Religions have succeeded

[ProfessorDavey]

No, maximally means he knows all the knowledge that it is possible to know and more than anything else can know. How then can he questioned?

Knowing everything is not the same as being omnipotent - an entity may know things but be unable to control them. Omnipotent means that the entity is able to do anything - that isn't the same as knowing everything.

[Sebastian Toe]

Knowing everything is not the same as being omnipotent - an entity may know things but be unable to control them. Omnipotent means that the entity is able to do anything - that isn't the same as knowing everything.

If you know everything that there is to know then doesn't that include knowing how to control everything?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If he knows everything, that's omniscience, surely? I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're wanting to convey, here.

O.

If he knows everything, that's omniscience, surely? I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're wanting to convey, here.

O.

I said I preferred the word maximal because it limits to the possible whereas in the world of omni you can slip in some logical impossibilities. Whether I am doing the right thing or not but eliminating inclusion of logical impossibilities seems the responsible thing to do.
That said I did say earlier that Omipotentiality, omniscience and omnipresence are pretty straightforward to define. Not so omnibenevolence which is in a different category from the first 3 I would move.

Since the prefix Omni comes from Greek I'm not sure it is as thoroughly biblical as terms such as the most as in ''the most high'' and certainly Anselm's work suggests '' maximal''.

[jeremyp]

No, maximally means he knows all the knowledge that it is possible to know and more than anything else can know. How then can he questioned?

Hey God. Why didn't you ban slavery in the Ten Commandments?

Seems it's pretty easy to question your god no matter how omni-whatever he is.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hi Vg,

Unfortunately for me this approach runs into major difficulties. Why would such a god create a world where suffering and moral choices aren't necessarily related at all? What about babies and very young children who are not yet capable of making such choices? What about the suffering of animals? What about the many instances of natural disasters that seemingly cause indiscriminate suffering and/or death? What about those who do not understand loss or hardship yet live their lives in comfort and well being? How has humanity been able to relieve or eradicate some of the natural forms of suffering when such a god could surely have done as well as humanity at the very least?

Hi Enki - yes would agree that the suffering and moral choices are not necessarily linked - I assume you mean that the people who suffer are not necessarily suffering because of a moral choice they have made i.e. bad things happen to innocent people.

So would agree that the belief is that god could have intervened and didn't.

Which leaves people with the options of not believing in the existence of a god, or deciding that if such a god did exist they are not worthy of worship, or believing in such a god and worshipping such a god despite the lack of intervention. I think taking any of those positions would be valid. The third option, which makes the least sense to you is valid if you believe in a  higher power and accept a hierarchy. The not knowing why there was no intervention by the higher power is a component of the belief as the unknowable is I think part of the appeal of something that you consider higher than yourself.

Yes, I understand that many people can find comfort in a belief and yes, it may help them to make seemingly moral decisions, and yes, it may help them to withstand and deal with the hardships of life, but I don't see why a person's moral outlook has to be predicated on the bad things in a world which has been created by such a god.

If I have understood you correctly, then agree you don't need a god to be able to arrive at moral beliefs. After all, atheists can see bad things happen to good people, and they can and do help alleviate suffering.

I was trying to say that I think believing in a god who could intervene but doesn't would add a slightly different aspect to moral values - the hierarchy, the unknowable "why" , a final judgement as well as the other ideas that go along with the belief would I think alter a person's perspective. For example, from my understanding of Islamic teachings, Muslims have a concept of a day of judgement after death so may view their suffering here as a way of lessening the punishment for any moral failings on that day of judgement.

As I said above, I think it's perfectly reasonable to not want anything to do with such ideas of hierarchy and judgement. But if a person is ok with this kind of hierarchy and judgement and the idea of a higher power, that's presumably why they are ok with a higher power who could intervene but doesn't and they are ok with not knowing why god doesn't intervene. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hey God. Why didn't you ban slavery in the Ten Commandments?

Seems it's pretty easy to question your god no matter how omni-whatever he is.

Are you asking him or me?

[Spud]

Hey God. Why didn't you ban slavery in the Ten Commandments?

Seems it's pretty easy to question your god no matter how omni-whatever he is.

Essentially he did, in Exodus 21:16. Perhaps we should interpret the other references to slavery in the light of that verse?

[ProfessorDavey]

If you know everything that there is to know then doesn't that include knowing how to control everything?

Not necessary - as it may still be beyond your abilities.

[Sebastian Toe]

Not necessary - as it may still be beyond your abilities.

Beyond the abilities of something that created the universe, spacetime, souls, life etc?

[Dicky Underpants]

Essentially he did, in Exodus 21:16. Perhaps we should interpret the other references to slavery in the light of that verse?

It's a strange paradox for those who are quick to condemn the Old Testament for being more barbaric than the New (cf. Leviticus 19:33,34, which has parallel sentiments). In the NT, of course, we have Saint Paul calling for 'slaves to obey their masters'. This of course can be understood in the light of his oft repeated belief that the Second Coming was imminent, and therefore slaves would soon be released from their bonds (provided they were believers) and take their place among the redeemed. Unfortunately, with Christians indefinitely postponing the expected date of the Second Coming, this left a loophole for slave-holders down the centuries.
"Amazing Grace" indeed! Composed on a slave-ship, I believe.

[Dicky Underpants]

So are you saying that morality is real? And this reality is being distorted? And know what's really right and wrong?Even though it has been said that we can't know that until the end of history?

That invokes questions of what constitutes a 'self', and whether we can talk about 'eternal selves' without reference to people's past sufferings, which most would say constitute what we are or what we have become, just as much as our pleasures and joys. If indeed the 'Lord shall wipe all the tears from their eyes' and 'The former things shall pass away', what is there to preserve any identity? Back to questions about immortal souls and their relation to this world.

[Dicky Underpants]

I said I preferred the word maximal because it limits to the possible whereas in the world of omni you can slip in some logical impossibilities. Whether I am doing the right thing or not but eliminating inclusion of logical impossibilities seems the responsible thing to do.
That said I did say earlier that Omipotentiality, omniscience and omnipresence are pretty straightforward to define. Not so omnibenevolence which is in a different category from the first 3 I would move.

Since the prefix Omni comes from Greek I'm not sure it is as thoroughly biblical as terms such as the most as in ''the most high'' and certainly Anselm's work suggests '' maximal''.

Perhaps you should amplify Anselm's ideas for us. Seems to hinge on the idea of the most maximally perfect being that we can imagine, which of course would be less than a maximally perfect being that actually existed - and therefore.....

btw. pedantry alert - 'omni' comes from the Latin 'omnis'. 'Pan' is the Greek equivalent. I'll get me coat.

[ProfessorDavey]

Beyond the abilities of something that created the universe, spacetime, souls, life etc?

But that is drifting into the territory of omnipotent isn't it.

I see no fundamental issue with something having full knowledge but for the things they have knowledge of to be outside of their ability to control.

[Sebastian Toe]

But that is drifting into the territory of omnipotent isn't it.

I see no fundamental issue with something having full knowledge but for the things they have knowledge of to be outside of their ability to control.

The question I would ask then is are the things which cannot be controlled?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps you should amplify Anselm's ideas for us. Seems to hinge on the idea of the most maximally perfect being that we can imagine, which of course would be less than a maximally perfect being that actually existed - and therefore.....

btw. pedantry alert - 'omni' comes from the Latin 'omnis'. 'Pan' is the Greek equivalent. I'll get me coat.

Thank's for putting me straight linguistically, Pants. The thing here I am borrowing from Anselm is the term 'maximal' rather than his use of the term 'imagine'. The maximally perfect being I can imagine of course is Richard Dawkins who is not omniperfect because he has spawned many of the grotesque denizens of this message board........but near perfect and great hair.

[Dicky Underpants]

Thank's for putting me straight linguistically, Pants. The thing here I am borrowing from Anselm is the term 'maximal' rather than his use of the term 'imagine'. The maximally perfect being I can imagine of course is Richard Dawkins who is not omniperfect because he has spawned many of the grotesque denizens of this message board........but near perfect and great hair.

Oh gawd. Not the bloody Dawkins obsession again!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh gawd. Not the bloody Dawkins obsession again!

I'm afraid so.

[Spud]

It's a strange paradox for those who are quick to condemn the Old Testament for being more barbaric than the New (cf. Leviticus 19:33,34, which has parallel sentiments). In the NT, of course, we have Saint Paul calling for 'slaves to obey their masters'. This of course can be understood in the light of his oft repeated belief that the Second Coming was imminent, and therefore slaves would soon be released from their bonds (provided they were believers) and take their place among the redeemed. Unfortunately, with Christians indefinitely postponing the expected date of the Second Coming, this left a loophole for slave-holders down the centuries.
"Amazing Grace" indeed! Composed on a slave-ship, I believe.

I can't find that anywhere in the NT. It is more for the sake of godly living that slaves are taught to obey their masters, and their heavenly reward.

The Israelites were commanded not to kidnap for the purpose of slavery, but someone could still find himself unjustly enslaved. They could also become a slave due to poverty.

[Dicky Underpants]

I can't find that anywhere in the NT. It is more for the sake of godly living that slaves are taught to obey their masters, and their heavenly reward.

The Israelites were commanded not to kidnap for the purpose of slavery, but someone could still find himself unjustly enslaved. They could also become a slave due to poverty.

What can't you find anywhere in the New Testament?

[Spud]

What can't you find anywhere in the New Testament?

"Slaves, obey your masters because soon Jesus will return so you won't be slaves anymore".

[Dicky Underpants]

"Slaves, obey your masters because soon Jesus will return so you won't be slaves anymore*.

I said it could clearly be interpreted in the light of St Paul's oft-repeated belief in the imminent return of Jesus. Likewise, St Paul's suggestion that the unmarried stay so, for the same reason. He of course added the proviso "It is better to marry than to burn" (if you can't control your urges).

[Enki]

Hi Enki - yes would agree that the suffering and moral choices are not necessarily linked - I assume you mean that the people who suffer are not necessarily suffering because of a moral choice they have made i.e. bad things happen to innocent people.

So would agree that the belief is that god could have intervened and didn't.

Which leaves people with the options of not believing in the existence of a god, or deciding that if such a god did exist they are not worthy of worship, or believing in such a god and worshipping such a god despite the lack of intervention. I think taking any of those positions would be valid. The third option, which makes the least sense to you is valid if you believe in a  higher power and accept a hierarchy. The not knowing why there was no intervention by the higher power is a component of the belief as the unknowable is I think part of the appeal of something that you consider higher than yourself.

Hi VG,

I think you put your point of view very clearly and I have no objection to anything you say here. I basically agree that if I believed in this all powerful god then I too would probably take your third option. Can I just say though that my own lack of belief in any god is not as a result of the problem of evil, although it would, for me, create all the difficulties I have mentioned in previous posts.

If I have understood you correctly, then agree you don't need a god to be able to arrive at moral beliefs. After all, atheists can see bad things happen to good people, and they can and do help alleviate suffering.

Yes, nor necessarily does a person's morality depend on bad things.

I was trying to say that I think believing in a god who could intervene but doesn't would add a slightly different aspect to moral values - the hierarchy, the unknowable "why" , a final judgement as well as the other ideas that go along with the belief would I think alter a person's perspective. For example, from my understanding of Islamic teachings, Muslims have a concept of a day of judgement after death so may view their suffering here as a way of lessening the punishment for any moral failings on that day of judgement.

I do accept what you say of course but with one proviso, especially amongst some Christians, where this supposed 'day of judgement' is weaponised to try to instill fear into the unbeliever.

As I said above, I think it's perfectly reasonable to not want anything to do with such ideas of hierarchy and judgement. But if a person is ok with this kind of hierarchy and judgement and the idea of a higher power, that's presumably why they are ok with a higher power who could intervene but doesn't and they are ok with not knowing why god doesn't intervene.

Obviously not for me, but I do understand the idea that if one wholeheartedly believes in such a deity then it would follow that such problems as that of the presence of evil in the world could well be accepted as part of the mystery surrounding such a deity.

 

[Spud]

I said it could clearly be interpreted in the light of St Paul's oft-repeated belief in the imminent return of Jesus. Likewise, St Paul's suggestion that the unmarried stay so, for the same reason. He of course added the proviso "It is better to marry than to burn" (if you can't control your urges).

I think you're thinking of, *What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not" (1 Cor 7:29)?
My other point in #667 still stands.

[Dicky Underpants]

I think you're thinking of, *What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not" (1 Cor 7:29)?
My other point in #667 still stands.

Well, he also wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman" (well that may be a quote from some of his followers, but since quotation marks are missing in manuscripts, we can't know.) and "I wish that all were as I myself am" i.e. unmarried.

As for the slaves and masters relationship, by your interpretation you are making yourself complicit with those "Christians" down the centuries who have thought it within the morality of their beliefs to hold and trade in slaves. I, at least, was giving St Paul the benefit of the doubt by saying he was only suggesting that they did not come out in open rebellion, but hold on for a bit longer, since the world would soon come to an end and the whole system would be overthrown with the establishment of Christ's Kingdom. One could hardly claim that St Paul's doomsday thoughts were at the back of his mind, since he first expressed them in 1Thessalonians, his earliest epistle, and was still expressing them in Romans, his last.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hi VG,

I think you put your point of view very clearly and I have no objection to anything you say here. I basically agree that if I believed in this all powerful god then I too would probably take your third option. Can I just say though that my own lack of belief in any god is not as a result of the problem of evil, although it would, for me, create all the difficulties I have mentioned in previous posts.


Yes, nor necessarily does a person's morality depend on bad things.

I do accept what you say of course but with one proviso, especially amongst some Christians, where this supposed 'day of judgement' is weaponised to try to instill fear into the unbeliever.


Obviously not for me, but I do understand the idea that if one wholeheartedly believes in such a deity then it would follow that such problems as that of the presence of evil in the world could well be accepted as part of the mystery surrounding such a deity.

Hi Enki - yes IMO the belief comes first based on some kind of interpretation of a personal experience, rather than people reasoning themselves into belief based on explanations of morality. Similar to you, my lack of belief was not due to the evil in the world. I think my lack of belief was because the concept had no appeal or coherence. Now I don't mind that it doesn't have coherence.

I am not sure what you mean by a person's morality not depending on bad things. How would we establish that? The world has always contained bad things so people cannot be free of being aware of the problems in the world that they or other individuals have to deal with and that would presumably have an influence on their morality?

Regarding the fear of judgement, I don't think it should be weaponised and used to beat people with but I think fear as an emotion can be healthy and quite a useful motivator in many areas of life, including religion, if it's not excessive and becomes crippling anxiety or prevents independent thought or questioning authority.