[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay Li
[B]cthree, your comment made me laugh.

 

Jon, not to be nitpicky, but I think you meant omniscient when you said omnipotent. However, I am from the school of thought that omniscience and omnipotence (all-powerful) are impossibilities. I believe in free choice, and omniscience is an obstacle to this. To "know" something, it must be a fact...and you cannot know how someone will act, if they are to have free choice. If you know, then it must be a fact, meaning that it must have been mapped out. If a person is to truly have free choice, then no one can positively know something before it happens.

Additionally, omnipotence can be disproved very simply. Say a god was asked to make an object of X size travelling Y speed, such that it was so powerful that nothing could stop it. This creates a dilemma for him, because if he can stop it, he didn't create the specified object. However, if he cannot stop it, then he is not omnipotent.

The point of those arguments is that I know I will not logically debate someone into becoming an athiest, because belief in god stems from faith. However, I just try to prove how a god could not be as powerful as the traditional view portrays.

 

This is where I have a major issue. This view implies that "God" has an ego and created man so man could stroke it. God seems to have a personality disorder resulting in a lack of self worth.

This however is impossible because God is perfect right? To be God, God has to know everything about everything and see everything and be everywhere all the time. God transends space and time so it's a little hard to believe that God posesses such a weakness as low self esteme.

God created the Universe right? Why? If the creation of man was God's priniciple aim then why did he bother with the rest of it? Why did he choose such a massive environment such as the Universe simply to accomodate a single planet's worth of people?

Just asking...

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BDMonk
[B]

I saw a business talk show once where they were dicussing one of the jailed junk bond kings (Michael Milken, maybe?).

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay Li
[B]Jon, not to be nitpicky, but I think you meant omniscient when you said omnipotent.

 

You are nearly right. God is not God if there is no one to worship Him. Thus, we were made to worship Him (along with the angels). HOWEVER, that is not our sole reason for existence. We are here for fellowship with Him - in common terms, "to keep Him company", etc, etc. Friendship. Kinship. Love. Expression. Sharing.

Your idea of perfection and God's idea of perfection are two different things. As humans, we think one way, but scripture clearly says that man's ways are not His ways. You can't apply human standards to God - they won't fit. Think of this: your idea of a perfect woman is probably not the same as mine. So, if I find the "perfect" woman and you find the "perfect" woman, who really has the perfect woman? You will find faults in mine and I in yours... How then can you say "God is not perfect".

What is your idea of perfection for God? I suppose you think that He is imperfect because He allowed 9/11 to occur? Perhaps because He allowed some 20 year old person to die of a heart attack? Yet, what do you know about the person's present or future? Perhaps they would have been raped and murdered over a period of five days, one excruciating episode after another....if God didn't let them die. Oh, you say, but He could stop that too, and make life perfect for us all. I'll bet that if He did, you'd believe He was God. Fact is, people want all the good things associated with God, but can't accept the fact that He is a correctful God as well (look what He did to Israel when they disobeyed Him).

Let me give an example. As a married man, I love my wife very much. If she burns my supper, I can forgive her. If she cheated on me, I'd have a very hard time with that - I might even trash the house if she did it, or refuse to talk to her for a while, or whatever. Because I have expressed my hurt, does that make me imperfect? Love is not all about being snuggled up and hugging and kissing - it is also correctional (parenthood is a prime example). God is first and foremost Love, but that Love is not only warm and deep and fulfilling but also chastising and harsh (looking at it from a human perspective). God has feelings - perfection does not exclude emotion.

Taking the example even further. When you were a kid, I'll bet you thought your parents were SOOOO unfair and mean sometimes when they spanked you or didn't give you what you wanted. Other times, they were SOOOO amazing because they gave you gifts and made you feel so special. However, if they only ever gave you gifts and made you feel special, you would probably be the sorriest excuse of a person.

When your parents asked you for obedience or love, did that mean that they were imperfect? Is it unnatural for them to want you (an expression of their love - "their" creation) to love them and give them attention as well? It's not about ego - it's about love! So it is with God and us.

Moving on...

God created the entire universe for a few reasons. One, the universe is a sort of clock and TV screen - God declares His intentions in the sky before it happens on earth (so the scripture says). He made the universe to help teach and show examples, or for reference. He made the universe (and nature) as an expression of Himself. He made it for our enjoyment and fascination. The list goes on and on.

Make a bit more sense?

 

Hi again Jay,

To "know" something, it must be a fact...and you cannot know how someone will act, if they are to have free choice. If you know, then it must be a fact, meaning that it must have been mapped out. If a person is to truly have free choice, then no one can positively know something before it happens.

This is so if the KNOWER is living within and locked into time as we are. However, if the KNOWER is outside of time, and able to see/experience all of time at once, then to know is not to foreordain, only to see all of time and it's events. Your statement is only correct if cause and effect are experienced as separate events. If both are seen from outside of time, the cause and effect are not a part of the viewers experience.


Additionally, omnipotence can be disproved very simply. Say a god was asked to make an object of X size travelling Y speed, such that it was so powerful that nothing could stop it.

This assumes that omnipotence is only possible within the bounds of physics as we know it. If God is the Creator of all objects, including their laws of interaction, then He may very well exist in a place where our (His) physics does not apply. The most recent studies of light seem to imply that there are times/speeds when physics as we know it is very different.

 

Gary and Jon, this debate has gone the way I expected it to. Your beliefs in god extend from faith and the belief that there are things that exist that transcend time and space. However, I like simpler explanations, and ones that to me, seem much more logically feasible.

He could just stop time and the object would stop itself (speed is relative to time, and if there is no time, the object is not moving).

On a side note, even though this has no bearing on our debate, I would just like to point out that speed is inversely related to time...at the speed of light, time stops.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay Li
[B]Gary and Jon, this debate has gone the way I expected it to.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay Li
[B]Gary and Jon, this debate has gone the way I expected it to.