Omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence... etc.

[Napoléon]

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...

[robvalue]

According to the bible, a firm no on all counts. He makes claims about such things, but his actions betray his very limited powers repeatedly. Even in his own propaganda. What a dick.

I don't know about the Koran and other books, but I'd bet he also comes up short.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The Jewish scholar is correct. The biblical God is described variously as "All-mighty", "Lord of lords", "the All in all", etc. What we make of these statements comes largely from the Western philosophical tradition culminating with the Scholastic Church Fathers. They asked questions like if God is the truly the maximum of goodness and perfection, as stated in the Scriptures, then what would that mean. From that inquiry we get the three omni-s.

[abaris]

There's another question to be asked, and it's a far more important one. Consider for a moment that an Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being exists. What do you think the interests of such a being would be? Concerned over one little planet, one little species?

I think not. It's the same old bullshit of imbuing a god with entirely human feelings, petty grudges, petty interests and petty demands. In short, it's an entirely human creation.

[bennyboy]

There's another question to be asked, and it's a far more important one. Consider for a moment that an Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being exists. What do you think the interests of such a being would be? Concerned over one little planet, one little species?

I think not. It's the same old bullshit of imbuing a god with entirely human feelings, petty grudges, petty interests and petty demands. In short, it's an entirely human creation.

For sure.  Obviously, a Slime People's god would be Omni-slimey.

[Napoléon]

Consider for a moment that an Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being exists. What do you think the interests of such a being would be? Concerned over one little planet, one little species?

This is kinda the point though. If even the religious acknowledged that their god isn't such a being, I think it would be somewhat easier for them to rationalise things like free-will and predestination.

I guess my question is more one of why do they perpetrate this omni idea if it's not one they actually need to believe at all.

[Longhorn]

But is god omnivorous as well?

There was that story where he preferred a lamb over veggies in offering....sooo...?

[bennyboy]

Consider for a moment that an Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being exists. What do you think the interests of such a being would be? Concerned over one little planet, one little species?

This is kinda the point though. If even the religious acknowledged that their god isn't such a being, I think it would be somewhat easier for them to rationalise things like free-will and predestination.

I guess my question is more one of why do they perpetrate this omni idea if it's not one they actually need to believe at all.

The answer to this is obvious, methinks.  The function of the God idea is to provide justice, or at least sense, to an unfair existence, thereby allowing people to get out of bed in the morning.

If God doesn't know everything, then how is he going to (one day, in a land far, far away) repay you for the shit that is your life, here and now?

[Napoléon]

The answer to this is obvious, methinks.  The function of the God idea is to provide justice, or at least sense, to an unfair existence, thereby allowing people to get out of bed in the morning.

If God doesn't know everything, then how is he going to (one day, in a land far, far away) repay you for the shit that is your life, here and now?

Knowing everything is different to knowing enough though. You could conceive a god that knows enough to judge you, and has the power to judge you, without taking the extra leap of saying it's omni this or omni that.

[robvalue]

If they don't max out his attributes, someone can come along and say they have a bigger God.

It's a dick waving contest.

Ask them about slavery in the bible, and suddenly he can't convince a group of barbarians not to own each other as property. He's contextually powerful it seems.