The power of God.

[Suxamethonium]

So Im assuming wiki is correct in saying that omnipotent roughly means "all power", from the latin.

 

The problem in "can He make a rock so big He can't lift it" is not with omnipotency, but with sentence logic. Having all power would mean he could make a rock of any size, and be able to lift it. But making a rock that he can't lift, is assuming he has power limitation which is actually contradictory to the meaning of omnipotent. Also, If he were to allow such an event to happen, then he would be forfeiting omnipotency... and hence, again, the word meaning is sound. If the meaning of omnipotency was that easily falsified, the word would probably not exist.

 

Anyway, this conversation is not going to reach a conclusion because science addresses the imediately observable and tries to understand it whilst religion attempts to address what we cannot (or possibly cannot) see, understand or fathom. And the two collide because they argue using points the other side does not comprehend as meaningful.

 

In a truely reasoned world, one would ignore that which is unknowable and live life by the facts at hand- however, we are emotional beings with an urge to believe in something, whether it is religion, probablilty, mathematical law, humanity, conspiracy theories, etc, and we all have an opinion on what is important and what is right. Where this opinion is sound in belief, it will only ever be truely changed by a personal experience. Also, science will always be somewhat "wrong"- the more we discover, the more we change our models to better reflect what is aparently true. Why do we change it?- because we recognise it as now false, or less true than we originally thought. To argue using science in such absolute terms to say that something could never possibly exist or have existed seems foolish.

[Edtharan]

It's the old problem of God setting Himself a goal He can't reach. If He can't set it He's not omnipotent, If He can't reach it He's not omnipotent.

Either way He fails at something.

I actually disagree with this. Being all powerful does not mean that you have to do everything, only that you can do everything.

 

Using this it actually becomes a trivial thing to understand how God could create a goal he could never reach: He just decides that He won't try and reach it.

 

Thus He creates a goal He would never reach. But then He could change his mind and then achieve it (if He wanted to).

 

Thus Omnipotence is logical so long as you allow the omnipotent being the ability to choose (and as choosing is an action, then because the being is omnipotent, it would have the power to choose).

 

However, Omnipotence and Omniscience are not compatible with Good and Loving is the universe has suffering.

 

An omnipotent being, by definition must have the capability for evil acts, but they may choose not to commit evil acts. To deny the potential for evil acts, it is required that the omnipotent being be limited in its power, and thus it can not be omnipotent.

 

But, if that omnipotent being can choose to act how they want, they can choose to act in only good ways. Such a being would be a Good being. However, for such a being to be considered Good, then they can not choose to do evil. This does not deny them the potential to do evil if they so choose, or deny them the ability to change their mind and choose to do evil, but that if they did evil, they would not be a perfectly good being.

 

This is actually the core of what free will is. It is the potential for a being (omnipotent or otherwise) ability to choose to do good or evil. However, an omnipotent being must have free will or they are not omnipotent.

 

So an omnipotent God must have the potential to act evilly, but if they choose to be a perfectly good being, then they will choose to do good. Think of it as the personality of the God.

 

This means that it would be feasible for an Omnipotent, Omniscient God and Perfectly Good to exist. There is nothing illogical about that.

 

However, if that God did one evil act, then that God could no longer be considered Perfectly Good. This is not a limitation of power, so it does not violate the omnipotence. It is a choice that the God would make, and that they have the power to make that choice is required if they are omnipotent.

 

So, all one needs to do is to see if a singe evil act is performed by the God in question to be able to deny them the attribute of being Perfectly Good. But, remember, not being perfectly good does not impinge on the attribute of being omnipotent as an omnipotent being must be able to commit evil acts and could choose to do evil if they wanted to.

 

As an omnipotent and omniscient god could create a universe without suffering but if they wanted to they could create a universe with suffering. Thus the existence, or non existence of suffering is not a necessary aspect of the universe and is entirely the choice of the omnipotent god.

 

To inflict unnecessary suffering is an evil act, and that any suffering is unnecessary, then if the universe has suffering, then the omnipotent god has performed an evil act and can not be Perfectly Good.

 

This means that any god that is described as Omnipotent, Omniscient and Perfectly Good in a universe that has suffering is a contradiction of itself. It is like my tag line: "This sentence is false".

 

And, as our universe has suffering, this means that a God can not have these 3 qualities, but it would be possible for a God to exist that is not perfectly good, or that is not omnipotent (actually omniscience is not really required for my argument, so long as the god has enough knowledge to know how to make a universe without suffering - God could be incompetent but still be all powerful and perfectly good).

[jryan]

This doesn't make sense to me. Infinity is not a specific number to be added to or subtracted from, it's a concept. And I don't see how the omnipotence argument could be used in that situation.

 

But if God is omnipotent, can He make a rock so big He can't lift it? This is a pretty plain test of omnipotence. If you can do anything, you should be able to make any size rock AND lift any weight.

 

 

When you are talking about omnipotence you have to accept infinity as something more than a concept. If you don't assume that in the proof then your proof is simply assuming its conclusion is true before setting out to prove it.

 

But consider what you are asking while using infinite logic: An infinite being creates an infinite rock in an infinite universe, the resulting growth in the infinite universe is zero. You began with an infinite universe and you ended with an infinite universe. Now you ask the infinite being to move that infinite rock so they move it an infinite number of light years... but being that it is infinitely large the practical movement is zero as the boundaries of the rock never changed.

 

The omnipotent being is not phased by this proof as the proof's underlying assumptions were faulty.

Edited January 31, 2012 by jryan

[Suxamethonium]

Note, the questions I ask are rhetorical. I mean, you can try and answer them if you want, but there is no definative answer.

 

"And, as our universe has suffering, this means that a God can not have these 3 qualities, but it would be possible for a God to exist that is not perfectly good, or that is not omnipotent (actually omniscience is not really required for my argument, so long as the god has enough knowledge to know how to make a universe without suffering - God could be incompetent but still be all powerful and perfectly good)."

 

But if evil was introduced into the world by humanities misuse of free will (as is believed by most Christians), would it be God who did evil by making people (knowing they would be imperfect) or humanities for actually choosing to produce the evil act? Also you may say eating from a tree is not evil, however biblically the significance of the tree they ate from (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) meant that humanity was no longer ignorant (paraphrasing- they discovered they were naked, and felt ashamed) especially to evil. Did God truely not know what they were doing whilst he was 'gone'? Or was he giving them the chance to make their own choice whether to obey him without interfering? When he asked them what they did/were doing, did he not know? or was he giving them a chance to confess?

 

The other question is what is evil and what is good? It is a question of general consensus and changes reflecting societies thoughts and development. So what WAS good and evil originally?

[njaohnt]

Who knows? Not me. Not you. You don't have infinite IQ, now do you? If you did, you would not be asking.

[1=1]

Who knows? Not me. Not you. You don't have infinite IQ, now do you? If you did, you would not be asking.

 

If you take that attitude to everything you didn't know, the human race would be no-where.

[John Cuthber]

"I actually disagree with this. Being all powerful does not mean that you have to do everything, only that you can do everything.

 

Using this it actually becomes a trivial thing to understand how God could create a goal he could never reach: He just decides that He won't try and reach it.

 

Thus He creates a goal He would never reach. But then He could change his mind and then achieve it (if He wanted to).

"

Sorry Edtharan, but that doesn't cut it.

I asked if He could set a task He can't do, not can He set a task and then not bother to do it.

It's not even close to the same thing.

 

You have supposed that "Thus He creates a goal He would never reach. " is the same as "Thus He creates a goal He could never reach. "

The problem is that the two words really are not the same and do not have the same meaning.

So, as far as the logic and evidence go, the concept of omnipotence is a non starter. So an omnipotent God" is also impossible.

 

Would you like to try again?

[Edtharan]

But if evil was introduced into the world by humanities misuse of free will (as is believed by most Christians), would it be God who did evil by making people (knowing they would be imperfect) or humanities for actually choosing to produce the evil act?

For this to be true, then humans would have to be more powerful that God.

 

Being all powerful, then God could create the universe where such evil could never happen, and still allow for perfect free will.

 

Think of this in terms of Set Theory:

Humans are finite, mortal beings. Thus the set of actions we can do is a finite set.

 

God, being all powerful, can perform any action. This means that the set of action available to God is infinite. It also includes all the actions of any finite set, including all the actions we could do.

 

Thus, God could create a universe were the finite set of actions we have do not include evil. However, we are then free to choose any action within our finite set. We have free will, and evil and suffering do not exist.

 

The reason this works, is because even if we have free will, we only have a finite set of actions we can choose from. As God can choose what finite set of actions we have available, then He could choose the set of actions where evil does not occur.

 

Also you may say eating from a tree is not evil, however biblically the significance of the tree they ate from (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) meant that humanity was no longer ignorant (paraphrasing- they discovered they were naked, and felt ashamed) especially to evil. Did God truely not know what they were doing whilst he was 'gone'? Or was he giving them the chance to make their own choice whether to obey him without interfering? When he asked them what they did/were doing, did he not know? or was he giving them a chance to confess?

Well God is supposed to be all knowing, so it is certain that He would have known what was happening (and be able to intervene if He wanted to). Then we can only conclude that God was willing to let then get the knowledge of Good and Evil.

 

But, God could have prevented this from being passed down to the next generation (and every generation thereafter) if He wanted to as well.

 

This presents a conundrum, because if God was willing to let them make a choice about it, He is not letting any other generation that came later make a choice. So, as far as original sin is concerned, I don't think that anyone after Adam and Eve could be held account able for their actions as their descendents had no choice in the matter. Also, in the bible God states that the sons can not be held accountable for the sins of the father. Based on that, then God can not justly accuse us of the original sin (as God himself said it was unjust).

 

The other question is what is evil and what is good? It is a question of general consensus and changes reflecting societies thoughts and development. So what WAS good and evil originally?

Good and Evil are not substances, they are concepts. They are a short hand for labelling behaviours that are desired or undesired.

[njaohnt]

If you take that attitude to everything you didn't know, the human race would be no-where.

 

No where? Where would it be?

[Moontanman]

No where? Where would it be?

 

 

We'd still be squatting in caves and being eaten by lions...

 

The most obvious power of god is ignoring everyone equally...

[Dovada]

There has been something that has been bothering me for an hour or so now. The bible says that god is all powerful, but when I ask Christians why god doesn't do anything to help the people in suffering they say its because it was humanity choice and act of free will that led them into it. If god is all powerful than why doesn't he help these people, It doesn't matter whether they did it to themselves, if he is truly great he should forgive them and help them. Can someone clear this up for me?

 

Do you want God to be a dictator over you? Removing your freedom of choice?

 

John chapter 5 verse 22: "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son,

 

Mathew chapter 18 verse 18: "Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

 

What happens upon the earth is for us to police.

[iNow]

Do you want God to be a dictator over you? Removing your freedom of choice?

Why would I want a completely fictional and imaginary being to do that?

[Dovada]

Why would I want a completely fictional and imaginary being to do that?

Did your parent ask you to clean up your mess in your bedroom? Fictional or not.

[Keenidiot]

What happens upon the earth is for us to police.

He seemed rather active in the Old Testament. The flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Exodus, and I'm sure you can think of other examples.

Much like many other culture's age of myth actually...

[John Cuthber]

Did your parent ask you to clean up your mess in your bedroom? Fictional or not.

You seem to have missed the difference between my parents (who are real) and god (who is a fairy tale).

[Tres Juicy]

Did your parent ask you to clean up your mess in your bedroom? Fictional or not.

 

 

If my parents were fictional, how could I exist for them to tell me anything?

 

Give up dude

[Dovada]

Something for you all to look forward to:

 

2Timothy chapter 3:

1. But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come:

2. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3. unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good,

4. traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,

[Keenidiot]

Why, that sounds like a description given to the following generation by the preceding generation of any time period!

[Tres Juicy]

Something for you all to look forward to:

 

2Timothy chapter 3:

1. But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come:

2. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3. unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good,

4. traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,

 

Read over your previous posts (in this and other threads) and reflect on the words I have highlighted in red.

 

You may want to consider dismounting the high horse

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Dovoda, have you read the religious forum rules recently?

We're not here for you to convert us, we're here for discussion. Discus or do not participate, those are your options.

[Moontanman]

Something for you all to look forward to:

 

2Timothy chapter 3:

1. But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come:

2. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3. unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good,

4. traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,

 

Dovoda, you act like you are the only person who has ever read the bible and knows what it means, I have news for you dude, you are not, most around here are very familiar with religious texts. many actually believed until the contradictions and out right horse feathers of the bible simply became too thick to be believed any more.

 

You are seriously welcome to your beliefs, as long as you don't use those beliefs to try and control other people I don't care what you believe but I see no reason what so ever to think you are somehow in possession of any special knowledge. In fact so far you have shown yourself to be quite ignorant of the reality surrounding the bible and yes I am talking about both old and new testaments. The old testament is so full of wildly wrong information is it easily dismissed.

 

The new testament can be shown to have been edited, added to and taken away from many times, it sources books and or gospels that it no longer contains and the so called words of Jesus are really what other people claimed he said or wanted him to say. There is really no reason to even believe he existed in any way much less the way he is portrayed in the new Testament. If you are truly interested in the truth of this matter I suggest you try google and stay away from sites that want to convince you of it's truth, they are not neutral, a biased source is not really a source of anything but the bias.

 

I am going to suggest, yet again, that you stop with the condescending attitude and stop quoting your holy book as though it was absolute truth, it is not and can easily be shown not to be. I for one am very tired of the same ol same ol, you can search this site for other threads where this stuff has been discussed many times or google it for yourself, i suggest your own search, if you are not delusional you should be able to at least consider the faults of your holy book. I do not suggest you abandon it out of hand, you obviously have considerable time and effort invested in your religion.

 

On thing you should really make your self aware of is that there are other holy books, much older many more complex than yours. The followers of those holy books have just as much evidence for their god or gods as you do, in fact the parallels between those books and yours are often quite interesting.

 

One thing is for sure, your book is hard evidence of nothing but the ability of men to twist anything to their own means and on this forum it is not ok to proselytize and your book is not evidence of anything what so ever.

[Tres Juicy]

I could write a book saying I created the universe and then point to that book as proof

 

What does it prove?

[njaohnt]

We'd still be squatting in caves and being eaten by lions...

 

What I am saying is you know things that you can't know. Saying "Who knows" when we could find out, yes, the world would be no where if everyone said that for things that we could find out.

 

I could write a book saying I created the universe and then point to that book as proof

 

What does it prove?

 

Go ahead. Do it. You won't succeed. No one will believe it. It is not true, and is complete wrong.

[Dovada]

Klaynos you say: We're not here for you to convert us, we're here for discussion. Discus or do not participate, those are your options.

You presume a lot: I came with knowledge I wished to discuss and share. To convert you is not what I came here to do.

 

This thread is about a question asked by 1=1:

There has been something that has been bothering me for an hour or so now. The bible says that god is all powerful, but when I ask Christians why god doesn't do anything to help the people in suffering they say its because it was humanity choice and act of free will that led them into it. If god is all powerful than why doesn't he help these people, It doesn't matter whether they did it to themselves, if he is truly great he should forgive them and help them. Can someone clear this up for me?

My answer also comes as a question to 1=1: If you where God and gave life to the children of the world, then discovered some of those children where disobedient denying that you ever existed and that you where just a mythical entity. Would you help them or would you only help those who believed in the existence of your spirit.

 

Many of you have children, who has a child who would say to their parent what can I do for you? You would move heaven and earth for that child. So it is with God the Father for those that believe in Him, whether you yourself believe this or not.

 

Even none believers cry out with there last breath saying "God help me", but why should He?

 

In the wisdom of his bible in Mark 3 verses 28-29 He implies:

28. "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter;

29. "but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation''

 

And for those who do not believe he said in Mathew 13 verse 13 where He states: "Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

 

The decision to believe or not is both personal and individual. Believers say one thing and non believers say another, in the final analysis its up to you the individual.

 

2Timothy 3 verses 16-17:

16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

17. that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

Healthy discussion is good for all, but many comments and statements that appear on these threads are not, these include overlooked personal attacks on myself because of my beliefs. Yet I am the one being reprimanded.

[iNow]

You are not being attacked for your beliefs. You are being criticized for presenting a book of fiction as a source of truth, and for making assertions in the absolute with that and your faith alone as your reference. Your ideas are without merit and substance, and they are being called out as such, but you are not being attacked. Let's be absolutely clear about that. Your ideas are being torn apart for the ridiculous waste of bandwidth they are, but you are not being attacked.

 

If you want to speak of attack, let's refer to the numerous examples of hatred and scorn shown by believers toward nonbelievers through the centuries. Let us take a moment to review the deaths and violence which has been visited upon non-theists by those who claim some connection to some god. Let us look today at how nonbelievers are dismissed out of hand and rejected and ostracized more than any other group... Let us look at how ideology is so often given priority over facts, and how those who choose to believe something different or who choose to believe in no deities at all are characterized as evil and despicable and loathsome.

 

You are caught so far within and so deeply inside your "god-fog" ... so wrapped in your delusion... so warped by your scripture that you fail to realize just how painfully hypocritical, baseless, and unfounded your position truly is... How the fact that your ideas are being challenged is NOT equivalent to way that people and their families are facing physical harm merely for not accepting the same fairy tales as you.

 

I promise you, were your arguments meritorious... and were your evidence something more than your personal faith and an internally inconsistent and self-contradictory anthology written during the bronze age... that you would not be facing the challenge and lack of deference you are here now experiencing. Were you to present something of substance... Were you to offer evidence, or logic, and reason in support of your points... Were you to do ANY of this your ideas would not be so consistently and summarily dismissed. Your posts have NONE of those things, though, and hence you come across quite clearly as a cultish, crazy, demented crackpot.

 

You can continue to quote scripture until you're blue in the face and until your fingers are raw from typing, but you will convince only the most ignorant by doing so. You and your ridiculous approach are doing little more than attracting the lowest common denominator. You are almost without fail presenting yourself as repugnant, repulsive, and deranged to those with even the most basic reasoning, logic, and education.

 

Let's be frank, here. You are one of the last of a quickly dying breed, and I say good riddance. Welcome to the 21st century. You are on the edge of an ever-shrinking margin... You are, in fact, becoming more and more marginalized. You are an outlier quickly being pushed out to the outermost contours of the bell curve. You are both deviant and several standard deviations away from the mean.

 

If you want to complain about attacks, you can point to this post. The challenge, of course, is that everything I've just said is valid and true.

 

 

 

EDITED to add some links for reference.

Edited February 8, 2012 by iNow