FredP Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Why does God have to be all powerful? If God isn't all powerful, then there is some other Being, or Force, or Reality, or Whatever Have You, that has some power God doesn't have, and is therefore more powerful than God. So then why isn't this other Being, Reality, etc. called God? At some point you have to employ a workable definition of Godness, or else God is just somebody's name, so why not call him Bill or Steve or Ethel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 so why not call him Bill or Steve or Ethel? ROFLMAO! Sorry, but that was TOO FUNNY. I couldn't help myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Why does God have to be all powerful? If God isn't all powerful, then there is some other Being, or Force, or Reality, or Whatever Have You, that has some power God doesn't have, and is therefore more powerful than God. So then why isn't this other Being, Reality, etc. called God? At some point you have to employ a workable definition of Godness, or else God is just somebody's name, so why not call him Bill or Steve or Ethel? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think it is known as Physics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidD Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Why does God have to be all powerful? So then why isn't this other Being, Reality, etc. called God? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe because the ultimate creator is too impersonal or otherwise distant from us to be of interest? For many years I would have guessed that "God" and "good" had the same root. It's not the case. One day I finally happened to look through the section on Indo-European roots in my dictionary from college. "God" is from gheu-, meaning to call or to invoke. It is about something one can interact with, even too much as the Germanic word meaning possessed by God became "giddy" in English. I would rather be devoted to God, whoever and whatever God is, than to a character in a book or to something constructed by philosophers to be the ultimate in all things. Why are they any better than astrologers at their work? I'm sure there's something greater than me worth calling God. I don't know why that God should conform to what people just as human as I am insist God must be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 If God isn't all powerful, then there is some other Being, or Force, or Reality, or Whatever Have You, that has some power God doesn't have, and is therefore more powerful than God. So then why isn't this other Being, Reality, etc. called God? I think it is known as Physics Physics isn't more powerful than God: physics is God, crammed into mathematical form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 (edited) I would rather be devoted to God, whoever and whatever God is, than to a character in a book or to something constructed by philosophers to be the ultimate in all things. Why are they any better than astrologers at their work? I'm sure there's something greater than me worth calling God. I don't know why that God should conform to what people just as human as I am insist God must be. Personally, I'm just not sure how one can be "devoted to God, whoever and whatever God is," without having any idea -- or any conceivable way of finding out -- whoever and whatever God is. If you view the philosophical exploration of God as no better than astrology, then I guess "something greater than me" is probably the best you can hope for. If it works for you, then nobody's "insisting" that you change. On the other hand, just because I'm human, and the philosophers who have influenced me are human, doesn't mean that all ideas about God are worthless. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I am a philosopher, and I have to defend my turf a little. Edited November 22, 2005 by FredP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidD Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 I would rather be devoted to God, whoever and whatever God is, than to a character in a book or to something constructed by philosophers to be the ultimate in all things. Why are they any better than astrologers at their work? I'm sure there's something greater than me worth calling God. I don't know why that God should conform to what people just as human as I am insist God must be. Personally, I'm just not sure how one can be "devoted to God, whoever and whatever God is," without having any idea -- or any conceivable way of finding out -- whoever and whatever God is. If you view the philosophical exploration of God as no better than astrology, then I guess "something greater than me" is probably the best you can hope for. If it works for you, then nobody's "insisting" that you change. On the other hand, just because I'm human, and the philosophers who have influenced me are human, doesn't mean that all ideas about God are worthless. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I am a philosopher, and I have to defend my turf a little. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Now why do you assume that "whoever and whatever God is" means that you know God better than I do? I see many people who state their views of God without equivocation, and I find no way of putting them all together. So someone doesn't know what they are talking about. Can I figure out who? What would I have if I did that, just some man's opinion, and it still might be wrong. I believe the Holy Spirit helps me learn about God, empirically, in intellectual ways, practical ways, through everyday experiences, through spiritual experiences, through prayer, lots of things. I wasn't making a statement of agnosticism. I was saying that I will never know enough to proclaim the TRUTH about God as many pretend to do. My devotion is what's important, not the knowledge of every last detail of who and what God is. God told me so, in more ways than one. Interesting that you assume that I was talking about having no idea of God and no conceivable way of finding out. Perhaps you overstated yourself. Astrologers developed a model of reality that is ridiculous to someone with direct experience of what they claim. They claim the zodiac is divided into 12 even parts. It is not. In fact there are 13 constellations along the ecliptic, varying wildly in size. The sun signs published in newspapers are 2000 years out of date, the Earth having precessed in the meantime, making almost everyone's sign off by one. With cold hard facts are far off as this, why bother trying to figure out if there is any conceivable truth to their other claims. Philosophical approaches to religion do indeed remind me of astrology. They have built up this God of absolute power (not everyone is as you in what omnipotence means to them), absolute knowledge, absolute goodness, and absolute love. I haven't seen this God in my exploration of Him. I can't be as concrete about what the problem is as I can with astrology, but I see a similar attitude, that purveyors of this method prefer their traditions to empiricism. If all we have is words, we won't learn anything. Hasn't the scientific revolution taught at least that much? I didn't say all ideas about God are worthless, did I? I have said elsewhere that I prefer to have one attribute to start on who God is. I understand the tradition that this starts with creation. I'm sure that the authors of Genesis were doing the best they could 3000 years ago to start this way. But it is now 3000 years hence, and my relationship with God started elsewhere. You may feel secure making fun of the helper God. That's up to you. I meant the Helper of John 14: 16-17. If you don't think He can teach me anything about God, then we are indeed speaking diifferent languages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Dave, I haven't seen anyone in this thread insist that God is absolutely a certain way. Just because we are discussing God's potential attributes doesn't mean that we necessarily even believe them. We are discussing IDEAS as far as I can tell and even then, there is massive confusion and misunderstandings. For example: I wouldn't equate my idea of a "bell boy God" with your helper God at all. I believe deeply in the Holy Spirit and that it helps me all the time. What I don't believe in is a God who is expected to help my favorite football team win, find my keys and a parking spot at the mall, bless my country (but not any others) and make me win the lottery. That is what I mean by "bell boy God." Perhaps that IS what you mean by helper God. If so, I don't mean to offend. I'm just discussing MY empirical observations that God does not work that way. I'm a little confused by your attitude towards philosophy. Any person who has any idea about God, who then discusses his ideas about God, is "philosophizing". Many philosophers start their discussions based on an empirical observation. They then discuss that observation. Why is that a bad thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 I find it rather unnecessary to wrap all my ideas about God in the disclaimer, "I believe, but am not certain, that God might be like ___." Isn't that implied in the fact that I'm saying something, that it's my opinion? If I'm making a suggestion, it seems clear enough to everyone else that I'm offering my opinion, not trying to shove it down their throat. At the same time, I'm going to defend my opinion, because, well, it's my opinion. If I didn't believe it was correct, it wouldn't be my opinion, now would it? Moreover, I haven't tried to tell anyone that I know God better than they do. Even my philosophical ideas about God are just ideas. Even if they're right, it doesn't mean that I know God at all. In fact, truth be told, I'd give up all the ideas I might think I have for one tiny taste of that blessed union with the All in All. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 As far as I can see there is only one person who has made definitive statements on this thread regarding the nature of G-d and his/her universe. I attempted to point out at the beginning of this discussion (?) how really futile it was to make such definitive, and hence, self-limiting claims; and, I believe that we're all experiencing this futility first hand as this thread tries to progress. We simply do not know enough yet about the infinite and all-encompassing nature of G-d. We may only surmise what certain clues to this information exist in the past and that are available to us for examination and interpretation. That examination and interpretation may be aired and discussed, and we may name that process as philosophisizing as to the nature of G-d. But attacking another's position in such discussions always degrades the process into bickering which results in circular discussions that are inherently non-productive. Here's an example of factual information that could be discussed and extrapolated into a feasable assumption or two as to the nature of G-d. Did you know that the devices that Joseph Smith, a former Congregationalist and the founder of the Mormon faith, used to interpret the golden plates that he found on Mt Cumorah were the very same that the high priest of the Hebrews used to interpret information received from G-d in the holy of holies in the desert tabernacle? They were called the urim and thummim. The same device names have been cited both in the OT record and in histories written regarding the early days of Mormonism. The context in which they were used is not entirely clear. But the record states that the user "gave urim and gave thummim" in order to obtain information from G-d. The Hebrew priest, and only once a year the chief/king of the Hebrews, alone were allowed to enter the holy of holies and ask questions that were answered by light emanations that shown forth from the Ark of the Covenant; and, when manipulated through the "giving of urim and thummim" gave answers to the questions that were able to be understood by the questioners. It might be worthwhile to discuss why this similarity separated by thousands of years exists, and what that tells us regarding the nature of G-d. I have found that such harmonic convergences (you may call them coincidences) are likely not coincidental. Consider that this similarity in usage occured in the context of interpreting sacred words. Why wouldn't the devices be useful to someone who is trying to interpret the nature of the unknown chemical contents of a can of Red Bull? Because that IS NOT the context in which these devices appeared when one considers the historical record. Philosophical discussions about known facts = GOOD. Bickering = BAD flow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 The Wise and Wonderful Flow has spoken! (Please ignore the man behind the curtain.) The yin/yang kid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 METAPHYSICAL MYTHOLOGIZERS CANNOT BE IGNORED. GRRRRRRRRR! flow......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Marshall Posted November 28, 2005 Author Share Posted November 28, 2005 As far as I can see there is only one person who has made definitive statements on this thread regarding the nature of G-d and his/her universe. I attempted to point out at the beginning of this discussion (?) how really futile it was to make such definitive, and hence, self-limiting claims; and, I believe that we're all experiencing this futility first hand as this thread tries to progress. Is this a reference to my original post? If so, I'm not sure how the rest of your post relates to it. I was hoping that if this tentative statement of faith was in fact making unsupportable claims about God, people might want to say how and why. To look at some specifics rather than go round the houses simply in order to be dogmatically unspecific.. If you're saying we should say nothing whatever about God, I'm not sure how God or G-d can have any meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 Unfortunately, the thread took a (hopefully) temporary turn south last week. I apologize to DavidD for oversimplifying your perspective in some of my posts, and to anyone else who took my words divisively. If you're saying we should say nothing whatever about God, I'm not sure how God or G-d can have any meaning. There is a theological sense in which all our words about God ultimately do fall short, and so silence is the only precisely accurate response. But we can and must make statements that have some degree of practical or analogical value, and criticize statements that are misleading. All that to say: no, I don't think this discussion is futile. I read your original post as suggestive, for the purposes of stimulating discussion, and not as some sort of definitive claim that was meant to close the book on the nature of God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Marshall Posted November 28, 2005 Author Share Posted November 28, 2005 Thanks for the clarification, Fred. I wasn't meaning to appear critical of anyone, just unsure (again ) of quite what flow was getting at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 The fact that there are two different Daves (plus I'm married to one) participating in the discussion may have added to the confusion a bit. My last comments were directed at DaveD (in case that needed clarification). Did you guys know that there is a club for "Daves"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Marshall Posted November 28, 2005 Author Share Posted November 28, 2005 Did you guys know that there is a club for "Daves"? I didn't. Don't know that sharing a name is enough to make me want to join though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 If I gave the impression that philosophical speculation regarding the nature of G-d was futile, I wish to correct that impression. I was only stating that there are limits as to what may be speculated upon, and those limits are what, like it or not, we come to collectively know and accept regarding the universe we appear to exist in on a day-to-day basis. It is tempting to let speculative subject matter blur into the realms of the supposed or wished-for. But my experiences in an academic setting always limited speculation to known foundations of science in order to keep speculative imagineings (is there such a word ?) within the bounds of possibility. Of course one must also account for individual and collective personal experiences outside of the bounds of proven scientific fact when it comes to G-d speculations. I guess that's where the mystery stuff comes into the mix, and that's what makes these discussions so difficult, since we are all different in our realities and our experiences. I presented a known set of facts as an example of what might be a basis for philosophical specualtion regarding the nature of G-d. I find that the examination of such historical and factual convergenges to be the surest way to reach collective concurrences. Dave's a good name too! It reminds me of one of my favorite 90's films (speaking of convergences! ), but that's another set of speculations. Maybe we've all got twins somewhere on earth trying to find us. Scary!!!!! flow.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seminarian Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 I have a BIG problem with saying that only humans have eternal significance. I just don't get that at all. Upon what can we base this anthropocentrism besides pure egocentricity and a wish? Such anthropocentrism is precisely what has led us to destroy the natural environment and to treat our fellow creatures with horrific cruelty. We've got to expand our theological thinking beyond ourselves to consider all life on the planet... and even the cosmos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 I have a BIG problem with saying that only humans have eternal significance. I just don't get that at all. Upon what can we base this anthropocentrism besides pure egocentricity and a wish? Yeah, that had occured to me too. Humans do not have eternal significance to the exclusion of the rest of the cosmos. But I think we, along with whatever other sentient beings there may be, do have a certain special role and responsibility to the cosmos, by virtue of our capacities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 I have a BIG problem with saying that only humans have eternal significance. I just don't get that at all. Upon what can we base this anthropocentrism besides pure egocentricity and a wish? Yeah, that had occured to me too. Humans do not have eternal significance to the exclusion of the rest of the cosmos. But I think we, along with whatever other sentient beings there may be, do have a certain special role and responsibility to the cosmos, by virtue of our capacities. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, we were made in the image and likeness of "you know who" and designated as vice-regents (stewards) of what was made on this third ball of rock from the sun. I'd say if G-d is watching us from a distance (I love that Bet Midler recording !) then sh/he is probably pretty disgusted with what we're turning the creation here into. flow.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
des Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 To any Harry Potter fans, being made in the image and likeness of "You know who" would not be a good thing. :-) --des Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 To any Harry Potter fans, being made in the image and likeness of "You know who" would not be a good thing. :-) --des <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Never read a HarryPotter book, never plan to. Never watched a Harry Potter film, don't plan to. So I guess you could say that I made my statement in ignorance, but I'm not so sure I want to even know that much about Harry Potterology. But as one who works with young people you must know about Potterology to function in your role as a teacher these days; so, please explain why the phrase "you know who" would cause a problem for Potterologists flow..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
des Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 Well I am not into Harry Potter due to being a teacher. Not at all. I am a genuine unapologetic HP nut! I started out reading the books to my nephew and got hooked right away. I read one chapter to him at bedtime and wham! The movies don't do the writing any justice, btw. BTW, I don't think teen boys, which is mostly what I work with, are mostly into HP. Would be "kid stuff". Why are you so anti-Harry Potter, or is it just not your type of thing? Ok the term "You Know Who" is used by the majority of wizards to describe the most evil (perhaps almost a Satan figure-- no redeeming characteristics at all) wizard. They are afraid to say his name, which is obviously what he wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 des I'm not anti-Harry, I just find that I have other priorities for my time that are more important for me. Thanks for the information. I thought that it might have something to do with the head wizard. The secrecy of the name thing is interesting though considering the ancient Hebrews' prohibition on the use of the name of G-d. Again, thanks. flow.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.