Omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omniscience are universally accepted as attributes of God. — TheMadFool

But how can you keep saying this when god himself said he cannot even be imagined by humans? If we cannot even imagine his properties then you cannot write about them.

Had God done this, man whom He created in His own image would have been reduced to nothing more than a mindless, (albeit righteous and well-behaved) puppet and He a mere puppet master predictably pulling the strings that would keep his toy on the straight and narrow , safe from harm's way. — John Gould

Which is what he actually created. Where did he get the idea to give them free will?

Whether or not He chooses to pick up His iPhone when yo call Him and PERSONALLY talk to you is purely a matter for Him to decide, not you. — John Gould

That is basically what the Hollywood saying means.

that all I ( and they ) had waiting in store was the grim reality of eternal death; of death, that is ,as FINIS ( where dead is dead). — John Gould

Why is it that I have no fear of death? I am over 60, I fully realize that the biggest part of my life is probable over and that the rest is going to be down hill. It saddens me maybe that I won't be around to witness so many things, but it does not scare me.

Why are you scared of it?

But how can you keep saying this when god himself said he cannot even be imagined by humans? If we cannot even imagine his properties then you cannot write about them. — Sir2u

You're right but that's a big IF isn't it? I'm familiar with the incomprehensible - I find math very difficult. However, that doesn't mean it's universally incomprehensible. I don't think my limits are yours and vice versa. The claim God is imcomprehensible to ALL is what I doubt. There are many who've seen God. Shouldn't we try?

Shouldn't we try? — TheMadFool

I like gardening as a hobby, you get better return on time spent.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion. I haven't found God, yet, but I have learned a lot through my search. Perhaps you've already passed that stage and are at a different level where you don't see anything fruitful in carrying on the investigation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X_2IdybTV0

at a different level where you don't see anything fruitful in carrying on the investigation. — TheMadFool

I decide many years ago that I would search for the things I needed in my life, gods were never on the list of useful things to look out for along the way.

You are presuming that the essential nature of a button MUST be defined in utilitarian terms. What if my friend Mr X insists that the essence of a button is fundamentally a question of aesthetics (beauty). The onus is now on you to prove that Mr X is mistaken and that his thesis that the perfect button is the most beautiful button is false. — John Gould

Sorry for the late response on this discussion.
A property of a thing is essential if the thing no longer retains its identity once the property is removed. Is a beautiful button a button? Yes. Is an ugly button still a button? Yes. Therefore beauty is not an essential property of buttons. On the other hand, is "a button that cannot hold two pieces of fabric together" still a button? No; just scrap material.

I am impressed by your knowledge of God and the reasons for evil in the world.

One small disagreement is when you say we cannot have any knowledge of God. Thomas Aquinas says that while we cannot have complete knowledge of God, we can have some. For one thing, we can know what he is not: If he is perfect, then he has no properties that are imperfect (weak, shy, ...). We can know he is the first cause, from the cosmological argument. We can know that there can only be one perfect being, as argued here. Finally, we can know some things about the cause from its effects: If we are truly created in his image, then our image must be somewhat close to his, even if only a little.

For one thing, we can know what he is not: If he is perfect, then he has no properties that are imperfect (weak, shy, ...). — Samuel Lacrampe

If he were perfect, would he not have all of these qualities? How can a perfect being be missing qualities?

Samuel,

With reference to the Christian God, I have tried to emphasise in my posts above that mankind cannot have any knowledge of God AS HE IS IN HIMSELF; that is, as God the divine Subject ( the One who IS - what man has, amongst other things (futilely, in his desperate struggle to place Him within human reach) referred to as- the final, ultimate and absolute Truth) who is transcendent, and forever hidden from humanity. For mankind, God the divine Subject is always "wholly other": unspeakable, incomprehensible, unimaginable, unthinkable, wholly inconceivable and completely imperceptible. There simply ARE NO divine predicates/affirmations that we human beings can ever use to describe this God and that includes supernal adjectives like infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and so on. In orthodox Christian theology THIS God , i.e. God as He is in Himself is referred to as the "essential" or "ontological" Trinity.

Human beings CAN , as I say, know something of God through what God has chosen to REVEAL of God Self to mankind; that is, through GOD'S HUMANITY. This revealed knowledge is a gift freely given by God at his sole discretion to man, and it is important to appreciate that it is only ever INDIRECT knowledge.

God revealed God's humanity , for instance, in the incarnation , life, teaching and resurrection ( as Christ) of Jesus of Nazareth, and also in the written testimony of the Biblical prophets and apostles as we have it in the Old Testament and the Gospel. To genuinely know God through what He has revealed of Himself to human beings ( in sources like Christ and the written word of the Bible, for example) one must, however possess a special (supernatural) WAY of properly understanding what been revealed by God of God self. This special way (mode) of understanding revealed knowledge is called faith. Faith, very briefly, is also a freely given gift of God, and ultimately only God decides upon which particular human beings the gracious gift of faith will be bestowed. Through faith, we can have sure and certain knowledge of such things as that God IS love or that God is Almighty (omnipotent) or that God is an eschatological God who brings human beings ( through His revelation of the resurrection of the crucified Jesus of Nazareth and the ( vertical) ascension the risen Christ Jesus to the Right Hand of the God the heavenly Father above) or the good news that there is hope for a new life everlasting beyond the grave and eternal death with God in His Kingdom, and hope, as well, for a deliverance from evil and a redemption of suffering, etc, etc.

Regards

John

God revealed God's humanity , for instance, in the incarnation , life, teaching and resurrection ( as Christ) of Jesus of Nazareth — John Gould

OK, so now all that is left is to prove that Jesus existed and that he was god's son. That should not be a big problem.

I'll check back later for your reply.

God, in graciously condescending to save a fallen and lost humanity through revelation of Himself is truly "Sir2u". Remember that and be grateful. And If you lack faith, then pray for it. — John Gould

The notion of original sin is silly. Add to it the fact that God ‘condescended’ to sacrifice himself (as Christ) for our lost and fallen selves is sillier still. For God created us deformed and made us ‘born sinners’ from the start. Yet He was kind enough to save us from ourselves? God cannot be that wicked or arrogant. God doles out mercy when and where He wills. But to condemn the human race collectively (original sin) and then swoop in later to save the human race is not glorious, its illogical.

But to condemn the human race collectively (original sin) and then swoop in later to save the human race is not glorious, its illogical. — Modern Conviviality

Amen to that brother. >:)

@ the OP
I didn't read through the entire thread, so I don't know if anyone else pointed out that you're assuming that omnipotent beings would want to kill other omnipotent beings.

How about this argument? I call it, "Proof that there can be more than one God".
x is god
y is god
gods are omnibenevolent
omnibenevolent beings have no desire to kill others
therefore it's possible that there are 2 (or more) gods

don't forget that God is omnipresent and omnievident.

Modern Conviviality,

So...tell me what happens to you after die? What does your illustrious, daring human reason with its pristine rationalism, its earnest philosophical "logic-chopping" and it clever scientific methods nobly pursuing the Truth suggest? Let me see... Ummm, Eternal death isn't it? Do I have that right MC? That is, when you die you, it's "Goodnight Vienna ! " as they say in the football, - I.e. death as FINIS ( dead is dead). Death that is the stone- cold, perfect stillnes of oblivion... death as nothingness. For you there is no supernatural bullshit going on after you die, correct? But the (Eternal) Death you preach seems to me a pretty hard-core old thang buddy.? Because Eternal Death is the prospect that renders EVERY SINGLe lived experience you ever experienced - your every magical, miraculous moment of awareness in lived phenomenal consciousness your every: CONVIVIALITY, every love, every sadness, every joy, every triumph, every poignancy, every tenderness, every pang of the bitter-sweet, every sorrow, every remorse, every striving, every unguarded smile, every soaring of , and song in, your heart, every fervent hope, every act of kindness or charity you have offered, or gift of compassion you have received, every noble dream, every cherished thing or moment, ALL for naught..ALL OF THEM and the rest, all ultimately meaningless, purposeless, pointless, amoral and frankly absurd. Were they all purely futile and worthless? Just a collection of random biochemical reactions ? . YOU , and your own life on this Earth- the lives of your wife, your children, those you love and care for; are you and they nothing more, ultimately, than meaningless, worthless, purposeless biological automata wandering aimlessly here and there - Lumps of organic matter whose destiny and sole raisin d'etre was always to be no more , in the end, than fodder for the grave worm?

Is THIS what you SINCERELY believe?

John

Thanks for your reply. Good argument. I like it. However, there is no necessity of entailment in your argument i.e. from omnibenevolence it isn't necessary that there be two or more Gods.

My argument, if it's a good one, proceeds from the notion of ominipotence to the necessity of there having to be only 1 God.

Can you find a loophole in my argument?

Can you find a loophole in my argument? — TheMadFool

Another of your unstated premises is: "a God can be killed".

I don't know what would happen if one God attacked another, but I can imagine that the God being attacked wouldn't even bother defending Himself if He couldn't be killed. And if the attacking God knew His attacks would be ineffective, He wouldn't even bother attacking in the first place.

Because Eternal Death is the prospect that renders EVERY SINGLe lived experience you ever experienced - your every magical, miraculous moment of awareness in lived phenomenal consciousness your every: CONVIVIALITY, every love, every sadness, every joy, every triumph, every poignancy, every tenderness, every pang of the bitter-sweet, every sorrow, every remorse, every striving, every unguarded smile, every soaring of , and song in, your heart, every fervent hope, every act of kindness or charity you have offered, or gift of compassion you have received, every noble dream, every cherished thing or moment, ALL for naught. — John Gould

All for naught. Even if that is true, so what?
But how could it even be for nothing? All of those things make up MY life. When I go, what good are they to anyone else?
It is not the memories of the things that has value, it was actually doing them. I had those experiences myself, no one has any right to them except me. So when I die I will take them into the big dark void of emptiness, the stone- cold, perfect stillness of oblivion, the nothingness with me. And the rest can keep their own lives.

YOU , and your own life on this Earth- the lives of your wife, your children, those you love and care for; are you and they nothing more, ultimately, than meaningless, worthless, purposeless biological automata wandering aimlessly here and there - Lumps of organic matter whose destiny and sole raisin d'etre was always to be no more , in the end, than fodder for the grave worm? — John Gould

Did you not read in the bible the bit about ashes to ashes, dust to dust?

Another of your unstated premises is: "a God can be killed".

I don't know what would happen if one God attacked another, but I can imagine that the God being attacked wouldn't even bother defending Himself if He couldn't be killed. And if the attacking God knew His attacks would be ineffective, He wouldn't even bother attacking in the first place. — anonymous66

Well, you've moved to intentions. This is relevant but doesn't hurt my argument.

If there were only 1 God, he's faced with the well-known paradox of "Can God create a stone impossible for God to lift?" The only way out of this paradox is to say that God would never actually create such a stone i.e. he will not - an intention.

In the case of two/more omnipotent Gods this inhibition of intent doesn't exist. One God, through his omnipotence, create a stone impossible for the other to lift. However, this isn't possible because the other God is equally omnipotent and should be able to lift the stone. As you can see, it's a power deadlock. I referred on poster to the situation during the cold war between USA and USSR. They both wanted to become all powerful but that was impossible because they checked each other's power.

I'm not sure how the above helps your argument- if you're saying that the USSR and the US are like gods, then you must admit they both exist, and you've provided us with a counter-argument.

On the other hand, are you invoking this unstated premise? "Gods are like countries (both can be destroyed)." Isn't it rather the case that Gods can't be destroyed (killed), but countries can be?

How about this counter-argument?
Gods (immortal, all-powerful beings) can't be killed. Therefore any number of them could exist simultaneously (after all, many cultures envisioned a pantheon of gods).

I'm not sure how the above helps your argument- if you're saying that the USSR and the US are like gods, then you must admit they both exist, and you've provided us with a counter-argument — anonymous66

Both couldn't achieve all powerful status because they checked each other's power. Similarly, 2 powerful Gods will prevent each other from achieving omnipotence.

How about this counter-argument?
Gods (immortal, all-powerful beings) can't be killed. — anonymous66

Well, leave aside the killing part. Two all powerful beings won't be able to achieve omnipotence because of the country analogy I gave above.

Suppose there are 2 Gods (A and B) who are equally powerful. Imagine now that A creates an impenetrable shield. Now if A is omnipotent then B can't create an unstoppable spear - limiting B's power and thus B can't be omnipotent.

I think I misinterpreted your argument from the beginning.

It looks like what you're saying is that God A can either make something that God B cannot destroy, or he can't. If God A can make something that cannot be destroyed by God B, then God B isn't omnipotent. If God A can't make something that God B can destroy, then God A isn't omnipotent. <--- is that a valid summation?

Weakness and shyness are not qualities, are they? They are properties that are considered negative, like ugliness and laziness. The perfect being would not possess these.

I agree with you that we can know God if God reveals himself to us, like through Jesus and the bible. But why do you claim that we cannot know God any other way? You have not provided any reasons for that claim. Can you refute any of the arguments stated here?

For God created us deformed and made us ‘born sinners’ from the start. Yet He was kind enough to save us from ourselves? God cannot be that wicked or arrogant. God doles out mercy when and where He wills. But to condemn the human race collectively (original sin) and then swoop in later to save the human race is not glorious, its illogical. — Modern Conviviality

Hi. God did not create us deformed and 'born sinners'. In the bible, God created Adam and Eve without sin, but with free will (for free will is necessary for love). Free will is the ability to choose between good and evil. They chose evil, which damned them and their children. But God did not condemn us; Adam and Eve did. And this 'condemnation' may be a necessary result from willing evil, inasmuch as 4 necessarily results from 2+2.

Weakness and shyness are not qualities, are they? They are properties that are considered negative, like ugliness and laziness. The perfect being would not possess these. — Samuel Lacrampe

Weakness and shyness are not qualities.
Quality:
An essential and distinguishing attribute of something or someone
A characteristic property that defines the apparent individual nature of something

They are qualities because they help to define, explain or describe what things are like.

The fact that you consider them as negative attributes makes no difference they are still qualities.
And surely the perfect being would be a combination of ALL possible properties. A being that only held the quality of boldness would be flawed.

This still does not answer the ethical problem of my being condemned on behalf of another. And my eternal need to be saved thereafter.

This still does not answer the ethical problem of my being condemned on behalf of another. And my eternal need to be saved thereafter. — Modern Conviviality

There is no answer to that so just confess and suck up life like a man. That way you will be reborn when the time comes, maybe anyways.