God Is A Psychopath

[steve_bank]

Does it state explicitly god is omniscient, all knowing, and all powerful or is that Christian hyperbole?

There are several verses to that effect;


''Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.'' Psalm 147:5

Thanks.

 

[steve_bank]

Omniscient doesn't mean "compelled" to know everything.
It means able to know.
Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence - the ability to do whatever you WANT

Did god create everything down to the smallest detail or not? Is god aware of you with a plan for you or not?

A recurring theme in the original Star Trek series was meeting what seems like god s. In the it always turns out they have some fallibility that can be exploited.

If god is omniscient it is then by definition all knowing and powerful. Why would god not know and be able to control every particle in the universe at all times, the universe it created? If not then the Abrahamic god is not 'the god'.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Genesis 6-9



...



What a surprise, a Christian fundamentalist who's too lazy to study his own sacred book, yet is very opinionated. So common it's a stereotype

And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens.

No fish mentioned there.
No fish taken onto the Ark. (no need - fish don't drown in water)

What were you saying about *cough* study?

Nice try. Not falling for it. I didn't talk about fish. It's an irrelevant derail.

 

[phands]

Nice try. Not falling for it. I didn't talk about fish. It's an irrelevant derail.

Poor try, actually. As you might expect from LIRC. There's a major problem: salinity. Rain is fresh water, sea is saline. With few exceptions, marine fish cannot live in fresh water, and vice-versa. There are some species that can live in brackish water too, but the whole flood idea doesn't hold, well....water.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nice try. Not falling for it. I didn't talk about fish. It's an irrelevant derail.

Poor try, actually. As you might expect from LIRC. There's a major problem: salinity. Rain is fresh water, sea is saline. With few exceptions, marine fish cannot live in fresh water, and vice-versa. There are some species that can live in brackish water too, but the whole flood idea doesn't hold, well....water.

I also don't understand why use a flood as the mechanic. It seems unnecessary to punish all the animals for something humans did. Since all humans were to be killed except one already faithful, there's no need to hide. Why not God just make everybody fall down dead instantly. Or make them vanish.

Christians just seem to lack imagination regarding what an omnipotent force can do.

The flood only makes sense if we think that it's a natural phenomena that actually happened and was later mythologised, and of course exaggerated.

That's the point of mythology. If we see it this way there's no need to posit a God that actually exists.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You issued and reissued the challenge. Now have the courage to actually defend what you said....

OK
Let me defend the 'horror' of one example you raised.
David and Goliath.
Goliath is a monster of a man. Gigantic. He's heavily armed. Shield, sword, helmet, breast plate...
David is a shepherd. He has a few rocks and a sling and he's had a lot of target practice. Oh yeah, and God is on his side.

They fight. Mortal combat. David wins.
Now, here comes the disgusting unbearable horror for squeamish atheists.

Show

David mutilates the corpse. Chopping of the head of Goliath. Proof that Goliath is dead in case anyone doubted

This shock and awe hastens the surrender of the Philistines. They've lost their giant hero.

So it's exactly an example of what I stated - God helping hasten the end of a war started by humans. Nothing psychopathic about that.

We have many ancient examples of enemies being called monsters as a way to justify attacking them. We have examples of two nations calling eachother monsters. We all have the bad habit of dehumanizing those we hate. Nazis seeing Jews as rats for example.

And we all like to think of ourselves as the scrappy underdog. The David and Goliath story has all the hallmarks of ancient war propaganda. And David's tribe won. So they were probably the most powerful all along.

It's more likely that Goliath's tribe had a resource David's tribe wanted. Probably fancy Cedars (which was the most valuable resource in the region then). And then made up some bullshit excuse to attack and take them.

By analysing patterns of propaganda David's tribe was probably just raiders who hit the jackpot. And it was so great it was worthy of a bardic song.

It's incredibly naive to see David's tribe as the good guys in this story. It's their story. So better to be sceptical

 

[DBT]

Omniscient doesn't mean "compelled" to know everything.
It means able to know.
Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence - the ability to do whatever you WANT

By definition, to be Omniscient is to be All Knowing. This is a state or condition that has nothing to do with compulsion, someone or something is either All Knowing - Omniscient - or they are not.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Omniscient doesn't mean "compelled" to know everything.
It means able to know.
Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence - the ability to do whatever you WANT

By definition, to be Omniscient is to be All Knowing. This is a state or condition that has nothing to do with compulsion, someone or something is either All Knowing - Omniscient - or they are not.

Meh. This is just "can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy he can't lift it?". Both omnipotence and omniscience are self refuting. If God exists God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. If you believe it is you are wrong.

Lion just demonstrated how ridiculous the idea is

 

[DBT]

Omniscient doesn't mean "compelled" to know everything.
It means able to know.
Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence - the ability to do whatever you WANT

By definition, to be Omniscient is to be All Knowing. This is a state or condition that has nothing to do with compulsion, someone or something is either All Knowing - Omniscient - or they are not.

Meh. This is just "can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy he can't lift it?". Both omnipotence and omniscience are self refuting. If God exists God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. If you believe it is you are wrong.

Lion just demonstrated how ridiculous the idea is

Ridiculous or not, it is the Bible itself that claims its God has Infinite understanding, a God Who knows 'the end from the beginning' etc, 'numbering the hairs on your head' - so is being described as Omniscient.

Plus the objection, 'can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy he can't lift it' objection, if it's only a semantic construct, an impossible contradiction rather than something that can actually be achieved, is not relevant to Omniscience, as the concept what can be known. all that is knowable, is known by this proposed Omniscient Being.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Meh. This is just "can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy he can't lift it?". Both omnipotence and omniscience are self refuting. If God exists God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. If you believe it is you are wrong.

Lion just demonstrated how ridiculous the idea is

Ridiculous or not, it is the Bible itself that claims its God has Infinite understanding, a God Who knows 'the end from the beginning' etc, 'numbering the hairs on your head' - so is being described as Omniscient.

Plus the objection, 'can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy he can't lift it' objection, if it's only a semantic construct, an impossible contradiction rather than something that can actually be achieved, is not relevant to Omniscience, as the concept what can be known. all that is knowable, is known by this proposed Omniscient Being.

An omniscient being can't decide not to know everything. If it did it would stop being omniscient. Omniscience isn't a super power. It's a description of a state

 

[DBT]

Meh. This is just "can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy he can't lift it?". Both omnipotence and omniscience are self refuting. If God exists God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. If you believe it is you are wrong.

Lion just demonstrated how ridiculous the idea is

Ridiculous or not, it is the Bible itself that claims its God has Infinite understanding, a God Who knows 'the end from the beginning' etc, 'numbering the hairs on your head' - so is being described as Omniscient.

Plus the objection, 'can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy he can't lift it' objection, if it's only a semantic construct, an impossible contradiction rather than something that can actually be achieved, is not relevant to Omniscience, as the concept what can be known. all that is knowable, is known by this proposed Omniscient Being.

An omniscient being can't decide not to know everything. If it did it would stop being omniscient. Omniscience isn't a super power. It's a description of a state

Yes, indeed. That is basically what I have been arguing.

 

[Lion IRC]

Omniscience is not a burden compelling God to maintain permanent conscious awareness of anything and everything at all times in the forefront of His immediate attention. In fact it's precisely because He is omniscient that He can freely elect to know whatever His divine prerogative wishes - whenever He wishes.

Omniscience describes a subset of God"s omnipotence. The unlimited ability to know.
And "to know" is a verb.

You of course are free to hold the opinion that omniscience is defined in only one particular certain way. And I reserve the right to define it in a way which is consistent with omnipotence.

If God can't choose to be casually mindful or wilfully ignorant or selectively thoughtful, then that would constitute a limitation on God's ability. And THEN you would have a proper accusation that omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible. But they aren't and you don't.

Ask God what He is going to do tomorrow and He can rightfully answer - "ANYTHING that I want.
Who, if not an all-powerful God can afford not to worry about what will happen tomorrow?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Omniscience is not a burden compelling God to maintain permanent conscious awareness of anything and everything at all times in the forefront of His immediate attention. In fact it's precisely because He is omniscient that He can freely elect to know whatever His divine prerogative wishes - whenever He wishes.

That's not what the word means. I don't know what you are basing this on? Let me guess... your free fantasies of what you think it should mean?

Omniscience describes a subset of God"s omnipotence. The unlimited ability to know.
And "to know" is a verb.

You of course are free to hold the opinion that omniscience is defined in only one particular certain way. And I reserve the right to define it in a way which is consistent with omnipotence.

Fine, but then you're breaking with Christian teachings.

Aristotle invented it as a hypothetical play with concepts. But in the same work as he introduced it he also explained why it's impossible.

If God can't choose to be casually mindful or wilfully ignorant or selectively thoughtful, then that would constitute a limitation on God's ability. And THEN you would have a proper accusation that omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible. But they aren't and you don't.

Ask God what He is going to do tomorrow and He can rightfully answer - "ANYTHING that I want.
Who, if not an all-powerful God can afford not to worry about what will happen tomorrow?

That's why it's a paradox. You've just explained why God cannot be omnipotent.

I personally think that Philo of Alexandria (who invented modern Christian theology) knew it was a paradox when he introduced it. I think God wasn't meant to be believed literally.

The ancients were better than us at thinking metaphorically. It cannot be over-stated how much the introduction of the printing press changed how we think. Before this there would have been so many differences between Bibles that learned people couldn't take it literally. And peasants couldn't either because they were illiterate

 

[Keith&Co.]

That's not what the word means. I don't know what you are basing this on? Let me guess... your free fantasies of what you think it should mean?

It's not about the meaning.
It's about God having a superpower that doesn't make him responsible. It's important that God have an out for any situation where we might expect that his listed traits would have him act.
If God is Infinitely benevolent, for example, and infinitely powerful to relieve suffering, there must be some reason suffering still exists. If arguments that suffering is necessary fail, then perhaps he just doesn't HAVE to be directly aware of the suffering?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Nice try. Not falling for it. I didn't talk about fish. It's an irrelevant derail.

Poor try, actually. As you might expect from LIRC. There's a major problem: salinity. Rain is fresh water, sea is saline. With few exceptions, marine fish cannot live in fresh water, and vice-versa. There are some species that can live in brackish water too, but the whole flood idea doesn't hold, well....water.

I also don't understand why use a flood as the mechanic. It seems unnecessary to punish all the animals for something humans did. Since all humans were to be killed except one already faithful, there's no need to hide. Why not God just make everybody fall down dead instantly. Or make them vanish.

Christians just seem to lack imagination regarding what an omnipotent force can do.

The flood only makes sense if we think that it's a natural phenomena that actually happened and was later mythologised, and of course exaggerated.

That's the point of mythology. If we see it this way there's no need to posit a God that actually exists.

If I were God during the Flood times, I'd have had everyone die in cool and interesting ways, like in the Final Destination movies.

Then people's last thoughts would be like:

"Whoa! That dude just got beheaded by a shovel which fell out of a window after the lady up there was kicking around as she tripped and got strangled by her clothing line. I'll give it an 8 out of 10. Oh look, I'm about to be beaten to death by a gorilla who escaped from the zoo wagon that crashed after the wheel broke and flung the driver into the display window of the knife store ... this should be entertaining for the next guy to watch".

Add a bit of flair to the whole genocide thing.

Since God's omnipotent, it would take him no more time and energy to think up an original and exciting death for each individual person as it would for him to have one generic event kill all of them.

 

[phands]

It's almost amusing watching LIRC's tortured attempts to speak for gawd, and to interpret how gawd thinks about omniscience and omnipotence for us non-xtians who just apply logic.
It also occurs that it is remarkably arrogant of LIRC to presume to speak for gawd, since it is abundantly obvious that he (LIRC) is neither omniscient or -potent.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If I were God during the Flood times, I'd have

I hope to me I'd have figured out the whole thing was a wasted effort BEFORE the wasted murders and wasted destruction. Not at the wrap party...

 

[atrib]

Omniscience is not a burden compelling God to maintain permanent conscious awareness of anything and everything at all times in the forefront of His immediate attention. In fact it's precisely because He is omniscient that He can freely elect to know whatever His divine prerogative wishes - whenever He wishes.

Omniscience describes a subset of God"s omnipotence. The unlimited ability to know.
And "to know" is a verb.

You of course are free to hold the opinion that omniscience is defined in only one particular certain way. And I reserve the right to define it in a way which is consistent with omnipotence.

If God can't choose to be casually mindful or wilfully ignorant or selectively thoughtful, then that would constitute a limitation on God's ability. And THEN you would have a proper accusation that omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible. But they aren't and you don't.

Ask God what He is going to do tomorrow and He can rightfully answer - "ANYTHING that I want.
Who, if not an all-powerful God can afford not to worry about what will happen tomorrow?

(emphasis mine)
That is not true. And I will explain why.

Google defines omniscience as the state of knowing everything.

God cannot be omniscient and do whatever he wants. If god is omniscient, then he is aware of every detail that the future holds, and the future is set in stone. Whether he chooses to focus on a specific scenario or not is immaterial (yes, I see what you were trying to do there). Since god's knowledge is perfect, god cannot do anything that would change the course of the future because that would violate his perfect knowledge. In other words, an omniscient god is merely an automaton, programmed to perform certain acts at certain times, but never able to break free from his programming and do something that was not already destined based on his perfect knowledge. God does not answer prayers because the script does not call for it, which is why so many devout Christians die of cancer without their prayers being answered.

Or it may just be that god doesn't answer prayers because he exists only in our imagination. Who knows?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Then again, if God was omniscient and wanted to figure out a way to logically get around the Problem of Evil, he'd be able to do that .. you know, with his being omniscient and all.

 

[atrib]

No fish mentioned there.
No fish taken onto the Ark. (no need - fish don't drown in water)

There are fish and other animals that live in the oceans (salt water) and fish and other animals that live in rivers and estuaries (fresh water). By and large, freshwater fish (and animals) cannot survive in saltwater and saltwater fish (and animals) cannot survive in freshwater. There are a few exceptions, but not many. Are you saying you did not study this stuff in high school biology?