Where does it say that God is all powerful? Why can’t God have limititations like the Greek gods did? He has admitted to being loving, jealous, and forgiving. I am speaking of the God of the Jews and Christians. Do the other religions give their gods limitations?
I am reminded of the George Burns version where he says he just plants ideas and such. That would certainly explain my biggest guestion on how such evil is allowed to exist.
The simple answer is that the God most monotheists choose to believe in is omnipotent. If they wish to change their beliefs, then I will be happy to debate their new conception of God. But I don’t see that happening any time soon.
Why, yes. In fact God is so powerful He can create a stone that even He cannot lift. No… wait, he can lift. No, wait… I mean that he could lift if He didn’t feel like outdoing Himself for a change. No, wait…
My question: If you think God is so powerful, why do you think he sleeps alone?
He’s not all-powerful because he had to rest. And either after that rest or (if you believe he’s still in the seventh day of rest) during it he performed no further acts of creation.
Well, the most pure version of a Deistic God wouldn’t necessarily have to be perfectly omnipotent, merely potent enough to have created the Universe. Exactly how potent that is isn’t really clear, since of course we have no idea how to go about creating universes. (Perhaps the noted theologian Gary Larson was closer to the truth than we know.)
Christians and Jews of course do believe in God’s perfect omnipotence. Atheists tend to find this causes logical problems, no matter how carefully defined, especially when mixed with other divine attributes like omniscience, omnibenevolence, and free will, or with human free will. These divine attributes also occasionally seem to run afoul of the most literal reading of some Biblical verses, as Genesis 3:8-9, Judges 1:19 (especially in the King James translation), or Matthew 24:36 (a potential problem for Christian Trinitarians).
To begin with, Christian and Jewish theologians would cite the Bible to support the idea of divine omnipotence or perfect almighty power. The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Omnipotence” cites several Biblical passages, including Job 42:2 (“I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted.”) and Matthew 19:26 (“Jesus looked at them and said, ‘With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.’”) plus the very similar Mark 10:27 and Luke 1:37, and two verses from what Protestants would consider to be the Apocrypha, Tobias 13:4 (“Because he hath therefore scattered you among the Gentiles, who know not him, that you may declare his wonderful works, and make them know that there is no other almighty God besides him.” – I guess it’s the “almighty” they’re stressing, which in the Latin Vulgate is actually translated “omnipotens”) and Ecclesiasticus 1:8 (“ALL wisdom is from the Lord God, and hath been always with him, and is before all time”, which stresses the related notion of divine omniscience.)
Chapter II of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith (1648) declares God to be “almighty” and gives as proof texts Genesis 17:1 (“When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, ‘I am God Almighty’ ; walk before me and be blameless.”) and Revelation 4:8 (“Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.’”). The Genesis passage includes the Hebrew word Shaddai, meaning “almighty”; the Old Testament’s numerous references to God by this name or title was also noted by the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia. The Latin Vulgate translation renders the phrase “Lord God Almighty” from Revelation 4:8 as “Dominus Deus omnipotens”.
In addition to Scriptural references, I suspect that the Catholic Church (and probably all Christian traditions to some extent, even very Biblically-oriented Protestant ones) would also proclaim their monotheistic God’s perfect omnipotence on the basis of what they consider to be philosophical or theological first principles; see the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia article above.
This is something that used to plague me when I believed in God:
God is all powerful, and He is all-good, too.
Natural disasters cause suffering (earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.)
Suffering is bad.
God being all-good does not wish us to suffer from natural disasters.
But He does not stop natural disasters.
Therefore, God is either not all-good, or He is not powerful enough to stop natural disasters.
If he is not powerful enough to stop natural disasters, he is not all-powerful.
Personally, I have less trouble believing in a non-omnipotent benevolent God ( a first cause, a Creator) than an omnipotent benevolent God. The concept of an omnipotent indifferent or malevolent God is even more plausible, and quite frightening.
Actually, it seems to me that the concept of hell could only pop up in the mind of a malevolent god…Creating such a place is vastly worst that not preventing a natural disaster…extermination camp commanders would be boy-scouts by comparison.
My thoughts Justin (and I have a thread similar to this of my own on here somewhere)
Tell me how God can not be omnipotent? There is only one way I can see it happening. That, of course, is if He chooses to limit Himself. In asserting that God is the all mighty creator of everything, I place it all in His hands. He does what he pleases. In my view of it, if God has limitations (other than those imposed by Himself if they exist) then something with the power to limit God exists above Him. Of course, then the thing that exists above God has omnipotence. It is a rather firm belief (at least for Christians) that nothing exists above God, so there has to be omnipotence of sorts for God. Whether or not He limits Himself is still up for debate and I haven’t actually worked it out myself.
An omnipotent God who limits himnself, for reasons we are unable to understand. Well, I guess in an infinite universe anything is possible.
Dave,
Hence why I haven’t got it all worked out in my head 
Nowhere does it say God HAD to rest, only that he did.
The overwhelmingly prevailing view of the God of Abraham, Jesus, and Muhammad is that He is omnipotent (and omniscient and omnibenevolent besides).
Dave Stewart and philsGT500: An omnipotent God who limits himself is no longer omnipotent, by definition. Such a concept of God is logically impossible. (But phil already knows this, of course).
[Hijack]
This is the thing about religion that I find so odd. Every single thought and sect on religion revolves around interpretation. That is, human interpretation. Of course each new interpretation or idea raises new controversy and the controversies can create new sects in turn. It’s never ending and there are religious scholars who waste their entire lifetime on interpreting the religion of their choice. It’s like a never ending D&D game and specifically, character development. Once the character has been further developed, scholars or priests perpetuate the fantasy when they make “official” rulings. Not once has some profound thought been confirmed by some all mighty creature.
This thread shows a classic “what if” type of question that only confirms that man created God and not the other way around.
[/Hijack]
Jack
For whatever it’s worth, Jack, I’m an agnostic.
Nonsense. I realize how little words mean to you, but surely even you can discern the difference between an ability and a decision. If I am able to drive a car, but choose not to, then am I unable to drive a car?
Not to put words in your mouth, but I think agnostics are agnostic because of the numerous interpretations to be found. With so much to choose from, how are you certain to pick the right one?
It’s like shopping for breakfast cereal, at first you may pick a brand based on advertising or packaging, after trying several you may stay brand loyal once you have decided on the brand you like the best. However, since there are always new brands coming out, you just might decide to go with the newer fresher brand later on.
An atheist has basically forgone breakfast cereal all together. (I am being metaphorical).
If you are actively searching for answers, I recommend you read The demon-haunted world by Carl Sagan. You just may find some thought provoking insight on why we humans insist on bringing fantasies to life.
Jack
My thoughts exactly, Libertarian.
Anyway:
(I’ve numbered the points to help make this simple)
Humans named events such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions ‘disasters’. They’re essential to the development of the Earth.
As for why we have to suffer: have you not read Genesis? While I agree, it’s almost certain that there never were two naked people eating apples in a perfect garden, the symbolism stands true: humans were given blissful unawareness at first, but we chose to pursue knowledge. As a direct result, we have to suffer and die.
Why? Only God knows. You cannot form a logically sufficient argument on the basis that you know what God wants and is doing.
He came down and told you that, did he? Although God has actually said this in the Bible, the point remains: we can’t understand God, so we shouldn’t try to.
Hmm let’s see, an average life span of 35 years interspersed with war famine and pestilence of the church dominated blissfully ignorant population of the Dark Ages versus an average life span of 75 years in an educated society today. You know, I think I would prefer to suffer and die educated at 75 rather than die blissfully unaware at 35. (Let’s just hope some religious fanatics won’t pull us back into the Dark Ages).
Jack
Since when is the Earth “developing”? What does “developing” mean? Why are natural disasters “essential” to this “development”? If you are referring to the movement of tectonic plates as being the cause of volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, how does this tie into “Earth’s development”? And for those natural disasters such as hurricanes, tyhoons, cyclones, forest fires, and mudslides not somehow essential to “Earth’s development” as they are not caused by tectonic movement, how do they fit into it?
Wow this is a new one. The Earth is developing, like an adolescent, huh?
So God is beyond logic. He capriciously has set down Unknowable Rules.
I will go home tonight and read up on Genesis. I’m missing your point, obviously.
If something is entirely altruistic, it does not desire that which is not good. Suffering is not good. I don’t need God to buy me a cup of coffee and explain that to me. Not understanding God includes not appreciating or being able to appreciate that God is altruistic. God should act from altruism, if He is a benevolent God. If He is not, then you win, and as I said above the prospect of the existence of God overcomes a significant hurdle.
