Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Soul Invictus · 05-20-2003, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
This thread is doubtless intended to bait Christians

Yes, but he chooses not to excercise it because he wants as many willing servants as he can get, not the kind of conscripts which evil humans are willing to take by force. (See history of modern China and Iraq for further details)

I know where this is going, so let me say that IMO, atheist whining about God would only increase if he messed with the laws of physics, or logic, or otherwise interfered as some insist a "good" God would do. One can only imagine the outcry when he does begin to forcibly prevent sin. Should he forcibly prevent poor people from having babies, for example? Wait. I know. He should just make lazy people rich, or better yet, make hard working robots out of us all.

A much better, less rhetorical, and question wisely avoided by atheists is: Must God be omnipotent as you define it to be good?

There is some evidence he is not. He seems surprised at one point how evil the world had become.

Why do I do this.

:banghead:

Rad

Good points. I've always known omnipotence to be a concept embraced and purported by theists...to enhance their God's superiority over anyone elses, by making fantastic claims such as this term itself. I feel God would not need omnipotence to fully do justice to his abilities. Only humans that need to compensating on the ego area would insist so adamantly this incomprehensible idea. My question does "bait the Christian" however it's not the "aha! i caught you!" approach. I do not believe in this term as described, however, I'd like to give someone with a competing view a chance to discuss this very challenging idea.

Invictus

Soul Invictus · 05-20-2003, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth

No he can't do everything. He can't interfere with my free choices while letting you get an abortion. He can't force people to do what is right and expect them to ever love him. He can't allow free will when you say so and not allow it when I say so.

Rad

You are more responsible than most Christians I come across. I have wondered how an omnipotent god could not do everything. If it's ludicrous for him to 16,000 to hit child abusers than it's equally ludicrous to claim he can do everything. There's no dishonor in saying this, nor would it diminish or compromise the image of the authority/power God would still be able to exert over the forces of the universe. It would however, strip the pride of one's God being stronger,better, or more powerful than anyone elses because the superlative is gone.

If God isn't omnipotent, meaning he can't interfere with your free choices, then I would take that to mean that the future is not predetermined, which is something many Christians love to say, that God knows your future, which would challenge that notion of him being omnipotent. Since you don't purport the ability of both, I guess this thread isn't as much suited for you...

I ate Pascal's Wafer · 05-21-2003, 04:25 PM

Radorth,

Quote:

That depends on what you mean by "everything." You need to be specific because if he could contradict himself, for example, he would not be a good God.

Specific? He needs to be able to do anything conceivable. This would include that which is logically impossible, and that which would contradict himself. By nature, there is nothing that an omnipotent deity should not be able to do (pardon the double negative).

Quote:

Ironically the contradictions in atheist thinking demand, in effect, a God who contradicts himself, or at least does the most ludicrous things. They want him to make bullets fly backwards into cop killers. <blah, blah>

You know what happens when you assume...

I'm not arguing that a god should be doing these things, else he would not be God. Just because a deity can create a square circle does not mean that he has to. However, he should be perfectly capable of doing so if he so chooses.

Being that I never argued what God should be doing, how is this a contradiction in my thinking?

Quote:

No he can't do everything.

Then he is not omnipotent. Simple as that. Why are you trying to defend people who believe God is omnipotent if you yourself admitted that he is not?

Quote:

Why don't you put on your thinking cap instead of you hypercrite cap, and describe your ideal God to me? Then we can compare him with the one we have.

Hypercrite cap?

Anyway, I don't require supernatural deities to be omnipotent. I am fine accepting that God, if such an entity existed, is not omnipotent but is just really powerful. What's wrong with that?

Quote:

Of course you've already not answered one fair and specific question, so I don't suppose that one will get much shrift either.

Which one? Was it relevant to the discussion? You haven't answered my question, so that makes us even.

Quote:

Er, yeah. We simply find the Gospel stories for the most part irrefutable, and that is why we believe. We see Intelligent Design, everywhere we look, and so we believe. No need to speculate on some deep, dark motives here. And of course, if we believed for your cynical reasons, we'd soon dump him for not working physical miracles all the time. We don't all NEED God to be anything just, and slow to condemn us, I suppose.

Nope, try again. God does not need to be omnipotent in order for the Bible to be true and in order to create the universe and what not. It's not a requirement to be a Christian, so why do Christians insist that God is omnipotent? My idea was that they were projecting their own desires onto an invisible friend, which is why they get so defensive when somebody tells them that God might not be omnipotent, but rather just really strong.

I'm not looking for a reason for them to believe in God. I'm looking for a reason for why they insist on God being omnipotent instead of just really powerful.

Quote:

Personally, I don't think anyone CAN come to Christ and be either proud or self-righteous. Quite the contrary. I'm afraid the egotism and self righteousness is more likely to be found in a non-Christian. The Christian surely has no need of egotism or self-righteousness. In fact that's the whole point of being Christian- that you can be unrighteous and be saved because God will make up the difference through Christ. That's the main reason I'm a Christian, and I think most Christians are.

If they are projecting their feelings to an invisible friend, then of course they wouldn't necessarily be proud or self-righteous. However, they would like to be good friends with somebody who is. Thus, they take their own feelings and attribute them to their deity. Do you have any better ideas for why they project this nature onto their deity?

-Nick

beoba · 05-21-2003, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo
In your opinion, has this debate already been run into the ground?

I am currently LMAO.

NearNihil Experience · 05-21-2003, 08:14 PM

If you are omnipotent you can do anything...anything.

If you are omniscent you know everything...everything.

The problem arises that if you know everything then there is nothing more left for you to learn...so, you can't learn anything. And an omnipotent can do anything...anything, including learning new things.

Omni-anything(absolute perfection, infinities, eternities) is a very strange concept, theist or not.

And yes... straight into the ground.

Radorth · 05-22-2003, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Nope, try again. God does not need to be omnipotent in order for the Bible to be true and in order to create the universe and what not. It's not a requirement to be a Christian, so why do Christians insist that God is omnipotent?

I don't, certainly not by the silly definition that he can contradict himelf. Even if he could, he would not do so, because he is good as well as powerful. One could even argue the OT God is so world, and is loathe to assure justice by force, that he repented of destroying the earth, even though he had righteous reasons to do so. It seems he alone prevented the destruction of the Jews which very few non-Christians or non-Jews find repugnant I'm afraid.

Again, my less rhetorical and more meaningful questions remain unanswered.

Rad

lpetrich · 05-23-2003, 01:21 PM

Radorth:
Ironically the contradictions in atheist thinking demand, in effect, a God who contradicts himself, or at least does the most ludicrous things. They want him to make bullets fly backwards into cop killers.

Who said that?

And is that really too difficult for an allegedly omnipotent being?

They insist on personal responsibility, yet say an extant God is by definition irresponsible and uncaring because he made us capable of doing evil.

I wonder if poor Radorth has ever heard of shared responsibility.

They want him to reach down with 16,000 hands and whack child abusers over the head.

Who said that?

And is that really too difficult for an allegedly omnipotent being?

Also, an omnipotent being would have no trouble programming us to be incapable of mistreatment of little children.

They say Christians are robots,

Who said that?

then insist God should have made us so we could never sin.

What's wrong with that? We could still have plenty of Free Will in such a case.

They want OTHER people to be more accountable to him, for example, but never of course themselves.

Like who thinks that?

They want him to put an end to evil in the world, but of course THEY reserve the right to decide what that is.

So what? What is wrong with that goal?

It's ludicrous really.

When one considers how wronged they feel by those who laugh at their beliefs...

No he can't do everything. He can't interfere with my free choices while letting you get an abortion.

Seems like a non-omniptent being to me.

He can't force people to do what is right and expect them to ever love him. He can't allow free will when you say so and not allow it when I say so.

No contradiction if one looks more closely. If god thinks that abortion is OK, then this would qualify as OK free will.

Why don't you put on your thinking cap instead of you hypercrite cap, and describe your ideal God to me? Then we can compare him with the one we have.

Or what Radorth thinks we have.

We simply find the Gospel stories for the most part irrefutable, and that is why we believe.

Except that some of their contents appear to be pure fiction.

We see Intelligent Design, everywhere we look, and so we believe.

Except that the "intelligent design" usually leads to multiple, finite, and fallible designers.

And if it's a single god, then it's one with 16,000 hands. Or more.

And of course, if we believed for your cynical reasons, we'd soon dump him for not working physical miracles all the time.

Seems like laziness on god's part.

[b\Personally, I don't think anyone CAN come to Christ and be either proud or self-righteous.[/b]

Except that all too many who have believed in Jesus Christ have been suspiciously Pharisee-like. At least according to how the Gospels portray the Pharisees.

In fact that's the whole point of being Christian- that you can be unrighteous and be saved because God will make up the difference through Christ. That's the main reason I'm a Christian, and I think most Christians are.

So one can get away with committing lots and lots of sins while denying others the right to?

05-21-2003, 08:14 PM	#25
NearNihil Experience Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Up Shit Creek Posts: 1,810	agnostic\ Sun worshiper, but can't resist If you are omnipotent you can do anything...anything. If you are omniscent you know everything...everything. The problem arises that if you know everything then there is nothing more left for you to learn...so, you can't learn anything. And an omnipotent can do anything...anything, including learning new things. Omni-anything(absolute perfection, infinities, eternities) is a very strange concept, theist or not. And yes... straight into the ground.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-23-2003, 01:21 PM	#27
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Radorth: Ironically the contradictions in atheist thinking demand, in effect, a God who contradicts himself, or at least does the most ludicrous things. They want him to make bullets fly backwards into cop killers. Who said that? And is that really too difficult for an allegedly omnipotent being? They insist on personal responsibility, yet say an extant God is by definition irresponsible and uncaring because he made us capable of doing evil. I wonder if poor Radorth has ever heard of shared responsibility. They want him to reach down with 16,000 hands and whack child abusers over the head. Who said that? And is that really too difficult for an allegedly omnipotent being? Also, an omnipotent being would have no trouble programming us to be incapable of mistreatment of little children. They say Christians are robots, Who said that? then insist God should have made us so we could never sin. What's wrong with that? We could still have plenty of Free Will in such a case. They want OTHER people to be more accountable to him, for example, but never of course themselves. Like who thinks that? They want him to put an end to evil in the world, but of course THEY reserve the right to decide what that is. So what? What is wrong with that goal? It's ludicrous really. When one considers how wronged they feel by those who laugh at their beliefs... No he can't do everything. He can't interfere with my free choices while letting you get an abortion. Seems like a non-omniptent being to me. He can't force people to do what is right and expect them to ever love him. He can't allow free will when you say so and not allow it when I say so. No contradiction if one looks more closely. If god thinks that abortion is OK, then this would qualify as OK free will. Why don't you put on your thinking cap instead of you hypercrite cap, and describe your ideal God to me? Then we can compare him with the one we have. Or what Radorth thinks we have. We simply find the Gospel stories for the most part irrefutable, and that is why we believe. Except that some of their contents appear to be pure fiction. We see Intelligent Design, everywhere we look, and so we believe. Except that the "intelligent design" usually leads to multiple, finite, and fallible designers. And if it's a single god, then it's one with 16,000 hands. Or more. And of course, if we believed for your cynical reasons, we'd soon dump him for not working physical miracles all the time. Seems like laziness on god's part. [b\Personally, I don't think anyone CAN come to Christ and be either proud or self-righteous.[/b] Except that all too many who have believed in Jesus Christ have been suspiciously Pharisee-like. At least according to how the Gospels portray the Pharisees. In fact that's the whole point of being Christian- that you can be unrighteous and be saved because God will make up the difference through Christ. That's the main reason I'm a Christian, and I think most Christians are. So one can get away with committing lots and lots of sins while denying others the right to?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.