God and Death

[Whateverist]

That is a heck of a lot of IF in your question.

What if we started instead with ..

“If God is an un-word for something ineffable we can only intuit which is nonetheless real, dynamic and important in the lives of humans ..”

With so little to go on who is to say?

 

[PureX]

If god is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, can god die?

Only if it wants to.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Once they die however, they will know that the God they conceived in their heads is real.

Not if consciousness doesn't survive death, and even if it does, not if there are no gods to know.

You and I were recently discussing on another thread the idea of mythopoesis, or myth-making with regard to scripture. Your words were, "
Why would multiple authors write fiction about a fictional God, over the course of 4000 years? It just does not make any sense at all." I answered, "They do so here on RF, where we see a vast array of believers declaring that their gods are like this or that with insufficient scriptural support." We're seeing an example of that right now in this thread as multiple believers give their version of gods and their natures, and of that of souls.

Omnipotent does not mean "can do anything." It means all-powerful.

That's YOUR version of God. Others have a different understanding. The first definition I found for omnipotent was "(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything." Every time we encounter a branching of theologies like this, we see evidence of ongoing mythmaking.

God is Not 'omniscient' with unbounded knowledge because God choose Not to make our choices for us.

Here's one of those branches now. Elsewhere we are told by other believers that the god of Abraham does have that knowledge despite man having free will. The free will argument becomes more tenable if one takes your position above.

I've long thought that the god of Abraham should be redefined as being less than tri-omni - doesn't know everything, isn't always good, and can't do everything, yet still created the universe and man, wants to be worshiped, has instructions for man, and whatever else it is said to want and do now within those parameters. Maybe it sins itself, and hates that as much as man sinning. Whatever. Look at how much easier it is to defend the choice to harden Pharoah's heart or test Abraham or Job or flood the earth. God had a bad day those days, but you'd still better mind the Bible or risk hellfire, because that's how the god of Abraham wants it.

Go ahead atheists: reject that with your arguments about evil and unanswered prayers and lifting unliftable stones. All of that disappears with a god that is a little more human. The skeptic won't believe that such a deity exists, either, but his reason will be that there is insufficient evidence to believe that that god exists, not that its description is self-contradictory. But the questions about why childhood leukemia exists and the like are easier to answer for the theist. He doesn't need to try to make that seem like an act of love or something good for mankind.

 

[Trailblazer]

If God can do anything, then God can make himself alive as well.

He did.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not if consciousness doesn't survive death, and even if it does, not if there are no gods to know.

Of course not.

You and I were recently discussing on another thread the idea of mythopoesis, or myth-making with regard to scripture. Your words were, "
Why would multiple authors write fiction about a fictional God, over the course of 4000 years? It just does not make any sense at all." I answered, "They do so here on RF, where we see a vast array of believers declaring that their gods are like this or that with insufficient scriptural support." We're seeing an example of that right now in this thread as multiple believers give their version of gods and their natures, and of that of souls.

I do not consider believers giving their version of gods and their natures to be myth-making.

That's YOUR version of God. Others have a different understanding. The first definition I found for omnipotent was "(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything." Every time we encounter a branching of theologies like this, we see evidence of ongoing mythmaking.

I do not consider branching theologies to be myth-making.

Dictionary definitions are not useful for determining what omnipotent means as it applies to God.

What is Omnipotence?​

Omnipotence refers to God’s all-powerful character. To say that God is omnipotent is to recognize that there is nothing outside of His ability to accomplish and no one who can exercise power over Him. God created the entire universe, and He holds the power over it all.

What Is Omnipotence? - National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception

At times in the tedium of ordinary life, God can seem distant and hard to know. We question His ways and His plans for our lives. We often ask “How can we

www.nationalshrine.org

I believe that God is as described in the Bible and other Abrahahamic scriptures. "there is nothing outside of His ability to accomplish" means God can DO anything, it does not mean that God can BE what God is not. For example, God cannot become less that omnipotent, less than omniscient, and God cannot become a man, since God would then no longer be God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I do not consider believers giving their version of gods and their natures to be myth-making.

I do. We see it on these threads regularly. They're vamping, giving ad hoc answers to the challenges skeptic offer. Every believer believes in a different god, and their claims about their gods evolve.

Maybe you've seen this joke from Emo Philips before. Each of these subdivisions (after atheist) represents a new theology and a implies a different god. In the end, one of these guys is killed for worshiping the wrong god. Just a joke, and just fictitious denominations in some cases, but it represents the evolution of religions and their denominations, and with them, their theologies and god descriptions:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

He said, "Christian."

I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

He said, "Baptist church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

I do not consider branching theologies to be myth-making.

How is that not mythmaking, and what would mythmaking look like instead in your estimation?

Dictionary definitions are not useful for determining what omnipotent means as it applies to God.

But they are useful in determining how people use words and in turn, what they think. I doubt that people go to dictionaries to decide how their gods are, but lexicographers go to people and their expressed thoughts to decide how to define words in their dictionaries.

I believe that God is as described in the Bible and other Abrahahamic scriptures. "there is nothing outside of His ability to accomplish" means God can DO anything, it does not mean that God can BE what God is not. For example, God cannot become less that omnipotent, less than omniscient, and God cannot become a man, since God would then no longer be God.

OK, and others believe other things. That's what I mean. Perhaps you aren't aware of the degree to which you contribute to your theology and your view of the deity. You've expressed several ideas that were original to you as best I can tell. The god you describe is different from the usual description of the god of Abraham. The god you describe doesn't seem likeable even to you, and you don't seem to think that it has any duty to you or anybody else. Apologies if I got that wrong or that sounds blasphemous to you.

 

[MonkeyFire]

If God can do anything, then God can make himself alive as well.

If I could do anything I would save the angel of sorrow from damnation. I can do anything, but I desire that the sons of war to carry out their nature. Wrath itself deserves a chance at life, can wrath be different than this. God had Judas Iscariot at war forever without a reason, except that it has always been like this. So God created the human race and was passive to the devil as it tempted Eden, and that is original sin.

We had been at war eternally, then there was a rebellion and angels fell to earth, and all of mankind as well.

 

[Trailblazer]

I do. We see it on these threads regularly. They're vamping, giving ad hoc answers to the challenges skeptic offer. Every believer believes in a different god, and their claims about their gods evolve.

That is true. Many believers believe in different gods, and their claims about their gods evolve.

Maybe you've seen this joke from Emo Philips before. Each of these subdivisions (after atheist) represents a new theology and a implies a different god. In the end, one of these guys is killed for worshiping the wrong god. Just a joke, and just fictitious denominations in some cases, but it represents the evolution of religions and their denominations, and with them, their theologies and god descriptions:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

He said, "Christian."

I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

He said, "Baptist church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

How is that not mythmaking, and what would mythmaking look like instead in your estimation?

It is not myth-making, it is only people sharing their beliefs that you believe are mythical and may well be mythical.

mythical
1 : based on or described in a myth especially as contrasted with history
2 : existing only in the imagination : fictitious, imaginary
Definition of MYTHICAL

A myth is.....

myth
an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts:
myth

So if anyone made myths it was those men who wrote the ancient stories.

OK, and others believe other things. That's what I mean. Perhaps you aren't aware of the degree to which you contribute to your theology and your view of the deity. You've expressed several ideas that were original to you as best I can tell. The god you describe is different from the usual description of the god of Abraham. The god you describe doesn't seem likeable even to you, and you don't seem to think that it has any duty to you or anybody else. Apologies if I got that wrong or that sounds blasphemous to you.

The God I describe is not different from the usual description of the God of Abraham. What is 'different' is the way I sometimes feel about that God, but I know I am wrong and it is just my feelings.

The God I describe is not always likeable to me because I sometimes don't like that God, but that does not mean that God is not likeable to others.

No, I don't think that God has any duty to you or anybody else. Are you saying that other Abrahamic believes believe that God has a duty towards humans? As far as I know, Christians believe that whatever we get from God is by the grace of God, not because God owes us anything, and Baha'is believe the same thing.

duty
1. a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility.
2. a task or action that someone is required to perform.
duty means - Google Search

How could God be required to do anything for humans? God is not accountable to humans.
It is God who requires humans do do things since we have duties towards God.

For example, Baha'is have what are called the Twin Duties:

“The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine inspiration.”​

Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 19​

​

The following shorter verse says essentially the same thing in fewer words. The beginning of all things is recognition of the Messenger of God for this age and the end of all things is strict observance of His Laws.

“The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 5​