|
|
|
|
|
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/22/2006 10:50:31 PM | | If God is omnipotent why didn't he foresee the rebellion of Lucifer and the need to wipe out the world in the Flood? If he's all powerful, why the need to banish and destroy, rather than simply fixing the problems? | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2 | |
| |
Ender
|
Joined: 2/1/2004
Msg: 3 | |
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/23/2006 12:32:05 AM | | Because the concept of "God" is every bit as flawed and irrational as the individuals that made it up. Its in human nature to destroy or ignore that with we fear/do not understand, and that basic principle is reflected in the basic tenents of monothestic religion. | |
|
| |
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/23/2006 5:28:57 AM | It is not so much a question of whether God is omnipotent but rather what that actually means. There are also two more important concepts that have a bearing on this.
In Theological terms there is a discussion as to whether God is a 'reactive' or interventionist God (the sort Nick Cave doesn't believe in) or a 'Static God' - He cannot be both but the problem is that Christian thought describes Him in both terms. Therefore in that religion there is a theological problem that needs resolving before it can move on....and this problem manifests itself as a dichotomy in the believers also.
Basically the 'reactive' or Interventionist God is omnipotent and as such can do whatever He likes. He reacts to events. He is the God that 'sent His son' as an atonement....ie, He saw things had gone wrong and devised a plan (sacrifice) to put them right.
Obviously if He wasn't reacting but had planned both the 'going wrong' and the 'sending the son' then He isn't quite the loving, caring God we are taught He is. Luckily He is not described this way at all places in the Bible.
A 'reactive' God could also send a new revelation at any time - tomorrow even. He could change the rules completely. Who knows, maybe He has? Maybe He sent Islam to replace Christianity....maybe next week He will send another revelation that supersedes all.
To say He cannot do this is to deny the idea of a 'reactive God' and this has a bearing on whether God in any form is omnipotent if there are things He cannot do.
Those who are not open to this cling to the idea of the 'static God' - ie one whose words, deeds and nature is set in stone - even from thousands of years ago.
That is to say, He cannot 'change the rules'.
But this is clearly not the God of the Old Testament who was always prepared to change things.....He would often change His intended actions when petitioned to do so by a Prophet for example. Again, after certain actions of His own He reflects often and adjusts His behaviour.
On one occasion He even repented of His evil.
I think the most logical approach is that God created the Universe and set it in motion like a ball rolling down a slope to see what would happen. Maybe an experiment.
Just because He is omnipotent does not mean He knows the results or Has foresight.....perhaps He is practising creating things and when an undesired result occurs He alters and molds...like an artist.
The 'reactive' model describes an artistic creative God and sees us as a work in progress.
The 'static' model sees us as a completed work and that is why there is a problem: we clearly are not. There is so much 'imperfection'. Questions as to 'why did God allow such and such a thing?' can never be resolved by the Static model. In the Static model they can only lead to blind faith or atheism, both equally unproductive positions.
In the reactive model the question of bad things happening has the same relation to the finished product as a mistake on a da Vinci canvas at the line-drawing stage when he was at the start of his career.
Only an idiot would say da Vinci never made a mistake during the painting of the Mona Lisa. With God we're just looking at things from the wrong end because we haven't been completed yet and because we ourselves are the artwork. | |
|
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/23/2006 5:48:21 AM |
In Theological terms there is a discussion as to whether God is a 'reactive' or interventionist God (the sort Nick Cave doesn't believe in) or a 'Static God' - He cannot be both but the problem is that Christian thought describes Him in both terms.
If god is omnipotnet of course he can be both static and reactionist. This positioning of him as both, is not merely a trait of Christianity, but also a trait of Judaism and islam along with a multitude of other religions. To assume he cant be both, places limits on his power i think you are confusing omnipotent with omnipresent.
Here are some meanings
God is able to do everything, i. e. the answer to "can God do x" is always "yes", regardless of what x may be.
God is able to do everything that is in accord with his own nature (thus he is not able to lie, for instance, since what God speaks is truth by definition). God is able to intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics and probability, since they are not part of his nature, but constructs of a physical world.
God can not only transcend the laws of physics and probability, but can also transcend logical truths (for example, God could create a square circle, or could make one equal two), because God is not bound by any limitations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent | |
|
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/23/2006 6:24:10 AM | Newwayhome
God has given all creatures FREE CHOICE. This includes the created Angels of which Lucifer is one. He rarely intervenes and when it appears that he has it is by giving knowledge that one would not have had otherwise. Using this gained knowledge we may take a different decision than without it. So it remains a situation of FREE CHOICE. Always. I personaly prefer this to living under dictatorial rule. Allthough at times I think of my government as such, but that is politics. | |
|
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/23/2006 6:33:34 AM | If god is omnipotnet of course he can be both static and reactionist.
This is not the case (imho).
Omnipotence in no way means encompassing all attributes. There are many things God cannot be - for example, He cannot be 'Good' and 'Evil'. He must be one or the other. It is even disputable whether He could be 'evil' at all...certainly God cannot sin therefore He cannot be a sinner. This does not mean He is not omnipotent.
This positioning of him as both, is not merely a trait of Christianity, but also a trait of Judaism and islam along with a multitude of other religions.
Not so. Certainly it is not a trait of Islam. God in that framework is purely a being who interacts with His creation and adjusts His behaviour (within defined limits) accordingly.
I would question it in Judaism also. God in the Old Testament is a highly changing character - to such an extent that one could even posit many differing 'Gods': Jehovah, The Lord of Hosts, The Ancient of Days etc.....
To assume he cant be both, places limits on his power i think you are confusing omnipotent with omnipresent.
See above.
I think the problem is that you are not following the logic of your own argument which is essentially sound.
Look at it this way:
1) God can do anything. Yes.
2) Therefore He could create a 'closed system' for a limited period of time (say a million years for example) over which He has no direct power though He can intervene if He needs to.
In this case He would still be omnipotent but He would have 'sacrificed' His powers for a specific duration.
This is in fact specifically what the Old Testament states if you study it. The whole of it is virtually completely about sacrifice......whether it is Abraham or the Children of Israel's votive offerings or rules and commandments that must be adhered to. Sacrifice is the defining theme.....
Even the New Testament echoes this theme with God sacrificing His son )echo of Abraham and Isaac) and the limited period at the end of time during which Satan holds dominion. Interestingly the LAst Day and the return of Christ are said to be specific dates in history which will 'end the experiment' to continue the metaphor.
God is able to do everything, i. e. the answer to "can God do x" is always "yes", regardless of what x may be.
See above: God is therefore able to sacrifice his omnipotence - even permanently. According to your logic He must also be able to resign his position as God and give it to someone else.
How do you know this has not happened then? Many have claimed to be God...perhaps they are telling the truth?
You must accept this possibility to retain a coherent argument.
God is able to do everything that is in accord with his own nature (thus he is not able to lie, for instance, since what God speaks is truth by definition). God is able to intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics and probability, since they are not part of his nature, but constructs of a physical world.
Now you personify exactly the contradictions and theological problems I spoke of before.
You claim God must be able to do everything and then you list something He cannot do. To Lie.
Actually there are several instances of God lying in the Bible but they will not help you out of the logical hole.
God can not only transcend the laws of physics and probability, but can also transcend logical truths (for example, God could create a square circle, or could make one equal two), because God is not bound by any limitations.
This is not necessarily so and again I think you are confusing the meaning.
God is the omnipotent creator. He creates 'things'.
We are the ones who label those things - see Adam naming the animals - but none of those things have an existence alongside God. nor do the names. God, if He exists, must be the only thing that really exists.
He may create a 'thing' but it is you who calls it a 'circle' and 'round'. Maybe someone else calls it 'square'.
You are only correct within the confines of your society, your culture and your place in time. On planet Thrang you will be wrong.
Not only do square circles not exist but round ones don't either....it's all names given by humans.
And it doesn't hold up on many levels either: Einstein proved that the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line for example.
To God we are all idiots whatever we call things. | |
|
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/23/2006 6:52:02 AM |
Therefore He could create a 'closed system' for a limited period of time (say a million years for example) over which He has no direct power though He can intervene if He needs to.
Thats exactly what I said, I never said god can be both static and reactive at the same time that was an assumption on your part. (although an assumption that is true in this case)
Not so. Certainly it is not a trait of Islam. God in that framework is purely a being who interacts with His creation and adjusts His behaviour (within defined limits) accordingly.
I would question it in Judaism also. God in the Old Testament is a highly changing character - to such an extent that one could even posit many differing 'Gods': Jehovah, The Lord of Hosts, The Ancient of Days etc.....
I was under the impression that the muslim god was one and the same as the god of the jews and christians. Hence he would have to be the same god described in the Torah and the Gospels. If so does that not prove that as described in these two books he is both static and reactive?
Personally I am of the opinion that there are no limits to his power , laws of physics are man made etc, somethings the human mind just cannot comphrehend, and (Im not talking about you caglio) but it is an arrogent and foolish person who says god can do this and he cant do that, we have no way to know, we dont even know if he exists! | |
|
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/23/2006 7:09:46 AM | God is omnipotent – no doubt about that.
The thing I don’t understand is – why everyone wants to think that God must use all his powers at the same time? He has the prerogative to use whatever power he wants and not use his certain powers whenever he wants.
We all have some limited abilities given to us by God but we can’t use all of them at the same time. I can eat and watch TV at the same time but I cannot run when I am sleeping (unless I am sleep running!!  ) … The point is – we cannot do many things in combination to each other. I know God don’t have that problem – however he does have the choice to use his different powers or not use them.
If I could make a robot and put it on the table and I also have the power to see that my robot will walk off the table and fall on the ground. Then logically speaking - I should be careful and not put it on the table or do something and protect it from falling. However, what if – my ability to watch the future is also performed through an instrument (a TV monitor)? What if I keep that monitor off and not see what will happen in the future – just for the fun of it!!
It is at my discretion to use that monitor or not use it. If I don’t want to see the future – I don’t have to use it.
Similarly, maybe God decided NOT to use his power to see the future and just wanted to see how we react with our freewill. Maybe he only intervenes – when he feels he must.
At OP:
I believe the rebellion did take place (it was not really a war but a disagreement between heavenly entities. I believe everyone was same at that point. The classification of “Angel”, “Devil”, “Human” and so on – took place after that rebellion. The entity called “Jinn” that you mentioned in some other thread – is most likely descendents of the entity “Devil”. Just like we are descendents of “Adam”! However, I am not entirely sure about that yet. And “Angels” are the trustworthy ones who didn’t believe devil’s suggestions that he too can run a dominion. But as I said – I believe the classification took place after that rebellion/ disagreement.
I believe there must be some indication of the so-called rebellion of Satan/ Lucifer/ Devil in your doctrine as well. However, if you are sure that it is not there then – it still won’t mean it didn’t happen unless your doctrine specifically states otherwise. I don’t follow any man known religion but I like to believe all famous religions have true components.
Remember : “Absence of proof is not proof of absence”. – Michael Crichton
In most doctrines - unimportant things are mentioned as in a “need to know basis”.
About the “flood” – I believe God is always adjusting what the devil can and cannot do. I believe he took away devil’s powers to impersonate him (God) after devil came in Abraham’s dream as God and told him to sacrifice his son for God. I believe - devil can no longer impersonate God in anyone’s dreams.
Similarly certain things before the flood needed to be adjusted. Hence God did what needed to be done.
Check out the following thread and let me know if your God in your doctrine directly admits that it was him who told Abraham to sacrifice his son. If he didn’t admit it directly then it is possible that people made it up. I don’t believe a God would tell anyone to break his own law. However, I do agree that Abraham (in a strange way) did prove his devotion to God when he almost sacrificed his son by listening to the impersonator (devil).
Check out the thread ( Abraham's decision...) … my post is #30.
<a href="http://forums.plentyoffish.com/4351349datingPostpage2.aspx">http://forums.plentyoffish.com/4351349datingPostpage2.aspx</a>
So, in conclusion – God is indeed omnipotent but he too has a freedom of choice. He is NOT restricted by all his powers and certainly not obligated to use them all the time.
 | |
|
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/23/2006 7:12:44 AM |
Personally I am of the opinion that there are no limits to his power , laws of physics are man made etc, somethings the human mind just cannot comphrehend, and (Im not talking about you caglio) but it is an arrogent and foolish person who says god can do this and he cant do that, we have no way to know, we dont even know if he exists!
Yes. this is true....you are completely right but we are debating theologically....ie, the 'God' we are discussing is one defined by whichever Scripture we choose for the model to base the discussion on; Muslim, Jewish or Christian.
We can find the 'truth' as far as it pertain to one of these models: ie, either the Qur'an describes God in a Way X or it doesn't, but you are right, this does not mean that this truth holds good on an absolute level.
One thing for sure; if God exists He cannot be comprehended with our logic and never will be - Revealed religion though is another matter and this (imo) can be approached and de-constructed logically with our human understanding (though only in some people's cases I should add.....hehehe) | |
|
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/23/2006 8:51:53 AM | if god is truely omnipotent then that means that God is all knowing and if God is all knowing means that God would have knew in advance to what would take place
let's put it this way: god wrote the script to the movie made all the sets and all the props and all the special effects and even created by hand all the solar-powered robotic human actors and wrote all the parts for all the actors in this movie and even gave them food and drinks ...but has a hissy fit and now wish to judge the actors for following the script exactly how he wrote it
but there will be those that will say that the actors have free will...once you are thrusted into a situation with no say so there is no free will just choices ..and it's not like the actors have the free will not to be in the movie
either god is not omnipotent or omnipotently insane | |
|
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/23/2006 8:53:46 AM | The ability for God to know all things is called omniscience. Omnipotence has to do with God's power. The Bible does teach the God knows all things: "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world" (Acts 15:18 KJV).
God did foresee them. The question them becomes, "Why did God allow them to happen? What purpose did they serve?" We don't know the answer to that question because:
"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29 NIV).
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9 NIV).
The Reformed Faith, a.k.a. Calvinism, believes that God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass, yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." (Westminster Confession of Faith, Of God's Eternal Decree, Section 1). If you want all the scripture references, you can google "Westminster Confession of Faith" and find it on many Reformed sites.
We do see scriptures that speak of God governing this world and having ordained events from the foundation of the world:
"Him [Jesus] being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (Acts 2:23 KJV).
"Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin" (John 19:11 KJV).
"The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord" (Proverbs 16:33 KJV).
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy, and without blame before him in love: Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself; in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who works all things after the counself of his own will" (Ephesians 1:4, 9, 11 KJV).
You might consider that Job, a man God Himself called righteous (Job 1:8) demanded that God explain to him why he was undergoing such a severe trial. God's answer is in Job chapters 38-41. It's quite interesting, but it isn't what we would expect. Try reading it to get a perspective on who God is.
"Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: 'Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand" (Job 38:1-4 NIV). Read it all. | |
|
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/23/2006 9:14:33 AM | ^^^^ In Job the central issue is that Satan (God's assistant here) and God are having a bet. It is implicit that neither knows the outcome and this is the central fact from which the tension of the motif derives......
Not only are God and Satan in league here but neither knows how it will pan out. This is a very common characteristic of God in the OT - there are many places where He is 'wrong' and where He is unaware of specific things that the reader and the text's central characters are themselves aware of. | |
|
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/23/2006 9:47:31 AM |
The ability for God to know all things is called omniscience. Omnipotence has to do with God's power.
isn't God just supposed to be God? ...as like God as a whole...saying god is omniscience is just another way used to confuse things...because if god is omnipotence would still means the same as being omniscience...being omnipotent means that god has inexhaustible powers of calculation...that would mean that chaos didn't exist to a God because a God could calculate any outcome of anything the God created down to the littlest detail and that would would mean that the God is all knowing about his creations | |
|
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/23/2006 10:53:42 AM |
I think the most logical approach is that God created the Universe and set it in motion like a ball rolling down a slope to see what would happen.
Surely a more logical approach would be to amass the evidence for god and then see what we can deduce from that. Everything else is merely mental masturbation. So what is the evidence for god? | |
|
| |
| |
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/23/2006 12:24:37 PM | So what is the evidence for god?
The evidence for god is right before your eyes, deep inside you, beneath your feet and everywhere else but evidence that he is a good god is extremely lacking.
In the old testaments he used to be quite an angry god smiting and smoting his people because they doubted him. They did a good job of cleaning up his image in the new testaments though and that sad story about Jesus his son dying to save the people really made people sit up and listen and believe god was actually kind and generous and loving because he had sacrificed his son.
A lot of people seem to confuse being omnipotent with being omnipresent | |
|
| |
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/23/2006 6:05:49 PM |
The evidence for god is right before your eyes, deep inside you, beneath your feet and everywhere else but evidence that he is a good god is extremely lacking.
I see a computer before my eyes. Please show the logical chain of deduction from the god hypothesis to the existence of the computer. Until you can do that all the stuff before my eyes, deep inside me, beneath my feet, and everywhere else cannot be considered evidence for god. | |
|
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/23/2006 7:05:25 PM | I think that testimony and verification based upon the human experience and drawn from disseparate peoples since the earlest records forward is proof of the existence of the divine.
It doesn't prove the existence of one god over another, or that a believer is necessarily any better off than a nonbeliever, but it does testify to the existence of the divine. You know, depending on the value one places on human perception and experience. If we chose to not value our own experience, then I guess that beauty, fun, misery, etc. are also nonexistent as it cannot be verified that a rose for instance is truly beautiful, and not just a red weed, or that dancing is fun, outside of the human experience. Dancing is fun cause people say it is, based on their experience... though clearly there are those, such as myself, who don't think it is fun, based on experience. But I respect the opinions of those who love dancing... unless of course they try to force me to dance against my will.
As for the Flood; might I ask, rhetorically I admit, which God? Many religions have legends that reference an early flood. Not all religions hold it as a divine punishment, and some don't connect it to humanity in any way whatsoever.
As for why a deity that *claimed* to have the power to stop or prevent such an event would permit it; either said deity is not everything either he, or more likely his worshippers, imagine he is, or he is worthless... a big, nasty spirit in nowise worthy of the title god or the respect and worship that goes with it, and more than likely to wind up on the receiving end of a true god's wrath.
As for the Divine caring about the planet; our world, our job. | |
|
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/24/2006 7:16:09 AM | There are many paradoxes with God...he is omniscient, as well as omnipotent...he knows all, yet is surprised by man's unbelief??? to the point that he would repent that he made man and destroy them all in the flood.
I wonder sometimes about the catostrophic things that have happened recently...acts of God??? or just freaks of nature? | |
|
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/24/2006 2:38:48 PM | I phrased the question wrong, and so that leaves the thread title misleading... but I'm not going to hijack my own thread and rewrite it.
I meant aspects of both, actually, omniscient and omnipotent.
So let me rephrase and see if I can salvage this mess....
If God can see everything as well as the future, which he must be able to do if he is all powerful, and if he is all powerful, why did he create a flawed world that would require his direct hand in correcting (hence, the flood).
Free will simply is NOT the answer to this question. Even assuming that God created every being or any group of beings with free will we must realize that God can still see the future and knows what each and every being blessed with free will is going to do with that free will before they do it.
If God is omniscient, he knew the jinn would father the race of titans and that he would have to destroy them; so why allow it to happen in the first place?
If God destroyed the world in a flood and left only Noah and his family as the survivors, then what was the point of everything that happened before? What was the point of creating a world and letting it run on auto-pilot and then just wiping it out as if it had never existed?
Free will is a cop out answer. God so hated the world that he destroyed it in a flood. My question is why did he let it get to this point, since he should have known that without his intervention it would get to that point, and why did he just wipe it out instead of fixing it?
Is it possible that the flood was anything less than judgement day? What other purpose could it have served and how could it have fit in to God's plan otherwise? Surely God could simply have destroyed the titans without destroying the world in the process. | |
|
| If God is omnipotent, why didn't he foresee the Flood?
Posted: 12/24/2006 8:15:13 PM | I see a computer before my eyes. Please show the logical chain of deduction from the god hypothesis to the existence of the computer. Until you can do that all the stuff before my eyes, deep inside me, beneath my feet, and everywhere else cannot be considered evidence for god.
It's up to me solely to show you the errors of your narrow-mindendness ?
If you live your life through a computer screen how the hell am I am supposed to advise you on what is real and true ?
You must question yourself and never be afraid of the conclusions that are inspired by your own indivual mindset (well o.k. you've probably been brainwashed along the way...but don't be looking to this wise one for the answers to the failings of your miscomprehension...all I want to do is impart a certain wisdom and not to blow your whole world apart or fragile mind).
Happy is the fella who sees the fallacies of the ............how do you think that line should end ? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
