Omnipotent God

[nerve]

if God were truly omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent he would be able to create a perfect world, with perfect people, and everything would be beautiful, and everyone would be happy. it would not matter that no one knew suffering, because the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God would know how to fix that. he would know how to make it where people knew what they had. He could make it where, even though there was no evil and no suffering to compare their lives to, they could experience pleasure and know what it was. this is impossible, to us. we could not know how to create this world, or even how it would be possible. I myself don't understand how you can have pleasure without pain, or good without evil; but then, I'm not an all-powerful God. it's true, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God could make a boulder so heavy that he could not lift it. do you know why? because He would be all-powerful. and since that is absurd...then, as I see it, the very idea of something being all-powerful is absurd. but let's say He does exist, and did create everything, and is all-powerful, for the sake of argument. He created the world the way it is, which includes all evil and suffering. evil and suffering are of God because he created it. if he could truly do anything, surely, it would be possible for Him to know (since He knows absolutely everything) how to create a good world with no suffering. now...this is for christians who believe in an all-powerful deity, and also in an eternal heaven, and an eternal hell, in which a person...suffers...forever...simply because they did not believe everything in the bible (which version by the way?) and that Jesus Christ was divine and died to save them and believing that is the only way. nevermind if they are loving people that try their best to do the right things, and are truly open to others, and always try to put others before themselves, and are always looking over what they do to make sure it isn't wrong, and admitting when they make mistakes and try to never do it again, and understand that love is the way. nevermind that. what is important, of course, is the book that God "wrote", and believing in his son. you must admit: either God is not all-powerful, OR, He is not loving. I know the question has been asked before, but never by me. I was always one to try to argue it. but now I see my arguments were very weak. perhaps yours are better? tell me why you believe in a God who would create suffering, and then actually...send people to a place where they burn forever ...think back to the most painful thing you have ever experienced. think of the most painful thing you have ever heard of someone else experiencing. (remember? just hearing about it made you suffer.) WRONG. those things weren't suffering. the hell that you describe, the place you say people go, even people who were kind and caring and never committed any serious crimes in all of their lives, is suffering. you say they burn suffer for eternity. I would not spit on the God you describe. you must admit: either God is not all-powerful, OR, He is not loving. as I said, this is directed at christians who believe in an omnipotent, loving creator, and an eternal heaven and eternal hell. however, as with any of my threads, anyone who has any thoughts (that contribute to the discussion) to share, are welcome. I would also love to hear from christians who have beliefs diffrent from what I described.

[R.D.735]

That's the idea that made me an agnostic. Most counter-arguments I've heard rely upon the idea that God is completely benevolent, but suffering is sometimes good, even if we cannot understand the reason. I'm sure there are other counter-arguments, though, which would be interesting to hear.

[♥Mark]

That's the idea that made me an agnostic. Most counter-arguments I've heard rely upon the idea that God is completely benevolent, but suffering is sometimes good, even if we cannot understand the reason. I'm sure there are other counter-arguments, though, which would be interesting to hear. You'd think that. But it always just ends up as "FREE WILL WE WOULD ALL B ROBOTS LOL"

[CymekSniper]

I'm not a believer in god, but why would he do that? Why would god create a world filled with only good and no evil? If he did it would make the entertainment value of his creation 0. And who's to say he hasn't created other worlds, hmmm?

[♥Mark]

If he did it would make the entertainment value of his creation 0. You are attempting to reduce this god's power by saying it is incapable of creating a sufficiently entertaining existence, which is not in line with the premise of it being omnipotent.

[nerve]

thankyou, Mark

[CymekSniper]

But if he did exist, he could create multiple worlds, with different species and different cultures. Perhaps one that doesn't have suffering? Anyways the reason good people suffer, and that there are so many bad people in the world is cause there's no god.

[CymekSniper]

Pah! Why am I here? What is my argument even saying? I really need to choose my battles better. God doesn't exist. It is just simply illogical.

[juroara]

if God were truly omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent" "this is impossible, to us. we could not know how to create this world, or even how it would be possible. I myself don't understand how you can have pleasure without pain, or good without evil; but then, I'm not an all-powerful God." "you must admit: either God is not all-powerful, OR, He is not loving.:" you have to stop right there because you don't understand what omnipresent God means, as do neither the christians. look to the east to understand this better, if you think God is up in heaven looking down at us then you've missed the message that God is in you. so before you can begin to argue about suffering and love you have to understand what this omnipresent God is and where your last statement is a black and white situation, a good or evil mentality - which is what the fruit symbolized. black and white/good or evil, one or the other - which is lack of understanding that reality is not black or white.

[nerve]

I don't understand what you're saying. could you possibly rephrase that or elaborate?

[♥Mark]

How about pain? Is there anything subjective about that? Better yet, just answer this: Do you honestly believe there is not needless suffering in the world? What did you learn last time you stubbed your toe?

[Sornaensis]

you have to stop right there because you don't understand what omnipresent God means, as do neither the christians. look to the east to understand this better, if you think God is up in heaven looking down at us then you've missed the message that God is in you. so before you can begin to argue about suffering and love you have to understand what this omnipresent God is and where your last statement is a black and white situation, a good or evil mentality - which is what the fruit symbolized. black and white/good or evil, one or the other - which is lack of understanding that reality is not black or white. ..and that is the counter-argument to end all counter arguments. God is officially a FORCE not a SENTIENT creature, therefore religion FAILS. QED.

[juroara]

I don't understand what you're saying. could you possibly rephrase that or elaborate? I don't want to get into a debate here, I am simply saying when dealing with reality you can't box it up into either A or B. Reality isn't either A or B. for example, Seismosaur said another A or B situation, a black and white thinking that doesn't capture reality. "God is officially a FORCE not a SENTIENT creature, therefore religion FAILS. QED. 10-15-2007 10:14 PM" this statement makes it sound like God is either A or B. And when neither A or B or true then we run into a problem. Can a force be sentient, and can a creature be a force?

[Sornaensis]

I don't want to get into a debate here, I am simply saying when dealing with reality you can't box it up into either A or B. Reality isn't either A or B. for example, Seismosaur said another A or B situation, a black and white thinking that doesn't capture reality. "God is officially a FORCE not a SENTIENT creature, therefore religion FAILS. QED. 10-15-2007 10:14 PM" this statement makes it sound like God is either A or B. And when neither A or B or true then we run into a problem. Can a force be sentient, and can a creature be a force? Ok. Since none of can image anything other than either inanimaticy or animaticy, explain another option please.

[Universal Mind]

Paperdoll, I agree with you completely. You explained it very well. Let me tell you that this conversation does not go very far. I still have cracks on my skull from beating my head on the wall when I tried to debate people on this issue in the past and could not get them to stop making the point that a universe without problems would have problems. That is where the conversation ends up. "Yes, God could make it where everybody is in total bliss forever and where there are no problems with that, but there would be problems with that." Can a statement be any more self-contradictory? That is a dead end a debate on this inevitably reaches, but sometimes you can push hard enough and get the person to say, "It's just something we can't understand. You have to have faith that all powerful God is not evil for creating reality in such a way that he knew billions of people would be tortured for eternity even though he could have avoided it and still gotten all of the results he wanted since he is infinitely powerful." There is nothing else the conversation can lead to other than tangents and misrepresentations of what infinite power is. Mark, what was the joke you said recently about how infinite power has its limits and that God is trying as hard as he can? It thought that statement summed everything up totally with just a few words.

[Howie]

This may be proof that altruism does not exist. Because God him/her or itself, demands something for itself

[♥Mark]

Reality isn't either A or B. A - Reality is A or B B - Reality is not A or B Mark, what was the joke you said recently about how infinite power has its limits and that God is trying as hard as he can? That was essentially it, yeah.

[Moonbeam]

? What did you learn last time you stubbed your toe? To put on some damn slippers. Actually it took a few times.

[Sornaensis]

Mark, what was the joke you said recently about how infinite power has its limits and that God is trying as hard as he can? It thought that statement summed everything up totally with just a few words. Check my sig .

[nerve]

thanks for your reply, UM. I've always been fascinated by the story of Lucifer, and I recently wrote a paper/essay that analyzed it. (surely you're familiar with it.) I went over every possibility of God's creation of the angels (or, I believe I did). in conclusion, the only possibilities were that either God is not omnipotent or he is not loving. it isn't completely finished, I plan to write a sort of introduction that will include a summary of the story and where the story came from. I don't know if you are interested or not, but I think it's another way of proving that God is...just a symbol. I plan to post it, and I do hope you will share your thoughts. howie: I don't think you can say that. what I mean is, I think that altruism does exist, and doesn't exist. I think it does not exist because if you ever do anything for anyone, it cannot be completely selfless, because you'll be happy about it. no one does anything they don't want to do. but then, it does exist, because if you do an act that is selfless, it makes you happy, and being happy is selfless in away (because your happiness makes other people happy, so, you could say that the only reason you feel happiness yourself, is for others). it exists, yet it doesn't exist. the only thing that can exist and not exist at the same time is nothing. (nothing can do that.) altruism is not actually a thing, it exists only as an idea, to other things, but not itself. it is not an actual thing, but it affects things, so it is observable through those things, but, it is not those things. get what I mean?

[Howie]

thanks for your reply, UM. I've always been fascinated by the story of Lucifer, and I recently wrote a paper/essay that analyzed it. (surely you're familiar with it.) I went over every possibility of God's creation of the angels (or, I believe I did). in conclusion, the only possibilities were that either God is not omnipotent or he is not loving. it isn't completely finished, I plan to write a sort of introduction that will include a summary of the story and where the story came from. I don't know if you are interested or not, but I think it's another way of proving that God is...just a symbol. I plan to post it, and I do hope you will share your thoughts. howie: I don't think you can say that. what I mean is, I think that altruism does exist, and doesn't exist. I think it does not exist because if you ever do anything for anyone, it cannot be completely selfless, because you'll be happy about it. no one does anything they don't want to do. but then, it does exist, because if you do an act that is selfless, it makes you happy, and being happy is selfless in away (because your happiness makes other people happy, so, you could say that the only reason you feel happiness yourself, is for others). it exists, yet it doesn't exist. the only thing that can exist and not exist at the same time is nothing. (nothing can do that.) altruism is not actually a thing, it exists only as an idea, to other things, but not itself. it is not an actual thing, but it affects things, so it is observable through those things, but, it is not those things. get what I mean? It is more than an idea, It is survival. It is instinctive. We do it, animals do it. God does it? What you say in both examples is one in the same. Happy - Both make you happy, meaning self promoting. taking the "idea", as you would call it, then using it's effect after the fact, does not seem like an argument at all. That is unless we did so on a predetermined basis. which I don't believe to be the case. Even if we would all like to think so. An exagerated example but the same in form.: I am rich only so I can give to charity? The concept just is not truth, IMHO. It does it doesn't. What can't we say this for. It is a great opposing argument? I don't know. It is an open ended idea that only leads you in circles. Never the truth. What do you think PD? About Lucifer. I have something somewhere. I will try the useless search. oooy! I found it! http://www.dreamviews.com/community/showthread.php?t=17184&highlight=Very+Devil The url has not been working. Something new? something old I have forgotten. WTF is the problem?

[Mystic7]

Paperdoll. May I ask you. If God were truly omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent he would be able to create a perfect world, with perfect people, and everything would be beautiful, and everyone would be happy. How can you rule out that there isn't a place like that existing? the very idea of something being all-powerful is absurd. But would it not follow that anything all powerful could make it so it's not absurd? but let's say He does exist, and did create everything, and is all-powerful, for the sake of argument. Something I really don't understand. If you say god is all powerful in this sentence. How did you conclude that choice is suddenly restricted to certain finite conditions in this sentence. you must admit: either God is not all-powerful, OR, He is not loving. ???

[Howie]

If God were truly omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent he would be able to create a perfect world, with perfect people, and everything would be beautiful, and everyone would be happy How can you rule out that there isn't a place like that existing? So, We just got the short end of one of God's creations?

[Mystic7]

No answer the question. If god is all powerful, for the sake of argument. As Paperdoll said. How would god then be restricted to not being all loving while being all powerful.

[Moonbeam]

No answer the question. If god is all powerful, for the sake of argument. As Paperdoll said. How would god then be restricted to not being all loving while being all powerful. Has it never occurred to you that creating millions and millions of beings with miserable lives who suffer and then die might not be a loving thing to do?