What does that even mean?
It means you are describing god as something that is just somewhat
better than us. Which makes no sense (as well as being a hard left turn from orthodoxy).
If we were talking about a genie or a wizard, sure, but when applied to God,
Really, what's the difference? You are saying god is a conscious being with a mind, no? He/it made choices and decisions to create the universe, no? The universe was designed by him and brought into being by means far beyond us, no? So what's the difference?
I really don't think you get to talk about how awesome sauce god is and then balk at omnipotence. But I'll play along. Okay, god's merely powerful
. Fine, fine. He/ It cannot do anything we can conceive
. What's the limit? What? He cannot make cats understand him? How do you even call that
a god? He cannot figure out how to communicate with us better than what is in the bible? Seriously? Your god is as lost and clueless as we are.
Omniscience implies that the being should know the outcome of that which is contingent,
I have never understood the term "contingent" in the context of existential philosophy. I find it pretentious. Please use another term. If your meaning is that god cannot know the future choices of free willed beings, okay, I can accept that as a limitation on omniscience. But that's not what I'm talking about. I am talking about simple, plain old design. A designer makes designs with knowledge of how things work. That's a kind of knowledge about the future, but not a free will issue.
If the problem is our brains need to be bigger, more efficiently, I can think of ways for that to work. We're not talking about infinite concepts. We don't need to understand everything
. We just need to understand better
. So our brains only need to be better, not infinite.
We are talking about simple accuracy in the bible. All the metaphorical and allegorical shit need not have been used. Was the burning bush really necessary? Did they really need to say Jericho was knocked down by tooting a horn? Did their model of the universe need to describe a hard dome holding back a celestial ocean?
If we are talking about a being that is a lot smarter than us, why could it not have instructed us first? Why do we need to be here, 2500 years after "god" allegedly started meddling in the Middle East (and why start there and why exclusively there?) only just starting to understand how the universe works? Why is god not helping us now?
Forget what people say about God, the only quality of god that need be considered here is that God has a higher intelligence than Man. If that is the case then the chasm between it and man when it comes to communication gets bigger, not smaller.
How much higher? A little higher? And no, the chasm does not get bigger. I think people can understand cats better than, say, orangutans. Thus that allows us to convey meaning to cats better than orangutans can.
Then they wouldn't be cats. If I wanted to "design" a creature that could understand e, I could only design other O&O creatures, I could not "design" Dogs, Cats, People, etc.
Oh, for fucksakes. So god did not design creatures that could understand it because either it had no clue how or it didn't want to because then it wouldn't be designing the creatures it wanted? You are saying the design of people could not possibly have been better? "Then we wouldn't have been people," is rejected as a retard answer.
Again, O&O isn't a concept that I accept as valid,
Then you're not talking about a god. You might as well be talking about an advanced alien race, or the beings humans will evolve into in several million years (provided we don't wipe ourselves out first) or the AI robots we will create.
IE: A being that lacks the capacity to understand, understanding regardless.
I do not understand this sentence.
It's like saying that of a God were O&O it would be able to add 2 + 2, have it equal 4, have 4 be an odd number and also be a 6.
No, that is not what I've been talking about. You are getting all wound up over something I've not said.