Religion Christianity

[Myst]

it benefits humanity to do so.
By becoming human, he could directly experience human struggles, sufferings, and limitations, allowing him to connect with us. His humility was an act of love, showing his desire to save and restore humanity. Through this humility, he provided a path for humanity to be reconciled with God, offering salvation. It is very befitting of god to do this.

Is god not omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent? You described him as being so, so why would god not know their experiences and struggles? If god needs to come down in the form of a human to know their struggles then he is clearly not their creator according to your description of him.

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

Is god not omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent? You described him as being so, so why would god not know their experiences and struggles? If god needs to come down in the form of a human to know their struggles then he is clearly not their creator according to your description of him.

The act of God becoming human isn’t about acquiring knowledge, but about expressing his love and solidarity with humanity. It’s not that God didn’t understand our suffering before, but by entering into the human condition, he shared in it personally.

 

[Myst]

The act of God becoming human isn’t about acquiring knowledge, but about expressing his love and solidarity with humanity. It’s not that God didn’t understand our suffering before, but by entering into the human condition, he shared in it personally.

You just said he became human to directly experience human struggles, does god not know that already? Why does god need to come down as a human to express his love? God is nothing like a human or any other of his creation, you describe god as if he needs to empathize with his creation to understand them when he already knows exactly how they feel. How can god not know EXACTLY how they feel when he created them?

 

[SergeantAutist]

The act of God becoming human isn’t about acquiring knowledge, but about expressing his love and solidarity with humanity. It’s not that God didn’t understand our suffering before, but by entering into the human condition, he shared in it personally.

If God is omniscient, He doesn't need to "learn" human struggles—it's about experiencing them firsthand, not gaining knowledge He already possesses.

​

 

[Myst]

If God is omniscient, He doesn't need to "learn" human struggles—it's about experiencing them firsthand, not gaining knowledge He already possesses.

​

Experiencing what firsthand?

 

[SergeantAutist]

Experiencing what firsthand?

Firsthand experience means undergoing struggles directly

 

[Myst]

Firsthand experience means undergoing struggles directly

Yeah but in what context? you mean god experiencing human feelings firsthand???

 

[SergeantAutist]

Yeah but in what context?

Based on his points.

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

You just said, he became human to directly experience human struggles. does god not know that already? Why does god need to come down as a human to express his love? God is nothing like a human or any other of his creation, you describe god as if he needs to empathize with his creation to understand them when he already knows exactly how they feel. How can god not know EXACTLY how they feel when he created them?

No I did not, I said
By becoming human, he could directly experience human struggles, now go reread.
does god not know that already?
It’s not that God didn’t understand our suffering before, but by entering into the human condition, he shared in it personally. Reread.
Why does god need to come down as a human to express his love?
its a profound expression of that love. By becoming human, it shows his willingness to meet humanity on their terms, living among them and offering salvation in a way that could be seen, touched, and understood. It’s an act of grace, not obligation.
God is nothing like a human or any other of his creation, you describe god as if he needs to empathize with his creation to understand them (You interpreted it this way) when he already knows exactly how they feel. How can god not know EXACTLY how they feel when he created them?
Again the Incarnation is not about God needing to empathize or gain understanding. Its seen as a voluntary act to directly engage with humanity in a way they could comprehend. While God could have chosen any means to express his love, Christians believe the Incarnation was the most profound way for God to personally bridge the gap between Himself and humanity.

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

If God is omniscient, He doesn't need to "learn" human struggles—it's about experiencing them firsthand, not gaining knowledge He already possesses.

​

Thanks SergeantAutist

 

[Myst]

No I did not, I said
By becoming human, he could directly experience human struggles, now go reread.
does god not know that already?
It’s not that God didn’t understand our suffering before, but by entering into the human condition, he shared in it personally. Reread.
Why does god need to come down as a human to express his love?
its a profound expression of that love. By becoming human, it shows his willingness to meet humanity on their terms, living among them and offering salvation in a way that could be seen, touched, and understood. It’s an act of grace, not obligation.
God is nothing like a human or any other of his creation, you describe god as if he needs to empathize with his creation to understand them (You interpreted it this way) when he already knows exactly how they feel. How can god not know EXACTLY how they feel when he created them?
Again the Incarnation is not about God needing to empathize or gain understanding. Its seen as a voluntary act to directly engage with humanity in a way they could comprehend. While God could have chosen any means to express his love, Christians believe the Incarnation was the most profound way for God to personally bridge the gap between Himself and humanity.

Let's use the example of "Can god make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it himself?"

Atheists attempt to use this question to prove that the concept of omnipotence is self-contradictory. But the problem here is a contradiction in terms. This issue becomes even more clear when we examine a related question: "Can God create an uncreated being?" The problem here is that the questioner has already defined the being to be uncreated and then proceeds to ask for something that contradicts that definition. The problem is in the questioner's terms, not any lack in God's potential. The same is true when asking God to make a circle with four sides. Having already provided a definition of a circle that could never include a four-sided figure, such a question is absurd. Something is certainly self-contradictory here, but it is the questioner's terminology and not the omnipotence of God.

The same is true when we come to the case of create a stone which cannot be lifted. Aside from the problem that we are placing an infinite unrestricted being under the finite restricted laws of our universe, the concept of the stone is self-contradictory. Basically, such a stone could not exist because it is conceptually incoherent. When one asks if God could create such a stone, one would normally identify the properties of such a stone. But here we haven't been given absolute properties, but instead we've been given properties of the stone relative to God's properties. The questioner has identified the potential stone as something so big that God couldn't lift, so even though we already know that there is nothing God cannot lift, they have used that as an attribute for the stone. Automatically, the concept of such a stone is nullified. Now, when they ask could God create such a stone, the answer is no, but that doesn't imply a lack of potential on the part of God. Instead, it reflects the fact that the concept of such a stone is illogical, unreal, inadmissible. It is very similar to asking if God can die. Well, death isn't an ability, its the inability to live. The immortal cannot die because that defies His attribute of immortality. Similarly, the omnipotent cannot create a task that He can't complete because such a task is merely a figment of one's imagination and could not exist.

You're basically asking, if God can do anything, can He make it impossible for himself to do something? The question is illogical and self-contradictory because the argument contradicts the premise. Once you have already established that God can do anything, then that's a set attribute and part of His nature. Therefore, He can do anything that is consistent with His nature, anything that is absolute.

Can God make 1=2? Well if 1=2, then it wouldn't be 1! So the idea is self-contradictory, not God.

The question also reminds me of the idea of what happens when an immovable rock meets an unstoppable force? The two things cannot exist in the same universe. Likewise, if God exists then all things which contradict His attributes are imaginary, non-existant and impossible. They are forever bound to the realm of imagination and cannot be brought into existence.

Shaykh Ibn Abil-'Izz (d. 1389CE) also answered this question in Sharhul Aqeedah Tahawiyyah (p.137), in his discussion of the following verse:

And Allah, over each thing, is omnipotent; all-powerful [al-Baqarah 2:284]

This includes all that is possible. As for what is in intrinsically impossible - such as there being a thing that exists and does not exist at one and the same time - then, this has no reality, nor is its existence conceivable, nor is it termed 'a thing' by agreement of those with intelligence. Included in this category is: [Allah] creating the likes of Himself, making Himself non-existent, and other impossibilites.

This also serves as a reply to the question posed by some: 'Can Allah create a stone that He is unable to lift?' The argument being that if Allah cannot create such a stone, He is not all-powerful; but if He can, then likewise He is not all-powerful. The fallacy of this argument lies in the fact that such an affair is, in itself, impossible and exists only in the minds of certain people. And not all that the mind conjures-up has an existence that is possible, nor is it always termed 'a thing.'

 

[Ultimate Subhuman]

Let's use the example of "Can god make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it himself?"

Atheists attempt to use this question to prove that the concept of omnipotence is self-contradictory. But the problem here is a contradiction in terms. This issue becomes even more clear when we examine a related question: "Can God create an uncreated being?" The problem here is that the questioner has already defined the being to be uncreated and then proceeds to ask for something that contradicts that definition. The problem is in the questioner's terms, not any lack in God's potential. The same is true when asking God to make a circle with four sides. Having already provided a definition of a circle that could never include a four-sided figure, such a question is absurd. Something is certainly self-contradictory here, but it is the questioner's terminology and not the omnipotence of God.

The same is true when we come to the case of create a stone which cannot be lifted. Aside from the problem that we are placing an infinite unrestricted being under the finite restricted laws of our universe, the concept of the stone is self-contradictory. Basically, such a stone could not exist because it is conceptually incoherent. When one asks if God could create such a stone, one would normally identify the properties of such a stone. But here we haven't been given absolute properties, but instead we've been given properties of the stone relative to God's properties. The questioner has identified the potential stone as something so big that God couldn't lift, so even though we already know that there is nothing God cannot lift, they have used that as an attribute for the stone. Automatically, the concept of such a stone is nullified. Now, when they ask could God create such a stone, the answer is no, but that doesn't imply a lack of potential on the part of God. Instead, it reflects the fact that the concept of such a stone is illogical, unreal, inadmissible. It is very similar to asking if God can die. Well, death isn't an ability, its the inability to live. The immortal cannot die because that defies His attribute of immortality. Similarly, the omnipotent cannot create a task that He can't complete because such a task is merely a figment of one's imagination and could not exist.

You're basically asking, if God can do anything, can He make it impossible for himself to do something? The question is illogical and self-contradictory because the argument contradicts the premise. Once you have already established that God can do anything, then that's a set attribute and part of His nature. Therefore, He can do anything that is consistent with His nature, anything that is absolute.

True that.