Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

does god have to be all powerful to be god?

reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2011 1:03:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/3/2011 11:34:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/3/2011 11:32:08 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Just some food for thought ...

Only uncreatable.

No for real tho, what if their is a very powerful being ,who isnt all powerful
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2011 1:09:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/3/2011 11:32:08 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Just some food for thought ...

Yes and no.... unless given qualification God is taking to mean an omnipotent being, however not all religions and philosophers have suggested such an entity.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2011 1:09:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/3/2011 11:32:08 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Just some food for thought ...

No and nope this is not food for thought, nice thread, though.
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2011 1:12:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What would be the point of a weak god?

Imagine that for a minute -- Jeff, the God of Biscuits. His power? He makes baking soda rise and he controls the Pillsbury dough-boy as his little minion.

Can anything defeat him?!

Yes. We can -- by eating him. Since he is also a biscuit. I ask again, what would be the point of a god which can be easily defeated?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2011 1:17:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/4/2011 1:12:43 PM, annhasle wrote:
What would be the point of a weak god?

Imagine that for a minute -- Jeff, the God of Biscuits. His power? He makes baking soda rise and he controls the Pillsbury dough-boy as his little minion.

Can anything defeat him?!

Yes. We can -- by eating him. Since he is also a biscuit. I ask again, what would be the point of a god which can be easily defeated?

No... you would have to eat all the biscuits and destroy all the bakeries. But why would you?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2011 1:23:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/4/2011 1:12:43 PM, annhasle wrote:
What would be the point of a weak god?


Many times God was simply an anthropomorphism (sp?), think of the greek deities, for instance.

Imagine that for a minute -- Jeff, the God of Biscuits. His power? He makes baking soda rise and he controls the Pillsbury dough-boy as his little minion.

Can anything defeat him?!

Yes. We can -- by eating him. Since he is also a biscuit. I ask again, what would be the point of a god which can be easily defeated?

What does God need with a starship?
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2011 3:51:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/4/2011 1:12:43 PM, annhasle wrote:
What would be the point of a weak god?

Imagine that for a minute -- Jeff, the God of Biscuits. His power? He makes baking soda rise and he controls the Pillsbury dough-boy as his little minion.

Can anything defeat him?!

Yes. We can -- by eating him. Since he is also a biscuit. I ask again, what would be the point of a god which can be easily defeated?

I did'nt say god would be weak, just not all power
mind you that im not talking about the Christan god
just because its stoppable doesent mean its not powerful
Also why does there have to be a point
thegodhand
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 3:04:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Not really, just enough to convince people that we are nothing
"Modern atheism is Richard Dawkins."- thegodhand

"Thegodhand likes to misquote people"- Benjamin Franklin
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 3:10:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/4/2011 1:23:44 PM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/4/2011 1:12:43 PM, annhasle wrote:
What would be the point of a weak god?


Many times God was simply an anthropomorphism (sp?), think of the greek deities, for instance.

That's more along the lines of a demi-god.

Imagine that for a minute -- Jeff, the God of Biscuits. His power? He makes baking soda rise and he controls the Pillsbury dough-boy as his little minion.

Can anything defeat him?!

Yes. We can -- by eating him. Since he is also a biscuit. I ask again, what would be the point of a god which can be easily defeated?

What does God need with a starship?

... lolwut?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 3:12:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/4/2011 3:51:23 PM, reddj2 wrote:
At 3/4/2011 1:12:43 PM, annhasle wrote:
What would be the point of a weak god?

Imagine that for a minute -- Jeff, the God of Biscuits. His power? He makes baking soda rise and he controls the Pillsbury dough-boy as his little minion.

Can anything defeat him?!

Yes. We can -- by eating him. Since he is also a biscuit. I ask again, what would be the point of a god which can be easily defeated?

I did'nt say god would be weak, just not all power

If a god was not all powerful, than that means there is a more powerful entity. So I ask again, what would be the point to there being a god which can be defeated?

mind you that im not talking about the Christan god

I understand that. I'm speaking about a god in the most generalist sense.

just because its stoppable doesent mean its not powerful

It might be powerful, but it could still be defeated. That is hardly something I would worship as my savior or overlord.

Also why does there have to be a point

Would a god exist simply to exist?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 8:35:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 3:10:54 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/4/2011 1:23:44 PM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/4/2011 1:12:43 PM, annhasle wrote:
What would be the point of a weak god?


Many times God was simply an anthropomorphism (sp?), think of the greek deities, for instance.

That's more along the lines of a demi-god.

Imagine that for a minute -- Jeff, the God of Biscuits. His power? He makes baking soda rise and he controls the Pillsbury dough-boy as his little minion.

Can anything defeat him?!

Yes. We can -- by eating him. Since he is also a biscuit. I ask again, what would be the point of a god which can be easily defeated?

What does God need with a starship?

... lolwut?

If you were a trekkie you would have found that funny!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 9:31:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What would be the point to there being a god which can be defeated?
Depends,
If your god exists and has the power to dictate will in the form of divine providence you have no choice in the matter. He is the most important thing in existence and you have to believe simply because he has made it so.

Now, the benefits of a monotheistic god being passible don't exists, him being able to be defeated, to suffer, for his will not to be made into effect - cannot have benefits in a monotheistic god. There is a deity though, Abraxas, who has these qualities.
When it comes to polytheism, the weaknesses in gods are supposed to be the same weaknesses in us ourselves. Hercules for example, has to go though the 13 trials, defeating(overcoming) all human ills, both those from nature and man himself. Their weaknesses and their trials with these weakness show our own human strengths. - It's like a Batman, but as a Deity.

The existence of a weak monotheist god is present in theistic/traditional satanism and Gnosticism(defines Gnosticism). I believe Geo could run you down on the points of the matter.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 9:34:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 3:10:54 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/4/2011 1:23:44 PM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/4/2011 1:12:43 PM, annhasle wrote:
What would be the point of a weak god?


Many times God was simply an anthropomorphism (sp?), think of the greek deities, for instance.

That's more along the lines of a demi-god.

Not exactly - a demigod, to my understanding, would be like Perseus; a 1/2 human, 1/2 god being.

Zeus, for example, was tempted by lust quite a lot. I'd say that most ancient deities were not 'all powerful'. The God of the old testament, at one point, is unable to stop his enemies because they had chariots of iron:

Judges 1:19
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out [the inhabitants of] the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. "


Imagine that for a minute -- Jeff, the God of Biscuits. His power? He makes baking soda rise and he controls the Pillsbury dough-boy as his little minion.

Can anything defeat him?!

Yes. We can -- by eating him. Since he is also a biscuit. I ask again, what would be the point of a god which can be easily defeated?

What does God need with a starship?

... lolwut?

Hm....

It's a line from a star trek movie...
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2011 4:08:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 3:12:55 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/4/2011 3:51:23 PM, reddj2 wrote:
At 3/4/2011 1:12:43 PM, annhasle wrote:
What would be the point of a weak god?

Imagine that for a minute -- Jeff, the God of Biscuits. His power? He makes baking soda rise and he controls the Pillsbury dough-boy as his little minion.

Can anything defeat him?!

Yes. We can -- by eating him. Since he is also a biscuit. I ask again, what would be the point of a god which can be easily defeated?

I did'nt say god would be weak, just not all power

If a god was not all powerful, than that means there is a more powerful entity. So I ask again, what would be the point to there being a god which can be defeated?

mind you that im not talking about the Christan god

I understand that. I'm speaking about a god in the most generalist sense.

just because its stoppable doesent mean its not powerful

It might be powerful, but it could still be defeated. That is hardly something I would worship as my savior or overlord.

Also why does there have to be a point

Would a god exist simply to exist?

Ah didnt say it was a savior ,just a really powerful being ,like Galactus
not invincible but someone you dont F**K with.

To be more clear "not the christan(satan) god"
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2011 1:44:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Any sufficiently advanced being may appear to be a God.
If I went to the time of Jesus with a machine gun/flamethrower and a suit covered in LED lights, I'm sure the main religion of the world would be Vellalottism.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2011 2:50:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
God is omniexcellent and must possess most or all compossible perfections.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2011 9:51:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/8/2011 1:44:55 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Any sufficiently advanced being may appear to be a God.
If I went to the time of Jesus with a machine gun/flamethrower and a suit covered in LED lights, I'm sure the main religion of the world would be Vellalottism.

yes exactly .you would be god( a very awsome god), killable but very hard to kill(well maybe not that hard ),and you would have "powers"(magic-rattle-boom-tube)and perform "Miracle" ( Making people warm) also you can place "curses"(giving people seizers with rapid flashing LEDs)
Oh yeah and give out blunt wisdom "don't steal cause that is a dick move" or" thats what (s)he said"
wolfhaines
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 7:47:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If religious people can't even agree on what God is or what he consists of, then how can they be so adamant in his existence or in his will?! Pathetic.
God is an Atheist. Faith is "belief in something that isn't based in fact". Since God knows everything he can't have faith, and because he already is the highest power he doesn't believe in a higher power. Atheist right there.

Last time I checked Logic and Reason weren't the causes of thousands of years of brutal warfare, discrimination, genocide, injustices and torture...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 7:53:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 7:47:26 AM, wolfhaines wrote:
If religious people can't even agree on what God is or what he consists of, then how can they be so adamant in his existence or in his will?! Pathetic.

If [people of x philosophical belief] can't agree on [y tenent of x], then how can they be so adamant that [z is true about philosophical belief]?! [Ad hominem]

There is no decent philosophy on earth of which all it adherents have uniform ideas about.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 8:46:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/8/2011 2:50:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
God is omniexcellent and must possess most or all compossible perfections.

You grant their definition of god to the T.. without such a thing being shown.

it's like if I said: groggle is an 8 foot tall lizardman.. and he is both an illuminati.. AND a a douche.

Then you come along and say: well if there's a groggle.. He must be an 8 foot tall lizardman who is both an illuminati and a douche.

Meanwhile, groggle (if he does exist) might not be a douche at all.

I have offered no proof that groggle exists Or that he's douche if he did exist... or that 8 foot lizardmen illuminati are necessarily douches

or that people who go by the name of Groggle are necessarily douches.

there's no reason for you to affirm my explanation of what "groggle" supposedly is or would be.

Given his existence.. You might find him to be different.. Groggle could be a nice guy.

Sure, I said he must be a douche.. but I had no reason to support what I was saying.. I gave no reason to think that "doucheyness" goes with 8 foot tall lizardmen illuminati... such that any such a thing which is an 8 foot tall lizardman.. Must be a douche.

if I Did give such reasoning.. you might have reason to say: yeah.. Groggle (if by that we mean a particular 8 foot tall lizardman) has gotta be a douche..

but I didn't so.. why are you affirming what I said?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 8:53:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 8:46:56 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/8/2011 2:50:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
God is omniexcellent and must possess most or all compossible perfections.

You grant their definition of god to the T.. without such a thing being shown.

it's like if I said: groggle is an 8 foot tall lizardman.. and he is both an illuminati.. AND a a douche.


Then you come along and say: well if there's a groggle.. He must be an 8 foot tall lizardman who is both an illuminati and a douche.

Meanwhile, groggle (if he does exist) might not be a douche at all.

I have offered no proof that groggle exists Or that he's douche if he did exist... or that 8 foot lizardmen illuminati are necessarily douches

or that people who go by the name of Groggle are necessarily douches.

there's no reason for you to affirm my explanation of what "groggle" supposedly is or would be.

Given his existence.. You might find him to be different.. Groggle could be a nice guy.

Sure, I said he must be a douche.. but I had no reason to support what I was saying.. I gave no reason to think that "doucheyness" goes with 8 foot tall lizardmen illuminati... such that any such a thing which is an 8 foot tall lizardman.. Must be a douche.

if I Did give such reasoning.. you might have reason to say: yeah.. Groggle (if by that we mean a particular 8 foot tall lizardman) has gotta be a douche..

but I didn't so.. why are you affirming what I said?

I think (and this is semantics so there isn't really a right answer within a certain scope) we can differentiate between a deity and a God. I suppose a deity might just have one omni-quality, or even just be supernaturally powerful and have created the universe, whereas a God is pretty much defined as an omniexcellent being.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 9:13:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/8/2011 2:50:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
God is omniexcellent and must possess most or all compossible perfections.

and what the hell's a perfection anyhow!?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 9:15:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 9:13:08 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/8/2011 2:50:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
God is omniexcellent and must possess most or all compossible perfections.

and what the hell's a perfection anyhow!?

What I am follows from what I am..

I Perfectly follow from what I am... Perfect!

so... I s'pose I'm God?

or is there some Other standard for "perfect"???

let's hear it... and let's hear it defended.
Why is OmniBenevolence one of those Perfections?

what does "perfect" mean such that Benevolence falls within it's scope?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 9:22:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 9:15:53 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
what does "perfect" mean such that Benevolence falls within it's scope?

I mean.. I happen to be compassionate...

I happen to value Benevolence.. I like it.

but we're not talking what I happen to like here.. That wouldn't be sufficient for Objectively claiming that Benevolence falls under Utter "Perfection"

Perhaps "perfection to me" but not if it's not so qualified.

Show me how these Objective, Non-perspective based, Transcendent, valuations of worth are made. Explain to me why these claimed perfections do indeed characterize the way things Ought to be... the Best way things could be.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."