Reasonable Faith Forum
Welcome to the Reasonable Faith forum! This is a general discussion board on apologetics, theology,... View more
Two Gods
-
Two Gods
I’ve been given surprising insight recently, as it was suggested a God which had limits and faced challenges regarding creation, would not be thought worthy of that name by humans, and would be immediately classified as something like a grandiose human, not fundamentally different from creatures, although He is responsible for everything that is.
This suggests all this time at the forum we have been talking about two different Gods.
God A
Considered to be:
- Omnipotent in the sense of having all existent powers.
- Too wise to be influenced by prayer.
- Able to perform foundational miracles of body and planet, but no more.
- Largely irrelevant to creatures, whose domains He creates.
- Constantly at work in support of the creation.
- Able to add verbal/written input to creation only through prophets.
- Too much different from humans to offer direct social guidance.
God B
Considered to be:
- Omnipotent in the sense of having all conceivable powers.
- Willing to answer prayer to show responsiveness to His people.
- Able to perform special miracles by bending nature’s laws at will.
- Vitally concerned for man, as part of His own meaning.
- Above work, as creation is easy for omnipotence.
- Able to add verbal/written input to creation through any human.
- Close enough to humans to offer direct social guidance.
I have been learning that God A would not be an influential God even if real, among the human population. If angels are interested in Him, it is for reasons that are so far hidden.
-
2 Replies
-
You sure worded God A to be favorable to your position. Shouldn’t it be more like:
– Unknown the extent of their powers, but they are limited.
– Unknown the extent of their wisdom
– Was able to create a universe at some point in their existence
– Largely irrelevant to creatures, whose domains he creates
– Does not appear to be necessary for the support of the creation (it appears to operate naturally)
– People claim to be prophets claim to have had messages from him, but none can confirm itI think those criteria fit better, and yes, I wouldn’t call such a being a God merely because they were responsible for the creation of the universe.
-
I was listing the ideas about God I’ve been following over these years, as opposed to the ideas of both theists and atheists, for atheists focus on rejecting the theistic ideas of God.
I would accept some of your revisions on my own model, though.
God A
Considered to be:
- Omnipotent in the sense of having all existent powers, though what these powers are cannot be understood since they are wielded from invisibility upon the stuff of creation itself. Nor can the extent of the powers be understood since they are too vast compared to those of any creature. The term “omnipotent” thus still applies.
- Too wise to be influenced by prayer, which is to say it should be obvious to any right-thinking creature that the Creator’s wisdom, who makes worlds, so far eclipses its own that any suggestions to God of how to use His powers is worse than futile, bordering on arrogance.
- Able to perform foundational miracles to make and sustain souls, bodies and planets, but no more. As First Cause, nothing would exist without God.
- Largely irrelevant to creatures, whose domains He creates. Their societies should be built on love for the neighbor.
- Constantly at work in support of the creation, though science has not yet been able to observe this (or been looking very hard).
- Able to add verbal/written input to creation only through prophets, a mechanism poorly understood by religionists and often rejected, as Jesus spoke of the owner of the vineyard.
- Too much different from humans to offer direct social guidance or to enjoy their companionship.
These are my opinions, take it or leave it. The nature of the post was to better characterize the two views, not to try to convince anyone. I see certain barriers from these differences.
-
Log in to reply.