Is God omnipotent?

prothero · #21 12-01-2009, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

Why is a conception of the divine necessary at all?

Well apparently it is not necessary for everyone. Also apparently the same conception is not necessary for everyone. The majority of people on the planet however do believe in some form of god, spirit or higher power. The orthodox conception of god is causing a lot of problems between science and religion and in other areas. So perhaps a new conception would be more useful, cause less trouble, less cognitive dissonance so to speak.

People tend to emulate in their behavior their conception of the divine. So if god is primarily a law giver, judge and divine ruler or tyrant, a jealous and angry god, well you know what that conception leads to in terms of human behavior. On the other hand if people conceive of the divine as loving, compassionate and taking delight in diversity I think you get a better result.

Religion is a constant feature of culture, history and society. Those conceptions do matter, do have impact, regardless of what you may think the actual reality or truth is. Some conceptions may produce better results than others.?

TickTockMan · #22 12-01-2009, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prothero

The orthodox conception of god is causing a lot of problems between science and religion and in other areas. So perhaps a new conception would be more useful, cause less trouble, less cognitive dissonance so to speak.

Perhaps. But do you think, given the attachment people have to their
beliefs, do you think this is in any way, shape, or form at all within
the realm of possibility?

Do you think a hard core dogma driven fundamentalist from the
Holy Church of Fill-in-the Blank would be willing to even consider
a new conception of the divine that encourages acceptance of
principles that they, their god, and their current religious book of
rules consider to be abominations in the eyes of . . . whatever?

xris · #23 12-01-2009, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prothero

I am going to ask you to expound on why a self aware contemplative divine fails to be logical?

Bertrand Russell “Philosophy though unable to tell with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom”. Although any god is certainly incomprehensible from the more limited human perspective; rational speculation (philosophy of religion) is not only valuable but necessary to meaningful religion.

I beg to differ. The universe is rationally intelligible and mathematically representational these are features which we discover not features which we create. Any god must be rationally intelligible.

. We are the most rationally and highest level of experience in the universe that we know of. We are indeed (made in the image) but we are not god. Man is not the measure of all things.

I do not think anyone is being dogmatic just an exchange of views, a greater understanding of other perspectives and an enlargement of the possibilities.

You appear to be asking and answering your own questions. Any god has to be rational , so why is the gods described so irrational? You say we are images of gods but not gods. Is that a dogmatic statement or an observation. If man is not the measure of all things what else is there that is as visible as man and is conscious of this universe. Without man the pondering, the majesty of this universe would be invisible. We construct the images of the gods they dont self generate.

prothero · #24 12-01-2009, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salima

so if god doesnt answer prayers, who was that who answered mine? not too many times, and not for silly little things, but in my darkest moments when i am completely broken and unable to help myself, when i literally scream out of frustration...the answer comes.

Well I do not wish to argue with anyone’s personal subjective experience and the concept of “answered prayers” is always a little vague. I do think prayer, contemplation and meditation allow one greater awareness, connection or enlightenment with/of the divine (the holy, the numinous, the sacred) and in that sense a deep peace or ability or the inspiration to surmount obstacles and difficulties can be achieved. It is primarily the notion of god answering prayers by contravention of the laws of nature or by altering the physical material aspects of the world to which I object. Having prayers answered through inspiration, insight, awareness or enlightenment seems part of the religious experience. God give me, strength, give me courage, give me wisdom, those types of prayers may well be “answered”.

Quote:

Originally Posted by salima

also, i believe it is possible that god, if he exists, though doesnt appear to me to be omnipotent, would have the possibility of breaking natural laws when he himself reached that point as we do sometimes (illustrated in my first paragraph).

I guess my view would be there is a spiritual reality which lies within and beyond the material world. That “reality” is not limited to physical or material forms and things “exist” which are not material or physical forms. I do not believe in “miracles” defined as contravention or suspension of the laws of nature. The kingdom lies within, is spread out before you but you do not see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by salima

in that sense we are gods yet not omnipotent. fallen gods perhaps..

In both western and eastern religious traditions lies the notion of man (created in his image) or the (divine that dwells within). That man with his reason, self awareness and intellect holds a special place in creation. Really the modern secular notions of human dignity and human rights have their origin in these religious traditions about the spark of the divine in man; about the respect due each human because the divine spark dwells within each man.
.

Quote:

Originally Posted by salima

but if god is not a being, how would he be using reason and logic?

Generally when people say “god is not a being” it is a caution against anthropomorphizing god too much, i.e. picturing god as a human writ large. The universe appears rationally intelligible, i.e. the universe operates according to laws which can be discerned rationally and expressed mathematically. In my view if the universe has a creator, then reason and intellect must be attributes of the creator as well. If god has a material attribute or aspect it would be the universe itself. God would be the “soul of the universe” or the “cosmic mind”.

Quote:

Originally Posted by salima

acatually i liked xris remark:

Quote:

Originally Posted by salima

Originally Posted by xris http://www.philosophyforum.com/image...s/viewpost.gif
"If he has self awareness or the power of contemplation he immediately fails to be logical. All the same failings reoccur, he can’t help himself. ."
but i thought he was referring to those who are contemplating god, not god himself.

I guess if the remark was referring to man contemplating god I would not object but I fail to see how one could not attribute self awareness, reason, and contemplation to any meaningful conception of “god”. A god without these attributes would be little different from the indifferent purposeless universe that religion generally is an effort to avoid in the first place. It is the other attributes, all powerful, all knowing, and especially impassibility, eternal, changeless, immutability that I find illogical and objectionable. There is some aspect of the divine nature which is in process along with the world and is changed or affected by the experience of the world.

xris · #25 12-01-2009, 03:52 PM

Proth I object to any description of god. I object because even the concept of god is flawed. Even calling this entity it or him is a description too far. The idea that we have decided it has an identity that can be debated is questionable. The idea that a god is essential to our existance is questionable. Why do we need to have a god?

I dont need god here, so why anywhere? If he is omnipotent he is also nowhere.

prothero · #26 12-01-2009, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xris

Proth I object to any description of god. I object because even the concept of god is flawed. Even calling this entity it or him is a description too far. The idea that we have decided it has an identity that can be debated is questionable. The idea that a god is essential to our existance is questionable. Why do we need to have a god?

I dont need god here, so why anywhere? If he is omnipotent he is also nowhere.

I understand that. I understand that for you any conception of the divine must be illogical.
You are the neti, neti (not this, not that) of the discussion. I could preface all my remarks with (IMHO, IMV, IMO). It is just that conceptions of the divine will be held and some conceptions will cause more trouble than others. You reject all visions.

xris · #27 12-01-2009, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prothero

I understand that. I understand that for you any conception of the divine must be illogical.
You are the neti, neti (not this, not that) of the discussion. I could preface all my remarks with (IMHO, IMV, IMO). It is just that conceptions of the divine will be held and some conceptions will cause more trouble than others. You reject all visions.

As an agnostic i reject those proposed as it is an impossible task. Im not being obtuse just realistic. I must question even the reasoning why we search.

salima · #28 12-01-2009, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

Perhaps. But do you think, given the attachment people have to their
beliefs, do you think this is in any way, shape, or form at all within
the realm of possibility?

Do you think a hard core dogma driven fundamentalist from the
Holy Church of Fill-in-the Blank would be willing to even consider
a new conception of the divine that encourages acceptance of
principles that they, their god, and their current religious book of
rules consider to be abominations in the eyes of . . . whatever?

hey! it is definitely with the realm of possibility, because i have changed my concept of god since childhood so many times, even threw it out altogether at one point. i started out believing in oldmanwithalongwhitebeard father god...look how much i havw changed!

but the fundamentalists we will leave til last, that's all. start small! maybe their children will grow up different, and eventually all the militants will die out and not be replaced.

---------- Post added 12-02-2009 at 06:35 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by prothero

Well I do not wish to argue with anyone’s personal subjective experience and the concept of “answered prayers” is always a little vague. I do think prayer, contemplation and meditation allow one greater awareness, connection or enlightenment with/of the divine (the holy, the numinous, the sacred) and in that sense a deep peace or ability or the inspiration to surmount obstacles and difficulties can be achieved. It is primarily the notion of god answering prayers by contravention of the laws of nature or by altering the physical material aspects of the world to which I object. Having prayers answered through inspiration, insight, awareness or enlightenment seems part of the religious experience. God give me, strength, give me courage, give me wisdom, those types of prayers may well be “answered”.

I guess my view would be there is a spiritual reality which lies within and beyond the material world. That “reality” is not limited to physical or material forms and things “exist” which are not material or physical forms. I do not believe in “miracles” defined as contravention or suspension of the laws of nature. The kingdom lies within, is spread out before you but you do not see.

In both western and eastern religious traditions lies the notion of man (created in his image) or the (divine that dwells within). That man with his reason, self awareness and intellect holds a special place in creation. Really the modern secular notions of human dignity and human rights have their origin in these religious traditions about the spark of the divine in man; about the respect due each human because the divine spark dwells within each man.
.
Generally when people say “god is not a being” it is a caution against anthropomorphizing god too much, i.e. picturing god as a human writ large. The universe appears rationally intelligible, i.e. the universe operates according to laws which can be discerned rationally and expressed mathematically. In my view if the universe has a creator, then reason and intellect must be attributes of the creator as well. If god has a material attribute or aspect it would be the universe itself. God would be the “soul of the universe” or the “cosmic mind”.

I guess if the remark was referring to man contemplating god I would not object but I fail to see how one could not attribute self awareness, reason, and contemplation to any meaningful conception of “god”. A god without these attributes would be little different from the indifferent purposeless universe that religion generally is an effort to avoid in the first place. It is the other attributes, all powerful, all knowing, and especially impassibility, eternal, changeless, immutability that I find illogical and objectionable. There is some aspect of the divine nature which is in process along with the world and is changed or affected by the experience of the world.

yes, those were the kind of answers i was referring to. and they also seem like miracles to me, especially when they show up.

i think there can be happenings which look like miracles defying natural law to us because we dont have a complete understanding of those natural laws right now. we think we do...but we are actually still in the process of discovering them.

i believe the spark of the divine is equally inherent in all, it is the common denominator. we shouldnt feel privileged. if we wish to feel we are in a position of vicegerent on earth, having dominion over all we see, we have to take responsibility for caring for it. we cant just say we are lords over the rest of creation. it seems to be it would be a position we could inherit due to our capabilities, both physical and mental, rather than being a gift.

i like the idea of pinning down the attributes, separating the ones that tend to be vague and insubstantiated. your thoughts on self awareness, reason and contemplationo are good ones.

one thing you mentioned before that i thought was particularly stunning was that (excuse me for paraphrasing, excuse me if it was on another thread, and excuse me if it wasnt you!) god's intent or interest would be not in morality but beauty.

TickTockMan · #29 12-02-2009, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salima

and eventually all the militants will die out and not be replaced.

. . . actually they will be replaced. They will be replaced by the teachers of the "New Conception of the Divine."

And eventually the Church of the New Conception of the Divine will become tiresome and restrictive, and will be replaced with the Church of the Newer Conception of the Divine, which will last until an even newer and more improved version comes along . . . and so on and so on and ad infinitum hallelujah.

Such is the evolution of theology.