Why do so many think God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:21:12 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Why do so many think God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Why do so many think God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving?  (Read 2988 times)
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 14, 2017, 08:18:02 PM »

So many people, including even atheists arguing the problem of evil, seem to think that God (if God exists) needs to be:

1. all-powerful (omnipotent)
2. all-knowing (omniscient)
3. all-loving (omnibenevolent)

Why?

The WORST response to this line of questioning I've heard is: "If God isn't those 3 things, then God isn't real, or he isn't worth worshipping" or "If God isn't those 3 things, then that isn't God." Really? Seriously? If God isn't all 3 of these things, then you'd go from strong believer into solid atheist? Or you would no longer feel you have to listen to God? Or that this God wouldn't actually be considered a "god"? Really?

God could be extremely powerful... maybe even powerful enough to resurrect the dead, or preserve souls after death (or maybe not)... but not omnipotent.

God could be nearly all-knowing... but maybe doesn't know the future or what decisions people will make, not omniscient.

God could be all-loving in the true/objective sense, God is all-loving from his point of view, but it might not line up with what some individuals would consider all-loving from their point of view (or maybe they would, if they had God's knowledge).



What are your thoughts on this topic?
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,714


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2017, 09:17:56 PM »

From a Christian perspective, all three are essential. Isaiah says there's no limit to God's understanding; Job says He sees everything under the Heavens. John speaks to God literally being love. Jesus says "For all things are possible with God" in Mark. Aquinas argues for their inter-necessity in the Summa Theologica. Any Christian God is undoubtedly all three. I can't speak for other religions, though.

God could be all-loving in the true/objective sense, God is all-loving from his point of view, but it might not line up with what some individuals would consider all-loving from their point of view (or maybe they would, if they had God's knowledge).

This is almost certainly true, and I don't see why it would be an argument against all-loving in anyway.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2017, 11:04:24 PM »
« Edited: February 15, 2017, 12:19:39 AM by Blue3 »

I don't think the Christian God has to necessarily be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving.

(and to your specific points, you can see everything under the clouds, and boundless understanding, without being all-knowing, God can make anything that is *possible* happen... they could be metaphors or hyperboles to make a point, etc.)



And an aside, not a response to anyone, I came here to post:

Not every religion sees our relationship with God as a loving father, or even a father at all. Some see God as only a ruler, or only a judge, or a creator who has abandoned his creation since then just to watch it unfold. Some believe God is more like a Mother, or an embodiment of life and nature. Sometimes a specific people have believed God is only for them, they are the chosen people. Other times people believe God is for everyone. In more ancient times, people have believed there is more than one God. Sometimes God is the absolute goodness, sometimes God can act very human and act in a grayer area. All very different views on our relationship with God.
Christianity says God is the loving Trinity, three persons in one God, all humans are made in his image, and we have to restore our relationship with him. (I might be off on these other ones, please correct me if I am). Islam also believes God (Allah) is benevolent, and we should all submit to the good master. Judaism believes it has to fullfill its ancient covenant, or promise, to God that Moses gave as their Law.

Yet everyone usually focuses as God as the definition of those 3 qualities.
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,659
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2017, 11:51:23 PM »
« Edited: February 15, 2017, 05:38:52 AM by Meclazine »



1. all-powerful (omnipotent)
2. all-knowing (omniscient)
3. all-loving (omnibenevolent)

Why?


1. All powerful so the cult that you set up suffers in complete obedience to your doctrine.
2. All knowing because we only know 1%, so just throw the remaining 99% in this basket.
3. All loving because they have the experience and wisdom to forgive and love everyone.

Number 2 is one of the main reasons religion comes to be in the first instance.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2017, 02:54:00 AM »

From a Biblical perspective, it's basically axiomatic that God is all-powerful and all-knowing - though it's important to note that in the triune godhead, the Word voluntarily took upon as part of humbling a relinquishing of total knowledge while on this Earth in Jesus's ministry, hence why he said he didn't know the time of his return (as part of the hypostatic union), however Jesus became omniscient when he was glorified after the Ascension.  With respect to God being all-loving, this is the toughest, but it's pretty clear.  God is love, but his vision of love is different than what we see.  Why?  Because God is perfect, and as such, he can't stand sin.  It's like a leaf and fire:  they're two different natures.  Sin repulses God so much, because he loves holiness....so yes, he is all love, but because he is love, he must hate sin.   So how can an all-loving God send people to hell?  Because sin is an utter affront to his holiness, and true love from a godly perspective demands holiness.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,834


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2017, 05:23:01 AM »

I don't think the Christian God has to necessarily be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving.

(and to your specific points, you can see everything under the clouds, and boundless understanding, without being all-knowing, God can make anything that is *possible* happen... they could be metaphors or hyperboles to make a point, etc.)



And an aside, not a response to anyone, I came here to post:

Not every religion sees our relationship with God as a loving father, or even a father at all. Some see God as only a ruler, or only a judge, or a creator who has abandoned his creation since then just to watch it unfold. Some believe God is more like a Mother, or an embodiment of life and nature. Sometimes a specific people have believed God is only for them, they are the chosen people. Other times people believe God is for everyone. In more ancient times, people have believed there is more than one God. Sometimes God is the absolute goodness, sometimes God can act very human and act in a grayer area. All very different views on our relationship with God.
Christianity says God is the loving Trinity, three persons in one God, all humans are made in his image, and we have to restore our relationship with him. (I might be off on these other ones, please correct me if I am). Islam also believes God (Allah) is benevolent, and we should all submit to the good master. Judaism believes it has to fullfill its ancient covenant, or promise, to God that Moses gave as their Law.

Yet everyone usually focuses as God as the definition of those 3 qualities.

Which would come as a suprise to present day adherents of the worlds third largest religion.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2017, 11:51:29 AM »

I can only speak for myself, but if there is a God, He/She/It/Whatever would have created time, space and matter; Its very nature would have to be beyond the concepts and ideas we use to describe Its creation.  It's really pretty simple that such a (what-I-believe-to-be) logical conclusion would lead to thinking God is all-powerful.  As for all-knowing, I think that "stereotype" (not the best word) comes from the idea that God would have to be outside of the realm and constraints of time and therefore not be bound by its finite nature; It would have access to any moment - past, present or future - at absolutely any time.  The logical conclusion of this is that It would know the future and, therefore, "everything."  As for all-loving, that just has more to do with having faith, I guess?
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2017, 12:22:43 AM »

The God of the Old Testament is a psychopath.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2017, 04:48:54 PM »

So many people, including even atheists arguing the problem of evil, seem to think that God (if God exists) needs to be:

1. all-powerful (omnipotent)
2. all-knowing (omniscient)
3. all-loving (omnibenevolent)

Why?

Beyond scriptural reasons, this is the definition of God. Otherwise, God would just be a fairy tale. You could say Zeus was God. There would be no reason to have only one, because if God isn't all-powerful, then there could be another being like him that shares power.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2017, 06:20:41 PM »

So many people, including even atheists arguing the problem of evil, seem to think that God (if God exists) needs to be:

1. all-powerful (omnipotent)
2. all-knowing (omniscient)
3. all-loving (omnibenevolent)

Why?

Beyond scriptural reasons, this is the definition of God. Otherwise, God would just be a fairy tale. You could say Zeus was God. There would be no reason to have only one, because if God isn't all-powerful, then there could be another being like him that shares power.


This is NOT the definition of God.

You have a very weird "all or nothing" approach, like I described in my OP.



I can only speak for myself, but if there is a God, He/She/It/Whatever would have created time, space and matter; Its very nature would have to be beyond the concepts and ideas we use to describe Its creation.  It's really pretty simple that such a (what-I-believe-to-be) logical conclusion would lead to thinking God is all-powerful.  As for all-knowing, I think that "stereotype" (not the best word) comes from the idea that God would have to be outside of the realm and constraints of time and therefore not be bound by its finite nature; It would have access to any moment - past, present or future - at absolutely any time.  The logical conclusion of this is that It would know the future and, therefore, "everything."  As for all-loving, that just has more to do with having faith, I guess?


Maybe God didn't create space/time/matter/energy. Or necessarily be "outside" of time.



From a Biblical perspective, it's basically axiomatic that God is all-powerful and all-knowing - though it's important to note that in the triune godhead, the Word voluntarily took upon as part of humbling a relinquishing of total knowledge while on this Earth in Jesus's ministry, hence why he said he didn't know the time of his return (as part of the hypostatic union), however Jesus became omniscient when he was glorified after the Ascension.  With respect to God being all-loving, this is the toughest, but it's pretty clear.  God is love, but his vision of love is different than what we see.  Why?  Because God is perfect, and as such, he can't stand sin.  It's like a leaf and fire:  they're two different natures.  Sin repulses God so much, because he loves holiness....so yes, he is all love, but because he is love, he must hate sin.   So how can an all-loving God send people to hell?  Because sin is an utter affront to his holiness, and true love from a godly perspective demands holiness.


It's NOT axiomatic, Biblical or non-Biblical, so many just assume it is.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2017, 07:00:51 PM »

So many people, including even atheists arguing the problem of evil, seem to think that God (if God exists) needs to be:

1. all-powerful (omnipotent)
2. all-knowing (omniscient)
3. all-loving (omnibenevolent)

Why?

Beyond scriptural reasons, this is the definition of God. Otherwise, God would just be a fairy tale. You could say Zeus was God. There would be no reason to have only one, because if God isn't all-powerful, then there could be another being like him that shares power.


This is NOT the definition of God.

You have a very weird "all or nothing" approach, like I described in my OP.

No I don't. I said without that definition, Zeus could be a God. The Greeks believed in him, and so can you. But what's the point of believing in Zeus? It's just a fairy tale.

If you don't accept my definition, what's your definition? I'm assuming Zeus fits under it.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2017, 11:01:25 PM »

So many people, including even atheists arguing the problem of evil, seem to think that God (if God exists) needs to be:

1. all-powerful (omnipotent)
2. all-knowing (omniscient)
3. all-loving (omnibenevolent)

Why?

Beyond scriptural reasons, this is the definition of God. Otherwise, God would just be a fairy tale. You could say Zeus was God. There would be no reason to have only one, because if God isn't all-powerful, then there could be another being like him that shares power.


This is NOT the definition of God.

You have a very weird "all or nothing" approach, like I described in my OP.

No I don't. I said without that definition, Zeus could be a God. The Greeks believed in him, and so can you. But what's the point of believing in Zeus? It's just a fairy tale.

If you don't accept my definition, what's your definition? I'm assuming Zeus fits under it.
I feel like you're not explaining your thought process well.

Nobody knows with certain proof and scientific evidence if there is a God (or Gods). The Bible could be a fairy tale too. (And personally, even as a Christian, I do believe it contains several "fairy tales.")

"What's the point of believing in the God of the Bible?" someone could equally say as you did about Zeus. Someone could say that's just a fairy tale too.

Nobody knows, if there is a God, the limit of God's power/knowledge/compassion just that it must be great.

Even Christians admit the Ancient Greeks treated Zeus as a God.

Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2017, 06:02:45 AM »

So many people, including even atheists arguing the problem of evil, seem to think that God (if God exists) needs to be:

1. all-powerful (omnipotent)
2. all-knowing (omniscient)
3. all-loving (omnibenevolent)

Why?

Beyond scriptural reasons, this is the definition of God. Otherwise, God would just be a fairy tale. You could say Zeus was God. There would be no reason to have only one, because if God isn't all-powerful, then there could be another being like him that shares power.


This is NOT the definition of God.

You have a very weird "all or nothing" approach, like I described in my OP.

No I don't. I said without that definition, Zeus could be a God. The Greeks believed in him, and so can you. But what's the point of believing in Zeus? It's just a fairy tale.

If you don't accept my definition, what's your definition? I'm assuming Zeus fits under it.
I feel like you're not explaining your thought process well.

Nobody knows with certain proof and scientific evidence if there is a God (or Gods). The Bible could be a fairy tale too. (And personally, even as a Christian, I do believe it contains several "fairy tales.")

"What's the point of believing in the God of the Bible?" someone could equally say as you did about Zeus. Someone could say that's just a fairy tale too.

Nobody knows, if there is a God, the limit of God's power/knowledge/compassion just that it must be great.

Even Christians admit the Ancient Greeks treated Zeus as a God.

You are being unfair. First, you ask people why they believe in an "all-or-nothing" approach to God. Then, when they try to answer, you accuse them of being "all-or-nothing". But the question you asked will only elicit answers from people who believe this, in the first place.

You still have not answered my question: What is your definition of God?
Logged
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,178
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2017, 07:39:40 AM »

God certainly isn't all-loving.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2017, 10:52:52 AM »

So many people, including even atheists arguing the problem of evil, seem to think that God (if God exists) needs to be:

1. all-powerful (omnipotent)
2. all-knowing (omniscient)
3. all-loving (omnibenevolent)

Why?

Beyond scriptural reasons, this is the definition of God. Otherwise, God would just be a fairy tale. You could say Zeus was God. There would be no reason to have only one, because if God isn't all-powerful, then there could be another being like him that shares power.


This is NOT the definition of God.

You have a very weird "all or nothing" approach, like I described in my OP.



I can only speak for myself, but if there is a God, He/She/It/Whatever would have created time, space and matter; Its very nature would have to be beyond the concepts and ideas we use to describe Its creation.  It's really pretty simple that such a (what-I-believe-to-be) logical conclusion would lead to thinking God is all-powerful.  As for all-knowing, I think that "stereotype" (not the best word) comes from the idea that God would have to be outside of the realm and constraints of time and therefore not be bound by its finite nature; It would have access to any moment - past, present or future - at absolutely any time.  The logical conclusion of this is that It would know the future and, therefore, "everything."  As for all-loving, that just has more to do with having faith, I guess?


Maybe God didn't create space/time/matter/energy. Or necessarily be "outside" of time.



From a Biblical perspective, it's basically axiomatic that God is all-powerful and all-knowing - though it's important to note that in the triune godhead, the Word voluntarily took upon as part of humbling a relinquishing of total knowledge while on this Earth in Jesus's ministry, hence why he said he didn't know the time of his return (as part of the hypostatic union), however Jesus became omniscient when he was glorified after the Ascension.  With respect to God being all-loving, this is the toughest, but it's pretty clear.  God is love, but his vision of love is different than what we see.  Why?  Because God is perfect, and as such, he can't stand sin.  It's like a leaf and fire:  they're two different natures.  Sin repulses God so much, because he loves holiness....so yes, he is all love, but because he is love, he must hate sin.   So how can an all-loving God send people to hell?  Because sin is an utter affront to his holiness, and true love from a godly perspective demands holiness.


It's NOT axiomatic, Biblical or non-Biblical, so many just assume it is.

Then, as far as how God is conventionally defined, that would no longer be God.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2017, 12:52:00 PM »

Arguing that God is not outside of space-time and did not create all matter would go against the most common philosophical arguments for believing in God in the first place.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2017, 02:07:45 PM »

Yes, there most certainly could be a "creator" of limited power and scope, but if so, belief in them is coupled with no theological truth, nor any moral revelation. Moreover, it's existence would most certainly have to be verifiable, in which case, dismissing this "god's" existence would be all the easier.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2017, 04:07:11 PM »

So many people, including even atheists arguing the problem of evil, seem to think that God (if God exists) needs to be:

1. all-powerful (omnipotent)
2. all-knowing (omniscient)
3. all-loving (omnibenevolent)

Why?

Beyond scriptural reasons, this is the definition of God. Otherwise, God would just be a fairy tale. You could say Zeus was God. There would be no reason to have only one, because if God isn't all-powerful, then there could be another being like him that shares power.


This is NOT the definition of God.

You have a very weird "all or nothing" approach, like I described in my OP.

No I don't. I said without that definition, Zeus could be a God. The Greeks believed in him, and so can you. But what's the point of believing in Zeus? It's just a fairy tale.

If you don't accept my definition, what's your definition? I'm assuming Zeus fits under it.
I feel like you're not explaining your thought process well.

Nobody knows with certain proof and scientific evidence if there is a God (or Gods). The Bible could be a fairy tale too. (And personally, even as a Christian, I do believe it contains several "fairy tales.")

"What's the point of believing in the God of the Bible?" someone could equally say as you did about Zeus. Someone could say that's just a fairy tale too.

Nobody knows, if there is a God, the limit of God's power/knowledge/compassion just that it must be great.

Even Christians admit the Ancient Greeks treated Zeus as a God.

You are being unfair. First, you ask people why they believe in an "all-or-nothing" approach to God. Then, when they try to answer, you accuse them of being "all-or-nothing". But the question you asked will only elicit answers from people who believe this, in the first place.

You still have not answered my question: What is your definition of God?



I asked people why so many think God is all three qualities, and in my OP I said I dismiss the all-or-nothing approach and that it shouldn't be used because it doesn't make sense and is intellectually lazy ("people have assumed it for centuries as part of the definition, so I'll keep doing that too, now let me go check on my slaves"). I'm asking people because I want to critique that position and question them, and have a debate.

The definition of God is a supreme being of great power and/or knowledge, tends to have followers or some kind of reverence/awe
(and usually, but not always, some kind of special relationship with humans and ideas of creation/ruler/judge/life/death/resurrection/immortal-souls).



So many people, including even atheists arguing the problem of evil, seem to think that God (if God exists) needs to be:

1. all-powerful (omnipotent)
2. all-knowing (omniscient)
3. all-loving (omnibenevolent)

Why?

Beyond scriptural reasons, this is the definition of God. Otherwise, God would just be a fairy tale. You could say Zeus was God. There would be no reason to have only one, because if God isn't all-powerful, then there could be another being like him that shares power.


This is NOT the definition of God.

You have a very weird "all or nothing" approach, like I described in my OP.



I can only speak for myself, but if there is a God, He/She/It/Whatever would have created time, space and matter; Its very nature would have to be beyond the concepts and ideas we use to describe Its creation.  It's really pretty simple that such a (what-I-believe-to-be) logical conclusion would lead to thinking God is all-powerful.  As for all-knowing, I think that "stereotype" (not the best word) comes from the idea that God would have to be outside of the realm and constraints of time and therefore not be bound by its finite nature; It would have access to any moment - past, present or future - at absolutely any time.  The logical conclusion of this is that It would know the future and, therefore, "everything."  As for all-loving, that just has more to do with having faith, I guess?


Maybe God didn't create space/time/matter/energy. Or necessarily be "outside" of time.



From a Biblical perspective, it's basically axiomatic that God is all-powerful and all-knowing - though it's important to note that in the triune godhead, the Word voluntarily took upon as part of humbling a relinquishing of total knowledge while on this Earth in Jesus's ministry, hence why he said he didn't know the time of his return (as part of the hypostatic union), however Jesus became omniscient when he was glorified after the Ascension.  With respect to God being all-loving, this is the toughest, but it's pretty clear.  God is love, but his vision of love is different than what we see.  Why?  Because God is perfect, and as such, he can't stand sin.  It's like a leaf and fire:  they're two different natures.  Sin repulses God so much, because he loves holiness....so yes, he is all love, but because he is love, he must hate sin.   So how can an all-loving God send people to hell?  Because sin is an utter affront to his holiness, and true love from a godly perspective demands holiness.


It's NOT axiomatic, Biblical or non-Biblical, so many just assume it is.



Then, as far as how God is conventionally defined, that would no longer be God.



Convention might be wrong.

And not all Hindus, for example, describe God that way. Or even all Christians define God that way.

It also just seems intellectually lazy to me. "Well, people have assumed that for centuries, so it must be true. Now excuse me while I check on my slaves working out in the field."



Arguing that God is not outside of space-time and did not create all matter would go against the most common philosophical arguments for believing in God in the first place.



Not everyone finds these common philosophical arguments to be believable anyways, or to have too many assumptions.

And I think most religious people don't believe in a God because of a philosophical argument anyways, but rather because they believe in Jesus or Heaven or the Koran.



Yes, there most certainly could be a "creator" of limited power and scope, but if so, belief in them is coupled with no theological truth, nor any moral revelation. Moreover, it's existence would most certainly have to be verifiable, in which case, dismissing this "god's" existence would be all the easier.


Why wouldn't it be coupled with theological truth or moral revelation?

Why would it need to be more verifiable than an omnipotent/omniscient God?

Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 18, 2017, 04:16:09 PM »

Thanks for answering the question. Again, I would argue under your definition, which says that God is a "supreme being", that being supreme necessitates being all-powerful and all-knowing, or else you are not necessarily supreme. All-loving is a trickier one and I concede God may not be all-loving, but I would argue that being all knowing implies all-loving, since it means God knows the feelings and pain of each person.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 18, 2017, 07:28:24 PM »

Thanks for answering the question. Again, I would argue under your definition, which says that God is a "supreme being", that being supreme necessitates being all-powerful and all-knowing, or else you are not necessarily supreme. All-loving is a trickier one and I concede God may not be all-loving, but I would argue that being all knowing implies all-loving, since it means God knows the feelings and pain of each person.
Supreme to everyone else, not able to be defeated, but not necessarily all-powerful or all-knowing.

Let's say it turns out that "God" is real but only concerned with souls... the one who created immortal souls for each of us at the moment of our birth/conception because "he" loves us, whose power keeps them undestroyed after death out of love for us, and who judges us and says following Jesus is necessary to have a pleasant afterlife. Would you tell this supreme being "sorry, I'll follow you I guess, but you're not God"??
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,962
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 18, 2017, 08:07:56 PM »

Thanks for answering the question. Again, I would argue under your definition, which says that God is a "supreme being", that being supreme necessitates being all-powerful and all-knowing, or else you are not necessarily supreme. All-loving is a trickier one and I concede God may not be all-loving, but I would argue that being all knowing implies all-loving, since it means God knows the feelings and pain of each person.
Supreme to everyone else, not able to be defeated, but not necessarily all-powerful or all-knowing.

Let's say it turns out that "God" is real but only concerned with souls... the one who created immortal souls for each of us at the moment of our birth/conception because "he" loves us, whose power keeps them undestroyed after death out of love for us, and who judges us and says following Jesus is necessary to have a pleasant afterlife. Would you tell this supreme being "sorry, I'll follow you I guess, but you're not God"??

You can't undo an entire theological system with a "let's say it turns out". It doesn't just "turn out". Christian (I'd even like to say Abrahamic, but I'm less sure here) Theology works because it's based on a set of doctrines that make it a coherent, meaningful system of thought. You can't relax some of these doctrines and just expect the rest to hold. If you want to argue, contrary to a 2000-years-old philosophical thought, that some parts of Christianity hold without God being omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent, the burden of proof is on you.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2017, 09:33:59 PM »

Arguing that God is not outside of space-time and did not create all matter would go against the most common philosophical arguments for believing in God in the first place.

Not everyone finds these common philosophical arguments to be believable anyways, or to have too many assumptions.

And I think most religious people don't believe in a God because of a philosophical argument anyways, but rather because they believe in Jesus or Heaven or the Koran.

Well, one of the main reasons why Christianity, Judaism, and Islam agree on your three aforementioned properties of God is because they've all subscribed to their concept of God as being the identity of the 'God of the philosophers' from the various cosmological arguments. If you want to dismiss all such arguments in one fell swoop and rely only on experiential knowledge, you're never going to come to a coherent common understanding with people, or have much faith that your understanding has a basis in reality.

But for the sake of discussion, I'll put aside natural philosophy for a second and try to put a Protestant hat on Tongue and look at the what the Bible says:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If nothing else, it should be apparent that it is virtually impossible to be a Christian without believing in an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving God.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 19, 2017, 04:58:41 PM »
« Edited: February 19, 2017, 05:08:01 PM by Blue3 »

Thanks for answering the question. Again, I would argue under your definition, which says that God is a "supreme being", that being supreme necessitates being all-powerful and all-knowing, or else you are not necessarily supreme. All-loving is a trickier one and I concede God may not be all-loving, but I would argue that being all knowing implies all-loving, since it means God knows the feelings and pain of each person.
Supreme to everyone else, not able to be defeated, but not necessarily all-powerful or all-knowing.

Let's say it turns out that "God" is real but only concerned with souls... the one who created immortal souls for each of us at the moment of our birth/conception because "he" loves us, whose power keeps them undestroyed after death out of love for us, and who judges us and says following Jesus is necessary to have a pleasant afterlife. Would you tell this supreme being "sorry, I'll follow you I guess, but you're not God"??

You can't undo an entire theological system with a "let's say it turns out". It doesn't just "turn out". Christian (I'd even like to say Abrahamic, but I'm less sure here) Theology works because it's based on a set of doctrines that make it a coherent, meaningful system of thought. You can't relax some of these doctrines and just expect the rest to hold. If you want to argue, contrary to a 2000-years-old philosophical thought, that some parts of Christianity hold without God being omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent, the burden of proof is on you.



It's called a thought experiment.

And I'm not trying to undo a theological system, just say there might be alternatives, and we shouldn't be closed-minded.

There's no proof of God anyways. And in my personal beliefs, I already reject the idea of hell.




Arguing that God is not outside of space-time and did not create all matter would go against the most common philosophical arguments for believing in God in the first place.

Not everyone finds these common philosophical arguments to be believable anyways, or to have too many assumptions.

And I think most religious people don't believe in a God because of a philosophical argument anyways, but rather because they believe in Jesus or Heaven or the Koran.

Well, one of the main reasons why Christianity, Judaism, and Islam agree on your three aforementioned properties of God is because they've all subscribed to their concept of God as being the identity of the 'God of the philosophers' from the various cosmological arguments. If you want to dismiss all such arguments in one fell swoop and rely only on experiential knowledge, you're never going to come to a coherent common understanding with people, or have much faith that your understanding has a basis in reality.

But for the sake of discussion, I'll put aside natural philosophy for a second and try to put a Protestant hat on Tongue and look at the what the Bible says:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If nothing else, it should be apparent that it is virtually impossible to be a Christian without believing in an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving God.

Not all Muslims, Jews, and Christians believe in that.

Also, I'm not really Protestant, I don't believe in Biblical literalism.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. And you shouldn't be trying to convince me of anything. All I'm saying it to have an open mind about God.

Also, none of those quotes establish omnipotence or omniscience. Just great power and great knowledge. Perfect in knowledge doesn't necessarily mean of the future, which just might not be knowable. All things being possible with God can mean anything that is possible, God can do, and God only desires what he can make possible.

Supreme to everyone else, not able to be defeated, but not necessarily all-powerful or all-knowing.

Let's say it turns out that "God" is real but only concerned with souls... the one who created immortal souls for each of us at the moment of our birth/conception because "he" loves us, whose power keeps them undestroyed after death out of love for us, and who judges us and says following Jesus is necessary to have a pleasant afterlife. Would you tell this supreme being "sorry, I'll follow you I guess, but you're not God"??
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 19, 2017, 05:55:46 PM »

There's no proof of God anyways. And in my personal beliefs, I already reject the idea of hell.

Good for you?
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 19, 2017, 05:58:14 PM »

There's no proof of God anyways. And in my personal beliefs, I already reject the idea of hell.

Good for you?
The post I was responding to:

"You can't relax some of these doctrines and just expect the rest to hold. "
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.077 seconds with 12 queries.