God: All Loving. All Powerful. All Knowing. Pick two.

[barts]

Whether or not God exists at all is one issue. The nature of God is another. Let's assume God exists--as a thought experiment--and address the nature of God.

Christians tell me that God is "all loving, all powerful (omnipotent), and all knowing (omniscient). Logically and morally, I can see how God might have any two of these characteristics, but not all three. If God was all three, a host of inconsistencies arise. If He is all powerful and all knowing but allows babies to be slaughtered in Rwanda he can't be all loving. If he's all knowing and all loving, but not all powerful perhaps he couldn't have stopped the extermination of the Jews by Hitler even if he wanted to. If he's all loving and all powerful but not all knowing then free choice is possible. You see the logical dilemma.

So of the three God characteristics--all knowing, all loving, and all powerful--which two has the Christian God or if He has all three how do Christians resolve the contradictions?

[Diogenes]

Well...it really depends upon what you believe god to be.

Are we talking about a religious conception of god? Hindu? Christian? Jain? Aztec? Aboriginal? etc...

How about a god proposed by philosophy? Cynic? Stoic? etc...

How about a scientific god....

you see the problem...and this is why arguing god is pointless unless you have specific rules in place arguing one conception of the proposed entity at a time.

[Devil's Advocate]

Well, there are 3 different parts of God, so 3 contradicting qualities can be spread among them.

[barts]

Quote by: Devil's Advocate Well, there are 3 different parts of God, so 3 contradicting qualities can be spread among them.

Are you saying that the God's left hand doesn't know what his right hand is doing?

[barts]

Quote by: Diogenes Well...it really depends upon what you believe god to be. Are we talking about a religious conception of god? Hindu? Christian? Jain? Aztec? Aboriginal? etc... How about a god proposed by philosophy? Cynic? Stoic? etc... How about a scientific god.... you see the problem...and this is why arguing god is pointless unless you have specific rules in place arguing one conception of the proposed entity at a time.

For the purposes of this thread, let's work with the Christian God. You're right that "arguing god is pointless unless you have specific rules in place". So let's stipulate the Christian God as viewed by Evangelical Christians who are perhaps the most extreme Christians.

On the other hand, if you'd like to stipulate another God. Then, I'm game for the discussion.

What say you?

[Diogenes]

Why not start with a scientific god....this should please both theists and atheists

I'll start by quoting references...then finish by quoting conclusions...and people can follow the link to read the body...

Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God?

References

Walter L. Bradley received his B.S. in Engineering Science and his Ph.D. in Materials Science from the University of Texas in Austin. Married in 1965, he lives in College Station, Texas with his wife, Ann. He taught as an Assistant and Associate Professor of Metallurgical Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines before assuming a position as Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Texas A&M University (TAMU) in 1976. Dr. Bradley, also served as Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Texas A&M University and as Director of the Polymer Technology Center at TAMU. He currently serves as Distinquished Professor of Engineering at Baylor University.

Conclusions

A universe that contains a special place of habitation for complex, conscious life is so truly remarkable that it is, realistically speaking, impossible to believe it is the result of a series of cosmic accidents. To choose to believe that there is a naturalistic explanation for (a) the mathematical forms encoded in the laws of nature, (b) the precise specification of the nineteen universal constants and (c) the remarkable initial conditions required for star formation and the simplest living systems is to believe in a miracle by another name. Physicist Freeman J. Dyson of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study seems to implicitly affirm theism when he say, "As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming."

Physicist and Nobel laureate Arno Penzias, contemplating our enigmatic universe, observes: Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.

It is easy to understand why many scientists like Sir Fred Hoyle changed their minds in the past thirty years. They now agree that the universe, as we know it, cannot reasonably be explained as a cosmic accident. Frederic B. Burnham, a well-known historian of science appearing on ABC's Nightline with Ted Koppel, confirmed the current openness to the intelligent design model with his comment, "The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years."

The design requirements for our universe are like a chain of 1000 links. If any link breaks, we do not have a less optimal universe for life -- we have a universe incapable of sustaining life! The evidence I have present is daunting, but still short of "proof". I must conclude that it takes a great deal more faith to believe in an accidental universe than to believe in an intelligent creator, or God who crafted such a marvelous universe and beautiful place of habitation in planet Earth, and then created life (including human beings) to occupy it.

Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe

[bulldogsfiend]

Well the problem is still you havent defined a god. You've only said there was a creator. And i really dont want to get into creation vs evolution, it just seems like a useless debate. We dont have enough proof to completely drive god out of the equation because no one can answer with certainty where everything came. prior to the big bang its pretty much guess work. there are some interesting theories but nothing concrete or conclusive.

Barts i completely share your sentiments on these qualities of god, i think i even brought them up in a thread at one point or another.

The best defense that i have read to that is that the world as we live in is the best possible world. i would elobarate but i need to read the argument again i will read it sometime tomorrow and post the basic tenats and conclusion of it.

[barts]

Quote by: Diogenes Why not start with a scientific god....this should please both theists and atheists

OK. We have a scientific God. What then is the nature of this God? I've already conceded for the purposes of this discussion thread the existence of God. At issue is the nature of God, what is the nature of the "scientific" God. Of the God characteristics (all knowing, all loving, all powerful), is the scientific God all three, two of the three or one of the three. That's the issue under discussion.

[Diogenes]

OK. We have a scientific God. What then is the nature of this God? I've already conceded for the purposes of this discussion thread the existence of God. At issue is the nature of God, what is the nature of the "scientific" God. Of the God characteristics (all knowing, all loving, all powerful), is the scientific God all three, two of the three or one of the three. That's the issue under discussion.

If you read the full article I believe it touches on those points between all the tech jargon.

Many very prominent scientists are now switching over to some basis of intelligent design...to varying degrees...

[Diogenes]

The science-based god

Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia.

Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition, Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe. These are two very popular views, which brings us to something very significant metaphysically or philosophically. If the big bang theory is true, then we can conclude God is not the same as the universe (a popular view) and God is not con-tained within the universe (another popular view).

Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God

[barts]

God! Shmod!. Here's the issue. Let's assume God exists, just for the sake of this argument, as I continue to say. The issue is the "nature" of God. Why is this important? Because it determines how we relate to God. If God is all powerful and all loving, but not all knowing, then prayer makes sense because we have to inform God about what we want. If God is all powerful and all knowing but not all loving then avoiding the Bugger would be a good strategy. If God is all loving and all knowing, but not all powerful then He can't help us. We're responsible for our own affairs.

And lastly, if God--as many Christians argue--is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful, then God is beyond human comprehension because all three cannot exist at the same time, and appeals to God for any reason whatsoever are futile.

[Diogenes]

In the case I proposed we start off with...one that I do not necessarily agree with or don't agree with...

the nature of god in relation to man would be more of a symbiotic kind...in that god creates...creation feeds...god feeds off of creation...like a never-ending dance...

or...

the nature of god in relation to man would be more of an association of sorts...not one of emotional attachment...god would neither care about man than god would a bug...

and various other conclusions could be made.

And lastly, if God--as many Christians argue--is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful, then God is beyond human comprehension because all three cannot exist at the same time, and appeals to God for any reason whatsoever are futile.

It seems you are more interested in talking about a religious concept of god.

OK...the basis of a religious concept of god...Christian-Jewish-Muslim...is in opposites.

[Diogenes]

Basically...

if we are mortal then there must be immortality
if we are limited then there must be the unlimited
if we are not all-knowing then there must be the all-knowing
if we are finite then there must be the infinite
etc...

whatever concepts we apply to man we apply the opposite to god

it is the basic belief that these opposites must exist...

if we are many than there must be the one

hence...you have god

but at the same token they break their own rules...

by assigning god human emotions

if god exists as the opposite to man then god would be emotionless...or having one emotion as opposed to many emotions.

Or you can break it down by one vs the many...god would be the one and creation the many...

silence vs noise
immovable vs in motion
infinite vs finite

it would be very difficult to answer your other questions without exploring what the nature of god would be first.

and address the nature of God.

[barts]

Quote by: Diogenes It seems you are more interested in talking about a religious concept of god.

That was my intent because the "concept" of God influences what we choose to do on Monday morning. What we think is the nature of God--whatever form God may or may not take--influences what we do with our lives to some extent.

[barts]

Quote by: Diogenes Basically... if we are mortal then there must be immortality if we are limited then there must be the unlimited if we are not all-knowing then there must be the all-knowing if we are finite then there must be the infinite etc... whatever concepts we apply to man we apply the opposite to god it is the basic belief that these opposites must exist... if we are many than there must be the one hence...you have god but at the same token they break their own rules... by assigning god human emotions if god exists as the opposite to man then god would be emotionless...or having one emotion as opposed to many emotions. Or you can break it down by one vs the many...god would be the one and creation the many... silence vs noise immovable vs in motion infinite vs finite it would be very difficult to answer your other questions without exploring what the nature of god would be first.

Fine. I agree for the sake of this discussion. But you're not addressing my basic premise, which is that according to Christian lore, God is all powerful, all loving and all knowing. While I can see how a God can be any two of these, being all three poses problems. What is your view of this "be it resolved"?

[Diogenes]

Fine. I agree for the sake of this discussion. But you're not addressing my basic premise, which is that according to Christian lore, God is all powerful, all loving and all knowing. While I can see how a God can be any two of these, being all three poses problems. What is your view of this "be it resolved"?

OK...god...under the basis above...would be omniscient as we conclude that all things are differentiations of the same thing...therefore to know any one thing god would have to know all things...

we by contrast do not know anything...we know pieces of the puzzle without ever knowing what it is...

god again...under the basis above...would be omnipotent as we conclude that if we are varying degrees of power then god is power without degree

god again......under the basis above...would be emotionally stable...in that god would not have varying degrees or fluctuations in emotion...the way we do...but be constant...to Christians this one constant emotion would be love...

but again that is in contrast to the three primary emotions...

emotion beyond that is a very large topic in itself.

[barts]

Quote by: Diogenes OK...god...under the basis above...would be omniscient as we conclude that all things are differentiations of the same thing...therefore to know any one thing god would have to know all things... we by contrast do not know anything...we know pieces of the puzzle without ever knowing what it is... god again...under the basis above...would be omnipotent as we conclude that if we are varying degrees of power then god is power without degree god again......under the basis above...would be emotionally stable...in that god would not have varying degrees or fluctuations in emotion...the way we do...but be constant... emotion beyond that is a very large topic in itself.

Just to be clear, in your view it seems that God is all knowing, all powerful, but emotionally stable which means that He knows all, has the power to influence all, but would not do so because He is unmoved by events which means he is not all loving. I agree that's possible as you've given God two of the three, and not all three, of the God characteristics. Am I stating your view accurately?

[Diogenes]

in your view

well..it is not my view I am capable of discussing arguments for views I disagree with...

I agree that's possible as you've given God two of the three, and not all three, of the God characteristics. Am I stating your view accurately?

I think you missed my edit..

sometimes I have several things on the go so I often edit and re-edit the same post instead of making several posts. Sometimes it's better to wait a bit ( 10-15 minutes ) before replying to me.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: barts Christians tell me that God is "all loving, all powerful (omnipotent), and all knowing (omniscient).

Please show me where Christians say this. In lieu of that, show me where the Bible, the basis for Christian "God" specifies all three of these things to be characteristic of God.

[Jinei]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Please show me where Christians say this. In lieu of that, show me where the Bible, the basis for Christian "God" specifies all three of these things to be characteristic of God.

Well, I found this bit of nonsense online here, I just thought it answered your question: God The Father - All Powerful, Knowing, Loving, and Wise

God is All Powerful Isaiah proclaimed, Yahweh is the everlasting God, the Creator of the whole earth. He never grows faint or weary (Isaiah 40:28b). From the creation of all things to their consummation at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Scripture consistently exalts the power of God. For example, in the Old Testament, God is 'abir, "the mighty one" (Genesis 49:24c; Psalm 132:2, 5). And, in the New Testament, He is Pantokrator, "the all-powerful One" (Revelation 1:8; 4:8).4 When we examine the origin, use, and end of power, we find that all power comes from God. God created out of nothing everything that exists. Unfortunately, the powers that He gave to angels and man were subsequently misused. But He promised He would hold all these beings accountable. Thus, after raising His Son from the dead, the Father granted all authority to the Son, who also commissioned His church to proclaim the Gospel with power (Matthew 28:18-20). The Bible tells us that the Son will one day reclaim all authorities and powers, judge them, and submit them back to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24). In other words, all power has come from the Father and will soon be returned to the Father. In preparation for that day, He has assigned all power and authority to the rule of His Son, Jesus Christ, who has been, is now, and will finally restore all authorities and powers to their proper place and use. With Moses, we must cry out, The Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God (Deuteronomy 10:17)! God is All Knowing Isaiah said there is no limit to His understanding (Isaiah 40:28c). A few years ago, evangelical theologian Millard Erickson, pithily asked, "What does God know and when does He know it?" Erickson was responding to the controversy over Open Theism in the Evangelical Theological Society.5 Among the arguments brought forward by the Open Theists, who doubt God knows the future perfectly, was their objection that an all-knowing God diminishes human dignity. Timothy George rightly responded, "We need not bring [God] down to size in order to lift up the true humanity of men and women made in his image."6 The prophet Isaiah would agree, for chapter 40 is an extended effort to show not only that God has all power, but also that God lacks nothing in knowledge. The immediate context of the above verses began with a human proverb all too common amongst the Israelites: My way is hidden from the Lord, and my claim is ignored by my God (40:27b). Some may have been driven to doubt God's foreknowledge because they could not reconcile His knowing yet allowing their suffering. However, man must humble himself before God. God knows everything. And He knows what is best for His people. It may not always appear to us that He knows what happens, but He certainly does. We must trust that God understands better than we do. "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not My ways." [This is] the Lord's declaration. "For as heaven is higher than earth, so My ways are higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9). Therefore, in 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention added to its confession, declaring that God's knowledge is "perfect" and "extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of his free creatures" (Article II). God is All Loving Isaiah proclaimed, He gives strength to the weary and strengthens the powerless (Isaiah 40:29). Our God gives to those who lack. Indeed, we lack everything; anything we have is strictly because God gave it to us. Why does God give life, liberty, and happiness to us? God gives because love is fundamental to His character. Whether it is in the realm of our creation or in the realm of our redemption, everything that we have is due to divine grace, and divine grace is motivated by divine love. The apostle Paul queried, What do you have that you didn't receive? (1 Corinthians 4:7b). The answer, of course, is, "Nothing."7 In other words, everything that we have is God's gift to us, which is grace motivated by His love. The apostle John went so far as to use the language of identity in His ascription of love to God: God is love (1 John 4:8b). He is the source of all love, and He is the end of all love. Thus, if anyone is able to exercise love, it is because they have received that love first from God. John demonstrated the origin and end of love in this way: We love Him because He first loved us (4:19). In other words, God loves us, first. Only then, as a result of His prior love, can we love Him. The same is true with regard to our love for other human beings. John again said, Dear friends, let us love one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God (4:7). If you know God, you know God's love, and God's love will come through you to other people. To put it in a negative way, John said, The one who does not love does not know God, because God is love (4:8). God is all loving, and God's people, as a result, are able to love and ought to love. God is All Wise Let us return to that statement by Isaiah: there is no limit to His understanding (Isaiah 40:28c). There are two steps to biblical knowing: knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge presumes the cognizance of facts; wisdom entails the proper utilization of those facts. For instance, one can know that God created the world. However, if one does not seek to worship the Creator, this is unwise. Knowledge is recognizing that there is a Creator; wisdom is worshiping that Creator. The world is currently filled with people that know there is somebody out there whom we call God. They have knowledge, but because they refuse to act properly on that knowledge, they lack wisdom. And there are some who are so foolish that they refuse to recognize there is a God. Those who think they are wise have become fools, because they have been separated from God. From where, then, does wisdom derive? Again, true wisdom comes only from God. When the apostle Paul proclaimed God's Word to the skeptical and the superstitious in the Roman Empire, he noted their ignorance. However, among the mature we do speak a wisdom, but not a wisdom of this age, or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing (1 Corinthians 2:6). Paul evaluated the Jews, who relied on experience, and noticed they lacked wisdom. Paul evaluated the Greeks, who relied on speculation, and noticed they also lacked wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:21-22). Where, then, is wisdom to be found? Perhaps it should not surprise us that wisdom has the same source as power, knowledge, and love. Wisdom is entirely rooted in God's character. Moreover, God has demonstrated His character supremely in the death and resurrection of His only begotten Son. But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. Yet to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is God's power and God's wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:23-24). Jesus Christ is the wisdom of God!