God and omnipotence

[Faint]

God with all his greatness couldn't? :areyoucra

I think you have a certain defenition of God that most of Christians don't agree with.

I can see that many people still have shortage in understaing what is God.

I think that your God in all his greatness still needs to kneel before the Roman god Terminus, god of boundaries. If your God did exist, he would be limited, and thus he would have boundaries. For one example, he cannot be me. I am a separate entity--therefore God has a boundary between him and me. In another example, your God cannot be all-powerful; if he gave us freewill, he cannot make us love him. That is our decision, and the fact that he cannot make us do something (without eliminating our freewill) is another limit to his "power".

 

[michel]

I think that your God in all his greatness still needs to kneel before the Roman god Terminus, god of boundaries. If your God did exist, he would be limited, and thus he would have boundaries. For one example, he cannot be me. I am a separate entity--therefore God has a boundary between him and me. In another example, your God cannot be all-powerful; if he gave us freewill, he cannot make us love him. That is our decision, and the fact that he cannot make us do something (without eliminating our freewill) is another limit to his "power".

I don't see it as a limit to his power; I see it more as a case of him letting you out on a very long leash - to give you the choice to return to him, or not.

IMO God, by definition can have no humanly imaginable restriction on his power.

 

[lilithu]

is it important that we believe that he is omnipotent?

How many faiths believe that he is, or does he have limitations?

Define omnipotence.

Can God create an object that is so heavy that God cannot lift it?

Just kidding. I think the idea of God's omnipotence is not very helpful. As soon as you say that there is nothing that God can't do, it begs the question of why there is undeserved suffering in the world. Whay do bad things happen to good people? Basically, there are three beliefs that cannot go together:
1) God is all powerful
2) God is good (cares about humanity)
3) There is unnecessary suffering in the world.

Either God is all powerful and chooses to allow unnecessary suffering, in which case God is not good. Or God is good but cannot prevent all suffering, in which case God is not all powerful.

Some will "solve" this problem by rejecting belief number three, by saying that there is no such thing as undeserved suffering, that any time something bad happens to someone it's because (s)he deserve it, whether it's because of sin or karma. I absolutely reject that idea. No one is going to convince me that all the people who died in the World Trade center or all the people who died in the tsunami somehow deserved it.

Others will say that the suffering is "underserved" but still serves a purpose in that it teaches us something. In which case my question would be, well what does one learn by dying a horrible death? And why do some people have to learn that way and not others? Again, I find that explanation in adequate. For me, it is clear that unnecessary suffering exists.

So we go back to whether God is good or whether God is all powerful. And for that, it simply boils down to this for me: I can love a God that is good but not all powerful. I can do my part to help accomplish what needs to be done. What are we here for anyway, if God holds all the power? But I cannot love a God who is all powerful but not good. Even if He were threaten to toss me in hell for eternity, such power does not engender love in me. (And heck, if He cannot make me love Him, then He isn't all powerful anyway, is He?)

 

[Faint]

I don't see it as a limit to his power; I see it more as a case of him letting you out on a very long leash - to give you the choice to return to him, or not.

IMO God, by definition can have no humanly imaginable restriction on his power.

Ok, but do you think God can give you freewill to do and think whatever you want and at the same time make you want to return to him? This is impossible. The second someone/something is able to control a person's mind, that person no longer has freewill. How can they have freewill if their will is enthralled by another?

 

[lilithu]

I think that your God in all his greatness still needs to kneel before the Roman god Terminus, god of boundaries. If your God did exist, he would be limited, and thus he would have boundaries. For one example, he cannot be me. I am a separate entity--therefore God has a boundary between him and me.

Actually, in my belief system (and those of most Eastern traditions) there is no boundary between you and God, or me and God. You and I are not separate entities. That is illusion.

In another example, your God cannot be all-powerful; if he gave us freewill, he cannot make us love him. That is our decision, and the fact that he cannot make us do something (without eliminating our freewill) is another limit to his "power".

Yes!! :jiggy:

 

[Aqualung]

So, where, my friend, in the Bible, does it say that God was unable to create "already progressed" people ? - I would have thought, that as such an ardent Bible reader, you would have realized that he did created people who were already progressed - namely Adam and Eve; until that time when he 'demoted' them for being silly with apples and snakes........

they weren't progressed. They were forever in a state of unchange, knowing no good because they knew no evil, and having no joy because they knew no sorrow. Doesn't god know both joy and sorrow? Yet Adam and Eve didn't. They were not fully progressd.

Who set God's rules? A higher God?

I don't know who set the rules. It wasn't a higher god per se, but those laws were already around well before God created the earth.

I think you have a certain defenition of God that most of Christians don't agree with.

Perhaps.

Aqualung's understanding of God may (or may not) be different from most Christians, but that doesn't mean she has a shortage in understanding God. That kind of comment has no place in debate.

Thank you.

 

[Faint]

Actually, in my belief system (and those of most Eastern traditions) there is no boundary between you and God, or me and God. You and I are not separate entities. That is illusion.

So your version of God is more like "the Force" in Star Wars, maybe part of all living things and all living things are part of it? We are all part of the same universe and we are the universe, etc. That's a whole different story, my argument was aimed at the general Western idea that God is his own being, and we are separate from him.

 

[lilithu]

So your version of God is more like "the Force" in Star Wars, maybe part of all living things and all living things are part of it? We are all part of the same universe and we are the universe, etc. That's a whole different story, my argument was aimed at the general Western idea that God is his own being, and we are separate from him.

Understood. My version of God is more like ParamAtman or Brahman in Hinduism or anatman and interdependancy in Buddhism. It's like the Force but there's more to it than that. btw, "the Force" in Star Wars was modeled after the Tao in Taoism. The only real difference is that Taoism did not postulate any "midichlorians" to explain itself. :areyoucra

 

[Katzpur]

is it important that we believe that he is omnipotent?

How many faiths believe that he is, or does he have limitations?

When we use the word "omnipotent," we're using a word that isn't even in the Bible. So we have to start out by explaining what it means to be "all-powerful." It is entirely possible to believe everything the Bible has to say about God without being backed into a corner by such non-sensical questions as "Can God create a rock so big that He can't lift it?" I'm not accusing you of doing that, but I think that any time we start throwing out words like "omnipotent," we have to recognize that our own preconceptions of what this means are going to interfere with our coming to any real understanding of how this word relates to "God."

 

[TashaN]

Ok, but do you think God can give you freewill to do and think whatever you want and at the same time make you want to return to him? This is impossible. The second someone/something is able to control a person's mind, that person no longer has freewill. How can they have free will if their will is enthralled by another?

- God doesn't need us but we need him.
- God can create people who can love him and worship him but he gave us the choice whether to love him or not and he can't force us.
- God will be pleased when his creature go back to his real love and teaching.
- God gave us a free well not as you think "that he is making us return to him by force".
- God can only guide us and show us his greatness everywhere but you choose by your own to follow or to not do so.

 

[TashaN]

Define omnipotence.

Can God create an object that is so heavy that God cannot lift it?

Just kidding. I think the idea of God's omnipotence is not very helpful. As soon as you say that there is nothing that God can't do, it begs the question of why there is undeserved suffering in the world. Whay do bad things happen to good people? Basically, there are three beliefs that cannot go together:
1) God is all powerful
2) God is good (cares about humanity)
3) There is unnecessary suffering in the world.

Either God is all powerful and chooses to allow unnecessary suffering, in which case God is not good. Or God is good but cannot prevent all suffering, in which case God is not all powerful.

Some will "solve" this problem by rejecting belief number three, by saying that there is no such thing as undeserved suffering, that any time something bad happens to someone it's because (s)he deserve it, whether it's because of sin or karma. I absolutely reject that idea. No one is going to convince me that all the people who died in the World Trade center or all the people who died in the tsunami somehow deserved it.

Others will say that the suffering is "underserved" but still serves a purpose in that it teaches us something. In which case my question would be, well what does one learn by dying a horrible death? And why do some people have to learn that way and not others? Again, I find that explanation in adequate. For me, it is clear that unnecessary suffering exists.

So we go back to whether God is good or whether God is all powerful. And for that, it simply boils down to this for me: I can love a God that is good but not all powerful. I can do my part to help accomplish what needs to be done. What are we here for anyway, if God holds all the power? But I cannot love a God who is all powerful but not good. Even if He were threaten to toss me in hell for eternity, such power does not engender love in me. (And heck, if He cannot make me love Him, then He isn't all powerful anyway, is He?)

:clap

your assumption is perfect and i like the way you think but the problem is your assumption will be only valid if there is no other life after death.

This is life is for a very very very short time to test us but after death in the judgment day "the hereafter" no death anymore and we will live forever according to what we did in this temporary life.

 

[TashaN]

my argument was aimed at the general Western idea that God is his own being, and we are separate from him.

Do you have any proof that he is a part of this universe in case you believe in a god in the first place?

 

[Skavau]

Your assumption is perfect and i like the way you think but the problem is your assumption will be only valid if there is no other life after death.

Hello, The Truth. .

Well, what is life after death?

Let's look at an example and assume that God is all-good and any suffering in this world indeed has a meaning of some sort.

Assumption 1:
Let's assume that out of the 3000 people, an Atheist died in the WTC. This guy was a reasonable guy. He did some decent things in his life, gave to charity and helped people when required to and such.

What does this God do with him? If there is a heaven and hell, which will one will this person go to? If the man goes to hell - then what lesson has he learnt? Why is he in hell? He didn't do anything in his life that was shamefully bad or shamefully horrible. He was just a decent guy. Is he going to hell for not being good enough or for not believing in a God? If it's for not being good enough, then what does God say to people who are living a far better life in terms of quality right now and are morally worse - and, how good do you have to be to get into heaven? If it is for not believing in a God - then does this somehow mean that the benevolent God is egotistical and prefers worship to good deeds.

What if the Atheist went to heaven though? Why would God potentially send this Atheist to heaven? If the Atheist did go to heaven - would it be for having his own mind and standing against brutal 'authority' commanded by God? Or was it for his own good deeds?

If the Atheist goes to heaven for standing against God, then does this mean that God doesn't actually want people to believe in him? Is everything that is written down about obeying him a total and utter lie and he wants to test humanity to see if they will think for themselves and conjure up their own system without the need for a deity of some sort. Could be. Who knows?

If the Atheist goes to heaven for being a good individual, then undoubtedly faith is irrelevant and therefore there is no need to commit your life to God, as it is only good deeds for humanity, which count. However, then you have to ask the question - which is, did the guy do enough? Why would God see it justified to remove a perfectly decent person from life and take him into heaven - away from helping humans and the people he loves, which he created.


Assumption 2:
A Theist is killed in the WTC. The guy is also a good person. He helps and gives money to charities just like the Theist. Where does he go?

If God sends the Theist to hell - why does he send the Theist to hell? Did the Theist not lead enough of a good life? If so - how does God measure morality in people? Perhaps God sent the Theist to hell because he saw the Theist as blind and didn't want people to worship him. But in this case, he has been misleading the Theist throughout his life and telling the Theist that he should worship him - which, the Theist automatically believed and therefore worshipped him. Does God deliberately mislead people?

If God sends the Theist to heaven - why does he send him to heaven? Is it for believing in him as he asked? If so, is God perhaps egotistical and would rather people believe in him as opposed to doing well. Is it for doing well in his life? If so, then God measures his donation to humanity better than his worship.

The problem with the concept of heaven and hell is that is hard to see who goes where and for what reason. If suffering exists to teach us a lesson - then what lesson is this? If someone is shot and survives against all of the odds, and then the person who was shot assumes such is a miracle - then what is the lesson there? If it is indeed a situation created by God, then what was the meaning? I pin it down to these:

• (a) Did God want the person to be reminded of his awesome power?
• (b) Did God want to inform the person that he is special?
• (c) Is it a test to see if he/she believes in him throughout the whole ordeal?

If a is true, then is God someone who rather than showing himself objectively to the world to proclaim his power would rather create situations which he causes suffering to get his point across?

If b is true, then what does God say to all everyone else out there who died in the same or similar circumstances?

If c is true, then are you suggesting God is without knowledge of the strength of that particular persons faith and therefore, no longer in control of his creations and also unable to know everything about them & therefore inflicts suffering to find something out when he should effectively know it already.

It is reasons such as the unbalance of suffering globally, which lead me to disbelieve that all suffering is just. I cannot grasp the idea.

 

[Bennettresearch]

God with all his greatness couldn't? :areyoucra

I think you have a certain defenition of God that most of Christians don't agree with.

I can see that many people still have shortage in understaing what is God.

Yo God, Heellllooo, yeah, over here! Lightning bolt please. Or maybe a little bit of that blue screen of death! I know that God wasn't paying much attention so I thought I would help Him out here.

 

[Bennettresearch]

No, I don't think he could have.

Hi Aqualung,

I think I know where you are going with this. God as a higher being would be relative to us in greatness, but finite in His own respect. It would mean that there were obstacles to overcome in creation and it takes some time to acheive this. It would not just appear like the snap of the fingers. If we were to just appear already formed and developed, why did it take billions of years for us to arrive on the scene? Or to look at it another way, if homo-sapiens have been around for about 100,000 years, what were we doing for about 90,000 years? Interesting point.

 

[Merlin]

The fact that he didn't. He loves us so much that he couldn't have just made us like this, knowing that some of us would not return, if he actually loved us that much.

So He must have other limitations as well. What are they?

 

[Merlin]

God is not just some fantastical creature that makes up his own rules. He had rules to follow too.

Who imposed those rules?

 

[Merlin]

God with all his greatness couldn't? :areyoucra

I think you have a certain defenition of God that most of Christians don't agree with.

I can see that many people still have shortage in understaing what is God.

Not true. I am a Christian and do not believe God is omnipotent. Staggeringly powerful, yes, but infinitely powerful, no. That must be obvious to everybody.

 

[Merlin]

I think that your God in all his greatness still needs to kneel before the Roman god Terminus, god of boundaries. If your God did exist, he would be limited, and thus he would have boundaries. For one example, he cannot be me. I am a separate entity--therefore God has a boundary between him and me. In another example, your God cannot be all-powerful; if he gave us freewill, he cannot make us love him. That is our decision, and the fact that he cannot make us do something (without eliminating our freewill) is another limit to his "power".

We are back to the same question, cannot or did not?

 

[Merlin]

Doesn't god know both joy and sorrow?

But presumably it did not know both of those two things before Adam and Eve disappointed him? Or if he did, what had made him joyful or disappointed prior to the creation of the Earth and mankind?

I don't know who set the rules. It wasn't a higher god per se, but those laws were already around well before God created the earth.

Somebody created them. If God cannot change them, whatever it was that created them was greater (whether you call he/she/it a God or not)