Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[Gentlefish]

...Narwhals are also neither invisible nor pink, though.

[freeformschooler]

Does God have to be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and any other such things? Why is that necessary? I get "through him all things are possible" and "he will reward you in secret" but if you take the Bible on its word, I still don't see how you come up with an idea of God that is the most powerful thing possible.

I mean, even belief in the Trinity denies an OOO God from the start. There is no need for a "Holy Spirit" if you are literally all-powerful.

Also, MSH's reply is the best reply to the Ontological Argument.

[smeeprocket]

Does God have to be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and any other such things? Why is that necessary? I get "through him all things are possible" and "he will reward you in secret" but if you take the Bible on its word, I still don't see how you come up with an idea of God that is the most powerful thing possible.

I mean, even belief in the Trinity denies an OOO God from the start. There is no need for a "Holy Spirit" if you are literally all-powerful.

Also, MSH's reply is the best reply to the Ontological Argument.

you're not all powerful if you are not omniscient/omnipotent.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/omnipotence

They never specifically say that he is omnipotent, but they are pretty clear that he is all powerful, and I would assume that would be part of it. Though it is an interesting question.

[Orange Wizard]

you're not all powerful if you are not omniscient/omnipotent.

omni = all; potent = powerful; omnipotent = all-powerful
omni = all; scient = knowing; omniscient = all-knowing
omnipotent + omniscient = all-powerful
omnipotent - omniscient != all-powerful



I'd argue that it's possible to do stuff without knowing what you're doing. It's largely irrelevant in the case of God, but "able to do anything" doesn't necessarily imply understanding/knowledge.

Even then, "omniscient" is really hard to nail down. Does it mean God is aware of everything occurring in the Universe? Does he simply know all the laws of physics, the starting configuration, and is therefore able to predict everything that will occur?

...

Omnipresent is an interesting one. There's a few verses that I can think of (mostly Psalms) that basically say "nowhere is out of God's reach", but that might just mean he has infinitely long arms.
Jesus (I forget where) said "where two or three come together in my name, there I am with them", implying that he's not there when people aren't meeting in his name.
Hell is described as being "cut off" from God, so he mightn't be there, either.

[Frumple]

Eh... nah, the thing with being all-powerful is that, if you actually are, you can make yourself all-knowing. Omnipotent doesn't necessarily entail omniscient, but it does necessarily entail the capability to become omniscient. And it says many things about a thing's nature if it exercises omnipotence without first taking the time to figure out what the zog is going to happen...

All-knowing doesn't work in the other direction, though. It may be that it's simple impossible to be all-powerful, after all.

[Bohandas]

It occurs to me that the ontological argument could be used as a justification for narcissism provoded that the person making said justification was sufficiently narcissistic that they could not imagine a being greater than themself.

[Orange Wizard]

That's like saying murder is justified as long as the person committing the murder sufficiently enjoys it.

[Bohandas]

It was meant as a reductio ad absurdium.
If we accept that the ontological argument can prove the existence of god we must also accept that a narcissist can use it to prove that they personally are god

[Frumple]

... there are ethical systems under which that is a sufficient justification. It would have to be some kind of freakish joy vortex that turns the person from a human being to some sort of ambulatory cocktail of happiness chemicals, though. Something along the lines of a murder-driven biochemical apotheosis. Creation process for endorphin elementals, etc. etc.

Run of the mill murderjoy wouldn't cut it -- it would have to be a happiness that somehow eclipsed every possible joy the murderee could experience, as well as all the social-based happinesses not allowing murder brings about, and a bunch of other stuff. It's conceptually possible, though!

I mean, hell, it sorta' fits with the topic's subject. Streaker J's execution/murder is generally held to be a desired action, so wozzname killing him created sufficient happiness the murder was apparently justified in the eyes of believers, if you squint at it hard enough. Folks generally seem to be okay with the god-thing eventually straight up murdering the entire human species, as well, due to the happiness it brings (for some).

[Bohandas]

*Shrug*

I always saw it as the most stupid argument, but "it's a priori" and "it has modern supporters" are the two strengths of the argument I was taught.

a priori is only a strength if you have something to hide. With the possible exception of the realm of pure mathematics a priori knowledge and reasoning seems mainly concerned with pointless tautologies, appeals to truthiness, vacuous truths, meaningless quibbling over semantics, and of course the disguising of bullshit by clever combInation of the previous three factors

[Bohandas]

... there are ethical systems under which that is a sufficient justification. It would have to be some kind of freakish joy vortex that turns the person from a human being to some sort of ambulatory cocktail of happiness chemicals, though. Something along the lines of a murder-driven biochemical apotheosis. Creation process for endorphin elementals, etc. etc.

Run of the mill murderjoy wouldn't cut it -- it would have to be a happiness that somehow eclipsed every possible joy the murderee could experience, as well as all the social-based happinesses not allowing murder brings about, and a bunch of other stuff. It's conceptually possible, though!

I mean, hell, it sorta' fits with the topic's subject. Streaker J's execution/murder is generally held to be a desired action, so wozzname killing him created sufficient happiness the murder was apparently justified in the eyes of believers, if you squint at it hard enough. Folks generally seem to be okay with the god-thing eventually straight up murdering the entire human species, as well, due to the happiness it brings (for some).

You're thinking of the warp-deities from Warhammer 40000 (especially Khorne and Slaanesh). Real-life western religion is about misery, penitence misery, misery, self-denial, and misery; no joy of any kind enters into it.

[Il Palazzo]

no joy of any kind enters into it.

Tell that to ol' Tessa:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[wierd]

I'd say the GP needs to be introduced to the amazingly curious world of BDS&M, but that statue looks like she's already discovered it...

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Can we keep pervy comments out of this thread? Please

[wierd]

we can try, but that would require injecting a confirmation bias into the discussion.

That particular nugget of human nature has a LONG history within the roman catholic clergy. "Self-flagellation" was often taken to very disturbing ends, and was documented as so in the vatican's own archives.

While we dont need to dwell on it, we should at least acknowledge that it exists as a feature within the popularly practiced forms of the religion being discussed, and that "Joy" certainly DOES feature in that capacity.