How can an omnipotent being regret anything?

[William]

Q: Is it unreasonable to accept that an omnipotent creator of this universe would have any regrets about Its creation?

If we look at how the critters in creation fix things, we can see therein that if there is a creator mind behind this, then there is simply no need for said mind to feel regret for anything said mind created. Said mind has built into the ongoing creative process, a means in which problems which arise, are fixed - rather than regretted upon first, in order to then get about doing the fixing...

Perhaps the idea that the creator should regret what was created, is a projection of human emotionally based concepts?
_______________________
[[The idea in assigning/projecting said emotion onto a creator ... the projection is in thinking how a human would feel if it were a human who created the universe, [and specifically the Earth and specifically Humankind] and applying that feeling to how a creator could also have regrets for what It created.]]

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #4]

Are you arguing that being sorry is different from being regretful?

Q: Would an omnipotent being have emotions?

Yes, I think it is possible to be sorry without being regretful. Many things can be painful at one point, but the end result can still be good and something not to regret. For example, giving birth can be painful cause sorrow, but I don't think many regret it.

I believe God has emotions.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to William in post #1]

God is impassable so he doesn't regret anything. Men anthropomorphize God in the bible because it is easier for us to fathom and get the point of the story.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #1]

God is impassable so he doesn't regret anything. Men anthropomorphize God in the bible because it is easier for us to fathom and get the point of the story.

I agree. While one can go translation - shopping or do Interpretation, the context implies that God, having drowned all creation (including the critters who hadn't sinned, but the OT sees critters as things, not beings) was sorry and regretted having done it and swore with a rainbow (borrowed from the Babylonian myth, along with the dove and the raven,and in fact, the whole story) that he wouldn't do it again suggests a being that was not able to see the consequences of its' actions, and is not in fact omniscient and is rather working blind, rather than seeing its'plan working out. Which of course would scupper the only excuse for why prayer works - while we had to make the prayer, God knew whether granting it would fit in his plan or not. If God is not omniscient (or had a known plan before the act of creation started) then prayer is only granted (or not) on and ad hoc basis and there is no plan - at best an intent.

I can imagine A4G, mate, that you prefer to see it as myth. and that the men who wrote it anthropomorphize (another wordthat spellcheck has never heard of) God, I would not at all wish to burn out my cognition - circuits trying to make Genesis look true on the scientific, rational or even a metaphorical basis. But saying it isn't true brings other problems. It raises questions about what sin death is, whether it is a real problem for us and how or why it's our fault. In fact, chum, if Genesis is dismissed as myth, it drags the rest of the Bible down with it.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to William in post #1]

God is impassable so he doesn't regret anything. Men anthropomorphize God in the bible because it is easier for us to fathom and get the point of the story.

I agree. While one can go translation - shopping or do Interpretation, the context implies that God, having drowned all creation (including the critters who hadn't sinned, but the OT sees critters as things, not beings) was sorry and regretted having done it and swore with a rainbow (borrowed from the Babylonian myth, along with the dove and the raven,and in fact, the whole story) that he wouldn't do it again suggests a being that was not able to see the consequences of its' actions, and is not in fact omniscient and is rather working blind, rather than seeing its'plan working out. Which of course would scupper the only excuse for why prayer works - while we had to make the prayer, God knew whether granting it would fit in his plan or not. If God is not omniscient (or had a known plan before the act of creation started) then prayer is only granted (or not) on and ad hoc basis and there is no plan - at best an intent.

I can imagine A4G, mate, that you prefer to see it as myth. and that the men who wrote it anthropomorphize (another wordthat spellcheck has never heard of) God, I would not at all wish to burn out my cognition - circuits trying to make Genesis look true on the scientific, rational or even a metaphorical basis. But saying it isn't true brings other problems. It raises questions about what sin death is, whether it is a real problem for us and how or why it's our fault. In fact, chum, if Genesis is dismissed as myth, it drags the rest of the Bible down with it.

Your spellcheck should know the word anthropomorphize. I don't find Genesis troubling anymore than I find Aesop's fables troubling. I find Aesop's fables useful for their intended purpose, as I do Genesis.

Genesis is a collection of many types of writings. It has stories in it that are to teach us moral lessons, in which the characters could be real or fiction. It has stories about how Moses received the law.

The first story of creation is to teach us that the universe has a purpose. It did not come to be by accident or by luck or randomly, etc. It doesn't matter if the events in the story are historical or scientific. That is not the point the writer had in mind.

[brunumb]

The first story of creation is to teach us that the universe has a purpose.

You should put down the Catechism for a little while and watch a few episodes of "How the Universe Works". It might give you pause for thought on what that purpose might be. Perhaps you might like to suggest something right now that is at least consistent with what we have seen and learnt of the universe.

[AquinasForGod]

The first story of creation is to teach us that the universe has a purpose.

You should put down the Catechism for a little while and watch a few episodes of "How the Universe Works". It might give you pause for thought on what that purpose might be. Perhaps you might like to suggest something right now that is at least consistent with what we have seen and learnt of the universe.

Nothing in science shows purpose. I watch and read many things on physics and none of it talks of purpose.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #1]

God is impassable so he doesn't regret anything. Men anthropomorphize God in the bible because it is easier for us to fathom and get the point of the story.

I agree. While one can go translation - shopping or do Interpretation, the context implies that God, having drowned all creation (including the critters who hadn't sinned, but the OT sees critters as things, not beings) was sorry and regretted having done it and swore with a rainbow (borrowed from the Babylonian myth, along with the dove and the raven,and in fact, the whole story) that he wouldn't do it again suggests a being that was not able to see the consequences of its' actions, and is not in fact omniscient and is rather working blind, rather than seeing its'plan working out. Which of course would scupper the only excuse for why prayer works - while we had to make the prayer, God knew whether granting it would fit in his plan or not. If God is not omniscient (or had a known plan before the act of creation started) then prayer is only granted (or not) on and ad hoc basis and there is no plan - at best an intent.

I can imagine A4G, mate, that you prefer to see it as myth. and that the men who wrote it anthropomorphize (another wordthat spellcheck has never heard of) God, I would not at all wish to burn out my cognition - circuits trying to make Genesis look true on the scientific, rational or even a metaphorical basis. But saying it isn't true brings other problems. It raises questions about what sin death is, whether it is a real problem for us and how or why it's our fault. In fact, chum, if Genesis is dismissed as myth, it drags the rest of the Bible down with it.

Your spellcheck should know the word anthropomorphize. I don't find Genesis troubling anymore than I find Aesop's fables troubling. I find Aesop's fables useful for their intended purpose, as I do Genesis.

Genesis is a collection of many types of writings. It has stories in it that are to teach us moral lessons, in which the characters could be real or fiction. It has stories about how Moses received the law.

The first story of creation is to teach us that the universe has a purpose. It did not come to be by accident or by luck or randomly, etc. It doesn't matter if the events in the story are historical or scientific. That is not the point the writer had in mind.

Sorry A4G,pal, 'It's a book of myths, but what it claims is true anyway'. It's a faith - claim and spare us the various Kalamitous faith -claims and Anselm's 'Anything good we can think of, must exist'.

The first story of creation is to teach us that the universe has a purpose.

You should put down the Catechism for a little while and watch a few episodes of "How the Universe Works". It might give you pause for thought on what that purpose might be. Perhaps you might like to suggest something right now that is at least consistent with what we have seen and learnt of the universe.

Nothing in science shows purpose. I watch and read many things on physics and none of it talks of purpose.

Damn', there it is again. Because you think it ought to show purpose (evolution is the nearest you'll get) why should there be one? Nature and physics (which is what you mean by science) does not have to slink away humiliated because you think it should serve mankind. Instead God -believers create, and re - create where necessary, a (conveniently invisible and pushed further outside the universe, the more of it we get to see) god in their own image, who changed His mind about who His People are when a different nation converts, refuses to countenance women ministers, until the nation decided we should have it, and does not answer prayers, and believers know He doesn't because rather than demonstrate it under Conditions, they invent excuses.

You have had to admit that Genesis is a fairy tale. So, I am pretty confident is Exodus, and most of the rest of the Book. And the Faith - serving sophistry of First cause, Kalam and Ontology is no more philosophy than Irriduceble complexity is science.

I know that you can't swallow what is evident, any more than Gollum can swallow Lembas - bread, because your mind is skewed to Faith, so it will no more point to true North than a compass in Magnetic mountain city, but you are surely smart enough to realise that you are operating on Faith, not on reason or logic, which is inverted to serve the Faith, nor indeed, science, which is why you deprecate it for not behaving as your religion expects.

Thanks for showing me how to spell Anthropomorphize, though....there we go, red underline again.....ye'll no, tell the elf?

[brunumb]

The first story of creation is to teach us that the universe has a purpose.

You should put down the Catechism for a little while and watch a few episodes of "How the Universe Works". It might give you pause for thought on what that purpose might be. Perhaps you might like to suggest something right now that is at least consistent with what we have seen and learnt of the universe.

Nothing in science shows purpose. I watch and read many things on physics and none of it talks of purpose.

So we can safely say that the universe has no purpose.

[TRANSPONDER]

The first story of creation is to teach us that the universe has a purpose.

You should put down the Catechism for a little while and watch a few episodes of "How the Universe Works". It might give you pause for thought on what that purpose might be. Perhaps you might like to suggest something right now that is at least consistent with what we have seen and learnt of the universe.

Nothing in science shows purpose. I watch and read many things on physics and none of it talks of purpose.

So we can safely say that the universe has no purpose.

No. Or at least, there is no logical or evidential reason to think it does, any more than there is a logical or evidential reason to think that human morality has to be objective, or that a prophetic plan is working out and will happen any day now, just you wait and see. It is a philosophic axiom that a correct logical construction, the parameters of which are unsound, will never be a valid logical construction. A Priori GodFaith is what makes just about all logical constructions invalid from the start.

Doesn't happen with science, do you notice? because we can test and validate it. Hypotheses can propose Faith - claims to be tested, but so far all the 'Gaps for God' have failed, which is why God apologists have to fiddle, misrepresent or even Lie about the science or, if that doesn't work, dismiss it as 'opinion'.

Since philosophy is pretty much totally speculative and puts up hypotheses, it can get away with it until debunked by science. It is why even the best and brightest philosophers had to leave God on the table before Darwin, because there was no other explanation for Origins. In the same way, the sure - fire Morality argument was an example of the religious ringmaster getting the lion of logic to leap through hoops. But DNA explaining how instinct works, hath provided an answer and a mechanism that explained what we all really knew - morality is man - made, not given by a god (name your own).

No, indeed. The very idea that the universe has to have a plan, a purpose and Meaning for the legged lichen than lives on the mudball called earth and that the universe cares deeply about our mating habits, how we vote and that we keep the leechlike lichen in Learjets is ludicrous.

[AquinasForGod]

The first story of creation is to teach us that the universe has a purpose.

You should put down the Catechism for a little while and watch a few episodes of "How the Universe Works". It might give you pause for thought on what that purpose might be. Perhaps you might like to suggest something right now that is at least consistent with what we have seen and learnt of the universe.

Nothing in science shows purpose. I watch and read many things on physics and none of it talks of purpose.

So we can safely say that the universe has no purpose.

Under naturalism, yes, I agree.