Truthseeker mentioned in another thread that "God never changes". Now let's assume for the sake of this question that there is one great sentient/entity who made it all. Let's assume he/she/it can do anything. If God can do anything, yet never changes, is God capable of being wrong?

God: "Oops, I shouldn't have put that galaxy there! Wait a minute, since I can't be wrong, I can put it wherever I like. Hang on, who says I can't be wrong? I can be wrong if I want, I can do anything! But if I put it there, that means it was, is, and always will be right, since I'm eternal and static. Or maybe wrong. Wait a minute, I'm confused..."

But doesn't christian doctrine also say god is everything and can do everything? Including be wrong?

It's almost as if christian doctrine contradicts itself... no wait, that could never happen. :)

I don't know what religon this would be or wether it IS a religion but i have always looked at good as the conciessness of the universe

I was reading a book that had a similar therio

It said the universe was self-created and is a baby

It also said that the baby universe was learning the same way human babys learn, by experimentation

yes in this thing god could be all powerfull but not all wise (power but learning knowlage)

What do you think?

Originally posted by Adam
Truthseeker mentioned in another thread that "God never changes". Now let's assume for the sake of this question that there is one great sentient/entity who made it all. Let's assume he/she/it can do anything. If God can do anything, yet never changes, is God capable of being wrong?

If God is absolutely unchangeable he would be incapable of action, for action requires change. Of course, this would mean that he didn't create the universe because that would be action. So maybe he's there, observing without thought (for thought requires change) and without action. An incorporeal being that's omniscient and omnipotent that observes without thought or action… what's the point?

Absolutes are so much fun.

~Raithere

Depends what God you ask.

The Greek and Roman gods were very much like humans, and had similar struggles.

The god of the bible is believed, by his followers, to be infalliable.

However, to echo Raithere's example, if God is all-knowing, then God knows what he's going to in the future. If he already knows whats happened, then it's already happened, and God can't change it.

God, then, gets stuck in the statis of time, like the rest of us. If this were the case, I'd pity God, as he would be just as powerless as we are to prevent something in a future time period.

Of course, if he would be just as powerless as us, then God wouldn't really be God, would he?

Where the hell is Nelson's input?

"I wonder more where God was before he created the universe."

Most theists will say - God created time, so there was no 'before' time. I have real problem grasping this concept. For one, to do any action, does not time have to be elipsed? So how can you 'create' time with time?

Allah 'changes all things, but is not changed'. The Christian God is not supposed to change either, 'For I am the Lord, I change not.'

However, the Christian God is often repenting of doing things, like making Saul a king and creating mankind.

Oh dear, seems we have a contradiction.

I guess there's two ways of looking at this: One God cannot be wrong because he is the deffinition of Ethics, after all he judges us when we die right? Or Two God can be wrong, has never said to the other wise and people are grossly mistaken.

Personaly I like entertaining the idea that there was mess ups before us, or maybe we're a mess up God decided to spare? I wonder what version we really are of this Life the Universe and Everything?

P.S. - If Albatross Reads this, yes 42.

Obviously God is fallible otherwise he would have realized that the universe was on the whole a bad idea. ;)

God probally is unchangeable. Ive noticied that religions (especially catholic) tend to be about 400 years behind the rest of society. They are simply reflecting the values of there god the best they can as mere mortals. ;)

Cactus,

Obviously the whole thing can be understood with 42 I just wont explain how because its too obvious :D

I would recommend Jung's "Answer to Job" essays for anyone curious about the infallibility of God from an intellectual standpoint using the book of Job.
Jung makes some excellant, insightful and compelling arguments about the bible's most tortured soul, the wager between God and Satan, etc. It's utterly fascinating.
Keep in mind that many dieties, both Eastern and Western, are contradictory to their nature and religious thought dictates that we cannot possibly understand the machinations of the Supreme. Think "his mysterious ways."

Keep in mind that many dieties, both Eastern and Western, are contradictory to their nature and religious thought dictates that we cannot possibly understand the machinations of the Supreme. Think "his mysterious ways."

Which is basically just an appeal to ignorence and begs the question to boot!

And of course the answer is 42.

42!

I take it no one liked my post?

oh well i should stay out of religon, i don't have the heart for it:(

"I have an answer, but I don't think your going to like it." - Deep Thought

If God cant change then how can he be intelligent. Surely intelligence requires the ability to reason and to theorise, and being able to change your mind and balance out various conclusions. If God doesnt change then surely that means he's as intelligent as a concrete slab

Just so ya know, 42 is not and never was the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Recall that the answer in the first place was 42. But the question was something like "What is six mulitplied by nine?" The two did not match. The answer, which due to Earth and humanity ended up in Arthur Dent's head, was: "I've always felt there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe." That's kinda the entire point. The universe is stuffed.

I think this question is the same as asking "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" I don't believe in a concious god, but even if I did, I could care less wheather or not s/he can be right or wrong. This is my view on it: Who Cares!

Adam

re: 42

I might also point out that by the literature you've noted, God can, indeed, be wrong, as Marvin read on the side of the mountain.

re: Other

These days, to be honest, I'm coming to the conclusion that there's something strange about topics such as these. Not so much in terms of Sciforums exclusively, but in general. The human condition seems to be leaning toward one of its repetitive periods.

Such as it is, your topic, to borrow a phrase we've had fun with lately, has been well covered. Stop. Check that. There have been many well-intentioned attempts throughout history to deal with the question. None of them have actually covered the topic, but plenty have smeared it up with greasy pseudo-logic.

For instance, this Catholic Encyclopedia entry on agnoetae (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). I highly recommend the Catholic Encyclopedia if you would like to see a bunch of philosophers paint themselves into marvelously ridiculous corners. At present, the CE doesn't seem to have a direct entry on omniscience, but has many entries referring to it, such as this, on the knowledge of Jesus Christ ( [url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215b.htm).

The end result is that I've never met a theologian of non-Abramic origins who puts such necessary weight on the idea of God's perfect knowledge and whether or not God can make mistakes. By and large, though, it seems like this Abramic obsession with the rightness and perfection of God stems in some way from the redemptive streak that evolves through Christianity and Islam.

A number of theists I know would insist that God does not make mistakes, but that parameter would be so broad as to accept the whole of the Universe. That sense of God, which does not make mistakes, also does not distinguish between moral right and wrong. That's the only way it can work. Of course, such a concept has myriad ramifications in the real world.

Take the Christian scheme for example:

• God knows all
•*God creates the universe, the heavens and the Earth, and humankind
•*Humankind sins, falls from grace.
- Is this fall from grace a "mistake" or an "accident"?
• Thus, through original sin, humans are born "into a state of sin".
• In effect, this means that humans are not fit for God.
- Does God create human beings unfit for His own satisfaction?
•*But God is a merciful God, and so loves humanity that he gives His only begotten Son.
• Thus no man can come to God but through the Son.
- Why not cut out the middleman?
- Was this chain of events "a mistake"?
•*One can only conclude that God intended for humanity to fall, and thus require salvation through Jesus Christ. Why is this?

And from the moral right and wrong as determined by the politics of salvation, we get into questions about starving children, excess suffering, and Just Who The Hell Does This God Person Think He Is?!

One of the things some people might have missed was Ardena and ... um ... somebody ... (crap!) ... anyway, having it out about the word "Krishna" in relation to the word "Christ". What is important to note about that is that Christianity did not develop in a vacuum. We all know that Christmas and Easter, at least, are ripped off from common pagan rites, and though I really don't want to spend the next two hours looking for it, there is evidence of Eastern influence to the Judeo-Christian experience as early as Moses in Pharoah's land.

Christianity is a patchwork, of all things. New legends built on a Judaic foundation with idealistic currents feeding the foundling beast. Most of its components are fairly common when identified. There's nothing new about monotheism except in the way the idea is applied. Of course, monotheism is the last word to apply to Christianity, but people seem to think that way, so whatever. But my theory is that not all parts of Christianity were actually intended to function side by side. In the broader term it's the exact sense of what is God's will and what makes that right. In the more specific, it's ... oh, for example ... bad sex.

So I think where the issue becomes problematic--and unfortunately it's a common condition of circumstance--it is too specific a morality contrasted against the backdrop of God's perfect knowledge. This hideous wrong is still what God wants (for nothing happens without God's will), but God is good (for God cannot be evil), so what is this that one has just witnessed?

And then you get things like Hell and the Devil that never do make any sense to anyone.

It's hard for me to get a grasp on the Hindu sense of the situation; I'm much more familiar with the American infatuation with Hindu than orthodox Hinduism. But from Parmananda and others I get a sense that such notions as whether or not God can be wrong are foolish since they would pretend to understand that which is incomprehensible. From what I can tell of Sufism, the answer would be that no, God is never wrong, but who is to say what God measures as right? I can't quite explain the end of the Craft that I've known. The general take on it ranges from a functional anti-identification of the question to speculation on human (and not divine) nature.

So I'm casting a vote for No, God cannot be wrong. For any, all, none or other than the reasons above.

For perspective:

•*A tree falls in the forest ... who actually cares?
• If a body meet a body comin' through the rye, do they both have lawyers?
•*If God is wrong, God is not the Ultimate Source, Authority, or Power.

It has been commented that despite the many gods of classic Roman or Greek mythology, one might still consider it peripherally, at least, monotheistic, for the simple fact that the gods responded to a code of conduct, a Higher Authority, and therefore that Higher Authority becomes the one true source.

I look at it like synonyms instead of definitions. It makes it a lot easier to deal with, and lets me dabble around the grid and see what happens in the world when I tweak this or that idea.

Of course, I'm one who believes that people create their gods instead of vice-versa, and that just clears the whole thing up, doesn't it? :bugeye:

:D,
Tiassa :cool:

It said the universe was self-created and is a baby

To me, this makes a hell of a lot of sense. Imagine, if you will, that when the universe was young, God was like a baby. Starting with the creation of individual particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons. Then he/she/it constructed the helium atom, then proceded to try smashing a few together. BANG, there's all the matter in the universe. From there it was a growing process, leading up to zapping a bunch of amino acids. And from there we get bacteria. Then we fast forward a little (God has infinite patience, we do not:D ) and fish begin to evolve, then on to dinosaurs and small mammals, and then up to where we are today. By this point in time, God has pretty well learned the ropes. Now doesn't that just make a whole lot of sense? I thought so.

:cool:Stay cool,
~Lesion42

for one and I quote Tiassa "In the more specific, it's ... oh, for example ... bad sex."

The thought of a god watching me while I have sex, would makeit for bad sex!

I've got to agree with god can't be wrong, or otherwise it wouldn't be god!.
However who's to say? how the hell would we know if god was right or wrong?.

When Adam & Eve bit the apple of the tree of knowledge we got a bad rap!. was god wrong then?, I think so! for one how the hell would Adam & Eve ever have known that by not abiding god's law it would be wrong?. But no, no god was right, he knew that Adam & Eve would disovey *it* so he had already planned it that way, this would make it right. right?. :confused: