There is no [compassionate] God.

[Willamena]

Yay! I get to go home early.

Again, a misunderstanding. As above, God is God (A=A): if he is the necessary, transcendent, eternal Being then he cannot be corporeal, hungry, sad, or my pet cat. Secondly (law of non-contradiction): God cannot be a thing and its opposite; if he is x he cannot be y. But I can see no difficulty whatsoever with God being omnipresent.

If "God" is the all-thing, then he is necessarily x, y, z, cat, tree, cloud, pain, suffering and love.

Have a good New Year.

 

[cottage]

Yay! I get to go home early.

If "God" is the all-thing, then he is necessarily x, y, z, cat, tree, cloud, pain, suffering and love.

A thing may have many and various characteristics, but it can only have one identity. If God is a cat or a cloud, or any corporeal or material substance, then he is not God, for he cannot be corporeal/material and non-corporeal/non-material at the same time. If God were a cat or a cloud he would be contingent, but not necessary, and that is a contradiction as cats and clouds don't have to exist. However, he can be a God of suffering and he can be a God who loves, but not at the same time. And if he is sometimes loving, sometime not, then he cannot have the identity of a God of love.

Have a good New Year.

Thank you - and you too! :newyear:

 

[cottage]

Unless, of course, "all-power" includes the power to fail, the power to enact evil, the power to feel pain, and suffer. Or should we conveniently leave those powers out?

The power to fail is a contradiction, as is the power to feel pain and suffer, which appeals to anthropomorphism and implies that God is corporeal.
The 'power to enact evil': no contradiction there.

And omnipresence and omniscience are still in the picture. Omnipresence means God is there, in the world, where suffering is. He is there where love is.

<cough!> 'Where suffering is'! You say that as if God, the cause and sustainer of all things existent, were no more than a bystander. What next, God wringing his hands and uttering platitudes that begin with 'If only...'

Omniscience means God knows suffering, God knows love. First-person, singular --figuratively. The omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient God can, does, and must
"allow" himself (all things).

'Allow himself'! An omnipotent God that must 'allow himself all things'! God has all things, by definition. And of course God knows suffering: he is the reason for its existence.

To paint a picture that suggests he doesn't is the fallacy.

Then do please apprise me of the fallacy, because I cannot imagine what it might be.

A=A. The all-thing is the all-thing; right. Transcendence brings a new aspect into the picture that can be considered or not, depending on whether one leans toward the pantheistic or the panentheistic. It's not a necessary part of arguments for the Problem of Evil, though.

I don’t have any problem with that. To say God transcends experience (which must be a necessary ability) doesn’t gainsay his causal or conserving properties as far as I’m concerned.

If one leans panentheistically, and splits the all-thing into two --transcendent God plus the world (Duality) --then the omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient God is still the all-thing, it's just that one more thing has been added for God to be (the beyond). The omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient God image still maintains presence everywhere, power over this world (authority), and knowledge of everything in it.

If you suggest an image of God that exerts power as from from a place "beyond", and is immune from this world because he is there, in that place "beyond", then that is to deny omnipresence.

Most theists seem to go with a transcendent God who is immanent within the world, again no problem as far as I’m concerned.

 

[yaali]

things are not that simple as they seem. its a complex system created by GOD. yes people have to die . Death is a natural and lovely process of keeping things progressing. For every new start there needs to be an end.

but the sufferings are a part of this world too as i mentioned its a system. If you cause suffering to others, do wrong, it is there stored waiting for you out there somewhere and you will definately have to pay for it in one way or the other whether in this life or the next. its like you put a gun on your head and shoot. an when you are killed you complain why GOD did not show HIS compassion and save you. its the rule of this world my friend everybody knos that if you do that with a gun you'll die there is no point complaining. Not that GOD could'nt have or would'nt its just the system of this world if you drop a ball it would fall. why not go up?? b/c of the system. so what your friends suffered was the result of their own deeds. evey action has equal and opposite reaction.... right??

yaali

 

[Riverwolf]

things are not that simple as they seem. its a complex system created by GOD. yes people have to die . Death is a natural and lovely process of keeping things progressing. For every new start there needs to be an end.

but the sufferings are a part of this world too as i mentioned its a system. If you cause suffering to others, do wrong, it is there stored waiting for you out there somewhere and you will definately have to pay for it in one way or the other whether in this life or the next. its like you put a gun on your head and shoot. an when you are killed you complain why GOD did not show HIS compassion and save you. its the rule of this world my friend everybody knos that if you do that with a gun you'll die there is no point complaining. Not that GOD could'nt have or would'nt its just the system of this world if you drop a ball it would fall. why not go up?? b/c of the system. so what your friends suffered was the result of their own deeds. evey action has equal and opposite reaction.... right??

yaali

That's not provable. Cancer can sneak up on even the most righteous of Sages.

 

[cottage]

Actually, being all powerful does not imply that God has no emotions. I don't personally believe that God fails, makes mistakes or can be deceived, but I don't see these attributes as having anything whatsoever to do with power. He could also be benevolent and still allow evil, pain and suffering to exist. If He were to eliminate these entirely, He would be eliminating experiences which enable us to grow and process. If He were to make it impossible for us to grow and process, He would definitely NOT be benevolent. Therefore, He would not have the attributes we ascribe to God and we would have the contradiction you described (A <> A).

In my view I don't think it can be at all right to understand God as having emotions. Surely the Supreme Being would be above personality traits affecting mood and temperament? It seems more likely that God has no human foibles, but is totally other, in all respects.

In the matter of omnipotence, we're not simply talking about raw brute power augmented without limit, but intelligent power that brings about effects precisely as intended. It is because of the power of this exactitude that mistakes etc are impossible.

The learning and growing model that you speak of is commonly offered as an answer to the problem of evil, but unfortunately it doesn't unseat the contradiction. And we only need the experience of evil because it happens to exist. If there was no evil we wouldn't need to experience it. But it only exists because God caused it to exist! In truth it is patently absurd to say we must have suffering in order to overcome suffering, just as it is wrong to say the only way people can grow develop is if other humans suffer.

I too think the Trinity is illogical and therefore nonsensical.

 

[Thief]

So....can we agree that God is the creator?

 

[Katzpur]

In my view I don't think it can be at all right to understand God as having emotions. Surely the Supreme Being would be above personality traits affecting mood and temperament? It seems more likely that God has no human foibles, but is totally other, in all respects.

Based on your posts (as I recollect them, both on this and other threads), you don't believe in a Supreme Being at all. Since I do, and since I believe in the Abrahamic God, I base my beliefs on what the Bible says about Him. It refers to Him as feeling love, anger, and other emotions. To you, emotions appear to be some sort of flaw that we humans have. I see God as having all of the emotions we have, but being able to channel them and express them appropriately, whereas we do not. I can't imagine a God who was incapable of love or compassion or any of the qualities we see as admirable. Why would anyone see such a being as being worthy of worship?

The learning and growing model that you speak of is commonly offered as an answer to the problem of evil, but unfortunately it doesn't unseat the contradiction. And we only need the experience of evil because it happens to exist. If there was no evil we wouldn't need to experience it. But it only exists because God caused it to exist! In truth it is patently absurd to say we must have suffering in order to overcome suffering, just as it is wrong to say the only way people can grow develop is if other humans suffer.

Of course we wouldn't need to experience evil if it didn't exist, but I still see it as necessary. Three examples: (1) Good health, for example, is a wonderful blessing, and I am grateful for every day I spend feeling good. If I had never been sick, though, I wouldn't give good health a second thought. It would be impossible for me to genuinely appreciate it. I see my ability to recognize and appreciate the good things of life as a direct result of my having experienced the not-so-good things of life. To me, opposites are essential to the human experience because we do benefit from both good and evil in the long run. (2) If we could succeed at everything we ever tried to accomplish with our first attempt, would we really find all that much pleasure in our accomplishments? Why are you happy when you are finally able to do something you've been unable to do for a long, long time? It's only because you have known failure (which can definitely be seen as an "evil" when it starts to affect our self-worth) that you can really relish success. (3) When someone you love dies, you're sad. Your sadness is directly related to the fact that you have lost something you valued. Sadness is virtually always seen as an "evil," but the only way you could avoid feeling sad by having lost someone you loved would be for you not have to felt love in the first place. Would you really want to never have felt love for someone else or have had someone love you? Would the absence of sorrow that comes with death really be worth the absence of love?

I too think the Trinity is illogical and therefore nonsensical.

Well then we appear to agree on one thing.

 

[djewleu]

So....can we agree that God is the creator?

No.
No possible agreement on abstract Creator.
There is no Creator.
Creation created itself.
It is weird, but it is so.
The term "weird" was invented to classify this awful situation.

 

[Willamena]

A thing may have many and various characteristics, but it can only have one identity. If God is a cat or a cloud, or any corporeal or material substance, then he is not God, for he cannot be corporeal/material and non-corporeal/non-material at the same time. If God were a cat or a cloud he would be contingent, but not necessary, and that is a contradiction as cats and clouds don't have to exist. However, he can be a God of suffering and he can be a God who loves, but not at the same time. And if he is sometimes loving, sometime not, then he cannot have the identity of a God of love.

Well, you're right about one thing: the all-thing can ONLY have the identity of all things. Just that; nothing more.

The God that isn't present in the cat, the cloud, you, any and every corporeal or material substance, non-corporeal concept, and even the space between atoms, is not omnipresent. God that isn't presently suffering and loving at the same time isn't omnipresent either.

"Presence" is inherent of a subjective perspective. "God" has a subjective perspective on every thing that exists ("is", the whole "I am" bit), expressed in being (creation).

Which is to say that the omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient "God" is an image of immanence. To treat it otherwise is the fallacy I mentioned earlier.

Thank you - and you too

! :newyear:

Woohoo! The end of the Naughts!

 

[Willamena]

No.
No possible agreement on abstract Creator.
There is no Creator.
Creation created itself.

So... creation is the Creator. But doesn't that mean there is precisely an abstract Creator?

 

[blackout]

The power to fail is a contradiction, as is the power to feel pain and suffer, which appeals to anthropomorphism and implies that God is corporeal.

The ALL gOd IS (also) corporeal.

Are you and I not part of ALL?

 

[Willamena]

The power to fail is a contradiction

Whew! That's a relief. Good to know we can never go wrong (oh, wait... I already beleived that).

'Allow himself'! An omnipotent God that must 'allow himself all things'! God has all things, by definition.

As I indicated earlier, you seem to be missing the whole "omnipresent" thing!

I didn't say "allow himself all things," I said the God who is all things must "allow himself". Being all things (creation) there is no alternative.

To "have" (possess), on the other hand, points to the image I mentioned earlier of a "God" that is not present as all things. Omnipresence, then, is lacking.

*Waves back at Vi's little toe*

 

[blackout]

If you suggest an image of God that exerts power as from from a place "beyond", and is immune from this world because he is there, in that place "beyond", then that is to deny omnipresence.

I agree completely.

An omnipresent gOd MUST be everywhere, present as/in All things,
in order to BE "omnipresent".

As such an omnipresent gOd would ALSO be present as/in transcendence.

 

[djewleu]

Well.
More rhetorical hogwash.
If there were an omnipresent deity, we would see IT with our human eyes!
We don't.
Therefore, goodbye omnipresent theory!

 

[cottage]

As I indicated earlier, you seem to be missing the whole "omnipresent" thing!

I didn't say "allow himself all things," I said the God who is all things must "allow himself". Being all things (creation) there is no alternative.

‘The God who is all things must allow himself.’ What is that supposed to mean?

To "have" (possess), on the other hand, points to the image I mentioned earlier of a "God" that is not present as all things. Omnipresence, then, is lacking.

God is omnipotent and all-sufficient, and therefore wants for nothing; he has everything. And God is always present. I don’t know what you mean by ‘in all things.’

 

[cottage]

Well, you're right about one thing: the all-thing can ONLY have the identity of all things. Just that; nothing more.

Here you are confusing identity with characteristics. Certainly all things may be said to identify God by the characteristics we attribute to him. For if he is the cause of all things then it must be correct to say his handprints are seen everywhere in the world. But God’s identity is the Absolutely Necessary Being. If the world and everything within it fell into non-existence tomorrow God’s identity wouldn’t be affected in the least.

The God that isn't present in the cat, the cloud, you, any and every corporeal or material substance, non-corporeal concept, and even the space between atoms, is not omnipresent.

I’m sorry but that is not correct. Omnipresent means God is everywhere, always, all seeing, never absent and continually aware. It does not mean he is the physical manifestation of things, which would self-evidently contradict his identity.

God that isn't presently suffering and loving at the same time isn't omnipresent either.

It makes no sense to speak of an omnipotent, necessarily existing creator who suffers, since what exists is what he created! The concept of God self-harming, needlessly, is absurd beyond words.

"Presence" is inherent of a subjective perspective. "God" has a subjective perspective on every thing that exists ("is", the whole "I am" bit), expressed in being (creation).

The above is not clearly expressed, but I think I know what it is you are saying. And it does make sense to say God is understood or perceived in everything, for that is the nature of belief.

Which is to say that the omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient "God" is an image of immanence. To treat it otherwise is the fallacy I mentioned earlier.

Sorry, but don’t know what you mean by ‘an image of immanence’. And please explain the fallacy you keep referring to?

 

[cottage]

Based on your posts (as I recollect them, both on this and other threads), you don't believe in a Supreme Being at all. Since I do, and since I believe in the Abrahamic God, I base my beliefs on what the Bible says about Him. It refers to Him as feeling love, anger, and other emotions. To you, emotions appear to be some sort of flaw that we humans have. I see God as having all of the emotions we have, but being able to channel them and express them appropriately, whereas we do not. I can't imagine a God who was incapable of love or compassion or any of the qualities we see as admirable. Why would anyone see such a being as being worthy of worship?

Of course we wouldn't need to experience evil if it didn't exist, but I still see it as necessary. Three examples: (1) Good health, for example, is a wonderful blessing, and I am grateful for every day I spend feeling good. If I had never been sick, though, I wouldn't give good health a second thought. It would be impossible for me to genuinely appreciate it. I see my ability to recognize and appreciate the good things of life as a direct result of my having experienced the not-so-good things of life. To me, opposites are essential to the human experience because we do benefit from both good and evil in the long run. (2) If we could succeed at everything we ever tried to accomplish with our first attempt, would we really find all that much pleasure in our accomplishments? Why are you happy when you are finally able to do something you've been unable to do for a long, long time? It's only because you have known failure (which can definitely be seen as an "evil" when it starts to affect our self-worth) that you can really relish success. (3) When someone you love dies, you're sad. Your sadness is directly related to the fact that you have lost something you valued. Sadness is virtually always seen as an "evil," but the only way you could avoid feeling sad by having lost someone you loved would be for you not have to felt love in the first place. Would you really want to never have felt love for someone else or have had someone love you? Would the absence of sorrow that comes with death really be worth the absence of love?

Well then we appear to agree on one thing.

I’ve been visiting and contributing to this site since April of this year. With hindsight I should have introduced myself, as I see there is a facility for doing just that, and it might then have addressed a few misconceptions. You say that based on my posts I don’t believe in a Supreme Being at all. Not quite. I don’t believe in a Supreme Being, but that is not to say such a being is logically impossible, depending of course on the case that is put forward. I have no religious beliefs at all and I’m interested only in the arguments. I’ve been studying the philosophy of religion over a period of thirteen years, five of which I spent arguing the case for God, as that was the most challenging (an acquaintance described me as a ‘closet theist’).

And now I’m looking at religious beliefs from the other point of view, the sceptical one. I’m aware that while for me it is only about language, propositions and logic, for others the subject has very real meaning. This was brought home to me when a fellow student had to withdraw from a course because she could not reconcile arguments that were philosophically questioning of her deeply held beliefs. May I say that no insult or derision is ever intended on my part and I respect your views unconditionally.

I don’t consider emotions to be a flaw, but as a necessity, a human necessity, because of the way we are made and the way the world is made, and I believe it is mistaken to apply those traits to an omnipotent God. And nor do I understand the need for worship. Surely if there is a just, wise, and all-sufficient God, who has our best interests at heart, why should we to need to make pleas and glorify him? And why would he expect it?

With respect I believe it is completely wrong-headed to think there can be no good without the existence of evil. (I have an argument to that end, but I won’t inflict it on you now.) However, to make a case for what is good on the back of evil is understandable, given that evil exists and we have to make the best of our world. But there are appalling moral implications with the argument that using evil as a stepping-stone to achieve self-betterment is itself a good thing. It is good to care for someone who is suffering, but the goodness is dependent upon the sufferer. Would we really want there to be suffering just so we can demonstrate our goodness? And love and affection don’t require the existence evil and suffering. A world containing evil and suffering exists not because of any logical necessity. There is no suffering in heaven; so why is there suffering on earth? The answer must be because God ordained it, and his creation was meant to suffer.

 

[djewleu]

The teaching that there is heaven where no suffering exists is the result of trying to explain the evil on Earth. In that attempt, God was invented to offer us a better proposition after our death. The imponderables are: heaven, evil, God, Satan, punishment, reward, etc. All that is important part of a religion's menu to materialize the invisible.

 

[Thief]

So...this discussion is breaking down to what God is not.

The title of this thread has one word in brackets.
We are no longer making argument accordingly.

Are we to continue...there is no compassionate God?
Or do we continue...there is no God?