Flaws in the Christian concept of God

This is my attempt to summarize the latest in philosophical thought. The above posted is some of the most modern philosophical thought on the theory of religion.
You might be interested in this;
Here
If we do truly describe God as ineffable, as your statements seem to suggest, then why does the Bible constantly attempt to describe him?
The fact that Hebrew has only one tense is irrelevant, it still specifies a certain location in time.
If you allow God to be outside all realms that you described, then why not let him be outside the realm of existance too? We have no other thing in the world that is outside the realm of time, etc, as you have described God, I see no reason why we should choose to believe in a thing that most people will never even be able to claim they experience


edit; dont get me wrong though I thank you for your intelligent and well thought response. I enjoy an intellectual debate, rather than some pathetic war of words where insults are thrown around far too easily

[edit on 22-9-2004 by browha]

Originally posted by browha
If we do truly describe God as ineffable, as your statements seem to suggest, then why does the Bible constantly attempt to describe him?

Why do you? The reason is the same. A question lacking an answer.

The fact that Hebrew has only one tense is irrelevant, it still specifies a certain location in time.

Tense tends to apply to language. The language in the old testament has only one tense. Relevant? Who knows, but your arguement on tense in the bible was lacking something.

The very idea that God exists at all points in time makes the issue irrelevant.

If you allow God to be outside all realms that you described, then why not let him be outside the realm of existance too?

Define the "realm of existance" and there is a boundary. God is beyond boundaries.

We have no other thing in the world that is outside the realm of time, etc, as you have described God, I see no reason why we should choose to believe in a thing that most people will never even be able to claim they experience

We have no other thing outside the realm of time? I think many would say that would be relative. What is time within the confines of the event horizon of a singularity? What is time to a photon travelling through space?

You say you are a physicist. Do you beleive in the existance of quarks, leptons and bosons? Why should you choose to beleive in these things that most people will never even be able to experience? You may say that people experience these things whether they know it or not. It is only when one understands what these things are and what they do that they realize they are experiencing them. I say it is the same with God.

edit; dont get me wrong though I thank you for your intelligent and well thought response. I enjoy an intellectual debate, rather than some pathetic war of words where insults are thrown around far too easily

Questions and answers my friend. Unanswered questions lead to confusion. Confusion leads to doubt. Doubt leads to rejection.

But isn't "God" an unproven theory? A whole belief system based on faith cannot be proven.

"I feel God, so he must exist". This would be a unproven statement if someone made it. Fire, cold, pain, pleasure; these are feelings which cause a sensation. Any human on Earth can feel heat coming from a flame. It would take every human on Earth to be able to feel God's presence to prove this statement true. It would take every human on Earth to be able to see God at will, for this theory to be proven and universally accepted. Just as ' don't put your hand in fire' is.

BTW, you both are very well versed in your opinions. Thank God there is no bashing and insulting going on.....yet.

Quarks and leptons, etc, have been scientifically observed and there is publicly available evidence for them. It takes a degree of knowledge most people dont have to interpret them, but when you interpret them, there is only one outcome from the set of results
Whereas with, lets say, supposed Divine experiences (for lack of a better word to call it) people can interpret it in many ways. For example, a Muslim might think one thing, and a Christian another. I cant really give an example because I'm not too well versed in that many religions, but I hope you can understand my argument here from what I am saying.
We can also predict particles (bosons, etc, perfect example is the Higgs Boson, or top and bottom quarks) through mathematical models


edit; Another good discussion we've had in philosophy is the difference in definitions of "knowledge" and "belief".. Do people actually say they 'Know' there is a God, or they 'believe' there is a God? We can say we 'know' there is a quark, because it has indirect justification through observations, etc, but we cannot really say we 'know' there is a God, there is no indirect or direct justification for it. I personally believe the idea of God isnt self-evident/self-justifying.

[edit on 22-9-2004 by browha]

Not a very good philosophical analysis, in my opinion. Many logical flaws. I don't believe in God (I believe in love though, as taught by Jesus), but let's see them:

God is traditionally thought of as being 'outside time', and unaffected by time. Thus, if we asked God what the time was, how would he respond? Even if God did know the
time currently (thus implying he is inside time and in itself causing further issues), he would not KNOW the time in other parts of the world.

First of all, time is relative. If you asked God about the time, he would most probably ask you about the frame of reference.

Secondly, why God can't know what time it is from the outside? I know what's going on in my computer, although I am not physically inside it. All that it takes is to have a mental model of the world. He made it, he knows it.

Another issue, is that if
God knows EVERYTHING, then this flaw comes up: I have the knowledge that "I am sitting in this chair". Does God know "I am sitting in this chair"? Surely not, as he is not.

I know you are reading this. Am I reading this? no. Then how do I know it?

Does God know what the emotion of
maddness is? Or does God know the effect and direct feeling of testosterone in the body? Or does he know the taste of food, the smell of coffee, etc.
Because if he does, then he must surely have a body, which means he must be inside time. I will discuss the flaws of being inside time later.

Of course he knows it. God knows because he invented those things.

Futhermore, if God is all-powerful, does he have the ability to make a six-sided pentagon?

That's illogical. There is no six-sided pentagon. It's not because God can't make it, it's because we have given 5 and 6 different quantitave properties.

can God create a rock
that is too heavy for him to lift? For if he can, then he cannot lift it, and he cannot be all-powerful. Yet, if he cannot make a rock that is too heavy for him to lift,
then once again, he cannot be all-powerful.

Lifting something implies the existence of 3d space, and God being inside this 3d space, with plenty of room for the rock. But God is infinite, and an infinite rock can be lifted, but there is no up/left/right/down, because if it was, the rock would not be infinite. So God lifts the infinite rock, only you can't see it (that's taken from math: infinite quantities can't be compared, added, subtracted etc).

God must have been inside time at a certain point.

It's not God that is inside time, but the results of his actions are. This is analogous to this post: I am inside it, only I am not.

If we now analyze his all-lovingness, consider the evil in the world. If we couple the qualities of "all-loving" with "all-powerful" it is only logical to say that God
intended for evil to occur. Yet if this is true, he is not all-lowing, and hence, not perfectly good, or perfect.

In fact, if God plans the future (which can be debated through ideas of fate and destiny), then he plans evil to happen. An all-loving God certainly would not PLAN evil to
occur.

Now this is something I agree with: as a programmer, God knows all the variables of the program, so he knows that evil will be part of it some time.

In short, God is a man-made thing. That does not mean we all should go and kill each other, though.

This, as I've said quite a few times, is considered the 'cutting edge' of modern philosophy of religion. In most cases where I have used arguments, they are virtually identical to the original argument given by philosophers. The issue with God being in/out of time, is this;
Your arugment isnt valid because both objects you give are 3 dimensional occupying the same 3 dimensions. God does not occupy soley the 3 dimensions we occupy, as to do so would limit his powers. You cant even really compare it using an example of us looking on to a 2 dimensional shape, because the 4th dimension is so different from the primary 3

I was having a debate with a friend earlier today about whether or not morality is given to us by beings such as God, or whether it is inherint to our nature...
I used the example of tribes in the Amazon whom have little (to my understanding) belief in a God, and yet still have some basic morality.. What do you think about this?

Originally posted by browha
Quarks and leptons, etc, have been scientifically observed and there is publicly available evidence for them. It takes a degree of knowledge most people dont have to interpret them, but when you interpret them, there is only one outcome from the set of results
Whereas with, lets say, supposed Divine experiences (for lack of a better word to call it) people can interpret it in many ways. For example, a Muslim might think one thing, and a Christian another. I cant really give an example because I'm not too well versed in that many religions, but I hope you can understand my argument here from what I am saying.
We can also predict particles (bosons, etc, perfect example is the Higgs Boson, or top and bottom quarks) through mathematical models

Beautiful examples.
People who know how to observe and interpret with an open mind.
People who do not know how to observe and interpret with an open mind.
People who believe there is something more to learn.
People who believe what they know is enough.

Tell me now, which of these belongs to religion and which belongs to science? Is there a clear difference in the approach of both witnesses to phenomenom? Why is there a difference?

edit; Another good discussion we've had in philosophy is the difference in definitions of "knowledge" and "belief".. Do people actually say they 'Know' there is a God, or they 'believe' there is a God? We can say we 'know' there is a quark, because it has indirect justification through observations, etc, but we cannot really say we 'know' there is a God, there is no indirect or direct justification for it. I personally believe the idea of God isnt self-evident/self-justifying.

Belief involves a "burden of proof" and the collection of evidence. When the level of evidence satisfies the burden of proof, one will believe something. The burden of proof differs from subject to subject. The burden of proof for the reality of God varies from person to person. The burden of proof for the reality of what a science professor teaches in class is extrememly low. All that you learned in class (excluding labs) is naught but belief.

Knowledge is familiarty gained through experience and association.

In the court of law, "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is based in belief, not knowledge.

You say you "know" a quark exists because you confuse it with belief. Until you actually perform the experiments for yourself, you do not have knowledge. You simply believe that which you are told.

While you may equate the world around you with an arbitrarily large number of monkeys with typewriters which produced one error free copy of the works of Shakespeare, I am left to wonder who gave the typewriters to the monkeys.

Edit:

Concerning morality.

The answer is the same as the answer to "Is light a particle or a wave."
Yes. (or both)

Morality is guided by our emotions.
Emotions can be catagorized as "negative" and "positive".
All "positive" emotions can be expressed in terms of Love.
All "negative" emotions can be expressed in terms of Pride.
Love and pride can feel very much the same.
The differences are subtle.
Love is constant and unconditional.
Pride is cyclic with conditions.
Otherwise the differences can be found in the study of humility.

Of course, you could ask "What does God have to do with that?"
I ask you, who gave those monkeys the typewriters.







[edit on 22-9-2004 by Raphael_UO]

So, am I to assume that the millions of Christians , or other deity worshipping religions (but let's take pentecostal sect of christianity), in your opinion, are self induced delusional or perceiving manifestations of mental construction? I speak in reference to miracles (which I have personally witnessed), the phenomenom of speaking in other languages fluently while in prayer without prior knowledge or influence, and other manifestations of apparent 'divine intervention'.

Example:

My cousin, on my father's side, was born blind. She was healed instantaneously, and without medical intervention, except as to diagnose the blindness, and then confirm the 'healing'. My question is more basically stated as such: Would the manifestation of such acts not at least denote a 'soul' or' higher consciousness' on the part of the individual or group, thereby denoting the possibility of a spiritual realm where a self-perpetuating 'God' or other deity could, in fact dwell outside the ability of science and philosophy to explain?

browha
Fine, but I am discussing the Christian view of God here. It is not degrees of correct/incorectness, it is whether or not the ideas of God are plausible.
If I was discussing the topic you are discussing, the essay would be entitled something along the lines of "Is Christianity hypocritic" or "Is Christianity a morally justified religion, historically in terms of its actions"
But I didnt. The essay is entitled "Issues In Philosophy with Relation to God" but more specifically, should be entitled (sorry, I should change the name) "Flaws in the Christian/Western concepts of God"

As 'we' are sitting here reading this something somewhere caused by some thing or group of things occurred.

I see no flaw in Christian concepts of God. I see disagreements.

Cristian God is a fairly simple concept- love and follow a few rules in dealing with God and our fellows.

Nothing mysterious or arcane about that.

People don't even have to have the same conceptualization of God to end up at the same place. People don't even have to travel the same path. This happens in everyday life also.

browha as you can see I don't see this big complicated existential thing in Christianity like you and some of the others that have posted.

Have people screwed up Christianity? Yes- from time to time and in many circumstances they most surely have. While 'the Inquisition' is posted I have always thought that �The Crusades� were the most harmful- but that's my personal opinion.

Back to your question browha-

If you dont have anything to debate about the content of the post, that's fine, I'm just wondering what everyone thinks about the quality of the post.... feedback appreciated

Stephen F. Roberts
�I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why
I dismiss yours.�

Pretty much narrows the reader field no doesn't it?

This is like me grabbing some quote somewhere that reads:
�All physicists are either deluded or stupid. I would ask which you are but then you wouldn't know, would you?�

Insult a persons belief system upfront and I just feel you really have not impressed upon them any seriousness or worth in the balance of your statements.

Yadda, yadda Bertrand Russell- see above notation.

But, I will accord you more consideration than you accord me.

- - -

All-Knowing;

Why would God care or be concerned whether you comprehend this or not? You ask a question about your position in a chair and them answer it. I miss the logic of the reasoning that God has somehow declared you as God if he recognizes you.

Then you are dismissive and just mention 'flaws' in passing. I don't follow this at all.

You're posting about the Christian God, not some other God unless something slipped by me here. IF God be this then God must be that. I don't follow this at all.

Testosterone? Christ (remember where he fits in all this)

What is a pentagon? Isn't it man's definition, kind of a short-hand for expressing an object or design?

Your own words-

this is just a pathetic contradiction in terms

The rock conundrum-

The time angle-
I have no answer for this. I don't understand time.

created all existance

Is there something beside existence?

What is existence?

we will allow God to modulate and fluctuate in and out of time

I have this feeling that �we� don't allow this. Call it a hunch if you will.

Is this the real crux?

his all-lovingness, consider the evil in the world

That's hard to reconcile isn't it?

This goes to the 'why does God allow' cry.

We (it's hard to take responsibility) are the inheritors of the earth. We have responsibility for what occurs here.

I don't know if you have children or not but let me provide a couple of examples.

I have a grandson that I want to learn to stay out of a certain room. I could simply lock the door. The child would not learn what I intended.

My grandson wanted to take the water hose down to the burn-pile and put out the smoldering ashes. I wanted to go with him and help. �No, no help� as he held his little hand up. I knew what could happen. It didn't happen the first time or the second but the third time the ashes blew back in his face. He and I both learned something. He learned he should listen more carefully to me and I learned to make sure my wife wasn't around the next time I wanted to teach �Mr. Know-it-all�something. He got dirty and scared- I had to fix my own dinner and slept on the couch.

Your conclusion is your own, I don't follow your logic.

�created in his image� must mean to you that God has what? Brown hair and is white?

only logical cause of this was a Divine Being

Like when someone dies of smallpox some kind of demon had to be created to explain that which couldn't be seen?

evidence
and logical reasoning, unlike the concept of God
. . .
is a very confusing idea.

I agree with these.

I'll throw good and evil up with the previous two.

we need a more contemporary view of God which fits our evidence

Not everyone does.

classical Gods are the product of irrationality, and lesser knowledge, and hav been antiquated and obseleted by virtue of modern science

Yes, that magical round bulb that turns into a miniature sun when I flip this switch would seem so to my Grandson also. (he loves flipping the switch for himself now)

being taught at all schools, to children of 3+, how appalling and unsupportive of open-minded-ness)

See the burn-pile story above.

I no longer see any logical reason, at all, for belief in the concept of God

This was evident from your opening paragraphs.

DNA and God- your logic has just negated the �all-powerful� premise.

If I come across flippant I apologize. I had a hard time following what you posted.

Ambient Sound

Furthermore, the danger is that once you �know� you are then free to not think about the issue anymore. You can stop searching for the truth, since you know it. You can stop collecting data.

I fully suspect a child only needs to put their hand in fire once if at all.

nathraq
I looked for love but couldn't see it?
I felt hate but it didn't exist?

Your arguments are irrational and you presume to know what laws of physics a god might

"All-Knowing;
God is traditionally thought of as being 'outside time', and unaffected by time. Thus, if we asked God what the time was, how would he respond? Even if God did know the
time currently (thus implying he is inside time and in itself causing further issues), he would not KNOW the time in other parts of the world. "

Why does it imply god is inside time?
Why could a god not exist in and outside of time?
I can look at an internet site and know all the times in all the world so I imagine if there is a god he could to.

You presume to know how god exists in al of your arguments.

"God knows EVERYTHING, then this flaw comes up: I have the knowledge that "I am sitting in this chair". Does God know "I am sitting in this chair"? Surely not, as he is not.
God may know that there is "a person sitting in this chair" but he most surely does not know "I am sitting in this chair" or else that lays claim that I am God, which has
more flaws than I particularly feel the need to go in to, as it is easily dismissed. "

How do you know god is not sitting in your chair with your or for that mater how do you know that the entire universe is in fact the body of god or a single thought of god or even just his morning movement?
You don't and again you presume you know how god if any exists.


"The standard dualist issues come up, for example, Does God know what the emotion of
maddness is? Or does God know the effect and direct feeling of testosterone in the body? Or does he know the taste of food, the smell of coffee, etc.
Because if he does, then he must surely have a body, which means he must be inside time."

Again you presume to know how god exists or for that mater how the universe exists which you surely do not.

How do you know that you are not god himself? God may have decided to produce himself without knowledge of himself as god and created you as himself ? He may like to toy with us in that way perhaps? Fact is it is improbable and very doubtfull but you can't prove it.

Your arguments are more flawed than the christian concept of god.

I hope you are ok with an honest reply but your esay has failed miserably at its attempt to show flaws in christian concept of god.

By the way, right now in my life, I have serious personal doubts that god exists. I do however believe in a creator of some sort.

You presume that the physical laws we live under inside a gravity well are true everywere and that god must live withen our rules and that is unknowable right now.

X

[edit on 22-9-2004 by Xeven]

if god lived in this dimension, then we could reach God and the dead. However, HE DOESN'T! Can God make a 6 sided pentagon? what a dumb question, a pentagon is a shape named by man to describe a 5 sided pentagon, that proves nothing, it just proves that we created something. God can see you because of his infinite powers. Can God create stone so heavy he can't lift? here is a better question... what number is greater than infinity? None right? So, what power is greater than infinite power? none right? So can God create a power that is greater than himself if his power is the highest possible power you could ever obtain? NO! So, God can not create a rock that would have greater power than him as it would be impossible. And yes God gets has emotions, he is not a robot, he LOVES us. All your questions can easily be answered by reading a bible.

Perception and resulting logical errors.

I have went through the list of "Atheist arguments" on this site, as per your suggested reading. I will address each.

The Presumption of Atheism

The Presumption of Weak Atheism

This involves burden of proof.

In the US Justice system the accused is presumed innocent thus the burden of proof lies with those making the accusation.

This is entirely dependant on who is perceived as accusing whom.

If an atheist says "prove it", who is accusing whom?

The Presumption of Strong Atheism

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

There are two ways to look at this problem.

One is that the evidence is right in front of one's face, and one is too stubborn to accept that even the improbable is possible.

Point in case: If I flip a fair coin in front of you 1000 times and it comes up 1000 times as heads, are not your own eyes enough proof that the improbable happened? Most people, would continue to insist that there "must be some trick" to it. The evidence of this occurance was right before their eyes and they continue to dispute the truth.

Two, it is simple probablilty.

As the number of events which have the possibilty of being caused by God approaches infinity, the probability of at least one of those events being caused by God approaches 100%. As soon as you look at evidience and say "Is this the extraordinary evidence that proves God exists?" all you need to know is math.

The Problem of Evil


The Argument from Imperfection

This argument uses "Bad" and "better" to dispute God's creation. These are relative terms, but that is not even an issue here.

Part one: Imperfection of Humans
We are exactly as we were intended. A creation that enters the world with no knowledge and the capacity to choose to Love God or not.

What creation could be "better" than a creation that learns to love his creator through his own free will and knowledge?

Part two: imperfection of the earth
Wars are the result of choice.
Volcanos and disease are only perceived to be "unpleasant" and "destructive". The terms are relative.

Natural Evil

I do argue that good and evil are relative terms. However, the existance of evil is the result of choice to love or not. Love would exists without that which is not love. But one could not appreciate the love they have without contrast.

Evil does not allow for the possibility of the existance of good. It allows for the possibility of recognition of good. (In other words it allows for perception)

Moral Evil

They didn't explain their position, they explained the opposition's position.

Unbelief

Free-will. Choice. Belief or not.

Problems with Divine Omnipotence

The rock.

This was actually phrased better then your own argument.

So big it cannot be lifted, is not the same as too heavy.

God can create a rock large enough to fill all that exists. But once that happens to where does he move the rock? He could then increase the size of the universe, and He can lift it. But, He could also create a bigger rock. Repeat into infinity. (Oddly enough, the universe is expanding. Perhaps God is exploring this paradox and the universe is the rock. )

Or to paraphrase the argument, BASIC programming could not exist because "10 goto 10".

Problems with Omniscience

Problems with these arguments is the definition of the word omniscient.

Unless the arguments are valid for all definitions of the word, then the arguments are not valid.

But regardless:

First problem: Sets creates boundaries. God is beyond boundaries.
Second problem: Knowledge can be gain through observation. Because God exists in all points of time and all points in space, He has observed all possible events "before" they occured.
Third and Fourth: "Many worlds quantum theory" covers these.

Problems with Divine Justice

I do not know how to approach this one in order to put it into words.

I could simply quote scripture to disprove their assertations.

But the real problem is the argument makes an assumption concerning what the bible teaches concerning the soul/spirit. The bible supports annihilationism, varying punishment/reward as well as the Heaven and hell they propose.

In essence this point devolves into "biblical contradictions".

If one believes in the veracity of the bible, then there can be no contradictions. There can only be a perspective that creates clarity in all the verses. My views on these contradictions can be found here.

The Argument from Autonomy

This argument takes "worthy of worship" and turns it into a requirement in order to prove their point. Their argument does not support that leap.

God is "worthy of worship", however, he does not make it a requirement. Thus is the nature of free will. Choice to love God, or not.

[edit on 23-9-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Just a quick point while I think through the rest of your points..
About the rock..
Thus, from your own text, God cannot create a rock so large that he cannot lift it...
This is a limitation on his powers, a thing he cannot do...
Thus, not omnipotent.
Such is the rock argument, whether you answer it with yes or no, both ways represent limitations on God's powers.

The six-sided pentagon thing... We did not create a five sided shape and say 'this will be a pentagon'. We observed a five sided shape and said 'We will call this a pentagon'.
If you dont like my use of the word pentagon, then fine, I rephrase to this; 'Can God create a six-sided five-sided shape'
If the answer is no, he is limited and thus, not omnipotent. If the answer is yes, well, it is oxymoronic and self-contradictory. And also impossible. You cannot have an object that has both five sides and six sides at the same time.

Before we can dissect what a "Christian" view of "GOD" is, (or whether or not it is flawed) first someone on this thread better define what a "Christian view" is, in the first place.

I don't think I've ever heard a single clear definition of what a "Christian view" is: or as they say, "2 Christians, 3 opinions." Or something.

I seem to remember somewhere in Luke's Gospel, (Luke 18:18-- but see Matt 19:19 !) there seems to be a rough definition of what it means to "follow" Iesous, i.e. be a "christian" :

It is encapsulated in the story of the "rich young ruler" who one day comes up to R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean ("Iesous" in the Greek) and asks him,

"Good Rabbi, what must I do to be worthy of the Life?" To which "Iesous" retorts, "Why do you dare call me good? There is only ONE who is good !"

"But if you would be worthy of [eternal] Life, Obey the Commandments of Moses..[..] ."

And the young man said, "Rabbi, these I have obeyed since childhood. Is there nothing more I should do?" [Secret Mark's gospel adds: and "Iesous" looked upon the young man "and loved him." ]

And he said to him, "One thing you lack only." [And the man said to "Iesous" What is that Rabbi?"

And "Iesous" said to him,] "If you would seek perfection, first sell all of your possessions and put the cash in the poor box---- then come back and follow me--that way you will have treasure in heaven" But the young man grew pale [Matthew 19:22 adds: and turned and walked away for he was very rich."]

So a Christian is someone who obeys the Torah of Moses and gives ALL of his money away to the poor.

In other words, a Penniless Orthodox Jew.

Maybe we locate someone who fits that description and ask what his views of "GOD" are---before we decide whether that view (of G-D) is flawed or not...

Just a thought.

I don't get the same message from Mark 10:21.

Is he willing to bear a present cross, in expectation of a future crown?
The young man was sorry he could not be a follower of Christ upon easier terms.

Editted because I dont think what I responded to was directed to me.



[edit on 23-9-2004 by Raphael_UO]

How I am defining a Christian God in this essay is;
Omnipotent (All-powerful)
Omniscience (All-knowing)
Infinite
Inside time (So he can perform actions described in the Bible)
A mind without a body (dualist issues arise from this, but in a way this makes God a rationalist)
Able to directly interact with the universe through only being a mind

-perhaps- we have to give him a body he can choose to use, as we can see in the Garden of Eden, but then that means God is the only thing around that can break the mind/body bond and re-create it at will... And all modern philosophers will tell you that is a problem!

browha

Let me see:
From man's viewpoint God created the universe. That's pretty omnipotent to me.
From man's viewpoint God knows what he knows and can remember something or forget it forever so that it is as it never existed. That's all-knowing to me.
Infinite?- Don't know. Man's definition seems somewhat lacking.
Time- God is time.
Mind? Why limit God to mind?
God can �interact� as he chooses. This continuation of trying to physically define God and place limits on him is wasteful.
Can you define love and show me what size it is?
Can you define hate and physically describe it?
Show me despair and what causes it? Is it curable?

�perhaps we� no, YOU define God and therefore limit yourself.

Read your signature paragraph.

The answer to much of your questioning is in a Bible.


This modern philosophical thought you are beating a drum about seems short-sighted and narrow to me.

Why is it that dumb, uneducated desert wanders had no problem with the concept these brilliant moderns do?

�as a child�

Creating the universe doesnt necessairly mean omnipotent... It just means you have the ability to create the universe.
If you read the essay you'll see why God simply CANNOT be omnipotent.
"Can God create a rock too large for him to lift?"
Either way you answer it God has limitations on his power.
Yes - Then it's too large for him to lift and he's unable to do somethin
No - Then he cannot create an object to a certain specification and he's unable to do something
This is the sort of thing philosophy is based off

Using your desert wanderers argument, the ancient Greeks used to believe that everything was made up of one little round ball, called 'atomos'. Thanks to modern inquisitive nature, we know better.
Coupled with modern science, and simply more people actually giving this topic better thought, as well as better education standards, more people begin to question the concepts.

edit; Modern philosophical thought has been debated and refined for hundreds of years to arrive at today's arguments. For many philosophers, it takes a moment of inspiration to come up with an argument like the rock argument.

[edit on 24-9-2004 by browha]