Wow. Long post. The longer we converse, the longer the posts get. I'll try to stay brief so this doesn't get simply out of control.

> Is it literal then?

That's an inadequate choice of term. "Literal" can mean "taking words in their normal and basic sense without metaphor or allegory," but I have just told you that the point of the text is archetypal. The meaning we can infer is not up to us to intuit, but to understand the verses contextually and how they are interpreted by the rest of the Bible. Thus we know that the setting is historical narrative, but the meaning is archetypal. For instance, when it says Adam was formed from "dust", it is not speaking of material origins but of the nature of humanity. The significance is not material, but mortality. The word "literal" doesn't have a place in the conversation. It certainly isn't subject to the subjective relativity of "I get out of it what I see in it," but the legitimate interpretation by linguistic, contextual, and cultural analysis.

> the inherent contradictions of having a such traits.

It doesn't matter what people say. If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. Just as the scarecrow said in "The Wizard of Oz," when Dorothy asked him how he could talk with a brain: "Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking." There is no inherent contradiction in the attributes of God.

> You haven't given me one counter example.

I have, but you don't accept them. I gave you the example of God's love as that of perpetuity, not of deficiency. I gave you the example of a friend of mine who is adopting out of the generosity of her heart, not because of any lack. I gave you the example of musical expression as pure joy. Now, it's undeniably true that one can only desire something that one does not have, but that doesn't necessitate that the expression of that desire comes from a deficit. I'll hold to what I have already said. Sometimes desire can flow out of abundance.

> If we felt our needs were sufficiently and perfectly met, we would have no desire and thus not do anything.

You're suggesting that in a perfect world we would become, basically, non-entities. I would suggest, in contrast, that in a perfect world desires would coexist symbiotically with our completeness, for we can desire what is as easily as we can desire what is not, yet without envy, agony, or deficit.

> That's what you want God to be

In contrast, that's what God has revealed himself to be. I don't manufacture God; I read his revelation of himself and contemplate it. The difference is whether I start from myself and create a god of my own making, or start from God and comprehend him as he has revealed himself to be.

> You're anthropomorphizing God just a bit there, don't you think?

Not really. God is anthropomorphized in the Bible to aid us in our knowledge of him. I'm just relating to you what the Bible says clearly (Ps. 19.1, for example).

> I'm starting from The null hypothesis that reviews the different models of the universe and saying that it's highly unlikely God created the universe

Actually, the work of Michael Behe in "Darwin's Black Box" presents a strong argument of the likelihood of a rational intelligence behind our natural world. Other arguments from the standpoint of fine tuning and even philosophical reasoning show that it's actually more reasonable to believe in a rational intelligence behind nature than it is to believe in non-rational, purposeless chance.

> you're starting from the point that God must exist.

Of course I am. If you're starting from a blank slate, you're making the same kind of presuppositional statement of faith that I am, just from a contrastive starting point. The discussion about the existence of God, though pertinent to our discussion, is a different one than the one on the table, which is the nature and basis of creation.

> and therefore not omnipotent ...

I guess you need to define omnipotence. To my knowledge, no one (neither philosopher nor theologian) has yet defined it suitably, but you want to take your strong stand on some definition of it. The Bible, which never tries to define it but merely describes it, only goes so far as to contend that what God chooses to do, he accomplishes, for he has the ability to do it. There is certainly no inherent contradiction in God's omnipotence and his competency and love to create.

> they don't have to if they assume from the start that he exists

I think your analogy is far off the mark and doesn't speak to your point. Assuming the existence of God (a theological, philosophical, and metaphysical assumption and conclusion based on evidence) has nothing to with judiciary proceedings. It's such a lousy analogy, I hate to even acknowledge it with a comment.

> You realize there is zero objective evidence for God?

I consider the world around us to be objective evidence for God. I think the presence of personality in us, reason, meaning, purpose, beauty, conscience, and morality are all objective evidences for God.

Is the story literal then? If it is to you, then this conversation is going nowhere. If it's not, then we can infer meanings from it, because its just a piece of art, not a literal account. You can get out of art whatever it is you see. And the beauty is different people will see different things. Unless it's not art, and it's all a historical account, to which I then question the validity of your thought process and ability to reason.

You said, "The character of God is not subject to popular vote or anyone's opinion."

Many people like to say he is not this or that because they realize the inherent contradictions of having a such traits.

You said, "Your first three paragraphs under the "omnipotent" section I agree with wholeheartedly, until you get to the sentence "If he lacks no thing, he would not create the universe, because that would be admitting the he lacked some thing... The universe." That goes back to your previous premise that any desire betrays a deficit, but that's what you haven't proved."

You haven't given me one counter example. And you can't, because when you desire something, by definition you don't have it.
For example, you have money, but you desire more. Therefore you desire the money you don't have. You have your wife's love, but you desire more. Therefore you desire more of the love she is giving to you, love that you previously didn't have, if you're telling me love is quantifiable (you can have more or less love, in other words). The problem is that you're being purposely ambiguous with what love is down below, but we'll get to that.

"Being a creator is an expression of his character, not an acknowledgement of a deficiency."

Not quite. That's what you want God to be, the creator, but he would have no desire like you to do something, because he does not lack anything, if he is omnipotent.

"I'm a musician; I do music; I like to do music. It doesn't logically stem from a deficiency in me, but is an outworking of a love that I have."

Right, but you have a desire to create music. This desire to make music stems from some lacking within you, the same lacking that drives the whole material world. If we felt our needs were sufficiently and perfectly met, we would have no desire and thus not do anything. But the material world bustles, filling in the void, because nature abhors a vacuum. We continuously choose to act and do things like create music, because we desire it, we desire a feeling that we don't currently have, like pride, or serenity or whatever. Sometimes we have a certain feeling or thing, but an insufficiency of it, and we want more, the "more" being the poverty I am referring to.

God is infinitely powerful and lacks nothing. He would never want something, like your wanting to create music, or create anything for that matter, because being perfect means your needs are perfectly and sufficiently met. No insufficiency = no desire = no creation.

"God is a creator; he creates; he likes to create. But his attributes, despite your false accusation, are not based around creation. His attributes have nothing to do with it, except that creation reveals his attributes, as my music reveals something about my personality."

You're anthropomorphizing God just a bit there, don't you think?

"We see God in creation, but he doesn't need us to be fulfilled. Ah, but I can already see your mind spinning: "How could God fulfill his attribute of 'Creator' without creation?", hence he lacked something without it."

Lol. My mind isn't really spinning. He doesn't need to be a creator to exist. He could exist, he just didn't create the universe, and there is really no need for a God who didn't create the universe. You keep starting from the point that he must have created the universe, and I'm starting from the null hypothesis that reviews the different models of the universe and saying that it's highly unlikely God created the universe, considering that sentence is an erroneous anthropomorphization in itself.

"First, I would comment that it's a diminution of God to assert that his creative energy can only find a legitimate outlet in material things. The Bible says he created time, and he created spirit beings, for example. It's reductionistic to claim that without the material world God is deficient."

Again, you're starting from the point that God must exist. I'm looking at your argument from a blank slate and saying: "Uh, you can't claim he's perfectly complete ("all-good"), and then say oh but wait, he also created the universe too... For us... Because he loves us." Really? He was obviously not all-good and therefore not omnipotent (because remember, a trait is negated only if it goes against his existence, logic, or nature, and it wouldn't be his nature to be lacking anything in the first place, so it's certainly not that).

"Secondly, some attributes of God are expressed in different measures, and can even be withheld, even though they are attributes of his being. Power is one of them. Despite that God is omnipotent, his power can be issued in certain directions, certain places, and in varying amounts. (That's different from his holiness, for instance, that is constant.) This is not something I'm making up, but is clearly taught in the Bible. God's attributes are not based around creation, and Christians don't have to contort God to make him fit the evidence, as you have claimed."

Well they don't have to if they assume from the start that he exists, which is as bad as sentencing a man as guilty without anything but circumstantial evidence. You realize there is zero objective evidence for God? Could you imagine if you just went with your intuition on when to sentence somebody because you felt it to be true?

Of course you could, you do it with God, so it wouldn't be hard to imagine doing that either.

Agreed that Aquinas, Newton, and all of us are products of our culture and our environment and times. No question about it.

> it is a metaphorical story that you give meaning to yourself.

There's nothing in the story to suggest it's a metaphor. That's an interpretation you are overlaying on it, I would guess because that's the way you want to see it. The Bible lays it out as an archetypal story, not a metaphoric one. Adam & Eve in the text are portrayed as historical personages, and that interpretation/perception is confirmed throughout Scripture. Yet the point of the writing is the role that they played as archetypes for humanity. As such, given the intent of the author and the literary and theological context of the segment, the "ignorance is bliss" interpretation is not one of the possible choices.

> That is not how it works.

I couldn't agree more. I don't know what discussions you've had that brought up the perception that Christians think they can pick and choose. It's just not so, as is logically obvious. The character of God is not subject to popular vote or anyone's opinion.

Your first three paragraphs under the "omnipotent" section I agree with wholeheartedly, until you get to the sentence "If he lacks no thing, he would not create the universe, because that would be admitting the he lacked some thing... The universe." That goes back to your previous premise that any desire betrays a deficit, but that's what you haven't proved. Being a creator is an expression of his character, not an acknowledgement of a deficiency. I'm a musician; I do music; I like to do music. It doesn't logically stem from a deficiency in me, but is an outworking of a love that I have. God is a creator; he creates; he likes to create. But his attributes, despite your false accusation, are not based around creation. His attributes have nothing to do with it, except that creation reveals his attributes, as my music reveals something about my personality. We see God in creation, but he doesn't need us to be fulfilled. Ah, but I can already see your mind spinning: "How could God fulfill his attribute of 'Creator' without creation?", hence he lacked something without it.

First, I would comment that it's a diminution of God to assert that his creative energy can only find a legitimate outlet in material things. The Bible says he created time, and he created spirit beings, for example. It's reductionistic to claim that without the material world God is deficient.

Secondly, some attributes of God are expressed in different measures, and can even be withheld, even though they are attributes of his being. Power is one of them. Despite that God is omnipotent, his power can be issued in certain directions, certain places, and in varying amounts. (That's different from his holiness, for instance, that is constant.) This is not something I'm making up, but is clearly taught in the Bible. God's attributes are not based around creation, and Christians don't have to contort God to make him fit the evidence, as you have claimed.

You still haven't proved your premise (A desire necessitates a deficiency). I'd love to see a tight syllogism if you have one.

I never said Thomas Aquinas wasn't a formidable intellect. Newton was a genius, but he heavily believed in alchemy. Just because I don't agree with some things an intellectual says, doesn't mean i dismiss them outright.

These men were geniuses no doubt, but they are a slave of their times. If I was around before 1850, there's no doubt that I would be a christian. They just didn't have the knowledge we have now.

Their ideas were cutting edge, years ago, but now we have so much more evidence that religious people purposely ignore; evidence that happens to be unfavorable towards God existing, or wholly unnecessary.

You said, "Secondly, I'm quite confident, even from your single sentence, that you have a serious misunderstanding of the fall, since it had nothing to do with ignorant bliss. That's a subject we could take up as you wish."

There are many things you can learn from that story. There is no misunderstanding, because it is a metaphorical story that you give meaning to yourself.

To say you have the proper interpretation is a "serious misunderstanding" of your authority on such a topic, among many other things. I never said the story's meaning is limited in its scope to what I inferred, which you seem to be mistakenly inferring. It is but one inference we can draw from the story, it doesn't mean I think that is the point of the story of the fall (because I never said that).

You also asked for a patient explanation for my benefit of your first conclusion: If God created the universe, he wasn't omnipotent.

The problem is that christians think they can just choose which traits they think suit god best. That is not how it works.

If he is (logic-)omnipotent, he is all powerful and has the ability to do anything that does not defy logic, his nature, or his existence.

This means he cannot make 2+2=5, he cannot know what it is like to not know something (because if he is all powerful, he is obviously omniscient, or else he wouldn't be all powerful), and he cannot have the ability to not exist (or else he wouldn't exist).

If god is all powerful, it follows that he lacks no thing (that does not defy logic, his nature or his existence). If he lacked some thing, he would not be all powerful. Hence God is "all-good" or perfectly complete. He lacks no thing. If he lacks no thing, he would not create the universe, because that would be admitting the he lacked some thing... The universe.

The problem is that Christians don't realize that God's attributes aren't to be based around our "creation," or in other words, having God made out to be a certain way to fit the "evidence." So just because his omnipotence is contradictory with the creation of our universe, doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It just means he wouldn't be omnipotent, because he wouldn't lack anything if he were.

Well, I'll readily admit that I'm not well-read in Thomas Aquinas, but I'm surprised how easily you dismiss him. Even when people disagree with him, they still respect him as a formidable intellect.

Secondly, I'm quite confident, even from your single sentence, that you have a serious misunderstanding of the fall, since it had nothing to do with ignorant bliss. That's a subject we could take up as you wish.

Thirdly, I would ask for a patient explanation for my benefit of your first conclusion: If God created the universe, he wasn't omnipotent.

This is going to be lengthy, and so I warn you. But i like to give thought out arguments rather than what Aquinas did when he made the argument: "god created out of an abundance/excess of joviality/love." (Or however he wrote it, I've been linked to the summa before and read the arguments, so I'm not mocking exactly what he wrote if that's what you're thinking).

What desire comes from fullness? What love is an expression of perpetuity other than your claim of God?

I read your illustration of your daughter and her adopting another child. I think you may be taking "poverty" a little too literally, or in other words, you're allowing a certain connotation of the word -a negative one- to discolor your analysis of my use of it. Poverty, or a lacking if you will, does not have this meaning you seem to be inferring upon its use in this argument.

First off, to even make a claim that love is quantifiable -as you are doing with this Thomistic argument- is unreasonable.

Secondly, the metaphor of "the fall" is a great demonstration of how ignorance is bliss, and with knowledge comes responsibility and discontentedness of suffering.

Your daughter, with the knowledge that they have of these children -most likely due in part to the world's current state of "interconnectedness"- have a sense of discontentedness, or a lacking of sufficient contentedness, that these children are suffering. The capacity to love is directly inverse to the feeling of being perfect -that is: the more one feels they are perfect, the less capacity they have to love others- and the ones who admit to their imperfections the most, happen to be the ones with the greatest capacity for love. What I argue is that their desire to help these children stems from a lack of contentedness with the knowledge of the condition of those kids' lives. If they had not the knowledge, they would not help the children. Ignorance is bliss. But feigned ignorance is inexcusable (why capitalism is pretty shitty and why Jesus would completely be against it).

This is also another one of my arguments against omnibenevolence in an omnipotent UA: for if he is omniscient and omnipotent (of which the UA is defined to be), there should be no human suffering. Some may argue that people suffer because of other humans, and the problem of evil is solved by God giving us free will. But this completely sweeps under the rug the fact that millions die from natural disasters or natural occurrences -like brain aneurysms- all the time.

I argue that it is the Christian's lack of awareness due to living in such a cushy society such as the US, that allows them to believe in this personal God who hears them, but doesn't hear the millions of others suffering.
Seriously, Jesus was so heavily embraced by people because they were sick of "God on earth," (naturally royal bloodlines, kings, dictatorships). And it's totally understandable that people would die and fight for the idea that the one true ruler must be in the sky and not on earth. Who wouldn't die for that cause? I implore you to empathize with a plebian of roman times. How sick would it make you to hear that some people are just born into holiness and royalty and that you just naturally aren't worth the same? It would make anyone sick. Hence Christianity's popularity, its secrecy at first, and why the Romans killed them in droves. People have forgotten the whole reason why we wanted so badly an immaterial ruler: so that all humans became intrinsically equal. A noble cause it was, but now that we have rowed ashore, to use the boat of religion is to impede our progress.

You said, "god must be omnipotent to be the hypothetical pure potentiality .... I guess we need to talk about omnipotence. I don't understand when you say first that "omnipotence [means] he must have the ability to do anything that is not contradictory to logic, his existence, or his nature," but then you seem to chide God for lacking omnipotent power "if he is not maximal in all logical cases." So help me understand: if omnipotence means he is maximal in all logical cases (not contradictory to logic, existence, or nature), how can you conclude then that he is not maximal in all logical cases and therefore not omnipotent. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to understand what you are saying."

Because you're starting from the unfounded assumption that God, as defined by Thomism must have necessarily created the universe. There are a couple things I'm arguing here:

First, that if God did create the universe, he wasn't omnipotent.

Secondly, that the UA as defined by Thomism is strictly incompatible with the creation of the universe, and what goes on in said universe.

And thirdly, that if Thomism is correct in its hypothetical analysis that the only way that God could exist and have created the universe is if he is the UA, that God necessarily did not create the universe and that there is no God. (But to say Thomism is the only correct interpretation is silly... Right?)

I'm saying an Omnipotent being as defined by Thomism, the UA if you will, isn't contradictory in terms of logic, his nature, or his existence. It is only contradictory in light of the claim that he has anything to do with the existence of the universe and mankind.

You asked, "What desire comes from fullness? ... What love is an expression of perpetuity other than your claim of God?"

My daughter has 3 children: 2 natural born, and one adopted. They are very happy and complete as a family, but they keep looking at abandoned children around the world and wish to do something about it. Despite that they are very happy as they are, they want to help another child. Now, in my mind that desire is not one of insufficiency, but of perpetuity. They have more love that they want to share, not because they are lacking, but because it is overflowing in them.

You said, "god must be omnipotent to be the hypothetical pure potentiality."

I guess we need to talk about omnipotence. I don't understand when you say first that "omnipotence [means] he must have the ability to do anything that is not contradictory to logic, his existence, or his nature," but then you seem to chide God for lacking omnipotent power "if he is not maximal in all logical cases." So help me understand: if omnipotence means he is maximal in all logical cases (not contradictory to logic, existence, or nature), how can you conclude then that he is not maximal in all logical cases and therefore not omnipotent? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to understand what you are saying.

"It sounds like anything can come under your definition of lack. "Happiness" is impoverished because it's a lack of despair; "purpose" is impoverished because it's a lack of meaninglessness. Love is a lack of self-containment? A statement like that borders on the absurd."

That's not what I was implying at all. All I'm saying is that desire is born of a poverty, because you want or wish for something; if you did not want or wish for something, you would feel as though your needs are sufficiently met, therefore there is no insufficiency, or as I called it: a poverty.

"What is completely absurd is saying that 'God could not contain himself and his love and the universe was born from that.' "

I don't want to be offensive, so I will refrain from sharing my full analysis of such a statement; but I will clue you into the fact that a statement like that is not only beyond what humans are capable of even reasoning about, but that it is the biggest stretch one can make to wiggle out of an argument. It seriously takes cajones to even say such a thing... And it takes quite bit of restraint on a rational mind's part to not tear that terrible "argument" a new one.

I said, "Paucity of love would be an inherent weakness that would indicate non-omnipotence," and you replied, "Right. I said the opposite. I said that some love is an expression of perpetuity, not paucity."

Admittedly, i misread that on my first read through. What love is an expression of perpetuity other than your claim of God?

I also said, "The fact that God is not maximal in any case proves he is not omnipotent," and you replied: "This statement is another absurd one. First of all, you haven't given any evidence that God is not maximal. Secondly, you haven't defined omnipotence. So thirdly, you're conclusion that this point is "proved" doesn't follow.

According to apologetics on the UA, god must be omnipotent to be the hypothetical pure potentiality that hypothetically could start the universe. It follows from omnipotence that he must have the ability to do anything that is not contradictory to logic, his existence, or his nature. All powerful is not talking about literal strength, clearly the UA does not need our concept of strength as a transcendental, timeless, spaceless being. If he is not maximal in all logical cases, then he is lacking power and therefore not omnipotent.

Then I said, "If he desired something, it is an admittance of weakness," and you replied, "I couldn't disagree more. Desire can easily come from fullness."

Oh? What desire comes from fullness? Why would someone want or wish for something if they are satisfied with their state of being?

It sounds like anything can come under your definition of lack. "Happiness" is impoverished because it's a lack of despair; "purpose" is impoverished because it's a lack of meaninglessness. Love is a lack of self-containment? A statement like that borders on the absurd.

"Paucity of love would be an inherent weakness that would indicate non-omnipotence."

Right. I said the opposite. I said that some love is an expression of perpetuity, not paucity.

"The fact that God is not maximal in any case proves he is not omnipotent."

This statement is another absurd one. First of all, you haven't given any evidence that God is not maximal. Secondly, you haven't defined omnipotence. So thirdly, you're conclusion that this point is "proved" doesn't follow.

"If he desired something, it is an admittance of weakness"

I couldn't disagree more. Desire can easily come from fullness.

"But why was that engine created? The analogy lies in the causal mechanism behind the product, not in the intent of the designer."

It was a rhetorical question. Obviously, I realize it was not the point of the argument.

"And what is desire but a poverty of some quality? But a poverty of some quality is not a moral deficiency or a deprivation of one's attributes. Sometimes desire is the expression of perpetuity rather than paucity."

Paucity of love would be an inherent weakness that would indicate non-omnipotence. Just so we're clear, impoverishment does not mean "devoid of." The fact that God is not maximal in any case proves he is not omnipotent.

"When I want to love my wife more, it's not because my love has been lacking, but because it's exploding."

Lack of self containment, another impoverishment.

"I disagree that intelligent creation is anthropomorphization of a natural phenomenon. The Bible would say that it's an expression of God's eternal nature. God's desire to augment the number of creatures to love is not a statement of privation but of expansion, which is part of his infinite nature."

He would have no desire to do so if he were all good, which is perfect completeness, which comes from omnipotence. If he desired something, it is an admittance of weakness, and God is not weak in any way, he is the absolute. Therefore it is an anthropomorphization, because we attribute our feeling of desire to God, but desire is born of imperfection.