Does a god choose to exist?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The thought came to me about the Christian idea of god, specifically any discussion about whether it has a choice in its existence. I've never heard anyone talking about the subject probably because their god is alleged to have always existed, and the typical believer never gets around to examining his or her beliefs in any depth.

So I guess the question is whether it has a choice in its continued existence. We certainly do, at least that part we call "alive." We can end that. Can their god do the same for itself?

And if it can, how can one know that it has not already checked out?

 

[ideologyhunter]

Since God loves us and desires a....um......"relationship" with us, I think simple deity/creature etiquette requires the courtesy of a suicide note. Maybe "Checkin' Out" blasted into the side of the Grand Canyon. If that's too Americacentric, then a multi-lingual bye-bye inscribed on the moon, big enough to be read by binoculars. Churches would overnight become nostalgia clubs, on a basis of permanent ongoing reunions. Atheism would become a little ass-faced, sorry to say: "We were wrong before, but we're right now." It would be nice if God had some sort of irrevocable trust instrument set out in advance, in which "natural law" still worked. Popes would be allowed to have wives or party girls, as desired. Trump could reveal himself at last, with Tax Return #666. Probably other stuff would change.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The thought came to me about the Christian idea of god, specifically any discussion about whether it has a choice in its existence. I've never heard anyone talking about the subject probably because their god is alleged to have always existed, and the typical believer never gets around to examining his or her beliefs in any depth.

So I guess the question is whether it has a choice in its continued existence. We certainly do, at least that part we call "alive." We can end that. Can their god do the same for itself?

And if it can, how can one know that it has not already checked out?

It has long been orthodox Christianity's dogma that God must exist and God cannot will his own non-existence. This has led to silly arguments such as "If God cannot commit suicide God is not omnipotent".

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't see why an omnipotent being couldn't kill itself and then resurrect itself later due to it's fully existing while in a state of absolute non-existence.

 

[Bronzeage]

Very few truly astounding theological questions about the nature of a supreme being have gone unasked. The chances of thinking of a new one are very slim.

The theologians and philosophers who considered this particular contradiction came to the conclusion, "God cannot do something contrary to his nature."

Part of the problem lies with the human limitation of space and time and our difficulty in dealing with the time space continuum. An omnipotent being would be independent of space and time, which means it exists in all places at all times. It would be contrary to its nature to not exist at some point in time, and not in another.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Very few truly astounding theological questions about the nature of a supreme being have gone unasked. The chances of thinking of a new one are very slim.

The theologians and philosophers who considered this particular contradiction came to the conclusion, "God cannot do something contrary to his nature."

Part of the problem lies with the human limitation of space and time and our difficulty in dealing with the time space continuum. An omnipotent being would be independent of space and time, which means it exists in all places at all times. It would be contrary to its nature to not exist at some point in time, and not in another.

Some of them came to the conclusion that God cannot do something contrary to his nature. Others, like Descartes, came to the conclusion that he could do things which are contrary to his nature without any difficulty and he would not be doing anything contrary to his nature while he's at it.

It all comes down to the question of whether omnipotence is constrained by logic or omnipotence overrides logic. The former would say that asking whether an omnipotent can do something illogical is the same as asking whether an omnipotent being can gwardshlip. The latter would say that an omnipotent being can gwardshlip quite well, thank you very much.

 

[Bronzeage]

Very few truly astounding theological questions about the nature of a supreme being have gone unasked. The chances of thinking of a new one are very slim.

The theologians and philosophers who considered this particular contradiction came to the conclusion, "God cannot do something contrary to his nature."

Part of the problem lies with the human limitation of space and time and our difficulty in dealing with the time space continuum. An omnipotent being would be independent of space and time, which means it exists in all places at all times. It would be contrary to its nature to not exist at some point in time, and not in another.

Some of them came to the conclusion that God cannot do something contrary to his nature. Others, like Descartes, came to the conclusion that he could do things which are contrary to his nature without any difficulty and he would not be doing anything contrary to his nature while he's at it.

It all comes down to the question of whether omnipotence is constrained by logic or omnipotence overrides logic. The former would say that asking whether an omnipotent can do something illogical is the same as asking whether an omnipotent being can gwardshlip. The latter would say that an omnipotent being can gwardshlip quite well, thank you very much.

I forgot about DesCartes' cat, the cat that may or may not be contrary.


Omnipotence may have skills which are not apparent to us.

We firmly believe that any two points in space are connected by a straight line and to travel from one point to the other, we must traverse through every point in between, and each point consumes a finite amount of time.

An omnipotent doesn't have to go through all that trouble.