Film, Media & TV0 min ago
A Benevolent God
202 Answers
Having taken heed of some of the arguments in support of their benevolent god and Kromovacorum's posting on another thread, what are your suggestions for this benevolent god's mightiest works?
Here is mine:-
The boxing day tsunami
Here is mine:-
The boxing day tsunami
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jomifl. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Since, again, I ought to start by saying that I don't believe in a God of any kind anyway, then it's perhaps not too surprising that I can't quite define what a God I might be defending is like exactly.
The closest, I think, would be the following: as powerful, as good and as knowing as anything can be. I don't see that it's possible to be infinitely anything, since one can always invent cases that show that there ought to be limits to God's power. Examples including that seriously annoying "can God make a rock too heavy for him to lift?"; or more seriously "Can God give us free will while also ensuring that we always choose to do the right thing?" which would have been nice of him to manage.
What this boils down to really is that I think the words omniscient etc., are too woolly to be of any use without defining them more precisely. While a dictionary doesn't fuss over this (I have a Chambers too, and it sticks to omniscient = all-knowing) I think we should, and need to define the words more carefully. What consequences these have, I don't know exactly. I suspect that in the case particularly of omniscience I probably try to bind God far too tightly, and in doing so effectively turn him into a Scientist who has "finished Science".
The closest, I think, would be the following: as powerful, as good and as knowing as anything can be. I don't see that it's possible to be infinitely anything, since one can always invent cases that show that there ought to be limits to God's power. Examples including that seriously annoying "can God make a rock too heavy for him to lift?"; or more seriously "Can God give us free will while also ensuring that we always choose to do the right thing?" which would have been nice of him to manage.
What this boils down to really is that I think the words omniscient etc., are too woolly to be of any use without defining them more precisely. While a dictionary doesn't fuss over this (I have a Chambers too, and it sticks to omniscient = all-knowing) I think we should, and need to define the words more carefully. What consequences these have, I don't know exactly. I suspect that in the case particularly of omniscience I probably try to bind God far too tightly, and in doing so effectively turn him into a Scientist who has "finished Science".
Well I'm not understanding your point either. I was defining the God I don't believe in, not anyone else's. If by your definition that God isn't omniscient, I won't debate that, I'm just saying that he is a God that would know as much as is possible to know, etc. So I was explaining the position I argue from,
Jim - It is not an atheists responsibility to define god or his character. If you can accept that their is an invisible being who watches over us and judges our every actions and thoughts at every minute of every day then I would suggest that you are a theist. For that is the very least that theists expect of their god.
If on the other hand you doubt that such a being/entity could exist, then you are an atheist. Arguing any middle ground for the sake of not upsetting anyone or for the sake of "balance" does neither side any favours.
If on the other hand you doubt that such a being/entity could exist, then you are an atheist. Arguing any middle ground for the sake of not upsetting anyone or for the sake of "balance" does neither side any favours.
No, I don't see that at all. Obviously. The middle ground I am seeking, if any, is to try to find some way of accommodating my own view that there is no God with the fact that so believing this necessarily means that friends, family etc. who do believe are somehow either deluded or mad.
I also don't see that it's a problem to think about it some more and try to define the nature of any such God. After all, it does help to know what you are arguing against, doesn't it? Know your enemy, that sort of thing.
I also don't see that it's a problem to think about it some more and try to define the nature of any such God. After all, it does help to know what you are arguing against, doesn't it? Know your enemy, that sort of thing.
I should also just add that, when I finally became atheist (and yes, I am atheist, whatever you think I am) there wasn't really any great joy in that. Not immediately. The timing perhaps didn't help, as my godmother was visiting when I reached that decision, but I'm still wrestling somewhat between the feeling that I have to be right on this, and that I still love her as family. It's made complicated by the fact that she apparently felt the Earth was young, so that I can't even respect her views properly.
This inevitably leads to contradiction, and that may be partly leaking out into my posts here.
This inevitably leads to contradiction, and that may be partly leaking out into my posts here.
//Know your enemy, that sort of thing.//
What a strange thing for someone who arrived in R&S on a regular basis only recently to say. Why view anyone here as 'your enemy'?
A bit of advice. Since most of the people contributing here were raised in societies that embrace the God of Abraham - be it Christianity, Judaism, or Islam - when we're talking about 'God', that is the God we're usually talking about. If you want to talk about a different God, make that clear, and there will be no confusion.
What a strange thing for someone who arrived in R&S on a regular basis only recently to say. Why view anyone here as 'your enemy'?
A bit of advice. Since most of the people contributing here were raised in societies that embrace the God of Abraham - be it Christianity, Judaism, or Islam - when we're talking about 'God', that is the God we're usually talking about. If you want to talk about a different God, make that clear, and there will be no confusion.
It's a figure of speech... "enemy" means just "those with opposing views" in this context.
Besides which, I may have only recently stepped into R&S on AB, but have been having these arguments for years beforehand. Not necessarily very coherently, but for a long time anyway.
People have different ideas even of what the Abrahamic God is. Speaking, for example, of those three people close to me that are Christian, all three of them have different ideas about what God is to them -- and all of those are I think different from how you see him, too. I don't think that my view of God needs to be marked as entirely separate.
Besides which, I may have only recently stepped into R&S on AB, but have been having these arguments for years beforehand. Not necessarily very coherently, but for a long time anyway.
People have different ideas even of what the Abrahamic God is. Speaking, for example, of those three people close to me that are Christian, all three of them have different ideas about what God is to them -- and all of those are I think different from how you see him, too. I don't think that my view of God needs to be marked as entirely separate.
here is a distinction between:
inherent omniscience - the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known.
total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
Some modern Christian theologians argue that God's omniscience is inherent rather than total, and that God chooses to limit his omniscience in order to preserve the freewill and dignity of his creatures.[2] John Calvin, among other theologians of the 16th century, comfortable with the definition of God as being omniscient in the total sense, in order for worthy beings' abilities to choose freely, embraced the doctrine of predestination.
inherent omniscience - the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known.
total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
Some modern Christian theologians argue that God's omniscience is inherent rather than total, and that God chooses to limit his omniscience in order to preserve the freewill and dignity of his creatures.[2] John Calvin, among other theologians of the 16th century, comfortable with the definition of God as being omniscient in the total sense, in order for worthy beings' abilities to choose freely, embraced the doctrine of predestination.
Latest Posts
Jobs & Education13 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
