Is God omnipotent?

@prothero,

prothero;106966 wrote:

Well actually I respect agnostics and atheists and consider their position rational, but for the purposes of the thread one needs to at least consider the possibility that the "divine" exists and that it has attributes. If the divine exists does it need to be omnipotent? In fact is the notion of an omnipotent divine compatible with our knowledge of the history and nature of the universe as we understand it in the modern age? Could a non omnipotent entity still be considered god and an entity worthy of praise and worship?

Do you mean like a group or one highly genetically evolved living organism (may or may not look like a human) capable of superhuman abilities. A Superman type of living organism.

Sure, that seems possible.

In that case, the superhuman should be respected and admired.

1 Reply

@Alexandergreat3,

Alexandergreat3;108282 wrote:

In that case, the superhuman should be respected and admired.

A god who can bring order from the formless void, and "persuade" the universe into its various forms and values deserves respect and praise whether that "entity" is omnipotent or not.
I would say omnipotence is actually an undersirable trait of deity not a requirement at all.

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;108374 wrote:

I would say omnipotence is actually an undersirable trait of deity not a requirement at all.

Perhaps. But in that case you may have a god. But not, God.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;108378 wrote:

Perhaps. But in that case you may have a god. But not, God.

And just who "defined" God for you? Smile

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;108378 wrote:

Perhaps. But in that case you may have a god. But not, God.

what's the difference?
you mean it is speculation rather than fact? but again, as far as the idea is concerned, what's the difference?

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;108262 wrote:

And why would you think, God has the slightest interest in what happens to you while you are riding your motorcycle? or that god has that kind of a detailed plan for you or anyone else for that matter?

Personally I wouldn't think this. I don't think there is a plan. In fact, I don't even believe there is an architect.

prothero;108262 wrote:

I never really argue with other people's subjective exprience. My response is that belief in god, in higher purpose, in transcendent value is capable of giving people the inspiration to do that which they think themselves incapable of doing on their own or for themselves. God may talk to you but if it is in a loud clear voice I would have my concerns.

I often find myself arguing with people's subjective experiences, because they are often wrong, and sometimes they try to create various rules, policies, and codes of conduct based on their erroneous experiences that they expect me to abide by. How can I not argue?

Other than that, I am in agreement with your thoughts on transcendent value as inspiration. As an artist, I often seek the transcendent. I share your concerns about the "loud clear voice." There are many of them these days . . .

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

[QUOTE=TickTockMan;108875]Personally I wouldn't think this. [/QUOTE] Neither would I. Even the religious should look both ways before crossing the street.:shocked:

[QUOTE=TickTockMan;108875] I don't think there is a plan. [/QUOTE]
Well not the kind of detailed plan the concept of divine omniscience calls for. I still see a sort of striving for order, complexity, life, mind, experience and aesthetics but not much "personal protection" involved.:detective:

[QUOTE=TickTockMan;108875] In fact, I don't even believe there is an architect . [/QUOTE] Well now you have gone too far. The universe remains ordered, rationally intelligible and aesthetically pleasing. Too much "telos" to be accidental or purposeless in my view.:perplexed:

1 Reply

@prothero,

This four-dimensional (spacetime) universe is toy given to an adolescent deity on his 70000000000th birthday. This teenaged deity lives in 45 dimensions. His father sometimes goes on business trips to a hyper-verse of 505 dimensions.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;109063 wrote:

Well not the kind of detailed plan the concept of divine omniscience calls for. I still see a sort of striving for order, complexity, life, mind, experience and aesthetics but not much "personal protection" involved.:detective:

This may be key. This is what you see, but is it really the case that it is so? Perhaps it is just our human minds that are detecting this supposed order you mention, and not some "divine creator mind" that exists out there somewhere.

Note: I am not suggesting that if human minds were not present to perceive the universe that it would not exist. I see no reason to believe that this would be the case.

prothero;109063 wrote:

Well now you have gone too far. The universe remains ordered, rationally intelligible and aesthetically pleasing. Too much "telos" to be accidental or purposeless in my view.:perplexed:

Again, some of these points seems a bit subjective, but, as you noted, this is your view. Mine is slightly different.

Do you believe that the universe was created for our benefit? Your "aesthetically pleasing" remark just got me wondering.

1 Reply

@prothero,

Both theism and atheism could described as white lies. Do we not have emotional reasons for adopting one view or the other?

But "lie" should be understood in an ironic metaphorical sense.

2 Replies

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109302 wrote:

Both theism and atheism could described as white lies. Do we not have emotional reasons for adopting one view or the other?

But "lie" should be understood in an ironic metaphorical sense.

Doesn't this belong on the other thread? This is the one about impotence. I mean omnipotence.

0 Replies

@TickTockMan,

[QUOTE=TickTockMan;109290] This may be key. This is what you see, but is it really the case that it is so? Perhaps it is just our human minds that are detecting this supposed order you mention, and not some "divine creator mind" that exists out there somewhere. [/QUOTE] I do not know (humility in such matters is called for). It is what I see and feel. Such religious phrases as "the kingdom lies within" or the kingdom is spread out before you but you do not see" come to mind. I do not mean that as an insult to your vision just that spiritual visions often imply that there is more to reality than objective materialism. I think the order and purpose "exist" just as I think the universe "exists" when we do not perceive it. We discover the order and natural law we do not "invent" it or impose it. These qualities are inherent in the universe.

[QUOTE=TickTockMan;109290] Note: I am not suggesting that if human minds were not present to perceive the universe that it would not exist. I see no reason to believe that this would be the case. [/QUOTE] Good, because except as an exercise in critical thinking such notions strike me as "exceedingly silly".

[QUOTE=TickTockMan;109290] Again, some of these points seems a bit subjective, but, as you noted, this is your view. Mine is slightly different. [/QUOTE] We are not here to change each other's world views, merely to exchange thoughts.

[QUOTE=TickTockMan;109290] Do you believe that the universe was created for our benefit? Your "aesthetically pleasing" remark just got me wondering. [/QUOTE]No. I fail to conceive of the purpose of the universe as the creation of man, or the universe as some kind of stage for the human drama of creation, fall, and redemption. Such notions strike me as exceedingly anthropomorphic.

The purpose as I see it (the divine aim) is creative advance, novelty, the formation of value. Humans because of their high level of experientialism, rationality and self reflection and awareness, do represent a high level of value but we are part of (not the purpose of) creation. I doubt very much that we are the first, the only, or the last form of intelligent life in the universe but that is part of the notion that the universe does have purposes and intentions which bring about human like creatures. .

The universe is "aesthetically pleasing" in fulfillment of divine purpose not human aims. That is not to say that we cannot find it "aesthetically pleasing" too or that the divine may not derive some pleasure from Beethoven. My conception would not be one of complete divine indifference or of changeless, impassible divine agency but one should not confuse human aims with divine aims.

---------- Post added 12-08-2009 at 01:15 PM ----------

Reconstructo;109302 wrote:

Both theism and atheism could described as white lies. Do we not have emotional reasons for adopting one view or the other?
But "lie" should be understood in an ironic metaphorical sense.

That seems to go along with your "truth" is a white lie notion. I think I understand that we never actually possess the "truth" so our human "truths" are ironically also "lies" but I am not sure it helps except in the cause of "humility'.

What I am not sure about is whether you think there is a transcendent or metaphysical "truth" at all. Is there a "truth" to which human notions of truth are better or worse approximations? or is all truth a human invention (not a discovery). Is "man the measure of all things" for you?

1 Reply

@prothero,

I think conceptual truth is only one kind of truth. I respond strongly to myth and see God as one of man's best creations. Of course God can also be conceived as the ground of being that transcends man, and in this sense its God that created man.

No sentence tells the whole truth, I would say. I think modern man is arrogantly caught up in the success of his applied science. He often wants to turn this machine-attitude against himself, and see himself in a mechanistic primitive way.

And religion is interpreted by scientism in a hideously naive way, as if religion were only lies for the enslavement for the gullible. They stab at their own shadow. These pop-atheists seem as emotionally and mythologically motivated as their supposed enemies.

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109323 wrote:

I think conceptual truth is only one kind of truth. I respond strongly to myth and see God as one of man's best creations. Of course God can also be conceived as the ground of being that transcends man, and in this sense its God that created man.

No sentence tells the whole truth, I would say. I think modern man is arrogantly caught up in the success of his applied science. He often wants to turn this machine-attitude against himself, and see himself in a mechanistic primitive way.

And religion is interpreted by scientism in a hideously naive way, as if religion were only lies for the enslavement for the gullible. They stab at their own shadow. These pop-atheists seem as emotionally and mythologically motivated as their supposed enemies.

While I quite agree with virtually all of this.
Still a little vague on the Truth versus the truth.

0 Replies

@prothero,

I use truth with a capital T to represent ideal truth, which I think is ideal in contrast to real. Just as Jung's archetypes are the energy in the contingent myths that manifest them.

It's like the mule and the carrot. We strive toward this ideal Truth, and end up with truths that are finite, imperfect. We chase our projection of ideal Truth.

Jung's archetypes are a big part of my conception of the human being. I think the religious instinct plays a big role in Spinoza's system, to name only one. Spinoza had more than merely rational reasons for his system. He scratched both his rational and mythological itch at the same time, I think.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;109314 wrote:

spiritual visions often imply that there is more to reality than objective materialism. I think the order and purpose "exist" just as I think the universe "exists" when we do not perceive it.

Once, many years ago in my youth, while highly chemically modified by some weird cactus I accidentally ate, I had a vision of a Mayan priest in full ceremonial garb washing dishes in my sink. Was that a manifestation of a reality beyond objective materialism? The next morning there were no dirty dishes in my sink, but at this point I honestly don't remember if there had been dirty dishes in the sink prior to my vision.

prothero;109314 wrote:

We are not here to change each other's world views, merely to exchange thoughts.

Dang. I was hoping you'd come around to seeing things my way . . .

prothero;109314 wrote:

No. I fail to conceive of the purpose of the universe as the creation of man, or the universe as some kind of stage for the human drama of creation, fall, and redemption. Such notions strike me as exceedingly anthropomorphic.

The purpose as I see it (the divine aim) is creative advance, novelty, the formation of value. Humans because of their high level of experientialism, rationality and self reflection and awareness, do represent a high level of value but we are part of (not the purpose of) creation. I doubt very much that we are the first, the only, or the last form of intelligent life in the universe but that is part of the notion that the universe does have purposes and intentions which bring about human like creatures.

The universe is "aesthetically pleasing" in fulfillment of divine purpose not human aims. That is not to say that we cannot find it "aesthetically pleasing" too or that the divine may not derive some pleasure from Beethoven. My conception would not be one of complete divine indifference or of changeless, impassible divine agency but one should not confuse human aims with divine aims.

So what do you see as the purpose, if any, of human beings in all of this? You say that the purpose, as "divine aim", is creative advance, novelty, the formation of value. Whose? Do you mean that as that is how we are being molded by some divine, or outside agency? In other words, that our purpose itself is created? If this is so, what does this mean when it comes to free will?

I confess I'm a bit confused by some of your statements here. Yet, strangely enough, I feel that we may share some common beliefs . . . most peculiar.

TTM

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109302 wrote:

Both theism and atheism could described as white lies. Do we not have emotional reasons for adopting one view or the other?

But "lie" should be understood in an ironic metaphorical sense.

In what way is atheism a lie exactly? I don't see how a lack of belief can be considered a lie. So am I lying about the non-existence of gremlins?

0 Replies

@prothero,

Well, wouldn't agnostic be a better term than atheist? And maybe gremlins do exist. I wouldn't bet on it but I haven't traveled all that much. Smile

Does atheism have emotional gratifications for you? Do you enjoy seeing yourself as less gullible than theists? Do you adopt the term because it's bolder, more exciting perhaps than "agnostic"?

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

[QUOTE=TickTockMan;109416] So what do you see as the purpose, if any, of human beings in all of this? You say that the purpose, as "divine aim", is creative advance, novelty, the formation of value. Whose? Do you mean that as that is how we are being molded by some divine, or outside agency? In other words, that our purpose itself is created? If this is so, what does this mean when it comes to free will? [/QUOTE] I think language descriptions of transcendent concepts are always a little vague but here goes:
The ultimate aim is "creation of value". The mechanism is process (becoming not being). Man is a form of value created by process. What is god's role in this (the offering up of possibilities for the creation of higher value). Were "human beings" inevitable, no. Is everything that happens part of the divine will or divine plan, No. (Hence the assertion that God is not omnipotent or omniscient either for that matter). God is co creative with the world. God is a persuasive not a coercive agency.

The divine offers up possibilities for the creation of value and the world exercises agency in responding to the divine persuasion or choosing alternative possibilities. The divine persistently, patiently, and persuasively pushes the universe forward in creative advance. Without the divine no order, no value, no possibilities for value just primordial chaos. God responds to each moment of experience with new possibilities for value, which free creatures reject or accept (responding to the divine persuasion or rejecting it).

One moment of experience perishes, a new moment of experience is born, incorporating elements of the past and choosing from the possibilities of the future, in the never ending process of creative advance. The primordial nature of the divine is the realm of possibilities for value (somewhat akin to Platonic forms) towards which the universe makes uneven and slow but non the less discernable progress (becoming) through process (evolution, nature and natural law). Possibility (spirit) becoming actuality (matter). The universe is an emanation of spirit a manifestation of divine possibility.

[QUOTE=TickTockMan;109416] I confess I'm a bit confused by some of your statements here. Yet, strangely enough, I feel that we may share some common beliefs . . . most peculiar. TTM [/QUOTE] Do you have a conception of transcendent purpose or values? If so, please express it. If not, how do you avoid relativism or even nihilism? Do you see the universe as blind indifference, accidental and ultimately without purpose? Or how do you see it? Any common ground there?

0 Replies

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109515 wrote:

Well, wouldn't agnostic be a better term than atheist?

No because the definitions are different.

Atheists lack belief in god.

Agnostics say there is not enough evidence to say if a god or gods exist or not.

They are exclusive.

Reconstructo;109515 wrote:

And maybe gremlins do exist. I wouldn't bet on it but I haven't traveled all that much.

Well where exactly would you travel to actually make an accurate claim that a god or gods exists?

Reconstructo;109515 wrote:

Does atheism have emotional gratifications for you?

Not any more than the existence of galozimbergerrog.

Reconstructo;109515 wrote:

Do you enjoy seeing yourself as less gullible than theists?

All people have varying degrees of superstition weather they want to admit it or not. Gullibility only lasts until you realize you have been misled. Those who continue the charade after that are far worse than anyone being gullible.

Reconstructo;109515 wrote:

Do you adopt the term because it's bolder, more exciting perhaps than "agnostic"?

Interesting that you use such an approach to a motivation as if to deflect the purpose of truth. Can't fathom that a person would by default would have no belief.

Invisible friends are everywhere, but only one is special?

1 Reply

Is God omnipotent?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know