What would count as proof of God

[abaddon]

Such as actual gods being seen doing godly things as a matter of routine.

Basically the same things that make people confident in the existence of real things in the real world. I know my dining table exists, because my spaghetti doesn't land in my lap.

I know gods don't exist, because theists have to eat off their knees.

But what would be godly verses just highly advanced?

"Actual god" versus "just highly advanced" = semantic issue.

A "God" is merely a being or power that's super-duper impressive to those who want to worship him/her/it. Call the conjectured power or being "advanced" instead if you like, but if the worshiper calls it "God" then that's how... and is the one and only way... to determine that it's a deity. It has to be someone's deity to be a deity.

So, could the OP's scenario convince me it's God? If I valued the noise 'gawd' as an explanation for anything, then Yes. But I don't, so No.

"Is it a deity?" is not a problem you can solve like an engineering issue (what is it? what's it made of? how does it work?). Instead it's a question of values. Do you value the word "God" as meaningful? Do "sentient" and "very powerful" and "incorporeal" and "deserves worship" seem like they all fit together in your mind? If not... if the values aren't all there (maybe especially if the "deserves worship" bit is missing)... then probably "advanced alien being" is what your more science-informed sensibilities are going to make of a powerful incorporeal being that can make you believe it exists.

 

[bilby]

Such as actual gods being seen doing godly things as a matter of routine.

Basically the same things that make people confident in the existence of real things in the real world. I know my dining table exists, because my spaghetti doesn't land in my lap.

I know gods don't exist, because theists have to eat off their knees.

But what would be godly verses just highly advanced?

"Actual god" versus "just highly advanced" = semantic issue.

A "God" is merely a being or power that's super-duper impressive to those who want to worship him/her/it. Call the conjectured power or being "advanced" instead if you like, but if the worshiper calls it "God" then that's how... and is the one and only way... to determine that it's a deity. It has to be someone's deity to be a deity.

So, could the OP's scenario convince me it's God? If I valued the noise 'gawd' as an explanation for anything, then Yes. But I don't, so No.

"Is it a deity?" is not a problem you can solve like an engineering issue (what is it? what's it made of? how does it work?). Instead it's a question of values. Do you value the word "God" as meaningful? Do "sentient" and "very powerful" and "incorporeal" and "deserves worship" seem like they all fit together in your mind? If not... if the values aren't all there (maybe especially if the "deserves worship" bit is missing)... then probably "advanced alien being" is what your more science-informed sensibilities are going to make of a powerful incorporeal being that can make you believe it exists.

Yup, sycophancy isn't part of my makeup, so even if some religious sect did present me with their god, and it was able to do all kinds of inexplicable things, and it knew everything, and it was kind and caring, and etc. etc., I still wouldn't worship it.

I might respect it (if it earned my respect, for example by alleviating human suffering); I might learn from it, if it could teach me something plausible and interesting. But worship? Worship is for tyrants. It's a human mechanism for building the ego of a leader, while reducing the risk of rebellion from his minions.

A god worthy of the name would neither want nor demand worship - and a god that's not worshipful is no god at all.

I know that most people are in awe of powerful and/or famous people. But kings, rock stars, CEOs etc. do nothing for me. I don't care if you own the company, or if you are the janitor - the respect you get will depend on what you do and say, not what titles you hold. If you can sack me on a whim, I might fear you; But if you would do so, just because you can, I wouldn't want to work for you anyway. And fear isn't respect - a mistake that is common amongst gangsters and theists is to conflate the two.

If a being can damn me to eternal suffering, it won't get respect from me as a result - and indeed it would instantly lose any respect I had for it if it damned anyone (including me). Fear? Perhaps. But not worship, nor respect.

The very foundational principle of most religions - that a god can command respect - is deeply wrong.

Fear god? Sure, if you show me a scary one. Worship god? Why?

 

[ideologyhunter]

The HLN network ran a two-parter on the Oklahoma City Bombing last night. There was a comment from an Oklahoma sheriff that I found choice. They had just reenacted McVeigh's capture after the bombing. What happened, briefly: he was stopped on the highway because his car had no plates. When the officer spotted a gun on him, he was cuffed and detained. Meanwhile, from a truck axle found near the bomb site, the FBI tracked down the rental truck McVeigh had used. When they canvassed the motels between the rental site and Oklahoma City, they got his name off a motel ledger. The next day, just before he would have most likely posted bond on the license plate and concealed gun charges and been released, they arrested him for the bombing.
Okay -- with all that as preface -- the sheriff who brought McVeigh in said, "I always said that it was divine intervention that put all those things in place."
Can you imagine that level of religious conviction? First of all, it was FBI intervention. Second, he imagines that God, who knows all, sees all, judges all, watched McVeigh pull off the murder of 168 people, including kids at day care, but it warms his heart to think that God set up the arrest. It makes it into a 'faith story.' Sheesh. I guess it's not dumber than the typical faith story in Guideposts, but I laughed loud enough to wake up my dog.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The HLN network ran a two-parter on the Oklahoma City Bombing last night. There was a comment from an Oklahoma sheriff that I found choice. They had just reenacted McVeigh's capture after the bombing. What happened, briefly: he was stopped on the highway because his car had no plates. When the officer spotted a gun on him, he was cuffed and detained. Meanwhile, from a truck axle found near the bomb site, the FBI tracked down the rental truck McVeigh had used. When they canvassed the motels between the rental site and Oklahoma City, they got his name off a motel ledger. The next day, just before he would have most likely posted bond on the license plate and concealed gun charges and been released, they arrested him for the bombing.
Okay -- with all that as preface -- the sheriff who brought McVeigh in said, "I always said that it was divine intervention that put all those things in place."
Can you imagine that level of religious conviction? First of all, it was FBI intervention. Second, he imagines that God, who knows all, sees all, judges all, watched McVeigh pull off the murder of 168 people, including kids at day care, but it warms his heart to think that God set up the arrest. It makes it into a 'faith story.' Sheesh. I guess it's not dumber than the typical faith story in Guideposts, but I laughed loud enough to wake up my dog.

Which demonstrates to me quite convincingly that the only evidence any person has for a god is their emotions. All god claims reduce to personal emotional attachment.

 

[Atheos]

Strain out a gnat, smoke a camel. Or something like that.

 

[Gun Nut]

the only evidence any person has for a god is their emotions.

Emotions are evidence of a Mind... like Pee is evidence of Urination.

 

[bilby]

the only evidence any person has for a god is their emotions.

Emotions are evidence of a Mind... like Pee is evidence of Urination.

Emotions are evidence of an endocrine system. There's no particular reason to consider a 'mind' to be a non-fictional entity.

We have a nervous system, and an endocrine system. Mind appears to be an entirely imaginary construct of these two systems.

 

[skepticalbip]

"Mind" should be used as a verb, not as a noun. It is a process, not a physical 'thing'. Mind ends with death but brain, nerves, glands, etc. are still there.

 

[Keith&Co.]

"Mind" should be used as a verb, not as a noun. It is a process, not a physical 'thing'. Mind ends with death but brain, nerves, glands, etc. are still there.

That would depend on how they deathed.

 

[Copernicus]

"Mind" should be used as a verb, not as a noun. It is a process, not a physical 'thing'. Mind ends with death but brain, nerves, glands, etc. are still there.

It is perfectly fine as a noun. Nouns are used as names for lots of nonphysical things. But your main point is correct that "mind" is not a physical thing anymore than words like "society" or "election" denote physical things. We may think of an election as a series or collection of physical events, but it would make no sense to try to describe its meaning as just that. It plays a functional role in human society.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

the only evidence any person has for a god is their emotions.

Emotions are evidence of a Mind... like Pee is evidence of Urination.

Emotions are evidence of an endocrine system. There's no particular reason to consider a 'mind' to be a non-fictional entity.

We have a nervous system, and an endocrine system. Mind appears to be an entirely imaginary construct of these two systems.

Look at how we use the word "system." Semantics are fascinating. For lots of folks I'm certain their god equates to a system.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Emotions are evidence of an endocrine system. There's no particular reason to consider a 'mind' to be a non-fictional entity.

We have a nervous system, and an endocrine system. Mind appears to be an entirely imaginary construct of these two systems.

Look at how we use the word "system." Semantics are fascinating. For lots of folks I'm certain their god equates to a system.

Folks sure did rush to create a hierarchical structure around religion.

 

[remez]

So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I concur. But the conversation always heads in this direction…………….

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide.

Some supernatural event. But then………….

That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural,

But supernatural events aren't allowed. We philosophically limit our explanations to nature only explanations. There can be nothing beyond nature. You won’t allow yourselves to follow the evidence where it leads. You are stuck in the cave of nature only by philosophical choice. Reminds me of the movie….The Croods.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?

The evidence is there you just philosophically choose to suppress the implications. You can’t even step out of the cave far enough to see where the evidence leads. Because it can’t lead outside the cave. The cave is all there is. I feel safe in the cave. There might be a Santa Claus riding a unicorn out there chasing a bad fairy.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I concur. But the conversation always heads in this direction…………….


Some supernatural event. But then………….

That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural,

But supernatural events aren't allowed. We philosophically limit our explanations to nature only explanations. There can be nothing beyond nature. You won’t allow yourselves to follow the evidence where it leads. You are stuck in the cave of nature only by philosophical choice. Reminds me of the movie….The Croods.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?

The evidence is there you just philosophically choose to suppress the implications. You can’t even step out of the cave far enough to see where the evidence leads. Because it can’t lead outside the cave. The cave is all there is. I feel safe in the cave. There might be a Santa Claus riding a unicorn out there chasing a bad fairy.

What is the evidence? Very exciting to hear that evidence may be coming!

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

Well, I argue that the probability that God exists conditioned to the hypothesis that there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator is close to zero. Combining that with the difficulty in making omniscience and omnipotence more likely than vast knowledge and power (which seems like an insurmountable difficulty), I don't know that humans are in a epistemic position in which any amount of evidence would suffice to make it probable that God exists. I would say probably we are not. Still, if he existed, God would know whether humans are in such a position, and if so, how to provide that evidence.

 

[Elixir]

... the probability that God exists conditioned to the hypothesis that there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator is close to zero. Combining that with the difficulty in making omniscience and omnipotence more likely than vast knowledge and power (which seems like an insurmountable difficulty), I don't know that humans are in a epistemic position in which any amount of evidence would suffice to make it probable that God exists. I would say probably we are not. Still, if he existed, God would know whether humans are in such a position, and if so, how to provide that evidence.

I can hear him now; "I could, but I don't wanna "

 

[Keith&Co.]

... the probability that God exists conditioned to the hypothesis that there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator is close to zero. Combining that with the difficulty in making omniscience and omnipotence more likely than vast knowledge and power (which seems like an insurmountable difficulty), I don't know that humans are in a epistemic position in which any amount of evidence would suffice to make it probable that God exists. I would say probably we are not. Still, if he existed, God would know whether humans are in such a position, and if so, how to provide that evidence.

I can hear him now; "I could, but I don't wanna "

Or, 'I could, but you're better off if i do not. Plus, you don't deserve it.'

 

[Learner]

So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

Well, I argue that the probability that God exists conditioned to the hypothesis that there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator is close to zero. Combining that with the difficulty in making omniscience and omnipotence more likely than vast knowledge and power (which seems like an insurmountable difficulty), I don't know that humans are in a epistemic position in which any amount of evidence would suffice to make it probable that God exists. I would say probably we are not. Still, if he existed, God would know whether humans are in such a position, and if so, how to provide that evidence.

I would wonder with the above set conditions ...

Why couldn't GOD create NEW THINGS that HE hasn't thought of before (when in HIS creative mood)? The act of spontaneous creativeness.

In a manner of speaking .... once done ... HE knows ALL about HIS own personal designs ...fixes them too!

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why couldn't GOD create NEW things HE hasn't thought of before,

by 'god' you generally mean an omniscient deity with the power of prophecy, right?

Exactly what would you mean by 'something he (all knowing, all foreseeing) hasn't thought of'?

 

[Learner]

Why couldn't GOD create NEW things HE hasn't thought of before,

by 'god' you generally mean an omniscient deity with the power of prophecy, right?

Exactly what would you mean by 'something he (all knowing, all foreseeing) hasn't thought of'?

Why can't GOD do both? Create NEW things without needing to look into the future. Why spoil the enjoyment and thrill of creating? "And God saw that it was good"

 

[abaddon]

Well, I argue that the probability that God exists conditioned to the hypothesis that there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator is close to zero. Combining that with the difficulty in making omniscience and omnipotence more likely than vast knowledge and power (which seems like an insurmountable difficulty), I don't know that humans are in a epistemic position in which any amount of evidence would suffice to make it probable that God exists. I would say probably we are not. Still, if he existed, God would know whether humans are in such a position, and if so, how to provide that evidence.

I would wonder with the above set conditions ...

Why couldn't GOD create NEW THINGS that HE hasn't thought of before (when in HIS creative mood)? The act of spontaneous creativeness.

In a manner of speaking .... once done ... HE knows ALL about HIS own personal designs ...fixes them too!

Why can't GOD do both? Create NEW things without needing to look into the future. Why spoil the enjoyment and thrill of creating? "And God saw that it was good"

These kinds of posts display the insurmountable difficulty of God's omni traits that Angra Mainyu pointed out.

Omniscience means "knows everything". If you have to invent caveats to answer the criticisms of why omniscience doesn't work, then you've demoted God from omniscient to vastly knowledgable.

This is not an "atheistic viewpoint", Learner. The word means what it means. So any 'why can't we ignore the definition but still use the word?' scenarios you come up with are concessions to the insurmountability.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why couldn't GOD create NEW things HE hasn't thought of before,

by 'god' you generally mean an omniscient deity with the power of prophecy, right?

Exactly what would you mean by 'something he (all knowing, all foreseeing) hasn't thought of'?

Why can't GOD do both? Create NEW things without needing to look into the future. Why spoil the enjoyment and thrill of creating? "And God saw that it was good"

under what definition of omniscience is there an off switch?

 

[Learner]

Why can't GOD do both? Create NEW things without needing to look into the future. Why spoil the enjoyment and thrill of creating? "And God saw that it was good"

These kinds of posts display the insurmountable difficulty of God's omni traits that Angra Mainyu pointed out.

Omniscience means "knows everything". If you have to invent caveats to answer the criticisms of why omniscience doesn't work, then you've demoted God from omniscient to vastly knowledgable.

This is not an "atheistic viewpoint", Learner. The word means what it means. So any 'why can't we ignore the definition but still use the word?' scenarios you come up with are concessions to the insurmountability.

There's no real difficulty...really, I mean...even if we are to strike out omniscience from Gods traits it leaves us with an Almighty creator. Personally it is beyond fathomable Why, What or HOW God does things..plain and simple. Theist imo needn't worry about it as problematic ... or a debunker so to speak, when there are many things that is within grasp of fathomable to discuss with. We are but mere mortals.

 

[Atheos]

Any god who is not omniscient is not omnipotent. Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence. Strike two....

 

[Learner]

Any god who is not omniscient is not omnipotent. Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence. Strike two....

Not sure about that myself ... I see it as:

IF God is the one and only CREATOR and HE is ultimately more powerful than all HIS creations then GOD...IS the Gold-Bar-Standard for Omnipotent. If God knows more than HIS most intelligent creations about everything in the universe then God IS the Gold-Bar-Standard for Ominscience verses the mere words that wise-professing men as mere mortals create, to define how God should be.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Any god who is not omniscient is not omnipotent. Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence. Strike two....

Not sure about that myself ... I see it as:

IF God is the one and only CREATOR and HE is ultimately more powerful than all HIS creations then GOD, IS the Gold-Bar Standard for Omnipotent.

but omnipotent, as a word, does not merely mean the most powerful being in the room.
It means all-powerful. Limiting infinite power when it's inconvenient is cheating.

 

[Learner]

Any god who is not omniscient is not omnipotent. Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence. Strike two....

Not sure about that myself ... I see it as:

IF God is the one and only CREATOR and HE is ultimately more powerful than all HIS creations then GOD, IS the Gold-Bar Standard for Omnipotent.

but omnipotent, as a word, does not merely mean the most powerful being in the room.
It means all-powerful. Limiting infinite power when it's inconvenient is cheating.

Why is it not unlimited and all-powerful? Wouldn't God be able to do everything and anything, anywhich how even beyond our understanding?

(It is beyond me at the moment goodnight)

 

[skepticalbip]

I won't buy the omnipotent hype until I see him defeat Odin in a cage match.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Any god who is not omniscient is not omnipotent. Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence. Strike two....

Not sure about that myself ... I see it as:

IF God is the one and only CREATOR and HE is ultimately more powerful than all HIS creations then GOD...IS the Gold-Bar-Standard for Omnipotent. If God knows more than HIS most intelligent creations about everything in the universe then God IS the Gold-Bar-Standard for Ominscience verses the mere words that wise-professing men as mere mortals create, to define how God should be.

That would mean that to a beetle I'm God. So your god is just like you and me only we're the beetles.

And of course beetles become gods too when discussing lesser evolved beasties.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I won't buy the omnipotent hype until I see him defeat Odin in a cage match.

But God couldn't even defeat the Cannanites with their chariots of iron. He would have zero chance against Odin!

 

[Atheos]

but omnipotent, as a word, does not merely mean the most powerful being in the room.
It means all-powerful. Limiting infinite power when it's inconvenient is cheating.

Why is it not unlimited and all-powerful? Wouldn't God be able to do everything and anything, anywhich how even beyond our understanding?

(It is beyond me at the moment goodnight)

I think that's sort of the point. We can understand that we're talking about limited power. Nothing about this discussion is beyond our understanding. But that is a place apologists like to go when they can no longer deal with simple logic that demonstrates the absurdity of certain god-myths. "Mysterious ways. Oooooooh."

Power is not unlimited if we (mere mortals) can define the limits of it. Any god who knows less than everything knowable could be defeated by a god has all the other powers of the first god but also knows everything. Knowledge is power.

Another limit: Any god who must use a means to achieve an end is not as powerful as a god who can simply cut straight to the end without the drama. Such a god is "subject" to certain laws of nature or the universe (or whatever) and must operate within those constraints. Many attempts to resolve the Problem of Evil hinge around the idea that god cannot achieve some undefined "greater good" without allowing evil to co-exist. This god has only limited power. A more powerful god would be able to achieve whatever "greater good" it wanted without requiring innocent creatures to experience suffering.

 

[Keith&Co.]

but omnipotent, as a word, does not merely mean the most powerful being in the room.
It means all-powerful. Limiting infinite power when it's inconvenient is cheating.

Why is it not unlimited and all-powerful?

because limiting it, pretty much by definition means it is not unlimited.
Words. Not just for English Teachers.

 

[Keith&Co.]

but omnipotent, as a word, does not merely mean the most powerful being in the room.
It means all-powerful. Limiting infinite power when it's inconvenient is cheating.

Why is it not unlimited and all-powerful? Wouldn't God be able to do everything and anything, anywhich how even beyond our understanding?

(It is beyond me at the moment goodnight)

I think that's sort of the point. We can understand that we're talking about limited power. Nothing about this discussion is beyond our understanding. But that is a place apologists like to go when they can no longer deal with simple logic that demonstrates the absurdity of certain god-myths. "Mysterious ways. Oooooooh."

Power is not unlimited if we (mere mortals) can define the limits of it. Any god who knows less than everything knowable could be defeated by a god has all the other powers of the first god but also knows everything. Knowledge is power.

Another limit: Any god who must use a means to achieve an end is not as powerful as a god who can simply cut straight to the end without the drama. Such a god is "subject" to certain laws of nature or the universe (or whatever) and must operate within those constraints. Many attempts to resolve the Problem of Evil hinge around the idea that god cannot achieve some undefined "greater good" without allowing evil to co-exist. This god has only limited power. A more powerful god would be able to achieve whatever "greater good" it wanted without requiring innocent creatures to experience suffering.

It's kinda how you can tell it's fiction. If Star Trek were real, half their plots could be resolved almost instantly by tech they have displsyed in other episodes. They just have to come up with a technobabnle reason sshy they cannot use the transporter, or the interstellar instantaneous communications, or miraculous medical tech. Technobabble, or an ion storm.
Drags out the drama, for no other reason than to preserve the drama.

A truly omnipotent being can do anything, and there literally cannot be any cvonsequences besides what he desires, and no reason at all that an infinitely loving being would put up with any suffering.
But such a creature is incompatible with the worldcwe see around us, thus we get religiobabnle rationlizations, excuses, and special case redefinitions of simple words.

 

[Poppa Popobawa]

but omnipotent, as a word, does not merely mean the most powerful being in the room.
It means all-powerful. Limiting infinite power when it's inconvenient is cheating.

Why is it not unlimited and all-powerful?

because limiting it, pretty much by definition means it is not unlimited.
Words. Not just for English Teachers.

Of course, if this god is unlimited, it would have unlimited knowledge, such that it would know what would be evidence,
sufficient to convince any particular individual of its existence. Since some of us are not convinced, that god must knowingly
NOT have provided evidence which is convincing, (I stress convincing to any one particular individual person, or to any
person in general).

If I, for instance, am unconvinced of the existence of any particular god, or all of them, then that god, (or those gods),
either have provided insufficiently convincing evidence, or perhaps no evidence for their existence, or perhaps is (are),
not all knowing and all powerful.

 

[Learner]

I think that's sort of the point. We can understand that we're talking about limited power. Nothing about this discussion is beyond our understanding. But that is a place apologists like to go when they can no longer deal with simple logic that demonstrates the absurdity of certain god-myths. "Mysterious ways. Oooooooh."

Sure we understand limited power and does your point mean God is restrained to the natural world to clarify? Other than that, these few words doesn't describe or explain WHY certain actions (By God) should or should not be done this way.

Creating life that can't be replicated or produced in a lab is quite a mysterious thing.

Power is not unlimited if we (mere mortals) can define the limits of it. Any god who knows less than everything knowable could be defeated by a god has all the other powers of the first god but also knows everything. Knowledge is power.

Well in the scene in this theology where there is only one Creator who has MORE knowledge than HIS creation. God IS the most powerful.

Possibly a new topic for discussion, "Would a "second god" pop into existence or would this "second god" be created as the angels were created?"

Another limit: Any god who must use a means to achieve an end is not as powerful as a god who can simply cut straight to the end without the drama. Such a god is "subject" to certain laws of nature or the universe (or whatever) and must operate within those constraints.

Perhaps the makings of an individual or the spirit of character in someones heart is NOW most important ... especially with the drama, as it's often indicated in the bible. Who would want to live in Gods Kingdom? Some wouldn't want to. Besides.... just because its not "simply cut straight" the way YOU would think it should be from your experience of the material world .. the physical and logical constraints, doesn't mean God should be also. I mean really .. a Creator of the physical laws?

Many attempts to resolve the Problem of Evil hinge around the idea that god cannot achieve some undefined "greater good" without allowing evil to co-exist. This god has only limited power. A more powerful god would be able to achieve whatever "greater good" it wanted without requiring innocent creatures to experience suffering.

To fix potential evil, now that Adam and Eve was shown things (you know the story) God will have to take away those nerve endings which God gave to you as a gift - you know, experiencing the physical world, feel the sun on ones face, breathing in the air and marvel at Gods Glory. Unfortunately Satan knows our anatomy very well.

 

[Learner]

but omnipotent, as a word, does not merely mean the most powerful being in the room.
It means all-powerful. Limiting infinite power when it's inconvenient is cheating.

Why is it not unlimited and all-powerful?

because limiting it, pretty much by definition means it is not unlimited.
Words. Not just for English Teachers.

I'll accept that a god would be limted by the definition in the physical world. This is not the same non physical Creator outside logical (human) and physical constraints.

 

[Keith&Co.]

because limiting it, pretty much by definition means it is not unlimited.
Words. Not just for English Teachers.

I'll accept that a god would be limted by the definition in the physical world. This is not the same non physical Creator outside logical (human) and physical constraints.

The physical constraints HE created when HE created the physical world?
So, you still worship an unlimited god, but with necessary limits where the plot requires it.

Which do you prefer, religiobabble or theolobabble?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Simplicity of God. An ancient dogma. God is simple, not made of parts. His essences and substance are one. Why. A sustance has essences that make it what it is. A hamster has essences that make it a hamster, and not a table. hamsters, tables, man, God. That is a problem for God. If God is a sustance and has essences, how did those essences become part of God? This implies there is something outside and beyond god that create God as a substance that had the essences we think of as being God's essences. So by making God dismple, these metaphysical outside forces are banished as far as theology is concerned.

Thus logic, math and other metaphysical necessities are either part of God or created by God. Logic is a creation of God. And God's perfect goodness is part of God's essential nature, a simple nature. Along with his essential omnipotence, omniscience et al.

Rene Descartes in his letters to Marin Mersenne in 1640 makes that explicit as a theological claim. Morals and mathematics are God's creation.

Now the problem, why is there moral evil in this world? God could have created man to have free will like God enjoys, and good moral nature as God enjoys so moral evil would not exist. man would by his free will follow his good nature and do no moral evil. Since God creates all logical rules, the core reality of existence, God can do this. This eliminates all theological attempts at theodicy, explaining away evil and God's omnipotence. God can have any state of affairs God wants. Nothing can thwart him, there can be no hidden reasons god cannot do this.

Moral evil exists. The doctrine of the simplicity of God fails. Logic trumps God, naturalism is supreme. God is either not good, or not all powerful. And then we must ask, where does logic, math, the metaphysical necessities come from? Not God.

And we have then, the moral nature of man argument. Our creation by God means god must design us, including our moral nature. Bad, indifferent or good. Why would a morally good God not choose creating us with a good moral nature? God, being omniscient would know, our moral nature relies on his design choice, and moral evil will result in he chooses bad or indifferent moral nature for his creations.

In the end, God does not seem to be a viable hypothesis. We start with Descartes maximal God, derived from the ancient dogma of a simple God and God, examined logically collapses to a not very impressive God when we start asking careful questions about God's purported nature and the nature of the world we find ourselves in.

 

[bilby]

...
Creating life that can't be replicated or produced in a lab is quite a mysterious thing.
...

Then it's a shame for your god of the gaps that that gap is rapidly closing.

There are no components of the minimum genome cell that we haven't successfully made in the lab. As far as I am aware, nobody has gone to the trouble of making an entire living cell from only artificial components; But it's only a matter of time. The main reason it's not been done yet (as far as I know, and I am no longer up to date in the field, so it may have been), is that researchers tend to focus on one bit, and just use existing bacteria to provide the rest.

That's because only theists think life is somehow different and important. It's not; life is just our name for sufficiently complex cyclic chemistry.

There's literally zero difference between DNA from a living cell, and the same DNA sequence pulled out of a DNA sequencing machine.

 

[skepticalbip]

Sure we understand limited power and does your point mean God is restrained to the natural world to clarify? Other than that, these few words doesn't describe or explain WHY certain actions (By God) should or should not be done this way.

Creating life that can't be replicated or produced in a lab is quite a mysterious thing.

That is a rather odd criteria. Anything that someone doesn't understand is a mysterious thing for them. I would assume that how a television was designed and built would be a mystery to you and that you wouldn't be able to make one. This, however, shouldn't make you consider those those who do to be gods... but maybe it does.

As for science creating critters, an understanding of DNA and the ability to design is fairly well along. In fact, design errors (made by god?) are already being corrected for fetuses in utero.

 

[Learner]

Hmm natural selection not as effective as it seems.

(I'd love to spend a lot more time to discuss with posters. I will have take a Christmas break soon! )

 

[skepticalbip]

Hmm natural selection not as effective as it seems.

(I'd love to spend a lot more time to discuss with posters. I will have take a Christmas break soon! )

?

Evolution doesn't yield perfection. It only yields good enough for a species to survive sufficiently long enough to procreate. Religion tells us that perfection is god's bailiwick. Only one seems to fit observations.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hmm natural selection not as effective as it seems.

In comparison to what...?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Hmm natural selection not as effective as it seems.

In comparison to what...?

Creation magic. Everything was created perfect. It's broken now because of snakes, apples, disobedience, etc. Creation magic doesn't have anything to do with unhappy things.

 

[Atheos]

To fix potential evil, now that Adam and Eve was shown things (you know the story) God will have to take away those nerve endings which God gave to you as a gift - you know, experiencing the physical world, feel the sun on ones face, breathing in the air and marvel at Gods Glory. Unfortunately Satan knows our anatomy very well.

Did/does god have nerve endings? Can this god of yours experience what it's like to be deprived of food or water to the point of starvation? Can this god of yours be suffocated if one puts a bag over its head? Can someone cut off its hand, pull out its fingernails or sexually abuse it?

One of the problems I see with religious apology such as this is it doesn't tend to think the whole thing through to its conclusion. "All Things Bright and Beautiful." But Monty Python addressed that with "All Things Dull and Ugly."

From what I understand of the Yahweh-derived religions there was an eternity before Yahweh intentionally chose to fabricate creatures capable of starving, feeling pain or having limbs amputated. Did that somehow make the world a better place? Nothing about that makes sense to me, but of course ... woo... here come those mysterious ways.

 

[steve_bank]

A properly notarized birth certificate. Plus references and a work history.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

From what I understand of the Yahweh-derived religions there was an eternity before Yahweh intentionally chose to fabricate creatures capable of starving, feeling pain or having limbs amputated. Did that somehow make the world a better place? Nothing about that makes sense to me, but of course ... woo... here come those mysterious ways.

That makes sense. Abrahamic religions are nothing without sin. One might say that they are built on a foundation which is sin, and such a god would make sense.

 

[aupmanyav]

Any god who is not omniscient is not omnipotent. Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence. Strike two....

Not sure about that myself ... I see it as:

IF God is the one and only CREATOR and HE is ultimately more powerful than all HIS creations then GOD...IS the Gold-Bar-Standard for Omnipotent. If God knows more than HIS most intelligent creations about everything in the universe then God IS the Gold-Bar-Standard for Ominscience verses the mere words that wise-professing men as mere mortals create, to define how God should be.

There you are. God is omnipotent but not omniscient. His left hand does not know what his right hand is doing. That is why he does not do anything about injustice in the world. He simply does not know what is happening in the world. But that is what God we have. Satisfied with that?

From what I understand of the Yahweh-derived religions there was an eternity before Yahweh intentionally chose to fabricate creatures capable of starving, feeling pain or having limbs amputated. Did that somehow make the world a better place? Nothing about that makes sense to me, but of course ... woo... here come those mysterious ways.

There again. Because God did not know what his creations will be like. Just went on creating things that he later regretted. He is not omniscient.
@T.G.G.Moogly, that makes your concept incorrect.

 

[bilby]

“But you . . . you’re omnicognisant,” said Brutha.

“That doesn’t mean I know everything.”

Brutha bit his lip. “Um. Yes. It does.”

- Conversation between the Great God Om, and his believer, Brother Brutha. Small Gods, by Terry Pratchett.

 

[Learner]

There you are. God is omnipotent but not omniscient. His left hand does not know what his right hand is doing. That is why he does not do anything about injustice in the world. He simply does not know what is happening in the world. But that is what God we have. Satisfied with that?

Not quite the God of the bible as I see it obviously to your view. The future IS already set out in Revelation therefore God is omniscient. Likewise, with the regrets (after death came into the world), God knows and sees both or vatious (potential) destiny outcomes. Man by his own accord, by his own will, has to choose his own fate from one of them - the requirement to continue on, in the after-life.

You (plural) are proof that humans (can do it) understand and feel compasionately about injustice in the world. All individuals should be doing like-wise by their own will.

And...as its written... this is now Satan's world.



Curiously: Lets say there is such a thing of a new world and new heaven. Would you or anyone here want to live there ... with God?