Would an Omnipotent being have a Need/Want to do ANYTHING?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
marketandchurch
Scholar
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:51 am
Location: The People's Republic Of Portland

Post #31

Post by marketandchurch »

God doesn't need our anything. Every commandment or prohibition in the Torah, to be worth it's weight, is fully for our benefit, not God's. To suggest that God needs acknowledgment by Prayer is to suggest a weak, immature God. We anthropomorphize God for own benefit, to better relate to this invisible unknowable untouchable, but that composite of God is not only a poor composite of the creator of everything, but never does the Torah suggest it to begin with.

User avatar
FarWanderer
Guru
Posts: 1617
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:47 am
Location: California

Post #32

Post by FarWanderer »

[Replying to bluethread]

Because Jesus Christ is a person. A God that simply behaves randomly and without willful intent is not even a theistic God, but a pantheistic or deistic one.

User avatar
help3434
Guru
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:19 pm
Location: United States
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Post #33

Post by help3434 »

[Replying to post 29 by bluethread]

No, the question in the OP is why would a perfect diety create anything, not how could there be a diety.

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Post #34

Post by dianaiad »

Master Spade wrote:
woodpen wrote:
Master Spade wrote:
That thought itself was a prefect thought as all thoughts are perfect. But being a question it was without an answer. God wanted to know that answer.


-

Wow. If you truly believe that, then you had me fooled. You must be an Athiest on here being sarcastic. pretending to be a Religious person!



If not, then how do you NOT see that statement as being Contrary to an "All Knowing" being!???

I mean, how can you say he had a question...........WITHOUT AN ANSWER!!???? THAT is NOT an ALL KNOWING being! All Knowing means he knows EVERYTHING. There is NOTHING he does not know. That is one part of being Omnipotent!


Again I say, I'm not sure if you are being serious with that statement.


.
DI is yankin' your chain, to an extent. Read some of his other posts, they're bloody everywhere :D . He sometimes likes to point to the absurdity of the biblical god. :roll:


lol! I knew it was suspicious that he was replying to this question with so much Respect!! I said in a previous post that I was SHOCKED that a religious person wasn't doing the usual, that being ATTACKING me for even thinking of Questioning his "God"! lol!! Boy do they get Mad!! lol!!

You'd think religious people would be the nicest, more respectful people alive......but the opposite is true.



.
Well, I find that atheists, who pride themselves on logic and civil discourse, tend to be civil only to atheists, and reserve logic to their own; they seem to feel that it is just ducky to demand logic FROM theists, but neglect to use it themselves. Theists are not, in their view, worth the trouble.

There. We have now traded silly generalities, mine exactly as accurate as was yours.

One thing I will say...an old saying of my grandmother:

If you slug someone in their bruised shoulder, don't complain if they hit back.

In other words, bud, if you want to be treated with courtesy, use some. Consider that in THIS forum, for instance, the theists are vilified, condescended to, insulted, derided and ridiculed. Constantly. Some threads are begun with anti-theist thoughts, and filled with posts FROM atheists patting each other on the back; the ratio of theist to atheist response in some of those threads is very low.

....and when one DOES show up, and perhaps objects to the tenor of the discourse found, s/he is pounded on.

Why don't you figure that HERE, in this forum, you are starting new? That no theist here has insulted you? That (though this may be too late already) that you could begin by being courteous, and refrain from making "oh, yeah, no theist can possibly be kind, or courteous, or worth talking to because of course theists are idiots" type comments until after more than two or three have attacked you FIRST?

Just a thought.

As for me, I tend to be reactionary. That is, courtesy gets courtesy from me, and I generally do not insult where no insult was given first.

Try that.

instantc
Guru
Posts: 2251
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:11 am

Post #36

Post by instantc »

Master Spade wrote: So the question in the OP: Is your "god" All Powerful, All Knowing, and Perfect in every way? Is it Omnipotent? Is yes, then why would it of made ANYTHING, since it would've lacked Nothing??
Why cannot an omnipotent being desire a loving relationship with other beings?

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #37

Post by Goat »

instantc wrote:
Master Spade wrote: So the question in the OP: Is your "god" All Powerful, All Knowing, and Perfect in every way? Is it Omnipotent? Is yes, then why would it of made ANYTHING, since it would've lacked Nothing??
Why cannot an omnipotent being desire a loving relationship with other beings?
Why would an omnipotent being threaten with 'the lake of fire' if you don't believe in him?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

instantc
Guru
Posts: 2251
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:11 am

Post #40

Post by instantc »

Master Spade wrote: An Omnipotent being having a Desire means it's NOT Omnipotent! What don't people understand this??
.
Because it's nonsense, there's nothing in omnipotence that prevents one from having desires. At least you haven't demonstrated that. Try making an argument instead of an assertion.

Post Reply