If God is all powerful...?
489594
Why do doubters always use the same dumb question?
560764
The most powerful thing God can do is not exist.
379872
God is infinite in wisdom and power, unlimited in love and goodness. The other one you ask about is envious malicious and deceitful.
388128
That's what the church says to mantain its power.\n\nSay, even if you believe in a god, do you think it would be his will to allow popes in golden thrones and protestant priests in BWM's while billions starve?
1166804
First  the God in heaven is spelled with a capitol G and He is God the father of the Lamb that was slain. Therefore power is not given Him it is his already. Read 1Chr 29:12
1077877
Yes, God is God no matter what you call him (or her) or how you choose to worship.\nI wish everyone understood this!
630399
God says He's a jealous God and I imagine He knows more about Himself than I do.\n\nConsider this: God is supreme.  He is GOD.  He wasn't invented by man, or He wouldn't be God.  He is all-knowing when we obviously aren't.  He's all-powerful when we obviously aren't.  He has always existed when we obviously were born not all that long ago.  He is holy and we definitely aren't.  He is GOD and is infinitely more awe-inspiring than we are.  Basically, He is worthy of praise.  He deserves it.  Just like kings and royalty get respect, He should get just as much and more.  He created us, we didn't make ourselves.  So imagine all that; imagine what the word "God" infers.\n\nAnd then read Exodus 20:2-5: "'Iam the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.  You shall have no other gods before Me.  You shall not make for yourself a carved image...you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.  For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God...."  \n\nIf God is really God, He has some claims on us.  Because we are not God.  We are His creation.  And one of those claims He has on us is that we worship His awesomeness.  I mean, imagine your favorite singer, actor, writer, athlete, and then imagine you trying to tell the media that, no, YOU are better than this person when obviously you stink next to their talent!  That is how we act as humans most of the time.  We don't give God His due.  And He has a right to be jealous.  Don't know if that answers your question, but that kind of jealousy is righteous.  Ours is petty.
1075531
Why do you think that people have that kind of power over God?\n\nIf God loves you, do you think that you can really keep him from you, do you think that is within your power?\n\nIf God loves all people – do you really think that he will condemn them to hell just because they are Jewish?\n\nIs that the action of a loving God?\n\nDo you really think that people have so much power that they can keep God at arms length, just by having a different faith?\n\nI think God is more powerful than that.\n\nRemember, Christ died for everyone’s sins.
330550
nope, and nope\n\n   1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.\n   2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.\n   3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.\n   4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.\n   5. Evil exists.\n   6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.\n   7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.\n\nSo it seems kinda silly to die in the name of god, right?
1070249
"If God is good and all-powerful, why does evil exist in this world?"\n\nTime to bust out the big words:  Theodicy.\n\nTheodicy:  "an explanation for the presence of evil and suffering that is consistent with the nature and character of God."\n\nBoy, I'm not sure where to start.  There's so many points to make and I'm not sure how to organize my thoughts....but here goes nothing.  This is my theodicy:\n---------------------------------------------------------\nFirst, let's start by defining "evil."  Evil is not a force or a created thing, so it would be faulty to use the circular logic that either God created evil (meaning God isn't good) or that God isn't the Creator of everything (since He didn't create evil).\n\nEvil is the absence of good, much like rust on a car.  God, by giving us free will, allowed us to "create" evil by choosing against Him.  For, if God is good, then to choose against Him would by evil and the consequences would be death (since God gives life).  Just as darkness is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good.\n\nSometimes evil is the perversion of good.  Cancer is a good non-moral example.  It's a harmful mutation of otherwise healthy cells.  Whether evil twists good or flat-out rejects it, the results are the same.\n\nEvil is not God's fault.  He created only good and we distorted it, which is evil.\n\nEnough on this topic.  I'm leaving a few loose ends and there's much more to say on this, but I would be getting off track.\n\nSecond, let's point out a major implication of the question.  Anyone who asks our topic question for today is demonstrating the influence of Christianity on western thinking.  Hindus don't ask this question.  Animists don't grapple with it.  To them, the gods themselves are evil and corrupt and evil is to be an expected, embraced part of this world.  Suck it up and live with it.  It's the ying and the yang.  The Dark Side and the Light Side of the Force.  It's still the same Force.\n\nBut by asking the question, you are saying that there is a definite "evil" in this world that can be defined and identified.  There's something wrong and not right.  There is injustice.  And you presume that whoever this God fellow is, it's supposed to be His job to oppose this stuff and He's doing a lousy job.\n\nThis is a Christian worldview:  that evil is not normal and should be opposed.  The Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. are Christian influences in our society.  There is something in us as human beings that desires to fight injustice, help the suffering, etc.  This would make sense if we are made in God's image... but I'm getting off track again.  Let's move to the third point.\n\nThe question is usually vague and impersonal.  What I mean is that people who ask this question usually have in mind for God to go over and fix that mess in Iraq, or do something about sweat shops and child labor in China.  Why doesn't He oppose child pornography, or hold to account genocide in Africa?\n\nBut they don't want God to interfere with the sin and evil in their own hearts and lives.\n\nSee, for God to come in judgment, He would have to be fully just and judge all...  and this brings me to my final point.\n\nThe question neglects another key element of God's character.  Yes, He is good.  Yes, He is omnipotent.  But He is also merciful.  This may seem like a contradiction (i.e., why would He then allow suffering?), but let me explain.\n\nGod holds back His judgment with patient love in order to give us time to repent and be set right.  The painful side of this is that we also then have more time choose evil.  But the day will come when He will judge the earth.  The sweat shop owners will be held to account...and so will you and I.  God is good.  He is perfect, holy, and righteous.  He is pure.  He opposes evil.  We all have evil in our lives:  the t
351841
If I was sure it was God.
708169
maybe. God uses hardships & struggle to build character to the person you might think has a 'hard life'. if he just hands over everything we want we dont learn anything.
1046864
It is written that God gave man the power of reason,,and the power to question his own creator,,,,,so the answer could be,,,that human kind,,,was been given limitless power to interfere with Gods will.\nthe more we question,,,the closer we get to God.
534613
if god is all knowing he cannot possibly contradict himself\nrev. pick
1133239
Oh, no.  We are all God's creatures and equal in worth and ability.  Cooooom by ya, my lord, cooooooom by ya.\n\nThanks for the points.  :D
288724
The human race is more powerful than ever before. We have the power of flight,space travel to the moon and the nearest planet,we can make our own heat and light from harnassing energy at will.As for the man you described,maybe the technology that provides him with the ability to use brain waves to control aspects of the world around him is a step away from godlike power.\n I'm sure that to the ancients who lived in the time of Christ we would seem to be as powerful as gods-but that doesn't make us gods. We will always have human frailties.
342509
You are assuming that God is limited to what we think of Him.  That is wrong.  God could not do anything that will limit his abilities, including what you ask.\n\nRead this for further clarification:\n\nGod and Omnipotence\nThe paradox of the stone, as presented by Wade Savage:\n1. Either God can create a stone that God cannot lift, or God cannot create a stone that God cannot lift – there are no other possibilities. \n2. If God can create a stone that God cannot lift, then there is at least one thing that God cannot do (i.e., lift that stone). \n3. If God cannot create a stone that God cannot lift, then there is at least one thing that God cannot do (i.e., create that stone). \n4. From the combination of 1, 2 and 3, it follows that there is at least one thing that God cannot do. \n5. If God is omnipotent, then God can do anything. \n6. Therefore, God is not omnipotent. \n\nWhat this argument apparently shows is that omnipotence is impossible (or, that the notion of omnipotence is incoherent). Thus, God cannot be omnipotent (as nothing can be).\n\nSuggested solutions to the paradox St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274):\nAquinas defines as “absolutely impossible” any thing where the “predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject” (his example: “man is an ***” (in the non-metaphorical sense)). With this in mind:\nWhatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is more appropriate to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.\n\nThat is, to be omnipotent involves being able to do all things that are possible. For example, it is not considered a limit to my powers that I cannot draw a square circle. That’s impossible, so it’s no failing that I can’t do it – it cannot be done.\n\nBUT: surely I can make a thing that is too heavy for me to lift, so that task is not impossible, so if God can’t do it, that really is a limit to his power.\n\nGeorge Mavrodes (1926-):\nMavrodes responds that although “a stone too heavy for Simon Cushing to lift” is not a contradictory notion, “a stone too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift” is a contradictory notion.\nMavrodes’s argument in full:\n1. Either God is omnipotent or he is not. \n2. If God is not omnipotent, then the fact that he cannot do something (either make or lift the stone) is unsurprising. \n3. If God is omnipotent, then, by definition, there necessarily cannot be a stone that is too heavy for him to lift (otherwise he would not be omnipotent). \n4. If there necessarily cannot be such a stone, then it is an impossibility. \n5. By Aquinas’s reasoning, even an omnipotent being cannot perform impossibilities. \n6. Therefore, by definition, inability to create a stone too heavy for one to lift is no barrier to being omnipotent. (In fact, only non-omnipotent beings can create objects too heavy for themselves to lift.) \n\nBUT: both Aquinas and Mavrodes assume that God cannot do impossible things. Is this right? Descartes, for one, thought not. Descartes believed God could make 2+2=5. Why? Because otherwise you are suggesting that God is bound by the laws of logic. But if God created the laws of logic, why should he be bound by them? Couldn’t he have made them differently?\n\nHarry Frankfurt:\nHowever, if we assume that God can do impossible things, then God can create a stone too heavy for him to lift (which is supposedly impossible). Furthermore, if he can do that, then he can go one stage further and lift that stone (also impossible – but what’s the difference between doing one impossible thing and doing two?) \nBUT: doesn’t that mean that the stone he created was not a stone too heavy for him to lift, and that we’re back to the situation of him being unable to create such a stone? Not according to Frankfurt:\nIf an omnipotent being can do what is logically impossible, then he can not only create situations which he canno