Characteristics of God

[DickDawk]

I'm new here, so it is possible this topic has already been discussed ad nauseam but I'm curious if there are any Christians on this forum who adhere to the traditional belief of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. I see severe logical problems with this position and would like to see how Christians resolve it.

[mitchellmckain]

I'm new here, so it is possible this topic has already been discussed ad nauseam but I'm curious if there are any Christians on this forum who adhere to the traditional belief of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. I see severe logical problems with this position and would like to see how Christians resolve it.

Yes I use the first two words but I know very well that there are logically consistent uses of these words and there are uses that are not logically consistent. I do not use the word omnibenevolent, but I do believe that God is perfectly loving and good, or to put it more concretely that God only does what is in our best interest according to His understand of course and not according to our own. He is not like the parent who spoils a child by giving whatever the child demands or thinks life is unbearable without, but only does what is best for us in the long run according to his better understanding of what that is.

So first, God is omnipotent or all powerful. This is certainly limited by what is logically consistent not because God is limited by a higher power but because things which are logically inconsistent are simply meaningless and thus to do refer to any actual thing or possibility. Furthermore to say that God is all powerful does not mean that he can do anything you care to state in whatever manner you choose to dictate because it is rather easy to demonstrate that such specifications can be logically inconsistent. Furthermore we may not even have all the facts by which such a thing would be logically inconsistent. So for example I do not believe that the idea that God designed living things is even consistent with what it means to be alive. God's omnipotence certainly means that God can create living things but to do so he must create them in a manner that is consistent with nature of living things.

Second, God is omnicient or all knowing. I do not believe this completely distinct from omnipotence for knowing is an act of power. And thus a logically consistent understanding of omniscience does not mean that God must know everything but only God can know whatever logically consistent thing He chooses just as omnipotence does not mean that God must do everything but only that God can do whatever logically consistent thing He chooses. Furthermore it is the suggestion of quantum physics that knowing something may not be abstractable from an exertion of power on it to create the very thing that is known. Thus I do not believe that God's omniscience means that God knows everything that we will do before we choose it, because if the future can be said to exist at all it only as a superposition of possibilities, and for God to exert His power to know is to interfere with his power and destroy that superpostion of possibilities and thus it would be by his power rather than by our choice that we do what he would then know that we will do.

[Moonwood the Hare]

I'm new here, so it is possible this topic has already been discussed ad nauseam but I'm curious if there are any Christians on this forum who adhere to the traditional belief of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. I see severe logical problems with this position and would like to see how Christians resolve it.

I wouldn't take any of these abstractions literally

[DickDawk]

I'm new here, so it is possible this topic has already been discussed ad nauseam but I'm curious if there are any Christians on this forum who adhere to the traditional belief of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. I see severe logical problems with this position and would like to see how Christians resolve it.

I wouldn't take any of these abstractions literally

You don't or I shouldn't?

[DickDawk]

Yes I use the first two words but I know very well that there are logically consistent uses of these words and there are uses that are not logically consistent. I do not use the word omnibenevolent, but I do believe that God is perfectly loving and good, or to put it more concretely that God only does what is in our best interest according to His understand of course and not according to our own. He is not like the parent who spoils a child by giving whatever the child demands or thinks life is unbearable without, but only does what is best for us in the long run according to his better understanding of what that is.

So God does what is in our best, long run interests?

So first, God is omnipotent or all powerful. This is certainly limited by what is logically consistent not because God is limited by a higher power but because things which are logically inconsistent are simply meaningless and thus to do refer to any actual thing or possibility. Furthermore to say that God is all powerful does not mean that he can do anything you care to state in whatever manner you choose to dictate because it is rather easy to demonstrate that such specifications can be logically inconsistent. Furthermore we may not even have all the facts by which such a thing would be logically inconsistent. So for example I do not believe that the idea that God designed living things is even consistent with what it means to be alive. God's omnipotence certainly means that God can create living things but to do so he must create them in a manner that is consistent with nature of living things.

So God is bound by human logic or is there only one eternal and objective logic?

Second, God is omnicient or all knowing. I do not believe this completely distinct from omnipotence for knowing is an act of power. And thus a logically consistent understanding of omniscience does not mean that God must know everything but only God can know whatever logically consistent thing He chooses just as omnipotence does not mean that God must do everything but only that God can do whatever logically consistent thing He chooses. Furthermore it is the suggestion of quantum physics that knowing something may not be abstractable from an exertion of power on it to create the very thing that is known. Thus I do not believe that God's omniscience means that God knows everything that we will do before we choose it, because if the future can be said to exist at all it only as a superposition of possibilities, and for God to exert His power to know is to interfere with his power destroy that superpostion of possibilities and it is by his power rather than our choice that we do what he would then know that we will do.

Interesting. So the fall was not unavoidable and Christ was not fated to die for our sins since the beginning of time?

[Moonwood the Hare]

I'm new here, so it is possible this topic has already been discussed ad nauseam but I'm curious if there are any Christians on this forum who adhere to the traditional belief of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. I see severe logical problems with this position and would like to see how Christians resolve it.

I wouldn't take any of these abstractions literally

I don't. If you think they generate unsolvable logical problems and if you accept the valisity of logic then I would say you shouldn't. Most theologians understand these terms apophatically.

[mitchellmckain]

So God does what is in our best, long run interests?

yes.

So God is bound by human logic or is there only one eternal and objective logic?

No God is not bound by human logic, that is, He is not necessarily bound by logic as we currently understand it. I have little doubt that there are aspects of logic that we do not understand properly, and the fact that quantum physics forced us to develop something called quantum logic supports this idea. But when we talk about laws of logic we are referring to necessary truths and not to arbitrary or optional ones.

Interesting. So the fall was not unavoidable and Christ was not fated to die for our sins since the beginning of time?

Not in my view, which on this issue is commonly referred to as open theism.

[Keep The Reason]

I think the very idea of imbuing gods with "characteristics" proves they (gods) are of human origin.

[Aaron]

I think the very idea of imbuing gods with "characteristics" proves they (gods) are of human origin.

That makes sense since the word imbue to me implies something external to the subject at hand is inserting something into that subject.

But I don't think that's the idea that a theologian is aiming for. I think they are rather trying to describe the characteristics of God using information from the Bible, not trying to describe the characteristics of God by trying to insert their own ideas of what those characteristics should be.

[Moonwood the Hare]

I think the very idea of imbuing gods with "characteristics" proves they (gods) are of human origin.

Well this is controversial and the theological and philosophical debates (and there is even a debate between Catholic and Reformed thinkers about whether this is a matter of theology or philosophy) here may not be of much interest to you but there are a number of different options in the matter of how human or creational characteristics can apply to God. To take the idea of human characteristics: one view is that these are anthropomorphisms that is that we use human terms in order to understand God so may talk of God foreknowing when literally we think God is eternal and knows all times as it were at once; the other view is anthropophanism that is that in order to relate to human beings God generates and assumes human characteristics for himself. On this second view we can think of God as he is in himself as a transcategorical absolute, as something neither with nor without characteristics who in order to communicate with creatures assumes characteristics. So God assumes temporal properties like sequential knowing or even limitations in knowing in relation to his creation but this is complex because if you accept this view you can also say God has both a temporal and eternal mode in relation to creation as well as an unknowable transtemporal mode in himself.

[Keep The Reason]

I think they are rather trying to describe the characteristics of God using information from the Bible,

Maybe they should instead get jobs and contribute positively to society.

[Aaron]

I think they are rather trying to describe the characteristics of God using information from the Bible,

Maybe they should instead get jobs and contribute positively to society.

I bet there were/are lots of theologians that you would say have contributed positively in some way or another to society.

[Keep The Reason]

I think they are rather trying to describe the characteristics of God using information from the Bible,

Maybe they should instead get jobs and contribute positively to society.

I bet there were/are lots of theologians that you would say have contributed positively in some way or another to society.

I go with Dawkins on this, when he spoke of one of his professors replying to a student who wanted to do his doctoral dissertation on the subject of theology:

"I am not convinced its even actually a subject".

Here's a bunch of early theologians. Skip ahead to 9.00

[Rian]

Hi Dick, and welcome! I hope you like it here.

I think that we are language beings, and we try to describe things, and those words are an attempt at describing certain characteristics of God. I would agree that God has those characteristics, but people define those words slightly differently sometimes.

What do you think are the "severe logical problems"?