CONCEPT GOD 03:  God the anti-social misfit.  God was shy and withdrawn as a child, often retreating to his own imagination.  We are but a figment of his imagination.  God's parent's tried counselling, including shock therapy (our thunderstorms), to no avail.  It is in our best interests that God remains reclusive, because if he ever comes out of his shell, we all disappear.

Really, the "why is there suffering" dilemma was put to bed by Epicurious back around 300BC:

That you have to try this hard to re-invent God to make him out as a better "person" yet still all-powerful, should tell you something.

/Though I like God 01 - the storyteller with (way more than) billions of stories.  His home movies would go on for Eons, like Oliver Stone if he had his way.

How would Epicurus respond to this?

"Can God make a rock so big that even God can’t move it? "

Think about that for a moment; it’s a tricky question. If you answer “yes, God can make such a rock,” then you’re going to have to explain why God’s inability to move the rock doesn’t constitute a lack of omnipotence. If, on the other hand, you’re going to say “no, God can’t make a rock so big that even God can’t move it,” then you’re again forced into explaining why God’s inability to make such a rock doesn’t constitute a lack of omnipotence. Ouch!

Yes, this is a tricky question ... it is tricky because it is a trick question. The question is designed to pit God’s omnipotence against itself in a contradictory framework of creation and manipulation. It is specifically designed to try and invalidate omnipotence altogether by forcing God to work at least two contradictory and competing actions at the same time. In this way it is precisely like asking:

“Can God make triangles that are round?”

or

“Can God make circles that have 4 equal sides

at 90 degree angles to each other?”

or

“Can God kill Godself?”

This is quoted from Rev. Dr. Gregory Neal

What, only two new ideas of God?

I always thought there should be as many new ideas of God as there are people. After all, if we were created as creators, in God's image, then we are creating God as much as God creates us. Every one of us is a unique being, so why shouldn't everyone create their uniquely own God?

The first two questions are easy to answer. I think the basic and only geometric form in the universe is the circle or sphere. All angular geometry is contained within the circle, or within circles within circles.

(If I were to symbolize God with one geometric symbol, it would be the circle or sphere :-)

The third question is redundant: God is both being and not-being.

To be or not to be, this is the question? -Shakespeare

What is the answer?

To be is not to be. -Arminius

It's a good topic to think about. I guess there's no real answer. Hm...

Yes, and it's nothing like the line of questions Epicurious posed.  It's not, "Can God create an evil so great that he can not prevent it?", it's "Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?"

There really is nothing "tricky" about it.  You could ask a similar series of questions about a crime suspect to assess guilt.  For example, "Was Reginald willing to stop the crime, but not able?"  Obviously a very similar question structure, and there is nothing "tricky" about it, other than my random choice of the name "Reginald".

Epicurus is demanding God to work logical nonsense. God "is".

This "it" (as Arminius describes God) or "is" or "I Am" or God as most would call it, follows the rules of the universe as "God" created it.  "It" cannot be  declared into non existence by illogical questioning. Unless Epicurius had complete understanding of the universe and the ontological nature of God, his conclusions are inadequate. God is one of the words we use to acknowledge that  this "it"  brought creation into existence. (or as God spoke to Moses, "I Am who I Am")

Omnipotence does not place an obligation upon God to be tested according to what we believe, rather we have to accept the ontological nature of God as unique only to God. 

Hi waterfall:

If opposites necessitate each other, and are implicitly united and explicitly seperate, then the assumption that diametric opposites necessitate each other and innately are each other is not illogical questioning.

In my cosmology, the "nothing" or "not-being" which is God, and which gave birth to "everything" and "being," is not an absolute nothing. IT is just unquantified energy which nevertheless posesses the ultimate creator quality to transcend ITs state and become ITs own opposite while remaining what IT is. The seemingly illogical paradox of diametric opposites being simultaneously true, and being united as well as seperate, with the unification being the higher Truth and the seperation a subordinate truth, appears to be the solution to the cosmic riddle.

In other words, the cosmic synthesis appears to be as true as the cosmic analysis, with the synthesis being the higher and ultimate Truth, and the analysis a lower and subordinate truth.

god can make a whole new shape all the scientests would fight to name. a simple earth quake or rainy season can destroy any mountain so yes god can and does as he pleses

God only does things which are of his nature, and God doesn't do the things which are contrary to his nature. He cannot make a mountain he cannot move, because regardless of how large he made the mountain, he has the strength to move it. He cannot sin, he cannot lie, he cannot cheat, steal,et cetera.....kill without cause......

For me God created all that is living and non living on this earth. And according to the story, all things that god created has a purpose from the rocks to the vegetation to the animals and then he created humankind to care for the earth and Man created the other God - Money - and has been making a mess of it ever since. Money decides how much we consume, who lives where etc.  So when an earthquake happens because of too much mining or manmade bombs, then I fail to understand why we blame God for allowing it to happen. Or when we breathe our foul air  and eat crap for food, again I fail to understand why we blame God when we are dying from cancer. God will stand by us and will help us spiritually to fight our demons that we have created. We expect God to fix our physical problems when God only promised to fix our spiritual problems

 I believe I heard somewhere that God would make a rock He/She couldn't lift - and then lift it.

Was that on this site?  Or did I read it in The Shack?  It might have been in The Shack.

These new theories still sound a lot like Greek myths of their Gods - some super powers, but still pretty much like people with all the weaknesses of people.

Cute. But goes nowhere.

graeme

Of course, math and science - along with computers, van and have 'created' whiole new shapes - at least in my view.  Does that make them 'Gods'?  And very kewl about a simple quake and a rainy season... exactly where have mountains been destroyed like that, please?

I find the first concept rather interesting, as a Seanachie. In Irish Celtic culture, storytelling is a highly regarded, if not most highly regarded, skill.