Why do christians put limits on their gods's power?

Biro

MrPudding wrote: »

I think we are discussing suffering in general. It all stems from what your god can do. As an atheist I think your typical all powerful being should be able to create an existence without suffering. You seem to think he can't

We like to call that existance Heaven.

PDN

Biro wrote: »

We like to call that existance Heaven.

Ah, but in another thread atheists are arguing against the concept of eternal life because it will be impossible for it not to become boring which, in anyone's book, amounts to suffering.

So they are arguing that God could have created an earth without suffering, but that He can't create a new heaven and earth without suffering.

I think these guys would argue that black was white.

Biro

PDN wrote: »

Ah, but in another thread atheists are arguing against the concept of eternal life because it will be impossible for it not to become boring which, in anyone's book, amounts to suffering.

So they are arguing that God could have created an earth without suffering, but that He can't create a new heaven and earth without suffering.

I think these guys would argue that black was white.

I avoided that thread alright, gald I did now!
It's a pity that God won't send His son again today so these guys can tell him how He should be doing things. Or maybe it's too late... but then again if He really is all powerful then it's never too late, but maybe He's suffering cause He's bored... :rolleyes:

robindch

PDN wrote: »

So they are arguing that God could have created an earth without suffering, but that He can't create a new heaven and earth without suffering. [...] I think these guys would argue that black was white.

Unless you care read what, for example, one of us wrote, which says precisely the opposite of your misrepresentation here.

I have to say that your habit of blackening your opponents' prose is faintly tiresome.

Zombrex

Biro wrote: »

Well, without going into the whole idea of humans working together and sharing land and wealth equally so that no one actually has to live in places like the foot of a volcano mountain or a place where a tsunami comes every few years, then how the hell could anyone possibly answer how powerful God really is?

Are you suggesting that we have random acts of unimaginable suffering caused by natural disasters so people can know how "powerful" God is?

Biro wrote: »

All powerful as regard to our lives, we're part of the equation of life for want of a better description. It's not perfect because it's not supposed to be.
Are all teachers nothing but sadistic scumbags who hate all children because they won't give them the answers to the exams?

Imagine a teacher who keeps hitting a child in the face. When asked why the teacher does this he response by saying that he was going to hit the child tomorrow so for his own good the teacher is going to hit him to day to prepare him for it when the teacher hits him tomorrow.

When asked to stop hitting him he replies that not hitting him today would in fact be an act of cruelty because he is going to hit him tomorrow, and unless he prepares the child today for this, by hitting him today, the child will be totally unprepared for the hit when it comes tomorrow. The child needs to learn the strength now to deal with the beating that is going to come tomorrow.

When asked why the teacher plans to hit the child tomorrow he replies that is just the way it is, and turns back to hitting the child.

The idea that God put suffering into the universe because it is required to build strength in us so we can face future suffering is, to put it mildly, ridiculous. The lessons we learn from suffering are only required because we will in the future face further suffering. If we weren't going to then these lessons would be pointless and unnecessary.

Biro wrote: »

Just because I don't understand God doesn't make me any less a Christian.

One has to wonder why you are a Christian if you don't understand God.

Why do you worship a creature who's motives you cannot understand and who may in fact be ultimately evil?

And before anyone answers that you don't believe he is evil, how can any of you determine that if you can't even figure out why he does the things he does? The excuse that he has demonstrated to us that he isn't evil doesn't hold because by the admission of pretty much every Christian here there is a huge amount of stuff that isn't explained. If he only explains the good, and doesn't explain what appears bad, how can you determine he is good?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So they are arguing that God could have created an earth without suffering, but that He can't create a new heaven and earth without suffering.

I think these guys would argue that black was white.

I think you are deliberately missing the point :rolleyes:

God could have designed humans in a way that they don't get bored. Being the "loving" being that he is, he decided not to. I'm sure you have a ton of blind faith that he had a very very good reason for doing this, but none spring to mind to me. Or why children burn.

The best you guys can seem to come up with is that this is the actually the best he could or wanted to do. Which doesn't instil a whole lot of faith and awe in his power and ability.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

Unless you care read what, for example, one of us wrote, which says precisely the opposite of your misrepresentation here.

I also alluded to this dichotomy here.

I would never suggest an omnipotent God cannot build a utopian paradise - but I am very curious as to why he didn't do it in the first place.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

I would never suggest an omnipotent God cannot build a utopian paradise

I'm hesitant to point out that by definition, just as an omnipotent deity could create a utopia, any existence created by an omnibenificent deity must be utopian. Anything less and the deity is either not omnipotent, not omnibenificent or the definitions simply don't apply.

Dades wrote: »

but I am very curious as to why he didn't do it in the first place.

I'm more curious to understand why religious believers think he didn't (hairsplitting ). I'd imagine the answers vary from believer to believer, though they may not.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

I'm more curious to understand why religious believers think he didn't (hairsplitting ).

Clearly believers have the podium to take this question! Non-believer answers are obvious!

santing

I may repeat something, as I didn't read all posts (just the last three pages)

The creation we experience is not the original creation.

Gen 3:14-19 ESV The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you ... (15) I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." (16) To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." (17) And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; (18) thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. (19) By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

The consequences of the fall are: "cursed, enmity, pain, dominance etc." We shouldn't blame God for this.

santing

santing wrote: »

I may repeat something, as I didn't read all posts (just the last three pages)

The creation we experience is not the original creation.

The consequences of the fall are: "cursed, enmity, pain, dominance etc." We shouldn't blame God for this.

But, in this day and age, Genesis shouldn't be taken literally. I think this thread is about a deeper meaning, a nonsensical set of passages at the beginning of the Bible shouldn't play a large role.

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

The consequences of the fall are: "cursed, enmity, pain, dominance etc." We shouldn't blame God for this.

As Jammy says I doubt you will find many Christians who take that as literal history, an event that actually happened 6 or so thousand years ago.

For a start, when was the Fall and what were humans physically like before the Fall? Did we have skin? Did we have lungs? etc Given we have fossil records going back to back to before humans evolved we at least know 2 things, they had bones and died. Placing the Fall into that context is like trying to figure out how light sabers work in a vacuum.

But even if it did actually happen, why not blame God for that?

You will notice it says that God cursed us with pain caused by nature. Who else are you going to blame but God? Adam did something wrong and because of that action God decided that all humans must suffer. I think the blame rests squarely with God for that one.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

I think you are deliberately missing the point :rolleyes:

God could have designed humans in a way that they don't get bored. Being the "loving" being that he is, he decided not to. I'm sure you have a ton of blind faith that he had a very very good reason for doing this, but none spring to mind to me. Or why children burn.

The best you guys can seem to come up with is that this is the actually the best he could or wanted to do. Which doesn't instil a whole lot of faith and awe in his power and ability.

Maybe he made things so that air isn't toxic to us or exposure to salt water doesn't cause permanent memory loss. AFAIK, none of us - including God through His Word - have ever claimed that the universe is perfect or contains only perfection. I'm not quite sure why we have to justify an unfathomably wondrous but imperfect universe to you.

I also don't believe that God can create square circles, but I don't see this as a limit to his power. Looks like we are not going to agree on this! No surprise there.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not quite sure why we have to justify an unfathomably wondrous but imperfect universe to you.

You don't.

But you might remember what you guys are doing the next time one of you gets annoyed that an atheist claims the your religious belief is flawed, not rational and full of holes.

Its all very well for you guys to claim you have rationally sat down and had a good think about it and decided that it is quite likely that God exists, that it is quite likely he is totally perfect, that it is quite likely he is never wrong, that he is all powerful, never lies etc etc

You are free to claim that all you like, but there are serious flaws in such a position, as this thread demonstrates, so it would be appreciated if you guys didn't pretend that there wasn't, or that all atheists who point these flaws out are simply doing it to be argumentative or some other alternate motive. Particularly when such important things such as ethics and moral positions stem from such beliefs.

We have PDN complaining that we would say black is white and vice versa, we have Jakkass complaining that he can never have a proper discussion with atheists, we have BC complaining that we never listen etc etc. You are about to say we not going to agree, with the suggestion being that the atheists are being difficult again.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I also don't believe that God can create square circles, but I don't see this as a limit to his power.

Are you arguing that a universe that is better than this one is a logical impossibility?

rockbeer

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

AFAIK, none of us - including God through His Word - have ever claimed that the universe is perfect or contains only perfection. I'm not quite sure why we have to justify an unfathomably wondrous but imperfect universe to you.

If god is perfect then by definition everything he does must be perfect.

Otherwise he is not perfect. QED.

A perfect being making an imperfect creation is just as much of a contradiction as the often-invoked square circle.

So if you accept and believe in the christian god, who is held to be perfect in every way, I don't see how you have any option but to believe (and argue) that the universe is perfect.

Otherwise, as PDN is so fond of pointing out, he is not the christian god but somebody else's.

santing

Wicknight wrote: »

As Jammy says I doubt you will find many Christians who take that as literal history, an event that actually happened 6 or so thousand years ago.

Well, for starters, I am one ... and I know quite a few like minded. However, I do think that you will struggle to get an answer on questions relating to the meaning of life, suffering, etc. if you reject the authenticy of the answer given by the creator. The Bible starts with Creation, Fall and Salvation. It also finishes with that theme as it is central to God's revelation.

Wicknight wrote: »

For a start, when was the Fall and what were humans physically like before the Fall? Did we have skin? Did we have lungs? etc Given we have fossil records going back to back to before humans evolved we at least know 2 things, they had bones and died. Placing the Fall into that context is like trying to figure out how light sabers work in a vacuum.

I think this has been or should be discussed in a separate threat.

Wicknight wrote: »

But even if it did actually happen, why not blame God for that?

You will notice it says that God cursed us with pain caused by nature. Who else are you going to blame but God? Adam did something wrong and because of that action God decided that all humans must suffer. I think the blame rests squarely with God for that one.

Most inmates in a prison would agree with you... it is not their fault that they are locked up but the fault of that lousy judge. :rolleyes:

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you arguing that a universe that is better than this one is a logical impossibility?

I can see Voltaire's Candide being rolled out any time soon.

Who knows whether a better universe is a logical possibility or not? I know I don't. But I think there is a logical possibility that this is indeed the best possible universe.

The way I see it there is a trade off between freedom and consequences. You cannot have freedom to do whatever you want without finding that nasty stuff happens down the line. This is because we have freedom to make the wrong choices. If there are no consequences to your choices then how on earth can that be described as freedom.

In other words, a universe that allows total freedom and yet has no potential for evil is probably IMHO a logical impossibility, just like the square circle.

I believe that this present universe may indeed be the best possible trade off between freedom and consequences. That is a hard thing to say when we are confronted with real misery and pain (as I frequently am on my travels). I am reminded of Alyosha in Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov who felt all the freedom and good in the world could not be justified if it involved the torturous death of just one child. Some might say the total sum of suffering in the world far outweighs the good in the world (but I doubt if any of us really believe that since we still have children and don't strangle them at birth in order to save them the misery of human existence).

I am reminded of the pensioners I have seen in Moscow who long for a return of Stalinism. For them having food and warmth would be worth sacrificing the freedom of democracy and of freedom of conscience. Then I think of the dissidents who were prepared to endure horrific suffering in the Gulags because they so yearned for freedom. Obviously we all have our own opinions as to where the line should be drawn between freedom and consequences.

I believe it is indeed logically possible that the present universe draws the best possible balance between true freedom and being consequence-free pampered pets. But at times it takes a lot of faith and trust in God to keep believing in that possibility.

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

If god is perfect then by definition everything he does must be perfect.

Otherwise he is not perfect. QED..

No, that doesn't follow at all. If a perfect God were to give me a meal then I would expect it to be nourishing and not poison. But I see no reason why it should be perfect in the sense of being the best possible meal imaginable.

Otherwise, as PDN is so fond of pointing out, he is not the christian god but somebody else's.

What I point out is God as defined by Christian teaching over the centuries and according to the Bible. A 'god' who conforms to Rockbeer's logic does not automatically qualify as the Christian God. The Christian God is a Creator who made a creation which is, by definition, less than Himself.

santing

rockbeer wrote: »

If god is perfect then by definition everything he does must be perfect.

Otherwise he is not perfect. QED.

QED? That simple? If Rockbeer is Irish then by definition everything he does must be irish, otherwise he is not irish? QED???
There is a difference between the nature /quality of a being and the activity of that being. To apply it back to God, Hebrews 10 says that God is the Same (I AM who I AM), it doesn't mean that he always does the same, for instance, He created the world once.

rockbeer wrote: »

A perfect being making an imperfect creation is just as much of a contradiction as the often-invoked square circle

A square circle may say more about the limitations of our brain than the limitations of the reality ...

The question here about perfection is, by what standard? over what time frame, in what respect? Can it be that something seems imperfect now that overtime will become clear that it is really part of a great perfection, far beyond our imagination?

The word perfect is a difficult one, so we need a firm definition. For instance in Hebrews 5 we read that the Lord Jesus "was made perfect," but it doesn't mean that He was imperfect before...

rockbeer wrote: »

So if you accept and believe in the christian god, who is held to be perfect in every way, I don't see how you have any option but to believe (and argue) that the universe is perfect.

Well, that's easy. God is not the universe, He made the universe.

rockbeer wrote: »

Otherwise, as PDN is so fond of pointing out, he is not the christian god but somebody else's.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

You are about to say we not going to agree, with the suggestion being that the atheists are being difficult again.

In all truthfulness - those are your words, not mine. I never mentioned that atheists are 'being difficult'. We were not going to agree because of the obvious reason that you are an atheist and I am a Christian - nothing lay between the lines.

c-note

in fairness:
he's been around forEVER... made the universe out of nothing...Made the earth in 7 days (around 4000bc iirc), sent his own son to save us (by getting a virgin pregnant!), turns water into wine.. makes dead fish spontaneously multiply. can raise the dead (not in a "dawn of the dead" way!). and has love for everyone, inculding hitler, mugabee you and me!.
so what if he has limitiations!! the dude is AWESOME!!

rockbeer

The point is that "perfect" is not a relative term but an absolute one.

Imagine a perfect student in a school. One day that student gets 99.9% in a test. Can you any longer say the student is perfect?

No.

Very, very good, excellent even, but not perfect.

Perfection is absolute, therefore I still hold that if god is assumed to be perfect then everything he does must also be perfect.

If you disagree, please explain to me how, in my example above, the student can acheive a less than perfect mark and still deserve the epithet.

Whether christians understand the way in which the universe is perfect is another matter. But if you believe your god to be perfect then it's hard to see how you can argue with any logical credibility that his creation is anything else.

After that it's case of conjecturing, as we've seen in this thread, about precisely how and why the things that seem like flaws to us - suffering etc. - are in fact part of the perfection.

PDN wrote:

A 'god' who conforms to Rockbeer's logic does not automatically qualify as the Christian God. The Christian God is a Creator who made a creation which is, by definition, less than Himself.

Don't you believe that the christian god is perfect in every possible respect?

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

Don't you believe that the christian god is perfect in every possible respect?

Yes, but it does not logically follow that everything He creates must be perfect in every possible respect..

PDN

PDN wrote: »

Yes, but it does not logically follow that everything He creates must be perfect in every possible respect..

Actually, it does. Rockbeer has pointed it out very clearly. Anything that is considered to be absolutely perfect in all respects (and, as Rockbeer has said, perfection is absolute, not relative) must never create something that isn't perfect, if it does it isn't absolutely perfect. It's simple. Absolute perfection cannot ever do anything that isn't absolutely perfect, if it does, by definition, it isn't absolutely perfect.

Fanny Cradock

I think a definition of perfect would also be useful. After all, one could assert that a murder who set out to kill 10 people and succeeded was a perfect murderer.

rockbeer

A definition of perfection would be useful but I'm not sure how necessary it is. We all know what we mean by it in common usage don't we?

I get the feeling a different standard of perfection is being applied to god than would be the case for anyone else.

For example: Let's say I claim to be a perfect house builder. So I show you a house I built and it's pretty good, totally functional, but some of the blockwork is a bit uneven, the decorating in the bathroom isn't finished and one of the doors catches when you try to open it. Nothing serious, but still.

You will quite rightly tell me it isn't perfect. Perfectly adequate, maybe, or fit for purpose, but no one would describe such a house as perfect.

If I went on to argue the point, insisting that I am in fact a perfect builder even though my building has a few flaws here and there, you would certainly disagree and would likely think me a bit strange.

That's kind of how the stubborn insistence that a perfect deity's creation can be flawed looks from here.

Unless you're saying that god and his creation are not perfect but perfectly adequate.

The reality is that the only evidence we have for god's alleged perfection is his creation. If we agree that the creation is flawed, what possible reason can there be to claim perfection for the creator?

santing

rockbeer wrote: »

A definition of perfection would be useful but I'm not sure how necessary it is. We all know what we mean by it in common usage don't we?

It's very useful - there is a long article in wikipedia on perfection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection.

One of the interesting bits in that article states:

The paradox of perfection—that imperfection is perfect—applies not only to human affairs, but to technology. Thus, irregularity in semiconductor crystals (an imperfection, in the form of contaminants) is requisite for the production of semiconductors. The solution to the apparent paradox lies in a distinction between two concepts of "perfection": that of regularity, and that of utility. Imperfection is perfect in technology, in the sense that irregularity is useful.

This paradox states that although we may perceive imperfections, the overall design might still be perfect.

rockbeer

santing wrote: »

This paradox states that although we may perceive imperfections, the overall design might still be perfect.

Exactly.

This supports exactly what I've been saying - that however flawed the universe might appear to us, I would have thought christians would be compelled to believe/argue that it is perfect nonetheless.

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

A definition of perfection would be useful but I'm not sure how necessary it is. We all know what we mean by it in common usage don't we?

I get the feeling a different standard of perfection is being applied to god than would be the case for anyone else.

For example: Let's say I claim to be a perfect house builder. So I show you a house I built and it's pretty good, totally functional, but some of the blockwork is a bit uneven, the decorating in the bathroom isn't finished and one of the doors catches when you try to open it. Nothing serious, but still.

You will quite rightly tell me it isn't perfect. Perfectly adequate, maybe, or fit for purpose, but no one would describe such a house as perfect.

If I went on to argue the point, insisting that I am in fact a perfect builder even though my building has a few flaws here and there, you would certainly disagree and would likely think me a bit strange.

That's kind of how the stubborn insistence that a perfect deity's creation can be flawed looks from here.

Unless you're saying that god and his creation are not perfect but perfectly adequate.

The reality is that the only evidence we have for god's alleged perfection is his creation. If we agree that the creation is flawed, what possible reason can there be to claim perfection for the creator?

But, of course, there can never be such a thing as a perfect building. You might build what you believe to be the perfect 4-bedroomed house. But I can then argue that the house is not perfect because I have seen a 20-bedroomed house which, because it was more spacious was more perfect. Then someone else can say that they saw a 30-bedroomed house with an observatory on top, whichj makes it more perfect etc.

So far, Rockbeer, all you have done is repeated your claim that a perfect God can, by definition, only create something that is absolutely perfect. You have offered no coherent argument to back it up and just repeating it again, while it appears to have convinced Jammy Dodger, is not going to make it any more convincing to those of us who would like to see some reasoning to back the claim up.

But, once again, you are apparently discussing a 'God' of some other religion, not the Christian God. Whether we take the first few chapters of Genesis metaphorically or as literal history we can see that God is clearly described in Scripture as doing things through a process. This applies to Creation, the revealing of prophecy, the writing of Scripture, and the implementation and application of the plan of redemption.

A process, by its very nature, means that something is not complete until it is completed. It must pass through phases of incompleteness which, by definition, are less than perfect. Therefore the Christian God creates things that are, by definition, less than absolutely perfect.

This carries two implications:
a) Whatever god you are talking about (one that has its power so limited that it cannot create what it chooses and is constrained to create things that are absolutely perfect) is not the Christian God but a deity of your own imagination.
b) All our debate about this world may be akin to us arguing as to whether a house is 'the best possible house that can be built' when so far only the foundations have been poured. The perfect house is not yet completed.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

I believe it is indeed logically possible that the present universe draws the best possible balance between true freedom and being consequence-free pampered pets. But at times it takes a lot of faith and trust in God to keep believing in that possibility.

If I had to pick a reason as to why I am an atheist, this is essentially it. Clearly as a believer you have faith and trust that this universe is the best possible balance, but I look at the same world, in it's insignificant corner of one of billions of galaxys, and think there is no way a benevolent god created such a world and allows it to continue.

Forget bible contradictions, the minutiae of sacred texts, apparitions, monotheism, polytheism - those are just background noise to the blindingly obvious. An omnipotent god would have bleached our petri dish long ago and started over.