Omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence... etc.

[Jackalope]

And no bacon.  Obviously not omniscient - he doesn't know that shit is delicious.

Or maybe he does and he's just saving it all for his greedy self.

So not omniscient, or he's a dick. Got it.

[Napoléon]

We've finally got this thing figured out. And all it took was bacon.

[CapnAwesome]

Great thread. I've been fascinated with when the idea of an omni-whatever god actually was concieved for quite some time. Certainly the Jewish god isn't believed to be any of these things. I haven't read anything in the New Testament that makes those claims either really. It seems to be a modern invention with Christianity or perhaps Islam is the first to make the claims.

[Minimalist]

Like I said, the act of creating the universe doesn't automatically mean infinite power.

Really?

What's in second place?

[Brian37]

Is god actually any of these things, and is there any basis for it in literature?


I'm wondering because I watched a talk recently where a Jewish scholar said that the Abrahamic god (or his respective religions) makes no actual claims for omniscience, omnipresence or omnipotence. But this seemed to fly in the face of what I thought I knew. I've seen plenty of Christians attempting to justify such things. However from the verses I've read, none actually outright claim omniscience, or omnipresence, or omnipotence. It actually seems rather vague, or implied, saying things like "with god, all things are possible" for example. Well, is that claiming omnipotence or not? Same goes with "god is with you always" and other shit like that. Does it really mean god is omnipresent?

What is actually the case*? Do these concepts have any real basis in literature or is it something everybody assumes and talks about, but in reality isn't actually outright claimed?

If the latter, then why do we attach these ideas to the concept of a god? Why is it assumed, even by the religious, that god is any of these things if it's not actually supported in their books?


*The actual case is god doesn't exist and he's none of these things. I'm more asking to hear if there's any justification that can be made from a literature point of view. Something I don't normally give a rat's arse about but I find it strange that these omni-things are talked about if they're not actually claimed in the books...

This simply is one of many tactics over the years , and not just Jews, but every religion, to try to remain relevant by watering it down, or trying to match it to science. I have seen this from Hindus and Muslims. Now while the Asian regions don't have deities, even they try to adapt their ancient clubs to the modern world.

[KUSA]

It's a dick waving contest.

And we know how much Yahweh loves dicks.

[Napoléon]

Like I said, the act of creating the universe doesn't automatically mean infinite power.

Really?

What's in second place?

Enough to make the universe, obviously. You're the guy assuming that automatically equals infinite power though.

[Minimalist]

Close enough.

[JuliaL]

Like I said, the act of creating the universe doesn't automatically mean infinite power.

Really?

What's in second place?

Let's grant for discussion the existence of the God described in the bibles and apologized for ever after...
He must exist, at least with respect to causation, outside our universe.
We know nothing about His powers in this alternate space.
For all we know He is far from omnipotent there.  In fact He could well be sulking over the poor marks He received in His semester universe creation assignment.
It would explain a lot.

Yeah, but if you're making shit up, why not go for gold?  All you have to do is say, "Yeah, the paradoxes don't make sense.  But god is so omni-powerful that he's stronger even than paradox."  See, easy.

I guess I didn't get across where I'm coming from in my previous post. It's not that they go for gold that perplexes me. It's that actually, the books don't explicitly outline their god's omnipotence. They certainly give a strong hint at it, but like the Jewish guy said (I'll try and find the vid), it's not strictly something that the religious need to defend. Which is what confuses me, because an awful lot of religious people defend the omni bullshit to the hilt like it is actually scripture.

To me, saying your god created the universe, as powerful as that implies he is, it doesn't automatically mean he's omnipotent, like Min is trying to suggest. Same with any other verses that I've seen, they don't outright say god can do anything as and when he pleases. But I'm not a bible basher which is why I'm kinda cross-referencing that.

Societal cohesion is much more important to successful=persistent societies than is doctrinal correspondence with reality.
Persons come along for the ride in this context.  Going with the flow, agreeing with the premises of paradox yet denying their consequents bonds populations into cultures in a symbiosis where both the individuals and the cultures prosper.

It actually works better if the espoused concept is arbitrary and untrue.  
People love defending lost causes.  Think Cubs fans.
How unique can you claim your sect is if just anybody can come up with the same answers?

[bennyboy]

It actually works better if the espoused concept is arbitrary and untrue.  
People love defending lost causes.  Think Cubs fans.
How unique can you claim your sect is if just anybody can come up with the same answers?

I have a theory about this.  I think the goofier the myth, the more easily people can stick to it.  Understanding religion requries a suspension of rational thought.  Which is easier to give up on-- something that makes 90% sense, but you're working out the details?  Or something that makes 10% sense, and you just say "fuck it"?

To me, the former would encourage rational thought, as you try to polish off a near-perfect world view.  The latter is the one that causes you to really turn off that left brain and go instead with imagination and feelings. Therefore, it will be easier to fully commit to a complete fairy tale than to something that seems plausible.