The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me

[DavidL]

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

[ 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

[NotReady]

[ 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.

[DavidL]

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? :-)

[PrayingMantis]

[ 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.

[DavidL]

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

[PrayingMantis]

[ 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...

[NotReady]

[ 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.

[NotReady]

[ 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.