Discussion of God's Qualities

[Tani Coyote]

Inspired by the Evidence for Creationism thread, which is increasingly a "on the Nature of God" thread.

There are many arguments against God, but plenty against fallibility or lack of logic in his exact qualities. His four qualities, roughly, are: omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.

Omnibenevolence - Many arguments state God makes no sense as an omnibenevolent figure given his history to punish or the fact he'll send you to Hell for all eternity for something as simple as not believing in him.

My responses:

1. The punishments given could easily be metaphors unless we're taking the Bible literally

2. Killing you is probably a relatively light punishment to God since you just go to an afterlife anyway. To him, it's probably more like exile(from Earth) than death.

3. Some - like myself - believe God doesn't judge based on faith at all, but solely on your acts as a person, not a believer

Omnipotence - Many argue God's omnipotence makes no sense he does not alleviate suffering or strike down evil such as Satan on the spot despite his clear distaste for it.

My response:

1. If God were to not allow evil to exist, then there'd be no choice for humanity. He might as well force us all to believe in him, since it would make just as much sense. It's pointless to have free will if you're not given choices. Therefore, God decides to take the lesser of two evils and create/allow evil.

2. God uses evil to tempt us away from him. It's easy to lose sight of his virtue or even abandon faith in the face of earthly pressures. Accordingly, God allows his nemesis, the Devil, to have his way despite the fact he could easily swipe him aside. This assuming Satan is indeed evil incarnate and not just a fallen angel and/or an agent of God(someone has to do the dirty work, just like the Grimreaper).

Omniscience -

The past is and the present has been, so God knows everything in these two dimensions without flaw. His knowledge of good and evil is absolute. As is his understanding of all things science will eventually discover for mankind.

Now, for the future...

If the future was written, free will kind of loses its purpose, just as if evil did not exist. Without this predestination, free will is respected by a creator who does not know the exact future, only the many possible futures. God will try to guide us towards the best possible future, but of course, we are free to disobey.

He may see a young person changing the world for better or worse with his talents, but he doesn't know just yet which future it will be. Accordingly, he would try to steer them towards the good future.

The lack of knowledge might somewhat impair his omniscient label, but not by much as he still knows all possible futures and the possible consequences of all actions. Indeed, it probably makes things more entertaining for him, knowing his children can do so many things.

---

Omnipresence doesn't really have any argument against it beyond the simple belief that he does not exist so therefore could not be omnipresent.

For what it's worth, I'm not really religious, but keenly interested in the supernatural from the lowest spirit all the way up to the divine.

Where do you stand? What things don't seem to make sense in regards to God? Do you have any explanations for those things?

Edit: In a summary, the purpose of this thread is meant to be arguments against/for the qualities of God. While the Judeo-Christian God is the base of the discussion, other concepts of the divine are also welcome to be discussed.

One can list qualities and their reasoning, people can then debate that if they feel so inclined, and then others can in turn try to defeat the criticism.

Of course, remaining civil and keeping this from being a religion bashing thread would be appreciated.

 

[bathsheba666]

Apart from a delusional cypher for (a subset of) mankind's hopes, her supposed qualities make no practical sense.

Wriggle room at best.

 

[Monsterzuma]

I think personhood should be included. It is coincedentally the most problematic quality typically ascribed to God.

The notion of personhood does not have meaning without epistemic, moral and agentive challenges.

Which is why I only ever consider relative Godhood to be a sensical notion, i.e. omniscience/omnipotence relative to some pocket aspect of the world, much like the kind of control humans have over ants.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, we can deduce some of God's properties. It seems to have a terrible vendetta against hydrogen. And maybe helium. It seems very fond of the creation of black holes. Time travel is anathema to its creations. And it doesn't really mind that people cannot discern the difference (at the personal level) between talking with it, and hallucination

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

The nature of god depends on what religion we are talking about, and at what time, and whatever is convenient for the audience.

 

[Mango Elephant]

3. Some - like myself - believe God doesn't judge based on faith at all, but solely on your acts as a person, not a believer

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it say in the bible that people who don't accept Christ go to Hell? I kinda recall it saying that, but I might be wrong.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Which is why I only ever consider relative Godhood to be a sensical notion, i.e. omniscience/omnipotence relative to some pocket aspect of the world, much like the kind of control humans have over ants.

The concept of multiple, less than perfect deities is indeed a bit more easy to believe than one that is all-powerful and timeless. If life somehow preserves itself as a spirit of sorts after death, logically, perhaps a few could become stronger and become the big cheeses - Gods - with time. Just as we humans and entire nations put themselves above others with time, could spirits not do the same?

Well, we can deduce some of God's properties. It seems to have a terrible vendetta against hydrogen. And maybe helium. It seems very fond of the creation of black holes. Time travel is anathema to its creations.

Well yes, if we assume God is responsible for all natural laws, this is all quite true.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it say in the bible that people who don't accept Christ go to Hell? I kinda recall it saying that, but I might be wrong.

I'm not a Christian, much less a Bible-reader, so I'm not sure. But there is one thought...

The Bible was written by men, limited by their human prejudices. Didn't the disciples also go on to found different Churches? If so, it shouldn't be taken as a 100% accurate record, especially with translations and politics taking their toll after nearly two millennia(more if we include the Jewish texts).

Going by the belief Jesus was more or less God via his essence, only Jesus' account would have been divinely-correct, and I'm pretty sure he was dead when the newer passages were written. Opening the door for corruption.

It would kind of seem against God's omnibenevolence to punish people for lack of faith alone. At the very least, I'd think he'd send you to Purgatory, let you know of his existence without a doubt, and then let you choose and make his decision based on that.

Being an atheist or another faith, after all, doesn't put one on Hitler or Stalin's level at all!

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: If this is going to be just another "bash the Christians" thread, i can close it now. If you actually plan to talk seriously about the nature of god, you need a better OP. Read Nanocyborgasm's post and decide what exactly you want to discuss.

 

[Camikaze]

Where do you stand? What things don't seem to make sense in regards to God? Do you have any explanations for those things?

As much as I hate starting posts with 'As a Christian...', I'll make an exception, because that fact is important to my answer.

As a Christian, I know there are many things that don't make sense in regards to my God, and many more things that don't make sense in regards to the traditional Christian God. If I had explanations for the things that don't make sense in regards to my God, then He (or She, as bathsheba put it), would no longer be my God. That is, my conception of what God is changes with explanations of those things that don't seem to make sense. This is largely to do with God being an explanation in Himself (or Herself, to continue on a theme). As soon as the explanation that is God ceases to be sufficient, or ceases to make some sort of sense, than my idea of what the explanation is changes.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well yes, if we assume God is responsible for all natural laws, this is all quite true.

Let's be careful with our meta-ness, here. The god that most people worship is assumed to be responsible for the natural laws of our visible universe, but the actual universe is going to be ruled by the laws of the full universe.

A game of chess has the rules that their players use. The players make the rules, and the pawns & queens suffer their private little hells and hopes at our whim. BUT, these pieces are also beholden to the meta laws of the universe. Gravity keeps the pieces down, atomic decay will eventually render all of their accomplishments null. The rate of their progress is limited not only by our ability to comprehend, but to command movement from our muscles. etc.

Gods are the same (or, they could be). They could create universes, but they're still bound to the natural laws of the real universe. For example, did the gods decide that the possibility of evil was necessary for the existence of free will? These two things don't need to be inextricably linked: so if gods had to create one to get the other, then the gods are beholden to natural laws greater than the laws that govern our universe. Beholden to laws greater than themselves, too.

So, one does not have to think that God controls 'all' laws, merely the laws that we're physically aware of. If so, God seems to be fond of black holes, seems to have a vendetta against hydrogen, and doesn't care that communion (with him) is indistinguishable from hallucination.

Many religions like to build up their conception of God from first principles. The scholarship amongst Hindus, for example, can be really interesting. Some religions have good scholarship but, to quote the prophet, have built their houses upon sand. The Catholic Church, for example, has excellent essays answering many, many questions about God. They're slowly adapting, too, because they've realised that they still want to 'know and serve God' (the real God) regardless of which aspects of the Bible are false. This adapting is hard, because there's a pernicious seed of stubbornness that insists that certain parts of the Bible 'must be true', and evidence against these myths continues to build. Again, they've built their house on sand. And, again, the real god doesn't seem to care that hallucination is indistinguishable from communion.

 

[BuckyRea]

I think personhood should be included. It is coincedentally the most problematic quality typically ascribed to God.

The notion of personhood does not have meaning without epistemic, moral and agentive challenges.

Which is why I only ever consider relative Godhood to be a sensical notion, i.e. omniscience/omnipotence relative to some pocket aspect of the world, much like the kind of control humans have over ants.

So a characteristic of God is being created in man's image? I don't see or understand the desire to impute to someone/something that is demonstrably not human any of the characteristics of humanity. That seems superstitious to me. If something is the source of creation, or at least the authority of moral rectitude, I'm not sure it even can have agentive qualities.

Moderator Action: If this is going to be just another "bash the Christians" thread, i can close it now. If you actually plan to talk seriously about the nature of god, you need a better OP. Read Nanocyborgasm's post and decide what exactly you want to discuss.

With all due respect, Birdjaguar, the OP was a thoughtful, nuanced critique of ideas. By no stretch of the imagination was it "Christian bashing." If you found it provocative, keep in mind that the OP's purpose was to provoke a conversation. I don't agree with it all, but it's hardly a waste of time or intentionally abusive. There would be no legitimate purpose to shutting down this thread, as it stands now.

 

[warpus]

I don't really think anyone knows *anything* about any of the qualities of God, if one exists. As such, anyone claiming that God is this or that, in specific terms, is full of it.