Any omnipotent being must be capable of feeling emotions, otherwise that would be a thing they can’t do, making them not omnipotent.
IQ =/= EQ
Omnipotence implies the ability to control emotions (along with everything else). Were God only framed as being omniscient, then your answer could explain it. It’s a bit harder to ignore the gap for omnipotence.
OP’s question is a version of the classic Omnipotence Paradox: “Can God make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?”, which has had a good couple of thousand years worth of discussion, but no particularly satisfying answers. I doubt lemmy will have a breakthrough, but no harm in trying.
Controlling your emotions simply means that you do not immediately react the way your emotions would take you, and that instead you act appropriately to the situation. It doesn’t mean that you don’t have emotions, or that those emotions cannotir should not influence your resolve towards the line of action you decide to take.
I also don’t see how it is related to the rock question (or my favorite alternate, could God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cannot eat it). There is not a paradox between being powerful and having emotions.
Just for fun, as a stab at the paradox: yes, God can limit his own power or prevent himself from doing stuff because he said he would. Like for example in the Christian religion Jesus came as a human and that severely limited himself. At one point he really wanted to not die but couldn’t do anything about it because that was the path he set for himself and he can’t lie. Same principle applies even if Christianity isn’t “the one”.
I think where people tend to get tripped up with this paradox is that things cannot be simultaneously true. God could make the sky totally purple, but he didn’t, so we’re here with the sky being totally blue during the day. He could make it half purple and half blue, but didn’t do that either. That’s not proof of a lack of power. He could make the rock too heavy, and then he could make the rock not too heavy later, kr himself stronger. This doesn’t disprove anything about theoretical omnipotence. And lastly, presumably things are explained to us in a way we understand. Perhaps God does have some sort of hard limits to power, but as far as we are concerned it may as well be infinite. There’s not much of a point in semantics. The very question betrays our human way of seeing things, God probably does not usually have a body to lift things. Does levitating it “count”? Does moving the earth down count? Does asking someone or something else to do it count? It’s an interesting question that has persisted for a long time, I just don’t think it ultimately means much once you break it down.
There is no god.
not what was asked
There is no god so it doesn’t have feelings. Our fictional stories about god project human things like feelings onto that fictional character.
But it is a possible solution to the postulated contradiction and thereby a valid answer.
Well, the obvious answer is: if God is so much greater than humans, how would we know? If you’re talking about the Hebrew god from the Christian Bible / Jewish Scriptures, you’re seeing the depiction of God as told through the lens of humans, who often try to be telling other humans about god using the limited vocabulary and imagery available.
God is depicted as being powerful enough that a human not being fully aligned with God but being in God’s presence would lead to annihilation, just like a human approaching the sun would be destroyed — not because the sun was angry, just because of its nature compared to ours.
On the flip side of that, for the biblical God, humans are made in God’s image, which means the species as a whole would reflect God’s character (including the bit about wanting to be the ones fully in control).
Starts with:
“Not to get into a debate.”Continues with:
" If God is so omnipotent"…🤪
Well, that’s what a rhetorical question is. You’re making a statement, not a query, but the best way to couch your statement happens to be with a question mark at the end of it. I’m not sure this is the best example of one, but at least they made an attempt to label it as such.
To be omnipotent first need to exist. If don’t exist then anything after is nonsense, therefore can be portrayed as wild as author’s imagination is.
Because we created god in our image
God has emotions because it is created in man’s image. It’s pure projection sold through propaganda to keep the weak, scared, and stupid under the thumb of the kind of men who wish to rule.
Less cynically, I believe the argument in scripture is the inverse. Man was created in god’s image therefore we probably inherited a lot of properties of the devine.
It’s a perfect cover to call people cynics for simply revealing the poor situation we find ourselves in. The denial will never end. This was one of the best sentences I’ve read in a while. Very succinct, thanks.
Or maybe it’s the other way round: We have emotions because God has emotions (not to get into a debate)
You posit an unproven and unprovable character as fact and then retreat? Not very fair on your part.
So how do you want to define ‘fact’?
Something verifiable which comports with reality.
Present evidence of your god in a way that satisfies the conditions in https://tiny.cc/SD_proof and I will probably believe it.
So this has no relation to what I have written before.
So you now have permission to leave.No arguments like all believers. Go cry to church, then.
Which got me to thinking the other day, after the third day of crazy thunderstorms and tornado warnings in a row, if we were created in god’s image, then what if god’s a moron? (I’m agnostic I just like thinking about these things)
I’ve been agnostic ever since I heard it 30 years ago but I’m starting to lean back toward atheist because shit’s getting ridiculous.
Humans are created in his image. Morons aren’t.
/s
All written accounts of God are produced by humans for an audience of other humans.
In the same way that we might describe a storm cloud as “angry” or a sunny day as “cheerful”, one might apply emotional descriptors to an omnipotent divine force in order to personify an impersonal and abstract entity.
Past that, assuming you believe that a divine being is above humanity, why wouldn’t they have emotions? Emotions are a feature of sentience and God is supposed to be a super-sentient creature. If anything, it would experience these emotions more intensely and intricately than its creations. The human rage of a shout or the despair of a cry becomes the earth-splitting eruption of a volcano or the suffocating deluge of a flood.
At the same time, it is the overwhelming longing for companionship that drives a God to form life from the void of space. The intense joy in the creative act leads this fundamental superhuman force to tirelessly build an entire universe. The deep and profound pride and love which brings them among their creations clothed in their own form, willing to endure the humiliation of this avatar form in order to enlighten and elevate their divine progeny to their own level.
Absent these primal emotional urges, why would a God choose to be a God at all, and not simply languish within the darkness for eternity, content to the echoing silence of dead space?
Because it’s nonsense created by humans. Humans came up with these stories, of course they anthropomorphized their deity.
As much as I agree with the premise, I think you kid yourself when you don’t look at the power structure. While in the earliest of times you could definitely blame the entire race, I’d rather concentrate on the current situation.
As St George the Carlin asked, if God is all powerful, why does he need money?
“If God is all-powerful, can he make a rock so heavy even he can’t lift it?”
The Class Clown album was the beginning of the end of my Catholicism
Because the shit that makes you feel all powerful doesn’t come cheap!
Why do you think emotions make you inferior?
That sounds like insane cult shit TBH
Or vanity. “I’m gonna need y’all to show up once a week to tell me how awesome I am”
So first, asking religious questions on the Fediverse is a fool’s errand, but that aside: Why not? Hell, if anything it’d be the other way around: An all-powerful being without emotion wouldn’t create anything, because they wouldn’t gain anything from doing so. Any creation by an omnipotent being would have to be an emotional affair.
Maybe it was boredom. I mean, when effortlessly power everything sometimes you just need a break.
Boredom is an emotion. As is hunger.
asking religious questions on the Fediverse is a fool’s errand
Why? Because believers don’t like the answers?
Because nobody actually answers the question. “Because it’s bullshit” is the least interesting, least informative answer you can give to a question like this, and it does nothing except make the commenter feel clever. It gets especially annoying when legitimate answers are buried under dozens of “because God doesn’t exist I’m so smart.” Now an answer could reject the premise that a creator exists and still be interesting, but it’d have to do better than the armchair anthropology everyone here seems so fond of.
Discussing about a being whose existence cannot be verified in reality is an exercise in futility.
I hope you have the same opinion regarding philosophy, pure math and string theory, but also: Then don’t fucking answer the question. Clearly some people, including the OP, see value in discussing beings whose existence cannot be verified in reality.
I hope you have the same opinion regarding philosophy,
I don’t care a iota about philosophy, in fact.
pure math
Pure math is a self-contained system that only occasionally is useful in reality
and string theory
String theory has no full international scientific consensus, so for now is just a possible model of reality. Does it bother you?
Then don’t fucking answer the question.
You seem to think I recognize your authority to give me orders. I don’t.
Clearly some people, including the OP, see value in discussing beings whose existence cannot be verified in reality.
As long as they postulate it as fiction, I don’t have an issue with that. The moment they posit they ideas are real, they’re exposed to scrutiny to those among us who care about what’s real and what’s not.
As a final note, your tantrum is somewhat amusing, but in a different sense is somewhat sad. Make of that what you want.
… Wow. I’m going to hope for the sake of everyone you’ll ever meet that you’re just 14 or something.
I hope you don’t procreate until you get rid of your religious delusion.
You seem to think I recognize your authority to give me orders. I don’t.
No, he’s giving you free advice on how not to be an insufferable dickhead in public; advice that you seem to desperately need, and this is coming from an atheist, before you think I am playing team sports.
It’s a very simple concept: if all you’re contributing to a conversation is the equivalent of coming into the room and violently jerking yourself off while going “hurrrr look how big my dick is” you’re being actively detrimental to the conversation no matter if you’re right or wrong.
You can engage with the conversation while disagreeing with the premise, that is not what you’re doing. You are just being a smug teenage dickhead who needs to butt into every conversation to, if nothing else, reinforce the idea that there should be harsher barriers to being on the internet in the mind of everyone looking at your “contributions.”
