The Attributes of God

[atiguhya padma]

As I understand it, the concept of the Christian God has the following attributes attached to it:

Omnipotence
Omniscience
Perfection
Omnipresence

Now it seems to me that these attributes cannot possibly exist in a single entity. For example, if God has a perfect thought, then isn't he limited to that single thought, and so not omnipotent? Supposing God has two thoughts. In order for those thoughts to be separate, ie two, they must differ. If they differ, then in the comparison, it makes sense to ask which of the two is most perfect. If they are equally perfect, then in what sense do they differ?

The same goes for action too.

[fayefaye]

firstly, you really don't know that much about Christianity. Secondly, why do you keep trying to belittle Christians? And finally-

-What makes you think there is only one singular perfect thought? And why for something to be perfect must it be the same as something else? And action also. Different things could be 'perfect' in different ways.

*deep breath* opening up a debate with you. maybe I should just go knock my head against the nearest brick wall and save myself the hassle.

[psycojones]

i have no idea why i am going to try to answer this, but here i go. first i want to note that i am agnostic. now i was brought up in many different religions and beliefs, long story. now being through the bible a number of times over the course of my life, i am going to try to give you my insight on your question.

i believe you are going to be told that man is made in the image of god. now does that just mean physically, or mentally as well. now we need to ask what is "perfect" in the eyes of a christian following person. well "perfect" is something better than man, what that is i can not tell you. but if or when we meet that line of perfection, then it is human nature to raise the bar. perfect to me does not exsist. simply because what is perfect to one man is not perfect to another. flaws are what make us human, and the human is what the flaw is in the god theory. perfection is much like the carrot in front of the donkey, we always work hard to get there, but we never find it. now saying that, perfection is much like god, we work hard to try to prove god but we never find god.

so i think that also explains my idea of the perfect thought. for those who believe please take no offence to my thinking, it is just one mans opinion, and i love to hear other people thoughts and ideas.

ap, this is god we are talking about. you are going to be told god can do anything, things that we can not comprehend at this time. who knows, maybe gods one thought is part of what all the universe is and will be. we are only able to compare anything with our past and our imagination, so god is something unknown, but not to those who believe.

[Dyrwen]

Just a set up on attributes:

If we wish to discover the nature of the Christian God, the National Catholic Almanac offers us a generous assortment of attributes from which to choose. According to this source, God is "almighty, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true." (1)
From Atheism: The Case Against God (http://www20.brinkster.com/atheology/atheism_the_case_against_god_part_1.htm) by George H. Smith.

I'd suggest the link and reading Chapter III - The God of Christianity.

[imthefoolonthehill]

Is it unbelievable that God sohuld be beyond his creation's comprehension?

[Cassandra]

No. Besides even if APs ideas that there is only one perfect thought etc.. held up to human standards it doesn't mean it applies to God. being God he does not have to answer to logic or science and can do things that seem impossible to us ie not be born and be everywhere at once.

[atiguhya padma]

I am confused as to why Fayefaye should take my post as <trying to belittle Christians?> I am simply asking questions, pointing out problems. It seems to me that it is Fayefaye that has a far more heavy-handed approach. I think she would prefer that nobody asks difficult questions.

With regards to my knowledge of Christianity, I have no doubt about that. I have along history of studying the subject. The post I made, related to work I did in University back in the late 80's. Unknown to me. the philosopher Anthony Kenny had written a book entitled the God of the Philosopher's which asked just the same questions. I suggest you read this book Fayefaye before you make such naive statements.

I did not say that for something to be perfect it must be the same as everything else! What I infer, is that two tokens of a single type, can be compared in such a way, that in the comparison it should be able to analyse which of the two is better, or more perfect. It may be that we could not perform such an analysis, because we may not be able to understand the concept of perfection enough to judge what is more perfect. But still, if all possible thoughts are grouped together, it must surely be the case that an infinite intelligence could choose the most perfect of these thoughts. And that would mean choosing a single thought. If an infinite mind could not choose or create the most perfect single thought, then that puts restrictions on omnipotence.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
But still, if all possible thoughts are grouped together, it must surely be the case that an infinite intelligence could choose the most perfect of these thoughts. And that would mean choosing a single thought. If an infinite mind could not choose or create the most perfect single thought, then that puts restrictions on omnipotence.
Why? It's choosing what represents limitation, not the other way round. If you have to choose between things, it means that you can't have them both. In this case, he wouldn't choose because he could have it all (assuming he wants or desires or wishes for something, concepts that evaporate at this level of being IMHO). If I had to guess, I'd say God trascends most of the human concepts: thought, feeling, perception, etc., at least in the way we define such things.

[IWilKikU]

First of all, AP, you continually refer to this "Christian God". I think its important to point out that there is no ONE accepted personality of God even among Christians. The Catholic interpretation of God is not the same as most Prodistant interpretations, and the denomanation that I (sort of) belong to (Seventh-Day Adventist) has a different interpratation than other prodistant denoms. Even within my denom., What I believe about God is far from what other SDA's believe about him.

Also, saying that you DONT try to belittle Christianity is bull****. Come on AP, admit it! You LOVE asking questions that people half your age havn't had time to ponder as in-depthly as you. You point out these things, tell us were wrong, and than get all defensive. Which I actually get a kick out of, but the fact that you play all innocent REALLY annoys me. Your questions don't, but when you drop these, what do you expect? Honestly? Havn't you identified a trend yet???

Also, howsabout replying to psychojones too, instead of only replying to people who play into your little game?


Let it be known that I didn't think THIS thread was very belittling or offensive, but other threads (such as the one about fate) are great examples of your style of depreciating something that the majority of people on this network hold dear.

[amuse]

AP, sometimes the radio in my head wakes me up with a tune. A few weeks ago, when your stuff bothered me, "Let it Be" by the Beatles was on the "radio dial" as I woke up.

So I decided not to let your stuff get to me. But I wonder, and it's really none of my business anyway, because you will do what you will do, why do you try to incite people? Why is that so important to you?

[atiguhya padma]

IWilKiku,

Please quote an example of me belittling someone's belief. Then we can discuss. If not, then it would appear that it is in fact you that is talking bull****. Also, you're argument about the Christian God makes the whole of Philosophy of Religion redundant. It is a silly argument. Of course I love asking difficult questions! I don't deny that at all. When I ask these questions regarding mind, existence, freewill etc, people seem to be able to discuss such arguments dispassionately. When I do the same with religion, I am constantly accused of belittling and inciting. Why?

Amuse,

The same applies to you. Show me where I incite people with my posts, and we can discuss that too. But to just accuse me of doing something without giving examples I consider to be an insult.

[fayefaye]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
When I ask these questions regarding mind, existence, freewill etc, people seem to be able to discuss such arguments dispassionately. When I do the same with religion, I am constantly accused of belittling and inciting. Why?

Amuse,

The same applies to you. Show me where I incite people with my posts, and we can discuss that too. But to just accuse me of doing something without giving examples I consider to be an insult.

You compared Christians to nazis, when Christianity preaches the opposite of nazism. You show little understanding of the basis of religion, but feel you have the right to call me screwed up when we discuss hell. You? Condescending? NOOO..... of course not. It's not at all belittling to hear somebody speak so disparagingly about religion.

[atiguhya padma]

1) Christians do not = Christianity
2) See Daniel Goldhagen's The Moral Reckoning to see what people who called themselves Christiand did in Nazi occupied countries during WWII.
3) When I have more time, I will look into your claim re: hell.

AP

[amuse]

ap, if i felt like going through your many posts i would do so. but i don't. it's there, and your words speak for themselves without me looking for and quoting them.

furthermore i don't feel the need to defend myself as you seem to wish. it seems a large part of your modus operandi and i've no desire to play along. i asked a question, you got defensive, and now you're trying to make me so. no deal.

[atiguhya padma]

Nice excuse.

Anyway, why do you people who get so offended by me questioning religious concepts, bother to reply to my threads? I don't particularly want to hear from people who cannot argue dispassionately on what I say. It seems to me that it is you that want to pick a fight. Instead of good arguments, you produce character assassinations. I really don't get you people at all. You ought to stop and think about what you are doing. And as for IWilKiku, moaning about me asking questions that I have pondered longer than most on this forum, so what??? Am I supposed to keep quiet just because I've thought about these things longer than others? Why do you go to college, if you dislike that idea so much?

Yes I have indentified a trend IWilKiku. The trend is this: when questions concerning religion are asked on this website, critical questions designed to explore the notions professed historically by Christians, then a significant number of posters here cannot handle the idea of critically looking at their beliefs. That's the trend. And because of this, the response is generally one of attack, not using logical or consistent arguments, but rather disparaging terms about my conduct, even to the extent that posters feel they can accuse me of things that they can even substantiate!!

[amuse]

nice excuse: lol!

anyway, as you don't believe in god, and simply have a mental interest in the whole thing, why must you step onto toes and into the realm of other's beliefs? your atheism doesn't seem to be a bone of contention for example.

[amuse]

ap you are obviously a mental giant. but when you belittle that which people hold dear, you forget that there is greatness in humility.
it's just a reminder. i wish i were quite humble. i'm not. but i don't like to see what you're doing.

[atiguhya padma]

My thanks to psycojones and Crisaor for at least approaching this thread with the intention of putting forward a logical argument.

psycojones, I have some sympathy with what you say. i do not feel that <so god is something unknown, but not to those who believe.> can be justified though.

Crisaor,
So God never chooses between things then? I agree that concepts evaporate at this level, if there were a god. But let's not forget, at our level, God is, just like everything else, a concept.

AP

[Logos]

This is obviously an emotional topic.

The concept of attacking an idea, as opposed to a person, is addressed below from the Forum Rules. Try to keep this in mind if you're responding to this thread.




People should feel free here to express their opinons and ideas, and discuss them civilly. Agree to disagree if you want, but don't resort to personal attacks.

[atiguhya padma]

Logos,

Thank you for that intervention.

I do try to bear this in mind, and would appreciate it if more people on this thread would do likewise. I am all for civil discussion, expression of opinions and ideas. And if I have personally attacked Fayefaye in the past, then I am sorry. That was certainly not my intention. Neither is it my intention to belittle people. I have never really understood this criticism of me.

AP

[crisaor]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Crisaor,
So God never chooses between things then? I agree that concepts evaporate at this level, if there were a god. But let's not forget, at our level, God is, just like everything else, a concept.

Point taken. What I meant is that given the relative nature of your questions/arguments, it's very likely that the answer(s) is going to have the same problems.

[atiguhya padma]

Point taken. I agree.

[atiguhya padma]

For those of you objective enough to do this, here is an interesting little exercise:

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/whatisgod.htm

[Cassandra]

I got a 0.2 on this test. But found their arguments somewhat unrealistic and not thought out with God existing as a possibility as wll as god not existing.

[atiguhya padma]

I got 0.8 on this test, and thought the arguments regarding whether God could make 2+2=5 compelling. If God can make 2+2=5, then that makes a profound statement about the consistency of logic. In fact, if God can do anything, then there really cannot be anything absolute, not even God (for God would have the ability to terminate his absoluteness should he so wish).

[Jay]

Well, I got 1.0... not sure what that means though.

[atiguhya padma]

Are you and God best mates or something?:)

[Jay]

Doubt it, dear AP :D, very much.

[IWilKikU]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Also, you're argument about the Christian God makes the whole of Philosophy of Religion redundant. It is a silly argument.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you would elaborate rather than casting my argument off as silly, it may help me come to a better understanding of Religeon and God.

What I meant was, alot of Christians believe that I am agnostic, but I definately believe in God. My concept of God is different than alot of Christians, so they asume that the "God" that I believe in isn't actually God, making me a nonbeliever. The whole concept of the little test on the website you gave us supports my idea that people believe in a different type of God. Not all Christians are going to check all the boxes (I got a 0.7 by the way). For example, you ask how the Christian God can be omnicient. I don't believe that God is omnicient yet I am a Christian who believes in God.

As for me personally attacking you, I merely pointed out that you like to rub people the wrong way, which you pretty much admitted to. I love your posts. And I love that you make Christians on this site think about thier faith. Its just frusterating trying to argue with you because you have read sooooooooo much more (therefor understand much more) than me on the subjects of God, Philosophy, Atheism, ect... that you use in your arguements. Just keep in mind that when you rub people the wrong way, sometimes (myself included) people will get offended and bite. Just expect that that may happen and spare us the bleeding heart bit when it does.

That being said, I am so so so so sorry that hurt your delicate feelings. Will you still be my best friend???

[atiguhya padma]

Hey I was your best friend and you didn't even know it.

And I still am.

And you still don't know it.

I love this site. It makes me seriously think about honesty.:)

[atiguhya padma]

But honestly, I was. And I am.

[subterranean]

I took the test and now I'm trying to think over all things which influenced me to have such conception about God.
If God is omnibenevolent, why God is not also all-hating at the same time?

Is this some kind of test to see how atheistic are you?!

[atiguhya padma]

No its a test to see how consistent your religious views are.

[psycojones]

i have a feeling i might get myself into trouble, but i have to say what i feel.
ap, in my view, has not personally attacted anyone, but maybe attacted someones personal opinion.

"remember that it is not he who reviles you or strikes you, who insults you, but it is your opinion about these things as being insulting" EPICTETUS-89 AD

i may not be the greatest person to talk about god, but i do understand the passion that people have for their belief in god. ap, in my view, is questioning to generally gather more understanding in how people think in terms of god and god theories. as well as debate his thoughts.

if anyone disagrees, challenge him. but i would not take take it to heart. we are all here sharing opinions, and thoughts. that is what i love about this sight, we get to learn how people think, what they believe, ect... from different parts of the globe.
this is just one mans opinion.

[amuse]

I find it interesting, re: "debate his thoughts" that the greater attraction when discussing God seems to relate to God's thoughts rather than God's love. But I s'pose it's all a matter of interest. And I don't think it's possible to ever fully understand God, as there's always that plus factor anyway.

[Jay]

*trying so hard NOT to get cynical...*
re: 'debate his thoughts'
Ok, would like to ask someone how can God have thoughts... ok, assume he exists, what/who (???) is it/he? CAN it/he have thoughts? By the 'it' I mean if he? (or she) isn't a human being, what does it make him/her/IT?

[atiguhya padma]

Well, if you could tell me how it is that human beings have thoughts, then I might be in a position to understand your question of how God has thoughts. But I rather suspect, that you and I and everyone else having thoughts, is just a brute fact, the mechanism of which we cannot comprehend. I mean, if I knew where my thoughts came from, where they go to, how they are created and what exactly they are, then I might be able to deny God thoughts. The truth is, I don't have an understanding of thought-production. I don't even know whether they are physical, neural, experiences that correlate to the internal feeling of thought, or whether they are something completely different. As it stands, God may or may not have thoughts. I assume the concept of God, as developed in the history of theology, is one which proposes God as a thinker. The alternative seems to suggest some form of mechanistic, robotic God. God without volition is probably a form of pantheist doctrine.

[psycojones]

ok, i wrote that down wrong. i ment ap, is asking questions and wanting to debate anyone on their thoughts of god. at least that is what i think.

i knew i was going to get into trouble!

[Jay]

Very good respond, AP :). Not what I had in mind, but it also replies to other 'thoughts' I might have on that subject. Knew it wouldn't be that easy to get something by any of you, guys :p.

And Psycojones, didn't get what you meant :), was reacting to several words from Shea's post, wanted to ask, so I did just that, and threads tend to get a little off-topic. If anyone minds that, I'm sorry.

[seeker]

firstly, you really don't know that much about Christianity. Secondly, why do you keep trying to belittle Christians? And finally-

-What makes you think there is only one singular perfect thought? And why for something to be perfect must it be the same as something else? And action also. Different things could be 'perfect' in different ways.

*deep breath* opening up a debate with you. maybe I should just go knock my head against the nearest brick wall and save myself the hassle.

i am too tired right now to enter this discusion, but this post pisssed me off. I am a Christian myself and find it embarrasing when others claiming to follow the same God i do go ahead and show the world their stupidity in a single thoughtless phrase.

If people didnt question Christianity, then those who followed it would have little understanding of it and its function, spiritually and practically in life. How can you possibly know how much he knows about Christianity? How can you, as a simple human yourself, as we all are, possibly feel that you obviously know more about the the theology of those who follow Christ than another person does?

YOU ARE POSTING ACCROSS THE INTERNET TO SOMEONE YOU DO NOT KNOW AND CANNOT THEREFORE KNOW WHETHER THEY MORE OR LESS THAN YOU

Save US the trouble and bash your head into a brick wall.

All this reminds me of the Crusades and how, instead of listening to what the "heretics" had to say about corrupted Chruch doctrine, the people rallied under their "perfect" pope, burned those smart enough to question his and the churches corruption and proceded to slaughter millions of innocent Hebrew peoples, including the woman and children, over a series of several hundred years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ok, now i am awake enough to post my opinion.


As I understand it, the concept of the Christian God has the following attributes attached to it:

Omnipotence
Omniscience
Perfection
Omnipresence

Now it seems to me that these attributes cannot possibly exist in a single entity. For example, if God has a perfect thought, then isn't he limited to that single thought, and so not omnipotent? Supposing God has two thoughts. In order for those thoughts to be separate, ie two, they must differ. If they differ, then in the comparison, it makes sense to ask which of the two is most perfect. If they are equally perfect, then in what sense do they differ?

The same goes for action too.

Your argument is logical, at least in the sense of what you are asking., "how can God be all perfect and all knowing, because then He could hold and imperfect thought"

The basic flaw i would see in this is that you are trying to define what a perfect thought is, and in essence, what perfection is. To do that you have to fully understand the ultimate and correct definitions of those four words, Omnipotence, Perfection, Omniscience, and Omnipresence.

By defenition the only one who would be able to define those would be God.

But to be specific, no i dont believe that God would have just one thought because that would then limit him to that one thought. By defenition He could have that thought, but, being all knowing, knows that if He does He will have limited Himself, so He chooses not to.

Another similar argument i have heard was that "if God is all powerful the He could create a boulder so immense that He couldnt lift it, thus ceasing to be all powerful". But Because God is all knowing, He woulndt do it, even though He could.

haha for those who believe in God or a god, imagin how funny it would be for one who knows all to read our post and listen to us trying to define them! I still would rather do it though, than sit back and trusting without trying to defining.

†
seeker

[Logos]

This is a worthy topic and I'd like to see it stay open.

While I know it's hard to not get personal when discussing religion, please refrain from any futher personal attacks or comments or this thread will be locked.

[seeker]

I apologize for taking up the space above my opinion there, but I stand by my comments.

†
seeker

[fayefaye]

lol, I don't mind. I like to show the world my stupidity.

Maybe it disproves ap's assumption that everybody thinks? :p

[Johnmc]

It is simple to explain

God is omnipotent, right?

That means that he has the power to decide what is perfect and what is not perfect, right.

Does this not then mean that he can decide that thought A is just as perfect as thought B.

Is a rock more or less perfect that a flower? Is one snowflake ore perfect than another? Is one person more perfect than another?

the only affirmative answer to these questions would be based on opinion. For even in the case of the snowflake, a scientist may say that this one is more perfect because of it's symetry and form, while another might say this one is more perfect because it appeals to the eye and I see the shape of something in it.

IMHO, God would likely say "You foolish men, why do you argue about such things, do you not know that both are perfect? Do you not understand that all of creation is perfect just as I have created it?"

God has extremely high standards, as one in his position should have, and he would not create anything that is not perfect.

You will ask then "Why is there evil and why all the suffering, does'nt this go against everything that God is about? Why would a God that is supposed to be so loving and kind allow these things?"

Answer: Not only has God allowed them, They are an intrical part of his creation. As men we tend to look at things through tunnel vision. Even the most open minded philosopher, through a lifetime of research and analysis, can expand his mind only enough to encompass a mere fraction of even a single area of study. Anyone who claims to fully understand anything reveals how little they truly understand. Consider the process through which a piece of metal goes, from the state of raw ore, to it's being the focal point of a custom roadster for Hot Rod Magazine, then consider that a hundred or so years later it will be little more than so much garbage lining some refuse heap in New Jersey. Is it a futile process considering the end, or is it worth it all just for those few years of Glory? That is just a hunk of metal, and human craftsmen, consider how much more profound and lasting a creation by an omnipotent creator designed to serve as heirs to God's estate.

Despite my confidense, however, I am not unsympathetic toward those who find such statements fantastical or wishful thinking. For one I am familiar with God's purpose for the world enough to recognize that part of that plan includes people who's minds are prevented from grasping such concepts, particularly those scriptural referenses that prophesy that because of Christ many shall fall. To an atheist, I can see why they would be skeptical of such things, especially considering the acts which have been carried out under the name of religion by those who have no part in the truth. But I ask only that my views be respected, and that if you choose to be critical, do so respectfully, and not as a means of expressing hostility toward my or any other religion.

That said I would be happy to engage in any debate regarding the logical or philosophical ramifications of religion or any other topic that is of interest to me. I must admit; however, that my knowledge of world religion is vastly limited, and while I am a christian who was raised in the Catholic church, I no longer choose to be affiliated with any dnominational or non-denominational religeous establishment and therefore my opinions do not represent the opinions of any other such parties and I have no opinion in regard to what others may or may not believe. My beliefs are based on the Holy scriptures contained in the King James Bible and it's various translations.

God Bless, and may your eyes see the truth, and may you be free! Amen!

[atiguhya padma]

So I presume you would say that what happened at Sodom and Gomorrah, where God destroyed a whole community because he didn’t like their lifestyle, was the perfect way of destroying people. And furthermore, God allowing 6 million Jews to die in the Holocaust was another perfect action (ie the act of abstention). And his apathy and abstention from action during the whole of the Second World War, where around 120 million people died was another perfect performance. Far more perfect, for example, than man’s inaction to prevent the deaths of 120 million.

<Anyone who claims to fully understand anything reveals how little they truly understand.>

So what did you presume to contribute to this discussion? When you say <I am familiar with God's purpose for the world>, what you mean is you don’t fully understand it, in other words, you are approximately, vaguely, familiar. Without any possibility of you fully understanding anything, everything you say has to be a matter of faith, doesn't it? But the problem with faith statements is that they are not falsifiable nor are they verifiable. In other words thy are pretty uselss and meaningless.

[atiguhya padma]

<That means that he has the power to decide what is perfect and what is not perfect, right.

Does this not then mean that he can decide that thought A is just as perfect as thought B.>

Which means that he can make 2+2=5 a perfect answer and =4 and 3 and 2 all perfect answers at the same time. In fact he can make 2+2 = anything and everything a perfect answer too can’t he? All he has to do is <decide what is perfect and what is not perfect>

[baddad]

I've been reading this thread this evening (whincing at whiffs of perceived animosity) and my few remaining geriatric brain cells have become somewhat fused, confused. Doesn't the application of the strict formulas of logic to a faith/hope based belief system seem a little.......illogical? I mean, it seems as if this discussion is trying to use the ethereal to graph the concrete, or vice-a-versa. Is this possible in any meaningful way, or are we just having a little lark strictly for fun? It reminds me of many first year university students who, after each successive exposure to new data, a new way of perceiving reality, summarily rejects everything that came before, and accepts their new perception as the only real truth......until the next fascinating philosophy (geography, astronomy, etc...) class when all that came before is now discarded.....and so on........and so on......

[atiguhya padma]

Yes. You can't prove a faith wrong or right. In fact, faith-based statements have no bearing on the world beyond the believer, in a strict logical sense. I was trying to show this, through illustrating how ridiculous it is to claim that God is perfect, therefore he can do anything and make anything perfect.

[Sakkarah]

If there are two differing thoughts then they can be encompassed under a greater and more general thought thus making it one thought. God would follow a set of fundamental laws, one of wich being logic and he wouldtherfore create the more general thought first. There needs to be only one thought and it is that which we call existence.