Why is the omnipotence dogma important?

[tdgesq]

Yes, I do propose to deny the validity of your premise, which as stated, is, “Say that an entity possesses “maximal excellence” if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.”

I do not like the premise because it limits God, defining him as an all-knowing equivalent of a massive supercomputer. If God has reached “maximal excellence,” he can never learn something new, and cannot create, or improve upon an idea (which is contrary to the evidence of biological evolution).

You and the few other billion Catholics and Christians who believe that may indeed be right.

However, I prefer to believe in a God who regularly knows the satisfaction, even excitement, of discovering a new thought or idea, whether from one of his creations or within himself.

That is strictly a personal preference, but before anyone accuses me of making things up and holding my own ideas too highly, kindly note that I first learned it from the Catechism, which taught me (evidently no one else) that we are made in God’s image. We are not supercomputer-like in the least. And God is not a material being (so saith the book).

What common image might we share, if not a mind which has the ability to engage in creative, imaginative thought?

While it is true that the catechism does teach we are made in God’s image, it also makes it clear that we are creatures who do not possess his attributes fully. But even under your limited version of God (as I understand it) we don’t have those attributes fully either.

Your objections aren’t necessarily unusual. There are some Jewish philosophers of note who deny the traditional theistic notion of omniscience and omnipotence, usually to avoid the problem of evil. There was a paper recently published that won a notable award (I can’t remember which one) in the area of theology based on the notion that genetic mutations that are harmful to human beings must be “a mistake” on the part of God. I’m not sure though what combination of brute facts and perhaps revelation will get you to a God that is limited in this way. In any case, it doesn’t appear we will ever achieve the status of even a limited God.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…So from this thread and the various replies, I am inclined that the matter has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with religious tradition and human self-esteem. It’s like the human need to have the biggest house on the block, the fastest car, or the only true religion. It is all about simple human ego, and that will never change.

The logic that describes the divine attributes have been laid out for thousands of years. The classical culmination being the Summa Theologica. The Truth of Christianity is not a matter of metaphysics it is a matter of the mathematics of Messianic Prophecy.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

all-knowing … he can never learn

Of Course not. If one is omniscient then there is nothing more to learn.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

Greylorn,
With regard to the issue of omniscience, I have a metaphor that might be of some use. I can’t remember where I first read this, but I think it comes from some pre-Platonic Greek tradition. It’s intent is to reconcile omniscience with free will, but I think it has some relevance to this issue.

Imagine that there is a carpet that is being woven by a many people at the same time. Each person is stitching away at the edge of the carpet which keeps getting longer. The edge of the carpet represents the present moment, the rest of the carpet is the past. When the weavers look, they can see the carpet that is already stitched and its pattern, although not with much clarity. Every now and then God reaches down and adds his own stitches. God exists outside of time, so when He looks at the carpet he always sees it in its entirety, from the past to the end of time, and with perfect clarity. This has no effect on the weavers. They just keep weaving according to their own human understanding.

The idea here is that God sees the whole carpet at all times and is therefore omniscient. The humans still have free will (they can make whatever stitches they want to) and God can intervene in the stitching from time to time. I noticed your complaint about the omniscience of God was at least in part due to the seeming indeterminateness (is that even a word?) of God’s actions as recorded in ancient history. Might I suggest this a weakness on the part of the human recorders rather than God?

 

[greylorn]

While it is true that the catechism does teach we are made in God’s image, it also makes it clear that we are creatures who do not possess his attributes fully. But even under your limited version of God (as I understand it) we don’t have those attributes fully either.

Your objections aren’t necessarily unusual. There are some Jewish philosophers of note who deny the traditional theistic notion of omniscience and omnipotence, usually to avoid the problem of evil. There was a paper recently published that won a notable award (I can’t remember which one) in the area of theology based on the notion that genetic mutations that are harmful to human beings must be “a mistake” on the part of God. I’m not sure though what combination of brute facts and perhaps revelation will get you to a God that is limited in this way. In any case, it doesn’t appear we will ever achieve the status of even a limited God.

You’re not kidding, that a paper spouting such drivel won an award, are you? The modern theological mind seems to have fallen into an abyss of irrelevance. Alas.

I don’t study theology, not a word of it. Information such as that confirms this as a good choice. IMO theology depends entirely upon the usage of correct common logic plus our knowledge of physics, and I’ve yet to meet a theologian in person or print who knew anything of either. There must be some.

I never got the idea that we were to reach god-like status. Apparently the Mormons suck a lot of people into their belief system with the notion that each Mormon male will get to be a god of his own planet, eventually, probably with as many wives as he can abide as well. What a terrible punishment for good behavior that would be!

But consider that our universe may have lots of work to do. The notion of a limited Creator solves many more problems than the existence of evil.

I once had a job working for a very bright engineer who might have been able to do everything that I did, albeit differently of course. Several others worked in our lab. He could have easily done the work that 50% of his staff were doing, but did not, because there were only 24 hours in a day, we had a launch schedule to meet, and he had a life. Besides, he wanted to do the kinds of higher level things which his staff might not have had much luck with.

His limitations created jobs for us. Had he been capable of working ten times faster than anyone else, around the clock, he could have hired us to sing his praises, fetch lunch and coffee, and wash his feet. That would have been tiresome. His limitations made the lives of others more interesting.

One might ask how that could be applied? What could man do for God, even a limited God?

Humans are already tweaking DNA using biochemical technologies. I once wrote some code that let a machine make small protein molecules, something that had once been possible only within biological cells. We are learning how the universe is constructed, a little bit at a time.

Now suppose that someone like Michael Behe dies with his microbiological knowledge intact and, being a good Catholic, goes to heaven. A mind like his may get bored strumming harps and singing praises after awhile. It is the nature of good minds to want to think and solve problems. He just might ask for something constructive to do, and be set to work on some planet developing new life forms. Or, if he’s a homebody, he may ask for the opportunity to redesign human and animal DNA so that our bodies can either use mercury, lead, and plutonium, or at least get rid of them sooner.

Of course an omniscient God could do that in another finger snap, but a real Creator, limited in ability, might just say to Behe, “Glad you’re willing to work on that. I was going to get around to it awhile back, but then all the beasties on Arcturus VII started growing wings and after fixing that glitch, I just never came back to the toxicity issue— and if the truth must be out, I figured that by the time humans learned enough to poison their oceans, they’d know enough not to.”

Once the ramifications get sorted out, the notion of a limited Creator will go a long way toward getting religion on the same page with science.

 

[greylorn]

The Divine Attributes are functions of logical thought, they derive from the nature of G-d. Emotions shouldn’t have anything to do with it.

Your first sentence is a simpleminded tautology: The Divine Attributes and the Nature of God are one and the same thing.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn:

Oh, that’s right, I forgot: Scripture is bologna to you. Greylorn: you are surreptitiously limiting the power necessary of God to have accomplished exceptional things other than simply creating the universe. Why? Although I really don’t think that that matters so much in the scheme of things. The production of the universe and all that such a feat entails cannot be diminished simply because you, in awe inspiring omniscience, wish it so.

Look: the current science is that He created a speck - …

After being greeting with insults, then treated to the absurd and incorrect implication, "…that He created a speck… is “current science,” I conclude that you would not be worth my conversation time even if you had manners. I did not bother to read the rest, knowing that you are too dogmatic to be interesting.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn,
With regard to the issue of omniscience, I have a metaphor that might be of some use. I can’t remember where I first read this, but I think it comes from some pre-Platonic Greek tradition. It’s intent is to reconcile omniscience with free will, but I think it has some relevance to this issue.

Imagine that there is a carpet that is being woven by a many people at the same time. Each person is stitching away at the edge of the carpet which keeps getting longer. The edge of the carpet represents the present moment, the rest of the carpet is the past. When the weavers look, they can see the carpet that is already stitched and its pattern, although not with much clarity. Every now and then God reaches down and adds his own stitches. God exists outside of time, so when He looks at the carpet he always sees it in its entirety, from the past to the end of time, and with perfect clarity. This has no effect on the weavers. They just keep weaving according to their own human understanding.

The idea here is that God sees the whole carpet at all times and is therefore omniscient. The humans still have free will (they can make whatever stitches they want to) and God can intervene in the stitching from time to time. I noticed your complaint about the omniscience of God was at least in part due to the seeming indeterminateness (is that even a word?) of God’s actions as recorded in ancient history. Might I suggest this a weakness on the part of the human recorders rather than God?

The metaphor fails to deal with the future, and thus fails to address the contradiction I mentioned between omniscience and creative thought.

Indeterminacy works better.

Your proposal, "Might I suggest this a weakness on the part of the human recorders rather than God? is a perfect example of the worthlessness of dogma. You don’t like the contradiction, so you blow off the words which disclose it.

I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard, “The Bible is divinely inspired. Each word in every translation is as from the Mouth of God Himself.” So what happens to divine inspiration when the words contradict one’s beliefs du jour?

Please. Why can’t you and other dogmatists work up the basic integrity to admit that your beliefs do not match the Bible, are full of contradictions at both the logical and practical level, but that you believe them anyhow because that’s how you were programmed, and that’s what your friends and family believe? Nothing wrong with that. It’s how most everyone gets their beliefs.

Or, believe them because you like them. Believe them because they give you a set of standards, or sense of purpose. Those are honest reasons. I can relate to honesty.

But please quit trying to make them out to be anything other than opinions invented by fine, well-intentioned people who believed in a flat earth and six-day creation— opinions which are contradicted by the facts of science. IMO that kind of false rationalization serves no religion well.

I will try to rephrase my OP next week and give this another go. Despite my frustrations, the topic is important.

 

[4Horsemen]

I am beginning to understand how people think, through the answers that I don’t get. Before about the 3rd century A.D. people had competing gods, who they often fought and died for. Christianity overcame the pagan Gods of the Romans because, like those religions (and unlike Judaism) it had a God in human form, in Christ. Pantheists could relate to that in a way they could never relate to Judaism’s abstract God.

So you’re not getting the answers you’re expecting, like God can’t be creative unless He is not omniscient because being omniscient, He knows all. Not only does He know all, He creatively participates in the universe keeping it in existence, and in our lives, keeping us in existence and setting circumstances to bring us to Him. I call that creative.

That Jesus, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, (yes, that’s dogma) came into our world with a body is a truly creative act, in one respect, but a great act of mercy, which is even more astonishing. If it helps to bring Pantheists to Him, being the Good Shepherd, what a wonderful creative idea!

But note that what you call “creative” ideas are not something that pops into God’s head all of a sudden, as often happens to us. God is fully in command of all His thoughts which He had from all eternity. In fact, the whole universe may well be within the mind of God, who sees every moment with a glance, so to speak, from past, present and future. The analogy given above of the people stitching a rug in the present and not knowing the future is like ourselves as we live our lives, but God sees all, all at once.

Plus, instead of behaving like the soap opera clowns that Romans and Greeks called gods, Christ had lots of intelligent things to say, and did not behave like an oversexed childish oaf.

He also let people know He is God and that He and the Father are one.

But when Constantine came to political power and saw the handwriting on the wall, that Christianity would dominate, he co-opted Christianity. . .

Constantine the Great was on his way to become the Emperor after his bravery in battle with the Roman army in Britain. He was taking the title from one of the cruelist Emperor named Maxentius, son of another cruel emperor. He saw a cross in the sky with the Latin words: In Hoc Signo Vinces. God was calling him. However, he did not convert until the close of his life.

It is unnecessary because the universe could have been created by an extremely powerful and knowledgeable being, or by many of them working in concert.

Many gods working together to create the universe sounds paganistic and belittles the all-MIghty, all-Knowing, all-Powerful God. Whether you consider this dogmatic or not, He revealed Himself, first of all to the Jews.

People who admired the awesome extent and complexity of the universe back when the concept was first devised could not have imagined it as being made of tiny parts like electrons and protons, or how it could have been made at all. So they invented a “one swell foop” concept— the stars get made first (light), all at once; then the earth, then critters, etc., and of course a God powerful enough to do all that with a mere act of will. (Genesis was written before the omnipotent feature was invented.)

These days an educated Christian has to extend that original limited creation framework to include the instantaneous, by “will” creation of at least a trillion galaxies, way too many planets to count, and in all likelihood a universe full of living critters beyond the imaginings of a crazed SF writer on dope.

Genesis was written before science came into play, also philosophy and metaphysics. However, scholars consider the first five books of the Bible written by Moses. He believed in an all-Powerful God since God let Moses know His essence in the burning bush: I AM WHO AM. That is, first of all, the reality of His existence. The story of creation is a depiction of absolute power. Besides how do you, or anyone, measure God’s power?

If I had to believe in all that, I’d probably figure on an omnipotent God also. However, what if the universe was created via acts of will and intelligence, rather than brute power? Would it really require omnipotence to create one electron? From there, the Creator might devise a proton, combining the pair into the first hydrogen atom. Not quite so much power would be required to do that, as to will an entire star into existence.

You are making the mistake of defining God’s attribute of Omnipotence as “brute power”? Maybe that’s where you’ve gone astray. Omnipotence is on a much higher level. God’s power is transcendent and mystical–beyond our imagination.

Yes, I do. There is evidence for reincarnation which includes the entire Hindu and Buddhist religious cultures, thousands of books, some scientific studies, and everyday human experience. It is also part of the Christian dogma, where it is modified and called resurrection.

Resurrection is not the same thing as reincarnation. Our souls don’t go into other bodies at death but face judgment and to to one of three places. At the final Resurrection, we get our bodies back but in a glorified state. (Yes. Dogma! )

Unlike omnipotence and omniscience, which are properties that cannot be experimentally verified, reincarnation is oft tested. . .
The only factor that dogma plays in my considered opinion that reincarnation is for real, is that my understanding of the purpose of creation places no dogma in the way of my opinion.

Well, that’s your opinion. It’s dogma to me.

 

[4Horsemen]

REPLY 2 of 2 to POST #13

Because I believe that the universe actually exists. Omnipotence is neither a credible nor necessary explanation for it. In fact, it cannot be employed at any point in the creation process without destroying creation.

Once again, God is the ultimate of all attributes. Who would want to worship a god who is not the ultimately perfect in every aspect and every attribute? Not knowing Him as the superlative is not knowing God. You are limiting Him, which may be used as an excuse that He doesn’t deserve your worship.

That’s the way dogma gets justified by all religions. Atheists have done the same with Darwinism, adding new rules and principles to the original theory. Big Bang theorists refuse to admit the many logical problems with the theory. Politicians never take responsibility for their votes. It is human nature to make excuses to explain away data that fails to match the dogma de jour. That’s why I’m down on it. Dogmatists of every belief and stripe, as I’m sure you well know, simply invent whatever facts they need, or warp their logic, as needed to maintain the dogma. Makes arguing with them a real waste of time. Its just preservation of the ego.

Dogma must be developed, or more correctly, understood. The Bible gives us the basis for dogma, but it must be understood and explained in such a way that it is formulated as a truth. That is why the Church depends on Tradition which is set down by the Councils. Jesus, Himself, has said before His Ascension that the Holy Spirit would remind them of all He taught them and that they were not ready for everything at this time.

And Catholics expect total stability after the 2nd coming. No death, and no strife, therefore no cultural realignments. Boring!

Catholics who remain faithful will be in Heaven (along with those who have lived their lives accordingly and searched for truth the best they knew how–such as those who never heard of Jesus) where all will be perfect satisfaction and love.

The original six-day creation notion came about because those who invented it figured that God could have created the universe in six almighty-finger snaps, and that he would therefore have done the job in that manner, quickly and efficiently.

One nanosecond to God could be trillions of years to us.

The gradual progression of life forms is strongly suggestive of an engineering process, rather than omnipotent creation. The evidence shows trial and error. It is also highly suggestive of the notion that a variety of engineers were employed in the task. (IMO whoever designed the wart hog was not the designer of orchids.)

You know how original sin entered the world with your Catholic background. Before that, life in the Garden of Eden was beautiful and holy. Adam and Eve had the pleasure of speaking directly to God, whereas afterward, they (and consequently us) can only see as through a dark lens.

A creative thought is, by definition, the discovery of an idea which one has not previously had. Other thoughts are simply memories, or copies taken from another mind.

That may be true for us mortals. For God, your definition of creative thought doesn’t work. For God creates continuously and there is no idea which He has not previously had. He is the origin of all creation because all resides in His great intellect and He wills whatever He wills. He is not impeded by the senses.

If God knows the future, that knowledge must include his own future thoughts and actions.

There is no future tense for God. All is present to Him yet He knows our future. He sees each of us from our embryonic stage to our death all in one glance.

I’ve given you some ideas. What hairy wart, indeed? That there is none was my point.

I realize that. That why I put the EEK! smilie next to my response.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Your first sentence is a simpleminded tautology: The Divine Attributes and the Nature of God are one and the same thing.

Tautological statements are the foundation of all rational thought. Whats wrong with that?

 

[JDaniel]

Plus, instead of behaving like the soap opera clowns that Romans and Greeks called gods, Christ had lots of intelligent things to say, and did not behave like an oversexed childish oaf.

Greylorn:

I like this quote. Since you’re a writer now, I guess a am enjoined from commandeering it?

But when Constantine came to political power and saw the handwriting on the wall, that Christianity would dominate, he co-opted Christianity, held a council to determine what its dogma should be, and eventually (post council, according to history) came away with a God-concept that could never be bettered by any competing religion that might come along. Smart boy.

So, what do you say Constantine did that was so useful to a God-concept?

Of course he did not know the “mathematics of infinity.” which had not been invented yet, and did not realize that it would be possible to better the concept. But that’s another tale.

Have we forgotten about Zeno? (See below)

"The earliest attestable accounts of mathematical infinity come from Zeno of Elea (ca. 490 BC? – ca. 430 BC?), a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher of southern Italy and member of the Eleatic School founded by Parmenides. Aristotle called him the inventor of the dialectic. He is best known for his paradoxes, which Bertrand Russell has described as “immeasurably subtle and profound”.

“In accordance with the traditional view of Aristotle, the Hellenistic Greeks generally preferred to distinguish the potential infinity from the actual infinity; for example, instead of saying that there are an infinity of primes, Euclid prefers instead to say that there are more prime numbers than contained in any given collection of prime numbers (Elements, Book IX, Proposition 20).” - Wikipedia

So from this thread and the various replies, I am inclined that the matter has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with religious tradition and human self-esteem. It’s like the human need to have the biggest house on the block, the fastest car, or the only true religion. It is all about simple human ego, and that will never change.

And yours is about error?

It is unnecessary because the universe could have been created by an extremely powerful and knowledgeable being, or by many of them working in concert.

Not logical.

People who admired the awesome extent and complexity of the universe back when the concept was first devised could not have imagined it as being made of tiny parts like electrons and protons, or how it could have been made at all. So they invented a “one swell foop” concept— the stars get made first (light), all at once; then the earth, then critters, etc., and of course a God powerful enough to do all that with a mere act of will. (Genesis was written before the omnipotent feature was invented.)

Now you’re re-writing Genesis?

These days an educated Christian has to extend that original limited creation framework to include the instantaneous, by “will” creation of at least a trillion galaxies, way too many planets to count, and in all likelihood a universe full of living critters beyond the imaginings of a crazed SF writer on dope.

That is unbelievable!

If I had to believe in all that, I’d probably figure on an omnipotent God also. However, what if the universe was created via acts of will and intelligence, rather than brute power? Would it really require omnipotence to create one electron? From there, the Creator might devise a proton, combining the pair into the first hydrogen atom. Not quite so much power would be required to do that, as to will an entire star into existence.

Or, two gods could have a fight: one, who invented the electron, using a slingshot, fires the electron at his competitor, whilst, at the very same moment, his adversary does the same but with a proton. The two collide in the middle and voilà: the first atom, instead of Adam.

Next, he might create a bunch more of these primeval atoms, and eventually tiring of it, devise a clever way to have them made automatically, much as a modern factory can crank out nails. Before long, he’d have a star, and upon getting the making of that down right, could set about a way to make them automatically.

Of course; it could have been a clever game!

He might have to manually produce a neutron to make deuterium, which then can make helium. And we now know that a star full of hydrogen and helium will manufacture the other atoms all the way through iron, and that when such stars burn out and go supernova, they will manufacture the heavier elements.

And the two (or more) of them would, of course, have known that for sure!

Clearly this kind of process could be accomplished by an entity with the necessary power and intelligence to make a single hydrogen atom, which must be extraordinary by any human imagining, but not necessarily infinite.

Where is he/she hiding? On the other side of the sun?

continued . . .

 

[JDaniel]

continuation . . .

Yes, I do. There is evidence for reincarnation which includes the entire Hindu and Buddhist religious cultures, thousands of books, some scientific studies, and everyday human experience.

Hmmm? What? “Some scientific studies?” And, “everyday human experience?” Man I dislike naked assertions!

It is also part of the Christian dogma, where it is modified and called resurrection.

And this reincarnated Jesus is hiding with the gods behind the sun?

Unlike omnipotence and omniscience, which are properties that cannot be experimentally verified, reincarnation is oft tested, such as by Buddhist monks whenever an important lama dies. I’ve tested it myself by finding some amateurs to regress me, and by learning to facilitate past-life regressions for others.

When did you get into Scientology?

My investigations have been brief and casual, part of a wider range of studies, but others have made a larger career of it. Individuals who have actually been competently regressed usually find their experience to be compelling evidence.

When one “regresses” does one really become more stupid? An inquiring mind wants to know.

The only factor that dogma plays in my considered opinion that reincarnation is for real, is that my understanding of the purpose of creation places no dogma in the way of my opinion.

Except the dogma of this statement?

Anyway, God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

After being greeting with insults, then treated to the absurd and incorrect implication, "…that He created a speck… is “current science,” I conclude that you would not be worth my conversation time even if you had manners. I did not bother to read the rest, knowing that you are too dogmatic to be interesting.

Greylorn:

That is perfectly fine with me. Unlike others with whom I’ve disagreed, at least they have not been so loose with revising history, devising things that aren’t, feigning superior knowledge, attempting to subvert the natural tendency of most thinkers who read your stuff to shake their heads so violently that their brains pop out by feigning being on their “team.”

Know thyself, Greylorn.

God bless,
jd

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

Why can’t you and other dogmatists work up the basic integrity to admit that your beliefs do not match the Bible, are full of contradictions at both the logical and practical level, but that you believe them anyhow because that’s how you were programmed, and that’s what your friends and family believe?

The word dogma has come to mean “something that no sane person would believe unless threatened with a punch to the face.” The truth is that dogma is just another word for axiom. Axioms are premises that are accepted without proof and are the starting point of all arguments. The vast majority of uniquely Catholic axioms originate in the period from the birth of Christ until the death of the last apostle. All consequent magisterial truth agrees with and was arrived at from reasoning upon these initial axioms. The core axiom in my opinion is the hypostatic union, because if you remove that one the whole thing collapses. As St. Paul said, if Christ did not rise from the dead we are the greatest of fools. One last point. From our perspective it appears to be dogma, but the apostles were not dogmatists. St. Thomas really did see Christ’s wounds, and St. Paul saw Christ on the road to Damascus and did a complete 180. These men were speaking of things that they had seen.

 

[tdgesq]

You’re not kidding, that a paper spouting such drivel won an award, are you? The modern theological mind seems to have fallen into an abyss of irrelevance. Alas.

The winner was Francisco J. Ayala, a geneticist and molecular biologist who heads the biological sciences department at U.C. Irvine. He is known primarily for his works criticizing creationism and intelligent design. He received the Templeton prize, part of which is a monetary award of $1 million sterling. No doubt he disagrees with Behe, as do some Catholics who frequent these forums. templetonprize.org/previouswinners/ayala.html

I don’t study theology, not a word of it. Information such as that confirms this as a good choice. IMO theology depends entirely upon the usage of correct common logic plus our knowledge of physics, and I’ve yet to meet a theologian in person or print who knew anything of either. There must be some.

William Lane Craig and Anthony Rizzi.

What could man do for God, even a limited God?

I don’t know what you think, but it doesn’t look like much, whether we are on earth or in heaven. So I’m not sure why it is important to you that God be limited.

Of course an omniscient God could do that in another finger snap, but a real Creator, limited in ability, might just say to Behe, “Glad you’re willing to work on that. I was going to get around to it awhile back, but then all the beasties on Arcturus VII started growing wings and after fixing that glitch, I just never came back to the toxicity issue— and if the truth must be out, I figured that by the time humans learned enough to poison their oceans, they’d know enough not to.”

He might, or he might not. Then again, I don’t know why it would be so important to have a God that one could do science experiments with. But maybe it doesn’t matter since what we really would like to know is this: what is life after death (if there is such a thing at all) really like? Our respective complaints about it don’t seem to matter much.

 

[greylorn]

So you’re not getting the answers you’re expecting, like God can’t be creative unless He is not omniscient because being omniscient, He knows all. Not only does He know all, He creatively participates in the universe keeping it in existence, and in our lives, keeping us in existence and setting circumstances to bring us to Him. I call that creative.
…

But note that what you call “creative” ideas are not something that pops into God’s head all of a sudden, as often happens to us. God is fully in command of all His thoughts which He had from all eternity. In fact, the whole universe may well be within the mind of God, who sees every moment with a glance, so to speak, from past, present and future. The analogy given above of the people stitching a rug in the present and not knowing the future is like ourselves as we live our lives, but God sees all, all at once.

REPLY 1 of 3

I never suggested that God was not creative. I said that creativity and omniscience are logically incompatible.

I cannot conceive of a universe created by an entity incapable of creative thought.

I can easily admit a universe created by an entity who does not know everything. I could get along with that guy.

He also let people know He is God and that He and the Father are one.

Exactly where did he do that?

Constantine the Great was on his way to become the Emperor after his bravery in battle with the Roman army in Britain. He was taking the title from one of the cruelist Emperor named Maxentius, son of another cruel emperor. He saw a cross in the sky with the Latin words: In Hoc Signo Vinces. God was calling him. However, he did not convert until the close of his life.

That’s cool. No one else saw his “cross in the sky.” Since he did not “convert” until it was time to close his bets, I suggest that he was unimpressed because he made up the whole cross in sky notion, to impress gullible Christians who were easily impressed by some made-up miracle which they never witnessed personally. From practice.

Many gods working together to create the universe sounds paganistic and belittles the all-MIghty, all-Knowing, all-Powerful God. Whether you consider this dogmatic or not, He revealed Himself, first of all to the Jews.

Consider the great and genuinely productive corporations which began in the U.S. Hewlett-Packard is a good example, and there are thousands of others. H & P were first rate engineers. They built their first products, themselves. Then they taught others how to build them, so that money would come in to support their design of newer, better products. Which they built themselves, then taught their employees how to build.

In time, they hired other excellent engineers to design new products all by themselves. H & P, by the time of their deaths, had no idea how most of their company’s products worked. They had no time to learn it, and were busy with other things. Would you claim that this “deficiency” belittles their importance?

It seems to be the way of you dogmatists that a being must be either perfect or worthless, all-powerful or impotent, omniscient or incompetent. I’d rather have a rich Jewish mother than be one of the Gods of Christianity. The performance burden which you demand leaves no space or time for anything beyond your childish demands Obviously, neither option is applicable.

 

[greylorn]

Tautological statements are the foundation of all rational thought. Whats wrong with that?

Buy a dictionary. Look up tautological. Figure it out for yourself.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn:

I like this quote. Since you’re a writer now, I guess a am enjoined from commandeering it?

greylorn:

Plus, instead of behaving like the soap opera clowns that Romans and Greeks called gods, Christ had lots of intelligent things to say, and did not behave like an oversexed childish oaf.

“Commandeering” sounds like something a dogmatist would do, use a thing for his own ends without regard for its original meaning or intent.

I’ve been a writer for what, 34 years now, and am accustomed to misrepresentations. My best chapters have been misappropriated by atheists. I could say that it would be refreshing to have them misappropriated by Christians, but it is the same thing.

I invite you to use my words freely, but responsibly. Use them only with respect to original context and intent. Attribute them to Greylorn Ell, courtesy and with permission of the Catholic Answers Forum.

The same idea appears in the book which you won’t read, with different wording. Skirting copyright laws with a little change here and there is easy— Bill Gates made a fortune doing the same thing with other people’s computer code. Any writer with integrity will always attribute the ideas of others correctly, and in context. Writers with no integrity will reword the ideas of others and attribute them to themselves. Or they will use them out of context to denigrate the author. That’s on the same level as shooting someone in the back while he’s taking a leak.

The ideas I presented in my first book are now being attributed to others who claim to have invented them, thinking me dead. It does not matter, as I’ll be dead soon enough, and while my ideas may be of value, ultimately I am not.

I believe, personally, that ideas should be properly attributed, by a writer, to the person who that writer got them from. This is not always possible. The basis for the entire set of my theories came from a ten page short story in a SF magazine that I read in 1960. I cannot recall the magazine name or story title, but can freely thank the writer, probably as dead as I’ll be in a few ticks, for ruining my life with his insights.

If you believe your beliefs, meet death being honest about what you know, what you believe, and who you learned it from. I don’t know that there is a judgment. But if it exists,do you want to make that visit coming from the assumption that the judges are the transplanted fools and sycophants from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, or the U.S. Supreme Court,

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Buy a dictionary. Look up tautological. Figure it out for yourself.

No dictionary is going to explain your reasoning to me. Please answer the question I asked, Bolded here.

Tautological statements are the foundation of all rational thought. Whats wrong with that?