Thread: God - Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient

Why did you start another thread on this? Don't you think we have beaten it into the ground enough in the other three threads?

Here we go.

Originally Posted by really

Omni - Generally means "In all ways" or "infinite in nature."

Therefore:

Omni-potence - All Power; Unlimited and Absolute.

That is correct.

Originally Posted by really

Self-destruction is impossible, by nature.

That is a limit, and therefore out of the scope of the definition.

Originally Posted by really

He cannot

No matter what action you mention after those words, you give an attribute that does not apply to an omnipotent being. There is no "cannot" with an infinitely powerful being. It is a direct, blatant, obvious contradiction.

Originally Posted by really

If the "God is invincible and so must destroy himself" and "God is infinite and therefore must be finite" arguments were true

Strawman arguments. Nobody here has claimed either of those.

I said he could destroy himself and that he is supposed to be infinite, which would make him unlimited. You are giving him finite qualities. I'm not. I am, however, saying the fictitious character does not actually exist.

If you disagree, please explain in detail why, while addressing the points I made!

I just did. Open your eyes. Be honest.

I'll respond to what little you have elaborated on. You'll still probably have to go over what you've said. UM, you don't have to respond to this thread if it bothers you. Don't come here if you're going to beat a dead horse.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is a limit, and therefore out of the scope of the definition.

Not within Omnipotence. If nothing is outside the Absolute Reality, then there is no possibility for it to be limited; no way for it to be destroyed.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No matter what action you mention after those words, you give an attribute that does not apply to an omnipotent being. There is no "cannot" with an infinitely powerful being. It is a direct, blatant, obvious contradiction.

Neither does anything apply to "He can". Mind the linguistic limitation, if it is confusing. With the three main terms applied, God doesn't do anything and doesn't not do anything. It is also beyond both is and is not. In saying "He cannot be destroyed" simply affirms His invincibility. Tell me what would a Being like God "do"?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Strawman arguments. Nobody here has claimed either of those.

I said he could destroy himself and that he is supposed to be infinite, which would make him unlimited. You are giving him finite qualities. I'm not. I am, however, saying the fictitious character does not actually exist.

Those arguments have been elsewhere, and they are absurd. You actually just argued that God's Omnipotence doesn't exist because of itself.

God's omnipotence would be analogous to the omnipotence of a processor that
governs the workings of a virtual world. The processor is 'aware' of all that
happens in the program, for it must be in order for those things of the program
to occur.

Comments, questions, concerns?

Originally Posted by really

Not within Omnipotence. If nothing is outside the Absolute Reality, then there is no possibility for it to be limited; no way for it to be destroyed.

You made the point that he is LIMITED from being able to destory himself. Did you not?

Originally Posted by really

Neither does anything apply to "He can".

He is unable to do anything at all? WTF????? That is the opposite of being omnipotent.

Originally Posted by really

God doesn't do anything and doesn't not do anything.

Om, uh, uhhhh.

Didn't you accuse me of being illogical in another thread? The most basic ability to reason would show you the contradiction in your above statement.

Okay, I am officially through debating you on this. You are either a troll or in need of psychiatric hospitalization, and this is about the fourth thread on this topic I have debated you in in the past eight days. You are just too far beyond reason on this issue. Good luck.

An omnipotent being would be able to destroy itself. It would see suicide as a challenge, and kill itself to prove it could do anything. We are god's debris people, he is slowly rebuilding himself through consciousness and evolution!

Okay man, I made a thread on this called "Could God create a rock so big..."

And another thread called "A clearer explanation of salvation"

In about four days, a war was raging. In the end, one of the threads was locked. Both sides had made strong points, and the argument remained unresolved. (Only in the thread. Personally, most everybody else believed that they had the answer) I think that's the way it's gonna remain, and I don't think another one of these threads is a good idea.

Originally Posted by really

Everything is God; nothing is outside of God - that which is All Reality and Existence; infinite potentiality and beyond space and time. This means God is Eternally not subject to a location; cannot be a "dude" who waits around and neither does He posses any human characteristics, names or emotions.

As far as I'm concerned, this is pretty much the only sane way of talking about god. I've never run across a good definition that doesn't pretty much boil down to this.

Isn't this just about semantics? It always was. God I hate these arguments...

It is just about semantics which is what makes it good

Originally Posted by Invader

God's omnipotence would be analogous to the omnipotence of a processor that
governs the workings of a virtual world. The processor is 'aware' of all that
happens in the program, for it must be in order for those things of the program
to occur.

Comments, questions, concerns?

Woohoo! Good to see some positive understanding! Yeah that's a pretty good analogy, but I'd say that it is analogous to the hardware processor. I also guess what you've said would closer fit Omniscience, as it is All-Knowing. It is Omnipresent in the sense that it's beyond the program parameters/limitations yet watching over them as the hardware, and Omnipotent in the sense that it is the Absolute (the hardware cannot be programed to die, nor programed to live; I.e. beyond programs/software, yet within them).

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You made the point that he is LIMITED from being able to destory himself. Did you not?

Where? On the contrary, you said God is limited from being unlimited. I don't see the point. Seriously, is there such thing as "infinity" in your world? What about "Absolute?"

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

He is unable to do anything at all? WTF????? That is the opposite of being omnipotent.

It is not actually about whether He "can" or "cannot", but that it's just a matter of paradigm. Reconsidering the three terms, God influences All Creation as a consequence of God, not a consequence of actions. Yet, actions are not excluded. They are just one and the same. Actions are dualistic; "doing" and "doer," for example. But not in the case of God - Creation=Creator.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Om, uh, uhhhh.

Didn't you accuse me of being illogical in another thread? The most basic ability to reason would show you the contradiction in your above statement.

An example is that God is beyond "doingness," if you consider the three terms. There's no contradiction, because again, it's nondualistic.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Okay, I am officially through debating you on this. You are either a troll or in need of psychiatric hospitalization, and this is about the fourth thread on this topic I have debated you in in the past eight days. You are just too far beyond reason on this issue. Good luck.

No big deal. I didn't make this thread for you alone, but anyone who finds God-concepts difficult to understand. Perhaps I made it more difficult for some, or less for others, but whatever. I think this thread is much more direct yet controversial to popular belief, but perhaps more controversial to atheists.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Okay man, I made a thread on this called "Could God create a rock so big..."

And another thread called "A clearer explanation of salvation"

In about four days, a war was raging. In the end, one of the threads was locked. Both sides had made strong points, and the argument remained unresolved. (Only in the thread. Personally, most everybody else believed that they had the answer) I think that's the way it's gonna remain, and I don't think another one of these threads is a good idea.

It wasn't much of a war, I'd say about 50% of it was just game-playing and poking fun. All I'm interested in is getting to the core of the issue. When it comes down to it, I'm just trying to make things clearer. But perhaps, it is just hypocrisy, who knows.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

As far as I'm concerned, this is pretty much the only sane way of talking about god. I've never run across a good definition that doesn't pretty much boil down to this.

That's good to know really, glad it helps. This is the kind of information that is stripped of dogma and religious error, so it's more likely to be clear. Even still, most atheists probably dislike it.

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

Isn't this just about semantics? It always was. God I hate these arguments...

Anything to contribute?

Originally Posted by really

I'm sure if we better understood these terms, we'd better understand God in concept. I thought I'd bring this together to simplify those arguments against God, which usually miss out important points.

First, let's look at the prefix "Omni-"

Omni - Generally means "In all ways" or "infinite in nature."

Therefore:

Omni-potence - All Power; Unlimited and Absolute. Self-destruction is impossible, by nature.

Omni-present - All Places and everywhere present; Unlimited and beyond Space and Time. Everywhere and nowhere are identical.

Omni-science - All knowledge; arises from both Omnipotence and Omnipresence. Intrinsic knowledge by infinite potential and Self-Existence.

The conclusions:

Everything is God; nothing is outside of God - that which is All Reality and Existence; infinite potentiality and beyond space and time. This means God is Eternally not subject to a location; cannot be a "dude" who waits around and neither does He posses any human characteristics, names or emotions.

He cannot be destroyed or Create non-existence because of what He Is. If the "God is invincible and so must destroy himself" and "God is infinite and therefore must be finite" arguments were true, they should simultaneously be false to maintain consistency, which is even more nonsensical. Such arguments of God's limitations (fail to) refute God with illogical premises and have no valid foundation, often ignoring the non-dualistic paradigm.

Isn't it obvious why science would fail to "prove" God? Can any argument truly refute Reality itself, without fail?

Put this way, I can affirm that you're talking about a real aspect of Being (or rather, talking about all of Being in an accurate manner), but why then personify it as "God" and "He"? This approach to God itself refutes the notion of God as an entity: the character in the storybooks of the monotheistic religions. This God created the world only in the sense that a tree creates leaves, not as a potter shapes clay.

Why draw a face on the universe? Why not just let it be?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Put this way, I can affirm that you're talking about a real aspect of Being (or rather, talking about all of Being in an accurate manner), but why then personify it as "God" and "He"? This approach to God itself refutes the notion of God as an entity: the character in the storybooks of the monotheistic religions. This God created the world only in the sense that a tree creates leaves, not as a potter shapes clay.

Why draw a face on the universe? Why not just let it be?

I see what you're saying. I've called it "God" to relate it to, yet re-contextualize the old notions of God: the ones that have been criticized and passed off as nonsense; those that have created a bad image of God, whether it'd be that He'd punish humans or that He is a "sky daddy."

Even so, the personification on its own is just a language ideal, because to most people spiritual reality is hard enough to conceptualize. But "God the Father", for example, is symbolic and can help. The fact is, God is another name for Divine Reality. After saying that God and Reality are the same (which they are), but concluding that therefore the term "God" is irrelevant and "just Reality is enough" (materialism, most often), is just a naivete. Reality is exactly that, but God refers to Divine Reality. Both essentially the same, it's just that one is considered normal to human experience, whereas the other is extraordinary. I'd agree that Divine Reality is Nameless, but for the purposes of discussion, "God" is convenient to an extent.

Infinity does not exist in any real system.

The word "Apparent infinity" is more fitting to reality.

"Apparently" to many that pill is hard to swallow for many people, but sorry, your "god" is not infinite

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Infinity does not exist in any real system.

The word "Apparent infinity" is more fitting to reality.

"Apparently" to many that pill is hard to swallow for many people, but sorry, your "god" is not infinite

Explain. What about the Absolute Reality? The nonlinear domain? Eternity? Existence?

"Apparent infinity" doesn't even apply here, since it is the infinite Reality that is obstructed by perception (not the reverse).

Originally Posted by really

Explain. What about the Absolute Reality? The nonlinear domain? Eternity? Existence?

"Apparent infinity" doesn't even apply here, since it is the infinite Reality that is obstructed by perception (not the reverse).

Can you elaborate on "Absolute Reality" and especially "nonlinear domain", if you by that mean a reality without space-time it is still not infinite.

Eternity is just as infinity.

Eternity can we translate to a potential infinity in time (Since there was a beginning, existence has not always been). It is impossible to know at any level whether existence will continue for an eternity, therefore it is not valid to say existence goes on in eternity, as many believe.

My main point is, reality (maybe your "absolute reality"?) is not infinite, but by human comprehension infinity is a describable word for what appears to be infinity.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Eternity can we translate to a potential infinity in time (Since there was a beginning, existence has not always been). It is impossible to know at any level whether existence will continue for an eternity, therefore it is not valid to say existence goes on in eternity, as many believe.

Eternity is not a limitless amount of time--that usage is a bastardization deriving from a failure to grasp the concept. Eternity is outside or beyond time, the dualistic opposite of linear time. It is beginningless as well as endless. It is the fixed background against which time moves, the still pool upon which our reality reflects. Taken differently, eternity is the view on reality from which everything is accomplished and nothing changes, from which what we take for change is merely a reflection of the perpetual state of being. This ground of being is what the OP is calling God, and I am questioning the need to personify.

Originally Posted by really

I see what you're saying. I've called it "God" to relate it to, yet re-contextualize the old notions of God: the ones that have been criticized and passed off as nonsense; those that have created a bad image of God, whether it'd be that He'd punish humans or that He is a "sky daddy."

Even so, the personification on its own is just a language ideal, because to most people spiritual reality is hard enough to conceptualize. But "God the Father", for example, is symbolic and can help. The fact is, God is another name for Divine Reality. After saying that God and Reality are the same (which they are), but concluding that therefore the term "God" is irrelevant and "just Reality is enough" (materialism, most often), is just a naivete. Reality is exactly that, but God refers to Divine Reality. Both essentially the same, it's just that one is considered normal to human experience, whereas the other is extraordinary. I'd agree that Divine Reality is Nameless, but for the purposes of discussion, "God" is convenient to an extent.

You and I can find common ground philosophically, but an awful lot of God-worshipers are big on exclusivity. Isn't the character God in their stories a little difficult to reconcile with your Divine Reality? Doesn't the God concept, the personification of the eternal, obstruct the Grand Unity at least as often as it points the way?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Eternity is not a limitless amount of time--that usage is a bastardization deriving from a failure to grasp the concept. Eternity is outside or beyond time, the dualistic opposite of linear time. It is beginningless as well as endless. It is the fixed background against which time moves, the still pool upon which our reality reflects. Taken differently, eternity is the view on reality from which everything is accomplished and nothing changes, from which what we take for change is merely a reflection of the perpetual state of being. This ground of being is what the OP is calling God, and I am questioning the need to personify.

Note the "Since there was a beginning, existence has not always been", thus my usage of the word.

I don't understand (Well, I do) why so many people personify their "god", it is truly as humans make "god" in theirs image instead of the opposite, as they claim!

I hate to use the word god, it is so vague and the interpretation of the word is very subjective, and when the vast majority of humans use the word god it is a personified god, which don't exist as they think.

Well, AUM (Absolute Unbounded Manifold) is not a person. I think the need to personify such thing is partly because of the the heart-warming fuzzy feeling and partly because of the parental role it provides (psychological) and more.

Read this on the different infinities:

"Potential infinity - refers to a procedure that gets closer and closer to, but never quite reaches, an infinite end. For instance, the sequence of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, ...
gets higher and higher, but it has no end; it never gets to infinity. Infinity is just an indication of a direction -- it's "somewhere off in the distance." Chasing this kind of infinity is like chasing a rainbow or trying to sail to the edge of the world -- you may think you see it in the distance, but when you get to where you thought it was, you see it is still further away. Geometrically, imagine an infinitely long straight line; then "infinity" is off at the "end" of the line. Analogous procedures are given by limits In calculus, whether they use infinity or not. For example, limx to 0 (sin x)/x = 1. This means that when we choose values of x that are closer and closer to zero, but never quite equal to zero, then (sin x)/x gets closer and closer to one.

Completed infinity, or actual infinity, is an infinity that one actually reaches; the process is already done. For instance, let's put braces around that sequence mentioned earlier: { 1, 2, 3, 4, ... }
With this notation, we are indicating the set of all positive integers. This is just one object, a set. But that set has infinitely many members. By that I don't mean that it has a large finite number of members and it keeps getting more members. Rather, I mean that it already has infinitely many members.
We can also indicate the completed infinity geometrically. For instance, the below shows a one-to-one correspondence between points on an infinitely long line and points on a semicircle. There are no points for plus or minus infinity on the line, but it is natural to attach those "numbers" to the endpoints of the semicircle.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Note the "Since there was a beginning, existence has not always been", thus my usage of the word.

I noted it as a false assumption underlying the failure to grasp eternity in the context of this discussion--perhaps I should have addressed it at greater length than simply pointing out that eternity is beginningless.

"Beginning" is a narrative contrivance: a literary device, a fiction. Existence only has a beginning if you're telling a story about it. There is no actual point where events are cleanly severed from their causes so that they may 'begin,' even if it is often convenient to speak as if it were so. The ordered march of events we perceive is a manifestation of the eternal; there is only one Now, which always has been and always will be.

It's always doing this: us, all of it.

Spoiler for heaven:

There is a party, everyone is there.
Everyone will leave at exactly the same time.
Its hard to imagine that nothing at all
Could be so exciting, and so much fun.

Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.

When this kiss is over it will start again.
It will not be any different, it will be exactly
The same.
Its hard to imagine that nothing at all
Could be so exciting, could be so much fun.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I noted it as a false assumption underlying the failure to grasp eternity in the context of this discussion--perhaps I should have addressed it at greater length than simply pointing out that eternity is beginningless.

"Beginning" is a narrative contrivance: a literary device, a fiction. Existence only has a beginning if you're telling a story about it. There is no actual point where events are cleanly severed from their causes so that they may 'begin,' even if it is often convenient to speak as if it were so. The ordered march of events we perceive is a manifestation of the eternal; there is only one Now, which always has been and always will be.

It's always doing this: us, all of it.

Well, eternity has more than one meaning:

1. (uncountable) Existence without end, infinite time.
2. (countable) A period of time which extends infinitely far into the future.
3. (metaphysical) The remainder of time that elapses after death.
4. (informal, hyperbolic) A comparatively long time.

And some use the word for timelessness.

The beginning is not at all fiction, but it requires a lengthy layout to explain it probably.

But again, from a human perspective it might be easier to grasp an existence without beginning. The concepts we are talking about are so blurred to us that much of what we are saying is the same, but from different perspectives.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Can you elaborate on "Absolute Reality" and especially "nonlinear domain", if you by that mean a reality without space-time it is still not infinite.

The nonlinear domain is the field that prevails beyond the linear world, so it is infinite in the sense that it is beyond space and time. The term is often used characteristic to the nature of consciousness and could be said to be the domain of quantum mechanics and infinite potentiality.

The Absolute is what prevails beyond all limitations as the very context and totality of Reality itself. It is infinite because it is all there is, because nothing is outside of itself, and that it is immeasurable, timeless and invincible.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

My main point is, reality (maybe your "absolute reality"?) is not infinite, but by human comprehension infinity is a describable word for what appears to be infinity.

Just because it cannot be proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Rather, I think it is more of a reason to say it is existence itself - that which cannot be proven, and even the "proving" itself denotes a linear construct and a misunderstanding of paradigm.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

You and I can find common ground philosophically, but an awful lot of God-worshipers are big on exclusivity. Isn't the character God in their stories a little difficult to reconcile with your Divine Reality?

The difficulty would be different for everyone. But yes, I see your point. Really, what should I do? Should I not point out that this is all equivalent to God anyway?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Doesn't the God concept, the personification of the eternal, obstruct the Grand Unity at least as often as it points the way?

Yes, but that is just because it is a concept. All concepts I see as a limitation. This one however, like most other spiritual philosophy helps weaken other concepts, and those that otherwise would have been misleading.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Note the "Since there was a beginning, existence has not always been", thus my usage of the word.

As Taosaur said, eternity is not the potential infinity of time but merely the context of time. It is a misconception to say that eternity will never be known if it is not endured, yet eternity is not endurable because it is outside of time. What is timeless has no beginning or end.

Who marked the beginning of existence? Beginnings and endings are arbitrary, along with the entire timeline itself. There is nothing but Reality, and so there is no starting or stopping it. If there is only existence, there always has been and forever shall be. Who would be there to mark the beginning, and how would it arise out of non-existence? The simplicity of it all is shrouded in a forest of concepts.

See my former post about the word "eternity".

Timelessness is ONE of the ways to use the word, only one.

But that is not important, eternity is equally as invalid as infinity, I am talking about real systems.

Beginning is required or one will end up in stupid illogical circles.

I direct you and Taosaur to this chapter in the book trilogy "My Big TOE".

Page 123: http://books.google.com/books?id=RYH...age&q=&f=false

See also page 279 about infinity and how it relates to reality. Though some concepts/terms are unknown to you when the book is not read in order.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RYH...age&q=&f=false

Happy reading, you won't regret it!

If you find the reading slightly interesting I advise you strongly to read the trilogy for free or buy the books.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

See my former post about the word "eternity".

Timelessness is ONE of the ways to use the word, only one.

Well, that is what it means in this discussion. That which is eternal is outside of time and therefore it is timeless. There's no need to ignore that, and the context in which we're speaking grants its validity. However many definitions there are is irrelevant when there is one already defined and suited for this discussion. I'm sure many would already agree.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

But that is not important, eternity is equally as invalid as infinity, I am talking about real systems.

Beginning is required or one will end up in stupid illogical circles.

Why is a beginning required - is it just for the sake of the intellect?

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

I direct you and Taosaur to this chapter in the book trilogy "My Big TOE".

Page 123: http://books.google.com/books?id=RYH...age&q=&f=false

See also page 279 about infinity and how it relates to reality. Though some concepts/terms are unknown to you when the book is not read in order.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RYH...age&q=&f=false

Happy reading, you won't regret it!

If you find the reading slightly interesting I advise you strongly to read the trilogy for free or buy the books.

It's interesting but from what I've read of it, it doesn't really resolve anything. Why does Thomas identify that a causal system is limited, yet that there still must be a beginning? The only things that can begin are those in a causal system - but even that has no actual existence. An "event" is also arbitrary. Reality is not an event because it is timeless, causeless and all-encompassing (See OP). What is nondual and Absolute has nothing outside of itself and so there is no way for it to magically "begin", but rather, it is the context in which all beginnings and endings can even be perceived at all.

As for the "infinity" argument, I'm still not convinced. You're never going to be able to "prove" or "demonstrate" infinity with finite, logical or linear terms. Infinity is what is beyond these, and beyond the comprehension thereof.

When someone speaks of the infinite Reality, they're talking about something that is far beyond all limitation, comprehension and dualistic conceptualization. It is still known and understood, but not by the mind. The mind asks that it must be evident, but it already is.