Omnipotent God: Agree or Disagree?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/806783f840ec.jpg[/atsimg]

This above image best illustrates my concern with the omnipotent God theory.

I'm an "Agnostic Atheist" myself - I don't believe any human has provided evidence, or currently has the ability to reveal such wisdom, even our top scientists ( majority atheists btw )

I'm agnostic to fairies and unicorns too - Some may claim i can't prove they don't exist.....If i can't prove it either way - then why should i automatically put faith in it?

Scientists can't answer the "origins of reality" question (quite yet) ;

Is reality and the universe infinite? Did it have a beginning and will it have no end? Is there such a concept as "nothing"?

Generally, i don't put "faith" in unfalsifiable hypotheses, but i believe some unfalsifiable hypothesis, although unprovable, might not nessasarily be false, and not always irrational.

Take infinity, there's no evidence to prove it. But there may be a mathematical logic to such a theory:-



By no means am i urging this to be true, but the logic certainly beats that of the fundamental theist.

Whilst discovering myself, and what i think as an Atheist - I found two very interesting philosophical ponderings and, perhaps, observations that made my heart melt in agreement, as if they were my own thoughts:-

"Epicurean Paradox" - Or "The Problem of Evil"



"Euthyphro dilemma"



Based on the problem of evil, i'm a GNOSTIC atheist in regards to any religion, to any omnipresent theory. I'm gnostic as soon as someone claims truth to the existence of a God, and that God's "desires".

Gnostic/Agnostic - what you know
Theism/Atheism - what you believe...(or disbelieve)

Anyway, just thought i'd share my thoughts and reasoning.

Anyone elses's would be greatly appreciated.

Peace

A&A

our consciousness creates the reality we perceive

therefore god is consciousness.

the demonstration is abstracted but follow a "scientific" methodology and is "scientifically" provable.

While I cannot agree with you about "Haiti" being an "act of God" I can agree with you assertion to the act of "Humanity". I don't think the entity that created the known Universe would really get involved the happenings on a backwards little planet in some backwater little galaxy adrift somewhere in space and time. I can't attach anything "biblical" to what happened in Haiti or Japan or the Fires in Australia or the droughts in Africa or AIDS or Global Warming or anything else like that. I think the Creator, like the Universe is just to complex for us to pin down in a book or on a DVD !. Still, you never know. He might be staring back at me from behind the screen of my PC getting ready to give me a good lesson or two! How the hell would we know ! But there is something there, I just think it's not what comes out of a book written by men. To me humanity is what our Creator asks of us, no more, no less.

reply to post by XmikaX


You've done the clever trick and named consciousness "GOD"

Very pantheistic, and i agree - quite abstract - Not "provable" as such though.

reply to post by CosmosKid

humanity is what our Creator asks of us, no more, no less.

But what DOES the creator ask of us? How can you extract that type of information from just living life?

Can you really justify an omnipotent "GOD" theory that creates disease and renders 99.8% species on earth as extinct? What's the message? What's the meaning?

God is simply an anthropomorphism of the universe. The Greeks and Mesopotamians did it to the sun & planets. It's been done to the sea.. to storm clouds and volcanos. Kids also do it with pet rocks. It appears to be a common human trait upon which much of our superstitious behaviour is formed, nothing more.

IRM

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?" -Epicurus

There is no god.

My friend you are absolutely correct in that we cannot prove God exists nor can we prove he is all powerful.

However, we cannot prove that Jack the Ripper exists either.

We have dead bodies and we have wounds which elude that the bodies met a tragic death by what appears to be man made instruments. We have an arrangement of the bodies which by all appearances point to an arranged scene that could only have been planned out. Other evidence points to the hypothesis that th bodies must have been brutally murdered and that this murder wost likely was one of a handful of men. What we do not have, is absolute proof of anything other than a murder happened. Who and how is a forever mystery.

Did a murderer actually exist? How do you know absolutely? The evidence only points that way. It is not conclusive.

Much is the same with God. Everything is laid out in an intelligent fashion. Not one single thing in the Universe does not directly impact another. And should this arrangement have any randomness or chaos in it, it would not exist. If one single electron did not follow the laws of energy and randomly astray without any direct input as if by a will of it's own, then the very foundation of our physics would come undone. The double slit experiment confirmed that the smallest part of matter, the electron, travels in a manner dictated by an observer. What is that observer? It is a conscious far beyond us. We are the image of that consciousness for we can see the patterns and come to understand the laws of our environment made for us. Such is what science seeks to uncover about our physical environment. Psychology tries to understand our mental environment and religion and philosophy try to understand our spiritual/conscious environment. All are needed to maintain a full awareness of where we are in this existence.

For example, science tells us that we have decimated our planet, psychology tells us our mental state is at an absolute fragile state and must be medicated just to function daily, our religious works, the Bible, Quran, Torah, and various indigenous prophecies all point to this time being a time of great spiritual battle, and philosophy teaches us why we are here, we have not done to others, what we want done to ourselves.

Google that phrase sometime. See how many sages through the Ages have reduced their whole teaching to that phrase and that phrase alone. It is the foundation truth to all religious doctrine. Christ taught it in his sermons, Moses taught it from the Mount, Muhamed, Krishna, Confucius, Buddha all the lights of Man taught this truth.

Now if we are indeed images of our creator, don't you think we have demonstrated the power of the all mighty in the things WE create? We wanted to fly, we learned. We wanted to dive to the depths of the ocean, we did. We wanted to touch the stars, we did. We wanted to unlock the power of the stars, we did.

We did all of this and we still have not touched even a fraction of the power that is above us. We are destined for so much more than what we have done so far, but we desperately need to heal. Science shows this. Psychology tells us this. Religion tells and philosophy shows the way. That way, the only way, is to love one another to save our selves.

The choice is in our hands. We are all in this together. We either pull together, or we go down together. Right now our knowledge about our world is so well spread that a weapon of mass destruction can be made in your kitchen by anyone who has a grudge to settle. With the pressure we are putting each other competing to survive, some one will snap. It is not a matter of doubt. Man is crying out for freedom and equality on all fronts.

So is there a God? The evidence sure points that way. Is it omnipotent? The evidence sure points that way. Are we images of our creator? The evidence sure points that way. Are we omnipotent? We may never know if we do not come together as a species.

That should be our highest endeavour at this point. Not money or politics or power over another. If we cannot do this, for the sake of our species, I am going to ere on the side of hope that there is a benevolent God, and hope you all are made in his image.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by awake_and_aware


no not me,

the organized religions did the trick : dividing god & us, making god a separate entity from our entity.

you're looking the wrong way around

However, we cannot prove that Jack the Ripper exists either.

Nice try.

We can't prove unicorns exists, or fairies - But is not being able to prove something's existence any reason for believing in it? I don't think so.

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[1]

Simple fact: religion and "GOD" relies on an argument from ignorance (highligted above by Bertrand Russel)

Some people are santa claus agnostics, fairy or teapot agnostics. They can't prove they exist. But hey, at least we can define santa claus, fairies and teapots.

Reality could be infinity, reality could have begun, followed by infinity. It might have been created by a universal being, it may have not. Anyone who claims truth is saying they know more than what scientists currently understand.

Science may not have all the answers, but it certainly doesn't guess them without evidence or testing.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?" -Epicurus

So again, the omnipotent theory has been found wanting. You can't prove God "cares" either. God didn't create our planet with us in mind, nor did he create it with 99.8% of species in mind that now are extinct.

Also, you state "intelligent".

Would an "intelligent" being design the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe?

It's ineffecient and badly designed, it requires the heart to work harder, and it's too long.

Just because everything works in a system, doesn't make it perfect, and it's a large conclusion to jump to say the being is "intelligent".

Again, IAMIAM, we can't prove a creator exists, but it's a conclusion i don't want to jump to.

Not even with the promise of an afterlife or death - And think that's immoral and idiotic to accept such a universal bribe (Pascal's wager)

It's much safer and more logical to go with the Atheist's wager.

reply to post by XmikaX


I'm not - You're a deist - You believe in God. I don't believe what you believe.

Just because we don't understand conscioussness, is no reason to say "some intelligent being did it" - Not without evidence. You might have that strong faith needed, i don't.

Also, how do you define objectivity of GOd if you don't follow a religion? How do you know what God thinks is right or wrong?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
It's much safer and more logical to go with the Atheist's wager.

edit on 25/4/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Well if there is no divine being which created us, and you are not part of that divine being, well then you are just a random anomaly here. There really is no more value in your life or life experience than that of an ant. You will live a very short time in this existence, you will die, and be no more.

Being so insignificant in the grand scheme of this "accidental" existence, your view does not matter to me. You argue against God simply for the sake of arguing against God and without God, you simply do not matter. Your "rights" stem only from your own mind, thus men of better mind are more suited to rule over you. Your life is for yourself, thus it is better that men rule you and decide for you what to do with it. If that is what you want, you can have it my friend. I am not trying to change your view. You ASKED for opinions, and I shared mine.

When an atheist creates the creation, then I will bow to their superior wisdom. Until then, they are stuck in their own hubris.

With Love,

Your Brother

The very word "Omnipotent" is an exercise in extremism. Nothing is 100% correct. Just a general belief of some people to elevate their fears and concerns onto a imaginary being that knows all the answers. I'm not anti-anything, but why would any rational person view anything as infallable?

Sen

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Being so insignificant in the grand scheme of this "accidental" existence, your view does not matter to me. You argue against God simply for the sake of arguing against God

I don't see it that way. He argues against the existence of God because there is no evidence for him. Not for the sake of it. We argue against unicorns for the same reason.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
and without God, you simply do not matter. Your "rights" stem only from your own mind, thus men of better mind are more suited to rule over you.

Being atheist does not mean the individual has chosen for another man to rule over them. I am atheist and I recognise no other authority other than myself. I see all men as equal. I'm sure many others feel exactly as I do.

Incidentally.. what does 'men of better mind' mean? Explain!

IRM

Originally posted by IAMIAM Being so insignificant in the grand scheme of this "accidental" existence, your view does not matter to me. You argue against God simply for the sake of arguing against God

If you want to get biblical, then we can talk about Lucifer and his followers. They seem to fit the exact mold you were talking about And it seems they did rather well.

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
I don't see it that way. He argues against the existence of God because there is no evidence for him. Not for the sake of it. We argue against unicorns for the same reason.

The difference between God and a Unicorn is that there is no evidence which suggest Unicorns exist, while there is plenty of evidence that an intelligent creator exists. The evidence of a creator is found in the precise arrangement of the Universe. There is NO randomness in the Universe. Everything functions according to definable laws. It is the arrogance of Man to declare those laws are his, such as Einstein's Law of relativity. That law is NOT Einstein's. He did not create it. He only discovered it. Being able to discover the working laws of our existence is proof not of our superiority as a species, but rather of our inferiority to something we cannot fully understand.

It is only one's arrogance which prevents them from acknowledging this.

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by IAMIAM
and without God, you simply do not matter. Your "rights" stem only from your own mind, thus men of better mind are more suited to rule over you.

Being atheist does not mean the individual has chosen for another man to rule over them. I am atheist and I recognise no other authority other than myself. I see all men as equal. I'm sure many others feel exactly as I do.

I did not say the atheist chooses another man to rule over him. I am saying he has no "right" to say another man cannot rule over him. You say you do. What gives you the right to decide for yourself? Yourself? Well that will only work out for you until a stronger man comes and subdues you to his will. Either through willing submission or by your death, the stronger WILL dominate under Atheistic philosophy. You see all men equal, and that is noble of you. Science disagrees with you though. A child born with a mental illness, Down's Syndrome, birth defects, etc. are certainly not equal to healthy children. Why not eradicate them at birth rather than burdening society with their care?

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
Incidentally.. what does 'men of better mind' mean? Explain!

IRM

I do not claim to have a better mind my friend. I believe ALL men are equal for they are all created images of the divine.

What I am arguing with the above statement is the Atheist view coupled with logic. If there is no supreme being of which we ALL are an image of, then logically some are better than others and more suited to rule over the masses. This is only logical, but not my view.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by SerenityGained

Originally posted by IAMIAM Being so insignificant in the grand scheme of this "accidental" existence, your view does not matter to me. You argue against God simply for the sake of arguing against God

If you want to get biblical, then we can talk about Lucifer and his followers. They seem to fit the exact mold you were talking about

And it seems they did rather well.

Who is getting biblical? It is a weak and unfair argument to automatically associate the word God with the Bible. Believe it or not, the views within man of God are far more diverse than one man or book can contain.

You got biblical, not I.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM


Actually, you are completely right with your assertion, and I apologise.

I hope this thread continues to be a reasoned debate. Sorry again

Sen

reply to post by IAMIAM


Do you admit IAMIAM, that you COULD be wrong - I.e. reality could be infinity, and consist of no omnipotent or intelligent being?

Or are you so closed minded that your faith has blinded your reason?

Why would a majority of astronomers not believe the omnipotent God, and the majority of that sample are also Atheists?

Do you think perhaps it's because they'd rather have evidence before conjuring a set of beliefs?

Originally posted by SerenityGained
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

Actually, you are completely right with your assertion, and I apologise.

I hope this thread continues to be a reasoned debate. Sorry again

Sen

edit on 25-4-2011 by SerenityGained because: spelling

No worries my friend. You did illustrate a very valid point though. When we hear of God or discuss God, those who disagree most often go to the Bible to debunk God. That puts those of us who do not believe the Bible is the whole word of God at an extreme disadvantage in these debates. God is much bigger than a book. The word of God is within you.

Thus if you tell me that God does not exist, I am not here to argue with you for that is the word of God within you, and it has a purpose. Will I accept it as my own? Nope. I have my own word of God to follow...

All we can ever do is share our view. Nothing else is possible.

With Love,

Your Brother