen 7:20 Adam's Earth had only FOUR Rivers while our Earth has Thousands of Rivers. All of the Rivers came from the water source in the Garden and watered the whole face of Adam's Earth. Adam's world was "clean dissolved" in the Flood. Isa 24:19

Are you beginning to see that Adam's Earth and the present Earth are NOT the same Earth? There is NO need to look for the Garden of Eden on our Planet. It was "dissolved" when Adam's world was totally destroyed in the Flood. 2Pe 3:6 Humans arrived on our Earth in an Ark just 10k years ago EXACTLY as God told us. Here is the evidence of the FIRST Human farming. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE Apes don't farm but Humans do. God Bless all of you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[sojourner]

Really?
So, "omnipotence" doesn't mean "having all power, and no limits" when it comes to god?
Because that's usually the concept people want to attribute to their god... and this is also the definition of the word, just as a side-note.

So, what do you mean when you say "omnipotence" in regards to god?

You're presenting a fallacial argument. It's like saying, "If God is omnipotent, could God make a rock so big he couldn't move it?"

 

[sojourner]

Dear Readers, The Garden of Eden was on top of the highest point on Adam's world, and that small world was only 22 1/2 feet at it's highest elevation. Gen 7:20 Adam's Earth had only FOUR Rivers while our Earth has Thousands of Rivers. All of the Rivers came from the water source in the Garden and watered the whole face of Adam's Earth. Adam's world was "clean dissolved" in the Flood. Isa 24:19

Are you beginning to see that Adam's Earth and the present Earth are NOT the same Earth? There is NO need to look for the Garden of Eden on our Planet. It was "dissolved" when Adam's world was totally destroyed in the Flood. 2Pe 3:6 Humans arrived on our Earth in an Ark just 10k years ago EXACTLY as God told us. Here is the evidence of the FIRST Human farming. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE Apes don't farm but Humans do. God Bless all of you.

In Love,
Aman

This Sci-Fi Channel, made-for-TV movie is available on Beta cassette on Amazon. Stars Steve Buscemi as Adam, Linda Hunt as Eve, Chris Kattan as God, and Topol as the Serpent.

 

[Thief]

And looking back on Dick Tracy, we think of them as fantasy comic books -- even though the technology is presented 80 years before the fact.

But looking back on Genesis, technology that hasn't yet come to fruition is science?

You jumped a line....guess you didn't notice....
Man did not create science.

 

[RichardParker]

Sure. Or he could create a world that would fulfill what he wanted.

Why?
I'm not saying that he couldn't do it, but he gains literally nothing from it.
See, if he was f.e. lonely, he could do many things, but let's just offer two:

1. Just magic his loneliness away, without any loss.
2. Magic an entire new reality into existence, which will end up in sentient beings, etc, etc, etc...
And he gains nothing new by it.

Why would he do rather 2 than 1?
Or why would he do rather 1 than 2?
There is nothing that changes for him, therefore there are no reasons for either...
Which is what I mean when I say that an all-powerfull god would have no reason to do anything.

 

[RichardParker]

You're presenting a fallacial argument. It's like saying, "If God is omnipotent, could God make a rock so big he couldn't move it?"

1. Not at all my argument!
Please go and read my point again. It's NOT that argument. The argument that you present here exposes the impossiblility of an omnipotent being.
The point I'VE made already assumes that being all-powerfull is possible. But my point is that it wouldn't leave you with any drive, any reasons to do anything what so ever.
2. How is this argument a fallacy?
It is true: Omnipotence is an impossibility since it runs into internal contradictions.
This wasn't my argument, altough even if it was, it wouldn't be a fallacy in any way... unless you reduce "omnipotence" to mean something else than "being all-powerfull".

 

[sojourner]

1. Not at all my argument!
Please go and read my point again. It's NOT that argument. The argument that you present here exposes the impossiblility of an omnipotent being.
The point I'VE made already assumes that being all-powerfull is possible. But my point is that it wouldn't leave you with any drive, any reasons to do anything what so ever.
2. How is this argument a fallacy?
It is true: Omnipotence is an impossibility since it runs into internal contradictions.
This wasn't my argument, altough even if it was, it wouldn't be a fallacy in any way... unless you reduce "omnipotence" to mean something else than "being all-powerfull".

Again: it depends on what you mean by "omnipotent." In the early OT, God is presented as less than all-powerful, by your definition -- especially in the creation accounts. God speak a lot, but has limitations. As the bible progresses, we hear less and less from God directly, while humanity steps to the front. As that happens, God becomes less immanent and less limited. IOW, the writers' sense of what constitutes "omnipotency" changes, so we have to know what precise texts we're dealing with. If your contention is that "God would not desire to create," that's a fallacial statement, for it's clearly shown that God did have such a desire, yet was considered to be "omnipotent."

 

[Ouroboros]

Why?
I'm not saying that he couldn't do it, but he gains literally nothing from it.
See, if he was f.e. lonely, he could do many things, but let's just offer two:

1. Just magic his loneliness away, without any loss.
2. Magic an entire new reality into existence, which will end up in sentient beings, etc, etc, etc...
And he gains nothing new by it.

Why would he do rather 2 than 1?
Or why would he do rather 1 than 2?
There is nothing that changes for him, therefore there are no reasons for either...
Which is what I mean when I say that an all-powerfull god would have no reason to do anything.

j
Sure. I understand what you're saying.

Another point is that an all-powerful being has a contradictory nature. It can't exist in my opinion. You can't be a "being" and also be omnipotent (in the sense of you can do anything, whatever it might be). Just because of the issue you mentioned before, he wouldn't want anything. Any want would be easily filled, so there is none. When there's no motivation, there's no motion or action. When there's no action, it's just inaction or stasis.

And I agree with your points. There are two options. Either this (self-contradictory) God (that can't have a need) modified his need or he solved it by creating something that would fulfill that need.

My point all along was that if we assume there was a God like this, he had a need, and we do have a universe, then it would suggest (assuming those premises to be true, which I don't) that God chose to create a solution to fulfill whatever need he had rather than just modifying his need to not exist.

 

[sojourner]

j
Sure. I understand what you're saying.

Another point is that an all-powerful being has a contradictory nature. It can't exist in my opinion. You can't be a "being" and also be omnipotent (in the sense of you can do anything, whatever it might be). Just because of the issue you mentioned before, he wouldn't want anything. Any want would be easily filled, so there is none. When there's no motivation, there's no motion or action. When there's no action, it's just inaction or stasis.

And I agree with your points. There are two options. Either this (self-contradictory) God (that can't have a need) modified his need or he solved it by creating something that would fulfill that need.

My point all along was that if we assume there was a God like this, he had a need, and we do have a universe, then it would suggest (assuming those premises to be true, which I don't) that God chose to create a solution to fulfill whatever need he had rather than just modifying his need to not exist.

Or, a third option you're omitting is that God isn't "a being," but "Being" itself.

 

[Iti oj]

Or, a third option you're omitting is that God isn't "a being," but "Being" itself.

I'm not sure that says anything meaningful.

 

[Ouroboros]

Or, a third option you're omitting is that God isn't "a being," but "Being" itself.

Of course. But the issue is when people consider God to be a being and not "the Being" itself. I know what you mean by the way. God as the fabric of reality, the substrate of existence, etc. And that's more in view of how I consider the concept of God should be. Not God as a being.

But the issue is when we talk about the Theistic God, which is a being rather than the substrate of being. The Theistic God is a personal creator of sorts that wants, things, reasons, do, act, talks, etc, and is separated from nature. A God as a substrate of being is never separated from existence or nature but is very much part of the nature. Nature, evolution etc, is God's nature in that instance. But back again to the Theistic God, that God doesn't have a part of this world, but is outside, external to this world. That kind of God, this dualistic type of God, can't be omnipotent and be without want and then have to create a universe to fulfill a want that he doesn't have. The only thing a creature like that would be missing is unpredictability and lack of power.

So the thing, the kind of God that Richard Parker and I were thinking of is the dualistic, external Theistic God, who is also supposed to be all-powerful and have no wants, but still somehow have a want for a Universe. That's the dilemma we were hammering out.

In other words, I have no problem with other views of God, other types of descriptions of God, but that wasn't the issue here.

In any discussion, and I fail this quite a bit, the participants have to agree on the definitions that they're working out from. Otherwise how can you discuss the color of a Zchwazbatch from the planet Blarghurg unless you have decided on what it is first. It doesn't mean that you therefore believe such a thing to exist, but for the sake of discussion, you can have a working description, a term dictionary during the discussion that's temporarily agreed upon during the discussion.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm not sure that says anything meaningful.

What it means God as the foundation, backdrop, fabric of reality, substrate of existence, the thing that makes "existing" possible. The "exist" property has to exist as a non-property before it even can have a meaning.

Put it this way. One meta-property of classes in C++ is that it either exist or doesn't. When it exists, it's header and allocated memory is stored on the heap. The heap, memory, etc is what decides if the object exists or not, but it is not itself an object in the sense of programming. It can be represented through other objects point to it, but the RAM, hardware, CPU, etc are necessary for the objects to exist in the program, but they exist on a totally separate dimension or worlds. God is kind'a like that hardware in which the objects exists.

Or take it from an artists viewpoint. The painting itself is the art that created on the canvas. The canvas itself isn't really what makes the art, except for its surface, texture, absorption etc. The canvas is kind'a a like the substrate for the paint to exist on. The substrate (canvas) isn't the painting, even though it carries the painting and is necessary.

Or take a pile of dirt. The dirt is the pile. The pile is full of dirt. But it rests on the ground which is not dirt. The ground, whatever kind it might be, rock, sand, concrete, is necessary for the dirt to rest on, but the ground isn't the dirt pile and the dirt pile isn't the ground.

 

[sojourner]

Of course. But the issue is when people consider God to be a being and not "the Being" itself. I know what you mean by the way. God as the fabric of reality, the substrate of existence, etc. And that's more in view of how I consider the concept of God should be. Not God as a being.

But the issue is when we talk about the Theistic God, which is a being rather than the substrate of being. The Theistic God is a personal creator of sorts that wants, things, reasons, do, act, talks, etc, and is separated from nature. A God as a substrate of being is never separated from existence or nature but is very much part of the nature. Nature, evolution etc, is God's nature in that instance. But back again to the Theistic God, that God doesn't have a part of this world, but is outside, external to this world. That kind of God, this dualistic type of God, can't be omnipotent and be without want and then have to create a universe to fulfill a want that he doesn't have. The only thing a creature like that would be missing is unpredictability and lack of power.

So the thing, the kind of God that Richard Parker and I were thinking of is the dualistic, external Theistic God, who is also supposed to be all-powerful and have no wants, but still somehow have a want for a Universe. That's the dilemma we were hammering out.

In other words, I have no problem with other views of God, other types of descriptions of God, but that wasn't the issue here.

In any discussion, and I fail this quite a bit, the participants have to agree on the definitions that they're working out from. Otherwise how can you discuss the color of a Zchwazbatch from the planet Blarghurg unless you have decided on what it is first. It doesn't mean that you therefore believe such a thing to exist, but for the sake of discussion, you can have a working description, a term dictionary during the discussion that's temporarily agreed upon during the discussion.

Thanks for the distinction. I suppose that's why the whole "omnipotent" exercise seems like a waste of time to me: the whole God-is-a-being thing seems theologically silly.

 

[Iti oj]

I need to consider that Ouro

 

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for the distinction. I suppose that's why the whole "omnipotent" exercise seems like a waste of time to me: the whole God-is-a-being thing seems theologically silly.

Right.

In my opinion, a being is something by necessity something that is in motion, has restrictions, can't be infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. In general, to be aware, have a drive to do things, needs, knowing and learning, it all comes to an object, thing, creature who has limitations within a larger framework. Put it this way, I'm a being because I am finite in time, knowledge, movement, physical space, and so on. If I was infinite in any of those areas, I wouldn't be able to be a being.

It's like the difference between natural numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5...) and the infinite set of natural numbers N. (same goes for whole numbers, etc).

The infinite set can't exist without the finite parts (elements) of that set. And the finite parts exist infinitely. Both has to exist. God is the set. We are the elements. God can't be an element because then something bigger and infinite which would have to contain God has to exist, which would make the term "God" less meaningful.