echi wrote:real life wrote:echi wrote:He could be omnipresent if his entire world consisted only of wherever he is at any moment. (Right?)
Or, he could be omnipresent if he considered himself to be part of everything that exists.
He could consider himself such. But if we want to talk to anyone other than ourselves and be understood, it is usually best to use a commonly understood definition.
If you wanna make it up as you go along, my toddler does the same. Perhaps we can arrange a play day. Um, no never mind.
He wouldn't be making up his own definition. The word "omnipresent" would just apply differently to him if he really had such a world view.But the proper definition of the word, I think, would still hold.
Well, Echi , turns out you are correct. Our friend with the swastika does also have a unique definition of "universe" to accompany his unique definition of "omnipresent".
Of course, he still can't claim (and to be fair, he doesn't claim) to be omniscient or omnipotent even in his own little universe.
So his unique definition of God, even if applied only to his little universe must (surprise!) also be different from the normal definition of God as One who is all powerful, all knowing, etc.
So if you accept his unusual definition of universe, his unusual definition of omnipresent and his unusual definition of God, well hey.........I guess we don't disagree at all.
Just don't get into a business deal with him or anyone like him. He probably has an unusual definition of "partnership", "agreement", "contract", "money", "performance", "profit", "responsibility", "liability", etc.
