Deconstructing the [Omni] God: Facing Impossibility Control

Years ago, when I stumbled upon a section of the gaming forums catering to religious discussions, there were some topics regarding the inconsistencies of the [Abrahamic] God. When defining this monotheistic entity, the common traits which people believe this God possess are the following:

• Omniscience - All-knowing
• Omnipotence - All-powerful
• Omnibenevolence - All-loving

These traits make up the divine entity known as the [Abrahamic] God and in the end, it poses a great deal of inconsistencies when put into the practice. In those topics, we’ve gathered questions along the lines of...

Can God make a boulder so big that even he could not life it?
Can God make a burrito so hot that even he could not eat it?
Can God make a test so hard that he cannot pass it at all?

There are other questions that can be asserted into the impossibility scale, but for now, let’s deconstruct and cross-examine the boundaries of the deity and in the end, we’ll get a startling conclusion that can potentially allow people to examine and further delve deep into the human creation known as God.

1. Omniscience
For a being who supposedly possesses the power of knowing everything there is to know, God surely has dropped the ball on numerous levels, especially when it comes to free will. How can a deity who claims to be all-knowing could never predict that humans will....

• …expand their knowledge and advancements in thought, medicine, philosophy, etc...?
• ...commit certain acts of atrocities [some in the name of their deity]?
• ...be born with various diseases that could end their lives in a quicker way?
• ...explore their sexual desires and perhaps find truth within themselves?

We’re a race of people who demands answers and the more we learn about the world and universe, the significance of this one God diminishes with every bit of experience on a secular, humanistic level.

Summation: God in not omniscient.

2. Omnipotence
Having unlimited power takes great responsibility. Let’s revisit the three impossibility statements that I’ve stated earlier.
Can God make a boulder so big that even he could not life it?
Can God make a burrito so hot that even he could not eat it?
Can God make a test so hard that he cannot pass it at all?

To the common fundamentalist, these questions would be deemed silly, but when cross-examining the omnipotence of God, we can safely assume that such impossible methods cannot be applied, for the simple fact that if this God can create a boulder big that he couldn’t lift it, then he has limitations. If the opposite was true, then the same can be applied, except it’s greater grounds on one’s own omnipotence.

On top of that, why can’t God destroy evil with all that power? Perhaps there’s even a limitation, but wait, allegedly his wrath was demonstrated before in certain mythological stories in the holy books. So why not now?

Summation: God is not omnipotent.

3. Omnibenevolence
An all-good, all-loving entity who demonstrates it’s love through flooding planets, and killing those who go against his own desires can be as omnibenevolent as a malevolent ruler who wish to instill his will onto the populace in order to maintain steadfast control. But we’ve seen these characteristics in the form of leaders on earth, and thus, it could be safe to say that such traits are only as good as the ruler wills it. But it comes at a cost: the harm of human conditioning.

When we, as humans, we have the means to forgive and make a better tomorrow and conscientious decision making which would make our lives potentially better if we strive toward it, perhaps the greater good can derive from the actions of those who are selfless and have experienced much of life has to offer.

An all-good entity is one that doesn’t truly exist, especially one who is perceived to be a god.

Summation: God is not omnibenevolent.

We’ve already delved deep into the contradictions of these attributes, but I also want to speak on one other trait that this god possesses: Aseity - form of self-existence, never changing and perfect. The second part [never-changing and perfect] serves as the perfect contradiction, as depicted in the Abrahamic religions and especially the Christian mythology, as this God changed its behavior after a certain incident. This alone can debunk the argument of a god possessing aseity. As for the form of self-existence, that is a slightly more complicated matter, but for argument’s sake, should this god ever give credence to its own maker, look no further than the man in the mirror.

Plus, perfection is nothing more than a concept that could never be put into practice, and it’s safe to say that human beings, despite the negatives wrought in time, has demonstrated greater amounts of kindness and understanding as we evolve and thus better than an never-changing so-called God. Change is definitely good when the times are needed, yet for a being who calls himself God, we’ve witnessed an unbelievable amount of problems within that mindset. In closing, I wish to quote from a figure who best sums up this whole thread:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?
Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)

You are more than welcomed to comment, question, or even debate this topic. This will be an active discussion through and through. And there will be more to discuss over the course of time.

 

Debate between Bruce Gleason and Greg Couse

[YOUTUBE]W_BH9FLxlwY[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]MfLzy2IxUiE[/YOUTUBE]

 

Hewwo my dahling!!!!!

Your questions are silly because the reason god allows all this suffering is too test his followers in the presence of that one angel no one liketh anymore.

Sorta like how a parent gives his two year old sharp butcher knives to see how long it takes the child to cut off his right hand.
A middle finger for a middle finger and all 'dat.


Actually, believe is or not, and don't drop a dookey now, I picked up the bible earlier this month and started studying from our daily bread.

Don't worry though. Most assuredly I am not a dyed-in-the-wool fanatical Christian.

I just think if you change a few words in the bible with a few other words..it makes sense at explaining the human condition and the suffering of such and how to cease in that suffering.
The Jewish edition of the four noble truths, if you will.

That, and it's quite obvious that Yeshua was teaching self saviorism. In other words..pick up YOUR own cross and bare it with the thought of self development and enlightenment.

But you know those crazy church elders who like to make it all about themselves and their million trillion dollar mansions.
Not to mention those weak minded church followers who can't take responsibility for their own actions.


Anyhow.

"God" isn't so bad if NOT viewed as some senile old dude up in the sky somewhere sitting on a cloud and smiting America because of gay sex.
Britain has gay sex and god didn't throw a tornado at two elementary schools (yet! Tee-hee).


Besides my dear..

Luke 17: 20,21

20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God comes not with observation:
21Neither shall they say, See here! or, see there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.