Darth Dane

And omniscient would know how. I God needs me to tell him, then God's pretty far short of omniscient.

Of course, if God is omniscient, Then God knows exactly how to convince you. However you have to ask! If you ask, do you allow God to answer in the way God sees fit, or is God only allowed to do it as you see fit? God sends a message to you, but right at that instant, you choose to look the other way. What is God to do?
If God is only allowed to do it in a specific way, then you need to notice when said(your) requirements is met.
God wants to meet you in the way you want to meet God.(if there is one)

Is this a possible interpretation?

In effect, maybe I don't really know what it would take for God to convince me. All I know is that, if God is real, it seems to take something different to convince me than most people. I don't really understand how other people can believe based on what they claim are their reasons for believing.

And likewise God convinces people in their own individual way.
God makes godself fit you exactly, so that you, a unique individual, will understand.

For instance, if I were to assume omnibenevolence, I would infer that God would not be particularly upset by my lack of belief so long as I was a moral person. After all, (assuming God's existence) my non-belief is merely an honest mistake I've made using the tools he gave me to observe the universe he created.

Yes, God gave you teh tools to understand God in YOUR way.

Depending on our assumptions or beliefsystem, we are compelled to understand or interpret reality in certain ways.

Choose your assumption or your belief, then you lock yourself in certain patterns, this means everything you look at will be given this system of "value". This also means if you look at something(texts, videos, audios etc) and they don't fit with your beliefsystem, you will discard it as being rubbish....because it doesn't fit with your system of thought. But john doe can choose a different belief system, and thus based on a new system will choose different things as being good and bad, meaning and rubbish.

We can all see the sun.

A believer in God will look and say: "God made the sun"
A scientist will look and say: "The sun is a result of the big bang, and everything is subjected to laws of nature"
A man in between will say: "I can "measure" the sun, I can describe gravity, but why it is here, I do not know. It can be God if God exists, or it can be just what it is.

Someone might say, I don't know if God is, I don't know if the Sun is, but I see something, it might be an optical illusion, but I lack teh capacity to see it.
I can't see the gravity, I see the result of gravity. Some say gravity is, but I cannot see it. I see people walking around, and they don't fall up.





DD - Love Spliff

Darkblade

I’m sorry if this was not fully cordial. Please forgive me; you don’t have to respond if you don’t want to.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” -Arthur C. Clarke

“We shall not believe anything unless there is reasonable cause to believe that it is true” -Ingemar Hedenius

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” -Stephen Roberts

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.” -George Bernard Shaw

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.” -Seneca the Younger, a contemporary of Jesus

7thangel

God created everything, good and evil, visible and invisible. Now how would be that God, being responsible of every existence, be not omnimax? Just in case you need reference: Isaiah 45:7 and Colossians 1:16.

BTW, without God we cannot deduce anything, because nothing would exist then.

Amaranth

Even accepting the existance of a god, for the purpose of debate, god does not have to be omnimax to have created everything. For one, omniscience is in no way a requisite for creation - Said god could have just placed everything into a quantum singularity, stood back, and watched. Much like a scientist testing a hypothesis, he knows the ingrediants and can project the outcome, but does not know it until it happens.

Secondly, omnipotence suggests the ability to do anything. Obviously, the ability to create the universe does not inherently require the ability to do everything. I see no reason a god would need to speak English in order to create the universe. Therefore, god does not have to be omnipotent, either.

Omni-benevolent is right out, for what I hope are relatively obvious reasons.

How is a book of myths any reference to why a god would be omnimax to create the universe?

Existance can be proven. Can you prove "God"?

Amaranth

7thangel

You are actually right. Because God is the creator of all things that exist. What ever happened, and will happen in the future, is actually under God's plans. Not as if there are other powers beside His that works unto the creation, nor other mind that influences His decisions.

But as God has given us knowledge, we are being given to understand His godhead for us to have peace physically, mentally, and emotionally.

[quote]Omni-benevolent is right out, for what I hope are relatively obvious reasons.[/bquote]

The flaw in your statement is that as if our hope influences God. This is absolutely a false idea. God is not in debt to respond of our hopes. In fact, as you have stated previously, in the end, God's omnipotence and omniscience denies us of our free will. There is nothing that happened, or will happen, without God being responsible. Even the Bible itself states that when we come to understand God, we will die. Because in reality, by understanding God's omniscience and omnipotence, God is responsible for every event that happens. We come to understand that we are just dust that are designed better than computers.

And if we be counted as part of the "chosen" to receive glory, it is nothing but because of grace, not because of our works.

To you it is a myth. But as you can see, the Bible itself speak wisely about philosophy. It just depends on how you understand it.

Like a person which is knowm by the existence of its body, God is known through the existence of the creation, and of the existence of the personhood of Christ. How do we know that 7thangel is a theist? From what he thinks on what he posts. And how do we know God? Through what He did, and of what he had purposed to do, which some were done, and some will still to be done. Why I think God is wise? Because the message I read in the Bible is very wise, that is, of course, because I understand them.

BTW, if you really understood what you said about omnipotence and omniscience, and I think you do, you should agree about the doctrine of predestination, which is preached in figurative message through Christ's death on the cross. And if you do, doesn't predestination itself a very wise understanding of the verity of God? Instead of being seen as foolishness? That, of course, depends on what you want to believe, or of what God had destined you on what to believe.

Angrillori

Well, if you read the original post, I had hoped to fend off the 'you can know about God from the Bible' posts which I was almost sure would follow.

I guess I'm a prophet eh?

Here's the crux of the matter. If we're going to use a 'holy' book as a way to determine anything about a hypothetical 'God's' nature, and we assume that when a holy book claims divine inspiration, then it is true, what we can infer is:

A) Whatever this God is, it is confused. There are several contradictory yet all 'divinely inspired' works. All of which fulfill 7th's criteria for inspiration of : "speak wisely about philosophy" and all of which self-proclaim divine inspiration and all of which both meet the standard of proof for their adherents and fail to meet the standard of proof for their non-adherents.

B) This God is uninterested in how these works are interpreted, even to the point where some interpretations are irreconcilable with each other. (Catholicism vs. Baptist churches for example both based on the same book ostensibly. By inspiring works which in turn inspire such diverse understandings, this God is in fact responsible.)

C) Whatever God is out there is indifferent to which book we follow or which interpretation of any book we follow, or unable to demonstrate his preference. Note the distinct lack of advantage gained from following any or all or none of these holy works. None have prayers answered any more or less often than another, and none show any distinct advantage through history to their adherents.

So, IF you want to bring the 'holy book' thing in, then please keep it topical. In other words,

If all we have to go on is this universe, what can we infer about a God's nature, assuming for the moment, that there is in fact a 'guy in the sky?'

Amaranth

I think you got the gist of the concept, but missed the conclusion. What I'm saying is that omniscience and omnipotence are in no way requirements for creating the universe. Omniscience is not necessary by definition, because man can create without knowing everything that will happen to an object. Thus, god could have done the same. Omnipotence is also not required, because the ability to play the piano seems completely unrequired to in order to create matter and energy.

Actually, according to your myth, we stole knowledge, and are punished eternally for that original theft.

The flaw in my argument was actually assuming everyone would see the point without it having to be mentioned. Apathy, really I've paid the price, and sadly wasted your time (my apologies) by having you rebut something I wasn't meaning to imply, so I'll write it out in full now.

*ahem* Omni-benolence is in no way a requirement for creation because there is nothing in creating that implies loving everything about it. Humans create, and often see part of their creation as flawed, or in the long run sometimes come to hate their creation. An example a lot of people on this board would understand is parents: Many times, parents see part of their child as not how they would like it to be, and sometimes forsake and disdain them completely due to some failure. I see no reason why benevolence for all things is a required system in creation.

Former Christian here. I was baptised Catholic, and attended those services with my grandparents. I attended Methodist services with my father for many years. During my teen years, I went weekly to Baptist youth group. In my later teen years, I attended a blanket, all denominations Christian church. From conversations with theist IRL, I understand and have read more of the bible than most. Of course, compared to some folks around here, I'm a mere dabbler.

Anyways - The Bible has good philosophy and bad philosphy. Love thy neighbor - Good. Stoning people - Bad. Do onto others - Good. Hate gays - Bad. It's disturbing the people can use this book to justify their belief in god, then (often) disregard anything within that doesn't fit their veiw. Regardless, this is for another thread.

Let's stick OT - You said:

Can we center on that point, without references to which particular god?

Amaranth