God cannot be both all knowing and all powerful

RDKirk said:

If there was nothing wrong with eyewitnesses, not even scripture would demand at least two (and another ancient writing, "Daniel and Susanna" in the Jewish Apocrypha points out that even multiple eyewitnesses can't always be trusted).

Click to expand...

I'm aware of people's shortcomings. The statement was not meant to imply a belief in perfection. I was asking what particular shortcoming is so concerning to @Kyx that he must dismiss all accounts by all eyewitnesses for all time and space.

Grandpa2390 said:

I could argue with you about what it means for the Word to be God-breathed. Try and explain the paradox of how it was dictated by God, but written by man at the same time. because man did not control the pen like a puppeteer.

But I get the feeling it will be a futile discussion. If the Word of God is fallible, then what parts do we trust and believe, and which parts do we not? Perhaps the entire book is false...?

With your reasoning, there is no such thing as Christianity. Every verse is debatable. Perhaps Jesus didn't say that he was the only way... just a way?

With that kind of thinking, any discussion is pointless.

Click to expand...

Only between people when one of them does not know the Holy Spirit.

RDKirk said:

Only between people when one of them does not know the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

What ever helps you sleep better at night

Grandpa2390 said:

What ever helps you sleep better at night

Click to expand...

He does.

In peace I will lie down and sleep, for you alone, LORD, make me dwell in safety.

Kyx said:

Of course, by being all powerful you could get close to being all knowing, but not quite. By being all knowing you could get close to being all powerful, but not quite.

It is not possible to be both all knowing and all powerful.

If you were all knowing, you would know everything, even about the future. ....

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. All knowing can mean simply knowing all of the present and past, if God designed nature (physics) to be unpredictable, by design.

If there is true randomness in nature, then even total knowledge, and unlimited computing power (of any needed amount) would still not be able to totally predict the future very far into the future.

We can surmise that God will still be able to easily see how an individual will turn out *if* that individual does not change course. (And obviously God will still be able to accomplish His goals over time, regardless of changing situations, etc.)

But He could perfectly well have enabled some part of us, like our spirit for instance, to have a true unpredictable ability to suddenly change course. (Or some other mechanism, such as the spirit/soul of a person might wake up and intervene at some key moment in the ongoing desires of the body, etc.)

There is plenty of support in the Bible for this 'true free will' (not fully foreseeable), even in just the typical wording of *most* communications from God. (Not forgetting the poetic wordings in psalms are often intentionally hyperbolic)

Example: "If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth."

Notice that key word --> "If" !

"If" only can make sense, in my view, if the people actually could do various actions, and thus not only foreseen actions alone.

@Radrook and @RDKirk you all are making some very good points on common Christian misconceptions - by both Christians and non christians.

@Grandpa2390 et. al aforementioned, you all may be saying the same thing in different ways?

Halbhh said:

Not necessarily. All knowing can mean simply knowing all of the present and past, if God designed nature (physics) to be unpredictable, by design.

If there is true randomness in nature, then even total knowledge, and unlimited computing power (of any needed amount) would still not be able to totally predict the future very far into the future.

We can surmise that God will still be able to easily see how an individual will turn out *if* that individual does not change course. (And obviously God will still be able to accomplish His goals over time, regardless of changing situations, etc.)

But He could perfectly well have enabled some part of us, like our spirit for instance, to have a true unpredictable ability to suddenly change course. (Or some other mechanism, such as the spirit/soul of a person might wake up and intervene at some key moment in the ongoing desires of the body, etc.)

There is plenty of support in the Bible for this 'true free will' (not fully foreseeable), even in just the typical wording of *most* communications from God. (Not forgetting the poetic wordings in psalms are often intentionally hyperbolic)

Example: "If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth."

Notice that key word --> "If" !

"If" only can make sense, in my view, if the people actually could do various actions, and thus not only foreseen actions alone.

Click to expand...

Scripture denies free will (Romans 6) and an "If/then" proposition is merely a programmed branch operation, not at all random.

Radrook said:

...So the idea that God wants EVERYBODY and ANYBODY and is striving to force EVERYBODY to live alongside him regardless of who that somebody might be is simply a figment of an uninformed imagination.

Click to expand...

But who really thinks that? - I'm not well up on theist sects.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

But who really thinks that? - I'm not well up on theist sects.

Click to expand...

Please note that this understanding isn't really a matter of sectarian options. These are very basic concepts that theologically are non-negotiable and the only way to avoid them is to either totally ignore them or else purposefully twist them to mean something else. In short, they were written to be a part of the theological perspective of every Christian and not just one particular sect. That there are some who claim to be Christian but totally unaware of them isn't the fault of the Bible itself which is clear on the issue. It is the fault of the spiritual shepherds or teachers who don't properly feed the flock.

1 Peter 5:2 ►
New International Version
Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, watching over them--not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve;

Click to expand...

Luke 6:39
Jesus also told them a parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?

Click to expand...

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

But who really thinks that? - I'm not well up on theist sects.

Click to expand...

I do. He said several time a lot of us - even a lot of "Christians" - won't make it.

But, the contract (new covenant) is open to anyone who can agree to the terms. There are even a few clauses in the contract that allows you restore the terms if you breach it (with certain stipulations.)

If you look at that side of the relationship with God - the actual [marriage] contract side - then it becomes clear why not as many people would be able to make it. Even Israel forced God into a divorce by breaching several parts of their previous [marriage] contract.

Kyx said:

Of course, by being all powerful you could get close to being all knowing, but not quite. By being all knowing you could get close to being all powerful, but not quite.

It is not possible to be both all knowing and all powerful.

If you were all knowing, you would know everything, even about the future. This means that you would know exactly what you are going to do way before you do it, and you know what other people are going to do. You cannot change what you or they are going to do otherwise you would not be all knowing since you would have got it wrong. Therefore to be all knowing, you can't be all powerful. If you were all powerful, you would be able to change your mind, meaning that you were wrong, and so you are not all knowing.

Click to expand...

This presumes that God is a subject of time. At least in traditional Christian theism God is also omnipresent and omnitemporal; God is everywhere and everywhen. Thus all things occur in God's "now". A divine action that is future from our perspective is only so from our perspective; from the divine vantage point it is, instead, now. As such time is not limiting factor on God's ability, nor is God's knowledge to be regarded as analogous to a seer peering through glass.

-CryptoLutheran

RDKirk said:

He does.

In peace I will lie down and sleep, for you alone, LORD, make me dwell in safety.

Click to expand...

Amen!

RDKirk said:

Scripture denies free will (Romans 6) and an "If/then" proposition is merely a programmed branch operation, not at all random.

Click to expand...

I don't consider it at all important whether one thinks that God made us unpredictable (as is my best understanding) or instead predictable.

But still, I do wonder how people conclude God made us predictable. I have seen an idea or two people come up with, like God can move through time back and forth, and other such ad hoc hypotheses, but also I wonder about why people want to reach the conclusion we are predictable. It doesn't seem to fit Christ giving us instructions, for one thing. Doesn't make sense if our future is already set for us to have commandments -- e.g.:

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

This seems very strongly to be telling me to make the choice to love people even in moments when I'd rather just ignore them, such as like the 2 that passed by the victim on the road before the good Samaritan came by. Instead, I have a command to do, and I can't imagine He would give me a commandment if my actions are already determined ahead of time.

Halbhh said:

I don't consider it at all important whether one thinks that God made us unpredictable (as is my best understanding) or instead predictable.

But still, I do wonder how people conclude God made us predictable. I have seen an idea or two people come up with, like God can move through time back and forth, and other such ad hoc hypotheses, but also I wonder about why people want to reach the conclusion we are predictable. It doesn't seem to fit Christ giving us instructions, for one thing. Doesn't make sense if our future is already set for us to have commandments -- e.g.:

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

This seems very strongly to be telling me to make the choice to love people even in moments when I'd rather just ignore them, such as like the 2 that passed by the victim on the road before the good Samaritan came by. Instead, I have a command to do, and I can't imagine He would give me a commandment if my actions are already determined ahead of time.

Click to expand...

If human activity is unpredictable to God, then what can be predictable? If human activity is unpredictable, then God can provide no assurances. If He can provide no assurances, nothing He promises can be depended upon.

Radrook said:

Couldn't a being be mindlessly omnipresent?

Click to expand...

I realize I completely misunderstood your question.

Ironically, I would give the exact same answer - in the exact same way.

Ygrene Imref said:

Maybe.

Though, I dont believe so. A being could be nearly omnipotent, and mindless, but then their potency would retard as their chaos (mindless) increases.

You would need to be completely "in tact, intellectually" (omniscience) to fully operate omnipotence, and therefore onmipresence.

Click to expand...

I think omnipresence is a consequence of omnipotence. I mean full omnipresence - including time and dimensions beyond the three spacial ones we know of.

If someone can exist in every single infinitesimal point in time, that is equivalent to being eternal. But, that is just in 3-space. In fact, omnipresence in 3-space would imply existing at every single coordinate (dx1,dx2,dx3) in creation at every infinitesimal time dt. In other words, you are creation at every instant.

And, that is just in 3D...

An omnipresent entity in n dimensions would exist at every single coordinate (dx1,dx2,...,dxn) in creation at every single instant dt. And, if time changes per in some way per dimension, we just tack on a parameter and it is the same thing. You would be creation in every n dimension for every instantaneous permutation of time respective to dimension.

You literally have no beginning or end.

So, even if we can pinpoint a particular instant in time when the entity is mindless in 3D, there is a unique instant in time, and a unique coordinate with respect to that instant that the entity would perturb in "mindlessness." I say this because we have already established that being omnipresent means you are the sum of creation per instant, per dimension over all coordinates. That means that entity is me now... and you. Literally.

So, at some sum of coordinates that, say, add up to a human body, there exists at least one unique sum of coordinates in 3 dimensions that is not mindless (i.e. at least one person in this world is NOT mindless.)

With all of that said, knowing omnipresence means eternal existence, we can see that if one domain of coordinates (a human) in this dimension is NOT mindless at any particular time, then the entity known as omnipotent is eternally NOT mindless at at least one position in creation, at some instant of time. Recall, dt, the instant of time is incredibly relative, since the exercise to discretely determine the smallest bit (infinitesimal) is a feat only for something that can "count" to infinity. Of course, one has to be infinite to count to infinity, therefore we get the circular conclusion that this entity is eternally NOT mindless.


And, this is, again, just in 3D; this same omnipotent entity has the a similar probability distribution for NOT being mindless in the n+3 dimensions, and the two below ours.

And, then since this entity is existent everywhere, categorically it is NOT mindless. Notice also how the the converse isn't true because it is a "multality." In other words, every possibility (assuming the paradox of mindlessness) can be, eternally. In order to have [efficient] order, it would imply an instant of mindfulness. And, once more, this implies mindfulness eternally, differentiated in every dimension only by some parameter.

Eternal mindfulness drives (instantly or over time) to omniscience. Omniscience implies (instantly, or over time) omnipotence. So, omnipresence is a natural consequence of omniscience, and omnipotence.

Ygrene Imref said:

I realize I completely misunderstood your question.

Ironically, I would give the exact same answer - in the exact same way.



I think omnipresence is a consequence of omnipotence. I mean full omnipresence - including time and dimensions beyond the three spacial ones we know of.

If someone can exist in every single infinitesimal point in time, that is equivalent to being eternal. But, that is just in 3-space. In fact, omnipresence in 3-space would imply existing at every single coordinate (dx1,dx2,dx3) in creation at every infinitesimal time dt. In other words, you are creation at every instant.

And, that is just in 3D...

An omnipresent entity in n dimensions would exist at every single coordinate (dx1,dx2,...,dxn) in creation at every single instant dt. And, if time changes per in some way per dimension, we just tack on a parameter and it is the same thing. You would be creation in every n dimension for every instantaneous permutation of time respective to dimension.

You literally have no beginning or end.

So, even if we can pinpoint a particular instant in time when the entity is mindless in 3D, there is a unique instant in time, and a unique coordinate with respect to that instant that the entity would perturb in "mindlessness." I say this because we have already established that being omnipresent means you are the sum of creation per instant, per dimension over all coordinates. That means that entity is me now... and you. Literally.

So, at some sum of coordinates that, say, add up to a human body, there exists at least one unique sum of coordinates in 3 dimensions that is not mindless (i.e. at least one person in this world is NOT mindless.)

With all of that said, knowing omnipresence means eternal existence, we can see that if one domain of coordinates (a human) in this dimension is NOT mindless at any particular time, then the entity known as omnipotent is eternally NOT mindless at at least one position in creation, at some instant of time. Recall, dt, the instant of time is incredibly relative, since the exercise to discretely determine the smallest bit (infinitesimal) is a feat only for something that can "count" to infinity. Of course, one has to be infinite to count to infinity, therefore we get the circular conclusion that this entity is eternally NOT mindless.


And, this is, again, just in 3D; this same omnipotent entity has the a similar probability distribution for NOT being mindless in the n+3 dimensions, and the two below ours.

And, then since this entity is existent everywhere, categorically it is NOT mindless. Notice also how the the converse isn't true because it is a "multality." In other words, every possibility (assuming the paradox of mindlessness) can be, eternally. In order to have [efficient] order, it would imply an instant of mindfulness. And, once more, this implies mindfulness eternally, differentiated in every dimension only by some parameter.

Eternal mindfulness drives (instantly or over time) to omniscience. Omniscience implies (instantly, or over time) omnipotence. So, omnipresence is a natural consequence of omniscience, and omnipotence.

Click to expand...

You employ the qualifier of "if" in order to perhaps indicate that this is just a hypothetical so I will also use that qualifier.


If the being in question is omnipotent, then he wouldn't have to exist everywhere at once to know what is happening in his universe. Better yet, why would someone who could avoid such an experience which involves personally being present in every single latrine, sewer, fecal-filled intestine, sperm engorged gonad, festering sinful mind, decaying cadaver, refuse filled garbage bin, cancerous pus oozing ulcers, and having to personally witness rapes, child abuse, murders, mutilations, bestiality, all types of sexual abnormalities that he tags as abominable force himself into those places in order to know that it is going on when he could easily avoid it?


BTW

There are also certain assumptions or premises on which your conclusions are based that I find baffling.

For example, why would an omnipresent being be unable to exist without omnipotence and why would he be unable to be omnipotent without being omnipresent? In short, why would omniscience force any omnipotent being to be omnipresent when he could easily know all things at a distance without it?

After all, if knowing things at a distance is beyond his ability then he would not be omnipotent. Curiously humans are easily able can know things at a distance and even accomplish many things at a distance So imagining God incapable of it on a universal scale seems quaint.

Also, there is no compelling logical reason why mindlessness cannot be eternally self-perpetuating. Please keep in mind that mindlessness demand a total inability to think, perceive things in a logical way, recognize patterns and draw conclusions, and therefore act on those conclusions to accomplish a goal.

The only way to sever or interrupt such a self-perpetuating mindless sequence is to violate the conditions of the hypothetical and introduce some semblance of self awareness. Unfortunately doing so violates the conditions of the hypothetical which is the condition of mindlessness itself.

This is similar to the violating the hypothetical of attempting square a circle. As long as we abide by a circle's dimensional parameters, of course, it remains a total impossibility t5o square it mathematically. However, if we change those dimensional parameters then the circle ceases to exist as a circle and squaring the resultant figure doesn't count.

BTW
A certain religious denomination considers God omnipotent but not omnipresent. From its perspective God knows what is going on in his universe without being personally everywhere just as humans can know what is going on at long distances without being personally at the locations.

Kyx said:

Of course, by being all powerful you could get close to being all knowing, but not quite. By being all knowing you could get close to being all powerful, but not quite.

It is not possible to be both all knowing and all powerful.

If you were all knowing, you would know everything, even about the future. This means that you would know exactly what you are going to do way before you do it, and you know what other people are going to do. You cannot change what you or they are going to do otherwise you would not be all knowing since you would have got it wrong. Therefore to be all knowing, you can't be all powerful. If you were all powerful, you would be able to change your mind, meaning that you were wrong, and so you are not all knowing.

Click to expand...

Well, we can't say you didn't try, but think about it this way: does changing your mind on how you go about scrubbing a toilet mean you were wrong? Does flushing a toilet with the one hand instead of the other hand mean you were wrong?

Radrook said:

You employ the qualifier of "if" in order to perhaps indicate that this is just a hypothetical so I will also use that qualifier.


If the being in question is omnipotent, then he wouldn't have to exist everywhere at once to know what is happening in his universe. Better yet, why would someone who could avoid such an experience which involves personally being present in every single latrine, sewer, fecal-filled intestine, sperm engorged gonad, festering sinful mind, decaying cadaver, refuse filled garbage bin, cancerous pus oozing ulcers, and having to personally witness rapes, child abuse, murders, mutilations, bestiality, all types of sexual abnormalities that he tags as abominable force himself into those places in order to know that it is going on when he could easily avoid it?


BTW

There are also certain assumptions or premises on which your conclusions are based that I find baffling.

For example, why would an omnipresent being be unable to exist without omnipotence and why would he be unable to be omnipotent without being omnipresent? In short, why would omniscience force any omnipotent being to be omnipresent when he could easily know all things at a distance without it?

After all, if knowing things at a distance is beyond his ability then he would not be omnipotent. Curiously humans are easily able can know things at a distance and even accomplish many things at a distance So imagining God incapable of it on a universal scale seems quaint.

Also, there is no compelling logical reason why mindlessness cannot be eternally self-perpetuating. Please keep in mind that mindlessness demand a total inability to think, perceive things in a logical way, recognize patterns and draw conclusions, and therefore act on those conclusions to accomplish a goal.

The only way to sever or interrupt such a self-perpetuating mindless sequence is to violate the conditions of the hypothetical and introduce some semblance of self awareness. Unfortunately doing so violates the conditions of the hypothetical which is the condition of mindlessness itself.

This is similar to the violating the hypothetical of attempting square a circle. As long as we abide by a circle's dimensional parameters, of course, it remains a total impossibility t5o square it mathematically. However, if we change those dimensional parameters then the circle ceases to exist as a circle and squaring the resultant figure doesn't count.

BTW
A certain religious denomination considers God omnipotent but not omnipresent. From its perspective God knows what is going on in his universe without being personally everywhere just as humans can know what is going on at long distances without being personally at the locations.

Click to expand...

I agree. I'm not sure about the omnipresence of God. the arguments for that are pretty weak. the arguments against (using scripture) are pretty strong to me. God is never characterized as being omnipresent, just free to be anywhere at anytime. Unable to be hidden from.
Saying God is omnipresent seems like a man-made concept intended to exalt God, but only limited him by forcing him to be in places he wouldn't want to be. taking away his choice. Like Sodom and Gomorrah.
But the stories concerning that and the Garden imply a God who is not in all places at all times.

I have also heard good argument against him being Omniscient... but I am not so sure about that one.
the stories imply also a God who is not all-knowing. These are just things I have read, not necessarily an idea that I have bought.

Radrook said:

You employ the qualifier of "if" in order to perhaps indicate that this is just a hypothetical so I will also use that qualifier.

Click to expand...

For the "comfort" of mixed company, I used "if."

If the being in question is omnipotent, then he wouldn't have to exist everywhere at once to know what is happening in his universe. Better yet, why would someone who could avoid such an experience which involves personally being present in every single latrine, sewer, fecal-filled intestine, sperm engorged gonad, festering sinful mind, decaying cadaver, refuse filled garbage bin, cancerous pus oozing ulcers, and having to personally witness rapes, child abuse, murders, mutilations, bestiality, all types of sexual abnormalities that he tags as abominable force himself into those places in order to know that it is going on when he could easily avoid it?

Click to expand...

Omnipotence is not omniprence by definition. Omnipotence is the absolute power to do absolutely anything.

Omniscience is a consequence of omnipotence.

BTW

There are also certain assumptions or premises on which your conclusions are based that I find baffling.

For example, why would an omnipresent being be unable to exist without omnipotence and why would he be unable to be omnipotent without being omnipresent? In short, why would omniscience force any omnipotent being to be omnipresent when he could easily know all things at a distance without it?

Click to expand...

It isn't about forcing anything; omnipresence is a consequence of omniscience. As exained above, if you are omnipresent, you exist everywhere - every dimension, time, and point in all of creation ever.

If we choose a time interval dt to represent infinite infinitesimal length of time, then each moment is a sum of infiniteesimal sums. In order to get to infinitesimal, you have to be able to "count" to infinity - which requires an infinite lifetime + the time not included before a count was started. This omnipresence - to be nontrivial - is defined by the power to be at that infinitesimal interval for an infinite time, scaling the time to normalization. So, you must be able to exist u til the infinity count is over before you can assuredly say you are absolutely omnipresent. Or, you need to be infinity itself plus some constants not included in the count.

That is the consequence from omnipotence - that you can quantatatively exist in an infinitesimal time interval for an infinite amount of time. And, this is over all dimensions in all creation. Anything less, and you are not omnipresent.

You cant omnipotent at a distance, because being omnipotent categorically means you have all power - including the power to exist everywhere. If you are not exuding all power, you are not OMNIpotent. If you are omnipotent at certain time intervals, the you aren't omnipotent fully. Omnipotence requires omnipotence at normalized scale - all power over infinitesimal intervals of space and time, for infinite duration over the entirety of creation.

Omnipresence follows from being all powerful.

And, omnipotence follows from omniscience.

After all, if knowing things at a distance is beyond his ability then he would not be omnipotent. Curiously humans are easily able can know things at a distance and even accomplish many things at a distance So imagining God incapable of it on a universal scale seems quaint.

Click to expand...

It is a paradox: omnipresence does not exist without omnipotence, because it is a consequence of omnipotence. But now you are talking about science - knowing things at a distance. That isn't omniscience; it is simply science.

And, science does not produce infinite potency - unless your knowledge is infinite also.

This is why: if you are omniscient, you are omnipotent, and if you are omnipotent, you are omnipresent. They are consequences, respectively. You cannot be omniscient, for example, and not have the knowledge to be omnipresent. You cannot be omnipotent, and not have the ability to exist everywhere. They are tripled characteristics.

Also, there is no compelling logical reason why mindlessness cannot be eternally self-perpetuating.

Click to expand...

In these cases, logic reaches an asymptotic limit when dealing with infinites. If you are mindlessly omnipresent, as you suggested, then you are implying someone was able to be innumerable present everywhere - all of the time - with limited, or retarded knowledge. That isn't possible in the paradox; omniscience (implies omnipotence, which) implies omnipresence.

As I said before, in order to truly be OMNI anything, you would need to first be able to reach infinite normalization (an infinity over infinitesimal intervals.) So, you at least need omnipotence to have the power to get to infinity in "count." You need omniscience to know how to count to infinities. So, when dealing with OMNI anything, these characteristics are at the base a demand in coupling omniscience and omnipotence.

Please keep in mind that mindlessness demand a total inability to think, perceive things in a logical way, recognize patterns and draw conclusions, and therefore act on those conclusions to accomplish a goal.

Click to expand...

Then, you aren't omniscient. And, if you are not omniscient, you don't have the knowledge capacity to do anything (omnipotence.) And, if you are not omnipotent, you don't have the power to be everywhere (omnipresence.)

Again, they are tripled.

Mindlessness is a retardation, or dampening of science.

The only way to sever or interrupt such a self-perpetuating mindless sequence is to violate the conditions of the hypothetical and introduce some semblance of self awareness. Unfortunately doing so violates the conditions of the hypothetical which is the condition of mindlessness itself.

Click to expand...

Which is why you can't be omniscient if you are mindless - which means you aren't all powerful, and thus you do not have the power (or intelligence) to be everywhere all the time at any time in any space for any dimension. If you lack one thing (like self awareness, for example,) you cannot define yourself as an omni.

The paradoxical characteristics are tripled.

This is similar to the violating the hypothetical of attempting square a circle. As long as we abide by a circle's dimensional parameters, of course, it remains a total impossibility t5o square it mathematically. However, if we change those dimensional parameters then the circle ceases to exist as a circle and squaring the resultant figure doesn't count.

Click to expand...

You can square a circle without being omniscient. You can't be omnipresent and be mindless at the same time. For one thing, you would need an *extra* omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent entity to verify one's mindless positioning - since the one who is mindless will it be able to verify for itself if it is everywhere all of the time...

That necessary *extra* "Omni" is the actual omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent entity. It is not the mindless one who lacks omniscience and omnipresence, and can only confirm it's omnipresence by an outside entity.

The characteristics are tripled.

BTW
A certain religious denomination considers God omnipotent but not omnipresent. From its perspective God knows what is going on in his universe without being personally everywhere just as humans can know what is going on at long distances without being personally at the locations.

Click to expand...

That fails. You cannot know every single thing about every single position at every single time in every single dimension for every single creation if you are not at those places all of the time. If God is omnipotent, then He has the power to do everything - including be everywhere all the time, at the same time, for every dimension, in every infinitesimal time interval, over infinite quantification of parameters.

Categorically, God would get his omnipotence from His omniscience - which would also allow Him to categorically b3 omnipresent.

Now, if we are talking about God phikisophicalky "choosing NOT to be everywhere" at the same time... then that is an exercise in the mind of an omnipotent/omniscient entity - a different story than setting the parameters of what MUST and MUSTN'T be possible for an omnipotent/omnipresent/omnipotent entity.

In these kinds of discussions, I think it is a very good mental exercise to have read the novelette "Flatland" (I read it back in the 60s...it hurt my head). Flatland was first published in 1884, I'm sure by someone who was from the distant future, because it's hard to believe anyone born in the 1800s could imagine it.

It very well provides an exercise in thinking of worlds in dimensions other than our own and how difficult it would be to explain it to others, even if we'd experienced it.

But this is a good animated movie of it. Especially interesting, in terms of a being that is omnipresent in its universe, is the being in the "point universe."