Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Some thoughts on God

bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2013 9:53:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
As an omnipotent being, he has nothing to gain. He, by definition, has the power to do anything. This includes breaking logic. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense - God can do that. Also, if God created Free Will, what makes that different than skipping the step and going directly to "programming" people? People are, by nature, unable to not have free will (if it even exists).

How can a God be omnipotent and benevolent while there is still suffering in the world? If you think suffering is there to teach us, why can't God just instill us with the knowledge in the first place?

If your parent could save you from a burning building but didn't because they wanted to teach you not to leave the oven on, would you still love him/her? After all, they could have saved you. I could use a missile to kill an ant, but I don't because there are better ways that don't result in the collateral damage.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2013 10:00:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Additionally, it's been pointed out that, assuming God is perfect, then God cannot want anything either. He is complete, with no needs, and no desire because He is perfect. Thus, He cannot exist, as wanting something implies a lack of perfection, a lack of a quality, when God has all qualities.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2013 10:05:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/5/2013 9:53:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
As an omnipotent being, he has nothing to gain.
He doesn't need to gain anything. His nature necessitates its own manifestation. Consider the fact that He is the Almighty; How can this definition apply if He doesn't use His might for anything? His mightiness must manifest itself, and that's what it dies -- and this applies to all His other attributes that necessarily manifest themselves in reality.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2013 1:28:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Thoughts about Supernatural gods are easy peasy!

Trouble is for those that have those thoughts is them legitimately justifying them as anything more than mere thoughts, concepts & speculation!

Which they never legitimately can!
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 1:18:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh the old "God Transcends Logic".

Logic is not like a pair of car keys that God can ignore by using magic to bypass a cars ignition.

It is a definition of what is self consistent; what CAN be, and what CAN'T.

For example, God cannot be benevolent, AND malevolent.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 2:11:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/5/2013 9:53:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
As an omnipotent being, he has nothing to gain. He, by definition, has the power to do anything. This includes breaking logic. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense - God can do that. Also, if God created Free Will, what makes that different than skipping the step and going directly to "programming" people? People are, by nature, unable to not have free will (if it even exists).

How can a God be omnipotent and benevolent while there is still suffering in the world? If you think suffering is there to teach us, why can't God just instill us with the knowledge in the first place?

If your parent could save you from a burning building but didn't because they wanted to teach you not to leave the oven on, would you still love him/her? After all, they could have saved you. I could use a missile to kill an ant, but I don't because there are better ways that don't result in the collateral damage.

If God can break logic, then He can be both benevolent and not benevolent at the same time.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 2:23:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 2:11:32 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 1/5/2013 9:53:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
As an omnipotent being, he has nothing to gain. He, by definition, has the power to do anything. This includes breaking logic. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense - God can do that. Also, if God created Free Will, what makes that different than skipping the step and going directly to "programming" people? People are, by nature, unable to not have free will (if it even exists).

How can a God be omnipotent and benevolent while there is still suffering in the world? If you think suffering is there to teach us, why can't God just instill us with the knowledge in the first place?

If your parent could save you from a burning building but didn't because they wanted to teach you not to leave the oven on, would you still love him/her? After all, they could have saved you. I could use a missile to kill an ant, but I don't because there are better ways that don't result in the collateral damage.

If God can break logic, then He can be both benevolent and not benevolent at the same time.

Being not benevolent and benevolent at the same time is called "ambivolent", so by definition he is neither benevolent nor malevolent.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 2:32:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/5/2013 10:05:56 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/5/2013 9:53:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
As an omnipotent being, he has nothing to gain.
He doesn't need to gain anything. His nature necessitates its own manifestation. Consider the fact that He is the Almighty; How can this definition apply if He doesn't use His might for anything? His mightiness must manifest itself, and that's what it dies -- and this applies to all His other attributes that necessarily manifest themselves in reality.

Thats like saying "An apple is only an apple if you eat it". The fact that he doesnt use his might for anything doesnt make him any less almighty. Youve applied a specific trait to him, in which if something with omnipotence doesnt flex his muscle, he can no longer be considered omnipotent, which is a blatantly unsupported. You might as well have said "Our definition of omnipotence is not the same as Gods definition of omnipotence, and therefore he isnt omnipotent in our definition, but in his own definition, he is."
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 2:37:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 2:23:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/7/2013 2:11:32 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 1/5/2013 9:53:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
As an omnipotent being, he has nothing to gain. He, by definition, has the power to do anything. This includes breaking logic. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense - God can do that. Also, if God created Free Will, what makes that different than skipping the step and going directly to "programming" people? People are, by nature, unable to not have free will (if it even exists).

How can a God be omnipotent and benevolent while there is still suffering in the world? If you think suffering is there to teach us, why can't God just instill us with the knowledge in the first place?

If your parent could save you from a burning building but didn't because they wanted to teach you not to leave the oven on, would you still love him/her? After all, they could have saved you. I could use a missile to kill an ant, but I don't because there are better ways that don't result in the collateral damage.

If God can break logic, then He can be both benevolent and not benevolent at the same time.

Being not benevolent and benevolent at the same time is called "ambivolent", so by definition he is neither benevolent nor malevolent.

Wildly non-sequitur.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 2:50:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 2:37:09 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 1/7/2013 2:23:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/7/2013 2:11:32 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 1/5/2013 9:53:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
As an omnipotent being, he has nothing to gain. He, by definition, has the power to do anything. This includes breaking logic. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense - God can do that. Also, if God created Free Will, what makes that different than skipping the step and going directly to "programming" people? People are, by nature, unable to not have free will (if it even exists).

How can a God be omnipotent and benevolent while there is still suffering in the world? If you think suffering is there to teach us, why can't God just instill us with the knowledge in the first place?

If your parent could save you from a burning building but didn't because they wanted to teach you not to leave the oven on, would you still love him/her? After all, they could have saved you. I could use a missile to kill an ant, but I don't because there are better ways that don't result in the collateral damage.

If God can break logic, then He can be both benevolent and not benevolent at the same time.

Being not benevolent and benevolent at the same time is called "ambivolent", so by definition he is neither benevolent nor malevolent.

Wildly non-sequitur.

Not really, by definition what you mean is that the second part does not necessarily follow, which is not the case: true could say that benevolent and non-benevolent is not really ambivolent; but the fact of the remains; if you are not something, you can't then be something.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 2:53:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 2:50:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/7/2013 2:37:09 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 1/7/2013 2:23:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/7/2013 2:11:32 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 1/5/2013 9:53:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
As an omnipotent being, he has nothing to gain. He, by definition, has the power to do anything. This includes breaking logic. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense - God can do that. Also, if God created Free Will, what makes that different than skipping the step and going directly to "programming" people? People are, by nature, unable to not have free will (if it even exists).

How can a God be omnipotent and benevolent while there is still suffering in the world? If you think suffering is there to teach us, why can't God just instill us with the knowledge in the first place?

If your parent could save you from a burning building but didn't because they wanted to teach you not to leave the oven on, would you still love him/her? After all, they could have saved you. I could use a missile to kill an ant, but I don't because there are better ways that don't result in the collateral damage.

If God can break logic, then He can be both benevolent and not benevolent at the same time.

Being not benevolent and benevolent at the same time is called "ambivolent", so by definition he is neither benevolent nor malevolent.

Wildly non-sequitur.

Not really,

Yes really.

by definition what you mean is that the second part does not necessarily follow, which is not the case:

Show me two or more premises in your argument that logically lead to your conclusion, and I'll concede.

true could say that benevolent and non-benevolent is not really ambivolent; but the fact of the remains; if you are not something, you can't then be something.

Hence why I started with 'If God can break logic'.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 3:48:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 2:53:20 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 1/7/2013 2:50:08 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/7/2013 2:37:09 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 1/7/2013 2:23:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/7/2013 2:11:32 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 1/5/2013 9:53:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
As an omnipotent being, he has nothing to gain. He, by definition, has the power to do anything. This includes breaking logic. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense - God can do that. Also, if God created Free Will, what makes that different than skipping the step and going directly to "programming" people? People are, by nature, unable to not have free will (if it even exists).

How can a God be omnipotent and benevolent while there is still suffering in the world? If you think suffering is there to teach us, why can't God just instill us with the knowledge in the first place?

If your parent could save you from a burning building but didn't because they wanted to teach you not to leave the oven on, would you still love him/her? After all, they could have saved you. I could use a missile to kill an ant, but I don't because there are better ways that don't result in the collateral damage.

If God can break logic, then He can be both benevolent and not benevolent at the same time.

Being not benevolent and benevolent at the same time is called "ambivolent", so by definition he is neither benevolent nor malevolent.

Wildly non-sequitur.

Not really,

Yes really.

by definition what you mean is that the second part does not necessarily follow, which is not the case:

Show me two or more premises in your argument that logically lead to your conclusion, and I'll concede.

Oh, you're right. My apologies. (And as a first on this forum, I am not being sarcastic, or ironic, you are correct!)


true could say that benevolent and non-benevolent is not really ambivolent; but the fact of the remains; if you are not something, you can't then be something.

Hence why I started with 'If God can break logic'.

I suspect the real right answer, is that, fundamentally, it cannot be demonstrated or argued logically that God can transcend Logic. Or, more specifically arguing that God can transcend logic is not a fallacious argument.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 4:30:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 3:48:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I suspect the real right answer, is that, fundamentally, it cannot be demonstrated or argued logically that God can transcend Logic. Or, more specifically arguing that God can transcend logic is not a fallacious argument.

ALL Supernatural god(s) are 100% human concepts and as such can do or not do whatever their human creators' imaginations desire!
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 4:32:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 4:30:49 PM, Composer wrote:
At 1/7/2013 3:48:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I suspect the real right answer, is that, fundamentally, it cannot be demonstrated or argued logically that God can transcend Logic. Or, more specifically arguing that God can transcend logic is not a fallacious argument.

ALL Supernatural god(s) are 100% human concepts and as such can do or not do whatever their human creators' imaginations desire!

I would say "Testify", but I feel that the concept is a bit redundant.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 4:49:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 3:48:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/7/2013 2:53:20 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Hence why I started with 'If God can break logic'.
I suspect the real right answer, is that, fundamentally, it cannot be demonstrated or argued logically that God can transcend Logic. Or, more specifically arguing that God can transcend logic is not a fallacious argument.
If we accept that "God can transcend logic" then ANYTHING follows. So then God also cannot transcend logic; God exists and doesn't exist; purple running hungry; etc.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 4:55:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 4:49:01 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 1/7/2013 3:48:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/7/2013 2:53:20 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Hence why I started with 'If God can break logic'.
I suspect the real right answer, is that, fundamentally, it cannot be demonstrated or argued logically that God can transcend Logic. Or, more specifically arguing that God can transcend logic is not a fallacious argument.
If we accept that "God can transcend logic" then ANYTHING follows. So then God also cannot transcend logic

^ This.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 9:10:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/5/2013 9:53:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
As an omnipotent being, he has nothing to gain. He, by definition, has the power to do anything. This includes breaking logic. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense - God can do that. Also, if God created Free Will, what makes that different than skipping the step and going directly to "programming" people? People are, by nature, unable to not have free will (if it even exists).

How can a God be omnipotent and benevolent while there is still suffering in the world? If you think suffering is there to teach us, why can't God just instill us with the knowledge in the first place?

If your parent could save you from a burning building but didn't because they wanted to teach you not to leave the oven on, would you still love him/her? After all, they could have saved you. I could use a missile to kill an ant, but I don't because there are better ways that don't result in the collateral damage.

bossyburrito Good to meet you...
**You said.. This includes breaking logic. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense - God can do that.

I reply: THINK OF THIS... God said "This IS my body" as he held bread! It looks as bread, tastes as bread, feels as bread.. right down to the last molecule under an electron microscope "IT IS BREAD"... "BUT!"
But it is Jesus in the form of bread!
LOGIC SAYS: "It is bread"!
FAITH SAYS: "It is Jesus' flesh and blood"!

bossyburrito The God of the Christian does just that, as you said.. "Breaking ALL logic. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense - God can do that"!!

The Christian God can take any form he desires.. "Fire, Smoke, Dove, Man and yes even bread & wine!" Exactly as you say!!

**bossyburrito you asked.. if God created Free Will, what makes that different than skipping the step and going directly to "programming" people?

I reply: Simple answer is "God is pure, 100% LOVE!"
Love says: You force no one to do anything!
bossyburrito If God forced you to love, lets say a "love potion" then; God would not be perfect, he would not be God.. And your love would not be true love!

1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, becauseGod is love.

1 John 4:16
And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

bossyburrito So the simple answer to your question.. what makes that different than skipping the step and going directly to "programming" people?

God is perfect Love so perfect love would not force anyone to love him or their neighbor, or their love would not be perfect love!

**You asked.. How can a God be omnipotent and benevolent while there is still suffering in the world?

I reply: The simple answer is "Man does not belong on earth!" True man belongs in heaven!!

bossyburrito Jesus "The Man" suffered and died, Jesus was perfect and yet he suffered; The omnipotent and benevolent God suffered!
God allows suffering because he allows "Free Will"... The free will decision to NOT LOVE is sin.. sin causes suffering, sin causes death! "Free will" means, man can choose to LOVE or not to love .. To HATE is the result of not loving!! Sin is the result of the "free will" decision to NOT LOVE!!

God allows "Free Will" because he is perfect 100% LOVE!

Dogknox