The Case Against God: God's Nature

[ughaibu]

I haven't any problem with considering the deeper implications of these ideas, of course I also have my own ivory tower, what I wanted to point out was that religion is a social concept but it's derivations are private.

[pgrmdave]

Let's assume that a universal omnipotent and omniscient God exist. In the vastness of the universe, why would such a fantastic being bother itself with the trivial affairs of a few paltry tiny bipeds on a small planet third in line from an inconspicuous star in a remote corner of a galaxy, one of billions? Why would he meddle with their lives? Is it telling of His character, or telling of how desperately humans want it to be so?

 

Why not? He has infinite time - so he can spend infinite time on each little section of his universe. Who says that we're the only ones singled out? Maybe he's just as interested in other life forms. If he has infinite time, why assume that he would leave any part of his universe unexamined?

[Lancaster]

Maybe god uses Earth and it's inhabitants for practice, then the real creation will take place elsewhere after research on various minor planets has ironed out the flaws.

 

He doesn't need practice, he is omniscient, and therefore knows everything, including the result of any possible research preformed on any subject. Plus, he's perfect, so there can be no flaws in his work unless he creates them on purpose.

[ughaibu]

And, you have some evidence to back up claims tending to the limit of perfection?

[Lancaster]

And, you have some evidence to back up claims tending to the limit of perfection?

 

Are you addressing me? I said that he is perfect (infinitely), implying that there are no limits on his perfection.

[ughaibu]

As I understand the concept of "perfection", it's complete and doesn't have any degrees, including "infinitely". In any case, the concept of a perfect god seems meaningless to me, it implies that whatever state the universe is in will be perfect, accordingly, "perfect" becomes synonymous with "as it is". But, gods are transcendent fantasy creatures, there's no requirement for them to make sense, rather the contrary, a god limited to sensible properties will either come under a class of existing mundane objects or will be demonstrably contradictory.

[Lancaster]

As I understand the concept of "perfection", it's complete and doesn't have any degrees, including "infinitely". In any case, the concept of a perfect god seems meaningless to me, it implies that whatever state the universe is in will be perfect, accordingly, "perfect" becomes synonymous with "as it is". But, gods are transcendent fantasy creatures, there's no requirement for them to make sense, rather the contrary, a god limited to sensible properties will either come under a class of existing mundane objects or will be demonstrably contradictory.

 

Agreed.

[arkain101]

As I understand the concept of "perfection", it's complete and doesn't have any degrees, including "infinitely". In any case, the concept of a perfect god seems meaningless to me, it implies that whatever state the universe is in will be perfect, accordingly, "perfect" becomes synonymous with "as it is". But, gods are transcendent fantasy creatures, there's no requirement for them to make sense, rather the contrary, a god limited to sensible properties will either come under a class of existing mundane objects or will be demonstrably contradictory.

 

I think that can be seen two ways like the old, cup half full? cup half empty? Well its relative to the context, is my ol answer

 

Let me explain.

 

The universe IS. (let it be the cup of water)

 

-"it must be perfect because it IS." Really, What else can there be?" (half full)

 

or

 

-"nothing is perfect, and only a comparison of the ideal" What is more perfect than existence? lol, we can't name anything that is not an 'existence catagory concept' :rolleyes: (half empty)

 

More cup thoughts

 

To: It is so it is perfect

 

-Do you resepect the perfection? (half full)

 

or,

 

-Do you consider you can out smart it, or rise above it? (half empty)

 

To: Nothing is perfect, and only a comparison of the ideal

 

-If something was perfect what could it be, and where could it do it?

 

-What is this existence if it is not perfection?

[maikeru]

In many decades of pondering the “omniscience precludes omnipotence” paradox, I’ve been unable to find a satisfying resolution. My conclusion is that it’s more satisfying to believe that God is omniscient only of the past and present, and His omnipotence excludes any loophole such as perfectly extrapolating the future. This scheme seems consistent with descriptions of God such as in the Book of Job, in which God appears uncertain of how the story will turn out.

 

I reread the Book of Job recently, and indeed it does seem that God is uncertain of how it'll work out. He doesn't address Job's complaints, either. The portrayal of God is troubling.

[arkain101]

This was an interesting read related to this topic:

 

 

Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) teaches that God is neither matter nor spirit. Rather God is the creator of both, but is himself neither. But if God is so different from his creation, how can there be any interaction between the Creator and the created? This question prompted Kabbalists to envision two aspects of God, (a) God himself, who in the end is unknowable, and (:) the revealed aspect of God that created the universe, preserves the universe, and interacts with mankind. Kabbalists speak of the first aspect of God as Ein Sof (אין סוף); this is translated as "the infinite", "endless", or "that which has no limits". In this view, nothing can be said about this aspect of God. This aspect of God is impersonal. The second aspect of divine emanations, however, is at least partially accessible to human thought. Kabbalists believe that these two aspects are not contradictory but, through the mechanism of progressive emanation, complement one another. See Divine simplicity; Tzimtzum. The structure of these emanations have been characterized in various ways: Four "worlds" (Azilut, Yitzirah, Beriyah, and Asiyah), Sefirot, or Partzufim ("faces"). Later systems harmonize these models.

 

Some Kabbalistic scholars, such as Moses ben Jacob Cordovero, believe that all things are linked to God through these emanations, making us all part of one great chain of being. Others, such as Schneur Zalman of Liadi (founder of Lubavitch (Chabad) Hasidism), hold that God is all that really exists; all else is completely undifferentiated from God's perspective. If improperly explained, such views can be interpreted as panentheism or pantheism. In truth, according to this philosophy, God's existence is higher than anything that this world can express, yet He includes all things of this world down to the finest detail in such a perfect unity that His creation of the world effected no change in Him whatsoever. This paradox is dealt with at length in the Chabad Chassidic texts.

[Lancaster]

This was an interesting read related to this topic:

 

 

Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) teaches that God is neither matter nor spirit. Rather God is the creator of both, but is himself neither. But if God is so different from his creation, how can there be any interaction between the Creator and the created? This question prompted Kabbalists to envision two aspects of God, (a) God himself, who in the end is unknowable, and (:) the revealed aspect of God that created the universe, preserves the universe, and interacts with mankind. Kabbalists speak of the first aspect of God as Ein Sof (אין סוף); this is translated as "the infinite", "endless", or "that which has no limits". In this view, nothing can be said about this aspect of God. This aspect of God is impersonal. The second aspect of divine emanations, however, is at least partially accessible to human thought. Kabbalists believe that these two aspects are not contradictory but, through the mechanism of progressive emanation, complement one another. See Divine simplicity; Tzimtzum. The structure of these emanations have been characterized in various ways: Four "worlds" (Azilut, Yitzirah, Beriyah, and Asiyah), Sefirot, or Partzufim ("faces"). Later systems harmonize these models.

 

Some Kabbalistic scholars, such as Moses ben Jacob Cordovero, believe that all things are linked to God through these emanations, making us all part of one great chain of being. Others, such as Schneur Zalman of Liadi (founder of Lubavitch (Chabad) Hasidism), hold that God is all that really exists; all else is completely undifferentiated from God's perspective. If improperly explained, such views can be interpreted as panentheism or pantheism. In truth, according to this philosophy, God's existence is higher than anything that this world can express, yet He includes all things of this world down to the finest detail in such a perfect unity that His creation of the world effected no change in Him whatsoever. This paradox is dealt with at length in the Chabad Chassidic texts.

 

That is one of the most absurd premises for a religion I have ever heard. It's self contradictory and paradoxical. It comes close to addressing some of the logical issues an infinite being creates, and then offers them as strengths.:) There is no limit to the stretching a faithful mind can do. . .

[arkain101]

seems more like a postulate and investigation.. religion? maybe, I unno.

[Lancaster]

I am disappointed that no theists tried to poke a hole in any of this. Prgmdave acknowledged that some of it is correct. . .

[PetsTheCatfish]

I reread the Book of Job recently, and indeed it does seem that God is uncertain of how it'll work out. He doesn't address Job's complaints, either. The portrayal of God is troubling.

 

Yes, yes it is. That story is quite, for a lack of better phraseology "****ed-up". God knows this man is perfect yet he gives the devil the power to destroy him and his family. One of the things I noticed instead of addressing Job on why he allowed what to happen he insulted him and told him to "gird up thy loins like a man". What a god, uses an ad hominem argument. Then I ask you what does a person do in an argument when they cannot justify themselves?

[moosegal]

I am disappointed that no theists tried to poke a hole in any of this. Prgmdave acknowledged that some of it is correct. . .

Hi Lancaster. I'm just out on a break and noticed your post. I don't intend to poke any holes but would like to leave you some food for thought.

1. People assume the description of God is correct and therefore use it as a guideline. In all honesty ... the description is most likely wrong.

2. Even before christianity, there was a belief of a superior being and by people from different lands that had no contact with each other,

3. There are some unexplained things associated with evil that happens in the world .... if there is evil, there is good. Evil exist with the presence of the devil and so good must exist with the presence of God.

4. (last) Why is it everyone thinks God is their keeper and has to stop all the bad things from happening? Reality ... I never seen his news letter stating he would be our sitter or doctor.

Crossing my fingers that I will make it back here soon. I would like the opportunity to follow this thread.

[CraigD]

That [Renaissance Kabbalistic ideas about the nature of God] is one of the most absurd premises for a religion I have ever heard.

All I can say to that, Lancaster, is that it sounds like you have not yet experienced a thorough survey of ancient and modern theological thought. B)

 

Withing reasonably mainstream theology, my personal top for weird religious premises is the concept of “omnipotent nothingness” described at length by 20th century Jewish Theologist Richard Rubenstein’s in his 1966 book “After Auschwitz: Radical Theology and Contemporary Judaism”. Though difficult to paraphrase while preserving it’s strongly emotional flavor, in essence, Rubenstein concludes that the only reasonable explanation for a God who allows the extermination of his most devout and faithful (the Holocaust) is to reexamine the assumptions and implications of Anselm’s ontological argument, and, contrary to Anselm, conclude that God is both “that which greater than nothing can be conceived” and non-existent … or, to phrase it more pithily, that, as an attribute of perfection, existence is highly overrated.

 

During the time that I had much to do with it, much of what attracted me, a fairly devout atheist, to academic theology, was that it was simply the weirdest subject I’d ever encountered. Though I suspect that, like so many parts of western culture, theology in a sense peaked in the 1970s, I doubt that any serious study of it today would disappoint in the quantity and quality of weirdness and absurdity therein.