Is God omnipotent?

[salima]

Originally Posted by Kielicious

You could but that doesnt mean its correct.

Atheism is an incorrect label applied to something that doesnt require a label. Just like 'bald' is a hair color, or the classic example of non-stamp collectors, or (my personal favorite) 'off' is considered a TV channel. The term itself doesnt apply anywhere else besides religion -for some reason. And that reason, whatever it may be, is probably why you can connect an etymological background to 'atheism = believing no god/s exist'. I mean lets face it: religion is VERY personal to almost everyone on the planet, and the farther back in time you go, the more fundamental and 'obvious' it was for a diety to exist. But, again, that doesnt mean its correct. Atheism means 'A' = without, and 'theism' = religious belief. Just like some people are 'Ahaircolorists' and 'Atvchannelists'. The term doesnt makes sense.

Now some people do take the strong atheist stance but I'm not at liberty to talk for them because I dont know for sure what, how, and why the believe what they do. As for me, Im agnostic about god until you define the term because 'god' could mean any number of things. Some people define 'god' as love. In that case, yes I believe in god, but only because I have to by definition. However, if you define god as the traditional anthropormorphised deity that has inherent contradictions then no, I reject that claim. So Im not a strong atheist because the term 'god' is never fully defined.

so what is an agnostic? how is it different from an atheist? you mean if a person defined god as love, an atheist would say 'i dont believe in love'? or an agnostic in a sense is saying he doesnt know if he believes in god because he doesnt know what god is?

i always thought i understood these terms...seemed very simple.

maybe the issue is that there is no name for the people who dont believe in the easter bunny? i dont think there is so much a contradiction here as there is the fact that the question comes up as to a person's religious beliefs more often than their easter bunny beliefs. people needed a name with which to distinguish themselves when they dont believe in god?

i dont think i will ever remember the terms for all the philosophies that have been defined...it is only a case of attaching labels to things to make it easier to shortcut verbally. but if nobody understands the meaning of the labels, humanity is going to get lost in a massive linguistic traffic jam.

[Kielicious]

Originally Posted by salima

so what is an agnostic? how is it different from an atheist?

An agnostic just means that the concept is unknowable. This is why Im an agnostic until you define god because the term 'god' can mean, and does mean, any number of things to different people. So until you clearly define the term I cannot know what you mean by 'god' and thus cannot either accept or reject the claim. If you define god in a way that makes me reject it I then become an 'atheist'.

Think of it like a jury in a courtroom... At the beginning the jury is 'agnostic' to whether or not the defendant is guilty or innocent. They cannot make a decision until evidence is given, and once they weigh the evidence the jury can then turn to either (by analogy) 'theist' or 'atheist'.

Originally Posted by salima

you mean if a person defined god as love, an atheist would say 'i dont believe in love'?

It depends on the individual.

Some people believe in love and some dont. I do so therefore I would have to believe in god if someone defined god in that way. As I said before though, 'god is love' is not what most people mean by god. Its usually more abstract than just love.

Originally Posted by salima

or an agnostic in a sense is saying he doesnt know if he believes in god because he doesnt know what god is?

Exactly. Asking someone if they believe in god is just as equivalent to saying, "Do you believe in X?" ...needz moar info

Originally Posted by salima

...people needed a name with which to distinguish themselves when they dont believe in god?

For some reason its only the case for religion. You dont hear people labeling themselves or other people as 'Abigfootist' or 'Aeasterbunnyist'. You only categorize people by what they believe, not by what they dont believe. If you did it the latter way the list for a single individual would be HUGE!!!

Originally Posted by salima

i dont think i will ever remember the terms for all the philosophies that have been defined...it is only a case of attaching labels to things to make it easier to shortcut verbally. but if nobody understands the meaning of the labels, humanity is going to get lost in a massive linguistic traffic jam.

I totally agree with everything you said, especially the bolded portion.

[Reconstructo]

Anti-theology can function as a theology. Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses. Marxism quickly became the opiate of the intellectuals. God can hide behind the word Reason. Those church-smashing French revolutionaries created just such a goddess. This should be a warning to our arrogance. Are we really so post-superstitious as we want to be, or is this our superstition itself?

Today's priest is the expert. The non-expert nods, dazzled by technological miracles.

[Krumple]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

Anti-theology can function as a theology.

That is true, but atheism is NOT anti-theology. It is just without belief or being without a belief. It is not against theology. The reason it seems as if there is some battle is not because atheists hate or dislike theists or deists. Most deplore the actions that some theists make towards scientific understanding or knowledge.

We know this is the case because a theist never attack any science that is not in contradiction with their theology. I rarely ever see a theist making claims that the science behind global warming is questionable, but when it comes to radio carbon dating they almost always claim it's a flawed science. They only attack the science that they feel threatens their belief system.

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses. Marxism quickly became the opiate of the intellectuals.

And intellectualism is the opiate of . . . who? Anyone?

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

Today's priest is the expert. The non-expert nods, dazzled by technological miracles.

This reads like a lovely little snippet of poetry, but does it mean anything?
It seems as though you are mixing metaphors of technology and religion,
which as we know mingle poorly.

[Reconstructo]

Krumple and Tick Tock Man:

I respect your positions. I hope I haven't alienated you by playing the gadfly. I'd call myself an agnostic with a respect for the sublimity in myth. Of course I think myth is best enjoyed as myth. Intellectualism is the opiate of all three of us, I would think.

Would science have much prestige if not for it's technological "miracles"? And is there not an ideal toward the which the scientific method strives? I think science is the heir of monotheism. Spinoza is a good example of a transitional point, and didn't Einstein himself reference Spinoza in regards to his spiritual (for lack of a better word) views?

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

Krumple and Tick Tock Man:
I hope I haven't alienated you by playing the gadfly.

No alienation here. I hold gadflies in high esteem.

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

Intellectualism is the opiate of all three of us, I would think.

Speak for yourself. I have too much proud Western Redneck blood coursing through my veins to ever try to wear the somber robes of the intellectual.
I do have to confess though that I get way more smarterer when I been
drinkin'.

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

Would science have much prestige if not for it's technological "miracles"? And is there not an ideal toward the which the scientific method strives? I think science is the heir of monotheism. Spinoza is a good example of a transitional point, and didn't Einstein himself reference Spinoza in regards to his spiritual (for lack of a better word) views?

I'm relieved that you put quotes around the word miracles in context with science. There are no miracles in science. Marvels, perhaps, but never miracles.

I always thought that the ideal toward which the scientific method strives was verifiable and
replicable accuracy.

It seems to be a popular approach these days to claim that science is a form of religion . . .
usually by theists using some sort of half-baked version of a tu quoque argument. At least
I think that's the correct term.

[Reconstructo]

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

No alienation here. I hold gadflies in high esteem.
Speak for yourself. I have too much proud Western Redneck blood coursing through my veins to ever try to wear the somber robes of the intellectual.
I do have to confess though that I get way more smarterer when I been
drinkin'.

I think I know what you mean here. But surely we both pride ourselves on intelligence? The word "intellectual" does have some negative connotations. For what it's worth, there's much more to life than its intellectual aspects...

---------- Post added 12-11-2009 at 08:10 PM ----------

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

No alienation here. I hold gadflies in high esteem.

I'm relieved that you put quotes around the word miracles in context with science. There are no miracles in science. Marvels, perhaps, but never miracles.

I always thought that the ideal toward which the scientific method strives was verifiable and
replicable accuracy.

It seems to be a popular approach these days to claim that science is a form of religion . . .
usually by theists using some sort of half-baked version of a tu quoque argument. At least
I think that's the correct term.

I agree that there are no miracles from the scientific perspective, for the scientific concept of nature, in my view, implies the totality, which leaves no room for anything above or beyond nature.

I also agree with you on the ideal of science. I often use the word consensus for "verifiable and replicable accuracy." Do you see what I mean by this?

You don't seem the type to make a religion of science, but would you agree that many accept the expert as infallible in the same their ancestors
might have accepted the words of the Pope?

I just think we should always keep science on its toes. I refer here to my signature. Are you familiar with Blakes' criticism of the Enlightenment?

[prothero]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

I just think we should always keep science on its toes. I refer here to my signature. Are you familiar with Blakes' criticism of the Enlightenment?

Reminds me of Woody Allen (atheism)
"To God, I am the loyal opposition".

One can conceive of god without demanding "miracles". The universe itself seems "miracle" enough.

[Reconstructo]

Fichte suggested that God was supra-sensible moral-world-ordering active within man. Of course he changed his mind a lot it seems.

But I don't see why the concept of the Divine should have to include omnipotence. I do think it's natural to wonder about the "ground of all being." I think this is why the Divine has been associated with the omnipotent, to kills two birds with one stone. To combine cosmology and the sacred...??