I think a huge motivator for debate here stems around us (fallible humans) applying requirements for what God (the omnipotent, omniscient, and perhaps all-loving Being) should have, especially in regards to moral stances and decisions.
1) Now on the one hand, there is the argument that we can't confidently make requirements for God. If we come from a stance of ignorance and God from a stance of all-knowing, we could make a requirement that is incorrect for God.
ex) A good God should believe x is wrong and y is right. A good God should have interfered to prevent so-and-so events from happening.
2) On the other hand, if we solely take on the previous view then how can we make any progress whatsoever for confidently saying what God should be like? Surely there must be some logical way to make requirements for what God should be like even though we are ignorant and not perfect and God by definition is perfect.
(1) and (2) are at odds with each other. Where do we go from here?
Logically Applying Requirements for God
Moderator: Moderators
- Aetixintro
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 918
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
- Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
- Has thanked: 431 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
- Contact:
Re: Logically Applying Requirements for God
Post #2[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]
First, I support the notion of an entirely good God given by The 10 Commandments and The Golden Rule. The Bible also says that all of God's creation should be respected and it means the animals, plants and the rest too!
I think most Christians sigh by any the idiot thoughts that we are supposed to go around listening for God's commands when in fact the only words from God we have are in the Bible! Absolutely!
Also, God resides in the all good place of Heaven. The heavy history of Catholicism by eg. The Purgatory proves this. If God is supposed to be both good and evil why the existence of Satan, The Devil, Belial, Belzebub, Mammon and Hell (obviously, where God does not reside)!
So, finally, read the Bible with the God of goodness in heart, charitably, and the Bible "opens up" to you!
Best wishes!
First, I support the notion of an entirely good God given by The 10 Commandments and The Golden Rule. The Bible also says that all of God's creation should be respected and it means the animals, plants and the rest too!
I think most Christians sigh by any the idiot thoughts that we are supposed to go around listening for God's commands when in fact the only words from God we have are in the Bible! Absolutely!
Also, God resides in the all good place of Heaven. The heavy history of Catholicism by eg. The Purgatory proves this. If God is supposed to be both good and evil why the existence of Satan, The Devil, Belial, Belzebub, Mammon and Hell (obviously, where God does not reside)!
So, finally, read the Bible with the God of goodness in heart, charitably, and the Bible "opens up" to you!
Best wishes!
I'm cool! - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1668
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
- Location: Europe
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
Post #3
There are some things we can say from philosophy. For example, God's existence is a necessary existence and does not require anything external to it to give it existence. As for moral questions - we depend largely on revelation and the inspired writings that have come to us down through the ages. These revelations come to us in different forms and in different religions but the essence of all true religions is the same.
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8487
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2141 times
- Been thanked: 2293 times
Re: Logically Applying Requirements for God
Post #4God by definition is perfect? Maybe by your definition. God by my definition is a mythological being which no one should waste their time believing in.jgh7 wrote:
Surely there must be some logical way to make requirements for what God should be like even though we are ignorant and not perfect and God by definition is perfect.
Re: Logically Applying Requirements for God
Post #5[Replying to post 4 by Tcg]
I was talking about the philosophical God that is typically used for general debates. This God is defined as being all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), and all-present (omnipresent).
But thanks for your 2 cents. It was a real shocker to hear that you of all people don't believe in God.
I was talking about the philosophical God that is typically used for general debates. This God is defined as being all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), and all-present (omnipresent).
But thanks for your 2 cents. It was a real shocker to hear that you of all people don't believe in God.
-
OnlineWilliam
- Savant
- Posts: 14003
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Post #7
[Replying to post 6 by Walterbl]
That's weird. In my experience this is what atheists general say about theists.
That's weird. In my experience this is what atheists general say about theists.
- 2ndRateMind
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1540
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
- Location: Pilgrim on another way
- Has thanked: 65 times
- Been thanked: 68 times
Post #8
As far as the moral attributes of God are concerned, I think the general tendency amongst philosophers and theologians is to ascribe infinite greatness to God, and therefore the possession of all (good) moral qualities to an infinite extent. But we are immediately confronted with the existence of evil in His world.
God could abolish evil, but chooses not to. Evil serves God's purposes quite as much as Good does. Chiefly these macro-purposes could be:
1) Evil gives us moral choice and makes of us moral agents. If there was no possibility of evil, we could claim no credit for being good.
2) Evil makes life interesting and purposeful; in combating evil, we have something useful and fulfilling to do with our lives.
3) Evil prompts us to explore the world and discover how it works, in our efforts to prevent it.
4) Corollary to 2) and 3) A world without evil would be an incredibly boring place in which to live.
5) It seems that God prizes our free choice to associate with Him almost more than any other consideration. So, finally, in order to abolish evil, God would have to act secretly, so that atheists would still have reasonable grounds not to believe, according to their disposition. And by definition, we do not know how many evils have been divinely destroyed, in secret from us.
This is how my poor second rate mind attempts to reconcile a good God with all the omni attributes generally ascribed to Him and the existence of evil, anyway.
Best wishes, 2RM
[1]St. Augustine: Confessions
So, in defense of the philosopher's 'omnimax' version of God (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc) my thinking, for what it's worth, runs as follows:Either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not; if he cannot then he is not all-powerful; and if he will not then he is not [all-good]."[1]
God could abolish evil, but chooses not to. Evil serves God's purposes quite as much as Good does. Chiefly these macro-purposes could be:
1) Evil gives us moral choice and makes of us moral agents. If there was no possibility of evil, we could claim no credit for being good.
2) Evil makes life interesting and purposeful; in combating evil, we have something useful and fulfilling to do with our lives.
3) Evil prompts us to explore the world and discover how it works, in our efforts to prevent it.
4) Corollary to 2) and 3) A world without evil would be an incredibly boring place in which to live.
5) It seems that God prizes our free choice to associate with Him almost more than any other consideration. So, finally, in order to abolish evil, God would have to act secretly, so that atheists would still have reasonable grounds not to believe, according to their disposition. And by definition, we do not know how many evils have been divinely destroyed, in secret from us.
This is how my poor second rate mind attempts to reconcile a good God with all the omni attributes generally ascribed to Him and the existence of evil, anyway.
Best wishes, 2RM
[1]St. Augustine: Confessions
Last edited by 2ndRateMind on Sun Jul 22, 2018 10:02 am, edited 3 times in total.
- 2ndRateMind
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1540
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
- Location: Pilgrim on another way
- Has thanked: 65 times
- Been thanked: 68 times
Post #10
Indeed so. One can well imagine dinosaurs thinking meteor strikes a thoroughly bad thing. But humans evolved, because that happened. Similarly, one can contemplate self-replicating artificial intelligences discussing ethics, and concluding it was a shame about the nuclear conflagration that destroyed humanity, but good that they had the chance to develop us to a point of independence before they annihilated themselves.mgb wrote:It also provides evolutionary pressure.2ndRateMind wrote: 1) Evil gives us moral choice and makes us moral agents.
Who knows where God's plan is eventually headed?
Best wishes, 2RM.