Ask a Christian

[Gogf]

An auto-mechanic is perfectly capable of making statements regarding medicine. I'm a programmer and I can talk to you about sociology, religion, or any other subject I have knowledge of.

No, I think CG makes a very valid point. Most people at CFC don't really have the slightest clue what they're talking about most of the time, but they seem to love pretending they are incredibly knowledgeable about certain subjects, like, oh... god, economics, politics, war, and just about everything else. GOING TO CFC DOES NOT GIVE YOU ANY DEPTH OF KNOWLEDGE. The vast majority of people here don't have anything original to say and just parrot stuff they've heard... usually whatever they felt the most comfortable with before "researching" the issue. When they actually DO come up with something on their own, it's usually based on ridiculous premises that have nothing to do with the field they're talking about, like "I hate Communism," "I don't like the idea of God," or "Republicans are evil."

The result of all of this is the horrible threads we get all the time. Most of these start off with a list of "unanswerable" questions about some topic that has already been debated again and again. I'll bet the OP usually thinks he's INCREDIBLY clever for expressing his viewpoint is such an obviously convincing way that his post alone could easily resolve any debate among real experts. I guess most people disagree, because these threads usually turn into a bunch of idiots arguing about things they don't understand in the first place.

Now obviously there are some people in OT who are very knowledgeable about a certain field or who are incredibly smart in general, but I think the point that CG raises—that we shouldn't put too much stock in what people say about things they don't thoroughly understand—is a good one.

 

[LightFang]

God isn't powerful enough to create the strongest good without allowing evil?

God can do things that are logically consistent. This does not contradict omnipotence.

 

[El_Machinae]

Sure, I get that. Nothing I've said (recently) contradicts that sentiment.

But that possibility has resulted in evil....

Could you spell out exactly what your point is? I'm a little slow today.

My point is wayyyyy back when I was defending Erik's point to Classical: it's reasonable to assume that there is no omnipotent Christian God. We know this because an omnipotent God is easily able to avoid the problem of evil (it's logically quite easy); however, in the real world, the problem of evil has certainly not been avoided.

Many people believe in a God which had to create the possibility of evil to get companions (or whatever we think we are to God)*. Sure, fine. But a 'more omnipotent' God could create a world where the possibility existed without that possibility actually manifesting. All without violating Free Will.



*And if God had to create the possibility of evil to get what He wanted, who imposed that rule upon Him? Some greater Law?

 

[GenMarshall]

No, I think CG makes a very valid point. Most people at CFC don't really have the slightest clue what they're talking about most of the time, but they seem to love pretending they are incredibly knowledgeable about certain subjects, like, oh... god, economics, politics, war, and just about everything else. GOING TO CFC DOES NOT GIVE YOU ANY DEPTH OF KNOWLEDGE. The vast majority of people here don't have anything original to say and just parrot stuff they've heard... usually whatever they felt the most comfortable with before "researching" the issue. When they actually DO come up with something on their own, it's usually based on ridiculous premises that have nothing to do with the field they're talking about, like "I hate Communism," "I don't like the idea of God," or "Republicans are evil."

The result of all of this is the horrible threads we get all the time. Most of these start off with a list of "unanswerable" questions about some topic that has already been debated again and again. I'll bet the OP usually thinks he's INCREDIBLY clever for expressing his viewpoint is such an obviously convincing way that his post alone could easily resolve any debate among real experts. I guess most people disagree, because these threads usually turn into a bunch of idiots arguing about things they don't understand in the first place.

Now obviously there are some people in OT who are very knowledgeable about a certain field or who are incredibly smart in general, but I think the point that CG raises—that we shouldn't put too much stock in what people say about things they don't thoroughly understand—is a good one.

Thank you Gogf

 

[The Yankee]

Moderator Action: Let's stop the arguing over who gets to post. You're all free to point out any flaws in an answer (so long as it remains within forum rules). If you're only there to Ask a Christian, then you're free to not accept the answers from those that aren't Christians.

So long as we can move on without trolling, flaming, or any of the usual nonsense, we can continue.

Now, let's get back to questions about this faith.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Phlegmak]

No, I think CG makes a very valid point. Most people at CFC don't really have the slightest clue what they're talking about most of the time, but they seem to love pretending they are incredibly knowledgeable about certain subjects, like, oh... god, economics, politics, war, and just about everything else. GOING TO CFC DOES NOT GIVE YOU ANY DEPTH OF KNOWLEDGE. The vast majority of people here don't have anything original to say and just parrot stuff they've heard... usually whatever they felt the most comfortable with before "researching" the issue. When they actually DO come up with something on their own, it's usually based on ridiculous premises that have nothing to do with the field they're talking about, like "I hate Communism," "I don't like the idea of God," or "Republicans are evil."

The result of all of this is the horrible threads we get all the time. Most of these start off with a list of "unanswerable" questions about some topic that has already been debated again and again. I'll bet the OP usually thinks he's INCREDIBLY clever for expressing his viewpoint is such an obviously convincing way that his post alone could easily resolve any debate among real experts. I guess most people disagree, because these threads usually turn into a bunch of idiots arguing about things they don't understand in the first place.

Now obviously there are some people in OT who are very knowledgeable about a certain field or who are incredibly smart in general, but I think the point that CG raises—that we shouldn't put too much stock in what people say about things they don't thoroughly understand—is a good one.

Maybe. Yet people who DO have knowledge of certain fields ARE perfectly capable of talking about it. Whether on Civilization Fanatics Center or elsewhere. Such as said hypothetical auto mechanic.

 

[Elrohir]

Sure, I get that. Nothing I've said (recently) contradicts that sentiment.


My point is wayyyyy back when I was defending Erik's point to Classical: it's reasonable to assume that there is no omnipotent Christian God. We know this because an omnipotent God is easily able to avoid the problem of evil (it's logically quite easy); however, in the real world, the problem of evil has certainly not been avoided.

Many people believe in a God which had to create the possibility of evil to get companions (or whatever we think we are to God)*. Sure, fine. But a 'more omnipotent' God could create a world where the possibility existed without that possibility actually manifesting. All without violating Free Will.



*And if God had to create the possibility of evil to get what He wanted, who imposed that rule upon Him? Some greater Law?

I guess that would depend upon a certain definition of omnipotence. One that I'm not going to say is correct, and I don't believe most Christians would. (I imagine some Calvinists might - they believe lots of weird things - but historically, I don't think that's the case)

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I do have another suggestion for an out, which I picked up from Oda in a thread a while back: is there any possible non-stasis-world in which we wouldn't complain about evil, locally defined as the worst things possible in that world? I agree that omnipotence can get you out of this world's collective opinion on what constitutes evil, but to make a world where people wouldn't complain about the problem seems to require complete equality and unchangingness, or else the people of that world will complain about the worse things in their world being evil.

 

[scy12]

Ι think quoting all the answers to the question of evil would be a bit excessive so i want to give my own answers-questions to what i believe are the summarization of the answers.

First answer : God is not omnipotent .

Then which forces are above God's powers ? What are the limits of his powers ? Why call him God if his power have limits ?


Second answer. Any world created would have evil , since Humans would think the worst of the current situations as it. However that doesn't mean that a better world wouldn't be possible but that even in that better world we would find evil. The question why does God allow Evil in this world is as a result not answered as even if logic binds his powers it is logical to have a world with less Evil.

An other issue is that is not necessarily free will that causes us to be evil , but our need for survival , that makes Evil deeds for us preferable. Morality evolved later than our survival instincts. So God could create Beings with Free will that would not need to do Evi deeds to survive and prosper. In fact , if humanity reaches a level where we can design sapient beings , we could too. It is like , from all possible worlds we can imagine , several of which are better than this one , God choose this particular one.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Ι think quoting all the answers to the question of evil would be a bit excessive so i want to give my own answers-questions to what i believe are the summarization of the answers.

First answer : God is not omnipotent .

Then which forces are above God's powers ? What are the limits of his powers ? Why call him God if his power have limits ?

Short answers: None. I don't know. Because He is God.

Longer version: "Omnipotence" is a term fraught with logical paradoxes and handy rebuttals to certain sub-definitions. My standpoint on this is that God is almighty; meaning that He has all power and all authority in the universe, while omnipotence refers to something more like having all conceivable power. Thus, no forces are above God's power.

God has the power to create a universe while residing 'outside' or 'above' it, so He is omniscient with regard to the universe, being able to 'peek' at it along the time dimension. Since God can create and destroy the universe, limits on His power are rather far beyond us, and limitations on what He can do in-universe are probably best regarded as something like rules for writing poetry (one the one hand no physical laws require us to write in rhyme, one the other hand we are supposed to do it, on the gripping hand the great poets do miss rhymes for the sake of the poem as a whole) or maybe like rules for addition (I can't make two and two add to seven (The referents, not the pointers, that is) even with nuclear power and a supercomputer).

The very question "Why call him God if his power have limits ?" is strange to me. Why not call God "God" if His power has limits?

God is the principal or sole deity in religions and other belief systems that worship one deity.[1] The singular, capitalized God of monotheistic religions is commonly contrasted with the gods of polytheistic religions.
God is most often conceived of as the creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God.

I can point to God's role as Creator. I can say phrases like "monistic substrate". I can contend that God is the source of moral obligation. (This is slightly different from Divine Command Theory.) I can talk about God and the afterlife. There are a hundred arguably sufficient reasons or groups of reasons to call God "God"; why do you think omnipotence is a necessary criterion?

 

[Sidhe]

No, I think CG makes a very valid point. Most people at CFC don't really have the slightest clue what they're talking about most of the time, but they seem to love pretending they are incredibly knowledgeable about certain subjects, like, oh... god, economics, politics, war, and just about everything else. GOING TO CFC DOES NOT GIVE YOU ANY DEPTH OF KNOWLEDGE.

Has anyone criticised any of my answers, I mean other than to take issue with them on a logical basis? Then what's your point?

The vast majority of people here don't have anything original to say and just parrot stuff they've heard... usually whatever they felt the most comfortable with before "researching" the issue. When they actually DO come up with something on their own, it's usually based on ridiculous premises that have nothing to do with the field they're talking about, like "I hate Communism," "I don't like the idea of God," or "Republicans are evil."

You mean like you or are you one of the special few who is original?

The result of all of this is the horrible threads we get all the time. Most of these start off with a list of "unanswerable" questions about some topic that has already been debated again and again. I'll bet the OP usually thinks he's INCREDIBLY clever for expressing his viewpoint is such an obviously convincing way that his post alone could easily resolve any debate among real experts. I guess most people disagree, because these threads usually turn into a bunch of idiots arguing about things they don't understand in the first place.

I hate to stop your speech mid flight but what has this got to do with what I said? Do you understand compatibilism? Yes/no, if so go back and pick holes in my logic if you want, if not where's your problem? You are perfectly entitled to destroy or discredit any points I make as has been said, that's the way it works, usually.

Now obviously there are some people in OT who are very knowledgeable about a certain field or who are incredibly smart in general, but I think the point that CG raises—that we shouldn't put too much stock in what people say about things they don't thoroughly understand—is a good one.

Yeah great, I do actually have a good enough knowledge though, unless you think any of my answers is incorrect or flawed, then as has been established you're free to challenge them. Otherwise as Phlegmak said, any person who has worked on a car is free to give advice about cars, not just car mechanics.

We weigh every persons opinion according to the depth of their knowledge anyway on every thread, so there's no need to reiterate the obvious, certainly no need to say that only Christians should post what they believe. And when there is no disagreement amongst faiths over what prayer is, then there's no reason anyone can't post an answer. Christian threads are the only threads I've seen this discussion come up, and this makes me suspicious. I had the same discussion last year, it may even of been on this thread. It seems you are right though, most people really do have nothing original to say.

Now since this has all been amicably discussed and resolved, let's move on without the thought police jumping on posts, if we may?

 

[Huayna Capac357]

First of all, I can't offer any proof of god but these two:

1. Pascal's Wager
2. Why did the Big Bang come about? If there are multiple universes, who created the first one? One can always go infinetly back into time, where there is no explanation but God.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Also, if you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and God himself, that he was crucified for all of our sins, and was ressurected and ascended up to the Father, you are a Chrisitian.

I am currently going to an Episcopal Church, but I don't beleive in infant baptism

 

[Truronian]

1. Pascal's Wager

Doesn't work as it assumes God rewards belief/worship.

2. Why did the Big Bang come about? If there are multiple universes, who created the first one? One can always go infinetly back into time, where there is no explanation but God.

But then who created God? If you concede that God requires no creator then by the same logic neither does the universe. Of course if God does require a creator then its turtles all the way down...

 

[scy12]

Short answers: None. I don't know. Because He is God.

Longer version: "Omnipotence" is a term fraught with logical paradoxes and handy rebuttals to certain sub-definitions. My standpoint on this is that God is almighty; meaning that He has all power and all authority in the universe, while omnipotence refers to something more like having all conceivable power. Thus, no forces are above God's power.

God has the power to create a universe while residing 'outside' or 'above' it, so He is omniscient with regard to the universe, being able to 'peek' at it along the time dimension. Since God can create and destroy the universe, limits on His power are rather far beyond us, and limitations on what He can do in-universe are probably best regarded as something like rules for writing poetry (one the one hand no physical laws require us to write in rhyme, one the other hand we are supposed to do it, on the gripping hand the great poets do miss rhymes for the sake of the poem as a whole) or maybe like rules for addition (I can't make two and two add to seven (The referents, not the pointers, that is) even with nuclear power and a supercomputer).

The very question "Why call him God if his power have limits ?" is strange to me. Why not call God "God" if His power has limits?



I can point to God's role as Creator. I can say phrases like "monistic substrate". I can contend that God is the source of moral obligation. (This is slightly different from Divine Command Theory.) I can talk about God and the afterlife. There are a hundred arguably sufficient reasons or groups of reasons to call God "God"; why do you think omnipotence is a necessary criterion?

Short answers: None. I don't know. Because He is God.

Longer version: "Omnipotence" is a term fraught with logical paradoxes and handy rebuttals to certain sub-definitions. My standpoint on this is that God is almighty; meaning that He has all power and all authority in the universe, while omnipotence refers to something more like having all conceivable power. Thus, no forces are above God's power.

Omnipotence is a term fraught with logical paradoxes , handy rebuttals to certain sub definitions if one is only concerned at the issue of , if there is a being that is Omnipotent in the world.

Where the whole issue of Omnipotence becomes a paradox with no justification or answer is if one combines the question of God's omnipotence with the problem of evil.

Otherwise there is no problem regarding human imagination of an omnipotent being existing . If we define that being as almighty that controls it's universe , like you said. As a poet , through it's own rules.

There is a problem as justifying that imagination with any evidence though. However we are now not talking if it exists but if it makes sense in any story to have an omnipotent God in our today's evil world.

As my previous arguments was not about the problem of the omnipotence of God but about a combination of the problem of omnipotence and the problem of Evil , i would like an answer regarding this .

I can point to God's role as Creator. I can say phrases like "monistic substrate". I can contend that God is the source of moral obligation. (This is slightly different from Divine Command Theory.) I can talk about God and the afterlife. There are a hundred arguably sufficient reasons or groups of reasons to call God "God"; why do you think omnipotence is a necessary criterion?

I thought that the reason it was called God was because only one almighty being controls everything and is everything. If anything else has different powers which God can't control , then what would we call them ? Different deities , perhaps ? In Greek the word deity , God is the same and Zeus was also called God as today's Christian God is called such. Any limit on God's powers damage claims about the universe being the control of the one , the God as other things exercise power over it. If for example Satan exists and God can not control him , Satan could also be described as a God. But a God of evil for example while the Christian God is a God of Good. However as a point of reference you are correct that the word God immediately makes us think of the Christian God. And according to Christianity that is because only God exists in the universe. It is a circular argument where any hole one would find damages the whole construct. But anyway i don't find this as important as discussing how the problem of evil and omnipotence or almightiness can coexist.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

First of all, I can't offer any proof of god but these two:

1. Pascal's Wager

Is flawed for several reasons. Two of them are:

- Deciding which God to appease in the wager.
- If your motivation for believing is the wish to play it safe to save your skin, God would see right through that one.

2. Why did the Big Bang come about? If there are multiple universes, who created the first one? One can always go infinetly back into time, where there is no explanation but God.

Why? Why does there have to be a why? Why does gravity exist? Also you cannot go back in time before the creation of the universe.

When something is unknown, it isn't proof of an existance of God. See lightning and thunder.

then its turtles all the way down...

Classic

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Why call him God if his power have limits?

A good question. Ask the ancient Romans, or Aztecs, or Igbo, or any of hundreds of religions that believe in a god or gods who aren't omnipotent. The claim that God is omnipotent is a relatively modern and Western idea. The claim that God, by definition, must be omnipotent, or cannot be called God, is one I don't think I have seen outside of this forum.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Quick note:

Is flawed for several reasons. Two of them are:

- Deciding which God to appease in the wager.
- If your motivation for believing is the wish to play it safe to save your skin, God would see right through that one.

1) Weight religions by some criteria such as age, number of believers, blissfulness of afterlife, and try to appease as many/as much as you can. Or assign some probability to each one being true and multiply by the promised afterlife to see which one has the highest expected utility.
Anyway, if you pick Christianity, you get Islam "for free" according to Sura 2.62. And no matter what you pick, you get most of the Eastern religions on board, because they don't have an eternal hell and preach that everyone is eventually enlightened or awakened or whatever.

2) Did you read what Pascal wrote? He cautions against this and suggests that the wager be used as a springboard to real faith. (Section 233, Page 68 or so, depending on version.)

 

[Nylan]

Also, if you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and God himself, that he was crucified for all of our sins, and was ressurected and ascended up to the Father, you are a Chrisitian.

I wish more people shared this opinion

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Quick note:

1) Weight religions by some criteria such as age, number of believers, blissfulness of afterlife, and try to appease as many/as much as you can. Or assign some probability to each one being true and multiply by the promised afterlife to see which one has the highest expected utility.
Anyway, if you pick Christianity, you get Islam "for free" according to Sura 2.62. And no matter what you pick, you get most of the Eastern religions on board, because they don't have an eternal hell and preach that everyone is eventually enlightened or awakened or whatever.

I like the bolded part. Now with 30% more faith, and even better, if you pick Christianity, you get Islam "for free". Order now!

But I'm afraid many believers will disagree here. But I have to admit, it isn't really that clear without studying the criterea one has to meet to enter heaven or simply avoid hell. Are they the same in christianity and islam? Is sinning considered the same? Are all sins weighed the same? I know that even in christianity itself some denominations have differences along those lines.

2) Did you read what Pascal wrote? He cautions against this and suggests that the wager be used as a springboard to real faith. (Section 233, Page 68 or so, depending on version.)

I never did read Pascal's Wager, I only heard about it. Mostly from here, or places like it.

But is it so different as, lets say, a proposal: become a christian and I'll give you a thousand dollars a month?

I also believe that using this method as a springboard means, at first you're in it because you're saving your skin, but as time goes by you'll become a real believer because of what? Habit? What would the transition from using this as a springboard to becoming a real believer look like?