I consider the following phrases to be without basis.

[Chi_Cygni]

I am not saying they are not true but I honestly believe a couple of pet phrases oft uttered around here have no basis. In fact I do think several lines of evidence suggest they are not true. Please give me your thoughts.

Phrase 1) God is omnipotent

Phrase 2) God is infinite

Phrase 3) God is outside of time

And at the risk of herecy: (obviously this has Biblical basis)

Phrase 4) God is the Creator of All.

I tender the idea that most of the people who use these phrases do it out of habit or out of a smug 'My God is bigger than your God' to people of other faiths. Really what basis have we for these statements.

Could God instead of all powerful just be very powerful.

Could he not have presence in many places but not an infinite number of them. This also impinges on the question as to whether the Universe is infinite or finite - an unanswered question cosmologically.

Could God be in time as we are, presupposing an absolute background reference of time.

Could God be the God of only part of Creation. Could there be disjointed Creations of another God.

I know I often have pondered these questions which to most Biblical literalists are not questioned or are even considered heretical.

Thoughts?

 

[KleinerApfel]

Chi_Cygni, I'm so glad your god is not my God.

By the way, what is the difference between something being "not true" and it having "no basis"?

 

[Chi_Cygni]

I meant no basis from say an evidentiary standpoint. These are statements that when challenged are usually met with an 'Umm - I dunno, it just is'. Actually I would hope your God is my God and vice versa.

As for 'true' - I would say they are questions that should be pondered. I certainly believe they don't have to be true for Christian faith to hold. (The 4th one perhaps being more problematic.)

What kind of sentient beings are we if we cannot ask and ponder these questions. To me that is the herecy, not using our God given brains a la many branches of fundamentalism.

 

[ThePhoenix]

The definition of God would suggest numbers 3 and 4. If God was inside time then the universe would not work, because it would have both a perfect clock and an omnipresent observer.

 

[Philip]

Phrase 1) God is omnipotent
Phrase 2) God is infinite
Phrase 3) God is outside of time
And at the risk of herecy: (obviously this has Biblical basis)
Phrase 4) God is the Creator of All.

1,2, and 3 follow from 4. If you accept 4, that God is the Creator and exists outside of His creation, you must accept 3 since time is part of creation. God, not being bounded by His creation is infinite (that is, without bound) (2).
When we add the Biblically supported statement that all creation is subject to God, we have (1), that God is omnipotent.

Really what basis have we for these statements.

They all follow from God being the Creator.

Could he not have presence in many places but not an infinite number of them. This also impinges on the question as to whether the Universe is infinite or finite - an unanswered question cosmologically.

The statement that "God is infinite" means that God is not bounded by His creation.

Could God be in time as we are, presupposing an absolute background reference of time.

This violates all we know of the created universe that testifies to God.

Could God be the God of only part of Creation. Could there be disjointed Creations of another God.

There is explicitly denied by Scripture.

 

[ej]

Ah - you're trying to apply human definitions to something ultimately superior than humans.

The human mind cannot grasp the concept of infinity because we live in a finite world, where our powers are limited.

Belief in God's omnipotence requires humility and faith.

 

[lucaspa]

Could God instead of all powerful just be very powerful.

I don't see why not. God only has to be powerful enough to do the things attributed to Him in the Bible. And that doesn't require omnipotence.

Could he not have presence in many places but not an infinite number of them. This also impinges on the question as to whether the Universe is infinite or finite - an unanswered question cosmologically.

Again, I don't see why not. God needs to be very present so that He is available in the lives of people when they need Him. But He doesn't need to be omnipresent. After all, if there is a delay of a couple of milliseconds for Him to be present, what difference to our needs does it make?

Could God be in time as we are, presupposing an absolute background reference of time.

Why not? What does God lose? I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says God is outside of time. Instead, it says that God always was, is, and will be. Well, that can be fulfilled by being within time. Of course, as Jesus, God was in time as we are.

Could God be the God of only part of Creation. Could there be disjointed Creations of another God.

The Hebrews knew God as Creator because He created Israel. They extrapolated this to having God create the universe.

I've thought a lot on this and my conclusion is: God does not have to create the universe. The necessary part of God is His relationship to human beings as given in revelation. If the universe were created by some other entity than God (not necessarily intelligent) and God stepped into human history at the Exodus and later, then that seems to be all that is required -- God intervening in human history.

 

[lucaspa]

Chi_Cygni, I'm so glad your god is not my God.

The question is whether either god is God. Chi_Cygni is asking you to think about your faith. Your response is not encouraging.

By the way, what is the difference between something being "not true" and it having "no basis"?

Not true means not existing in some objective sense. "no basis" means that we simply have no evidence for it. At one point General Relativity had no basis. So did atoms. So did adult stem cells. They were all ideas that we put out for testing and had no evidence for. All turned out to be "true".

In this case, God could be omnipotent, but there is no basis in logic or the Bible to indicate that. It is a human idea about God that seems to have no basis.

 

[lucaspa]

Ah - you're trying to apply human definitions to something ultimately superior than humans.

The human mind cannot grasp the concept of infinity because we live in a finite world, where our powers are limited.

I disagree. We can use the concept and grasp it. That's what imagination is for. The questionis whether the universe is infinite or finite. Based on current data and the theory of the Big Bang, the universe is finite but can expand infinitely.

Belief in God's omnipotence requires humility and faith.

But is it necessary? Does God have to be omnipotent to be God? I don't think so. In fact, we've been over the handwaving trying to get rid of the fact that omnipotence is impossible. True omnipotence is not possible. Your yourself, as I recall, redefined "omnipotence" so that it had limits!

 

[ej]

True omnipotence is not possible. Your yourself, as I recall, redefined "omnipotence" so that it had limits!

I did?
Wow, some days I am cleverer than others

Yes I seem to remember saying that the most I could conceive was a relative infinity and therefore a relative omnipotence ...

 

[ThePhoenix]

But is it necessary? Does God have to be omnipotent to be God? I don't think so. In fact, we've been over the handwaving trying to get rid of the fact that omnipotence is impossible. True omnipotence is not possible. Your yourself, as I recall, redefined "omnipotence" so that it had limits!

But are definitions of omnipotence created by humans the only definitions possible? I really don't think so.

P.S. To create the universe God would have to have enough power to create all the matter and energy in the universe, and power left over after that. What definition of omnipotent do you want to use? More powerful then the entire universe is a decent one IMO.

P.P.S. The rock paradox is insufficient to demonstrate anything. It collapses under scruitiny.

 

[lucaspa]

But are definitions of omnipotence created by humans the only definitions possible? I really don't think so.

We communicate thru language, which means that words have definitions that we use. If 'omnipotent' doesn't describe the situation, then pick another word or words that do. Don't try to redefine "omnipotence" It just screws up communication.

P.S. To create the universe God would have to have enough power to create all the matter and energy in the universe, and power left over after that. What definition of omnipotent do you want to use?

The dictionary definition is "an agency or force of unlimited power" Note that "unlimited". As soon as there are limits, the entiry is no longer omnipotent.

More powerful then the entire universe is a decent one IMO.

Instead of screwing around with the definition of omnipotence, why not just say "God needs to be powerful enough to create the universe with power left over. Any entity with that power qualifies as God." Drop "omnipotent" as a requirement to be God.

I've posed the question several times: How powerful, knowing, and present does an entity have to be to be God? You are saying that God doesn't have to have unlimited power (omnipotent) to be God. I'm happy with that. Why aren't you?

P.P.S. The rock paradox is insufficient to demonstrate anything. It collapses under scruitiny.

How does it collapse? I've never seen it do so. Either answer, God can't be omnipotent. However, you just said He doesn't have to be. So what's the problem? Just drop omnipotence as a requirement of God.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Well the rock paradox can be resolved pretty easily. Lets assume that God is all-knowing and all-powerful. If God knows all then he knows what his future actions will be (since he is perfect, and has perfect knowledge his decisions will be perfect). Therefore, when he creates a rock he knows whether or not he will have to move it. If he creates a rock that he knows he won't move then it is impossible for God to move that rock (because he has perfect knowledge of everything he's going to do, and he knows he'll never move that rock). Since he has perfect knowledge it is impossible that he will move any rock that he knows he will not move, since moving a rock that he knew, when he created it, that he would not move would imply a flaw in his knowledge.

 

[Dracil]

I think the word omnipotence can still be used. Like many other cases, the original definition is the Strong position, and the new definition, a kind of limited omnipotency, is the Weak position.

 

[jeshohaia]

So what do you believe in? That G-D is a verb? He is a warm fuzzy feeling? Why should we even believe? Why should we read His Indefaticable word? Did Yeshua live? Did he exsist? Hmmm...lets just take out the Gospel of Mark since it doesnt seem to have this and thus in it. Lets see...who really understands Lamentations. That isnt the word of G-D! Hey lets just throw out the whole Bible! Sounds like fun! We could just sit around a fire and get all warm and fuzzy about god.

Thats what you are saying. Shame on you! You call your self a christian! This is what our church has become? Interpreting the being of G-D? Shame on all of you! For letting this happen! You try to put a human perspective on G-D. He is G-D. He is "I AM" The LORD G-D! He is not man. Man is corrupt and foolish. Easily swayed by the masses.

I have no respect for a christian who changes the presence of G-D to suite what he thinks G-D should be. He is all powerfull, He knows all and is ALL. No where in the Bible does it say likewise.

Every post I have read in here with people professing to be in Love with the LORD has sickened me! What a shame. Wait...do you hear that? G-Ds judgement at the door! Are you ready? You will soon know of His power.

When the skies darken and the fire falls. When the earth shakes and rips itself apart. Just by His Son steping down into Jerusalem. Oh repent. Serve your LORD! Believe. Before you loose your trust in the LORD and you are destroyed along with the non believer!

What a church! I tell ya. Impresses me every day. You will know of G-Ds power. You with no faith in his WORD! Do not even toy with these ideas! What do they gain you but a loss in faith?

We are called to be married to the Christ. He is the bride groom. He wants a spotless pure bride. How are you to know who He is? Your picture and memory of Him has been changed. When He calls us out, who will you go to? Your destruction of which you fashioned through your own foolish thoughts? Or to the arms of the Bride Groom?

Repent...return...please before His judgement calls.

 

[Dracil]

jeshohaia, are you saying that your God can sin? You say He is "ALL," so do you mean to say that God is evil? If not, then you agree with us that the Strong view of omnipotency is wrong, and the Weak view of omnipotency is the proper position.

 

[Trench777]

I personally love Jeshohaia's responce. I have great regard for the adoration and reverence of the Messianic Jews (we "grafted-in gentiles" could learn alot from then). I know from some peoples point of view, he might be seen as "over-reacting" or trying to surpress "free-thought" or whatnot...but I'll remind you, G-d KILLED a man, for TOUCHING the Ark of the covenant. I'd say a good, healthy dose of respect is needed, when contemplating the matters at hand. I'd go so far as to say, if you think you're being respectful enough, kick it up a notch, just to be sure.

By "defining" G-d, are we diminshing Him? No, for man can in no way diminish the glory of G-d. However, we may be showing a lack of reverence for Him, as He has *already* defined Himself, in His Word. To add or take away from that is....I don't think I have an advective for that one. Lets just say "bad"

By contemplating the nature and attributes of G-d, are we dishonoring Him? I would pray that is a NO! I contemplate the beauty and qualities of my G-d daily and nightly!

Most of the things I see in this thread are basically rehashes of Plato & Co. debating deities. Taking esoteric, ephemeral definitions and trying to apply them to REAL G-d. Is that irreverent? From my point of view, yes. If your point of view differs, I could go the liberal route & say "thats between you & G-d"...but that would be a disservice to you, I think. Rather than say "thats between you & G-d", I'll pray that you are endowed with a higher reverence for things that are Holy.

He is Holy.

We should THANK Him perpetually, that He is TOO BIG to fit in these minds He's blessed us with.

I thank Him for you, my brothers and sisters. I pray I didn't condemn anyone with my words/viewpoint.

Love in Christ,

T777

 

[jeshohaia]

G-D is not evil. G-D is just and merciful. Man is evil and brought sin into the world. Not G-D. We made and daily make the choice to do evil. G-D doesnt. But He always gives us the choice to not make the wrong choices that cause us harm. We just have to listen.

 

[Trench777]

I could not agree more.