You must realise that God is the Perfection in all His attributes. This perfection cannot be surpassed as it is ultimate of the ultimatums in perfection. So there is no scope for change.
All that you have written is from a mind which has to see a tangible god in front of it. And you cannot think beyond the self created ‘barriers’ that you have confined your mind to.
Setting up limitations and challenges to God are just play of words - and work of idle minds.
An interesting dialogue tool place during the debate between Sheikh Ahmed Deedat and Dr. Anis Shorrosh on the topic: “Is Jesus God?” Sheikh Ahmed Deedat challenged Dr. Shorrosh saying: “The Concept of Trinity is impossible; how can three are one and one can be three?”
Dr. Shorrosh: “For God everything is possible. You Muslims can say 100 times Allahu Akhbar (Allah is the Greatest) in your daily prayers yet you have set limits to God. To us, Christians, God can do whatever He wishes and nothing is impossible for HIm!”
Sheikh Ahmed Deedat retorted: ** “There are some things which even God cannot do! ** Yes, you all seem to be surprised. Firstly, God cannot create another God like Himself and secondly God cannot throw me out of His Kingdom.”
[There was a pin drop silence in the huge hall. All the Muslims were really stunned and their lower jaws nearly hit the floor. Dr. Shorrosh had a triumphant smile seeing the Muslims reaction he knew that Sheikh Ahmed Deedat had committed a great blunder.]
Sheikh Ahmed Deedat continued: “This is because the ‘new god’ that will be created will always be a creation and God will always be the Creator. Further more God cannot throw me out of His kingdom because all the space to the infinity belongs to Him. Where ever I land after 100 million light years will belong to God. By pointing out this so-called ‘limitations’ in fact we are proving the Supreme Greatness of God.
The huge hall was soon vibrating with shouts of Allahu Akhbar and Dr. Shorrosh slumped into his chair visibly a beaten man.
And how would you explain how we came about? By chance? Forget everything else, and concentrate on your own existence, are you going to tell me that you just appeared from thin air? Actually yes we can explain that there is a God. And we dont even have to bring religious Books into it.
And if God was not all Merciful and all Powerful etc, well then how do you explain every detail we see in the world?
I dont think I’ve ever made fun of Christians. Religions are not a joke to me.
^ yes by chance. Its all in the probability, u say details.. what details.. why so much diversity. If God had done a little bit of planning he wouldnt have created so much diverse world. And all mercifull.. what mercy did God show when there was tsunami.The oldest of religion came with the existance of mankind.. which is only a few hundred thousand years. But the earth itself is much older than that.. do u think that God had a brain wave suddenly and decide to make humans..:)
And for those believers ..Religion is not a joke... yes may not be .. but practice it without hurting others. U cannot say that people worshipping multiple gods are ignorent. Because u cannot prove that there exist only one god. Can u.
On the contrary, I am not saying i want to see a tangible God but that religions have interpeted God tangibly. Even Islam. Regardless of how you put it..the moment you give God an attribute he becomes a tangible entity..even if these attributes are prefect ..because u have gone down the road of describing God. If religion claims that God is unrepresentable by ANYTHING in this universe..and we are entities within this universe..we can never describe, understand or interpret what God IS or whether God has attributes which can be comprehended and articulated. My point is that both claims are made and they seem to be inconsistent.
The Ahmad Deedat debate sounds like it gives weight to your point..however. a few points: how does he KNOW God can’t do that? How does showing God’s limitations show any Greatness? He is humanizing God..by saying God can ‘throw’…that the universe ‘belongs’ to God. Maybe both words are not applicable to God..and therefore his rhetorical questions are invalid. They are based on his interpetation of a God that has a certain structure..that he has not come to know from any personal knowledge..but through scripture and maybe some philosophizing.
Btw..the trinity can be explained in terms of a human: we have a body, we have a soul and we have a consciousness…there are three disctinct..yet part of one. If a human can be three and one..Christians say..so can God..since we are in his image. But why question this? If the HOLY BOOK says this..then do not question since we humans have feeble minds. So why is ahmad deedat pointing out this inconsistent logic of Christians..when Muslim belief is just another rehashing of faith first..logic last. Are we not supposed to question matters of God? So why should christians quesiton their interpetation of God if we put limits to our question? That is hypocrisy if we cannot extend the same ideals to another group.
There is no explanation..just hypothesis..we don’t have that knowledge. For all i know I was created the moment i became aware..and my parents told me that i came from them. Then we reach a point where ppl say there was a big bang..where everything including physics breaks down..even time..so there can’t be a “before” the Big Bang..so your question becomes invalid. If you can’t ask what was before the Big Bang..how can you ask what created the universe..if the act of creation requires TIME which did not exist prior to the universe? Don’t you see..our language is not suited for the concept of God or pre-universe that religion pushes without facing any paradoxes or inconsistancies…yet we continue to try to explain, describe and humanize God while claiming that God is not being humanized. There’s nothing wrong with trying to understand God, everyone does it..its natural…but its the dogmatic “i am right..u are wrong and my God will send u to hell for eternity and otherwise reward u with materialistic pleasures” that bothers me. Personally I believe God is the reason behind the universe being what it is…but i do not want to speculate as to the details of this God based on someone forcing me to “believe” that God is A, B, C..Z because that is how it was revealed and then eventually understood. And to “believe” those propositions under threat that an eternity of torture is in balance is quite the intellectual and emotional blackmail.
I dont get your point of the relationship between mercy and power and how the world has details in it. If anything, we cannot detect God’s mercy and power from the world.
Now you are saying that you were created, yet the big bang just happened. And pray tell how the big bang came about? For, there must have been something that brought it about, and that something - how did it come to be? Yes there had to have been something before the Big bang, in order for the Big bang to have come about.
There is no other way to understanding God, then to take what we know, what we have been through, what we have experienced, and apply these adjectives to help us know who and what God is. We are humans. Logically speaking, we are going to use our ways as humans to understand God. There is no other way. It might be wrong (in your view) to use human attributes and apply them to God, but what other ways do you suggest. Plus we use these atrributes to give ourselves an idea. We know God is not a person, he is not like a person, he was neither given birth to, nor will ever die, he was always there etc. As humans, the only possible way to understand God, is through our senses and mind. These attributes tell us what God is like, and they show us he is not like humans.
As for the details, I was referring to the entire world. The bodies we have, from our eyes to what we eat. The sky, the sun. The air we breathe. The foods we eat. Everything in the world is so perfectly designed. It alone shows there is a
Creator.
Anyway I believe the topic at hand was not whether God exists but whether He has any limits. Whether He can create something yet lose control over it.
But we don’t KNOW the universe was or wasn’t created and how or by whom. If you can dare to ask what created the universe..then why not dare to ask what created whatever created the universe? This is answered by saying that time is not applicable to the creator of the universe..but maybe time is not applicable to the universe..it was always there and never created? Or maybe the creator has a creator that has another creator…and so on. The fact is glossed over that creation takes time..and if u think about it..time is merely a word to describe change. If in State 0 there is nothing and State 1 there is universe..that means that “time” occured. So is God limited by TIME? Can God “think” or “create” without time passing?
You say there had to be “something” before the big bang for it to have occured..but religion has claimed that “nothing” was there. It says God was there..but it says God is not in space or time and does not take any form..so God is practically ‘nothing’. We believe that God exists, yet state he has no form but consciousness and the ability to Create. We have no idea how he created the universe when ‘space’ and ‘time’ do not exist and God cannot alter his state. If God is all-perfect..then wouldn’t creating the universe mean that he has changed his all-perfect state..by creating lesser beings ..such as stupid humans that are within God’s dominion?
Stating that God created the universe…or that the universe is a random blip..are both answers that don’t actually answer the question: how did the universe come about. We don’t know what God is..and we really don’t know what a random blip would be either.
If God is the only entity that “exists”..then every other existance or creature is within, from and not separate from God. Which begs the question..that we do not have our own independent mind or free will…we are only an extension of God. Can you separate one thing in this universe from such a God? Is there an “I”?
I am goin off topic..and just asking questions to the air.
As per the humans understanding God through human mind: i completely agree with you, given that a person realizes that these adjectives are not necessarily an accurate representation of something beyond the grasp of this universe. If we want to understand God we must use our human mind and language..cause we have nothing else. BUT, Islam does not. See there’s a bit of hypocrisy here. It states that authentic God can only be known through the Holy Book…yet the words using to describe it are fully human. and once again, Islam only wants ITS human perspective of God to be the true one..and not another equally human perspective of God. If a person comes to his/her OWN understanding and comprehension of God..it is categorically denied as a falsity (the person is claimed as a blasphemor, liar, yadda yadda) if it is not consistent with the Islamically understood version.
“We know God is not a person, he is not like a person, he was neither given birth to, nor will ever die, he was always there etc. As humans, the only possible way to understand God, is through our senses and mind. These attributes tell us what God is like, and they show us he is not like humans.”
Does this para of yours make me understand God any more than before? No. You are not telling me anything about God except he is not anything in this universe. He is like “nothingness”…always there, no birth or death..no concept of shape or form…yet its “there”. Are you saying that God is NOT like a person…that he isn’t a conscious being that feels love, hate, anger/wrath, forgiveness, mercy..etc. This is hard to swallow for a human mind..because you are attributing VERY human qualities..to something that resembles nothingness. God wants us to believe THIS about him..and THIS is the qualification that must be believed in order for eternal salvation?
“As for the details, I was referring to the entire world. The bodies we have, from our eyes to what we eat. The sky, the sun. The air we breathe. The foods we eat. Everything in the world is so perfectly designed. It alone shows there is a
Creator.”
How do you define a perfect design? Not all fruits are perfect…the grapes i ate yesterday were pretty sour. The air is really bad these days with pollutants. Humans are anything BUT perfect and we are part of the universal design. I’m wearing glasses…i’ve had astigmatism from birth. Don’t get me wrong..there are plenty of wonderful and beautiful things (sweet mangos, girls , waterfalls)…but what does perfection mean? Would any OTHER universe NOT be perfect? Please do tell me what a non-perfect universe is like. People are not happy here..some are..but some are in horrible condiditons. Accordingly..it could be said that the religious definition of Hell would also be a “perfect” place…except people would be getting tortured. Infact..any universe would have to be perfect…because otherwise..someone could claim: this universe isn’t perfect..hence a God did not create it. See the error in your logic? I guess it could be summed up as: is God limited in creating only perfect universes? U have to understand that the question is actually invalid (because there is no objective definition of perfect universes) but im still asking it.
A human being cannot produce a new thought. Every thought is based upon previous information about the object, idea etc. For example if you have not been taught how to read arabic then you can look at the arabic text for the all eternity but unless someone teaches you you will never be able to understand it or read it.
So whenever such ideas as Mercy are being discussed the human being relates it to what he understands as being mercy. Good and bad for a human can be different if he himself is involved in the action and different when someone else is involved in the action. For example take accidental killing, the human involved wants to be excused as it was unintentional whereas the victim's loved one wants revenge. So even the perception of justice is not conclusive. Killing of millions of innocents using nuclear bombs is accepted but tsunamis are not. If human can insist they are giving justice through killing the innocent then why is it when natural disasters occur the justice of the creator is questioned? If a human can be locked up without any evidence as with the recent anti-terror legislation to stop future crimes so when the creator brings destruction upon people then why is this seen as being unjust?
Even though there are humans who wouldn't agree on killing innocents or locking up people without proof this only proves that the human mind cannot be relied upon to decide good and bad due to this disparity.
Attributes of the creator cannot be realised through using rational thought it is the revealed texts which teach us the attributes of the creator. If we were to scrutinise the validity of the texts using rational thought and come to the conclusion that the texts are valid then we can prove that the attributes and everything else mentioned in the texts are valid. This is something that is true for the Qur'an. I do not want to delve into the proof of Qur'an as this is a topic in itself.
If the question is asked that who created the creator this is because the human being does not witness anything that does not have a beginning or an end hence it doesn't make sense to him. Everything we perceive has a beginning and an end, meaning that everything is limited. There is a limited amount of matter in the universe and new matter is not being formed. Matter is not eternal. Studies of the universe have led people to the conclusion that there was a point of origin where a large explosion took place i.e. big bang. There was a starting point.
From rational thought we can come to the conclusion that matter cannot create itself. Neither can something limited create matter, a human being cannot create matter.
Since we do exist and the fact that nothingness cannot produce something the only valid conclusion is that it was created.
The creator cannot be limited since we know that something limited cannot create. The creator cannot be created since everything created is limited and the creator cannot be limited. The creator cannot create itself as this is irrational. The creator cannot suddenly come into existence as this is absurd as nothingness cannot produce something. THe only conclusion we can reach is that the creator always existed.
If we say that matter always existed like the communists believe then this is invalid as matter is dependant on something else to exist and cannot therefore be eternal. The creator does not depend on anything else to exist i.e does not require sustenance. If the creator required sustence then the creator would be limited and dependant. Anything limited and dependant cannot create.
^ Ur logic does not hold good
The matter and time are interelated. Matter start to exist together with time. We cannot think of something beyond time.
So is time God. Well it actually may be.:D
i dont think it is purely a mental construct. it is a feature of the physical world, just as much a first class citizen of the real world as your computer. the ability to percieve time is hardwired into us.. circadian rhythms (that are not under control of the mind) i think they're called. and (upon googling) not just us, they're present in mammals and fungi.. so its neither purely human nor purely mental.
cyrcadian rythms is more how your body reacts to a natural rest-activity pattern. The point is the C.R.'s do not match our man-made 24 hour cycle, so it results in some not-so-nice stress and restlessness.
So how do people decypher ancient civilizations hieroglyphics? Its because they know that the symbols are simply metaphors for the same objects in reality. All they need to do is attach the symbols to objects..and see if the resulting text makes any sense. Becuase we work under the assumption that the text makes sense as opposed to randomness.
So that means God is not a new thought, but made upon previous information? That means that our thought of God is from within this universe…and not from outside. which means..that it has to be
Your example isn’t correct. The victim’s loved one’s taking revenge is based on an emotional response rather than a logical reasoning of whether the accident was “good” or “bad”. Accidents can’t be qualified as good or bad actions. It was a bad event; both the person involved and the victims family realize that. The person responsible asks to be excused not because the action was good, but because he did not conciously mean to cause any harm. The revenge reaction is emotional, it has no logical foundations and is not ‘justice’: what will be achieved by killing/punishing that person if it was an accident?
I have no idea where ur coming from when u say that killing millions of innocents with nuclear bombs is ACCEPTED but tsunamis are not. WHat the !!! WHO is accepting nuking innocents? Not everyone for certain. I think its shortsighted to say that Allah is exercising his “justice” by wiping out people through tsunamis and such. Your saying that their death was acceptable? That if you had the chance to save some of the people..that u shouldn’t..cause justice was being served? Your also saying that poor, rural people deserve such venegeful attacks on their lives from God, but people who are corrupt, rich and in power positions are saved from such? Its sickening to think that you believe that JUSTICE was being served in the tsunami. Maybe we shouldn’t help people in Africa who are starving! Maybe that’s God’s way of punishing them for…something. We shouldn’t interfere with God’s punishments.
i dont agree with America’s anti-terror legislature…and so don’t most of the Americans. Just like how these people have no due right of law..the innocent people in a tsunami have not been given any opportunity to represent their position.they don’t have the opportunity to ask for mercy…many are little kids!! your meaning to say that EVERY human being that dies in a natural disaster is an evil person who deserves to go to be punished..even if they haven’t done anything…but because maybe they will in the future? That’s really scary that u think that. Maybe natural disasters are just natural disasters..and not God going around killing his creation; but then why does He allow it?
All we have is the human mind! Disparity only means that people need to talk more and communicate these ideas. It’s not always about good or bad as some black and white world…but about doing whats best for all of humanity. There are different levels of survival. First a person looks at themselves first, then their family, then an extended group of loved ones, then an idealogy or country, then humanity and then the earth and all within. Not everyone is at the highest level of “earth”..and thats what causes the disparity, because good and bad are how humans express what is beneficial for the survival at the different stages.
Maybe we shuoldn’t punish ANYONe, and just wait for God to use his judicial powers. Dont tell me that there should be “islamic courts”..because those decisions made will always be interpetations of God’s words..and there is always the chance that we won’t understand the true meaning of what God would do in a situation. So its better to just not punish anyone..and let God deal with it..cause he knows what justice is..and we shouldn’t bother coming up with our own system.
But..we have to comprehend the attributes through rationality…whether it is done on our own or thru some texts.
The whole scrutinizing the texts is iffy..because its all so dependent on circular logic and leaps of faith…not any particular rational system of thought. This goes for any text. We can’t say it came from God directly..we weren’t there to experience that..we just have it on someone’s authority..just like any other holy text. And that again does not prove that God has certain attributes..but that human can only understand God within a “human framework”..and so we extend our attributes onto God. we use all our ideals that promote the survival of humanity to a higher being. This has been going on from the time of polythiestic religions. The God of Fertility, The God of Love etc. And u do have the Gods of War..because those were seen as necessary for the survival of the ‘group’..since they were at that stage of the survival spectrum.
Actually..the universe does not seem to have an end. And technically..we don’t know what happened before the big bang..for all we know it was another universe..or that our own universe continously busts and booms. Either way…the amount of energy in this universe is constant…so that would make one think that it is eternal..since nothing new is created..but neither can it be destroyed. Can you prove scientifically that matter/energy is not eternal? If u can’t, then that puts a dent in ur argument. If u can think that God is eternal and timeless, why can’t the universe be eternal and timeless? Maybe time is simply an experience of conscious animals.
Just because something limited cannot create matter..doens’t mean that sometihng ‘unlimited’ can create matter. Maybe matter/energy just cannot be created…its always “there”.
Why can’t nothingness produce something? Isn’t that what religion claims how the universe came ANYWAYS? U can believe in a God who has no shape/form, no time, no change..but thinks and acts like a human, and u can believe that he created the universe from nothing. so what’s the difference between God and nothing creating the universe? That nothing does not think like a human?
cant u believe that the universe itself was always just there…what’s wrong with this theory?
We don’t know if ANYTHING can create. We have never experienced anything being created from ‘nothing’…so we can’t say that there IS a creator. This whole concept of ‘limited’ is really forced..because we also don’t know what “unlimited” actually is. All we have to do is to accept the universe was always there and that makes the universe ‘unlimited’. The mere act of creating a universe would require time to pass..and would suggest that God is within time. But then, to make God not-limited..ppl say that the entire history of the universe occurs at ONCE..and its creation, duration and end are all the same before God. That’s the same as saying the universe is ALWAYS there. They are both the same freakin concept..except in one u say there’s a God with human qualities. In the other u may have a more abstract God or nothingness.
U say nothing->something is ‘absurd’..but why isn’t the idea that this creator always existing not absurd? Ur saying that something that doesn’t have a form always existed..and that doesn’t change..and suddenly, without changing, the universe was created from nothingess! That is extremely similar to saying that nothingness produced something..its just as absurd. ur using the word ‘creator’ is just misleading cause it makes ‘sense’ to say ‘creator’ created as opposed to ‘nothingness’ created. but what IS the creator really?
What is matter dependent on? Matter is energy..energy is conserved…there is no reason energy will suddenly “disappate” and vanish. It can only lead us to believe it is eternal. God will have to physically put a stop to the universe to destroy it…left to its own functions..the universe will continue on and on..for eternity.
Once again..we have no experience of ANYTHING creating..so we cannot make the claims that a creator created. We have no idea if creation can even happen. If the universe is eternal..it means that the act of creation can never happen..only manipulating existing energy. What sustenance does the universe require? Is there energy being input into the univese to keep it going..or is it self-sustaining..with no increase or decrease in energy?
To even suggest a question like this is, common, yet ludicrous. For this is agaisnt the nature of God. Without, or not, a theologocal debate- Here is my response.
When describing the doctrine of omnipotence, it is not entirely accurate to say that God can do Anything for God cannot do anything that would deny His own nature and/or character.
God is able to do whatever He wills, but His will is limited by His nature. In other words, God cannot contradict His own nature. God cannot sin, because sinning means that God does evil, and evil is something which is outside of the will of God.
God cannot do anything that is absurd or self-contradictory. Which means, God cannot make a boulder so heavy that He cannot lift it, or create a 4-sided triangle. In any case, these arent objects of power and so denote no limitation of God’s omnipotence
But u are assuming that "good" or "consistency" are above and beyond God! Because God is now functioning according to these 'rules' or system. If we are to believe God as above and beyond everything..then even 'good' and 'consistency' no longer are an issue. God can control the domain of logic..and therefore anything inconsistent is simply something not filling into a logical structure. But if this very logic is an assertion of God..if he asserted another logic..the inconsistency would go away. From this we would have to conclude (given God has control over logic) that consistency and inconsistency are an illusion. Therefore good and evil are not concepts that actually exist...but an illusion/game/test (depends on how u look at it) that God has created. The idea that good is good and evil is evil stems from a survival+rewards+punishment scheme. Simply put..Good and Evil are what God of religion asserts as rewardable or punishable. There is no reason to actually believe that an act is absolutely good beyond God. For all that matters, everything good or evil in this world could be reversed..as long as u map each action to a reward-punishment basis in religions. Therefore if stated that destruction -> paradise; charity -> hell ...then that would be good and the other evil (or put a better way..good is that which requires no forgiveness or mercy from a higher source and receives no punishement). We have been hardwired to feel that our survival is of importance and we can also judge social good/evil from that...but even this is based on our asserting that..and not an absolute law of the universe.
There could be universes where logic and physics is so different that 4-sided triangles exist. U know maybe..they might even exist in this universe. Given that quantum mechanics has created a new paradigm of logic..its not an impractical suggestion that maybe tri-angle might actually have 4-angles...in some quirky parts of the quantum world. Its as ridiculous as suggesting that a single photon of light can travel thru two slits and intefere with itself by the time it reaches the detector on the otherside. Or the concept of entanglement...or double spin (where a particle must be spinned around TWICE to come back to the same point..try this with an orange..it won't work)
God seems to be having more limitations than our own (i.e. humans') ones. For example God himself (as per religious teachings) cannot write article in this thread with the objective to give support to the points of views of his own 'followers' because if God really writes an article in this thread - that article shall be rejected - first of all - by the so called followers of God. Because the final words of God have been mentioned in the Holy Book so now God becomes unable to put his own point of view about his own limitations in this thread.
What if God at last decides to express his ownself in this forum ... ??? Who among the 'followers' shall obey this 'new will' of his/ her own God....??? Practically these followers then put various restrictions on their own God. They will say that now God cannot speak or write after when he himself has expressed his final words in the form of Holy Book. These so called 'followers' would not let their own God to change his will. So God is not independent/ free in making his own will. His will is to be determined by the 'consensus' of his own followers.
Is there any 'follower' in this forum who will accept the 'new will' of his own God if that 'new will' replaces the 'old will' as mentioned in the 'last and final' Holy Book'...????
Followers can argue that God does not go against his own will. Since we know his will as is mentioned in the 'last and final' Holy Book, which is now after that 'final' Holy Book' not to make any alternations in the will, so it can be concluded that God shall not actually change his will and so shall not try to write an article in this thread.
This kind of argument would not be acceptable because there exist no proof that God does not change his will. There are proofs in that 'final' Holy Book that God does change his will depending on the circumstances. For example that 'final' Holy Book says that Israel was once the most favourite nation of God. God then changed his previous policy and adopted a 'new' hostile policy toward Israel by making some Israelies as pigs and monkeys (in real or symbolic meanings, whatsoever). So there is no proof that God does not change his poilicy or will but on the opposite side, such proofs are available that 'God' does changes his will and policies depending on the changing circumstances.
What would be the response of those 'followers' if I challenge their God to come on this forum and express his own opinions about his own limitations in this thread...???
For me, I am sure that God shall not come because he cannot come. And he cannot come because actually he does not exists at all.
And for those 'followers', God shall not come to this forum for the reason that it would be against the consensus of 'followers'.
The will of God is to be formulated by the consensus of the 'followers'. Not only that. Actually God himself is just a creation of human mind's speculative thought. All the attributes of God which have been described in any of the Holy Books are within the domain of speculative capabilities of human's thought. God is 'creator'. The concept of 'creation' is observable phenomenon. Artists usually 'create' many kinds of pieces of art. God is all 'powerful'. The concept of 'power' is also observable phenomenon. God never 'sleeps'. The concept of 'sleeping' is another observable phenomenon. Some animals cannot close their eyes. So the concept of 'not sleeping' is also another observable phenomenon. God is 'merciful'. The concept of mercy etc. is also observable in humans' behaviour.
So it is not difficult at all to suggest those attributes of God as are described in the holy books by using speculative thought only. What authors of those holy books have done is just that they collected a number of (usually) positive attributes of humans. So collected (observable) attributes then (blindly) merged with the concept of perfaction. So the God, according to these holy books is a 'personality' who possesses a number of (usually) positive (human) attributes. The only differences between humans and God are that an individual human usually does not possess all the positive attributes. Some humans possess only some positive attributes and other humans posses some other positive attributes which are not possessed by that first class of humans. Socondly humans do possess some positive attributes but those positive attributes are always in imperfact form. For example a human can be 'powerful' but he cannot be 'all powerfull' or 'absolute powerful'.
The concept of 'perfaction' is also not outside the scope of human mind's speculative capabilities. Concept of perfaction can be easily thought of. The concept of 'power' can lead to the idea of 'more power', and eventually to 'absolute power' etc.
The 'God' on the other hand possess greater number of (usually) positive attributes than can be possessed by any individual human. Secondly God posseses those attributes in their absolutely perfact form.
I have described previously that the authors of those holy books have blindly applied/ merged the concept of perfaction with all those (observable) attributes in order to formulate God's attributes. The blind application of the concept of perfaction has been resulted into various logical errors such that any personality (i.e. God) logically cannot be all powerful and absolute creator at the same time. This type of logical errors made by those authors of holy books are reflected in such questions as 'can God make (being absolute creator) such a heavy stone which he himself (being all powerful) cannot lift?
So God actually does not have any limitations because actually God does not exist at all. The concept of God as presented by the holy books has various logical limitations because while 'creating' the concept of God, the authors of holy books have blindly applied (i.e. without considering the logical implications) the concept of perfaction on various human attributes.
, waterfalls)…but what does perfection mean? Would any OTHER universe NOT be perfect? Please do tell me what a non-perfect universe is like. People are not happy here..some are..but some are in horrible condiditons. Accordingly..it could be said that the religious definition of Hell would also be a “perfect” place…except people would be getting tortured. Infact..any universe would have to be perfect…because otherwise..someone could claim: this universe isn’t perfect..hence a God did not create it. See the error in your logic? I guess it could be summed up as: is God limited in creating only perfect universes? U have to understand that the question is actually invalid (because there is no objective definition of perfect universes) but im still asking it.
^*So God actually does not have any limitations because actually God does not exist at all.