Jump to content

Failure Is Antithesis Of Omnipotence And Omniscience


Sawu
 Share

Recommended Posts

So here we go...

 

Failure is logically contrary to the concept of omnipotence and omniscience. In fact we could argue, that failure itself violates the concept of omnipotence and omniscience, assuming someone does not espouse something incoherent i.e. can god make square circles? because the concept of square and circle are distinct, and a "square circle" is a violation of the concept of square, and the conept of circle if one tries to imagine them as one concept, since by definition they are mutually exclusive and distinct concepts, in fact a "square circle" would be an undefined NEW concept unto itself, that the questioner himself has no coherent definition of (it is undefined).

 

We've all heard "Can god make a stone so heavy he can't lift it?" But very few actually examine what the questioner is asking, he's actually trying to redefine omnipotence by saying god cannot "do something", by definition god can solve any problem, so a stone could never be "too heavy" for him in the first place since failure is what the questioner is looking for, failure of being able to lift a heavy stone to the questioner violates the concept of omnipotence and omniscience. So the questioner is at fault for asking for things that the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience themselves can't supply.

 

Since:

1) Posessing all knowledge, one can devise ways to solve any 'problem'

2) Having unlimited power having the means to solve any 'problem'

 

Therefore: Any failure of a person to believe in god correctly is in fact, a failure of god to correctly communicate with those people, and/or a failure on god's part to have made that persons mind and body function correctly. Since if all people were correctly functioning they could not disbelieve in god unless it was on some other grounds then rational. Since god knows all the causes and evidence that would convert a person to believe in him, he has a) has purposely made people that don't believe in him, on purpose or B) He is not omniscient or omnipotent, since he fails in his own desire, when he desires that all men should come to the knowledge of truth.

 

II Timothy 2:4 likewise says god "desires [will (KJV); wishes (Amplified)] all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

 

So if god truly desires it, why are there unbelievers? Since failure is contrary to the very nature and power of god, since god knows what causes and evidence a person needs to believe in him by definition this world of unbelievers should not exist. Because certainly failure is a violation of the concept of omniscience and omnipotence, and effort expended on god's part.

 

Lastly, with the age we live in, we know of many technologies that now exist that an infinite god in all his power never thought about making, and we wonder what kinds of devices we will think up next that will one up all the gods of our ancestors. i.e. internet, satellites, digital recorders, etc. That he could have left around the planet or miraculously left behind for all people, infinitely speeding up the process and dissemination of his message. So the christian has a real problem: Why did an omnipotent, omniscient god choose the sloppiest, slowest, backward and most inefficient method of communication possible? If we had everything recorded in history by independent tamper proof technological devices certainly everyone would believe, since everyone could witness the record for themselves.

 

Real truth is simple, an mundane... No one argues over statements like 1+1=2. In fact we could argue that the only thing that is omnipotent is indisputable truth. i.e. you were born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: All Regularly Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.
Therefore: Any failure of a person to believe in god correctly is in fact, a failure of god to correctly communicate with those people, and/or a failure on god's part to have made that persons mind and body function correctly. Since if all people were correctly functioning they could not disbelieve in god unless it was on some other grounds then rational. Since god knows all the causes and evidence that would convert a person to believe in him, he has a) has purposely made people that don't believe in him, on purpose or B) He is not omniscient or omnipotent, since he fails in his own desire, when he desires that all men should come to the knowledge of truth.
Sounds about right. In a relationship between a mortal and a supposedly all-powerful being, the one with the power also has the responsibility.
Real truth is simple...
Unlike "religious truth" which is convoluted to the nth degree and gets increasingly complicated when people start pointing out its flaws.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why don't you just say that sin is the failure of God, and everything that goes wrong in peoples lives are a failure of God.

 

i don't really care for this kind of arguement. you rationalize and logically deduce restrictions on God's power and soviern control over this world, thinking you could do it better. in my imaginary world, you can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why don't you just say that sin is the failure of God, and everything that goes wrong in peoples lives are a failure of God.

 

i don't really care for this kind of arguement. you rationalize and logically deduce restrictions on God's power and soviern control over this world, thinking you could do it better. in my imaginary world, you can't.

 

It goes beyond god's failure, do you think all ex-christians didn't truly want to believe that what the believed was true?

 

Why did god create adam, if he knew he was going to sin, if adam/eve truly had free will, why was he / she given a minds that gave them desires contrary to god, and most importantly, why do all mankind have to suffer death for the transgressions committed by the first human parents? How is that justice at all? Why don't we each get the same choice the first two humans got?

 

It doesn't make sense at all.

 

My own upbringing in my parents biblical faith took me to the brink of suicide, so please think before you speak and utterly ruined my schooling, relationships and financial life because of the severe depression I suffered from my crisis of faith. I used to lay awake at night and cry about the state of the world and how people treated each other, and prayed about it fiercely.

 

There were thousands of churches and denominations, and all thought they had the right answers, not to mention there are other gods and other peoples who claim to know god, it would take MANY lifetimes to know if one had the right god, most people that believe in god believe in the religion geographically local to them or come by it through their parents or popularity, and even then there are thousands of religions and claims to knowing god and books written about these gods we don't know of in history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why don't you just say that sin is the failure of God, and everything that goes wrong in peoples lives are a failure of God.

 

i don't really care for this kind of arguement. you rationalize and logically deduce restrictions on God's power and soviern control over this world, thinking you could do it better. in my imaginary world, you can't.

 

It goes beyond god's failure, do you think all ex-christians didn't truly want to believe that what the believed was true?

 

Why did god create adam, if he knew he was going to sin, if adam/eve truly had free will, why was he / she given a minds that gave them desires contrary to god, and most importantly, why do all mankind have to suffer death for the transgressions committed by the first human parents? How is that justice at all? Why don't we each get the same choice the first two humans got?

 

It doesn't make sense at all.

 

My own upbringing in my parents biblical faith took me to the brink of suicide, so please think before you speak and utterly ruined my schooling, relationships and financial life because of the severe depression I suffered from my crisis of faith. I used to lay awake at night and cry about the state of the world and how people treated each other, and prayed about it fiercely.

 

There were thousands of churches and denominations, and all thought they had the right answers, not to mention there are other gods and other peoples who claim to know god, it would take MANY lifetimes to know if one had the right god, most people that believe in god believe in the religion geographically local to them or come by it through their parents or popularity, and even then there are thousands of religions and claims to knowing god and books written about these gods we don't know of in history.

 

i would answer the first question, but you will not accept my answer. plus there is no clear cut answer for the questions you ask. i am sorry about the troubles you experienced with your faith. i hear that a lot, and am trying to understand it. i feel that christianity offers ways to release our troubles. i don't think it is supposed to bring on new ones. although i could quote some scriptures that says otherwise, the new troubles brought on by faith in Jesus pale in comparison to the ones without.

 

the last paragraph, i agree with you. thier are tons of religions out thier, and you know what. i can't say which one is the true religion. i just have faith that i am right. and i can't give you a reason why there are different religions based on geography. i can't tell you who, if any, will burn in hell based on thier beliefs. all i can say is that i feel confident in my belief that i will have an eternal life after this one is over.

 

just asking what religion did you deconvert from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are clear-cut answers to his questions.

 

The answer is that the Abrahamic deity is a fraud. Nothing perfect would ever make anything imperfect, especially things he knew would anger him, sadden him, and choose paths which led away from him, despite all he'll do to draw them back to him.

 

Pretty simple, really.

 

If Xians would just admit that their god is imperfect and has to implement his wil via struggle, not fiat, their religion would be a bit more reasonable. But since their very holy book claims their god is perfect, the only way for a Xian to accept this is to knowingly deny the Babble. And this they will never do, unless they are prepared to deny the entire religion.

 

No wonder the argument always goes in circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are clear-cut answers to his questions.

 

The answer is that the Abrahamic deity is a fraud. Nothing perfect would ever make anything imperfect, especially things he knew would anger him, sadden him, and choose paths which led away from him, despite all he'll do to draw them back to him.

 

Pretty simple, really.

 

If Xians would just admit that their god is imperfect and has to implement his wil via struggle, not fiat, their religion would be a bit more reasonable. But since their very holy book claims their god is perfect, the only way for a Xian to accept this is to knowingly deny the Babble. And this they will never do, unless they are prepared to deny the entire religion.

 

No wonder the argument always goes in circles.

 

thats a falacy.

 

if god willingly put any form of imperfection into humanity then still they would be perfect. as an artist places imperfection in his art to make it more realistic and more perfect. it is imperfection that makes it perfect.

 

no a perfect being cannot create something that is imperfect. but it can willingly include imperfection, perfecting the being through that imperfection.

 

the problem that we come acrossed with this is free will.

 

"So if god truly desires it, why are there unbelievers? Since failure is contrary to the very nature and power of god, since god knows what causes and evidence a person needs to believe in him by definition this world of unbelievers should not exist. Because certainly failure is a violation of the concept of omniscience and omnipotence, and effort expended on god's part."

 

in order for someone to have free will, they must willingly be able to choose to believe in god or not believe in him. though i disagree that free will exists in the first place in the christian religion due to omniscience, also scientifically/psycologically because all action is driven by desire.

 

technically we could say that everyone is perfect as themselves. no one can be YOU better than you can, because otherwise you wouldent be you. if anything was added or subtracted from you to make you more "perfect" then you wouldent be wholely you, and you would move into imperfection.

 

so you are perfect. even god, being all powerful, couldent make you more perfect, because in doing so you would become imperfect. the problem that we have is that christians refuse to admit that we are perfect.

 

another arguement could be the one given by saint agustine:

 

"Evil is uncreated, being a lack of good and without positive existence."

 

hmm in the name of the wolf... interesting XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why don't you just say that sin is the failure of God, and everything that goes wrong in peoples lives are a failure of God.

 

i don't really care for this kind of arguement. you rationalize and logically deduce restrictions on God's power and soviern control over this world, thinking you could do it better. in my imaginary world, you can't.

 

If God is the first cause, as Christians usually insist, then, sin either is the failure of God or the plan of God. Either way it makes no logical sense for God to pissed at us for it. If sin is the result of failure (incompetence) then it makes sense that God tried several ways to rectify the error, and it also makes sense that these ways failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore: Any failure of a person to believe in god correctly is in fact, a failure of god to correctly communicate with those people, and/or a failure on god's part to have made that persons mind and body function correctly. Since if all people were correctly functioning they could not disbelieve in god unless it was on some other grounds then rational. Since god knows all the causes and evidence that would convert a person to believe in him, he has a) has purposely made people that don't believe in him, on purpose or B) He is not omniscient or omnipotent, since he fails in his own desire, when he desires that all men should come to the knowledge of truth.

 

II Timothy 2:4 likewise says god "desires [will (KJV); wishes (Amplified)] all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

In the book of Romans 1:20 it says that the hidden things of God through creation are clearly seen and made known so that they are without excuse. You know this sounds a lot like a teacher who blames a student for not understanding the teacher. Or more acurately, someone who completely missundertands the different ways people learn and blames them for not "getting it". Yes one more example of what MAN wrote the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore: Any failure of a person to believe in god correctly is in fact, a failure of god to correctly communicate with those people, and/or a failure on god's part to have made that persons mind and body function correctly. Since if all people were correctly functioning they could not disbelieve in god unless it was on some other grounds then rational. Since god knows all the causes and evidence that would convert a person to believe in him, he has a) has purposely made people that don't believe in him, on purpose or B) He is not omniscient or omnipotent, since he fails in his own desire, when he desires that all men should come to the knowledge of truth.

 

II Timothy 2:4 likewise says god "desires [will (KJV); wishes (Amplified)] all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

In the book of Romans 1:20 it says that the hidden things of God through creation are clearly seen and made known so that they are without excuse. You know this sounds a lot like a teacher who blames a student for not understanding the teacher. Or more acurately, someone who completely missundertands the different ways people learn and blames them for not "getting it". Yes one more example of what MAN wrote the Bible.

 

The cosmic irony is that there are many other gods that claim the creation as evidence that it exists. Certainly man has many excuses because there is no way for him to decide between revelations of god using the creation.

 

So the only way to do it is by extraordinary evidence, and even then a very advanced race of aliens could seem like gods to humans who don't understand their technology if they were not wise enough to percieve the deception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats a falacy.

 

if god willingly put any form of imperfection into humanity then still they would be perfect. as an artist places imperfection in his art to make it more realistic and more perfect. it is imperfection that makes it perfect.

 

no a perfect being cannot create something that is imperfect. but it can willingly include imperfection, perfecting the being through that imperfection.

 

...

 

 

What the fuck are you talking about?

 

If a perfect being knowingly makes something imperfect or puts an imperfection in something, then it's imperfect. Don't try that phoney-baloney stuff with me. Making excuses and doing verbal gymnastics doesn't excuse the simple truth that a god who makes imperfect beings is itself an imperfect god. It doesn't even matter if that god wanted there to be imperfections just because he wanted them there - perfection isn't a matter of will, it's a matter of being flawless.

 

Why must a god be perfect? Is an imperfect god so terrible a concept?

 

You want a fallacy, re-read that abortion you just posted :Wendywhatever:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats a falacy.

 

if god willingly put any form of imperfection into humanity then still they would be perfect. as an artist places imperfection in his art to make it more realistic and more perfect. it is imperfection that makes it perfect.

 

no a perfect being cannot create something that is imperfect. but it can willingly include imperfection, perfecting the being through that imperfection.

 

...

 

 

What the fuck are you talking about?

 

If a perfect being knowingly makes something imperfect or puts an imperfection in something, then it's imperfect. Don't try that phoney-baloney stuff with me. Making excuses and doing verbal gymnastics doesn't excuse the simple truth that a god who makes imperfect beings is itself an imperfect god. It doesn't even matter if that god wanted there to be imperfections just because he wanted them there - perfection isn't a matter of will, it's a matter of being flawless.

 

Why must a god be perfect? Is an imperfect god so terrible a concept?

 

You want a fallacy, re-read that abortion you just posted :Wendywhatever:

 

 

what the fuck are you talking about? if you have in your mind a set outcome of what you want your creation to be, and you create it perfectly, then that creation would be considered perfect to the creator.

 

 

we are perfect. its not phoney at all. its not an excuse or verbal gymnastics. all it takes is thought to understand. stop looking at it from a biased standpoint and actually think about perfection and what makes something perfect.

 

perfection: without flaw

 

if someone created something exactally how they wanted to create it, then indeed, it is perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want a fallacy, re-read that abortion you just posted :Wendywhatever:

 

 

Soule is right. Soule's idea is a bit Zen for Western mind, but nevertheless perfectly sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you have in your mind a set outcome of what you want your creation to be, and you create it perfectly, then that creation would be considered perfect to the creator.

 

 

we are perfect. its not phoney at all. its not an excuse or verbal gymnastics. all it takes is thought to understand. stop looking at it from a biased standpoint and actually think about perfection and what makes something perfect.

 

perfection: without flaw

 

if someone created something exactally how they wanted to create it, then indeed, it is perfect.

I just picked up this conversation at this and wanted to mention a couple things. The artists (I'm trying to remember who he/they were) who deliberately designed a flaw into their work was for the specific purpose that only God could create something perfect, so they deliberately made it flawed and not perfect. Was this what they intended in the design? Of course. Because it turned out as their intended, is it considered perfect? No. They made if flawed so it was not perfect, precisely as they designed it.

 

Now, for arguments sake, if God for whatever reason intentionally made his creation flawed (maybe not to upset the better God than himself?), then that’s simply not very fair to those who have to live out their lives with his intentional flaws. Unlike a sculpture with a deliberate defect put into it, we FEEL it in our bodies. If this is so, then what does that say about this god's compassion towards his art project?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, antlerman.

 

Soule's argument is just excuse-making. It isn't logical. That ought to be plain to see. A perfect being willingly placing imperfections in his creations - and then getting mad at us for not being perfect like he is said to want us to be - is a bit loony, wouldn't you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, antlerman.

 

Soule's argument is just excuse-making. It isn't logical. That ought to be plain to see. A perfect being willingly placing imperfections in his creations - and then getting mad at us for not being perfect like he is said to want us to be - is a bit loony, wouldn't you say?

 

an intentional flaw is not a flaw. its part of the design, therefore it is perfectly created acording to the design. therefor we can call it perfect. simple as that.

 

i'm not a christian. i do not agree that much of what god did and continues to do to humans is all loving. the idea that the christians have formed of god is contradictory and on this point i would have to agree with you antlerman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

an intentional flaw is not a flaw. its part of the design, therefore it is perfectly created acording to the design. therefor we can call it perfect. simple as that.

I know what you're trying to say and I don't necessarily disagree with the concept, but I think the use of the word "perfect" is causing a problem. I would say it is "as designed", but if "as designed" contains a deliberate flaw, then the flaw exists. The result of an imperfect design may be have been excutated perfectly according to plan, but the product itself is flaw in its design. So I suppose you could say an imperfect product is the perfect design.

 

It's interesting to go with that thought because death is viewed by us, at least in Western society, as imperfect (and hence why our mythology tries to get rid of death), but life is dependent on death. Death is therefore perfect for life. A perfectly designed imperfect creation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

an intentional flaw is not a flaw. its part of the design, therefore it is perfectly created acording to the design. therefor we can call it perfect. simple as that.

I know what you're trying to say and I don't necessarily disagree with the concept, but I think the use of the word "perfect" is causing a problem. I would say it is "as designed", but if "as designed" contains a deliberate flaw, then the flaw exists. The result of an imperfect design may be have been excutated perfectly according to plan, but the product itself is flaw in its design. So I suppose you could say an imperfect product is the perfect design.

 

It's interesting to go with that thought because death is viewed by us, at least in Western society, as imperfect (and hence why our mythology tries to get rid of death), but life is dependent on death. Death is therefore perfect for life. A perfectly designed imperfect creation?

 

i understand what you are saying but i dont believe that flaw can be intentional. so i dont think this arguement is goign to go very far. we are and are not perfect acording to perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i understand what you are saying but i dont believe that flaw can be intentional. so i dont think this arguement is goign to go very far. we are and are not perfect acording to perspective.

So what you are saying is that what is, in all things that we view as good or bad, are what makes what is, is. Therefore it is perfect, because what is, is? I see the beauty of seeing things this way, as it makes acceptance of Life a thing of peace, coming to it on its terms. But do you see where it may lead to resignation of things, rather than trying to improve upon them? Am I making sense in that question? I wonder if some would then accept events as fate, because it is part of what is, and whose to argue with perfection?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i understand what you are saying but i dont believe that flaw can be intentional. so i dont think this arguement is goign to go very far. we are and are not perfect acording to perspective.

So what you are saying is that what is, in all things that we view as good or bad, are what makes what is, is. Therefore it is perfect, because what is, is? I see the beauty of seeing things this way, as it makes acceptance of Life a thing of peace, coming to it on its terms. But do you see where it may lead to resignation of things, rather than trying to improve upon them? Am I making sense in that question? I wonder if some would then accept events as fate, because it is part of what is, and whose to argue with perfection?

 

heres another way to look at it.

 

trees, in our culture, and many others, are considered a thing of beauty.

however, trees are twisted and deformed. one would even say that this is what makes the tree beautiful. so it is the flaw in the tree that causes it to be more perfect.

 

yes it would cause people to accept things the way that they are because if they viewed everything as perfect there would be no desire to change anything. what is wrong with being happy in paradise?

 

there is a difference between accepting events as fate and believing "what happens, happens".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i understand what you are saying but i dont believe that flaw can be intentional. so i dont think this arguement is goign to go very far. we are and are not perfect acording to perspective.

So what you are saying is that what is, in all things that we view as good or bad, are what makes what is, is. Therefore it is perfect, because what is, is? I see the beauty of seeing things this way, as it makes acceptance of Life a thing of peace, coming to it on its terms. But do you see where it may lead to resignation of things, rather than trying to improve upon them? Am I making sense in that question? I wonder if some would then accept events as fate, because it is part of what is, and whose to argue with perfection?

What is that prayer?

 

Lord grant me the courage to change the things I can;

the strength to accept the things I can't

and the wisdom to know the difference.

 

:HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.