What makes god god

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

There are sevral qualities which describe the god or supreme being of almost every religion. These qualities are omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, imortality, invincibility, amd infiniteness.

How can god exist logicaly with these qualities all present?

For example if god is omnipotent, omnisciencent, omnipresent, imortal, invincibile, and infinite he/it can not possibly be omnibenevolent. Why? If you consider the definition of the term omnibenevolent. And then consider the sufferings of the world at large e.g. famine, disease, abuse, etc. God cannot be omnibenevolent. Becauese he has all of the ablity and resources to stop the pain of thoes he loves but he dose not. This dose not sound like omnibenevolence to me. The theroy that he teaches through pain dosen't fit the bill for omnibenevolence either. And neither dose the concept of damnation in any form at all. God in his/its omnicience could (i think) come up with a better way to teach then pain. And an omnibenevolent god could (i think) think of a better reason to teach through pain then for his own glory.

God as creator of all, would, as creator of all, have created sin. So he is responsible logicaly for all sin. Why would an omnibenevolent god make sin so that his "children" could be tortured? Especialy when he/it has all of the resources available to make a better way and reason for us to learn.

Now if god is omnibenevolent, he/it can not possibly be omnipotent, omnisciencent, omnipresent, imortal, invincibile, and infinite. Because if god was omnibenevolent and possesed all of thoes other qualities he/it would have solved the suffeing problem long before it started. By not creating it perhaps in his omniscience he could have thought of many other ways to avoid the problems we see.

This is the question with which i have been wrestleing. Which one is god? All everything but love, or love?

Thanks for your thoughts
Vajrasattva

Peace, Love, Harmony

FREEDOM

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 858 • Replies: 16

No top replies

@vajrasattva,

vajrasattva;66003 wrote:

This is the question with which i have been wrestleing. Which one is god? All everything but love, or love?

Neither.

"The gods with 'qualities' (and thus limitations, exists in the minds of the idolators.
The minds of the idolators, on the other hand, exists within the Mind of the 'god' that has no 'qualities'."

I use the term 'idolators', as to hold any 'image' of 'god' on the altar of one's mind/thoughts is idolatry!
Making excuses and justifications that the representation must be physical to be idolatry is just that, making excuses for one's 'sin'!

1 Reply

@nameless,

Who said God was bound by logic?

Who said these qualities are literally true of God?

1 Reply

@vajrasattva,

Thanks nameless, I agree. I feel that you should extrapelate your views further. I understand your statement but i would like to discuss it further to better understand your belief.

Didymos thanks, I agree that god, for me ultimate reality, is not bound by logic and that "it" is beyond the bounds of human understanding due to a lack of relativity.

However, i am still wondering why God, in the traditional sense of the term, is acclaimed to have these said qualities by the masses of religious practioners? I feel that the voice of the masses does posess at least some grain of truth within it. I am wondering what grain of truth it is that they possess?

I personaly, as I said, hold dear the belief in something that is like ultimate reality. Which, as my faith holds, posseses no qualities to speak of and is beyond logic because of its lack of relativity. But, I do believe in manefestations that do not possess form. I feel that there are many such manefestations. Some of these manefestations, per the religous masses, are indeed real and are said to be gods. Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, etc. These beings are said to have the above qualities by the masses which accept and cherish their reality. I believe that some of theses statements about the stated beings are potentialy true, per the mouths of their following. I'm wondering which of theses statements are true? Is it omnibenevolence or other that these beings value, considering the reality of the qualities that they are said to possess? These beings in my view are not beyond logic, due to their sentient consciousness. Because of this, I am personaly in doubt as to their benevolence.

With this said, I would like to restate my question is it possibile for a deity, not God, (I apologise for the misuse of that term) to posess all of the of the qualities stated simultaneously? I do not believe so. I am comfortabe wit a deity who is omnibenevolent and not omnious. But if it is lacking in omnibeneovolence I beleve we have some tyrants on our hands.

Thanks again
You both saves me some angst

Peace, Love, Harmony

Vajrasattva

1 Reply

@vajrasattva,

God is, in himself oxy-moronic and somewhat ironic. This is because he has plagued us with the power of free will, free thought, ect. If he were to have created us why would god has granted us the ability to not beleive in him or not be religious whatsoever? By disobeying the church (word of god) we are sinning and going against god whether it be christianity or any other religion with some sort of higher being. If god wanted us to mindlessly follow him without question or thought why then if he is our creator made it possible for us to think for ourselves and therefore decide to be atheist. Just doesn't make any sense to me.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;66086 wrote:

Who said God was bound by logic?

Everything follows logic.

How can god be illogical?

1 Reply

@vajrasattva,

While taking some of the above views into consideration, I yet hold to the likelihood that this whole 'divinity-beyond-the-observable' as explanations for yet-unknown-and-unknowable occurances observed by early humanoids (H. sapien not alone, but much more the propogator) and ours more recent ancients, is very much due to brain properties reached through evolutionary pressure for other matters of survival within social group structuring.

Once the whole god concept had so been tied up with social in-group definitions, and once, as social in-groups merged with out-groups to create even large in-groups (as what has been ever slowly yet steadily happening in world history), god concept forms obviously have both evolved and merged--and so humanity has kind of gotten stuck with it as being 'divinity-beyond-the-observable'.

That might be part of the problem, other than simply being mental exercise--which has its own right to holding a certain value--but I would argue that its about time we put it all behind us. God (capitalized due to being the first word of the sentence) is thus better seen as being anything we'd like to use a referent for that word. The world we are born into, grow up, and die in, is good enough to be god. For that reason, therefore, and in that line of take on it, whatever quality of whatever thing or event there may be, observable or not, known, knowable, or not, can be seen as a divine thing or event, and only the fact that these are in the world, is there any connection. (no need to ascribe intelligence [as we define such in English normally] to it, or over emphasize singularity of entity, so much; I'd say)

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;66130 wrote:

Everything follows logic.

Even though you cannot demonstrate this?

What would such a demonstration look like? Everything is logical because it is logical that everything is logical? That is not convincing.

Logic is a marvelously useful tool, but we should not confuse ourselves into thinking that logic dictates reality. Logic is a tool humans use to understand and express reality - do not mistake the finger (logic) for the moon (reality). The finger does a fine job of pointing to the moon (logic more often than not provides a great explanation of reality), but the finger cannot be the moon (the reality).

Logic follows everything, not the other way around. Logic is simply a means of expression by which we try to eliminate all instances of contradiction in syntax.

Kielicious;66130 wrote:

How can god be illogical?

If He transcends human language (as logic is bound up in human language).

This should make sense. We can describe any experience in language, logical and otherwise, but no such description of language could possibly perfectly capture the full extent of the experience. To do so is impossible because the experience is always changing: our memories alter over time, and our interpretations of aspects of an experience change over time in relation to other experiences.

You can never step into the same river twice. Why do we think that God can be logically stamped and packaged once and for all?

1 Reply

@vajrasattva,

vajrasattva;66003 wrote:

There are sevral qualities which describe the god or supreme being of almost every religion. These qualities are omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, imortality, invincibility, amd infiniteness.

Don't you really mean to ask the question, what would make a god, God? "God" is a proper name; "god" is a general name. Suppose there were a person whose name was, "(Mr.) Person". But, that there was only one person. That's what I mean.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;66136 wrote:

Don't you really mean to ask the question, what would make a god, God? "God" is a proper name; "god" is a general name. Suppose there were a person whose name was, "(Mr.) Person". But, that there was only one person. That's what I mean.

This is a good one.

What sort of God is worth worshiping? or believing in?

How do we go about answering this question? Do we formulate necessary and sufficient conditions for a God worth believing in?

0 Replies

@vajrasattva,

vajrasattva;66103 wrote:

Thanks nameless, I agree. I feel that you should extrapelate your views further. I understand your statement but i would like to discuss it further to better understand your belief.

I have no 'beliefs', these are my thoughtfully considered temporary/tentative understandings, for what they're worth...
I'll be happy to respond to specific thoughtful questions.
You really don't want me just rambling on... *__-

1 Reply

@nameless,

nameless;66152 wrote:

You really don't want me just rambling on... *__-

What's the worst that could happen?

Now that I think about it, I have never reached a limit for post size. Give it a try! Maybe you could submit a post that transcends all other posts - God-post.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;66153 wrote:

What's the worst that could happen?

Now that I think about it, I have never reached a limit for post size. Give it a try! Maybe you could submit a post that transcends all other posts - God-post.

It is my nature to trim off the fat to find the obscured 'pearls', if any. I can understand how many would be 'frightened' to find nothing at the end of the tunnel... (considering the psychological processes going on...)
Too bad that lots of words don't mean lots of clear explanation or understanding. It's more like the author attempting to either convince himself of something, or he simply isn't 'clear' in his own mind and, hence, 'wandering' in eccentric circles around his 'semi' point in the attempt to understand his notions/beliefs.
I do understand, though, that wordiness often attempts to substitute for such meaning and understanding.
Occam's razor trims the fat.
Sometimes there's nothing left; providing (context dependently) a blow to the ego, or perhaps, the advancement of knowledge!

Besides, who would actually read such a pile of words. I usually wouldn't. I find that usually the first sentence or two is so full of errors of logic that I rarely read beyond; why? I don't collect 'errors'.

I have just finished editing a 145 page book down to 2 crystal clear, concise, meaningful, hard-hitting pages! Odd that I feel that I now need to find 143 pages of 'filler' to ... make it more 'book-like' (comfortable) then razor 'haiku-ish'. But I am not going to act on that 'feeling'. I like what is.
Peace

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;66134 wrote:

Even though you cannot demonstrate this?

What would such a demonstration look like? Everything is logical because it is logical that everything is logical? That is not convincing.

Example 1: everything

Example 2: nothing has been shown to be illogical. (explained better later in post)

While it is true that the concept is quite circular logical absolutes transcend reality.

Didymos Thomas;66134 wrote:

Logic is a marvelously useful tool, but we should not confuse ourselves into thinking that logic dictates reality. Logic is a tool humans use to understand and express reality - do not mistake the finger (logic) for the moon (reality). The finger does a fine job of pointing to the moon (logic more often than not provides a great explanation of reality), but the finger cannot be the moon (the reality).

To say that logic only exists because of the evolution of our brain is extremely egocentric. For I am not talking about elementary aspects of logic that humans create (i.e. the applications or models of logic) but rather logical absolutes themselves constitute all of reality.

Didymos Thomas;66134 wrote:

If He transcends human language (as logic is bound up in human language).

This should make sense. We can describe any experience in language, logical and otherwise, but no such description of language could possibly perfectly capture the full extent of the experience. To do so is impossible because the experience is always changing: our memories alter over time, and our interpretations of aspects of an experience change over time in relation to other experiences.

You can never step into the same river twice. Why do we think that God can be logically stamped and packaged once and for all?

Just because we dont understand something doesnt immediately qualify it as illogical in the absolute sense. It's just illogical to us. Human error is key to understanding because what we dont understand seems to be illogical but in reality it's not. Just like when we said the earth revolves around the sun. People thought that was illogical at the time and the sun revolving around the earth seemed more 'logical' but in reality the former was still in accordance with a logical reality (i.e. the logical absolutes) even though we didnt fully understand it.

This is where the applications or models of logic are conceptual by the brain and can be wrong, but that doesnt mean all logic or the LA's are wrong.

0 Replies

@vajrasattva,

Personaly i feel that no sentient, conscious, autonomus, creator i.e. God exists. My feeling on the situation is that the term God (defined by webesters as the supreme and ultimate reality) was originaly derived from the concept of a supreme being. Over the couse of time the term god has been extrapolated from its original meaning. Which at first was intended to descrbe a state of being (being is defined by websters as the quality or state of having existence). So god the supreme being is the supreme state that has existence. Over time, the term being was equated with its use in the term human being, and so, god was turned into a tyrant with an ego problem condeming the wicked to helish existence forever. This is the cause, and result, of the abject and blind submission to the infinitely wrathful power that is god.

I feel that human consciousness is indeed powerfull and, Sir DMT I am sure you would agree with me, that it is capeable of creating unseen and unheard of things. I feel that considering the mass ignorance of mankind at large we may have indeed been able to create a force that is tyranical and facistic to be kind. Hence the mass delusion, vigilance, and fear that pervades the average religious community.

So, considering the question, is the god of the people a tryant or omnibenevolent? They believe both. This, as stated, is a logical contradiction (Especialy considering the god of the people is not god). It is one or the other. Look into yourselves, is the god of the people a tyrant or a saint?

Thanks
Love, Peace, Harmony
Vajrasattva

1 Reply

@vajrasattva,

Kielicious;66243 wrote:

While it is true that the concept is quite circular logical absolutes transcend reality.

Exactly - it is circular. And being circular, logic stands in opposition to itself.

Kielicious;66243 wrote:

To say that logic only exists because of the evolution of our brain is extremely egocentric. For I am not talking about elementary aspects of logic that humans create (i.e. the applications or models of logic) but rather logical absolutes themselves constitute all of reality.

Which assumes the existence of logical absolutes. Again, the circular aspect is the problem.

But, yes, logic only exists because of the evolution of the brain. Language only exists because of the evolution of the brain. Logic is a type of language.

This idea that logical absolutes constitute all of reality is metaphysical speculation.

Kielicious;66243 wrote:

Just because we dont understand something doesnt immediately qualify it as illogical in the absolute sense. It's just illogical to us. Human error is key to understanding because what we dont understand seems to be illogical but in reality it's not. Just like when we said the earth revolves around the sun. People thought that was illogical at the time and the sun revolving around the earth seemed more 'logical' but in reality the former was still in accordance with a logical reality (i.e. the logical absolutes) even though we didnt fully understand it.

If that were the only reason for God transcending logic, then you would have a point. But I did not say God was illogical, nor did I say God was illogical because we do not understand God. Instead, I said that God transcends logic because God transcends language (and logic is only a type of language).

Kielicious;66243 wrote:

This is where the applications or models of logic are conceptual by the brain and can be wrong, but that doesnt mean all logic or the LA's are wrong.

I'm not trying to say that logic is right or wrong. Logic is useful to the extent that it has explanatory value.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;67201 wrote:

Exactly - it is circular. And being circular, logic stands in opposition to itself.

Which assumes the existence of logical absolutes. Again, the circular aspect is the problem.

Its not some vague assumption, its just self-evident. And while self-evident truths tend to be circular that doesnt mean they're completely wrong.

Didymos Thomas;67201 wrote:

But, yes, logic only exists because of the evolution of the brain. Language only exists because of the evolution of the brain. Logic is a type of language.

Logic --in the simplest sense (i.e. applications, models, language, etc.)-- are conceptual and exist by the evolution of the brain. However, that doesnt mean the logical absolutes are conceptual and only exist via the evolution of the brain (more specifically the pre-frontal cortex). If there were not minds/brains around in existence logical absolutes would still apply. A rock would still be a rock. We dont need minds to say that X is X.

Didymos Thomas;67201 wrote:

If that were the only reason for God transcending logic, then you would have a point. But I did not say God was illogical, nor did I say God was illogical because we do not understand God. Instead, I said that God transcends logic because God transcends language (and logic is only a type of language).

Again if you want to talk about the simple forms of logic (in this case language) then yes I will agree. Our language isnt up to par with completely understanding this 'god' fellow, but that doesnt mean 'god' isnt subject to logical absolutes. God has to be god. God cant be both god and not god at the same time.

God has some sort of nature whatever it is, and I'll assume you agree seeing how you are trying to tell me god's nature is 'illogical'. And if that is the case (that god is beyond human explanatory language) then that is what god is. God cannot be both illogical and not illogical at the same time. He (lets just anthropormophize god to save time and avoid redundancy) by your standards is still X, whatever that is, and not not X.

I hope I'm making sense.

0 Replies

What makes god god

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know