The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

I'm an atheist, but I'd really like to understand more about what intelligent / rational believers actually believe.

I assume virtually all Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that God is omnicient / omnipotent.

Does God have goals? motives? thoughts? plans?

If he has a goal, what is it?

I don't understand how humans could possibly be of any importance to God.

In the bible, there are several times where God puts people to tests. If he knows everything, what is the point of putting anyone to a test? He knows what the outcome will be.

If God created humans, why do they have sins? Doesn't this imply God is imperfect? Maybe it implies he doesn't want humans to be good beings. If so, why does Christianity assign such importance to humans over other animals?

Basically, I'm saying that if God is omnicient / omnipotent, what his creations do should be of no importance to them. They do what he wants them to do. There's no need for punishments or rewards or tests or anything.

I'm really hoping to get some answers other than "you have to have faith that we believe the right thing", or "it's his intention that these questions remain a mystery until after death." Those answers are just BS.

What is God capable of doing? Can he renounce his powers? I assume that God is not composed of matter. Could he manifest himself as a human being that dies like everyone else? Can he extinguish the existence of heaven?

Sorry for the lack of structure. Not all of these questions need to be answered, but I'm hoping NotReady and the other informed believers can clarify these things for me.
-ZJ

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

If there were answers to these questions, there wouldn't be a Theology department in any University in the world. That said, the simple answer is that no one really agrees on any of this stuff.

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

[ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how humans could possibly be of any importance to God.


[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe it would help to consider that humans are at least the master race of planet earth. Most of our environment seems engineered for our survival and prosperity. So then it seems like God designed the earth for the prosperity of humans.

[ QUOTE ]

In the bible, there are several times where God puts people to tests. If he knows everything, what is the point of putting anyone to a test? He knows what the outcome will be.


[/ QUOTE ]

Because it helps people learn.

[ QUOTE ]

If God created humans, why do they have sins? Doesn't this imply God is imperfect? Maybe it implies he doesn't want humans to be good beings. If so, why does Christianity assign such importance to humans over other animals?


[/ QUOTE ]
To understand this, it really helps to know exactly what a sin is. A sin is something that defies the will of God. God created humans with the ability to make their own decisions, and so we have the option to defy God's will. We have sins, because we choose to.

[ QUOTE ]

Basically, I'm saying that if God is omnicient / omnipotent, what his creations do should be of no importance to them. They do what he wants them to do. There's no need for punishments or rewards or tests or anything.


[/ QUOTE ]
This all makes sense if God does not love His creation. But He does.

[ QUOTE ]

What is God capable of doing?


[/ QUOTE ]
Anything that can be done. I don't want to say "anything," because people will come up with dumb things to say like "can God make three equal two?"

[ QUOTE ]

Can he renounce his powers?


[/ QUOTE ]
God can decide not to use his powers in any particular case..

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

Very good questions.

Views of Christianity seem to mix a "knowledge-based doctrines-and-legalism" on the one hand, and a more "existentialist relationship-with-God/Christ" on the other. I lean heavily toward the latter.

From what I've read, this is predominantly a Poker forum, where I would expect arguments to be heavily reliant on probability, logic and philosophy. Perhaps you are seeking these types of answer to your questions; perhaps my response will disappoint you.

To hopefully give you insight into my perspective, I used to find it difficult to understand how God could forgive and forget sins (emphasis on the 'forget') and still remain omniscient. Then I read the (non-Biblical) proverb "Love is not blind – it sees more, not less. But because it sees more, it is willing to see less".

God is love. Love is patient and kind. It is not envious, nor proud, nor boastful. It keeps no count of wrongs, it rejoices in the truth. It always protects, trusts, hopes, perseveres. Love begs everything, but demands absolutely nothing.

God is omnipotent, but He has shelved his power sufficiently to permit the creation freedom of choice. That is to say, to freely respond in love. Love can not be coerced; it requires a free will response. If the response is negative, love gives all the more, until it can give no more; but God's capacity and desire to give are infinite, and His exhortations stop short only at violating the freedom of response.

That is the purpose of the creation: to ultimately choose eternity with God, or eternity apart from God. This is, I believe, the consummation of the 'tests' that you talk about: underlying all of the commandments and the covenants lies the question of allegiance: do we willingly side with our creator, or set ourselves apart from Him? It is not a question of breaking the rules, then, but of breaking God's heart.

Robots could have been created to forcibly obey laws, if unconditional obedience was God's priority, comprehensive proof of His omnipotence, but to the point where these automatons were effectively nothing more than an extension of God Himself.

This is the consummation of all the commandments: to "love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as you yourself would like to be loved". To give unselfishly and lavishly to others: therein lies true fulfillment, and therein one begins to assimilate the prefect character of one's creator.

Let me try to give another angle on the "existentialist" view. The Bible says on the one hand (as I've already alluded to) "God is love" and "love keeps no count of wrongs" but elsewhere "if you do not forgive your brother, your heavenly Father will not forgive you". An apparently literal contradiction, but not necessarily, if we adopt an experiential angle: "if you choose not to forgive, you will never experience the wonderful freedom and reconciliation that forgiveness brings, and you will alienate yourself from the character of the One who forgives you".

To try to answer some of your questions:
What is God capable of doing? With God, all things are possible.
Can he renounce his powers? I believe that He has, in the manner and to the extent to which I've attempted to describe.
I assume that God is not composed of matter. He is spirit, whatever that means. He is the author of life, and the creator of the substance of the universe: matter, energy and time. He is subject to no-one, thus His capacity to give is totally free.
Could he manifest himself as a human being that dies like everyone else? He has done, in the form of His Son, Jesus.
Can he extinguish the existence of heaven? I guess so, but one feels led to ask why He would want to do this.

The first will be last and the last will be first. He who humbles himself will be exalted. He who wants to be considered greatest must become the servant of all. Society admires, and indeed favors, the wealthy, the strong, the talented; but this is the great reversal: God, who had everything, emptied Himself in order that the creation could be rescued, evil conquered, and a reconciliation effected.

Am I making any sense? Many may disagree, but I find that a doctrine based faith is vulnerable to Biblical emphasis and interpretation. There are so many sects who claim to hold a monopoly on truth, yet their views on what they would consider to be key issues are divergent; they can not all be correct. That is the downside when logic and philosophy are deemed to be the essential instruments in the quest for "religious understanding". It is not about understanding; it is embracing the character of God, as exhibited in the life example of His Son.

Peace and love
David

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

Quick mini-derail:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm an atheist, but I'd really like to understand more about what intelligent / rational believers actually believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
You might also be interested to learn how these beliefs have changed over the centuries. It gives a fascinating perspective on the discussion, really, especially when the bible (or other texts) are quoted and used.

The most comprehensive book I've read on this is called "A History Of God" (by Karen Armstrong), and while it's not something that can be read altogether casually, it isn't a school book on history, either. It sheds some light on where the beliefs came from, and how they developed over time. What's fascinating about this, is how suddenly the seemingly random beliefs make sense - they have an origin, a cause, a reason. And the beliefs of different religions (Islam, Judaism and Christianity) are compared and shown how they have affected each other and evolved.

I wholeheartedly recommend this book.

/FP

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

[ QUOTE ]
God is love. Love is patient and kind. It is not envious, nor proud, nor boastful.

[/ QUOTE ]

ZJ was talking about the God of Chrisitian, Jews and Muslims.

The "Jewish God", at least according to the main-stream perceptions of him, is comlpletely the opposite of what you have just described above. This should be extremely clear to anyone who have ever read the bible (the old-testament, that is). Reading it and thinking that God is love (i.e, patient and kind etc) is crazyness. Of course if you think about love as a love of say some very very strict, proud, envious and almost psychotic father, this is more in accordance with God of the old-testamant.


(Just to be clear, I don't mean this as any kind of "criticism" on the "Jewish God". I know that people here are capable of seeing it that way, but no, I'm just stating the facts. And I kind of like this specific "bearing-a-grudge-God" better anyway... The God=Love is a very boring God IMO).

You are thinking about and describing some specific version of the "Christian God", which is fine, but it certainly does not answer ZJ's general question.

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

What I dont understand is this, if we can cure Impotence on earth, why in the world would God Be Impotent? He should have a cure for that if he is all knowing.

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

It always seems bizarre to me that religous folk use their claim of god's omniscience to deny god the power to make things happen at random even if he wants to.

Your post is clearly on the mark. If God is omniscient/ omnipotent in the way religous folk suggests then there can be absolutely no purpose in creating the universe.

Free god from the shackles of religon, let him cause things to happen at random, and it makes a tiny bit more sense.

chez

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

[ QUOTE ]
Very good questions.

Views of Christianity seem to mix a "knowledge-based doctrines-and-legalism" on the one hand, and a more "existentialist relationship-with-God/Christ" on the other. I lean heavily toward the latter.

From what I've read, this is predominantly a Poker forum, where I would expect arguments to be heavily reliant on probability, logic and philosophy. Perhaps you are seeking these types of answer to your questions; perhaps my response will disappoint you.

To hopefully give you insight into my perspective, I used to find it difficult to understand how God could forgive and forget sins (emphasis on the 'forget') and still remain omniscient. Then I read the (non-Biblical) proverb "Love is not blind – it sees more, not less. But because it sees more, it is willing to see less".

God is love. Love is patient and kind. It is not envious, nor proud, nor boastful. It keeps no count of wrongs, it rejoices in the truth. It always protects, trusts, hopes, perseveres. Love begs everything, but demands absolutely nothing.

God is omnipotent, but He has shelved his power sufficiently to permit the creation freedom of choice. That is to say, to freely respond in love. Love can not be coerced; it requires a free will response. If the response is negative, love gives all the more, until it can give no more; but God's capacity and desire to give are infinite, and His exhortations stop short only at violating the freedom of response.

That is the purpose of the creation: to ultimately choose eternity with God, or eternity apart from God. This is, I believe, the consummation of the 'tests' that you talk about: underlying all of the commandments and the covenants lies the question of allegiance: do we willingly side with our creator, or set ourselves apart from Him? It is not a question of breaking the rules, then, but of breaking God's heart.

Robots could have been created to forcibly obey laws, if unconditional obedience was God's priority, comprehensive proof of His omnipotence, but to the point where these automatons were effectively nothing more than an extension of God Himself.

This is the consummation of all the commandments: to "love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as you yourself would like to be loved". To give unselfishly and lavishly to others: therein lies true fulfillment, and therein one begins to assimilate the prefect character of one's creator.

Let me try to give another angle on the "existentialist" view. The Bible says on the one hand (as I've already alluded to) "God is love" and "love keeps no count of wrongs" but elsewhere "if you do not forgive your brother, your heavenly Father will not forgive you". An apparently literal contradiction, but not necessarily, if we adopt an experiential angle: "if you choose not to forgive, you will never experience the wonderful freedom and reconciliation that forgiveness brings, and you will alienate yourself from the character of the One who forgives you".

To try to answer some of your questions:
What is God capable of doing? With God, all things are possible.
Can he renounce his powers? I believe that He has, in the manner and to the extent to which I've attempted to describe.
I assume that God is not composed of matter. He is spirit, whatever that means. He is the author of life, and the creator of the substance of the universe: matter, energy and time. He is subject to no-one, thus His capacity to give is totally free.
Could he manifest himself as a human being that dies like everyone else? He has done, in the form of His Son, Jesus.
Can he extinguish the existence of heaven? I guess so, but one feels led to ask why He would want to do this.

The first will be last and the last will be first. He who humbles himself will be exalted. He who wants to be considered greatest must become the servant of all. Society admires, and indeed favors, the wealthy, the strong, the talented; but this is the great reversal: God, who had everything, emptied Himself in order that the creation could be rescued, evil conquered, and a reconciliation effected.

Am I making any sense? Many may disagree, but I find that a doctrine based faith is vulnerable to Biblical emphasis and interpretation. There are so many sects who claim to hold a monopoly on truth, yet their views on what they would consider to be key issues are divergent; they can not all be correct. That is the downside when logic and philosophy are deemed to be the essential instruments in the quest for "religious understanding". It is not about understanding; it is embracing the character of God, as exhibited in the life example of His Son.

Peace and love
David

[/ QUOTE ]
Excellent post, David.

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

In other words, the Christian God is a petulant brat. "I created you with free will, but if you don't do what I want, I will torture you forever!"

Yeah that's mature. Creation > creator.

And as far as the world being designed for humans, quit being a dumbass. We evolved to match the conditions.

Duh.

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quick mini-derail:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm an atheist, but I'd really like to understand more about what intelligent / rational believers actually believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
You might also be interested to learn how these beliefs have changed over the centuries. It gives a fascinating perspective on the discussion, really, especially when the bible (or other texts) are quoted and used.

The most comprehensive book I've read on this is called "A History Of God" (by Karen Armstrong), and while it's not something that can be read altogether casually, it isn't a school book on history, either. It sheds some light on where the beliefs came from, and how they developed over time. What's fascinating about this, is how suddenly the seemingly random beliefs make sense - they have an origin, a cause, a reason. And the beliefs of different religions (Islam, Judaism and Christianity) are compared and shown how they have affected each other and evolved.

I wholeheartedly recommend this book.

/FP

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists think the bible must have had a creator, can't see them getting far with the idea it evolved.

chez

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, the Christian God is a petulant brat. "I created you with free will, but if you don't do what I want, I will torture you forever!"

Yeah that's mature. Creation > creator.

And as far as the world being designed for humans, quit being a dumbass. We evolved to match the conditions.

Duh.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please save your attacks on me for an appropriate thread. David gave a wonderful, well thought out response to the original poster's questions. I fear that my attempt to compliment him on it will take the focus off the original topic.

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

Where is this explanation of God coming from? How can you claim to tell us the purpose of creation?

If I understand you correctly, you are saying don't get caught up in biblical 'facts', just imagine a God you like the sound of.

Did you know that if people listen to white noise, and are asked if they can faintly hear a specific song, many people will say they can?

This discussion is like if I said I had a dream featuring a character called Bob who was omnipotent, and then other people argue about the traits of Bob's personality ("No, you're wrong, Bob would have prefered McDonalds to Burger King"). Absolutely amazing.

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

People have struggled with comprehending the 'nature' of God for thousands of years. Take this into account. Many christians will say that God is both omnipotent and wholly good, these are both defining characteristics of God. But if God is both omnipotent and good, then why does God allow innocent people to suffer? By innocents, i mean killing of babies and the like. A good bieng strives to eliminate evil as far as it can and there is no limit to what an omnipotent bieng can accomplish. Therefore God must be either omnipotent or wholly good, but cannot (in my eyes) be both.

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

It wasn't an attack on you. It was an attack on Dave's post and the Christian idea of God in general. This is a nature-of-God thread, so it applies well enough.

The Christian God acts like a human 4 year old whose friends aren't doing what he wants. We're supposedly created with free will, but the threat of eternal torture kinda kills the "free" don't you think? It'd mean more to "love" God if he wasn't holding a gun to your head.

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

[ QUOTE ]

but I'm hoping NotReady and the other informed believers can clarify these things for me.


[/ QUOTE ]

DavidL's post is excellent.

One point concerning why God created. He did not do so out of necessity. The creation is therefore contingent and gratuitous.

I mostly accept the statement of faith in the Westminster Confession. It says on this subject:

[ QUOTE ]

It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create ...


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree this is almost a non-answer. But the plain fact is Scripture gives no other reason. It is incomprehensible to humans. If I was God, why would I bother creating, since I would be wholly self-contained, self-sufficient and infinitely better than anything I create? As a human, I can't answer that. It makes no sense to me. Thank God I'm not God.

But I also believe that God is absolute rationality. He does nothing arbitrarily. He calls His creation good in Genesis.

So it's a paradox. Some call it the full bucket difficulty. Van Til said this:

[ QUOTE ]

To the non-Christian our position may be compared to the idea of adding water to a bucket that is already full of water. “Your idea of the self-sufficient ontological trinity,” he will say, “is like a bucket full of water. To God nothing can be added. He cannot derive glory from His creatures. Yet your idea of history is like pouring water into the full bucket. Everything in it is said to add to the glory of God.”

No Christian can answer this full-bucket difficulty in such a way as to satisfy the demands of a non-Christian epistemology. We can and must maintain that the Christian position is the only position that does not destroy reason itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

[ QUOTE ]
So it's a paradox

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. It makes no sense and at least you recognize that. Yet you believe it anyway. THAT is the true nature of "faith".

Personally, I fall on the side that thinks that if a God created me with the ability to reason, and there is no reason to believe there is a God, then I'm doing the right thing by not believe in one. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

[ QUOTE ]

It makes no sense and at least you recognize that. Yet you believe it anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

I said it makes no sense TO ME. I also said God is absolute rationality. What I believe is God is smarter than me and so it does make sense but I can't explain it.

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

PrayingMantis: "ZJ was talking about the God of Chrisitian, Jews and Muslims."
Christians believe that there is only one God. Jews believe that there is only one God. Muslims believe that there is only one God (Allah). Therefore all are supposedly attempting to describe the same concept. Perspectives that are doctrine based (i.e. trying to acquire knowledge about God, rather than existentially knowing God) will always differ. That was my point.

"Of course if you think about love as a love of say some very very strict, proud, envious and almost psychotic father, this is more in accordance with God of the old-testamant."
When I read the Bible as a whole, that is not what I see.

Addickt: "He should have a cure for that if he is all knowing."
God would need to suppress free will in order to effect an omnipotent cure.

Jthegreat: "In other words, the Christian God is a petulant brat. "I created you with free will, but if you don't do what I want, I will torture you forever!"
Where did you hear this? I'm a Christian and I believe the opposite of what you're describing. Hell is self-imposed alienation from God. God tortures nobody. If one "sheep" is lost, He temporarily leaves the other 99 to seek and save it. When the son who has squandered the inheritance in a lifestyle of extravagance and debauchery returns home, He is so overcome with love and forgiveness that He rushes out to greet him.

Alex-db: "If I understand you correctly, you are saying don't get caught up in biblical 'facts', just imagine a God you like the sound of."
You are arbitrarily making your own fact-based world-view (whether Biblical or not) your supreme judge. The problem with a doctrine-centered viewpoint is that no two people agree, because the Bible (or the Koran, or whatever sacred text, theology or philosophy that one believes in) is open to emphasis and interpretation. Truth comes from revelation, and it encompasses the whole human psyche, not just the intellect, but the emotions and spirit as well. You would perhaps call me arrogant, but in response I would say that this revelation is available to all. There is only one God, and He will reach all who genuinely seek Him.

"This discussion is like if I said I had a dream featuring a character called Bob who was omnipotent..."
Yes, and if while I'm asleep, I'm a man dreaming that I'm a butterfly, then how do I know that when I'm awake, I'm not a butterfly dreaming that I'm a man....
Unless one knows everything, all knowledge is based in assumption, and is therefore as incomplete and precarious as any view. Show me incontrovertible fact. Time appears constant, but Einstein suggests that time is relative to motion. Blue supposedly appears the same to all, unless one is color blind. I appear short to a giant, but tall to a dwarf. 2+2=4 to all of us, except to those who have no concept of arithmetic. Reality is ultimately limited by perspective: what effective use is knowledge that lies outside of one's grasp? And what is ultimately more beneficial to civilization, to have a factual view of "reality", or a compassionate one?

Three-toed sloth: "But if God is both omnipotent and good, then why does God allow innocent people to suffer?"
I think Bertrand Russell (and many others) have used a similar argument. But if I (for example) kill, rape or steal, is that God's fault?
The greatest charge that can be laid against God is that He gave the creation free will, and He has taken responsibility for that by Himself dying for free will that has been abused.

Would you prefer a world where an omnipotent being makes all of your decisions for you? You want to play Poker today, but the omnipotent being wants you to spend the afternoon nursing the elderly, which includes cleaning the slime from their bed sheets.... (an exasperatingly dumb example, I know, but I think you see my point :-)

With my freedom to choose, I can work unselfishly for the betterment of others, or choose to further my own path at others' expense, covered in the security that God will continue to love me, no matter what I do.

NotReady: "But I also believe that God is absolute rationality."
Yes I agree, but all that is rational (and wise, and just, and compassionate, and righteous) proceeds from God's character, that He is love. God is rational because He is love, not in spite of the fact (although I'm not suggesting that you're saying this).

"To God nothing can be added."
True, but without a creation there is nothing for God to love. Love without object is futile, dead, inexpressible. Hence, even with the full bucket, the creation is "necessary". From a mathematical standpoint, infinity can not be added to, but that is... only a mathematical standpoint.

Jthegreat: "there is no reason to believe there is a God"
Friend, you are unwittingly making reason your "god", in that you are assuming that there is nothing greater, and that all can be explained according to reason. I respect your viewpoint, but I still contend that all reason ultimately proceeds from assumption.

David

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

[ QUOTE ]
Three-toed sloth: "But if God is both omnipotent and good, then why does God allow innocent people to suffer?"
I think Bertrand Russell (and many others) have used a similar argument. But if I (for example) kill, rape or steal, is that God's fault?
The greatest charge that can be laid against God is that He gave the creation free will, and He has taken responsibility for that by Himself dying for free will that has been abused.

Would you prefer a world where an omnipotent being makes all of your decisions for you? You want to play Poker today, but the omnipotent being wants you to spend the afternoon nursing the elderly, which includes cleaning the slime from their bed sheets.... (an exasperatingly dumb example, I know, but I think you see my point :-)

With my freedom to choose, I can work unselfishly for the betterment of others, or choose to further my own path at others' expense, covered in the security that God will continue to love me, no matter what I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I agree, you can CHOOSE to use your freedom for the betterment of others just as easily as a sadistic mom can choose to drown her children. Maybe our ideas of omnipotence are contradicting. What i was saying is that why would a God that is both omnipotent and wholly good allow such a thing? It doesnt make any sense to me. Freewill almost seems like a limitation of God.

"Our ideas only reach as far as our experiences..We have no experiences of divine attributes or operations"
-David Hume

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

[ QUOTE ]
PrayingMantis: "Of course if you think about love as a love of say some very very strict, proud, envious and almost psychotic father, this is more in accordance with God of the old-testamant."

DavidL: When I read the Bible as a whole, that is not what I see.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then we haven't read the same book (although I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "the Bible as a whole". Specific stories are still the same. The "whole" doesn't chage this fact). In any case, There is absolutely no way in the world you can read the old-testament and think about God as "God is love. Love is patient and kind. It is not envious, nor proud, nor boastful.", unless you _completely_ distort the meaning of the actual words and narratives of many of the stories there, and also, many of the things specifically said about him in that book.

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

[ QUOTE ]

True, but without a creation there is nothing for God to love. Love without object is futile, dead, inexpressible. Hence, even with the full bucket, the creation is "necessary". From a mathematical standpoint, infinity can not be added to, but that is... only a mathematical standpoint.


[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly differ with you on this point. God is love from all eternity and doesn't need to create to express that love. This would bring us to the doctrine of the Trinity if we were to continue.

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

[ QUOTE ]

"Our ideas only reach as far as our experiences..We have no experiences of divine attributes or operations"
-David Hume


[/ QUOTE ]

Amazing the way sceptics can make truth propositions about the nature of all reality and still maintain we have no certain knowledge.

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

Three-toed-sloth: "Freewill almost seems like a limitation of God."

Omnipotence is perhaps paradoxical. Being omnipotent supposedly gives one the ability to divest one's omnipotence, if one chooses to do so. In this sense, one is still omnipotent, in that one always retains the choice to divest, or (potentially) "regather".

The world is a million miles from being perfect, even from our "un-infinite" perspective. I believe that a loving being shares in the pain of those whom it loves. Yet somehow it is more pleasing, more worthwhile, to God to give each of us the opportunity to create good of our own, to in some small way redress poverty, injustice, oppression, etc than if He was to sovereignly and effortlessly stamp it out Himself. When one individual sides with God, even in the smallest possible way, He rejoices: the whole creation process was somehow worth it.

The alternatives seem to lie at the crux of the matter: beings with complete free will, beings with partial free will, automatons, or no creation at all. If you were God, what would you have done? :-)

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

NotReady:
I've read many of your posts, you're much better versed in both philosophy and Biblical theology than I am. My simplistic take on the Trinity is that God the Son and God the Spirit are in no small way one with God the Father, but I'm not sure where this is leading us. What is your view, then, on the purpose for the creation?


Praying Mantis:

I (think I) understand where you're coming from: the harsh laws, penalties, the commands to conquer and kill. I apologise if I have glossed over your question, even more so as it is one that I have previously asked myself.

Please allow me some time (especially as I have take my doggie to the vet now!). Of course I can't speak directly on God's behalf, but I will pray and hope that an "answer" is forthcoming that will somehow satisfy both of us.

Again, my apologies
David

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

[ QUOTE ]
Praying Mantis:

I (think I) understand where you're coming from: the harsh laws, penalties, the commands to conquer and kill. I apologise if I have glossed over your question, even more so as it is one that I have previously asked myself.

Please allow me some time (especially as I have take my doggie to the vet now!). Of course I can't speak directly on God's behalf, but I will pray and hope that an "answer" is forthcoming that will somehow satisfy both of us.

Again, my apologies
David

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, no problem! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

After all, these problems are discussed so many years, it's not like we are in a hurry here...

Re: The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me
 

[ QUOTE ]

What is your view, then, on the purpose for the creation?


[/ QUOTE ]


My only concern is that the way you state it you make God dependent on the creation, that it was necessary for Him to create. He was always God and doesn't need us in any sense. He would be the same if He had not created. He is independent of the creation, the creation is dependent on Him. This is a very important doctrine as it goes to the very essence of God's nature. If the creation was in any way necessary He would not be God.

As to why God created every major theologian agrees that we can't go beyond what Scripture says, that He created for His glory. That's very unsatisfying to human curiosity. The only thing to add is that He created for His good reasons which He hasn't revealed to us, and that the creation is good. I can't go beyond that.