AJ Philips,
As said before, I respect your reasons against belief in God, however I think you cannot base them on a naive understanding of omnipotence. And I have neither the philosophical/theological skills, nor the will, to enter into a discussion on how this concept can be, or is (by various schools of thought) understood beyond that level, where omnipotence - as understood by e.g. children - indeed means “being able to do anything with the stroke of a magic wand”.

A three year old might ask why does daddy have to go to work to make money since he can easily get it from an ATM. And those of us who believe in God also believe that our intelligence is far more inferior to His, than that of a three year old to his father’s.

So, if I understand you properly, you either:
(1) would prefer a God who uses a magician’s wand to create us rather than a “self-creating” evolution; then we disagree,
or
(2) you do not believe in a God who uses what humans call magic to create things in this world, in which case we are in agreement.

I still maintain that I cannot claim something as sophisticated as self-consciousness could have been arrived at using a method (if you do not like technology in quotation marks) different from evolution as we today understand it, as much as some people might be inclined to think about it like the three year old about making money.

I can understand your objections to Dan, that I mostly share. Believers used to see God as the supreme “magician”, then as the supreme watch-maker, then as the supreme designer or programmer, now as the initiator of the self-creating process through (cosmic) evolution. These reflect not so much what God is (that is beyond the comprehension of any believer) but what we can grasp as “supreme” at the particular moment in humanity’s intellectual development.

George raises a good point.
“These reflect not so much what God is (that is beyond the comprehension of any believer) but what we can grasp as “supreme” at the particular moment in humanity’s intellectual development.”
Earlier in this thread I queried why Jesus performed miracles which were relevant only to a few thousand people living at that time, and in that place; while virtually ignoring the thousands of billions of people yet to be born.
Someone (like me) in this 'age of knowledge' would regard some awareness of the future, or future understanding to be a more credible 'miracle' than turning water into wine.
The stock answer is: “we must have faith”, but that begs the question of why produce any miracles at all? Presumably Jesus produced miracles to impress his audience of the time; why not produce a miracle to impress the egregiously greater audience of the future?
Particularly in a book which relies so heavily on prophecy.

Grim,
>> Presumably Jesus produced miracles to impress his audience of the time; why not produce a miracle to impress the egregiously greater audience of the future?<<
If rising from the dead is not such a miracle that can “impress” you, what else would be? Would you like to define, what you call “miracle”? Or do you think Jesus should have tailor made his “miracles” so as to impress/convince just you, your contemporaries? Many phenomena that today we can explain using science, would have been seen as “miraculous” just a few centuries ago. And there are probably phenomena that today we are not able to explain but will be explained by science in the future.

And anyhow, what miracles could Jesus have performed and how should he have had them recorded, so that the records would be believed two millennia later also by those who do not believe NT records of his miracles, notably his rising from the dead?

Perhaps you would like to reread my posts earlier in this thread (e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#151188) about the absurdity of such requirements.

Grim,
I think you touch on something which underlies the problem of the natural and supernatural – there are innumerable implications and they’re difficult to simplify. How one approaches a defining of the miraculous is important. A simple Sunday explanation where miracles imply a "suspension of the laws of nature" is, quite simply, a distortion. From the Latin term “mirari” it is, “to be astonished”, and to at least to begin talking about the miraculous in such a way (and refrain from a distorted definition) is to begin to talk intelligently about them.

Actual miracle stories are always in danger of being brought down to a kind of rationalistic supranaturalism, i.e.,they are thought of as supranatural in the sense of the breaking in of a causal power from another realm. The superstitious development of miracle traditions, which is very rationalistic (i.e., not irrational, but rationalistic) desires to emphasise the contradiction of the structure of reality. In the Greek world view miracles were very easy. They occurred continually, because the gods were members of the cosmos, beings with power. And with their power they were interrelated with the whole of reality. When they appeared, they could direct a hero’s arrow and cause it to reach its aim or not. Where, however, ‘the whole’ can produce within its own structure things which are astonishing we approach the level of the transcendent.

The petty idea that God is a being who sometimes works in terms of finite causality producing finite effects within the structural whole, is contrary to the deeper theological implications of the N.T. A god certainly becomes "limited" if he cannot work any nonsense in the world, if and when he wants to. This idea of an almighty tyrant, sitting on his throne, means that he could suddenly create a stone so heavy that he could not carry it himself. There is an obvious absurdity to this imagery.

George,

I’m not sure I’d go as far as to say that my understanding (or use) of the word ‘omnipotence’ is “naive”. Yes, there is more to omnipotence than just being all-powerful, such as the argument that a deity’s abilities are confined to the constraints of logical absolutes (i.e. God cannot make a square triangle), but that begs the question, “How then can he be considered a God?” This is similar to the classic paradox: “Can god make a rock so big he can't lift it?”

You need to remember that I was responding to someone who believes in the “Magic wand” god. Out of your two choices, I would most certainly go with #2 and that’s mostly because I don’t believe in God to begin with. But when I criticise religious belief, I’m criticising #1 because that’s the God I know and that’s the God that most Theists believe in.

I can’t comment much on your idea of God because it’s too vague. The more I learn, the more I realise I don’t know. If you feel there’s ‘something else’ out there and want to assign attributes to it and call it “God”, then I’m fine with that. The only response I could really give you would be to simply shrug my shoulders and say, “Okay”.

I think your idea of what a God is, is very different to mine. If you don’t like the term “omnipotent”, then I’ll simply say “all-powerful“. But if you don’t believe that God is all-powerful, then why are you calling him God?

<<I still maintain that I cannot claim something as sophisticated as self-consciousness could have been arrived at using a method (if you do not like technology in quotation marks) different from evolution as we today understand it...>>

I don’t think your “three-year-old” analogy really works because the father in it has limited knowledge and power.

I also don’t like the “God is beyond our comprehension argument” for the same reason I don’t like the “God works in mysterious ways” argument.

Continued....

...Continued

Firstly, because it’s unhelpful to discussion; and secondly, because a rational explanation for it (particularly when applying something more useful like ‘practical knowledge’) is that God simply does not exist. Not to mention the potential it has to stop people thinking and questioning.

<<...what miracles could Jesus have performed and how should he have had them recorded, so that the records would be believed two millennia later...>>

It’s not so much the actual miracles that the alleged Jesus performed; it’s the credibility and scantness of the evidence left behind, and it is a red-herring to ask how Jesus should have recorded the events (a superior mind can figure that part out), because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I don’t know for sure that Socrates ever really existed, but there are no outlandish claims about the story of his life, so I’ll take it at face value that he did.

If you want to tell me that there was a progressive rabble-rouser 2000 years ago called Jesus who developed a bit of a following, then sure, I’ll take your word for it. But if you’re going to claim that he was the son of a God and performed miracles, then that’s going to take a lot more evidence than some ancient texts.

If Jesus really does “save”, then it was unreasonable of him to leave no reliable record of his existence (let alone miracles), and then stay in hiding. There are no carpentry works from him, no contemporary accounts from that time. Not even the Romans had any record of him. We have nothing but some hearsay claims that were written around 70 years after he died.

It’s convenient too, that he appeared at a time when society was shrouded in mythology and superstition.

<<...there are probably phenomena that today we are not able to explain but will be explained by science in the future.>>

Jesus could show his face, turn the skies green and carve “I am God” into the moon. I don’t think any future discoveries are going to explain that.

Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.