Not Needed By God

[William]

The very idea that יהוה doesn't need assistance flies in the face of all the biblical stories told. Surely you are misrepresenting יהוה in that regard.

There are no biblical stories where God has "needed assistance" he needs noone to accomplish his purpose.

The fact that He has condescended to allow humans to play a part therein does not equates to his being unable to achieved what he wants without them. The bible repeatedly refers to Jehovah as the Almighty, so logically being all powerful an omnipotent God has no need of extra input to do what he wants. If Jehovah delegates its an expression of his love and mercy as the righteous view it as a privilege to be used by God.

QFB Is the idea that an almighty being can do everything without the assistance of anything, logically sound?



.

[2timothy316]

The fact that we do not know that things created are not needed in order for an almighty being to get what it wants, means questions can be asked re that.

Good example of an argument from ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
"Statements that begin with "I don't know but ..." are often referring to some kind of absence of evidence."

Debates based on everyone's ignorance on a matter are fruitless. So while you can certainly ask questions every reply will be based on no more fact than your own claim. So, what's the point since the debate will end up being circular?

[William]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #40]

Of course it doesn't mean all knowing or all wise, as those are different terms with different meanings.

Perhaps,

Well are we going to play with words and their meanings? That is always fun.

but that doesn't change the fact that, being all powerful, it could do things it doesn't even know about.

Agreed. It may even create a whole universe it doesn't know it even created.

But it should be noted here, it's been said not only is god all powerful, it's all knowing (which seems to include having all wisdom) and, well, basically all-everything 'good' (though some christians would argue that).

In that case, we can drop the idea that it is just an all powerful being.

Now we have all knowing to add to that - but still have to mash out whether knowing everything makes one wise, or just knowledgeable.
What it does do is cancel the possibility that there are universes it created which it doesn't know exist.

That said, your supplied definition doesn't seem to change my initial statement as being all capable and all apt is incorporated with all powerful.

You didn't provide examples to underline what you meant when you wrote what you did.

I would say being all powerful means we can do everything, if only we knew about everything.

Then we can focus on that point.

The fact that we do not know that things created are not needed in order for an almighty being to get what it wants, means questions can be asked re that.

Question everything, if for no other reason than to learn.

That is why I create this thread.

The claim is that the biblical god [BG] can do all things.
The further argument is that just because the BG is almighty, does not mean that he has to do all things. For example, the Christian belief is that BG doesn't lie, rather than BG cannot lie .

The claim is that BG has condescended to allow humans to play a part therein does not equate to BG being unable to achieve what he wants without humans.

Further claims made in this thread are that the BG does not need this universe and could delete it all in the blink of an eye.

However, I think the idea that a being that is claimed can do anything without the assistance of anything outside of itself, seems illogical - thus the OPQFD.

QFB Is the idea that an almighty being can do everything without the assistance of anything, logically sound?

To offer an example re that, can such an entity receive worship from others, without creating others?

If an almighty being can do that, please explain how it does that. [bullet points are preferable]

Because logic tells me that without others, no being can receive worship from others...not even all powerful beings.

Therefore;

IF the BG requires worship from others
THEN the BG has to create others in order to fulfil that requirement




.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to William in post #42]

Well are we going to play with words and their meanings? That is always fun.

Depends on how much time we have on our hands

Agreed. It may even create a whole universe it doesn't know it even created.

Now that's a thinker! Probably best left for the philosophical section I suspect.

In that case, we can drop the idea that it is just an all powerful being.

Why? Seems that would limit the potential of learning.

Now we have all knowing to add to that - but still have to mash out whether knowing everything makes one wise, or just knowledgeable.[/quote[ True. It would seem to know, all knowing would encompass wisdom as wisdom comes from knowing and practicing what's known. But I suppose one could argue the opposite. Such is life on here.

What it does do is cancel the possibility that there are universes it created which it doesn't know exist.

Why? Does cancelling the possibility mean it's now a certainty?

You didn't provide examples to underline what you meant when you wrote what you did.

No need. I don't see how it changes my POV and you haven't demonstrated how it should (or if it should) change my POV.

1) The claim is that the biblical god [BG] can do all things.
2a) The further argument is that just because the BG is almighty, does not mean that he has to do all things. 2b)For example, the Christian belief is that BG doesn't lie, rather than BG cannot lie .

3) The claim is that BG has condescended to allow humans to play a part therein does not equate to BG being unable to achieve what he wants without humans.

4) Further claims made in this thread are that the BG does not need this universe and could delete it all in the blink of an eye.

From my POV:
1) That's the claim by some. If indeed everything is created by this god, then it would seem correct
2a) Surely
2b) Depends on who is asked as I've seen it both way so...
3) See #2a's response above
4) See #2a's response above

I think the idea that a being that is claimed can do anything without the assistance of anything outside of itself, seems illogical

I think (if I understand you correctly) the idea that a being that is claimed can do anything without the assistance of anything outside of itself, seems very logical as I see no need to have something else outside itself, if it is what some say it is (all powerful, all knowing, all creating, blah blah blah). If it's not, then that's a different view IMO. Granted, there's a lot of 'if's' in there, but that's par for the course with this topic.

To offer an example re that, can such an entity receive worship from others, without creating others?

If an almighty being can do that, please explain how it does that. [bullet points are preferable]

Because logic tells me that without others, no being can receive worship from others...not even all powerful beings.

If god is all-blah blah blah as said above, I don't think logic as human understand it would apply. For logic to be applicable, it seems one would need to know a good deal about the topic, at least to be considered legitimate.
If I were to speak with neurosurgeons about their work and claim their POV is illogical (or logical) that would mean I'd have to know something about what they're discussing to a specific degree.
None of us know enough about eternity to say what god/creator did, is doing or is not doing is logical or illogical, in the sense of discussing it with said being. Between ourselves is fine, but once we step outside of our limited understanding, we're on foreign ground and out of our depth.

So, we're left with 'god can do anything it wants whenever it wants' (if it is all-blah blah blah) even if it doesn't seem logical to humanity.

A lot (or most) of what god is said to do, say, mean, think, whatever is illogical because we don't know the 'ultimate outcome' (or even if there is one). That's one reason why 'faith' has to exist.
With faith, logic and common sense is not needed. Logic, common sense and knowledge kills faith (in other words makes faith unnecessary). One might say that's why god wants people to be faithful - because it's not giving out the knowledge we need, deserve or maybe even handle (though the 'handle' comment is more cemented from my decades of dogma than anything else, but I will say anything's possible).

[William]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #43]

but I will say anything's possible

Yes - but this is only in relation to your saying that none of us know enough about eternity to say what god/creator did, is doing or is not doing is logical or illogical.

In that, you are saying that it is possible for an almighty being to receive worship from others, without creating others, but because we don't know for sure that this is logically or illogically possible - we cannot say with any certainty, one way or the other.

It is possible both arguments are correct and it is possible that both arguments are incorrect.

In that, there is nothing to debate either way, which solves the problem for us in our limited position inside this particular universe we share a real experience of.

However, just like with you saying none of us know enough about eternity to say what is logical and what is not, this would also have to apply to your saying that "anything's possible", because we do not know enough about eternity to be able to show that anything's possible.

Therefore - 'anything is possible' is not really a legitimate explanation to my question, "If the BG can do that, please explain how it does that." where 'that' is "an entity CAN receive worship from others, without others existing."

[nobspeople]

[Replying to William in post #44]

Yes - but this is only in relation to your saying that none of us know enough about eternity to say what god/creator did, is doing or is not doing is logical or illogical.

Do you mean in relation to this ONLY? It's a general statement and can be applied outside this conversation, when considering the vastness and potentially unending universe and beyond.

In that, you are saying that it is possible for an almighty being to receive worship from others, without creating others, but because we don't know for sure that this is logically or illogically possible - we cannot say with any certainty, one way or the other.

Why would this not be included in the 'anything's possible' comment enough to require a separate response?

It is possible both arguments are correct and it is possible that both arguments are incorrect.

Why would this not be included in the 'anything's possible' comment enough to require a separate response?

In that, there is nothing to debate either way, which solves the problem for us in our limited position inside this particular universe we share a real experience of.

There's always something to 'debate'. Rather or not it's legitimate is an altogether different topic.

1) just like with you saying none of us know enough about eternity to say what is logical and what is not, 2) this would also have to apply to your saying that "anything's possible", because we do not know enough about eternity to be able to show that anything's possible.

1) Why would you think something about eternity is logical or not?
2) Again, why would this not fall into the 'anything's possible' response?

'anything is possible' is not really a legitimate explanation to my question, "If the BG can do that, please explain how it does that." where 'that' is "an entity CAN receive worship from others, without others existing."

Why would you think one needs to explain how something does something that can't be explained? Why would you think imperfect being would be able to answer a question only a seemingly perfect being could answer? Why can't some questions be unknown, for now? Why can't 'anything's possible' be legitimate when that's all that's available? Unless you know something no one else does and can prove it one way or the other. Which, thus far, you haven't done. Do you? Can you?

[William]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #45]

Yes - but this is only in relation to your saying that none of us know enough about eternity to say what god/creator did, is doing or is not doing is logical or illogical.

Do you mean in relation to this ONLY? It's a general statement and can be applied outside this conversation, when considering the vastness and potentially unending universe and beyond.

This conversation has not excluded the universes reality whatsoever.
Rather what I am pointing to is that if we are to agree that we simply don't have enough knowledge, this has to apply equally to the idea "anything's possible", for the exact same reason. We do not know, so we cannot say.

In that, there is nothing to debate either way, which solves the problem for us in our limited position inside this particular universe we share a real experience of.

There's always something to 'debate'. Rather or not it's legitimate is an altogether different topic.

Well it was brought into the topic, and it has been easy enough to identify as being slightly off-topic.

1) Why would you think something about eternity is logical or not?

Are you still talking about the universe? If so, then we do not know if it will last an eternity.

Another question re that is Q: Should we therefore abandon logic as a logical way in which to approach anything to do with the universe?

Why would you think one needs to explain how something does something that can't be explained? Why would you think imperfect being would be able to answer a question only a seemingly perfect being could answer? Why can't some questions be unknown, for now? Why can't 'anything's possible' be legitimate when that's all that's available? Unless you know something no one else does and can prove it one way or the other. Which, thus far, you haven't done. Do you? Can you?

How does this tie in with the QFD: Is the idea that an almighty being can do everything without the assistance of anything, logically sound?

Are you saying re the idea that it, is that or it isn't logical sound? Presently I am under the impression you are arguing that it is logically sound [since my position is currently the opposite.]

You brought in as part of your argument, the extra layer of omniscience to argue with, which is the likely reason we have gone of track from the main trunk. The QFD is only concerned with a being which is omnipotent.

If god is all-blah blah blah

The mention of other omni-attributes is legitimate enough in the Context of known Christian belief, so it is not off-topic [as in strwmn] but the focus of the QFD is on one particular omni-attribute.

In that we might find an answer.

But for discussion of a being with every omni-attribute, that deserves its own main trunk [thread] - and I am fine with discussing [in that potential thread] each of these to identify how a being with a particular omni-attribute would logically function, with the overall purpose of seeing how many of said attributes could work together before they started cancelling one another out and/or become unknowable because "anything's possible".

To then agree together that "anything's possible" - appears to lead to the conclusion that we have no choice but to acknowledge "we agree that we can disagree and there is no point in arguing."

[nobspeople]

[Replying to William in post #46]

This conversation has not excluded the universes reality whatsoever.

Then why would we know? As knowledge is limited in the vastness that is. Therefore, is not a simply YES sufficient?

Rather what I am pointing to is that if we are to agree that we simply don't have enough knowledge, this has to apply equally to the idea "anything's possible", for the exact same reason. We do not know, so we cannot say.

Wouldn't it depend on what one's referencing? And who's to say (and why) we can't say? Can we not offer opinions and suggestions? Outside of offering facts, why would one want to limit this in conversation?

Are you still talking about the universe? If so, then we do not know if it will last an eternity.

I don't recall referencing only the universe, specifically. If I did so, can you point it out? I simply responded to your comment so it would seem it would be referencing what you were pointing out, would it not?

Should we therefore abandon logic as a logical way in which to approach anything to do with the universe?

Why would you ask that? What's the benefit (if any) in doing so? And to what does 'anything' apply? Something specific or literally anything? I'm not sure 'anything' can be used if not everything is known, can it? Perhaps it can, but it would be legitimate?

How does this [Why would you think one needs to explain how something does something that can't be explained? Why would you think imperfect being would be able to answer a question only a seemingly perfect being could answer? Why can't some questions be unknown, for now? Why can't 'anything's possible' be legitimate when that's all that's available? Unless you know something no one else does and can prove it one way or the other. Which, thus far, you haven't done. Do you? Can you?] tie in with the QFD: Is the idea that an almighty being can do everything without the assistance of anything, logically sound?

Does it? I simply replied to your specific response seen here:
'anything is possible' is not really a legitimate explanation to my question, "If the BG can do that, please explain how it does that." where 'that' is "an entity CAN receive worship from others, without others existing." Does this reference your bolded question above? If so, how? If not, then no it doesn't as that wasn't the response to that specific question.

The mention of other omni-attributes is legitimate enough in the Context of known Christian belief, so it is not off-topic [as in strwmn] but the focus of the QFD is on one particular omni-attribute.

Why wouldn't this particular omni-attribute not run in conjunction with other omni-tributes. After all, we don't know everything so anything is possible - isn't that what we've said?
Unless, of course, you wish to section out one specific omni-attribute and only focus on that. If that's the case, I'm are you sure you'll get the answer you want?

In that we might find an answer.

Why do you think this? Have you found anything thus far that would make this potentially, at least, true? If anything's possible, perhaps there is no answer? Even if there is, in the vastness of all, how would we know?

But for discussion of a being with every omni-attribute, that deserves its own main trunk [thread] - and I am fine with discussing [in that potential thread] each of these to identify how a being with a particular omni-attribute would logically function, with the overall purpose of seeing how many of said attributes could work together before they started cancelling one another out and/or become unknowable because "anything's possible".

Sounds interesting!!

To then agree together that "anything's possible" - appears to lead to the conclusion that we have no choice but to acknowledge "we agree that we can disagree and there is no point in arguing."

Seems this can be said of most, if not everything, 'of god', can it not? After all, it's all a belief and beliefs are highly, highly individualized and conceptual, are they not?

[William]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #47]

Seems this can be said of most, if not everything, 'of god', can it not? After all, it's all a belief and beliefs are highly, highly individualized and conceptual, are they not?

Certainly.

And it was one such belief - a claim that it was a FACT that BG condescended to allow humans to exist but the god being almighty could achieve what he wants without them, which appeared questionable.

The claim was made in response to my writing in another thread that the very idea that BG doesn't need assistance flies in the face of all the biblical stories told.

The claim that BG can do all this without humans was further underlined with the idea that the bible repeatedly refers to BJ as the "Almighty", so "logically" being all powerful an omnipotent God has no need of extra input to do what he wants.

That is why the QFD asks the question, "Is the idea that an almighty being can do everything without the assistance of anything, logically sound?"

You wrote that if the term 'almighty' means all capable and is apt, then it would make logical sense to say god can do anything without any assistance.

The word mighty refers to strength rather than aptitude or capability. The only capability one would have re omnipotent, is the capability to do all things related to being strong.

In that, the BG can do all things requiring strength, without human assistance [and there may be not even be a biblical example of this we can examine] - but the claim I am questioning has to do with logic, and that is what the QFD is questioning...the logic of the claim itself.

[myth-one.com]

And it was one such belief - a claim that it was a FACT that BG condescended to allow humans to exist but the god being almighty could achieve what he wants without them, which appeared questionable.

Assumptions made: "BG" = The Almighty God, or simply God.

Why are you saying is questionable? Are you questioning that God could not achieve what He wanted without man's help?

Is that it?

And why do you claim that an almighty God condescended to anything?

An almighty God can do what He wants.

If God did it that way, that is the way God wanted to do it!

[William]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #49]

Read the posts in the thread and your questions will [or at least - should] be answered.