johnydon22:
So, why then do you pray?

budaatum:
Moon landings were an attempt to find God too, with an inability to perceive behind the moon the recognised limitation, so massive investments were made to see behind the moon, but alas, no God. Those with the ability to comprehend would have said, "Perhaps he moved to another planet", and so do we send probes to the furthest reaches of the universe. Do probes find the Kingdom of God? I'll say yes but expect to be vilified!

I often laugh when people ask others to provide them with evidence of God or prove that God exists. Often, they are asking one who merely believes God exists to prove that God exists, which is an amusing sight to behold, for a person who knows God exists would not bother proving it to one who doesn't for they know the person seeking evidence lacks the ability to perceive or comprehend the Kingdom of God.

I'm going to suggest that most of the above op is based on a misconception of God, of whom no images can be made, and who's Kingdom, it is said, is within one, and which you'd only know by the fruits that presence within produces. I'm also going to suggest NASA is the new Vatican, but I can not possibly expect those who comprehend not "As above, So below" to understand a word I might possibly use to explain my suggesting except to state that "God" is not a philosophical problem, but a problem that those who lack the ability to be philosophical are incapable of comprehending. It's in the language, see, and most have not heard of the likes of Wittgenstein et al.

I might respond to your specific questions later.

CAPSLOCKED:


THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL PIECE, BUT YOU'RE NOT GETTING ANYTHING FROM BELIEVERS.

johnydon22:


So, why then do you pray?

How then can you as a believer do this?

FOLYKAZE:
The question, why do we pray?

You see, the mind of a man simply remodel something into person which they can communicate verbally with. It happens alot even when we don't notice it. The fact is, when these stuff are important to us and are not a person, we tend to deal with them as a person. Hence, the reason why some pray to God or something. This doesn't mean God is a person.

I noticed too that people pray to the court of law. Even when the court of justice is a God, it is not a person.

Therefore, people pray to God because there mind captured it as human or someone they can converse with.

In Yoruba spirituality, sacrifices is more important than prayer. Infact, they don't pray to Eledumare as he/she/it does not interfere with activities in the physical world. Sacrifices as defined in Ifa is exchange (could be between human and god or human to human).

tintingz:
Good argument from the OP.

hakeem4:
This is a beautiful piece from johnydon22.

Let me start with the most common problem, the omnipotence paradox;

Can God create something so heavy that he can't lift it?

If God is omnipotent, then he has to be able to create something he can't lift, otherwise his inability to create this would mean that there is at least one thing that God can't do then he can't be omnipotent.

The problems of evil - There is at least what we call natural evil.
An omniscient God would know every possible way evil cannot exist
An omnibenovalent God would want to eradicate evil
An omnipotent God can.
How then is evil a thing?
How then is satan, the embodiment of evil a thing?

What about man-made evils?

Free will?
God is omniscient and omnitemporal; he knows every future. How is there freewill if God already knows what will happen and can't be wrong?

The only way we can make predictions such as eclipse of the sun or any other accurately, is that the forces subject to our accurate measurement and predictions do not possess will and therefore are designated to act according to measurable patterns.

Or, the problem of morality.
Can God sin?
If God can't sin, then God possibly can't do everything, therefore not omnipotent.
If God can sin, then God can't possible be all good

So, why then do you pray?

RandomGuy48:

Let us suppose that this question shows that God is not in fact "fully" omnipotent. All that would indicate is that, outside of a few fringe cases that do not actually matter (to what degree does this have any impact on any potential interactions God may have with us?), God can do anything. So even if this is a demonstration that God is not omnipotent, for all practical purposes (and especially from our viewpoint) God effectively is.

But does one even have to admit that? It is interesting that you mention how the traits of God were stated by Augustine and Aquinas, but do not note that they actually gave answers to some of these. For example, according to Aquinas, this "paradox" only occurs if one is not following the right understanding of omnipotence, which is the ability to do all things that are possible. Things that are a contradiction in terms, such as the question you suppose (or for another famous example, whether a square can be a circle), are logically impossible and thus do not fall under the definition of omnipotence. As Aquinas says, "Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them." (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1025.htm#article3)

Alternatively, one can take the opposite route, and argue that omnipotence allows for the suspension of the laws of logic itself, and thus an omnipotent God can simultaneously make a rock too strong for him to lift while still being able to lift it despite the apparent paradox it presents.


In the limited forum of a message board, it's hard to do justice to a question that has prompted entire works of philosophy. So I will offer this short, if possibly unfulfilling answer: There could very well be important factors or variables that we non-omniscient humans are unaware of that an omniscient being is aware of that would mean that what we perceive to be as an unwillingness or inability to eradicate what we see as evil is in fact the best choice available.


Well, some actually would say that free will does not exist as their answer, though I would not. For me, I feel it's a false dissonance to begin with. The ability to know, even with absolute certainty, that someone will make a particular choice does not mean that that person did not themselves make that choice. I simply see no contradiction between omniscience and free will.

But even beyond that, I don't think it's a question that has relevance. There are two possibilities. One is that we do not have free will with an omniscient God. In that case, the question is irrelevant because you lack the free will to do anything about it. The other is that we do have free with an omniscient God. In that case, the question is irrelevant because you do have free will and there's no reason to worry about it. Either way, it ends up being irrelevant, and I do not think it particularly worth pondering about.

Again, this is something Aquinas answered, in fact in the same article I linked above:

"To sin is to fall short of a perfect action; hence to be able to sin is to be able to fall short in action, which is repugnant to omnipotence. Therefore it is that God cannot sin, because of His omnipotence."

But much like the omnipotence paradox, even if inability to sin is a contradiction with omnipotence and thus imposes a limitation, it is a limitation of no practical value from our perspective. Thus, from a practical standpoint, God can be considered omnipotent.

This is by far the simplest of the questions to answer: The Bible says you should pray. (a Muslim would cite the Qur'an instead of the Bible but the answer remains the same)

But yet again, I should note Aquinas's answer:

"We need to pray to God, not in order to make known to Him our needs or desires but that we ourselves may be reminded of the necessity of having recourse to God's help in these matters."
http://newadvent.org/summa/3083.htm#article2

Ubenedictus:


So you read Suma theologia

johnydon22:
It's a good read

Ubenedictus:
you too... Thought you were anti anything Catholic.

Aquinas is a Catholic theologian.

johnydon22:
I am the farthest thing from anti-catholicism.

In fact, I'd take catholic liturgy any day instead of a Pentecostal service.

I have been a Catholic for the most part of my life, an alter boy and later a seminarian.

Unbeliever - Yes
Critic - Yes
Anti- Christian - No
Anti- theist - No
Anti catholic - No.

I enjoy studying Catholic theologians.

One can't really have a balanced view until they have conclusively studied admirably that which they criticize.

Ubenedictus:
so apart from Aquinas who else have you read?

johnydon22:
I particularly love Saint Augustine. One of my favorite quotes.

"If you choose parts of the scriptures to believe and not the others, it is not the scriptures you believe but yourself"

johnydon22:
I am the farthest thing from anti-catholicism.

In fact, I'd take catholic liturgy any day instead of a Pentecostal service.

I have been a Catholic for the most part of my life, an alter boy and later a seminarian.

Unbeliever - Yes
Critic - Yes
Anti- Christian - No
Anti- theist - No
Anti catholic - No.

I enjoy studying Catholic theologians.

One can't really have a balanced view until they have conclusively studied admirably that which they criticize.

Ubenedictus:
if I want to throw you off, I'll have to invite you to a tradentine mass.

I'll see how much you love Catholic liturgy

johnydon22:


You are talking to someone who was half way to becoming a Catholic Priest Ubenedictus

johnydon22:


You are talking to someone who was half way to becoming a Catholic Priest Ubenedictus