I think Muslims may disagree on that point. Some of those I have talked with say that in the end everyone will be redeemed (even Satan), making Pascal's Wager pointless.
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.
.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.
I just can't stop coming back to this. Height of irony really. You clearly think that others should believe your faith, completely without evidence, yet you dismiss the faith of others outright? Hilarious, hypocritical, and exactly what I've come to expect from the religious.I don´t believe that is a fact, I believe it is your assumption, and not a fact at all.
Fair enough, I wish most people were so honest. You can live well and treat others right without all the hokey magical stuff though.The more I read the Bible, read articles about it, and ponder and think about it myself, the less I am certain of exactly how salvation works. This may sound like a cop out, but I am not fully sure how salvation works. All I know (and this rings true throughout the Bible) is that my safest bet is to love God with all my soul, and love my neighbor as myself, and actually live as if that were true.
So if you could get an honest profession via deceit would that be OK? A small lie to save a soul, surely that's a fair trade.I hardly believe going too far is a problem today, people are not going far enough. I would say going too far would be to force someone to make a (false) profession of faith. Of course that would benefit no one, so I don´t see why a Christian would do it, because God would know it wasn´t a real profession of faith.
So Jesus doesn't want you to have anything to do with people who think for themselves and insist upon evidence before believing in the latest religious fad? It's one thing to have an open mind, it's quite another to accept a story as spectacular as the Bible without an once of proof.And frankly, I don´t even try to "preach" to people who are not open to the message because I believe nothing good can come of it. If they don´t WANT to listen with an open mind there is no point in talking to them about the Gospel. Also, the Bible supports my position on this: When Jesus sends out the 70(?) disciples to spread the word He says that if any town will not receive them they should leave and wipe off the dust from their feet. I am assuming that is a custom to show that you want nothing to do with that town.
Very well, thank you!I hope that answers your questions
Okay, so you say that either God is omnipotent or He is not God, if there is only one entity that can thus be described.
It still doesn't make any sense. You get the situation that either the universe is ruled by an omnipotent being, or that said being doesn't really matter if He/She/It/They don't have omnipotence. Well, I have to disagree with Epicurus here.
The Christian consept of God is based on omnipotence . . . So you understand that omnipotence is vital for the Christian God ?
I would say that the statement "Christians believe that God is omnipotent" is rather descriptive than proscriptive; ie it may be true that all Christians think that God is omnipotent but I see no reason that one of the definitions of a Christian is someone who believes in an omnipotent God. In fact, there are plenty of people who don't believe that God is omnipotent (in the sense I think you mean) but I would not say that they are thus not Christian, because I don't think that is a necessary condition; I would focus more on their views of Jesus as Christ.
Okay, but then what does that have to do with God not being a god if He isn't omnipotent?
I read the Bible as it was meant to be read, the way it has been read for centuries all up until this last century where we try to explain everything away through all this ridiculous "interpretation". I.e. I read the Bible literally, although there are parts that are obviously figurative and poetic. Example:
When Solomon in the Song of Songs talks about his lover´s breasts as gazelles I take that figuratively. Obviously she didn´t have the mammal gazelle for breasts, it is probably some cultural/temporal reference to beauty that is lost on us but obvious to the Hebrew reader thousands of years ago.
Now, when the Bible says that Noah lived 950+ years and that Jesus walked on water, I believe that literally, because that is what the text obviously is trying to communicate, however unbelievable it may sound.
Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.
Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
Well, if you can find them, then yeah I am sure that would work. Let me tell you this: In fear of being proud and arrogant, I still say that I have more faith than most, and I definitively believe God could move a mountain before my eyes right now, if He so desires. Yet I seriously doubt that a mountain will be moved before my eyes, even if I prayed for it. Why would I doubt it when it says so in scripture? All I have to do is have faith, and I do! Yet when push comes to shove I really don´t think I´ll see a miracle, I lack faith, I have doubt. St. Peter had great faith, he even walked on water, but then he started to doubt, and started to sink. The Israelites saw great miracles in the desert, but the second they encountered hardship they completely forgot about the miracles it seems, because they turned to false gods (idols made with man´s hands) and worshiped them instead.
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.
I am not referring to the problem of evil, specifically. I am aware of the Epicurian argument, and the fact that my answer to it is "God isn't omnipotent in the sense described" is what started all this. I am just saying that there is no reason to have wildly different definitions of God depending on whether there is more than one. A being that creates the world and has some influence over what happens to it, and that ultimately determines the fate of its inhabitants, would qualify as a god if He/She/It/They had equals, so why not if He/She/It/They are doing it alone?
As I see it:@Erik. What is the difference between almighty and omnipotent? I feel that these are one and the same thing.
I disagree. One may debate the nature of omnipotence and run into problems whether or not one cares whether or not there is an omnipotent being.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.
My answer is "God is not omnipotent".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 .
That's one possible reason.I thought that the reason it was called God was because only one almighty being controls everything and is everything.
Doesn't this run counter to what you were recently saying, in that Zeus was clearly not omnipotent?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.
Since I don't recall saying that the universe is the control of God, I hope you'll understand that I don't feel compelled to rebut this statement.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.
I think that might depend on the hypothetical power level of this alternate Satan, but I agree with the general principle.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.
Beware of oversimplification.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.
And I say that (the problem of) evil does not coexist with (benevolent) omnipotence and that (benevolent) almightiness can coexist with evil because evil is a temporarily necessary means to other ends.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.
Eran gave the simplified version already, let me quote the Sura I was referring to.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.
Lazybones. Read the Wager yourself.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?
I still don't see how God's omnipotence and God's noninterference are connected. The only way I could is if the solution to the problem of evil is that God doesn't interfere, but that seems to be the opposite of what you are saying.
(You asked your question in that thread and so there is no reason to continue that discussion there as that would be threadjacking)
Pascal inverse gods fail with the introduction of probabilistic weighting, or also fail with the application to everyday life. I gave a sketch of the former previously; the latter goes roughly like this: There might be a god that will sentence you to eternal torment for brushing your teeth. There might also be a god that will sentence you to eternal torment for not brushing your teeth. Because both of these threaten infinite (or "arbitrarily high", if you prefer) negative disutility, any local utility you gain by brushing or not brushing your teeth must be held to be irrelevant in comparison.That fails with the introduction of Pascal inverse gods. What if a god will sentence you to eternal torment for not being an atheist? Just because we don't have any religions worshipping such a god doesn't mean it doesn't exist (although I can also provide a logical reasoning for such a god's wrath).
Pascal inverse gods fail with the introduction of probabilistic weighting, or also fail with the application to everyday life. I gave a sketch of the former previously; the latter goes roughly like this: There might be a god that will sentence you to eternal torment for brushing your teeth. There might also be a god that will sentence you to eternal torment for not brushing your teeth. Because both of these threaten infinite (or "arbitrarily high", if you prefer) negative disutility, any local utility you gain by brushing or not brushing your teeth must be held to be irrelevant in comparison.
Are you still going to brush your teeth?