There is no [compassionate] God.

[Willamena]

First of all, if the creator is material then a fortiori it follows that he is not necessarily existent, and is therefore not the Christian-Judaeo or Islamic God.

There is no inherent strength surrounding the arguments for necessary existence. They are definitional --which is also what I've been saying about omnipotence/omnipresence/omniscience.

Secondly, I argued that none of the characteristic attributed to God are necessary, other than his being the Absolutely Necessary Being, the Creator; however, it is not ‘my image’ of God we are discussing, but the age-old problem of evil. Quite regardless of whether the characteristics are necessary, or not, it happens that believers attribute them to God and that is what the argument is about.

You seem to have missed a part of my argument. The image of "God" described in omnipotence/omnipresence/omniscience is not one of a Creator that is separate from creation. It is an image of "God" as either one with creation, or with its metaphorical hand in every part of creation. Whatever the current popular image of "Christian-Judaeo or Islamic God" or grouping of "believers" is doesn't matter --my arguments simply address "God" as omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient. This is an image of "God" that is present as every bit of itself, has knowledge of itself, with the power and authority for every bit of itself to exist, in every way.

And I'm not arguing other people's arguments, just my own.

Er&#8230;yes...I am! <scratches head> I asked what you meant by &#8216;an image of immanence&#8217;?

Just that. Immanence; now, inherent in everything.

 

[Willamena]

You misunderstand me. If God is omnipresent then he is never absent from the material world, but that doesn&#8217;t require him to be part of it. That he&#8217;s always aware of cows in a field doesn&#8217;t mean has to be a cow, or a field.

But of the image of "God" as omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient, that is required. That is how the argument for Problem of Evil is made to work: looking at any one characteristic at the expense of the other two paints a warped picture.

To try to squeeze that, then, into an image of "God" such as you're presenting creates more "contradiction," and problems with the argument itself.

 

[Freelancer7]

I repeat: there is no compassionate God!

I suppose that is what a gazelle says to itself as a cheetah pounces on it and rips its throat out?

 

[Willamena]

God is omnipotent and all-sufficient, and therefore wants for nothing; he has everything. And God is always present.

&#8216;All-sufficient&#8217; is a theist term. It&#8217;s general meaning is strength, authority, wisdom and grace in abundance.

If "all-sufficience" is expressed in strength, authority, wisdom and grace, then what relation does that have to "wants for nothing" and how is that a meaningful response to the image of "God" as possessor ("has all things, by definition")?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1832248-post153.html

You've lost me there.

 

[Willamena]

Sorry still don&#8217;t know what you mean. Put it in context of something, perhaps an example or two?

When you feel anger, have you "allowed" anger? Can you disallow anger? Do you have a choice? When you put yourself in a happy state of mind, have you allowed this state of mind? Can you disallow it? Do you have a choice?

If anger is you, in that moment of anger, then that's "what is" and it's not a choice. In that sense, you could not disallow anger even if you wanted to (unless you detach from the anger, but that's another story).

The "God" that is the all-thing allows all things because it is all things. The God that is the moral imperative to rid the world of evil must allow it, it has no choice because it is it. This is how the Problem of Evil can logically be made to work to "disprove" "God".

The "God" that is not a part of creation (such as being the moral imperative) is not disproven by a failure to act on a moral imperative.

 

[cottage]

When you feel anger, have you "allowed" anger? Can you disallow anger? Do you have a choice? When you put yourself in a happy state of mind, have you allowed this state of mind? Can you disallow it? Do you have a choice?

If anger is you, in that moment of anger, then that's "what is" and it's not a choice. In that sense, you could not disallow anger even if you wanted to (unless you detach from the anger, but that's another story).

Well, I don’t really think we can compare our emotions with God! I have my various idiosyncratic and emotional moments because I’m human and imperfect, a victim of my genes, while God is none of those things. I’m afraid I just don’t see the connection between spontaneous (and often irrational) psychological changes in humans and God having to allow suffering.

The "God" that is the all-thing allows all things because it is all things. The God that is the moral imperative to rid the world of evil must allow it, it has no choice because it is it. This is how the Problem of Evil can logically be made to work to "disprove" "God".

The "God" that is not a part of creation (such as being the moral imperative) is not disproven by a failure to act on a moral imperative.

It isn't a question of God having a duty to rid the world of evil so much as why it exists in the first place! Frankly, it doesn’t matter whether God is outside space and time or immanent within it. If everything created by God was good, then nothing created by God was evil. Therefore if every existent thing is good, then no existent thing is evil. Yet there is evil. Therefore, if some existent things are evil then not everything created by God was good. The contradiction stands, unassailed.

 

[cottage]

There is no inherent strength surrounding the arguments for necessary existence. They are definitional --which is also what I've been saying about omnipotence/omnipresence/omniscience.

Omnipotence and its derivatives, omniscience and omnipresence, are supposed attributes that can be either dropped or defined in many different ways and argued over endlessly, as in fact they are; but an Absolutely Necessary Being isn’t explicable in terms of other than what it is. We exist, but we don’t have to exist, therefore our existence can be explained by necessarily existent causal agency. It is a logical relationship, where one thing is explained in terms of another. Even the most ardent sceptic can accept that. But in the case of the omni-attributes, not a single one of them is required in order to answer for our existence. And omnibenevolence, in particular, is just an arbitrary add-on, which is even contradicted in experience.

You seem to have missed a part of my argument. The image of "God" described in omnipotence/omnipresence/omniscience is not one of a Creator that is separate from creation. It is an image of "God" as either one with creation, or with its metaphorical hand in every part of creation. Whatever the current popular image of "Christian-Judaeo or Islamic God" or grouping of "believers" is doesn't matter --my arguments simply address "God" as omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient. This is an image of "God" that is present as every bit of itself, has knowledge of itself, with the power and authority for every bit of itself to exist, in every way.

And I'm not arguing other people's arguments, just my own.

I see nothing at all wrong there. In fact it appears to be the general understanding of monotheism.

Just that. Immanence; now, inherent in everything.

What, as in evil? As in the falling tree that crushes a car's occupants? As in the cancer cells that kill an infant. No, that can't be right, surely?

 

[idea]

It isn't a question of God having a duty to rid the world of evil so much as why it exists in the first place! Frankly, it doesn&#8217;t matter whether God is outside space and time or immanent within it. If everything created by God was good, then nothing created by God was evil. Therefore if every existent thing is good, then no existent thing is evil. Yet there is evil. Therefore, if some existent things are evil then not everything created by God was good. The contradiction stands, unassailed.

yes, everything created by God is good, nothing created by God is evil.

That evil exists means God did not create everything.

The Bible does not teach ex-Nihlo. God transforms what eternally exists, He did not create out of nothingingness...

5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. - Jeremiah1:5

Our birth was not our beginning&#8230; Part of us had no beginning.

8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand. - Isaiah64:8

The potter did not make the clay&#8230; but we can become His creation if we allow ourselves to be molded.

Hebrew Word Studies
Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"
Meaning: To build a nest.
Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foreign concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for.


see also: God is not the Creator, claims academic - Telegraph



God is cleaning up a mess He did not make... and He is attempting to do so without taking away our free agency.

 

[cottage]

But of the image of "God" as omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient, that is required. That is how the argument for Problem of Evil is made to work: looking at any one characteristic at the expense of the other two paints a warped picture.

To try to squeeze that, then, into an image of "God" such as you're presenting creates more "contradiction," and problems with the argument itself.

Let’s make it clear. What I’m saying is that the concept of God can be conceived without awarding the classic attributes to the concept. However, where the argument is made that God is omnipotent and all loving we immediately come up against the problem of evil:

God is omnipotent: he can do anything logically possible.
(God is omnipresent: he is never absent and is always aware)*
(God is omniscient: nothing is outside his knowledge)*
*The last two attributes are always considered as being under the umbrella of omnipotence.

1.God is omnipotent. 2. God is all loving. 3. Evil exists.
They are the component parts of the inconsistent triad: three things that cannot all be true at the same time. Conclusion: Evil exists and so God is not all loving, or God is not omnipotent.

Evil occurs because: God is unable to prevent it occurring. God is not aware that it is occurring. God doesn’t intervene in occurrence.

‘He is unwilling or unable’ as Hume put it.

 

[cottage]

If "all-sufficience" is expressed in strength, authority, wisdom and grace, then what relation does that have to "wants for nothing" and how is that a meaningful response to the image of "God" as possessor ("has all things, by definition")?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1832248-post153.html

You've lost me there.

Oh! Isn’t it obvious? It means God has no needs but is ‘infinitely able’ and powerful, sufficient in all things. I was responding to your post where you spoke of God ‘allowing himself all things’, which seemed an odd thing to say about an omnipotent being, as if he has to constrain or moderate his needs or inclinations. My point is that he doesn’t allow himself anything, for as the omnipotent Creator he already has everything.

 

[idea]

God is omnipotent: he can do anything logically possible.

all powerful IMO means IF it is logically possible, God can do it.
The impossible exists.

 

[cottage]

yes, everything created by God is good, nothing created by God is evil.

That evil exists means God did not create everything.

The Bible does not teach ex-Nihlo. God transforms what eternally exists, He did not create out of nothingingness...

Okay, I'm absolutely fine with that explanation. But it leaves room for another God, one who did!

God is cleaning up a mess He did not make... and He is attempting to do so without taking away our free agency.

He's not to blame, but just doing the best he can under the circumstances. Full responsibility must be laid at the feet of the Supreme Being who caused the mess in the first place.

 

[idea]

Okay, I'm absolutely fine with that explanation. But it leaves room for another God, one who did!

There are other Gods. Heavenly Father is a "God of Gods", He rules over other gods.

17 For the LORD your God is God of gods
(Old Testament | Deuteronomy10:17)

There is no ultimate beginnning though. God had no beginning, nothing had a beginning.

simple laws of thermo. conservation of mass/energy - you don't get something from nothing. The origins debate is pointless. There is no origin. All that now is has always been and always will be - in one form or another.

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The King Follett Sermon

We say that God Himself is a self-existing being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. (Refers to the Bible.) How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says, &#8220;God made man out of the earth and put into him Adam&#8217;s spirit, and so became a living body.&#8221;
The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [co-eternal] with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth.
I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.
I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man&#8212;on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man&#8212;the immortal part, because it had no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the housetops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.
Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.
The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.
...


29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.
31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section93:29 - 31)





that which is created has no agency... if you have a beginning, everything you are links back in a cause/effect net to your original program/creation...


Can you think for yourself? are you more than a program? a robot? If you are, then you are an eternal, self-existent, uncreated being .


Christians want "eternal life"... eternal life is impossible for beings which have a beginning... the "eternal" in eternal life is the same "eternal" that is used to describe God... Difference between "eternal" and "eternal life"... we already own the "eternal" part.


There is no ultimate cause - we are our own cause.

 

[idea]

Our birth was not our beginning&#8230;
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

We existed before the foundation of the world.
Eph 1: 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Job 38: 4 Where wast thou&#8230;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

We are sons and daughters of God &#8211;
Psa 82: 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

we were there &#8211; we shouted for joy.

Ecc 12: 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

&#8220;return&#8221; means coming to a state that we have previously been to &#8211; not &#8220;come&#8221; as if it were our first experience, but &#8220;return&#8221;

Zech 12:1 &#8230;the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

He &#8220;formed&#8221; our spirit before He placed us here on Earth. We call him our &#8220;Heavenly&#8221; Father because He is literally the father of our spirit&#8230; spirit not created from nothingness, formed out of intelligences that God found Himself surrounded by.

 

[cottage]

that which is created has no agency... if you have a beginning, everything you are links back in a cause/effect net to your original program/creation...


Can you think for yourself? are you more than a program? a robot? If you are, then you are an eternal, self-existent, uncreated being .

Seeing that there is no law of causality as it applies to this world, it shows great partiality in wanting to apply to other worlds (God). No cause and effect, no God!

 

[idea]

Seeing that there is no law of causality as it applies to this world, it shows great partiality in wanting to apply to other worlds (God). No cause and effect, no God!

Cause/effect exists. The point is who is doing all of the causing... When it comes to the important stuff - our character/attitude/who we really are - we are our own cause.

We choose to be molded into something more, or to stay uncreated, unformed, wallowing in the mud... it's up to us

 

[Willamena]

I’m afraid I just don’t see the connection between spontaneous (and often irrational) psychological changes in humans and God having to allow suffering.

Again, I'm tired of repeating myself. Review the conversation or don't, as you're inclined.

If everything created by God was good, then nothing created by God was evil. Therefore if every existent thing is good, then no existent thing is evil. Yet there is evil. Therefore, if some existent things are evil then not everything created by God was good. The contradiction stands, unassailed.

No, I get it --and it's not even about "why evil exists" at all --it is about the existence of that contradiction, and demonstrating to theists who make the claim that "everything God creates is good" that it cannot be this way. It's not even about disproving "God", as the original Problem of Evil sought to do.

Omnipotence and its derivatives, omniscience and omnipresence, are supposed attributes that can be either dropped or defined in many different ways and argued over endlessly, as in fact they are; but an Absolutely Necessary Being isn’t explicable in terms of other than what it is. We exist, but we don’t have to exist, therefore our existence can be explained by necessarily existent causal agency. It is a logical relationship, where one thing is explained in terms of another. Even the most ardent sceptic can accept that. But in the case of the omni-attributes, not a single one of them is required in order to answer for our existence. And omnibenevolence, in particular, is just an arbitrary add-on, which is even contradicted in experience.

As I indicated earlier, you have your image of "God", and the Problem of Evil has its.

And I consider my existence rather necessary, thank you.

What, as in evil? As in the falling tree that crushes a car's occupants? As in the cancer cells that kill an infant. No, that can't be right, surely?

Everything.

 

[Willamena]

It means God has no needs but is ‘infinitely able’ and powerful, sufficient in all things.

And that description doesn't speak to you at all of immanence?

I was responding to your post where you spoke of God ‘allowing himself all things’, which seemed an odd thing to say about an omnipotent being, as if he has to constrain or moderate his needs or inclinations. My point is that he doesn’t allow himself anything, for as the omnipotent Creator he already has everything.

Ah. Well, I don't find it odd at all, for immanent being. It implies the opposite of constraint or moderation: it implies total freedom, because in being everything God doesn't have to posses anything.

 

[Thief]

And that description doesn't speak to you at all of immanence?

[/color][/size][/font][/font]
Ah. Well, I don't find it odd at all, for immanent being. It implies the opposite of constraint or moderation: it implies total freedom, because in being everything God doesn't have to posses anything.

I am participating under....if we are created in His image?....

My current opponent believes God has possession of a body.
If so...is He constrained by physical law?
Eat, sleep, drink, etc.?
And so far, no photos...no fingerprints.

 

[cottage]

Again, I'm tired of repeating myself. Review the conversation or don't, as you're inclined.

To be honest I’ve not been able to figure out your argument. I’m sorry but looking back at what you’ve written hasn’t made it any clearer.

No, I get it --and it's not even about "why evil exists" at all --it is about the existence of that contradiction, and demonstrating to theists who make the claim that "everything God creates is good" that it cannot be this way. It's not even about disproving "God", as the original Problem of Evil sought to do.

You are correct, when you say it is about the contradiction. The Problem of Evil addresses the contradiction and the fact that evil exists. Theodicy (apologia) addresses why evil exists. The former concludes that God’s existence is impossible. And the latter attempts to account for evil as a response to the former. The argument I’ve presented above supports the conclusion, and it is my response to St Thomas’ theodicy, where he argues that ‘every operation, therefore, of anything is traced back to him as its cause.’

As I indicated earlier, you have your image of "God", and the Problem of Evil has its.

…which I’ve explained at the top of the page . The PoE concerns classical theism. It only demonstrates that God cannot exist if we want to insist upon the two attributes, benevolence and omnipotence.

Everything.

Then an omnibenevolent God is impossible.