The Limitations of God

The Abrahamic god is considered omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, he would not be limited to our planet. His influence would extend throughout the universe, transcending time and space. According to the Bible, we were created in his image. If we assume that this means we share the basic physical characteristics as him, then he must also share our physical limitations.This also implies that he is physical being, in which case he must face the physical limitations that come with physical manifestation, unless he is somehow able to alternate between spiritual and tangible manifestation. And if he is purely spiritual, then he cannot be omnipotent, as he could not then exert physical influence.

Human beings are products of our environment. Our current form is the result of millions of years of evolution, with successful traits winning over less successful traits. If our environment was different, we would look very different. If God created us in his image, why does Homo heidelbergensis look so much like Homo sapiens?



A good article describing how life might manifest in other worlds can be found here:

What Would Aliens Actually Look Like?

It is common for people to personify God in an anthropomorphic way. But in order to be omnipotent, he cannot be a physical being. We are an intelligent species, but we have limitations. We cannot imagine a whole new colour. We cannot comprehend not existing, nor can we truly comprehend infinity. We know we can't comprehend these things, and it stands to reasons that there are things we don't even know that we can't comprehend, because we are incapable of even comprehending the very idea of it.

We are limited not only by physical constraints, but by cultural ones. Our language impacts our perception of the world. So does culture and geographical location: in the Bible, fig trees are mentioned. If it had been written in, say, Scandinavia, apples might have been mentioned instead. The Bible is reminiscent of the time and place from which it originated. Why did Jesus appear to the people of Israel and not the people of Mongolia? It is interesting that the laws of God reflect the contemporaneous culture of the Middle East, and Judaism was by no means the first monotheistic religion.

Many natural events that were once explained in supernatural terms are now commonly explained in natural terms, thanks to advent of scientific thinking. In modern times, we know that thunder is not caused by a supernatural being. We no longer turn to supernatural explanations for sickness or mental conditions. If these trends continue, perhaps one day we'll be able to fully explain consciousness in scientific terms, further diminishing the need for God.

If God is omnipotent, why could he not manifest to multiple peoples instead of just the one society? Why couldn't he appear to everyone all over the world, rather than relying on human messengers to spread his message? Why did he wait so long to appear? Why did he wait for civilisation to be well established rather than appearing to hunter-gatherers? I ask these questions rhetorically, because ultimately I know the answer will come down to a matter of faith.

In Gnostic Gospels, Jesus states that "heaven" is not an actual place, but rather a state of being. Modern Christians often focus on love, but what are emotions? Essentially, they are evolutionary adaptations. More information on this can be found here:

Evolutionary Psychology and the Emotions

We project our own evolutionary adaptations onto our concept of God. But is it not more likely, that "God" is manifested in the laws of physics, in the establishment of all the dimensions, in the existence of the spiritual realm, in the process of time? I mean something intangible, beyond our current level of comprehension, something we are unable to directly communicate with, just like we can't have a conversation with the laws of thermodynamics.

There is undeniably a psychological need for belief, which is slowly being eroded by science (this is not necessarily a bad thing). Western and East Asian nations tend to be viewed as more "advanced" than African and Middle Eastern nations, and I don't think our secular governments are a coincidence with this. Religion has caused conflict throughout all our history, and many modern conflicts are caused by religion, such as the divide between South and North Sudan, and our good old mates the Islamic State. Are we evolving into a post-religious society?

Please do not reply if you are a fundamentalist zealot and/or don't believe in logical reasoning. I am hoping for rational discourse without ad hominem attacks and "because the Bible said so" type answers. I do not intend any offence to anybody of any religion. Religion can be a tricky subject amongst Americans and English is not my first language, so if I have phrased things in a way which comes across as offensive, please be aware that it was not my intention.

For the record, I'm not an atheist.

You want rational discourse by attacking people like fundamentalist zealots

Truthfully that image looks like a normal human, not some monkey ancestor, can you prove its not a homo sapien?

Also you make some simple yet fundamental errors, maybe the earth was created for us, that's why it is like it is.

Religion isn't the only issue regarding conflict, greed is a major issue as well, but hey that doesn't support prejudice

Just another I am better than you thread

a reply to: Raggedyman

You obviously missed this bit where I said:

English is not my first language, so if I have phrased things in a way which comes across as offensive, please be aware that it was not my intention.

I did not intend to attack anybody. Do you really view any religious questioning as a personal attack?

Truthfully that image looks like a normal human, not some monkey ancestor, can you prove its not a homo sapien?

Homo heidelbergensis

As you can see by this reconstruction, the skull of Homo heidelbergensis is very different from the skull of Homo sapiens:



Here is the skull of heidelbergensis:



For comparison, here is the skull of Homo sapiens:



Heidelbergensis was very widespread, with fossils being found in Africa, Asia and Europe. It was first identified in 1907. It is an ancestor of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans.

There are several bipedal hominids which preceded homo sapiens, as well as the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo florensiensis which lived concurrently with modern humans.

The difference between Homo sapiens and Homo heidelbergensis is really, really obvious. Come on.

Also you make some simple yet fundamental errors, maybe the earth was created for us, that's why it is like it is.

What exactly was my error? If the earth was created for us, then why weren't we the first inhabitants? Why was the Earth occupied for millions upon millions of years by other creatures?

Did you ever wonder why planets are roughly spherical in shape? It's because they are formed by the accretion of matter formed by gravity. Here, this site explains it quite nicely in layman's terms:

How Do Planets Form?

You see, planets are not made explicitly for humans. They are formed by the motion of physics.

Do you believe that all fossils are a big hoax, and that evolution is all a nasty lie? If so, no amount of evidence I throw at you will change your mind. I can't force anyone to accept scientific facts, or anything that they don't choose to believe. I'll tell you this though - often, creationists and such will refer to things like evolution as being only a "theory" and therefore is of dubious veracity. What they don't realise is that the term "theory" differs in meaning in a scientific context than in a conversational context. I'll put this in bold so hopefully you'll pay attention to it: A scientific theory is not merely an idea - it is a commonly accepted explanation that is supported by credible and rigorous studies, with results being able to be duplicated in multiple studies.

Religion isn't the only issue regarding conflict, greed is a major issue as well, but hey that doesn't support prejudice

I did not say that religion was the only cause of global conflict. Can you see how it is a factor? Have you heard of groups like the Islamic State, who use religious reasoning to justify violent acts? Of course religion isn't the only factor in war, but it is a significant one. I'm from the USSR, a regime which favoured atheism, and I know damn well that religion isn't the cause of all the world's problems.

The reason I mentioned religion in regards to conflict, and not politics and economics, is because the post was about the nature of God, not the nature of government. I don't want to discuss global economics and governance here, I was hoping for an intelligent response concerning the nature of God - not so much the existence of God, but the manifestation of God/s.

As I said, I did not intend to offend anyone. I am certainly not prejudiced against anyone's religion. I myself am not an atheist, although I do not adhere to any established faith (I have my own thing going on). It really is sad that you consider any alternative spiritual and existential viewpoints as threats against your religion. This is what kills progress.

Just another I am better than you thread

Hahahha, okay I've had fun picking apart your inane post, I was looking forward to getting to this bit. From this particular statement of yours I can only infer that you're quite insecure. I most certainly do not think I'm any better than anyone else, and did not in any way (intentionally) devalue anyone's beliefs.

Is this really how you see everyone who questions the nature of God? You haven't rebuked any of my points, nor have you contributed anything. All you've done is exactly what I asked people to refrain from doing, which is to take personal offence and take up arms rather than engage in rational debate like adults.

You know else doesn't allow religious debate? Terrorists. Go to Syria and try being a Christian there, or even just interpreting the Qoran a little differently and see how much fun you have. Nobody should get so aggressive when someone raises a few questions.

Is God a woman then ?

God created man in his own image
The image is the question
What does he mean by image
God has free will
He can choose
And he created man in that same image
To have free will
a choice

You have a choice
To believe in him and his son
Or
Believe in theories assumptions
Or speculative opinions

You are a man of faith if you believe in
Something with no proof or evidence

If you believe in evolution and that the earth is millions of years old
Then you are a man of faith because
I know there is no proof

Is God a woman then ?

God created man in his own image
The image is the question
What does he mean by image
God has free will
He can choose
And he created man in that same image
To have free will
a choice

You have a choice
To believe in him and his son
Or
Believe in theories assumptions
Or speculative opinions

You are a man of faith if you believe in
Something with no proof or evidence

If you believe in evolution and that the earth is millions of years old
Then you are a man of faith because
I know there is no proof

a reply to: piney

What does he mean by image

I think this one term (image) is a great start to finding the true meaning behind the stories in the Bible.

What is God's image? The Bible says Jesus is God's image, it also says Jesus is the light of the world. So where is this "image of light" at? Right in front of you, it is what you see right now.

When you look into a mirror, what is happening? An image of your body is being created within your mind and being projected as what you see. You are being created in God's image, that of light.

I think if people can make this one connection to themselves then they can also make the rest of the connections within the Bible. It's a commentary on the human condition, not some invisible sky daddy watching everything we do.

naw.....one has to read the book to get it....here's some points for the starters

God wants His people to know that He is Holy....needs us to know not to step into His space ...although

We are sojourners with Him

We are his friends, servants are not told of His intentions so we are not servants....pretty cool..

His ways are far above ours......He did not want us to eat of the second tree, then we would be like Him ( it's lonely at the top ) He knows we don't want that!

If you will talk to Him, He'll talk back

And at one point He will say to have more confidence in the relationship....letting me know....no letting you know time to move forward



so, not so on the literary embellishment about " in His image "



edit to addd....He's Holy, we may project the feeling that one gets when we see a scratch that has pus in it.....

originally posted by: DeepThoughtCriminal

Here is the skull of heidelbergensis:

For comparison, here is the skull of Homo sapiens:

The homo sapien skull is not limited to the average Caucasian skull. Checkout the mutter museum in philadelphia, and you'll see an array of sapien skulls that differ significantly.

Are these all different species: Skulls from the Mutter Museum Despite looking as if they could be considered different species, these are all homo sapien skulls.

It is a mistake to let spiritual leaders decide the truth for you. Similarly, it is a mistake to let scientific leaders to decide the truth for you. Read the original sacred texts and the empirical scientific data if you want truth.

This that is happening is the only thing that exists - what is happening is being all there is. Sounds, text, sensations, thoughts arising - this is the image of God - this that is happening. And created (made up) within that image is the individual - something which seems apart.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
This that is happening is the only thing that exists - what is happening is being all there is. Sounds, text, sensations, thoughts arising - this is the image of God - this that is happening. And created (made up) within that image is the individual - something which seems apart.

If we were made as an image of God, that would imply we are 3rd dimensional manifestations of the 4th dimensional light. Just like a shadow is a 2D image of our 3D body, our 3D body is an image of the 4D light. This is likely why we are said to be children of the light.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: DeepThoughtCriminal

Here is the skull of heidelbergensis:

For comparison, here is the skull of Homo sapiens:

The homo sapien skull is not limited to the average Caucasian skull. Checkout the mutter museum in philadelphia, and you'll see an array of sapien skulls that differ significantly.

Are these all different species: Skulls from the Mutter Museum Despite looking as if they could be considered different species, these are all homo sapien skulls.

It is a mistake to let spiritual leaders decide the truth for you. Similarly, it is a mistake to let scientific leaders to decide the truth for you. Read the original sacred texts and the empirical scientific data if you want truth.

If archeologists found Pygmy skulls today and there were no pygmys around
Then, hey look a new evolution of man fossil.

It looks very homo sapien to me