Would a god have to be omnimax (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent) in order to qualify as a god at all?
If it lacks any one of those qualities, how could it be a god?
And since the problem of evil, namely unnecessary evil (you can substitute evil for suffering) does exist, is the agnostic position on god still reasonable?
The idea made me think of Arthur C Clarke's comment: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." To me a god would be something that had advanced powers we couldn't explain. The idea of there being an all powerful, all knowing and all good god even being possible was shot down by Epicurus in the third century BC anyway.
βIs 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?β
I don't know why anyone would want to have something picking and choosing parts of their lives.... I don't like the idea of having to beg or cry for help from something invisible. I don't want to ask myself why a god would let something happen or ask why people are sick or die early. I don't want to live a parent / child relationship with an intangible supernatural.
The Norse gods weren't even immortal and the Greek gods were not always benevolent. I believe the monotheistic gods generally need omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience. If granted those 3, I don't think we can grant benevolence. The other thing that is rarely mentioned is consciousness. I think it is that consciousness which allows god to be finicky and malevolent at his whim.
I'm going to go with pecs and abs. All gods have perky pecs and defined abs. Legs are important too. Gods have nice legs. And the godlier they are, the less they wear so we can see how godly they are. Brad Pitt, in Troy, for example... defines what is a god.
I gotta get busy, whip this god back into shape @AMGT
To me... God is predefined by Christians to the point it is ridiculous. How can God of the Universe be defined in a bible box determined by a group of men in power and wealth and limited by 2000 years ago from a planet that is only a speck of dust in the scope of the entire universe. If you believe, you have an eternal soul/spirit in you then you are a part of God eternal. There is no heaven or hell, there is only love. Heaven and Hell are the carrot and stick tools to control the masses to do horrific things to one another. The history of Christiandom is horrific to conform to their beliefs. Duality only exist in the reasoning mind of this existence without knowing your true spiritual self.
So, to answer your question "What makes God, a God?"
Your eternal soul/spirit makes you a part of God. Christianity covers up your true nature to conform and absorb your divinity, like a f ing vampire. Praying with them, limiting your spiritual growth and discovering your true self and blocking others... this is evil to me.
Well said..
We must believe it is more powerful than us, more wise than us, and ultimately has our best interest at heart in spite of its propensity for punishing us. In other words, a parent surrogate.
Check out John Watheyβs βThe Illusion of Godβs Presence: the biological origins of spiritual longingβ
Iβm more interested in how the concept of god itself originated, of which I accept probably happened 10s of thousands of years ago or more. I donβt really care what the characteristics are, such as omnipresent or omnibenevolent. Doesnβt matter. It happened as a result of our insatiable human quest for answers, because of our large brains and prefrontal cortex. Jesus or any other current interpretation of god never entered their conscious brains, but humans about 40,000 years ago had some kind of ability to have abstract thought, and formulated theories about the reasons behind phenomona. (Inventing a βgodβ for what caused lightening strikes or thunder, for instance, or conceptualizing another realm of existance for which the dead go to. (After life) God is a romanticized extrapolation of our own egotistical consciousness. So they most likely had their own dogma that explained things they couldnβt understand. Arguably, having this ability could have been beneficial to survival by easing oneβs mind in terms of the unexplainable by supplying it with an explainer.(god) The non-anxious mind would go on to be better fighters, and survivors and reproducers.
Another possibility: We figured out what made ancient civilizations run smoothly and the most efficiently by trial and error, or by whatever knowledge we had at the time. Then, we applied some kind of metaphysical hypothetical presence, (god or gods) that could smite you or your family in some way, shape or form, if you went against the flow of society. Those acts being considered βevil.β And only the leaders and rulers could know about the true nature of these βgods.β The leaders and rulers knew that some people were smart and knew that really wouldnβt get smited from the sky, so the used actual physical punishment like beheadings and lashings and crucifixions as a deterrent to prevent anyone from going against the status quo.
If you want me to apply some characteristics. I guess it would only be if we found out some way that the universe is guided by some kind of energy regulating the βdials.β
But this energy is not conscious, omnibenevolent, didnt necessarily βcreateβ anything or doesnβt own some kind of alternative realm that has humans go to when they die.
Actually, before I say the energy is not conscious, we need to have an objective definition of consciousness to figure that out. And before I say βdidnβt create,β we need to debate whether the matter of the universe has been here forever and the whole multiple universe theories, too.
I concur. Period.
I don't believe in god, so I don't guess I have my own definition, but the omnimax god doesn't exist obviously. I'm not agnostic on that god, because the description of it proves it doesn't exist. I'm only agnostic on a god that has some vague definition that no one can possibly prove one way or another.
Evil is a matter of perception. I think the basis for most 'god' archetypes is creation of 'the known and unknown universe'. Beyond that, it is a point of subjectivity. A reflection of ones own needs. The 'anti-god' or 'adversary' is generally a 'blame all'. And then you get into the moral ambiguities of suffering, how can a deity allow it, why me, etc. But that is a very humanistic approach to god, right? I know that if I hadn't suffered, I wouldn't have enjoyed all the not-suffering nearly as much. Suffering made me tough enough to handle other sufferings and gave me empathy to see other people's suffering and feel for them. Defining the qualities of a god is like saying how big is the universe...or multi-verse, if you believe such things, or each of the 13 dimensions, if you believe that sort of thing....fun to muse on, and great to ask, but you won't get the answer, but you may come up with interesting questions and temporary answers to other concepts.
Let's always hope it is food for thought. Let's hope everything is food for thought. I find your question a tasty morsel, indeed...haha!
Not "like human" for sure. Be omnimax at from the infinity and be "like human" is non-sense
If the Christian god is omnimax he let a lot shitty things happened on his watch. For example why couldn't he forgive original sin and not kill his son to do it.
Okay, you describe the attributes of a god. If it lacks anyone of the afore mentioned attributes, then no he/she would not be a god. Now, as for the position of the agnostic. I think there is more to the problem. Perhaps they have not rationality thought it out, or they are too afraid to make the leap. (sorry for using SΓΈren Kierkegaard phrase or part the first part, leap of Faith" ) I also believe that many agnostics are not willing to go against Pascal's wager. This is my opinion I would like to here from an agnostic.
βPascal's Wagerβ is the name given to an argument due to Blaise Pascal for believing, or for at least taking steps to believe, in God
I really need to proof read. I fire them off to fast. lol
Hypothetically speaking, I don't think omnibenevolence is a necessary quality for a god. In fact, a god or gods who isn't/aren't omnibenevolent seem/s rather more probable even if the probabilities remain remote.
The Olympian gods were close to omniscient, it seems, but had varying degrees of presence and power (close to omnipotence within their assigned bailiwick, but even so probably not entirely). They certainly weren't omnibenevolent. Approximately the same could be said of the Norse gods.
I think the word "god" has been needlessly elevated by the Christian tradition. To qualify as a god in my view, the entity would need to be about as powerful as a traditional major demon, yet not be as consistently devoted to evil (or it would be a demon).
That said, from a scientific standpoint, I agree that any extant entity with more limited powers would simply be described as an alien, not a god or demon - unless it were somehow native to Earth (i.e., not an alien, but, even so, scientists would not call it a god). Scientifically speaking, only a hypothetical creator of the universe would qualify as a god - so omnipotent, yes; omniscient and omnipresent, quite possibly; omnibenevolent, I seriously doubt it.