Is God omnipotent?

The orthodox conception of god is causing a lot of problems between science and religion and in other areas. So perhaps a new conception would be more useful, cause less trouble, less cognitive dissonance so to speak.

I am going to ask you to expound on why a self aware contemplative divine fails to be logical?

Bertrand Russell "Philosophy though unable to tell with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom". Although any god is certainly incomprehensible from the more limited human perspective; rational speculation (philosophy of religion) is not only valuable but necessary to meaningful religion.

I beg to differ. The universe is rationally intelligible and mathematically representational these are features which we discover not features which we create. Any god must be rationally intelligible.

. We are the most rationally and highest level of experience in the universe that we know of. We are indeed (made in the image) but we are not god. Man is not the measure of all things.

I do not think anyone is being dogmatic just an exchange of views, a greater understanding of other perspectives and an enlargement of the possibilities.

but if god is not a being, how would he be using reason and logic?

Originally Posted by xris
"If he has self awareness or the power of contemplation he immediately fails to be logical. All the same failings reoccur, he can't help himself. ."
but i thought he was referring to those who are contemplating god, not god himself.

Proth I object to any description of god. I object because even the concept of god is flawed. Even calling this entity it or him is a description too far. The idea that we have decided it has an identity that can be debated is questionable. The idea that a god is essential to our existance is questionable. Why do we need to have a god?

I dont need god here, so why anywhere? If he is omnipotent he is also nowhere.

I understand that. I understand that for you any conception of the divine must be illogical.
You are the neti, neti (not this, not that) of the discussion. I could preface all my remarks with (IMHO, IMV, IMO). It is just that conceptions of the divine will be held and some conceptions will cause more trouble than others. You reject all visions.

Perhaps. But do you think, given the attachment people have to their
beliefs, do you think this is in any way, shape, or form at all within
the realm of possibility?

Do you think a hard core dogma driven fundamentalist from the
Holy Church of Fill-in-the Blank would be willing to even consider
a new conception of the divine that encourages acceptance of
principles that they, their god, and their current religious book of
rules consider to be abominations in the eyes of . . . whatever?

Well I do not wish to argue with anyone's personal subjective experience and the concept of "answered prayers" is always a little vague. I do think prayer, contemplation and meditation allow one greater awareness, connection or enlightenment with/of the divine (the holy, the numinous, the sacred) and in that sense a deep peace or ability or the inspiration to surmount obstacles and difficulties can be achieved. It is primarily the notion of god answering prayers by contravention of the laws of nature or by altering the physical material aspects of the world to which I object. Having prayers answered through inspiration, insight, awareness or enlightenment seems part of the religious experience. God give me, strength, give me courage, give me wisdom, those types of prayers may well be "answered".

I guess my view would be there is a spiritual reality which lies within and beyond the material world. That "reality" is not limited to physical or material forms and things "exist" which are not material or physical forms. I do not believe in "miracles" defined as contravention or suspension of the laws of nature. The kingdom lies within, is spread out before you but you do not see.

In both western and eastern religious traditions lies the notion of man (created in his image) or the (divine that dwells within). That man with his reason, self awareness and intellect holds a special place in creation. Really the modern secular notions of human dignity and human rights have their origin in these religious traditions about the spark of the divine in man; about the respect due each human because the divine spark dwells within each man.
.
Generally when people say "god is not a being" it is a caution against anthropomorphizing god too much, i.e. picturing god as a human writ large. The universe appears rationally intelligible, i.e. the universe operates according to laws which can be discerned rationally and expressed mathematically. In my view if the universe has a creator, then reason and intellect must be attributes of the creator as well. If god has a material attribute or aspect it would be the universe itself. God would be the "soul of the universe" or the "cosmic mind".


I guess if the remark was referring to man contemplating god I would not object but I fail to see how one could not attribute self awareness, reason, and contemplation to any meaningful conception of "god". A god without these attributes would be little different from the indifferent purposeless universe that religion generally is an effort to avoid in the first place. It is the other attributes, all powerful, all knowing, and especially impassibility, eternal, changeless, immutability that I find illogical and objectionable. There is some aspect of the divine nature which is in process along with the world and is changed or affected by the experience of the world.

and eventually all the militants will die out and not be replaced.

Such is the evolution of theology.

Such is the evolution of everything, science, culture, politics,
What is wrong with evolution, why shouldnt religion evolve too?

There is nothing wrong with evolution (unless you're a creationist or an ID'er).

Religion can and does evolve.

My point, in response to the idea of creating a new conception of the divine, is the risk that new conception of the divine will eventually become as dogmatic and repressive as the old conception of the divine. Or, as The Who said, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

by changing our conceptions hopefully we can change the process of our relating to them as well. it isnt only religion that needs to evolve within the human mind and outwardly in human behavior. that needs to be done in all areas of life on earth, i would say.

Just a few rambling thoughts I'll throw out as I am trying to get out of here . . .

While I agree with your sentiments, I suspect that such a change would be impossible.

To (sort of) stay on the track of the original post, if such a change could be made, it could be argued that it would only be because it was God's will that such a change come about.

Or, it could be that God doesn't care what sort of conception of the divine we have. As an omnipotent God, a plan has already been made, and it is flawless. To make a change in the plan would be, I would think, the equivalent of God saying, "I made a mistake."

Is it possible to be omnipotent and fallible at the same time? I'm a bit unnerved by that idea.

If God is not omnipotent, why bother with any sort of worship at all? Would we praise the landlord that can't seem to get heat into our apartment, yet continues to demand rent be paid on time?

Why bother with a new conception of the divine at all? I can decide that I am going to have a new conception of my boss, but my boss isn't going to change.

We can conceive of whatever however we want, but it ain't necessarily going to make it so.


TTM

i dont think a god could make mistakes-but he could change his mind.

But why would he? The consequences of God changing His mind seem unimaginable. Everything would have to change . . . even the past.

why would he? just like when an artist starts a painting or a musician starts composing a song, the end result is often a surprise to him. as the work grows the artist reacts to it and it takes on a new direction.

i dont see why everything would have to change-it could be a very small subtle idea like an artist changing only a chord in one spot that affects the whole rest of the work and its meaning; it goes on to become something different than what it was conceived of originally.

I think god is good and loving but not in the traditional or orthodox way. God is not "personal". God will not save you or answer your prayers.

Let's say that God's original plan called for me to be killed by an inattentive texting driver while riding my motorcycle.!

That's an interesting perspective; I've had completely different experiences.
. I realize that God is doing for me what I cannot do for myself.
I'm not questioning your conceptualization of God; merely offering a dfferent experiential viewpoint.
[/COLOR]