What can God be held accountable for?

[MarcAC]

This amounts to "might makes right". Are we merely sycophants to god's power or do we have our own value? If we have no inherent value then there is no purpose to our existence. No point to "free-will". Creation becomes masturbation, nothing more than god making himself feel good for no intent or purpose. It is only when we have inherent value that our choices matter.

This seems to be an alternative version of original sin. We have value as referenced to God who created us with a purpose; that can be our "inherrent value". Our choices matter to God.

We may like to attribute our own purpose and live life the way we want, but then, that's just another version of the "truth for you" argument and then everyone starts stepping on each other's toes. In fact it amounts to "I make right". You step the way you want no matter how many toes you step on and no one can say anything about it because you have your "inherrent value" and "that's" it.

"Might makes right" is trying to put us on par with God. Judge Him by our standards with our knowledge. If God created, indeed, he has the final say; whether we like it or not.

 

[MarcAC]

My dictionary (the Random House College Dictionary) defines “omnipotent” as "infinite in power; having unlimited power".

Does that mean the omnipotent can do that which violates its nature?

 

[Nasor]

Does that mean the omnipotent can do that which violates its nature?

If one accepts the literal definition of “omnipotent” as “having unlimited power,” then yes, an omnipotent being could even violate his own nature – because if he couldn’t, it would be a limit on his power, which by definition is not possible.

In any case, I can't wait to hear your explanation for why it is "in god's nature" for him to allow a child to burn to death painfully in a fiery car wreck...

 

[MarcAC]

I can't wait to hear your explanation for why it is "in god's nature" for him to allow a child to burn to death painfully in a fiery car wreck...

Well we should remember that we have free will, and it has very, very, very huge implications with regards to a host of the problems people have with God's accountability. Why allow the parents the joy (assuming) of the birth of their own? Why allow the driver to drink alcohol, drive fast and crash (assuming)? Why not give the kid some temporary fire-proof skin so that it may live and whatever else die? Why not prevent cars being invented? Why not let the original Hitler die in fiery car wreck? Why not prevent human death?!?

I really don't know, but as stated previously, I sit in faith and wait my turn to learn. People are mortal; they die - simple physical laws. I won't say God can't break them; but I guess if He wills He will.
-

If one accepts the literal definition of “omnipotent” as “having unlimited power,” then yes, an omnipotent being could even violate his own nature – because if he couldn’t, it would be a limit on his power, which by definition is not possible.

Thus one arrives at the conclusion that an omnipotant being as defined by your Random dictionary doesn't exist. In fact, there may be no such thing as omnipotence as you seemingly understand your dictionary definition because then the being can both be omnipotent and "not omnipotent" at the same time. If you check some other dictionaries you may see that omnipotence may simply be regarded as being able to do all that is possible; in fact that may encompass your Random definition also.

Regardless, the limit you propose is of no consequence. If the being is omnipotent by nature and it can't be "not omnipotent" well... I really can't see how that "limit" affects its omnipotence in any way. Does it is hinder it in any way?

 

[cole grey]

Analogy -
A man builds 10 ships to allow people to fish for their survival. He knows two of the people he gives the boats to will use the boat to smuggle drugs. That is how life is. If you want to say we should all live on a rock candy mountain and never have to change our socks, that is kind of taking for granted that that is possible (an idea for which there is NO evidence).

Question - is the boat builder responsible? Is the smuggler responsible?

Will you commit to saying that the smuggler is ultimately not responsible, because the boat builder is responsible?

I think God is prepared to accept God's part of the culpability, AS LONG AS humanity will accept its own.

Although most people would immediately say that the boat builder is not at fault because he was simply doing what had to be done to allow the people to survive, I think it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate out guilt and attribute it completely to God or to humanity. Unless we are prepared to drop the simplistic viewpoint, the discussion is kind of a runaround.

 

[water]

I say,
If you attribute all creation to a specific god-abstraction; you attribute all failure to that specific god-abstraction's creation; to god.

I disagree. Because I do not think that God created "everything".

It is simple; IF; being creates something; being is responsible for such; including failures; as in “everything.”

For you, God is an if-being, but not for me.

Unless it created nothing; but it has been asserted (theologically) over and over; that this mystery if-god abstraction created everything.

No, I think this is a gross generalization, that has no basis other than "theistic nihilism".

again you are non sequitur.

Well, dandy, if *I* *am* a non sequitur, meaning that 1. I am, and 2. a non sequitur, then I defy determinism.
Wehee!

again you are non sequitur.

And again, I defy, with my very existence, universal determinism! Well, aren't I überkewl.

You and I (everything) are just the active illusion of memory in the mind of god.

Who says this?
You have just called me a non sequitur! Several times!

 

[MarcAC]

There is no will in a predetermined universe, were the god-abstraction is assumed to know all. You and I (everything) are just the active illusion of memory in the mind of god.

After reviewing some stuff I noticed this. Firstly, I post with regards for Christianity and the God Christians know - an assumed element of the "god-abstraction" as quoted above.

"Memory" is not a term I would consider applicable to God. Knowledge would be the term. Memory is applicable to a being constrained to our time frame(s). God naturally cannot be such.

Now there can be will in a universe which is ultimately predetermined, but not absolutely so. But if God knows all then it must be predetermined(!/?) Not particularly necessary. Let us consider the infamous English language for a few.

What is knowledge? The quoted idea would imply that knowledge somehow implies action. But then, if I say; "I know the Sun will rise tomorrow" did I make it rise? That would be the implication if the idea above was of any true substance.

We may assume that God created and allows the creation to evolve on its own, now and then intervening. We are free to effect the evolution of the universe as much as God allows us to; he simply knows what we will do. Doesn't mean it's already done or that he did it. He just knows it.

It's ultimately predetermined, yes, by us and by God. I think the main problem is noun/verb confusion.

 

[cole grey]

Itopal,

Sorry that you are missing out on a high level conversation, and sticking with the arguing part.
Just because water argues against your simple description of how it all must work, doesn't mean she doesn't grasp your intentions. She even tried to help you with your grammar on the non-sequitur thing (which i'm sure was just a typo, but actually was able to be used by her to make a joke about determinism). Whatever.

 

[water]

Water, I don't know you. . .

No, for I flow.

So after conversing with you a few times I have concluded. . .

That your english is OK, but it can't be your first language. . .
And due to the fact that it is not your first language, you don't fully understand
the phrasing and ideas presented to you.

It is true that English is my third language, but I do understand very well what you meant.
You meant that I was committing a non sequitur -- but you did say "you are non sequitur".

In the mood for a play of words, I understood what you said literally -- that *I* am a non sequitur. Since I find the idea of me being a non sequitur in a deterministic universe particularly fancy, and whatnot. Hah!

 

[water]

LOL, I didn't say you "are a non sequitur."

Yes, you did *say* I am a non sequitur --

"Your mini-opine about negative human philosophy regarding the nonsense of paradoxical definitions of god produced by theology and ancient thinking; is an error I did not make; nor create; again you are non sequitur. "

but you did not *mean* that I am a non sequitur.

And no you didn't get the gist of the idea but that's ok. . .

It's about the IF and the abstraction; the possibility and assumed nature of something that is either extant or not.

And IF is often based upon much existing theology; which implies other theology; which ends up being endless series of IFs.

I get your idea very well, but I don't agree with it.

 

[water]

Itopal,


You really go for the lowest measure that someone has ever reached, and then you consider this their "modus operandi".
I don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing. This is much too boring for me.

There just is no chemistry between us that is needed for a good discussion.
One cannot always have a good discussion with everyone.

Personally, I find the IF-approach boring. So.

 

[cole grey]

Itopal,
You really go for the lowest measure that someone has ever reached, and then you consider this their "modus operandi".

I apologize, if you think it was a low blow. . .
.

I hate to see the language murdered and the blame placed on others' lack of comprehension -

Water did not say you went for a "low blow." She said that you made a judgement about her based on her worst (lowest) day, and then said that the worst day's actions represent the cornerstone of her personality.
A "low blow" would be attacking in a way that unfairly exploits a person's vulnerability, i.e., hitting below the belt.

Hopefully you are not offended at being shown your own abilities to misunderstand english sentences. Remember when you point at someone else your other four fingers point back at you.

 

[Raithere]

We have value as referenced to God who created us with a purpose; that can be our "inherrent value".

The problem is it is an arbitrary assignment of value. God might as well have chosen mice, or rocks, petunias. Again, it becomes nothing more than self-gratification, "bad petunia" *squish*.

In fact it amounts to "I make right". You step the way you want no matter how many toes you step on and no one can say anything about it because you have your "inherrent value" and "that's" it.

This would be ignoring the value of others. If you determine that each of us has an inherent value (or at least their own value) then you must find a balance. It is only here that morality exists. Religion fosters this by attributing value through god, so that respective to each other we have value. However, it is my argument that in relation to god the whole scheme is then meaningless.

"Might makes right" is trying to put us on par with God. Judge Him by our standards with our knowledge. If God created, indeed, he has the final say; whether we like it or not.

That is "might makes right".

~Raithere

 

[cole grey]

Religion fosters this by attributing value through god, so that respective to each other we have value. However, it is my argument that in relation to god the whole scheme is then meaningless.

I think there is little validity in claiming a value for humanity to God. Even less in claiming a value of humanity in comparison to God.
Karl Barth however, makes a point that we must have value to God or God would not bother with us the way God does, in his essay 'Humanity of God'.
Please xpand on your thought of the meaninglessness of the whole scheme, it sounds interesting.

 

[MarcAC]

The problem is it is an arbitrary assignment of value. God might as well have chosen mice, or rocks, petunias. Again, it becomes nothing more than self-gratification, "bad petunia" *squish*.

I don't think the assignment of value is arbitrary - not any more so than the 'personal inherent value' you advocate. We are certainly apart from other creatures on this planet; why not then are birds ruling the earth?
Matthew 6

[26] "Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? [28]...See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. [29] Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these."​

God values all His creatures. If God's will is at all functioning in this universe however we may be sure that we aren't just rocks for some reason. We may as well butcher each other and eat roast human leg at Christmas. The seeming disparities between our views results from simply this; I believe in God: you don't.

This would be ignoring the value of others. If you determine that each of us has an inherent value (or at least their own value) then you must find a balance.

The problem may arise when these 'values' contradict. There will never be a 'perfect' balance. You will forever step on someone's toe. Unless you are willing to change your value to accomodate another's? You would then think that the value is indeed not inherent but from an external source.

It is only here that morality exists. Religion fosters this by attributing value through god, so that respective to each other we have value. However, it is my argument that in relation to god the whole scheme is then meaningless.

As Cole Grey asked; why?

That is "might makes right".

That is God makes right.

 

[MarcAC]

For free-will to exist; and life not to be just the active illusion of memory in the mind of god; for predetermination not to exist as a rule; god cannot be omniscient; or god does not exist.

Can you state why you arrive at the conclusion(s)? It still seems to me that this is inerrently stating knowing is doing.

 

[§outh§tar]

Such errant use of the semicolon.

 

[water]

I apologize, if you think it was a low blow. . .

The worse for you, if you think that I would think it a low blow.

But I don't know what god; if-god; not-god; exists; doesn't exist; theological abstraction that we are not agreeing upon; the possibilities are endless; to me anyway.

Within a specific worldview, mindset, say Christian, as an example, the concept would be a more narrow definition, and maybe within this context, is how you want to test other peoples beliefs; or; conceptualizations (?).

It is upon the IF; god is omniscient; that I reached (in context); the conclusion of active illusion of memory in the mind of god; and god is responsible for everything; but the IF-omniscient; is not a belief I hold; just one I entertained.

The main problem with any discussion about God is that one side argues for a "god of philosophy", and the other for an actual God, as proposed by a certain religion.

The "god of philosophy" is a construct that may, at first glance, fit any actual god of historical religions. But that god of philosophy is, in comparison to God, a butchered and battered creature that one puts there where causality stops to make sense, or to patch up this or that hole in logic.
The god of philosophy is a generic god, a construct made by induction on the basis of what actual gods are thought to have in common. As such, a generic god is a caricature of God, and it comes as no surprise that such discussions where one side argues for God, and the other for a generic god, are bound to end up in fruitless meanderings.

For free-will to exist; and life not to be just the active illusion of memory in the mind of god; for predetermination not to exist as a rule; god cannot be omniscient; or god does not exist.

Deterministic arguments. They come down to the notion that can be expemplified thus: If always under circumstances C hydrogen and oxygen bind and make water, this is proof of determinism. Determinism would not exist if under circumstances C hydrogen and oxygen would not bind and make water; then we could speak of "free will".

To disprove determinism, objective reality would have to be inconsistent -- says the determinist.
Well, one can demand such a condition ... but as it is, our sanity depends on the belief that objective reality is consistent. I take for a determinist, free will and insanity are just about the same thing.

The argument that "god is omniscient and thus free will does not exist" is true for a generic god. But it is not true, and this per axiom, for God.

You may not like my IF-statements; but I was indirectly implying; the nonsensical nature of transferring infinity attributes to even a god; IF; such exists.

What is nonsensical is to start off with a generic god. This way, one sooner or later comes to the conclusion that it is God who is faulty or non-existent ...


* * *

Hopefully you are not offended at being shown your own abilities to misunderstand english sentences. Remember when you point at someone else your other four fingers point back at you.

You make me feel like a damsel in distress!

But thank you for having my back.

 

[water]

The problem is it is an arbitrary assignment of value. God might as well have chosen mice, or rocks, petunias. Again, it becomes nothing more than self-gratification, "bad petunia" *squish*.

This, from our perspective.
If we agree that God is omnimax, then we must also concede that event hough something seems arbitrary to us, it isn't necessarily so to God.

After this, the question to answer is whether we view God to be either indifferent, malignant or loving.
We can put off answering this question forever -- but as long as we do, life on earth will seem arbitrary.

In fact it amounts to "I make right". You step the way you want no matter how many toes you step on and no one can say anything about it because you have your "inherrent value" and "that's" it.

This would be ignoring the value of others.

This is why God gave people rules to live by; rules that ensure they would step on eachother's toes -- and on eachother -- as little as possible.

If you determine that each of us has an inherent value (or at least their own value) then you must find a balance. It is only here that morality exists. Religion fosters this by attributing value through god, so that respective to each other we have value. However, it is my argument that in relation to god the whole scheme is then meaningless.

If God is indifferent or malignant, then yes, then the whole scheme is meaningless, or exactly: it is malignant.

That is "might makes right".

Might *does* make right -- when might is *loving*.


* * *

For free-will to exist; and life not to be just the active illusion of memory in the mind of god; for predetermination not to exist as a rule; god cannot be omniscient; or god does not exist. ”

Can you state why you arrive at the conclusion(s)? It still seems to me that this is inerrently stating knowing is doing.

Just an organisational remark: An interesting discussion on free will is going on here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45375&page=2

 

[cole grey]

Ok, so God (outside of our temporal dimension/universe) can see anything that happens as it happens. God can pick and choose through the film reels of time, not being bound by forward and backward, and see anything that is happening. It doesn't necessarily predetermine anything.
God could intefere in any specific moment of time, but this is not implied by God being able to somehow see every moment in time. The only "time" that God sees something will be at that time, because any description with God's "clock" would be nonsensical, as God does not have to operate under the guidelines of tomorrow or yesterday.
Just another way of looking at it.

edit- p.s. water, I know you aren't in distress, but when unfair remarks are thrown around, it is lame, so I thought I would chime in.