Of course, there are plenty of versions of gods who aren't omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, or omnibenevolent.
I don't think even the Abrahamic god is ever claimed to be omnibenevolent. Is there such a passage?
Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are right
- Thread starter Don
- Start date
Of course, there are plenty of versions of gods who aren't omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, or omnibenevolent.
I don't think even the Abrahamic god is ever claimed to be omnibenevolent. Is there such a passage?
What she said. If science had a monopoly on truth, then what would be the point of art?
That's more of an equivocation than a riposte, not to mention a strawman.
Who said that science has a "monopoly on truth"? And, what does that even mean? Truth, by definition, is that which best comports with fact/reality. Science is a process of epistemological discovery of facts relating to reality (arguments for/against Hawking's "Model-Dependent Realism," notwithstanding). Reifying it as being something more than that unnecessarily obfuscates coherent discussion and comparisons.
So, perhaps it could be said that science, while not having some vague "monopoly on truth," at least currently provides the best, most objective way of investigating truth claims, especially those involving the natural universe.
Also, art has many "points" or goals; such as conveying beauty, emotion, awe, ideologies, etc. They are as numerous and diverse as the number of artists who create it. Your statement implies that the only point of art is "truth" (again, an ambiguous statement), which wrongly excludes many other - and, I would argue, the majority of - reasons for its creation.
Last edited:
Science and religion, especially Catholicism, have always had an "interesting" relationship. There's the Galileo thing, which it only took the Church 350 years to change its mind about:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html
Stephen Hawking wrote about meeting the Pope (or perhaps it was several of them - ISTR at least one meeting since this book) in his popular book "A Brief History of Time."
Another prominent scientist, Stephen Jay Gould, has also had meetings with the Pope, and wrote a famous essay separating (or attempting to separate) science and religion, named "Nonoverlapping Magisteria:"
http://web.archive.org/web/20140421173708/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/28/health/us-ebola/
On the other hand, why should we trust HER claim (and others who said that) over those of many philosophers, scientists and mathematicians?
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html
Stephen Hawking wrote about meeting the Pope (or perhaps it was several of them - ISTR at least one meeting since this book) in his popular book "A Brief History of Time."
Another prominent scientist, Stephen Jay Gould, has also had meetings with the Pope, and wrote a famous essay separating (or attempting to separate) science and religion, named "Nonoverlapping Magisteria:"
http://web.archive.org/web/20140421173708/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html
While it's true there are things in religion regarded as impossible by many people, just a couple days ago I heard a woman say "with God all things are possible" (I recall this claim as not being original with her - I've heard it many times before). There was no hedging, so I presume she meant things that have been shown to be impossible are also possible, thus perhaps the fault is with logic and human reasoning.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/28/health/us-ebola/
On the other hand, why should we trust HER claim (and others who said that) over those of many philosophers, scientists and mathematicians?
And of course interpreting-it-yourself is from the Protestant Reformation, and also thans to an invention by Gutenberg that gives many people inexpensive access to the Bible. Before that, or even now if you're still Catholic, there are priests to interpret things for you. I suppose that's part of the job of whoever's Pope, and that's what the current one is doing with the evolution and big bang thing here.
Certainly it is a characteristic of God in Christian theology, if not the Abrahamic tradition as a whole.
Here's a quick wiki cite, I'll find another.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity
http://www.theopedia.com/List_of_God's_known_attributes
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence
I am sure I can find additional cites, but you get the point. St. Thomas Acquinas, among many other Catholic theologians wrestled with the problem of evil because of the inherent conflict of a being both omnibenevolent and omnipotent.
Oh, and as to Wikipedia as a general reference, see
http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279226&highlight=wiki
Last edited:
I don't have time to go into religious theory right now, but I believe the question of evil isn't addressed by the question of what God is or is not, but is rather the result of the free will of mortals.
No, at its core, the theological issue known as "The problem of evil" (mentioned in the cites of my last post) is a function of the attributes of God.
See Problem of Evil (a specific problem kicked about by theologians for centuries)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
See Problem of Evil (a specific problem kicked about by theologians for centuries)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
Last edited:
That's not actually addressing the "Problem of Evil" as defined theologically.
Also, the simultaneous beliefs that currently exist in major Christian doctrine that 1) God gives all humans "free will" yet 2) "everything happens according to His Divine Plan[SUP]TM[/SUP]" are logically incompatible.
Is it Christian doctrine that all Christian doctrine is logically compatible? I know a lot of people assume it all should be.
Omnibenevolence doesn't seem to be quite what I thought it was. It means all good (as opposed to having any evil), whereas I was thinking all caring or all loving (as opposed to either hate or indifference). But the attributes link does say God is Love.
There's a verse the Quakers and Shakers get their names from that goes something like (I don't find an exact verse) "[you should] tremble and quake in the presence of the Lord." I've seen the text "the fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom" and indeed that exact text shows up twice in Proverbs and once in Psalms.
It seems that if God were loving (or good), one wouldn't have anything to fear from Him. How is this reconciled, or is it not?
I wasn't aware those beliefs were central to major Christian doctrine. Thanks for the enlightenment.
I don't want to get into the theological debate, but can someone PM me when he explains the total hideousness of the naked mole rat? Either God or evolution, I really don't care. I just want an apology on behalf of naked mole rats. Because really - not cool. Not even fair.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 8,015
- Reaction score
- 3,137
- Location
- Junior Nation
- Website
- cynthia-bronco.blogspot.com
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 8,015
- Reaction score
- 3,137
- Location
- Junior Nation
- Website
- cynthia-bronco.blogspot.com
Also, Naked Mole Rats: God has a sense of humor and nekkidness is just plain funny for boys age 8 to14. Also, this is an explanation for the presence of brussels sprouts, which has nothing to do with nudity, but they are Brussells sprouts! Who can trump that!????
I also wasn't aware that I said they were "central" to the doctrine. Thanks for the fallacious interpolation.
If one believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and believes His teachings/commandments to be perfect, then yes. And that's what theological apologists (e.g. Plantinga, William Lane Craig, St. Anslem, Aquinas, Tertullian, etc.) have spent centuries trying to prove. Granted, they dance with modal logic which can be logically compatible with anything because, you know, "possibilities."
Last edited:
Do you know who's really, really good at the bible? Marilynne Robinson. And she does Calvinism and everything.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 32
- Age
- 83
Is Neked Mole Rats that be trumping funny and the sprouts from Brussells of which you speaking.
Is nice you be appreciating the neked Mole Rat.
Brussels Sprouts (if I'm right) has nothing to do with Brussels. Which may or may not undermine your point.
mccardey, are you simply going to ignore the naked mole rat in the room?
That will really hurt Drooly's feelings.
That will really hurt Drooly's feelings.
I repped him. At the moment I'm struggling with whether omnibenevolent should be a word. Because frankly if I were God, there'd be bugger all benevolence and a whole lot more "Just - play nicely or go to your rooms."
Really, there would. And people would share, or there would be tears before bedtime, and I'll tell you that for nothing.
To everything, there is a season
and a time for every purpose. . .
turn, turn, turn
Frankly, he's a grande papa to me, si!
and a time for every purpose. . .
turn, turn, turn
Frankly, he's a grande papa to me, si!
No, but they didn't spend centuries. They didn't live for "centuries" - so, they're just some people who tried to promote an idea of something. But what matters is the idea that's more generally held.