In this thread, pepperlandgirl states (slightly taken out of context, but it doesn’t matter for the purpose of this thread)
And I reply (in part)
The more I think about this, the more interesting it becomes. What’s required to label a being “god”? If the Earth was created by an alien race that implanted life here, is that enough to call them gods? If it was them that appeared to Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed and a bunch of others, does that make them gods? If not, what does?
If you die, and the Judeo-Christian god welcomes you to the afterlife, but admits that all that stuff about omnipotence was just good PR, is it still a god? What if it is but one of several entities?
If humans perfect wormhole travel and terraforming, creating a new planet and shaping its evolution with technology, have humans become gods? If not, what would it take?
I’d really like to hear some opinions about this, especially from theists.
The definition of “God” is really dependent on individual doctrines. The Abrahamic God of Jews, Christians and Muslims is defined as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent only by the definition of those tradtions. There are many other conceptions of deities or “gods” that don’t require that definition, especially in polythesitic traditions.
It can even be argued that Abrahamic traditions contain entities which could easily be defined as deities but are not more by a distinction of semantics rather than substance. For instance, Satan is a god by any polythestic defintion, so are angels and demons. Western tradition does not recognize them as gods simply because they do not match the definition set by those traditions. It’s basically a tautology: Only God is God, the other gods are not God because they are not God. They’re just…something else. Created immortal spirits. Being “created” didn’t prevent the Greek gods from being gods, though.
A “god” is basically whatever a particular traditions says it is.
Can God fit inside a space smaller than Planck length? If so, yada yada.
I suspect the answer is “Yes, because God created physics, so he is not bound by them.” I find this answer to be unsatisfying and a bit of a copout. YMMV.
Diogenes the Cynic where do those definitions of ‘omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent’ come from? Are they written in any of the holy books of these religions. Are there any instances of God refering about ‘himself’ as All Powerful, or are these just human discriptions of God.
Dose omnipotent necessarily equate to infinitely powerful? Several places in the Bible suggest a God that is capable of doing anything ie All Powerful, but not suggestive of Infinite Power. ie. genisis each period of building the universe taking one day, and the 7th day being a rest day. With infinite power the universe could be built in precisely 0 time and no rest would be needed.
Ah, but did God create physics? Basically, there is no agreed definition on what a god is, and therefore any attributes can only be hypothesized. And no way to test whether or not whether any of hypothesized attributes apply to any particular god. So what are we left with as far as saying what a god is?
Great question, Bip. I really don’t know if or when this definition has evern been officially formalized but I know that it’s extropolated from a variety of scriptures. What follows is a few of the passages cited but this is not a complete list. Omipotence:
Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Luke 1:37
For with God nothing shall be impossible.
Revelation 19:6
And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Omniscience:
Psalm 147:4,5
He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.
Acts 15:18
Known to God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Omnipresence (this may be have the weakest, or least most ambiguous scriptural support):
Jeremiah 23:23,24
Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.
I Kings 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?
I do question the validity of Omnipotence as a bit of an exageration based on Human terms. If a being is the most powerful entity in this universe, what does it matter that this entity has an equal in another universe which we will never have any contact with?
Suppose there is one God per universe and none of the universes will ever meet, does that make our God not God?
Suppose again that our God ceases to exits without a universe? Being one with the universe means you got to have one. Does a finite lifespan constitute not being a god when that lifetime is calulated in the Billions of eons and that God’s mortality is based on the full and total annihialtion of everything? If God were here before the universe was created and will be here after the universe disappears, why does it matter that God has a beggining and an ending?
What if God’s Omniscience and Omnipresence are based on time travel where God learns everything thru repitition just like that “Groundhog” movie. Would God be any less of a God if God’s method was simple?If no one else but God could go it, why not?
Psalm 139: 7-10
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8___If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9___If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10___Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
That’s pretty much where I was coming from. If I’m going to entertain the notion of something I find to be quite unbelievable, I might as well make he/she/it powerful beyond all human reasoning.
I submit that it’s a lot easier to understand theists if you don’t start from the presumption that they’re making something up and imbuing it with preferred characteristics.
I find this statement rather illogical. If I were to be making things up for whatever reason, why would I imbue this creation with “unbelievable” powers? Shouldnt I imagine things more in line with the popular notions current to my time? In the case of Judeo-Christian definition of God, why would the so called imagineers of this God be so radical as to go againts the popular notion of many Gods for many things? Why an all powerful one? Who is going to be nutty enuf to fall for that crazy an idea? Theres no sell value to it. Its too far fetched and so out of touch with what the (ignorant) people of that day were believing in. No one is as gullible at that time, someone had to have asked, “Didnt you just make up this “god” of yours so that they would follow you?”
Do you or anyone else here know how the language used in the original forms of these quotes would relate to the usual hyperbole used in old texts to discribe a great King or Ruler. Is this really a stronger use of language than is made in Roman texts about for instance Caeser’s power being unlimited?
These are of special interest. Neither of these quotes give an indication of complete knowledge of the future. Only complete knowledge of the present and past.
Dose anyone have a view on what the phraise ‘heaven of heavens’ in the I Kings 8:27 refers to.
I believe it is simply a case that for conversion of people from a primitive religion to a Monotheistic religion like Christianity or Islam, it is very helpful to have a “My God is bigger/stronger/wiser than your god” belief. Like kids arguing about who can say the biggest number, one will eventually call “infinity” in order to not be bettered by the other. All polytheistic faiths I have heard of have stories of their greatest god being beaten outwitted by lesser gods or even men on some occasions. These gods therefor can be ‘trumped’ by an infinitely powerful God.
Then what proof would they offer for such power? The “trumping” qualities of an omnipotent god seems more in the lines of “my god can beat all your gods combined” arguement. Someone has got to call their bluff and at which case what will the progenitors of this monotheistic god do?
I think we must go away, far far away, to look at this God business.
From that nth distance in my mind, here goes about the God business:
Whatever God we all are talking about it is all within our mind’s borders.
So, we must remember or keep in mind this big big caveat: the human mind thinking and conceptualizing anything is always within the borders of the mind’s reach. similarly with this business of God.
That said, God is omni this and omni that, and He is rational or He is beyond rational, He is mercy, He is just . . . Clever guys like Susma Rio Sep know that we ain’t know nothing about God except as we picture Him in our own image; and therefore not to go about as knowing so much and so well about God.
For my part, God and I, we go a long way back and we will go some more into the furture. Now, if he would be just as good as our pet dog, Barney, which just passed away four days back, after all the years of good companionship with him, I will be glad to have a buddy in God.
Bippy,
With regard to the possible hyperbole vs. the literality of the “omnipotence” verses, I honestly don’t know. I suspect that they were intended literally but I’m not sure how well defined or absolute their concept of “omnipotence” was.
As to omnscience and knowledge of the future, I believe there is a quote somewhere (and maybe someone else can help) that says something about God “knowing the beginning and the end” of all things. I think there’s also something about time having no meaning to God. I’ll try and find those verses for you.
As to “Heaven of Heaven,” I don’t know what the original Hebrew says but “heaven” can also just mean “sky,” in a more generic sense, so I would guess that it’s sort of a poetic way of say “the sky and the sky above that.” That’s just a WAG on my part, though.
On the contrary, I found it far easier to understand theists of all stripes once I realized that what they’re discussing are basically works of popular fiction.
The religious discussions I’ve been in are substantially no different than kids discussing Harry Potter, Trekkies debating Wrath of Khan or fanboys arguing whether Darth Vader could beat Darth Maul.
IE, we’re given a block of literature, to which we apply hypothetical situations not mentioned in that text. So we have to “interpret” the writings to find clues- Can God make a rock so big even he can’t move it? Does God experience Time? Could the NCC-1701-D defeat a Star Destroyer? Who’s a better pilot, Han Solo or Tom Parris?
We also argue logical inconsistencies- why are first-gen Klingons so different from next-gen Klingons? Why was a global catastrophe such as the Great Flood not noted by, say, the Chinese? And we try to come up with some answer based on the source literature.
Interpretations are just that- mere interpretation. We can make superficially-valid arguments one way or the other (such-and-such a page says “nothing is impossible for God” meaning that yes, that says to me that not only can he create entire universes, he could also make Pi equal six if he wanted to, or make it so triangles have five sides) but the fact of the matter is those arguments are based on works of fiction- or at least partially or highly-fictionalized accounts.
Before we go too much further, will this be circular reasoning?
Your previous post admonished us not to assume one is making up the story on the fly, and now this post insinuates there’s no written basis for certain beliefs.
If there’s no base literature, one assumes the beliefs are based on various bits of data and anecdote- so while it may not be made up from whole cloth, it is human nature to focus on those snippets that seem to mesh with one’s beliefs, and disregard the rest. (For further information, look up “John Edwards” and “cold reading”.)
Or, if you prefer, “imbuing it with preferred characteristics”.