• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Omnipotence

ted_bloody_maul

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
4,580
Is God genuinely omnipotent? By that I mean not only can he be everywhere at once but would he be able to spread his message simultaneously, across the internet for example?

Is Google the new anti-christ?
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
Is God genuinely omnipotent? By that I mean not only can he be everywhere at once but would he be able to spread his message simultaneously, across the internet for example?
Assuming there is some supreme being, he may find us so far beneath his consideration that he has no meaningful message for us (via internet or otherwise).

It is only human arogance that assumes a deity would be interested in us.

God may care for us only as data in some super-scientific knowledge base, much as we might know something about some bacteria living in a remote and difficult setting, but would not consider 'communicating' with it.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
Is God genuinely omnipotent? By that I mean not only can he be everywhere at once but would he be able to spread his message simultaneously, across the internet for example?

color=white]Is Google the new anti-christ?[/color]

Why God needs a website? Why God needs money? He can do anything without the help of these things’

Swami replied:
When the work is possible through the process that follows the laws of nature, supernatural power of God is not used. Only demons exhibit the supernatural powers, even if there is no necessity. They want to draw the attention and attract the people for their name and fame. Their aim is not to uplift the humanity. Such attraction creates attention in the people. But it simultaneously creates tension also. The realization and natural love (Devotion) cannot be created in excited state of tension. The devotion should be spontaneous and should be developed in the ground state only, which alone is sweet. This entire universe is created by the Lord only for tasting such real natural sweet devotion of devotees. The exhibition of miracles always creates fear and tension and a natural flexible state is not possible, in which only the sweet devotion can be tasted. The tension will block your mind and you will not dare to clear your doubts. It is not congenial for the growth and expansion of divine knowledge. Unless there is a bare necessity the Lord will not perform miracles. When the work is not possible through natural phase, then only the supernatural power lightens. Even if the miracle is performed the Lord will try to hide it so that the natural state is balanced. When Lord Krishna covered the sun with His divine wheel, He interpreted it as the cover of cloud. The intention of the Lord is not self exhibition like a demon. The same supernatural miracle performed by a demon is used for his self projection. The Lord likes to be loved by the devotees without exhibiting His supernatural wealth.

The son of a king who is good and humble likes to win the heart of a girl without exposing his identity. He does not like to exhibit his wealth to win her heart. Similarly the God likes to attract the hearts of devotees by His divine knowledge which is His eternal divine beauty. If the son of the king has no self merit, he tries to attract her by cheap exhibition of his identity and wealth. Thus a demon like Satan tries to attract the human beings by cheap exhibition of the supernatural powers and tries to convert them as his devotees. Satan tried to attract Jesus by showing his kingdom. Jesus attracted people by His divine knowledge. When it becomes inevitable to do a miracle which cannot be hidden, the Lord tries to neutralize the tension by exhibiting strong negative qualities. Lord Krishna lifted the mountain and protected the villagers from the rain. Such miracles cannot be hidden and misinterpreted. To bring them to the normal state the Lord exhibited very strong Rajas and Tamas like stealing butter and dancing with girls. In the case of Lord Rama there was no necessity of such exhibition of miracles. There was no need for Him to show the negative qualities. Thus the Lord is associated with all the three qualities to be used wherever and whenever necessary.

All the discoveries of science are only due to grace of God. The computer technology is the gift from God to humanity. Some are earning their livelihood through this technology. Livelyhood is essential and is the basis of the body, which is the instrument of all spiritual efforts. This technology is used for the spiritual service. Are you objecting the creator of this technology to use it for His own work ? You must be grateful to the Lord. You can use it for your wordly purpose but you should at least express your gratefulness by using it for His service also. Every scientific benefit is granted by God with primary purpose of using it in the spiritual line only. Majority of top scientists believe in God and accept their discoveries as the results of grace of God only. A discovery is always experienced as an accidental incident like a flash. It is not the result of the continuous hard work. During the hard work a flash strikes to the brain of the scientist. The scientist gets disgusted during his hard work and suddenly a flash in the brain results in the discovery. If the discovery is the fruit of hard work, it should naturally come at the end of the hard work without any flash. Such flash is due to the grace of the Lord. Almost all top scientists agree to this truth. Only a few egoistic scientists do not agree to this.

Science is very helpful in the analysis of this creation, which helps to realize that no item of this creation is the creator. Science does not help to understand anything about the creator. In fact even the philosophers and sages have not understood anything about the creator. The philosopher also analysed the entire creation. In this aspect there is not difference between the philosopher and scientist. The only difference between them is that the scientist does not accept the existence of unkown creator beyond the creation, whereas the philosopher accepts Him.

For a philosopher miracles are not necessary. He is very sensitive and recognizes the existence of God through the deep analysis of various incidents in his life. The scientist is not so sensitive. He needs the proof through physical miracles. Most of the scientists turn into devotees through such miracles visible to naked eyes. Such scientists have open mind and courage to accept the truth due to their wise flexibility. But a few scientists have very rigid mind and do not accept even the physical miracles attributing these to magic and illusion. Such people should not be called as scientists. Science means rational flexibility to leave the old disproved concepts and accept the new proved concepts. People who are rigid in their old fixed concepts are called as conservatives. These people mock the devotees as conservatives and the joke is that they are the original raw conservatives!

The bonds with wife, children, and money are the strongest bonds and are called as the three ‘Eshanas’ which are the steel chains. The Lord competes with these three to test your love on Him. It is not the question of requirement. It is the question of identifying your love. Your son is well settled and does not require money. But still you are giving your wealth to him only. That shows your love on him which is not related with his requirement. You are covering your absence of love on God with this pretext of non-requirement. By such cover you want the favour from God. You can deceive a human being by such intellectual coverage, but can you deceive the Lord who is omniscient? Instead of such tricks God will be please with you, if you say frankly that you do not want to give money since you do not have love on Him. Truth is always better than trick.

A lady was applying scent to the feet of Jesus. One disciple told that it is waste, since Jesus does not require it. But Jesus objected the disciple and accepted the scent which signifies her immense love on Lord Jesus. It indicates the divine love of the lady and there is no point of requirement here.


At the Lotus Feet of His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace
[email protected]
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
Is God genuinely omnipotent? By that I mean not only can he be everywhere at once but would he be able to spread his message simultaneously, across the internet for example?

Are you asking about omnipotence, omnipresence, or both? Granted, they're related, but certainly not the same thing.

It's difficult to answer your question without first asking what kind of God you're talking about. The traditional God of theism has all those "omnis" attached to "him." Recently, even Christian theologians have been conceiving of God in quite different terms. Paul Tillich and John Macquarrie, for example, speak of God as Being-Itself, and might say (I should be careful; Macquarrie's still alive) that it's ridiculous to ask such questions about Being-Itself. Process theologians such as John Cobb have developed different ways of conceiving deity, but I haven't studied them enough to give you an informed view. Try wikipedia or something if you're interested in Process Theology.

Anyway, if we assume the God of traditional Theism, then the answer would be... yes, God is everywhere at the same time; yes, "he" could probably use the Internet in some way. Omnipotence in the classical sense means God is able to do anything that isn't logically contradictory. (That is, even an omnipotent God can't make a square circle, or create a rock he can't lift, etc. And much of the debate about the "Problem of Evil" (theodicy) centers around that hidden question - could God really have created a world of free creatures in which no evil exists or ever could exist? Would that really lead to no logical contradictions?)

So why are you asking this rather strange question about God spreading some message across the Internet?

Someone mentioned the arrogance involved in thinking a deity would have any concern for human beings. That's a good point. All religions that hold that God has some concern for us (or any part of creation) are making that assumption, usually based on some form of revelation (whether that's sacred writings or an incarnation or personal experiences, etc.). There's nothing wrong with that; it just has to be acknowledged. If you don't share the assumptions, you won't share the conclusions, that's all.
 
decipheringscars said:
Paul Tillich and John Macquarrie, for example, speak of God as Being-Itself, and might say (I should be careful; Macquarrie's still alive)...

Wow, I just found out today that Macquarrie died on Sunday!

"May his soul, and the souls of all the departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace." (from the burial liturgy, BCP)
 
rynner said:
It is only human arogance that assumes a deity would be interested in us.

But it may just as well be human arrogance to assume that!

I find it just as conceivable that god passionately loves every last electron circulating every nucleus.
 
If you follow a Christian belief the idea of an interested God is central to the entire system. John 3:16 (as the evangelicals love to point out) says: 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.'

Also, why would it be arrogant to assume that God does not take interest in the things he created? I never build or make anything and then just leave it on the shelf and ignore it. Why should God?
 
well, it's a bit of an anthropocentric view in a way to see god as an entity (like a big person) who makes something and then whose attention wanders off. shurely is there is such thing as an omnipotent and omnipresent god, it is literally everywhere, and part of creation/the whole of it, rather than some kind of being on a cloud?
 
H_James said:
well, it's a bit of an anthropocentric view in a way to see god as an entity (like a big person) who makes something and then whose attention wanders off. shurely is there is such thing as an omnipotent and omnipresent god, it is literally everywhere, and part of creation/the whole of it, rather than some kind of being on a cloud?

I can only speak from within the Christian tradition, but for the past century at least, all respectable theologians have thought along those lines, more or less.

What you're pointing toward sounds like "process theology," which builds on Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy. The big name in process theology is John Cobb. Process theology seems to appeal to a lot of feminist theologians, although there is no necessary relationship between the two.

Tillich and Macquarrie are among the best examples I can cite who hold to a version of panentheism - the belief that everything is in God, and God is in everything, but God is greater than the sum total of all things.

The same idea can really be found in the mystic tradition as well, even though God is also conceived as very personal in those traditions, too.

Bottom line: when you're talking about God, you're using metaphors. You can equally say "God is not..." for every "God is..." statement you make. That's called "apophatic" theology - describing what God is not.


[Edited to add:] There is also a strand of this (belief that God is not just some "big" entity "up there") throughout the Jewish and Christian traditions. In the Bible, it tends to be found in the Hebrew Prophets and the Psalms, although not exclusively so. But there is a tendency to question/resist limiting God in any way, including anthropomorphising, and religious practices. A classic example is the injunction in the Ten Commandments against making images (in particular, to represent God). Also, the early Christians and some Jewish philosophers, influenced by Greek philosophy, perhaps took it all a bit too far in making God more of an idea (perfection; simplicity; immutability; and all the "omni"s) than a person. Again, whatever you assert about God can, perhaps should, also be denied.
 
It is the non-Theist who seems incapable of conceiving God as anything other than some immensely big, fat strongman who can grunt and groan and push planets around.

If we limit ourselves to a "god" like that, I'm an atheist too!
 
Omnipotence? Isn't that like impotence, only bigger? :D

[Ducks and runs for cover]
 
It is the non-Theist who seems incapable of conceiving God as anything other than some immensely big, fat strongman who can grunt and groan and push planets around.

Bit of a generalisation there, but an understandable one when certain theists offer impossible variations on the god entity (often involving much doublethink!) when asked to account for the paradoxes inherent in the very idea of an 'omniscient, omnipotent, personal god of judgement and mercy'.
 
barfing_pumpkin said:
Bit of a generalisation there....

Not all that much. Dr. Isaac Asimov, a man I generally admire very much (and knew personally) wrote that God could not possibly answer prayer, because by the time He reached some poor beseecher on the other side of the Universe, 12 billions years would have passed.

What a crude grasp of the very idea of Deity!

I've never felt comfortable describing Dr. Asimov as an atheist, because the god he didn't believe in I can't imagine anybody else believing in either. So if I call the Good Doctor an atheist, I must be one too.

....but an understandable one when certain theists offer impossible variations on the god entity (often involving much doublethink!) when asked to account for the paradoxes inherent in the very idea of an 'omniscient, omnipotent, personal god of judgement and mercy'.

Christianity HAS managed to produce a whole gaggle of fairly erudite fellows who've not been terribly troubled by those perceived paradoxes, or indeed consider them paradoxes at all. Augustine, Aquinas, Chesterton, to name but a few. And that's not even mentioning the great Jewish thinkers and theologians.

The fact that these things may trouble you does not automatically mean that they trouble everybody.
 
OldTimeRadio said:
barfing_pumpkin said:
Bit of a generalisation there....

Not all that much. Dr. Isaac Asimov, a man I generally admire very much (and knew personally) wrote that God could not possibly answer prayer, because by the time He reached some poor beseecher on the other side of the Universe, moving at the speed of light, 12 billion years would have passed.

What a crude grasp of the very idea of Deity!

I've never felt comfortable describing Dr. Asimov as an atheist, because the god he didn't believe in I can't imagine anybody else believing in either. So if I call the Good Doctor an atheist, I must be one too.

....but an understandable one when certain theists offer impossible variations on the god entity (often involving much doublethink!) when asked to account for the paradoxes inherent in the very idea of an 'omniscient, omnipotent, personal god of judgement and mercy'.

Christianity HAS managed to produce a whole gaggle of fairly erudite fellows who've not been terribly troubled by those perceived paradoxes, or indeed consider them paradoxes at all. Augustine, Aquinas, Chesterton, to name but a few. And that's not even mentioning the great Jewish thinkers and theologians.

The fact that these things may trouble you does not automatically mean that they trouble everybody.
 
Not all that much. Dr. Isaac Asimov, a man I generally admire very much (and knew personally) wrote that God could not possibly answer prayer, because by the time He reached some poor beseecher on the other side of the Universe, 12 billions years would have passed.

What a crude grasp of the very idea of Deity!

I've never felt comfortable describing Dr. Asimov as an atheist, because the god he didn't believe in I can't imagine anybody else believing in either. So if I call the Good Doctor an atheist, I must be one too.

I don't quite see how Asimov is supposed to represent everyone who has atheistic/agnostic leanings, but I'll take your point for the sake of argument. It's interesting that you call his idea of deity 'crude' - but is it any cruder than the idea of a deity who 'exists outside space and time' and is capable of all sort of mutually-exclusive things, such as allowing for both free-will and predestination at the same time? At least Asimov gave the idea some thought; most of the religious lot seem to want their god to be more akin to The Beyonder from Marvel Super-Heroes Secret Wars!



Christianity HAS managed to produce a whole gaggle of fairly erudite fellows who've not been terribly troubled by those perceived paradoxes, or indeed consider them paradoxes at all. Augustine, Aquinas, Chesterton, to name but a few. And that's not even mentioning the great Jewish thinkers and theologians.

The fact that these things may trouble you does not automatically mean that they trouble everybody.

That Augustine, Aquinas et al might not have been troubled by these paradoxes suggests mere blinkeredness in my book. And I don't understand why you assume I'm troubled by them: for me, the paradoxes represent the impossibility of god as described as described by the bible. End of, as far as I'm concerned. What does trouble me, however, is what certain people will do in the name of such spurious, so obviously wrong, ideas. Like killing doctors who perform abortions, for example; or rejoicing in the deaths of gays (and yes, I know, I'm only talking about Christianity here; the atrocities made in the name of the equally spurious Islam go without saying.)

But perhaps most troubling of all is the idea that there is probably nothing so stupid, ridiculous or illogical that you cannot find people who are prepared to believe in it.

It doesn't bode well for the human race, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Omnipotence is definately a paradox.
If you were omnipotent, you could do anything you want.
If you could do anything you want you could create a rock that you cannot lift.
If you cannot lift said rock you can't do anything you want.
If you can lift said rock, then you can't create a rock that you cannot lift, again with the result that you can't do anything you want.
If you can't do anything you want, you're not omnipotent.
 
Exactly - and neither can god also be omniscient.

If you were omniscient, then you know everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen.

If you know everything that will happen, then you already know every decision that you will make.

If you already know every decision that you will make, then you cannot change your mind, because to do so would violate your omniscience.

And yet, if you cannot change your mind, then you are not omnipotent.

It amazes me that many people have no difficulty in believing that a being such as described above could exist!
 
QuaziWashboard said:
Omnipotence is definately a paradox.
If you were omnipotent, you could do anything you want.
If you could do anything you want you could create a rock that you cannot lift.
If you cannot lift said rock you can't do anything you want.
If you can lift said rock, then you can't create a rock that you cannot lift, again with the result that you can't do anything you want.
If you can't do anything you want, you're not omnipotent.

Yeah, but if you can do anything you want you can create a rock you simultaneously can and cannot lift to deter any such paradox. Beyond our ken...
 
barfing_pumpkin said:
....but is it any cruder than the idea of a deity who 'exists outside space and time' and is capable of all sort of mutually-exclusive things, such as allowing for both free-will and predestination at the same time?

According to almost all Theists (not just Christians) it is.

That Augustine, Aquinas et al might not have been troubled by these paradoxes suggests mere blinkeredness in my book.

Fortunately, there are other books than yours.

But I have to tell you that from long experience the guy with "blinkers" on is INVARIABLY the guy on the OTHER side of any argument.
 
QuaziWashboard said:
If you could do anything you want you could create a rock that you cannot lift.
If you cannot lift said rock you can't do anything you want.
If you can lift said rock, then you can't create a rock that you cannot lift, again with the result that you can't do anything you want.
If you can't do anything you want, you're not omnipotent.

Quazi, my friend, you obviously slept through the first week of Theology 101.

That's where it's taught that God isn't ILLOGICAL.

Though the question's usually phrased there as "Can an omnipotent God build a square triangle?"
 
gncxx said:
QuaziWashboard said:
Omnipotence is definately a paradox.
If you were omnipotent, you could do anything you want.
If you could do anything you want you could create a rock that you cannot lift.
If you cannot lift said rock you can't do anything you want.
If you can lift said rock, then you can't create a rock that you cannot lift, again with the result that you can't do anything you want.
If you can't do anything you want, you're not omnipotent.

Yeah, but if you can do anything you want you can create a rock you simultaneously can and cannot lift to deter any such paradox. Beyond our ken...
The 'can' part means He can't create a rock He can't lift, the 'cannot' part means there's a rock He can't lift. Both of which go against omnipotence.

OldTimeRadio said:
Quazi, my friend, you obviously slept through the first week of Theology 101.

That's where it's taught that God isn't ILLOGICAL.

Though the question's usually phrased there as "Can an omnipotent God build a square triangle?"
Isn't illogical? You mean He's logical? But He goes against all logic.
As for the square triangle, I can build one of those so it's a bit of a no brainer as whether God would be able to. ;)
 
Alas, this is a no-win situation and will likely always remain that way.

Theists see it one way and non-theists another.

We can argue that there are a lot more of the former than the latter, but ascertaining Truth isn't supposed to be a popularity contest.

On the other hand I'd probably be considerably less smug if the numbers broke the other way.

But they don't. <g>
 
OldTimeRadio said:
Theists see it one way and non-theists another.
If only it were that simple bud.
Non-theists at least agree with each other, but theists see it lots of different ways and will argue with each other until the end of time as to who or what God is and how He wants us to live our lives.
 
QuaziWashboard said:
gncxx said:
Yeah, but if you can do anything you want you can create a rock you simultaneously can and cannot lift to deter any such paradox. Beyond our ken...
The 'can' part means He can't create a rock He can't lift, the 'cannot' part means there's a rock He can't lift. Both of which go against omnipotence.

He can't lift the rock he's created, but he CAN lift it. So He can do anything. He's got it covered.
 
gncxx said:
QuaziWashboard said:
gncxx said:
Yeah, but if you can do anything you want you can create a rock you simultaneously can and cannot lift to deter any such paradox. Beyond our ken...
The 'can' part means He can't create a rock He can't lift, the 'cannot' part means there's a rock He can't lift. Both of which go against omnipotence.

He can't lift the rock he's created, but he CAN lift it. So He can do anything. He's got it covered.
If he can and cannot, both at the same time, then in one part of that, He still can't lift the rock, so in that respect He can't be omnipotent. In another part of it He can lift the rock so simultaniously He can't create a rock He can't lift.
It doesn't matter if He can do both, because the flip side will always be that there is something he can't do.
As you said...'He can't lift the rock he's created, but he CAN lift it.' There's still a 'can't' in the equasion.


I'm going for a lie down now.
 
Back
Top