Reply to: A question about God

[NotAllThere]

Which proves I made the right choice with devote Atheism, then.

Not really. It does not logically follow from "God knowing where the keys were and didn't let on" that "No God exists". Similarly God as presented by the various religions not being logically consistent does not mean no God exists. Further, God as presented by various religions being immoral, or not worthy of praise/worship/putting faith in, also does not mean no God exists. He might exists and not meet your approval. or might exist and not be as presented by any of the religions.

Choosing to be an atheist of the Richard Dawkins mould is rather more logical, in that he thinks that science has shown there is no requirement for any kind of God to explain natural phenomena, therefore it is highly improbable that any kind of God exists, and so the rational approach is to assume that there doesn't. Not everyone agrees with that the logical chain is valid, but at least he's trying for a rational basis of unbelief - certainly one better than "I don't like the Catholic Church so I'm going to be an atheist".

[nomadd]

God did know where you key was. He just wasn't telling you.

Which proves I made the right choice with devote Atheism, then.

[NotAllThere]

I assume that you're talking about me. I'm sure you'd agree that the world would be a very primitive place if none ever asked a question that was already asked by another.

You sound defensive.

You sound like a teenager. If you really were interested in the answer you'd read some books by Hume etc. and use his arguments to confound your creationist relatives.

God is an answer to who created man, but merely kicks the question further down the road


Isn't it a recursive paradox, if you believe in god who created god

Oh no - another question no-one ever asked before! What are we to do?

If you believe the big bang started everything, what caused the big bang? One answer to that question is that time began at the big bang. Talk of a cause implies a time (cause and effect only exists within a time framework). Therefore talk of what caused the beginning of time is meaningless. Exactly the same argument applies to the question"who created God". God created time. Therefore to ask who created God is exactly as meaningful as "why does 1 = 2 on the surface describe by five sided cube?".

Allow me to speak from recent personal experience...

Three weeks ago I was about to start a new gig. I'd been off contract for quite some time, so a good, clean, stress-free start was paramount. Ease myself into it, sort of thing.

Monday morning arrives. I go to get the motorcycle out of the shed.

Can I find the shed key? Can I fook. And I've never, ever mislaid the shed key before.

I spend thirty minutes visiting every location around the house and garden that I'd touched in weeks - all the while screaming aloud, "Good God, where's the f**cking shed key!"

Were my pleas answered? No.

I do not believe God actually knew where my shed key was.

Omniscient my arse.

(Ps. It turns out I'd dropped it on the drive whilst doing some weeding and a neighbour had placed it on top of my garden gate.)

God did know where you key was. He just wasn't telling you.

Here's a problem with omniscience. If God is omniscient, then he knows what I am going to do. Do I therefore have freewill? If I don't then how can I be held responsible for my actions? Re-cast in a non-theological framework, the same issue is "If the universe is deterministic, how can I have freewill".

And a problem with omnipotence. If God is all powerful, then could he not have created a universe in which free-will exists but no-one ever does anything that harms anyone else? If not, then why not. If he could, then why didn't he?

[Zero Liability]

Interestingly there is a version of Satanism that makes more sense than Christianity. Satan is not an opponent of god but rather his agent, a lesser being who sees things as men do and who is appointed by god to look after mankind. Explains at least why an omnipotent being who creates whole universes would give a damn about us looking at a friend's wife's bottom.

The best rendition of Lucifer, IMO, is in Supernatural. I think the series does a good job of capturing the fact that he is, in "fact" (according to the myth, anyway) a fallen angel, and is reliant on using an angel's approach to getting his way, rather than that of demons. Even the good guy angels share in his disdain of humans, which are considered lesser beings, forged from earth rather than the heavenly fire they stemmed from.

[speling bee]

Interestingly there is a version of Satanism that makes more sense than Christianity. Satan is not an opponent of god but rather his agent, a lesser being who sees things as men do and who is appointed by god to look after mankind. Explains at least why an omnipotent being who creates whole universes would give a damn about us looking at a friend's wife's bottom.

Did you look at it or covet it?

[scooterscot]

I'm going to take a leap and suppose that the general consensus is that God is omnipotent and omniscient. I've not cared about things like God etc for so long I can;t remember the details, but I think most people would agree with those two.

So here's the question.

Is it impossible (i.e. a logical contradiction) for God to be simultaneously both omniscient and omnipotent?

How can it have the power to do anything it likes when the course of all history - past present & future - is already set out? If god knows that in the future it will do X at time Y, then it cannot be empowered to do anything other than X at time Y, otherwise it's previous omniscience would have failed it.

Being compelled to perform an action and unable to do otherwise doesn't sound very omnipotent to me.

Beginning and end is a human concept, as is time.

[xoggoth]

Interestingly there is a version of Satanism that makes more sense than Christianity. Satan is not an opponent of god but rather his agent, a lesser being who sees things as men do and who is appointed by god to look after mankind. Explains at least why an omnipotent being who creates whole universes would give a damn about us looking at a friend's wife's bottom.

[Zero Liability]

The paradoxes of omnipotence and omniscient have been known about and discussed for hundreds of years. Some Jewish philosophers have simply concluded that God isn't omnipotent. Others think that he has chosen to limit himself. Descartes considered that God could create a universe where mutually exclusive options exist. Others have suggested that questions such as "Can God create an object he cannot destroy" are semantically empty - devoid of meaning.

Rather like people who pose such questions, apparently breathlessly assuming they're the first ones to have thought about them.

True but no harm in bringing others to think about them too, now is there?

[xoggoth]

So what is about the teachings of the FSM that we need to address ?

Heretic! How dare you question the existence of the FSM?

[amcdonald]

We cannot prove god does not exist but the existence of god, if man has no special place in the universe and if an individual's actions cannot influence his fate, is purely academic anyway. It is those ideas, the teaching of the established religions, that we should first address.

The questions that organised religions need to answer

So what is about the teachings of the FSM that we need to address ?

[xoggoth]

Imagine knowing everything. The poor old chap would probably die of boredom.

Seriously, I am not a religious sort, but contradictions and flaws in human ideas about god's existence are no more a proof that god does not exist than incorrect scientific theories are a proof that physical laws do not exist.

We cannot prove god does not exist but the existence of god, if man has no special place in the universe and if an individual's actions cannot influence his fate, is purely academic anyway. It is those ideas, the teaching of the established religions, that we should first address.

The questions that organised religions need to answer

[darmstadt]

God is an answer to who created man, but merely kicks the question further down the road


Isn't it a recursive paradox, if you believe in god who created god

I always thought that man actually created god...

[speling bee]

Many 17 year olds ask such questions. The answers are generally unsatisfactory IIRC.

[mudskipper]

I became disillusioned when I was about 8 and prayed for nice weather for my birthday.

My sister said to me that God has better things to do than worry about than some silly little girl's birthday party.

I can't remember what the weather was like.

[nomadd]

I'm not worried about the possibility of god - it's an absurd idea. I'm just thinking that any hypothetical god couldn't be all knowing AND all powerful at the same time.

For many God is both, but if someone really must believe in God then God should probably look quite different then people tend to imagine.

**edit** I meant to say existence of, not possibility of.

Allow me to speak from recent personal experience...

Three weeks ago I was about to start a new gig. I'd been off contract for quite some time, so a good, clean, stress-free start was paramount. Ease myself into it, sort of thing.

Monday morning arrives. I go to get the motorcycle out of the shed.

Can I find the shed key? Can I fook. And I've never, ever mislaid the shed key before.

I spend thirty minutes visiting every location around the house and garden that I'd touched in weeks - all the while screaming aloud, "Good God, where's the f**cking shed key!"

Were my pleas answered? No.

I do not believe God actually knew where my shed key was.

Omniscient my arse.

(Ps. It turns out I'd dropped it on the drive whilst doing some weeding and a neighbour had placed it on top of my garden gate.)