Where did your god get his powers?

[Verv]

Exactly my point: We would have to demonstrate our power by using means that they understand as powerful. And, getting back to your analogy, unless god demonstrates his power to us in a way that makes us discern him as more powerful ("power", as we understand it), we can not only be not expected to tell how god got so powerful, but we can´t even be expected to tell that he is powerful, in the first place.

That is interesting, I see what you are saying.

We need a criteria of power, and until we have a criteria of power and have had it demonstrated a lot ofquestions are moot.

I think the strength of nature and the fact that a Tsunami killed over 200,000 people in 2004 (almost 2005) is a pretty powerful argument of the power of His Creation -- though this is not to say that He caused it, rather to say the humility we must have when we can so easily be destroyed by His Own.

 

[quatona]

That is interesting, I see what you are saying.

We need a criteria of power, and until we have a criteria of power and have had it demonstrated a lot ofquestions are moot.

I think the strength of nature and the fact that a Tsunami killed over 200,000 people in 2004 (almost 2005) is a pretty powerful argument of the power of His Creation -- though this is not to say that He caused it, rather to say the humility we must have when we can so easily be destroyed by His Own.

Some thoughts:
1. I find it somewhat odd that you discern destructive forces as the hallmark of god´s power.
2. We often see negative, destructive events ascribed exactly to god´s personified opponent, Satan. I don´t seem to see the standards by which you ascribe what to whom and accept it as a demonstration of whose power.
3. If you make the distinction between god´s power and the power of his creation (which you obviously make in order to not make god look like a destructive monster): every power discernable in our world would have to be identified as the power of his creation, including genocide, mass murder, rape, you name it - i.e. including the negative, destructive power humans exert over others. I´m not sure you want to go there.
4. If making this distinction the way you make it, it means conceptualizing the power of his creation as somewhat independent of the power of god himself, as taking its own course, possibly even against god´s will. I´m not sure you really want to go there, either.
5. Concerning humility in view of the power of nature: I don´t see how assuming a god to be nature´s creator makes any difference whatsoever.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I do find it interesting though, that the thread claims that the traditional answer to the question (that God is eternal and moreso eternally perfect) is considered an "excuse" with no explanation as to why. Perhaps because it is a legitimate answer?

 

[quatona]

I do find it interesting though, that the thread claims that the traditional answer to the question (that God is eternal and moreso eternally perfect) is considered an "excuse" with no explanation as to why. Perhaps because it is a legitimate answer?

Is this in response to me?

 

[Verv]

Some thoughts:
1. I find it somewhat odd that you discern destructive forces as the hallmark of god´s power.

I view destructive force as power, as I do constructive force... But how amazing it is that so much was lost and so many lives were pulled into the depths of the Ocean ont hat day. People on three different continents died as a result of the Tsunami.

2. We often see negative, destructive events ascribed exactly to god´s personified opponent, Satan. I don´t seem to see the standards by which you ascribe what to whom and accept it as a demonstration of whose power.

I think that Satan has little role in the events of the world.

3. If you make the distinction between god´s power and the power of his creation (which you obviously make in order to not make god look like a destructive monster): every power discernable in our world would have to be identified as the power of his creation, including genocide, mass murder, rape, you name it - i.e. including the negative, destructive power humans exert over others. I´m not sure you want to go there.

No, I believe that God is a non-interventionist; He is like Switzlerland. Why?

Because life is a test, and He would like to see what human beings do for each other, see what sort of people we are.

Destruction and death in this life is worthless... In fact, this life's pleasure and pain is ultimately irrelavent compared to the amount we face in Eternity. I feel that what happens here is only relavent on the level of how good our behavior was.

4. If making this distinction the way you make it, it means conceptualizing the power of his creation as somewhat independent of the power of god himself, as taking its own course, possibly even against god´s will. I´m not sure you really want to go there, either.

No, it is personless power and a personless creation.

5. Concerning humility in view of the power of nature: I don´t see how assuming a god to be nature´s creator makes any difference whatsoever.

I am not sure what this means.

 

[quatona]

I view destructive force as power, as I do constructive force... But how amazing it is that so much was lost and so many lives were pulled into the depths of the Ocean ont hat day. People on three different continents died as a result of the Tsunami.

Yes, praise the Lord and His demonstrations of power.

I think that Satan has little role in the events of the world.

While we are talking about what we think: I don´t think that neither god nor satan exist, in the first place.

No, I believe that God is a non-interventionist; He is like Switzlerland. Why?

Because life is a test, and He would like to see what human beings do for each other, see what sort of people we are.

You also seem to think that god is not omniscient.

Destruction and death in this life is worthless... In fact, this life's pleasure and pain is ultimately irrelavent compared to the amount we face in Eternity. I feel that what happens here is only relavent on the level of how good our behavior was.

Then these things are not a demonstration of that power that you ascribe to your god.

No, it is personless power and a personless creation.

What?

I am not sure what this means.

It means that humility in view of nature´s power can and does exist independently of belief in a god and his power.

 

[Verv]

Yes, praise the Lord and His demonstrations of power.

The Lord does not need to demonstrate.

While we are talking about what we think: I don´t think that neither god nor satan exist, in the first place.

Your choice.

You also seem to think that god is not omniscient.

I think that He can do anything.

Then these things are not a demonstration of that power that you ascribe to your god.

Nature is His demonstration of power.

What?

I wasn't really sure what you had been saying, either.

It means that humility in view of nature´s power can and does exist independently of belief in a god and his power.

Sounds accurate. I do not contest that.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Is this in response to me?

No, it's in response to the OP and some of his other posts here. I would have addressed this earlier as to not cause confusion with your conversation which is going on now, but I haven't had internet access for two days so I do what I can.

 

[loudatheist101]

"The Lord does not need to demonstrate.






Your choice.






I think that He can do anything."

The Atheist: Ok, so why won't he make it an instict to believe in God? Why does life need to be some random test about loving a god...



"Nature is His demonstration of power."

The Atheist: Greeks used to say nature is demonstration of Zues' power.




"I wasn't really sure what you had been saying, either."


The Atheist: Ok...




"Sounds accurate. I do not contest that."[/QUOTE

The Atheist: Sweet.

 

[quatona]

The Lord does not need to demonstrate.

..., unless god wants to be understood as being powerful. (I think we had agreed on that previously).

Your choice.

Your generosity is impressing.

I think that He can do anything.

Either you have misread, or you don´t know what "omnisicient" means, or you try to evade the point.

Nature is His demonstration of power.

Then the distinction between god´s power and nature´s power that was crucial to your argument makes no sense.

Sounds accurate. I do not contest that.

 

[Verv]

The Atheist: Ok, so why won't he make it an instict to believe in God? Why does life need to be some random test about loving a god...

You should check out the Bible on that one...

God created us in an environment where life was not a test; He gave us everything and we had every reason to be entirely content, to be sheltered from evil by God for all eternity. But then we chose, personally, that we wanted to know about good and evil, so we ate of the true of knowledge of good and evil, and from that point on we have been exposed to both.

It was essentially the choice of mankind to make it a test. Originally, it was dwelling in paradise.

"Nature is His demonstration of power."

The Atheist: Greeks used to say nature is demonstration of Zues' power.

They were only wrong in who they attributed it to. Most human beings recognize the necessity of a Creator -- we see the creator-created relationship almost everywhere in nature, everything having a cause.

Until Jesus Christ brought Christianity to the Gentiles, coming as the Messiah, they were grossly misinformed.

"Sounds accurate. I do not contest that."[/QUOTE

The Atheist: Sweet.

Yeah, for sure -- anyoen can see the power of Nature, and it does not take a Believer to truly admire it.

..., unless god wants to be understood as being powerful. (I think we had agreed on that previously).

I think He wants to be recognized for His beautiful creations and what He had done for us (Created us).

Either you have misread, or you don´t know what "omnisicient" means, or you try to evade the point.

To me, being all powerful and being capable of doing anythign means omniscience.

Then the distinction between god´s power and nature´s power that was crucial to your argument makes no sense.

Nature comes from God, was designed by God, and infused with its' life by God.

It still makes good sense to me.

 

[quatona]

I think He wants to be recognized for His beautiful creations and what He had done for us (Created us).

Our conversation started from your comparison god-man vs. man-monkey in terms of power. That was the point I meant to discuss with you.

To me, being all powerful and being capable of doing anythign means omniscience.

If your god is omniscient this sentence from your post #25 makes no sense:
Because life is a test, and He would like to see what human beings do for each other, see what sort of people we are.

Nature comes from God, was designed by God, and infused with its' life by God.

It seems to me that you are again evading to discuss those claims you have made, and are changing the subject.