Can "God" flex some of its omni-benevolence in the living realm?
926367
Again.Irrelevant.FANTASY.FANTASY.FANTASY.Nuff said.
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
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?
904244
Wow I never knew that- are you sure about that? That is pretty awesome if that is true....God works in WONDROUS ways! And that verse is so good- I love it.
394738
:}\nNo at least not in a direct sense. He does take advantage of evil which occurs to cause good for believers. his absence is evil so he is it's counter part.
1028794
Yes.  God can do anything including things that seem impossible to you and me.   I cannot concieve how he would do it, but then I am not God.  I can concieve, however, that an all powerful God could will himself unable to pick up a grain of sand (I know you were thinking of something a little larger).  And since He is all powerful, He could will Himself able to pick it up when it suited His plan.  I know this is lame circular logic, but so was your question.
15400
hahahhaha funny... in fact yes, God is everywhere by a X-sense He has... and also in that relations angels or mom's could be considered spy of God :)))
211327
No, Actually I think that reproducing, concious and self-aware machines will be more ultimate.\n\nTwo parts:\n\nOne . . . \nIntelligence, is measurable as problem solving ability. Perhaps ultimately as the ability to solve new problems. Important, but I think that there are more interesting thing in store for us in the future.\n\nFor example, machines would be able to reproduce, and to adapt as a group through the processes of mutation (mistakes in reproduction) and natural selection. If they are concious and self aware, then their behaviors would be quite difficult to predict in different environments.\n\nTwo . . . \nPerhaps then we will have created something that can qualify as alive. Whether a supreme deity (I will use god in the generic sense rather than God in the specific sense, because I think this debate is applicable to many different interpretations of god.)\n\nDoes god take responsibility for man's creations? Though god may take responsibility for creating a world with disease, suffering, etc, Does god take responsibility for murder, war, genocide etc.? If god takes credit for man's creations then yes, god is ultimately responsible for these things by giving man the choice and ability to make these thing happen . . . and god would be responsible and credited for intelligent of living machines that were made by the hands of man.\n\nHowever, if god is not responsible for murder, war, genocide etc. then god would also not be responsible for man making an intelligent machine.\n\nA god can't have it both ways . . . either he's responsible for all of humanity's actions and creations or none of them.
480288
Not necessarily.\n\nFrom a purely philisophical point of view, we need to consider the transcendance of time that omnipotence necessarily includes. Therefore our base conceptions of how a constant state is defined are obviated. Very little headway can be made by hypothesizing what the hyperdimensional state of perfection would embody.\n\nAddressing your second question, it is also not reasonable to assume a seperation of entities amoung such a hypothetical divine family. From a mathematical (in particular set theory) point of view, all divine incarnations could conceivably be contained in the 'God' set which could deride any paradox there.\n_________________________________________\n\nTrivially, we could just define God as the union of all godsets. (okay, so this language is getting pretty weird) Perhaps the act of slaying 'bad brother godset' for "raping" the 'sister godset' is what allowed 'good brother godset' to combine like Voltron to form the 'unified godset' or whatever. The point is that when you are hypothesizing about the divine state you can't rule out the superconnectedness of all divinity, let alone the many other possible paradigms including the time-honored favorite God/Devil duality.\n\nAlso, I don't think it is just me making up the idea that an omnipotent being might transcend our concepts of time. Certianly it is common to imagine God knowing all that is, was, and ever will be. I don't know about you, but I know that if I were omnipotent I sure wouldn't operate on 'human time'.
537676
DISCLAIMER: the following only applies to those who believe in God.  \n\nHere is an even better question as an off shoot from this one: Can God create an immovable object?\n\nIf you say he can, then that means he can't move it, which puts a limit on his power.  But, if you say he can't, because he should be able to move anything, then again you are putting limitations on Him.  It's a real paradox.\n\nJust something to think about...
695622
Nope. If you live in God's will you are willing to accept that some times what you want is not what God wills. You do not and can not buy God's blessings or bribe God into giving you what you want.
734626
No.  They need to open their minds to other pastabilities.  May you be touched by his noodly appendage.  The FSM (CBUM) is just as plausible as any other god.  RAmen.\n\nhttp://www.venganza.org/
387541
No.  Because this contradicts God being almighty.  God could create nothing that He couldn't do with as He pleases.
1050874
God really exists. I find it so relieving that he can scoff at all our attempts to put limits on him simply because those limits apply, to some extent, to us.
1047957
There are many different denominations because there are many different kinds of people. Sects and denominations are not an abomination at all, but are merely different ways of attempting to understand the same principle of God. So God may, indeed, be an omnipotent force--but there are many ways of trying to understand Him/Her/It/Them. Defining God is so far beyond our capacity that we've all developed different ways of trying to explain the inexplicable. Personally, I see it as a good sign. At least we're still talking about God.
638970
If there was a God, and there isn't. But if there was for the sake of your question. He would be a she and she would be a lesbian.\n\nMore:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.\nIs he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.\nIs he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?\nIs he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
661991
Yes He can. The claims of Krishna being God are more sound than, christ being one. Krishna's teachings certaily have much more depth.\n\nIt is one books claim against another. The way Church creats evidences and miracle to declare someone saint is too recent, in mother Teresa's case. We have had experienced some other "saints" too, who really make Hitler look like a normal christian. So the miracle tales of jesus and empirical evidences are not impressive if you do not believe in jesus.\n\nIn the end it just comes down to teachings. Krishna's teachings have much more depth, love and unbiased approach to all kind of beliefs.\n\n Krishna did not taught  concepts of proselytization, heresy hunting, Holy wars, proclamation of chosen people or a jealous God. .  \n\n"The Bhagavad Gita, with a clear grasp of the historical, warns us against taking away the psychological comfort of people by unsettling their faith." \n\nAccording to the Bhagavad Gita, even those who worship other gods (anyadevatah), ancestral deities, elemental powers, if they do so with faith, then their faith is justified, for the Divine accepts every form conceived by the worshipper\n\nHis teachings are  wholly free from the strange obsession of some faiths that the acceptance of a particular religious metaphysics is necessary for salvation, and non-acceptance thereof is heinous sin meriting eternal punishment in hell. \n\nAccording to the Bhagavad Gita: \n\n"I am alike to all being." "None is hateful or dear to me. \n\n Bhagavad Gita holds that all paths lead to the summit. "As men approach me so do I accept them. Men on all sides follow my path." God is leading all people of the world on to the fullness of life by diverse paths. \n\n Hinduism  concern is with the absolute Truth, not with systems of belief. The absolute Truth is universal, and forever impersonal. No one has a proprietary claim to it.\n\nMohammedans talk of universal brotherhood, but what comes out of that in reality? Why, anybody who is not a Mohammedan will not be admitted into the brotherhood; he will more likely have his own throat cut. Christians talk of universal brotherhood; but anyone who is not a Christian must go to that place where he will be eternally barbecued." \n\n\n\nRegarding Taimur's post: \n\nIt is obtuse to confuse Hinduism's images with idolatry, and that they are disregarding their own scripture. \n\nIdols are runaways from which the sense-laden human spirit can rise for its "flight of the alone to the Alone." Even village priest will frequently open their temple ceremonies with the following beloved invocation:\n\n   O Lord, forgive three sins that are due to my human limitations:\n   Thou art everywhere, but I worship you here;\n   Thou art without form, but I worship you in these forms;\n   Thou needest no praise, yet I offer you these prayers and salutations,\n   Lord, forgive three sins that are due to my human limitations.     \n\nIdol or image is a kind of yantra or a device for harnessing the eye and mind on God. As the Vishnu Samhita puts it:\n\n"Without a form how can God be mediated upon? If (He is) without any form, where will the mind fix itself? When there is nothing for the mind to attach itself to, it will slip away from meditation or will glide into a state of slumber. Therefore the wise will meditate on some form, remembering, however, that the form is a superimposition and not a reality." \n\nSymbolism in Hinduism is sublime and profound. Each act of Hindu worship reflects some deep spiritual significance. \n\n Don't Christians, have their cross? their images of Jesus and Mary? their paintings of scenes from the Bible? And don't the Jews have their Star of David? their holy tabarnacle?  Muslims bow to the Black Stone in Mecca, which is also an image. \n\nHindus are nor going against their scrpture by revering Krishna. They accept him as an Avatar. I think people