Ask a Christian

Are we talking about what Muslims believe or what Christians believe? It is pointless bringing them into view since it is not what Christianity is about. Christianity has a clear definition that those who believe in Christ will live with him for all eternity and those who do not believe in him will suffer for all eternity. That is why Pascal's wager is important considering the message of Christianity. Which is what we are meant to be talking about.

@Erik. What is the difference between almighty and omnipotent? I feel that these are one and the same thing.
 
His point is, if one is to follow Pascal's Wager, that being Christian will get you into Heaven whether God is Muslim or Christian, whereas being Muslim will only get you into Heaven if God is Muslim.

(A somewhat facetious oversimplification, of course.)
 
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.

You raise one good point and one not so good point.

The ancient Romans , Aztecs or Igbo believe in God or Gods , several deities which are not omnipotent. This is correct. They are not omnipotent precisely because there are several Gods. There are several deities with different powers and fields from each other.

Christianity on the other hand claims that everything is coming from one being. The God. In Christianity there is nothing else than the one God.
I understand the meaning of the word God in Christianity to be entirely different than the one in other religions. If for example there was an evil god , God could not be called simply as God but he should be called as the Good God for example. Omnipotence is directly linked with how we recognize God in Christianity. This is what i am debating and you can see this in my last post . If you wish i can afterwards quote the exact passages. The Christian God is the only God and not just a God like those from other religions.

You are all correct that you can use the word God to describe any deity but if there is a plurality of deities you can not call it simply as God.



The bad point you raise is that
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.
.

It is your opinion that you haven't seen it but i don't want to discuss , in such manner . That is because i do not have the exact knowledge of whatever any person that discussed such issues , has said and written and i trust that you don't either. Unless your omnipotent ofcourse.
Even so , if i am wrong i would like it to be explained on how i am as i can't be convinced by claims of authority.

Spoiler :
Epicurus
 
I don´t believe that is a fact, I believe it is your assumption, and not a fact at all.
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.

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.
Fair enough, I wish most people were so honest. You can live well and treat others right without all the hokey magical stuff though.

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 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.
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.
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.

New question:
Why should I accept your religious claims but deny those of every other faith?

I hope that answers your questions :)
Very well, thank you!:)
 
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.
 
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.

Christianity's monotheistic God has a different meaning than the God's of others Religions which are characteristized by there special powers and selfish human like characters.


Epicurus moves on step further in the road and speaks on what i would prefer to be debated. The problem of evil and omnipotence. If God is neither willing to interfere or able and thus the opposite of omnipotent then there is no reason to call him God as his powers/existence has no effect on our lives. And this is correct.

I aknowledge that but i also make a different point regarding Christianity's views on Godhood. The Christian consept of God is based on omnipotence and his ability to control everything else he is not the Christian God and more equal to the Roman Gods and thuss , Evil or he is neither Willing or able to interfere and thus does not deserve to be thought of. Either way we are lead to the Epicurean argument that argues against Christianity's concept of God (that deals with omnipotence) before Christianity.

So you understand that omnipotence is vital for the Christian God ?
 
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.
 
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.

You are correct that people may have different interpretations regarding any concept of Christianity and concentrate more on other subjects. Like Morality.I don't deny them the right of being called as a Christian. The teachings of Jesus Christ if we believe they can be attributed to him may be important and so on. But , this is just not important to me . At least in this discussion we are having right now. We are not discussing this issue.

I am discussing (and you are discussing) about the logic of the religion of Christianity. And i believe that regarding omnipotence and Evil we are lead into two conclusions. Either God does never interfere or that God interferes like a God of a polytheistic system , like Zeus would.
 
Okay, but then what does that have to do with God not being a god if He isn't omnipotent?

It has to do with a being that does not interfere in any point of our life and does not effect us in any way , can not be described as God.

If the reason of Evil is that god does not interfere then there is the above conclusion.
Which is against the Christian belief (that some Christians may not believe) that God is omnipotent.

If the reason of Evil is because God interferes then there is the conclusion of God's Evil nature. Which is against the Christian belief (that some Christians may not believe) that God is good.
 
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.
 
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.

I quote Jesus:

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.

And so on, and so on... Jesus unambiguously claims that He will answer prayer. However, this isn't what we observe. For example, in the above amputee example, probably 0 of those 1000 amputees will regenerate their lost limb. Not even if we wait throughout their whole lives. How come we can say "move this mountain from here to here", but we can't say "please regenerate this person's limb so that they may live a better life"?

You've probably read the Bible, but now that you know (again) that Jesus has unambiguously claimed that He answer prayer, and you take the Bible literally and have faith in its message, then you could do a great good right now! Please pray for all cancer to be eliminated from the world by tomorrow! You have faith, and you know that if you pray, it will be answered! You can ease a lot of suffering with God's help... I know you're a good person and have faith in the power of the Lord, so please do this. Unfortunately I do not believe in your God, so I can't do what I ask you, otherwise I would have done it long ago.

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.

Well, I'm sure if we gather enough Christians, we're bound to get at least a few that have enough faith! Let's gather 10,000 and help some war veterans! You have the power and the faith to call upon God to help these people!

If the problem is that we can't test the Lord, then I'll make sure that no non-believers come by and see this. As for me, I can assure you that no matter what ever happens, I will never truly believe in God, so we've got that covered.

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

1. Pascal's Wager

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).

And of course, the two reasons previously mentioned also apply. With Pascal's Wager you can't have faith, and faith is necessary for salvation.

2. Why did the Big Bang come about?

The Big Bang does not explain the creation of the entire universe. The Big Bang explains certain observations made in the observable universe.

If there are multiple universes, who created the first one?

Unknown, unknowable, and irrelevant.

One can always go infinetly back into time, where there is no explanation but God.

That is an assumption. I make the assumption that the universe is eternal and was always there (I don't, but let's say I do). You make the assumption that God is eternal and was always there. It makes no difference and neither is more logically consistent than the other.
 
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?

The thing is i do not disagree with what you say but you are saying something entirely different than i did.

It qualifies as a God if it does it alone but then it is an Evil God.

If God does never interfere then he doesn't deserve to be described as a God.

If there are several Gods then God can not be described just as the God.

These are my three statements.
(You asked your question in that thread and so there is no reason to continue that discussion there as that would be threadjacking)
 
@Erik. What is the difference between almighty and omnipotent? I feel that these are one and the same thing.
As I see it:
"Almighty" means having supreme authority and unchallengeable power. No other being can dictate terms to or foil the actions of an almighty being. However, an almighty being is not necessarily able to create or lift a rock of arbitrary size.
"Omnipotent" means having either all logically possible power or all imaginable power, depending on who you ask. The first runs into problems like whether there exists a particle so fundamental that an omnipotent being cannot split it (so far we're down from atoms, to protons, to quarks...), and if so, who dictated that it was to be this way, the second runs into even odder problems like whether such a being can deny its own existence without lying, and both of them run into problems generally filed under "Omnipotence paradox" (check Wikipedia if you like) and arguments over semantics. Also, saying "God is omnipotent" gets you in trouble with people who want to know why God wasn't powerful enough to create free will without evil.

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.
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.

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 .
My answer is "God is not omnipotent".


I thought that the reason it was called God was because only one almighty being controls everything and is everything.
That's one possible reason.

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.
Doesn't this run counter to what you were recently saying, in that Zeus was clearly not omnipotent?

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.
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.
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.
I think that might depend on the hypothetical power level of this alternate Satan, but I agree with the general principle.
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.
Beware of oversimplification.
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.
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.

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.
Eran gave the simplified version already, let me quote the Sura I was referring to.
"Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." (Al-Baqara 62, not sure what the correct quoting style for the Quran is, also Yusuf Ali.)

If this helps you imagine it: Name me a few religions that do accept Christians into their local good afterlife, assuming that that other religion is true as specified. Now name me a few that don't. Now consider the reverse: following which of those get you to a good afterlife if Christianity is true?

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?
Lazybones. Read the Wager yourself. :p
Here's the Pensees that it appears in. Section III, last part of number 233.
 
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.

The connection here is that one can't be all powerful and good if what he has created is Evil.

The word , interferes here will always have an evil conclusion because of the state of the world.

If God is Evil or selfish/human like in morality , he either interferes and causes the world to be evil , or either created an Evil world and then does not interfere to save it.

If God is not Evil that means he can not interfere to save us for Evil and since he does not interfere , why call him God ?

It is a pretty simple argument and what one can find against it is not it's logic which is correct but rhetoric which would make God and the world not to appear as evil.
 
(You asked your question in that thread and so there is no reason to continue that discussion there as that would be threadjacking)

Actually, I think a debate on the nature of God in general (and what it means to be a god) is better suited for that thread, since it doesn't deal with Christianity in particular. At any rate, I am not sure I have anything more to say on the matter here.
 
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?
 
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?

Or the aribtrary assumption should be discarded. Logically, one should not assign any arbitrary infinite negative disutility, how you put it, because it leads to logical annulments as you've pointed out.

Do you suggest that because of what you just said, Pascal's Wager is still valid? Why Pascal's Wager and why not my Inverse Wager?
 
Top Bottom