Page 1 of 4

Straw God

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 8:18 pm
by _KevinSim
I've grown aware that many posters on this forum don't believe in God, or even believe there is no God. Frankly, I don't blame them. God, as defined by Biblical Christianity (and even by some Latter-day Saints) is a being of such contradictions that it's literally impossible for such a God to exist. And if he did exist, he'd be so infinitely evil that I don't see how a conscientious person could bring herself to worship him.

God, as seen by Biblical Christians, is all-powerful and all-knowing, and in those two attributes lie the contradictions. Quite a long time ago I stopped believing that God had either of those two attributes. Doctrine & Covenants 93 makes it clear that there are some things that God doesn't have power to do, doing away with absolute omnipotence. I had a bishop who told me that God actually does, know all, but later he told me that he wasn't sure about that. At any rate I don't believe that God knows all, whatever knowing all actually means.

I think God has great power, and great knowledge, to the extent that God knows that He can accomplish His eternal goals, but I don't think that means He has power to do anything that can be imagined, or that He knows everything.

When one does away with those attributes, God is much easier to believe in. Many of the arguments against the existence of a good God are of the form, "Surely an all-powerful good God would do ...." Or, "Surely an all-knowing good God would do ...." If we stop believing in an all-powerful or an all-knowing God, that takes the bite out of those criticisms.

And to be perfectly honest, why should one believe in absolute omnipotence or absolute omniscience for that one's God? The Bible says God is omnipotent, and also that God can do all things, so it could be argued that Doctrine & Covenants 93 contradicts such statements. But this would hardly be the first time scripture made a general statement in one place, and then included an exception to that general statement somewhere else. God being able to do all things is the general statement; God's inability to create intelligence (as stated in Doctrine & Covenants 93) is the exception. And if the Bible does actually state that God is omniscient, I'm unaware of where it does. If any of you can point it out to me I'd appreciate it.

Does this less than omnipotent, less than omniscient, God actually exist? I admit that, strictly speaking, I don't know whether He does or not. I am unaware of any good evidence that establishes either that it's more likely that such a God exists or to the contrary.

But the fact of the matter is that if the human race continues its short-term solutions to crises that erupt on it, then that human race is headed toward disaster. Humanity needs to start looking into long-term solutions to the problems that it's going to face over the next several years. And what is more long-term than eternal? The simple fact is that the work of God must go forth, whether there currently is a God to carry it out or not.

There is nothing conscientiously wrong with agnostics or atheists. It is completely possible that an atheist can have as good or better a conscience than any believer in God. But I am convinced that if an atheist with a conscience really understood her/his duty to the human race, and her/his need to work toward long-term solutions to future crises, that atheist would realize that humanity needs God, whether one exists or not; and would take initial steps towards bringing that God into existence, should it turn out that no God did currently exist.

I personally am well aware that I could never, by myself, carry out the work of God, work towards eternal goals. So I chose to share the load; I chose to assume that God exists and decided to live my life in partnership with that God; I do as much as I can, while trying to live by God's guidance, and go on the faith that God will make up the difference, will accomplish His eternal goals by His grace combined with the imperfect efforts of all the people who believe in Him (which includes me).

Re: Straw God

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 8:38 pm
by _Tobin
I question the concept of a limited God merely because it begs the question of just how limited is a limited God? The other problem I have with it is the concept of free agency. If God is unable to do anything he imagines, then free agency is a fiction since no-one, including God, can decide between all possible choices.

I'd propose an alternative to the limited God and the all-powerful/all knowing God that is responsible for everything including evil. That would be an highly technologically advanced, evolved and eternal being of immense knowledge and power that makes no mistakes, is dedicated to truth and doing what is best, and knows all that has happened, and based on that can see and predict all matters (vs the minutia) of consequence that does and will happen. In essense a timeless being that for all intentional purposes is all knowing and all powerful in any way that really matters, but devoid of the questions of limitations that a limited God might engender.

Re: Straw God

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:42 pm
by _lulu
You might be interested in process theology.

http://processandfaith.org/about/what-process-theology

Re: Straw God

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:56 pm
by _Darth J
Tobin wrote:I question the concept of a limited God merely because it begs the question of just how limited is a limited God? The other problem I have with it is the concept of free agency. If God is unable to do anything he imagines, then free agency is a fiction since no-one, including God, can decide between all possible choices.

I'd propose an alternative to the limited God and the all-powerful/all knowing God that is responsible for everything including evil. That would be an highly technologically advanced, evolved and eternal being of immense knowledge and power that makes no mistakes, is dedicated to truth and doing what is best, and knows all that has happened, and based on that can see and predict all matters (vs the minutia) of consequence that does and will happen. In essense a timeless being that for all intentional purposes is all knowing and all powerful in any way that really matters, but devoid of the questions of limitations that a limited God might engender.


Okay, okay. Here's my idea. Some people don't like bacon, so I propose an alternative to bacon. Are you with me? See, what we do is take some pork bellies. Then we cut those pork bellies into strips and cure them. And possibly smoke them, too. Then maybe we could fry it in a pan for breakfast. I think that these cured and smoked strips of pork bellies would overcome people's objections to bacon.

Re: Straw God

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:06 am
by _Tobin
Darth J wrote:
Tobin wrote:I question the concept of a limited God merely because it begs the question of just how limited is a limited God? The other problem I have with it is the concept of free agency. If God is unable to do anything he imagines, then free agency is a fiction since no-one, including God, can decide between all possible choices.

I'd propose an alternative to the limited God and the all-powerful/all knowing God that is responsible for everything including evil. That would be an highly technologically advanced, evolved and eternal being of immense knowledge and power that makes no mistakes, is dedicated to truth and doing what is best, and knows all that has happened, and based on that can see and predict all matters (vs the minutia) of consequence that does and will happen. In essense a timeless being that for all intentional purposes is all knowing and all powerful in any way that really matters, but devoid of the questions of limitations that a limited God might engender.


Okay, okay. Here's my idea. Some people don't like bacon, so I propose an alternative to bacon. Are you with me? See, what we do is take some pork bellies. Then we cut those pork bellies into strips and cure them. And possibly smoke them, too. Then maybe we could fry it in a pan for breakfast. I think that these cured and smoked strips of pork bellies would overcome people's objections to bacon.


Clever, but since we are talking about how God may exist (in essense types of bacon) here, your analogy is flawed. We aren't hiding (or attempting to hide) the fact we are talking about God to get people to accept God.

Re: Straw God

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:30 am
by _Darth J
Tobin wrote:Clever, but since we are talking about how God may exist (in essense types of bacon) here, your analogy is flawed. We aren't hiding (or attempting to hide) the fact we are talking about God to get people to accept God.


No, seriously, dude, I love your alternative to the philosophical problems of theism. Instead of the God of classical theism, there is the Tobin God, who for all practical purposes we can imagine is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and who has certain limitations in that he can't do things that are logically impossible.

Dude! When you just go and say the exact same thing in substance but with slightly different wording.......mind totally blown!

Re: Straw God

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:42 am
by _Tobin
Darth J wrote:
Tobin wrote:Clever, but since we are talking about how God may exist (in essense types of bacon) here, your analogy is flawed. We aren't hiding (or attempting to hide) the fact we are talking about God to get people to accept God.


No, seriously, dude, I love your alternative to the philosophical problems of theism. Instead of the God of classical theism, there is the Tobin God, who for all practical purposes we can imagine is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and who has certain limitations in that he can't do things that are logically impossible.

Dude! When you just go and say the exact same thing in substance but with slightly different wording.......mind totally blown!

Clearly, your mind was so blown that you didn't understand what I said. I didn't say God was omnibenevolent, omnipotent, or omniscient in the traditional sense. For example, under my description God is a murder because he does what is best for us. He would slay the wicked for example. God also isn't concerned (nor forsees) the minor actions of creatures like ourselves. Nor does God's omnipotence stretch to control of every action in the universe. God is a hyper advanced being, who compared to us would be all powerful. These types of distinctions are rarely drawn in discussing God.

Re: Straw God

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:07 am
by _Darth J
Tobin wrote:
Darth J wrote:Dude! When you just go and say the exact same thing in substance but with slightly different wording.......mind totally blown!

Clearly, your mind was so blown that you didn't understand what I said. I didn't say God was omnibenevolent, omnipotent, or omniscient in the traditional sense.


"....there is the Tobin God, who for all practical purposes we can imagine is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and who has certain limitations in that he can't do things that are logically impossible."

This is indeed a meaningful philosophical distinction that resolves the problems of traditional theism. Just propose that God is limited, but only in ways that are trivial or beyond our ability to understand, which means in every way we can think about or understand, he is exactly the same as the God of classical theism, which means using slightly different words to say the exact same thing doesn't change anything.

For example, under my description God is a murder because he does what is best for us. He would slay the wicked for example.


Are you able to give any examples of the wicked he has recently slain, or is this just theoretically what he might do?

God also isn't concerned (nor forsees) the minor actions of creatures like ourselves.


And yet he does what is best for us! Murder people and whatnot. And he can't make an educated guess about what we're going to do, even though he can "predict all matters (vs the minutia) of consequence that does and will happen."

I wonder why God's omniscience ends at triviality. Or why that would matter in philosophical problems with free will and stuff like that.

Nor does God's omnipotence stretch to control of every action in the universe. God is a hyper advanced being, who compared to us would be all powerful.


".....that for all intentional purposes is all knowing and all powerful in any way that really matters." But he's not, you know, really omnipotent. He can't make a four-sided triangle. Even though classical theism also generally holds that God can't to things that are logically impossible.

These types of distinctions are rarely drawn in discussing God.


Perhaps it is because these are trivial distinctions that make no meaningful difference.

I know! Tobin, solve the problem of evil for us in a way classical theodicies have not already tried to do.

Re: Straw God

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:19 am
by _Tobin
Darth J wrote:
For example, under my description God is a murder because he does what is best for us. He would slay the wicked for example.

Are you able to give any examples of the wicked he has recently slain, or is this just theoretically what he might do?
God sure killed a few with a tornado in the War of 1812 - that is about as Biblical as you can get.
Darth J wrote:
God also isn't concerned (nor forsees) the minor actions of creatures like ourselves.

And yet he does what is best for us! Murder people and whatnot. And he can't make an educated guess about what we're going to do, even though he can "predict all matters (vs the minutia) of consequence that does and will happen."
I wonder why God's omniscience ends at triviality. Or why that would matter in philosophical problems with free will and stuff like that.
I don't think every time we fart, sneeze, or go the bathroom rises to the attention of God. When you depict a God concerned with every time I bust a grumpy I can't help but laugh.
Darth J wrote:
Nor does God's omnipotence stretch to control of every action in the universe. God is a hyper advanced being, who compared to us would be all powerful.
".....that for all intentional purposes is all knowing and all powerful in any way that really matters." But he's not, you know, really omnipotent. He can't make a four-sided triangle. Even though classical theism also generally holds that God can't to things that are logically impossible.
And yet, God is often depicted as making the impossible possible. For example, making 7,000 years of Biblical history seem like 4.5 billion years. This is the type of things that traditional omnipotence can lead to.

Re: Straw God

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:36 am
by _Gadianton
KevinSim wrote:God, as seen by Biblical Christians, is all-powerful and all-knowing, and in those two attributes lie the contradictions. Quite a long time ago I stopped believing that God had either of those two attributes.


So you're not Mormon anymore?

KevinSim wrote:I think God has great power, and great knowledge, to the extent that God knows that He can accomplish His eternal goals, but I don't think that means He has power to do anything that can be imagined, or that He knows everything.


But the Church does. Who should we believe, you, or the Church?

KevinSim wrote:And to be perfectly honest, why should one believe in absolute omnipotence or absolute omniscience for that one's God?


Because the Church tells us this is the way it is.

http://Mormon.org/faq/nature-of-god/

God is perfect, all wise, and all-powerful; the ruler of the universe.