Post by Aj_June on Aug 8, 2018 19:42:18 GMT
general313
Yes, my ideas or definitions of God are very much in accordance with the actual monotheistic religions because I have specifically used the word monotheistic god in my thread title. Almost all real monotheists in the world are followers of one of those religions (Judaism, Sikhism, certain sects of Hinduism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Islam and other smaller monotheist religions that believes in omniscient god such as Bahá'í). On this board we basically look forward to constructive debate between theists and atheists based on their real beliefs/actions. I find it more fruitful and relevant to discuss the actual monotheist god rather then creating imaginary cases which are not followed in real world. For that reason when we discuss monotheistic God we have to accept certain attributes of God as described by real proponents of monotheism. Attributes such as all-powerful god and dispenser of Justice. Yes, there are 1000s of gods in mythology who have nothing to do with dispensing justice but how many actual examples are of monotheistic Gods who have nothing to do with dispensing final justice to all beings? One thing I should make clear before we proceed – my approach in these discussions is pretty much like the approach you have to carry in a formal exam like setting such as in solving a LSAT logical reasoning question. You have to take premise as given. So if the monotheistic God claims to be dispenser of justice based on his supernatural powers then I won't start attacking his/her supernatural powers itself. I will accept that he/she has the ability to observe all his/her creation and know everything.
That’s a a very good point you have made and I give it to you that you basically found me making a claim that doesn’t flow from my premise. Dispenser of justice means God can observe what Aj and Smith have done all their lives and give justice according to how they have lived. You are basically suggesting that God’s supernatural abilities of observing everyone and what they are doing still doesn’t mean God knows everything. It only suggests that God knows everything humans or other living beings do in the universe created by God. I should have worded myself better and I apologise for mixing up two different concepts. That said, the definition of Omniscience is “the capacity to know everything that there is to know.” As such a human can imagine numbers that tend to be close to infinite. God has capacity to know such things and thus having the capacity to process infinite information makes a monotheistic God infinite too (only an infinite being can process infinite information).
As for the Omnipotence paradox, I believe the adherents of monotheistic religions do debate only the nature of omnipotence or omniscience not the existence of omnipotence and omniscience.
I don't even accept that a monotheistic God cannot be born. In many ways that one might define God (say, as one that has awesome "godlike" powers), it's perfectly conceivable that such a being could develop from humbler origins.
That is fine. But if you create not-all powerful God (but merely powerful enough “godlike”) then what is stopping in such a universe from another entity at some point of time in future from becoming another very powerful entity with “godlike” powers. But when that happens, wouldn’t the whole concept of monotheism will be contradicted because another God will emerge? [As an aside this discussion now opens up room for another topic called “monism”. God similar to Monothestic Gods who allows others to become like her based on achieving knowledge; I might start a separate thread for it).
I don't accept your first sentence. It seems your argument is resting on ideas or definitions of God held by the mostly well-known monotheistic religions, but even in that case there is debate among their adherents (at least for Christianity; see Omnipotence paradox). And more generally, why does a "sole dispenser of justice" necessarily need to know everything?
Yes, my ideas or definitions of God are very much in accordance with the actual monotheistic religions because I have specifically used the word monotheistic god in my thread title. Almost all real monotheists in the world are followers of one of those religions (Judaism, Sikhism, certain sects of Hinduism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Islam and other smaller monotheist religions that believes in omniscient god such as Bahá'í). On this board we basically look forward to constructive debate between theists and atheists based on their real beliefs/actions. I find it more fruitful and relevant to discuss the actual monotheist god rather then creating imaginary cases which are not followed in real world. For that reason when we discuss monotheistic God we have to accept certain attributes of God as described by real proponents of monotheism. Attributes such as all-powerful god and dispenser of Justice. Yes, there are 1000s of gods in mythology who have nothing to do with dispensing justice but how many actual examples are of monotheistic Gods who have nothing to do with dispensing final justice to all beings? One thing I should make clear before we proceed – my approach in these discussions is pretty much like the approach you have to carry in a formal exam like setting such as in solving a LSAT logical reasoning question. You have to take premise as given. So if the monotheistic God claims to be dispenser of justice based on his supernatural powers then I won't start attacking his/her supernatural powers itself. I will accept that he/she has the ability to observe all his/her creation and know everything.
why does a "sole dispenser of justice" necessarily need to know everything?
That’s a a very good point you have made and I give it to you that you basically found me making a claim that doesn’t flow from my premise. Dispenser of justice means God can observe what Aj and Smith have done all their lives and give justice according to how they have lived. You are basically suggesting that God’s supernatural abilities of observing everyone and what they are doing still doesn’t mean God knows everything. It only suggests that God knows everything humans or other living beings do in the universe created by God. I should have worded myself better and I apologise for mixing up two different concepts. That said, the definition of Omniscience is “the capacity to know everything that there is to know.” As such a human can imagine numbers that tend to be close to infinite. God has capacity to know such things and thus having the capacity to process infinite information makes a monotheistic God infinite too (only an infinite being can process infinite information).
As for the Omnipotence paradox, I believe the adherents of monotheistic religions do debate only the nature of omnipotence or omniscience not the existence of omnipotence and omniscience.
I don't even accept that a monotheistic God cannot be born. In many ways that one might define God (say, as one that has awesome "godlike" powers), it's perfectly conceivable that such a being could develop from humbler origins.
That is fine. But if you create not-all powerful God (but merely powerful enough “godlike”) then what is stopping in such a universe from another entity at some point of time in future from becoming another very powerful entity with “godlike” powers. But when that happens, wouldn’t the whole concept of monotheism will be contradicted because another God will emerge? [As an aside this discussion now opens up room for another topic called “monism”. God similar to Monothestic Gods who allows others to become like her based on achieving knowledge; I might start a separate thread for it).