ramifications of omnipotence for God

What else is there? Everything we know is relative to the limitations that we know. If you start making up stuff beyond what we know, you can make up any damn thing and there's no way to assess it. Anything "could" be true, but that's not a very useful basis to work from. I'm applying what we know. You're speculating about what we don't know. Yes, speculating about woo-woo "realms" is self-indulgent and baseless. Of course they are. All of our human thoughts about God are humans trying to evaluate God. What's irrelevant in the face of reality is claiming that you have some special insider revelation that makes your notions immune to reality.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

What else is there? Everything we know is relative to the limitations that we know. If you start making up stuff beyond what we know, you can make up any damn thing and there's no way to assess it. Anything "could" be true, but that's not a very useful basis to work from.

---

Well now you are making sense! So why not keep the insight and information within the scope of the our sources instead of trying to apply *simple human logic to an entity such as God?Also, where in the scriptures does it say that God's power is somehow limited or bound to *simple logic? Otherwise, the onset that God cannot be omnipotent and create life with free will is nothing more than baseless speculation. We do however, have scriptural evidence to support that God's powers are limitless and... that he did create free will in human beings.So... based on the given information how can we conclude that God cannot remain omnipotent in the face of his creations? The honest answer is, we have zero information to support that theory, only guesses and *simple(human) logic.For some strange reason, I can hear Jim Gaffigan saying "Aaaand CUT!"

Simple human logic is the scope of our resources. Unless you have access to divine logic, you have nothing else from which to glean your insight and information about any entity. Like it or not, the interpretation of the scriptures is limited to simple logic too. You have it backwards. The idea that you have some special inside knowledge about the nature of God is nothing more than baseless speculation. In reality, we all have the same resources to work with. In reality, you can't claim to know that God can have His cake and eat it too. "Scriptural evidence" is not evidence, of course. It's still subject to the same logical constraints as any other notion.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

You have it backwards. The idea that you have some special inside knowledge about the nature of God is nothing more than baseless speculation. In reality, we all have the same resources to work with. In reality, you can't claim to know that God can have His cake and eat it too.

---

There is an interesting phenomenon that takes place in the scope of God and faith. It is, that when we get right down to it, all things come down to a personal choice. So, in agreement with your comment, I would say that no one person on this planet holds any authority over another when it comes to divine knowledge.However... we can without a doubt conclude that with work and commitment, we are able to obtain a better understanding of God. So, to put it bluntly, you are right! no one has any more capacity than any other where God and knowledge are concerned. But we can however, scrutinize the scriptures and potentially learn a great deal more on God than through independents thought.Since God is linked solely to the bible, we should have no problems using the available information as a basis for reason. I mean, after all... they are one in the same.Based on this information, we could gain valuable insight on such matters as these. For example... we know that God said he cannot lie. And with this, we know that the bible says, that God created humans with free will. We also know that God announced Himself as Almighty, Faultless, All knowing and Eternal. We know that he exists in a realm which precedes our own and is not bound by the physical laws which bind us.Based on only this limited knowledge, the notion that God would somehow contradict our own logic in giving free will to his creations is completely contradictory to his own word.It is based on this information, that I conclude that the simple logic you applied to God is false. So, you see, I don't have any special insight or capacity that precedes anyone else nor would I make such claims. My reasoning was based on scriptural evidence.

If that was true, there wouldn't be thousands of different interpretations, all claiming to have learned "a great deal more on God". Nope. And yet you do have exactly those problems. No, we don't know that. We know that some guy said that. And, of course, it's perfectly fine for our own logic to contradict what somebody claims is "the word of God".Are you, in fact, admitting that your case is not based on logic?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

pbee I would go further and state that there is no person with access to divine knowledge. This is hardly correct since ,at best, the bible is only the individual book author's opinions. This is a tenuous link considering the primitive societies within which the stories of the Bible are found. The bible may say these things , however , we have no convincing reason to assume that the authors had any ,as you yourself say
"authority over another when it comes to divine knowledge." We "know" nothing of the sort. We can believe such to be the case based only on our decisions yet this is vague and hardly satisfactory as a knowledge since the dependence upon people who lived hundreds and thousands of years ago without a modern understanding of the universe seems contrived to me. Since I am the one who started this then perhaps I should clarify. My question dealt with what prevents a "loving" God from creating mankind
with freewill that does not enter into sin. I admit freely that the question is to bring into clarity the twin notions within Christianity
concerning God supposed omnipotence. Why create mankind with the capability to "sin" and all the prevalent frustration it seems to give God if , since he is all powerful and, as you put it, not bound by human logic since it is quite within his ability to do so?

---

"The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss."Thomas Carlyle

quote:

---

My question dealt with what prevents a "loving" God from creating mankind with freewill that does not enter into sin.

---

Based on scriptural data, I would say nothing.

quote:

---

Why create mankind with the capability to "sin" and all the prevalent frustration it seems to give God if he is not bound by human logic since it is quite within his ability to do so?

---

At this stage, all we have are assumptions:

• Perhaps God felt that the value of having free will creations see and appreciate his work was worth the effort!
  ​
• Perhaps God decided that the ultimate setup would be a blend of characteristic in such a way that his own creations would share his own characteristics!
  ​
• Maybe He grew tired of creating things which did exactly as he wanted and decided to take it step further!
  ​
• Perhaps, God decided it was time to raise the bar and create life with the freedom to choose between right and wrong to the extent of life itself!

Or maybe it was for reasons completely unknown to us! Whatever the case, if you want real answers, then my suggestion would be to take it up with God. I have no doubt that with the proper conditioning one could receive the answer.

I know you were just speculating, but I think we may be able to discard this assumption.In the OT there are several angels who rebel against God, the most famous of which is, of course, Satan. These include Shemhazai and his grigori, Azazel and other named and unnamed nephilim. Rebellion against God implies free will.So, since God has these legions of angels who also have free will, we cannot say that God created us just because he grew tired of being surrounded by angelic beings who always did his bidding. Since they didn't.Also, to tie this in to a question I posed back in Message 38 (I'd appreciate a comment or two on that question as well, not necessarily by you, but someone), if God doesn't want to be surrounded by beings who always do his bidding, then won't he get tired of all of those "saved" people in heaven after the final judgement who will just spend all their time singing Him songs and kissing His feet?

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

quote:

---

if God doesn't want to be surrounded by beings who always do his bidding, then won't he get tired of all of those "saved" people in heaven after the final judgement who will just spend all their time singing Him songs and kissing His feet?

---

I know a man who raised eleven children! While they probably didn't kiss his feet they may have sung him songs. Regardless of that, he confided in me one day that his children are the source of joy in his life. He loves them and they love him back. Should we even bother to ask him if he would ever get bored of this process?It's a good question however, and it raises many finer points on God sovereignty. We have a long list of qualities which compliment this idea, perhaps someone would like to post them.

Well, besides not answering my question, the problem with this analogy is that I doubt that your friend would condemn any of his children to the fiery pits of hell for disobeying him.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

One of his children once turned to drugs and began to lead a terrible life. During which time his father condemned him from the family. He did however(in time) come to his sense and returned to a healthy lifestyle and today, all is well.There are no fiery pits of hell or torment, such teachings are based on false doctrines. The bible speaks of the destruction of the wicked ones of the nations. However, there is no evidence of eternal damnation anywheres in the scriptures. Even Satan will not be bound to eternal damnation. Instead, it says that he will be bound for a period of time then released to witness the difference God's way made on mankind and then he will be destroyed indefinitely.

Right, so I'm good. What do we need Jesus for then?PS - the "fiery pits of hell" is a common expression. I don't actually believe in hell, fiery or no. Was this man willing condemn his son from the family until the day he died unless he gave up his wicked ways? Did his son have to beg for forgiveness in order for the father to speak to him again or did the father just accept him back into the family because he, realizing the error of his ways, stopped living this wicked lifestyle, but didn't ask to be forgiven? If the latter, do you think he should have required that the son beg for forgiveness? Why?

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

quote:

---

What do we need Jesus for then?

---

Put simply, the ransom(Jesus) was to deliver, or save, humankind from sin and death. To grasp the meaning of this could consider what happened in the garden of Eden. Only if we understand what Adam lost when he sinned can we understand why the ransom was implemented.

quote:

---

PS - the "fiery pits of hell" is a common expression. I don't actually believe in hell, fiery or no.

---

I guess I misread the meaning of your statement as I was under the impression that it was an issue. Nonetheless, I agree with you on that aspect also. As mentioned earlier, there is no scriptural support for hellfire or hell as taught by many religious enterprises today.

quote:

---

Was this man willing condemn his son from the family until the day he died unless he gave up his wicked ways?

---

In the context of this example, it was my understanding that despite the great pain brought on by the situation, the father shunned his son to protect the integrity of the family. Though everyone wanted to see him to escape the terrible lifestyle he had taken on, there was a time when he was not in any position to accept any wrongdoing for his actions. Seeing that he was beginning to mislead other siblings into thinking that 'having fun' was not a problem, his father cut him off.

quote:

---

Did his son have to beg for forgiveness in order for the father to speak to him again or did the father just accept him back into the family because he, realizing the error of his ways, stopped living this wicked lifestyle, but didn't ask to be forgiven?

---

I don't have any information on that. I do know that himself and his father took a few days in solitude at the family cabin to patch things up(so to speak). However, whatever was said or done remained private.

quote:

---

If the latter, do you think he should have required that the son beg for forgiveness?

---

I don't think there is a set standard for such things. It all comes down to what one truly feels(the heart). Begging in itself doesn't necessarily constitute forgiveness. If that were the case, we would teach our own the old song and dance.I can only guess, that ideally his son would of been genuinely sorry for his actions and that is what would of moved his father to forgive him.

Thanks for the reply.I didn't really assume you knew your friends true feelings on the matter or what went on between him and his son.I was simply alluding to the notion that we have to ask God/Jesus for forgiveness and ask Him/Them to save us from ourselves in order to make it into heaven.To tie this into the topic (adding omniscience into the mix) does God think so little of His creation and the intelligence He bestowed upon us that he would require us to beg for His forgiveness instead of just looking into our hearts and seeing that we are sorry for the wrongs we have done in our lives and have taken steps, leaps even, to improve ourselves and be "good" people.Does He not have the power and the knowledge to do it or is He just going to remain firm in His whole accepting Jesus thing simply to remain consistent? In that case I feel that it means He doesn't have the will to judge us on merit, but will only judge us on very narrow qualifications. Or, rather, qualification, singular. Which makes Him not a mighty God at all in my eyes.Of course, I could decide to interpret the Bible in such a way that these are not problems for me and so that I feel that God does not condemn anyone, but I don't really see the point.I have done many stupid and wrong things in my life. When possible I have asked for forgiveness from the people I have wronged and when not possible I have tried to atone in some other way.I didn't need God to show me how I was wrong and if there is a God and He can't judge and forgive without being asked to then I don't want to spend eternity worshipping Him anyway.Which brings me to another point.We are instructed by Jesus to "turn the other cheek" and to forgive and love our enemies. All this without any sign of contrition from the "enemy" or "evildoer" or whatever. So God/Jesus is asking us to do this, but he doesn't show us the same courtesy. By sinning we have supposedly hurt God and become an adversary through our rebellion and rejection, but he cannot follow his own advice and forgive us without us asking Him?I'm sorry if I sound a little petulant and I am sure you have some apologetics (what a funny word...) to explain away any inconsistency, but I don't really know how to word my questions.I am not seeking a sermon and I don't base my atheism on any sort of anger (in case that's what you're thinking). I don't have any reason to be angry. I am just trying to reconcile statements made with the text and the "message" and trying to figure out a reason why Christians (and others) seem to limit their God(s) in order to form a special club and then claim He can do anything, but won't or didn't and then try to claim He is not malevolent.If He is omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent, then He must know that many people are genuinely seeking answers and if he was all-loving then He would present Himself in a way that would help convince the people that are naturally skeptical in order to save them from damnation instead of playing mind-games with people.Maybe let them develop as people with free will, get to know them as people to see what would convince them and then present Himself to them in a way that would convince them. There wouldn't be any loss of free will anymore than what supposedly occurs when some Christians are "born again."

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

quote:

---

I was simply alluding to the notion that we have to ask God/Jesus for forgiveness and ask Him/Them to save us from ourselves in order to make it into heaven.

---

quote:

---

To tie this into the topic (adding omniscience into the mix) does God think so little of His creation and the intelligence He bestowed upon us that he would require us to beg for His forgiveness instead of just looking into our hearts and seeing that we are sorry for the wrongs we have done in our lives and have taken steps, leaps even, to improve ourselves and be "good" people.

---

quote:

---

Does He not have the power and the knowledge to do it or is He just going to remain firm in His whole accepting Jesus thing simply to remain consistent?

---

quote:

---

In that case I feel that it means He doesn't have the will to judge us on merit, but will only judge us on very narrow qualifications. Or, rather, qualification, singular. Which makes Him not a mighty God at all in my eyes.

---

quote:

---

I have done many stupid and wrong things in my life. When possible I have asked for forgiveness from the people I have wronged and when not possible I have tried to atone in some other way. I didn't need God to show me how I was wrong and if there is a God and He can't judge and forgive without being asked to then I don't want to spend eternity worshiping Him anyway.

---

That is an interesting and noble statement. I'm not entirely certain that the ransom sacrifice was intended to be carried out through begging. It was written that the ransom sacrifice, was provided as a means for humanity to regain eternal life. A counterbalance to restore the original state of man. Though the scriptures provide us with numerous illustrations using the ransom sacrifice, they seemed aimed at emphasizing the degree of difficulties involved in doing so.From a personal standpoint, I have always considered God with a great sense of awe and respect. Even though, I approach God with whatever dignity and respect I can muster up, I know that I will never measure up to His grandeur. If it were up to me, I would be perfect! - Since perfection is the only way we could rightfully exemplify God's greatness.So when a day has passed and the time has comes for me to look back at myself, I ask God for forgiveness. - I do so in his son's name. - I ask forgiveness for my imperfect state and express my desire to to live to see the day where I can be all I was intended to be. All these things, are carried out without any begging or pleading.

quote:

---

We are instructed by Jesus to "turn the other cheek" and to forgive and love our enemies. All this without any sign of contrition from the "enemy" or "evildoer" or whatever. So God/Jesus is asking us to do this, but he doesn't show us the same courtesy. By sinning we have supposedly hurt God and become an adversary through our rebellion and rejection, but he cannot follow his own advice and forgive us without us asking Him?

---

The turning of the cheek did not necessarily mean auto-forgiveness(if one can say that). The illustration was intended to dissolve the widely accepted views people observed of that day. It was meant to derive passiveness over aggressiveness. By looking further into Jesus' ministry, we can find numerous examples where though Jesus was generous in forgiveness, he was also very particular about who would receive it. Jesus dealt with forgiveness on a case by case basis, and associated his decision with the heart condition of those seeking it.

quote:

---

I am not seeking a sermon and I don't base my atheism on any sort of anger (in case that's what you're thinking). I don't have any reason to be angry. I am just trying to reconcile statements made with the text and the "message" and trying to figure out a reason why Christians (and others) seem to limit their God(s) in order to form a special club and then claim He can do anything, but won't or didn't and then try to claim He is not malevolent.

---

In this I would say that we are dealing with human nature(no more no less). We can observe this behavior in all social aspects of life.

quote:

---

If He is omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent, then He must know that many people are genuinely seeking answers and if he was all-loving then He would present Himself in a way that would help convince the people that are naturally skeptical in order to save them from damnation instead of playing mind-games with people.

​

Maybe let them develop as people with free will, get to know them as people to see what would convince them and then present Himself to them in a way that would convince them. There wouldn't be any loss of free will anymore than what supposedly occurs when some Christians are "born again."

---

To this statement I can only say that I beleive this is what we are seeing right now. Just as you are telling me you are a good person and deserving of as much as your neighbor. I beleive that if you are honest in your statement that will receive fair judgment. Since God stated that as the great day draws near, all things would come to a friend or foe state. This alone, is proof that no one will be overlooked. Edited by pbee, : unsightly typos