We're both saying things about God on the basis of logic. The difference is that when I say something you disagree with, you dismiss it out of hand on the basis that "humans can't know everything about God". You don't apply the same limitation to your own statements.
What I say about God is not based upon logic, is is based upon scriptures. Humans cannot know
everything about God but we can know what is revealed by Messengers of God via scriptures. What I say is also based upon logic, but the difference between me and you is that I know how to apply logic to God since I know something about God via the scriptures. All you base your logic upon are two attributes of God, omnipotence and omniscience, and that is not enough to know what God would do or not do.
"Humans cannot know
what God could have done because humans are not all-knowing."
I do not need to be all knowing to know what God could not have done because I have the scriptures that tell me something about God. I also have logical abilities that tell me that if God changed His nature he would no longer be God just like if you changed your nature you would no longer be human. It is not possible to change your nature since you were created with it.
You're still ignoring my question. What are you saying exists that has the power to prevent God from changing his nature? If God has all power, what else could have the power to prevent him from doing literally anything? This isn't about choice or rationality, only about the pure ability to do so.
What is your point? I do not know everything God can do and I don't care. All I care about is what God actually does.
Omnipotence does not mean that God can do anything, it means that God is all-powerful. If God changed His nature he would not be God anymore.
That's a circular argument since you only have the scriptures themselves to tell you they were inspired by God. Regardless, even if we accept that, they're still going through the lens of flawed humans and therefore the result would inevitably be flawed. Again, it falls back to your statement that we can't know everything about God because we're not all-knowing.
It does not matter if is circular, it could still be true:
Circular reasoning (
Latin:
circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as
circular logic) is a
logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically
valid because
if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning - Wikipedia
That is true if you are referring to the Bible, but the Bible is not the only scripture that exists. The Baha'i scriptures were written by a Messenger of God and that is just like getting them from God; since Messengers of God have a two-fold nature, they are both divine and human.
I can explain why I reject it too. You can flip-flop between from logic to faith when logic doesn't work for what you want to believe.
I utilize both faith and logic as one does not work without the other. I mean I am not going to have faith in a religion that is not logical.
Not necessarily. It is perfectly possible to create something and use it for your own benefit rather than the creations (we do it all the time). A god could create life for his own benefit (whatever that might be).
And here is the problem with trying to use the "God is omnipotent so God can do anything" logic alone with no scriptures. You are shooting in the dark imagining all kinds of things that God would never do. The scriptures tell us that God is fully self-sufficient and self-sustaining so God has no needs. That means that God would never do anything for
His own benefit because God has everything He will ever need
.
It is the fallacy of false equivalence to compare what humans create for their own benefit to what God does created because humans and God are not equivalent.
You started the thread. What is the point?
If this was just about individual personal beliefs and opinions it wouldn't matter. The issue is that these beliefs are built up in to religions and those religions are used as reasons and tools to influence and control people. Rules, laws and consequences are imposed as a result. And when people make statements along the lines of "What I believe is unquestionably true and nobody else can counter it" that obviously opens the door for potentially anything.
I started the thread because atheists on another thread were saying that God needs excuses and that implies that God should have done something differently. I don't believe that but I wanted to see how any other people believe it.
Does God need excuses?
Some religions have been used to influence and control people but that is not true of my religion.
A believer can believe their religion is true and anyone should be able to question it.