Karen M

This post is referring to the omniscient, omnipotent, perfect, absolute love, and other such descriptions frequently attached to God.

I’m just wondering if these descriptions are to be taken completely literally or if this stuff is supposed to come with the “within reason” tag attached to it?

I always figured they were not intended as 100% literal because of all of the cute “Can God make a rock he can not lift?” arguments. I assumed they just meant that, compared to the abilities of humans, God can do a whole lot.

Is this correct? Or are there any theists out there that believe these descriptions are to be taken at absolute value?

Toto

The qualities are meant to be absolutes. Otherwise the strongest person in the word might be god, or some space alien with evolved intelligence might be god.

Bertram Russell, I believe, solved the "can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it" paradox. The solution is not that God is just more powerful than a human.

And I think that this question would do better in EOG or Philosophy, perhaps?

Roger Pearse

Speaking as a fundamentalist Christian -- at least in the opinion of most unbelievers -- I would only point out that all human language can only describe God in terms which are approximate. Remember that we are dealing with someone outside of the 4 dimensions of our universe and outside our experience. All we can know about him is what we learn from what he has revealed to us. So we go with the language used in the bible to describe him; but we don't start doing logic-chopping on it, since a contradiction may simply be two different views of something fundamentally inexpressible in a non-mathematical form (or the like).

I'm not sure where you're coming from, so it's hard to say more.

You are doubtless aware that “Can God make a rock he can not lift?” is merely a subset of "can someone who is omnipotent do something that is impossible"? Such a sentence is possible, grammatically, in English and most languages, but it has no meaning. Such sentences do not acquire meaning by sticking the word "God" in them somewhere.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Karen M

Well, the main definition I’m interested is the use of the word “perfect” actually. Is there any possible logic squishiness for that one that you can warn me about?


My goal is to find a highly specific definition for God because I want to make a thread after this one in which it will be one of the main points (and I don’t want to get it wrong ).

Thank you for your input so far everyone.

Roger Pearse

In which language? Even in Latin it has more than one sense, i.e. 'without defect', and 'complete'.

Sounds rather scholastic to me.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Johnny Skeptic

I am not impressed with what God has revealed to us. One definition that the Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary gives for the word “mercy” is “Mercy implies compassion that forbears punishing even when justice demands it”. Using that apt definition as a basis, my revision reads “Mercy implies that God will not punish skeptics for all of eternity even though they have not done what he wanted them to do. Such a God would offer skeptics a parole after a specified period of time that he deemed to be appropriate”.

The God of the Bible is a detestable, unmerciful being who is not worthy of being accepted by anyone. Romans 9:18 provides further proof of this. It says "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth".

I ask you, Roger, would a kinder, more merciful God get a better response?

Toto

That sounds like an impossible quest, but also one that might fit better in the Existence of God forum, since I'm pretty sure that the Bible does not contain a specific definition of God, and the Biblical God is often not portrayed as omnipotent or omniscient.

Gawen

I'm thinking Karen....your next thread may do better in Philosophy. You may get a more "scholastic" response there, depending how/what you write.

But as Roger says:
How is it that this god punches a hole into our space-time to reveal to the ancients and remains silent forever on? And why, if this god is perfect the bible is so ambiguously written if he revealed himself (albeit to bronze-age goat-herders)?

Doug Shaver

The theists have no consensus on that, and few theists have given the matter the kind of thought it takes to arrive at a sensible answer.

Of those who have, probably most would say that with respect to those attributes, God has them to an unbounded degree but cannot do anything contrary to basic logic. Thus, being omnipotent, he can do anything that actually can be done. Being omniscient, he knows everything that is knowable. Etc.

Karen M

Well, thank you for your responses everyone.

I'm not so sure about that other thread now though; this one seems to bring up enough other points as it is.

For example, on the subject of humanity being "flawed":

Were these “flaws” implemented on purpose? Or were they unplanned? If it was not accidental, how is it described as “flawed?” The use of the term flawed makes it sound like God was attempting to make something “correctly” and part of it didn’t go as intended.

I'm assuming this question doesn't count as a derail because it is still sort of on the topic of perfect creator. If any mods disagree, feel free to break it off though.