Being all powerful is often misunderstood. Imagine we lived on a planet where everyone owned their own nuclear arsenal powerful enough to destroy the entire planet. Then it would be up to each and one that they still live, and if one person decided to end it all, then we would be at that person's mercy. Is that then power, that one can decide over the life of so many, when they could decide for you? We live here on earth in our fragile state, anybody could easily take the life of another, and because we believe in it, we have guarded ourselves against each other by worshipping a man made god, a god who punishes them who does it, that they who don't wouldn't have to be so vulnerable. This god is an image, that derives its power from men, but gives you a false sense of security, because of this.
A man however more dependendent on things subject to the power of others, we know have less power because they are more vulnerable and are thus easier to control. In the same way a man more independent on things subject to the power of others, has more power because they are less vulnerable and are harder to control. But be not decieved that being the latter makes you more spiritual, for no matter how hard it is, if that vulnerability exists, then their power has a limit and can be won over. My first example is of a world without any order, namely this world.
Any two such entities that each is subject to the other have no order relation. Being an authority over something, you can have no such vulnerabilities that would make you subject to that which you have authority over, meaning one cannot be dependent on that which one has authority over, but on the contrary that which is subject to the authority of one depends on the author. Authority is hence a strict order relation. The power that an author has over its creation is unlimited, that is it cannot be won over by its creation.
Before we go on to the spiritual realm, we need to go back to this world, one must ask whether there exist such a thing as causality, which is clearly an order relation. According to Hume's analysis on causality, we have no legitimate knowledge of such in experience:
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/distance/hume/comment2.html
and according to Kant, causality is an innate concept, by which we judge objects of our experience to be connected in such order relation, the difference with Hume here being that Hume is talking about Causality between things in themselves, and its illegitimacy while Kant talks about causality of appearance, a legitimate approach.
http://huizen.daxis.nl/~henkt/kant-prologemena.html
Basically for Kant our mind is a knife cutting trough the cake that is the world, in such pieces we call objects that are causally related, but this cut is arbitrary, although absolute a priori. According to Hume, we have no definitive self either, but according to Kant, it is the knife, so beware not to cut a piece of the world for yourself, because that is the basis of idoltery.
Language, math, logic, and science, all belongs to the spiritual realm, because they describe objects connected by order relations, giving meaning to things by shaping what we see. They are not made out of appearance Hebrews 11:3. There is no reason why things would be "clearly seen" given only sense experience, where it not for judgement of the understanding, which gives us "no excuse", in the sense Hume could not discover an excuse for the ball in collision with the other not to respond per how he does understand the concept of collision and collision repononse. Did you know we have such authority over things of the world? To see things clearly? Is it hard to imagine your knowledge is a product of choice, that is who you are?
Being all powerful is then something very different, because we have now clearly quantified power. We see things in possible states of existence, the knowledge of which configuration is defined as raw power. Authority fullfilling the condition of order relation, we know is transitive, meaning if one has authority over another who has authority over a third, the third is also subject to the authority of the first, which gives us the hierarchy of authority. We need to define another relation. We know a product is given by the sum of conditions of which it has been produced, so also is a source the union of the conditions under which the products has been made. The source of all creation is then the supreme authority of all things made, to which supreme authority each must submit.
That should encompass being all knowing likewise.
All loving then?
Love is the keyword of the two greatest commandments that encompass all of scripture.
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,
and
Love your neighbour as yourself.
Some may think love is an emotion, but how can you command a feeling? To quote Kant on this,
"It is in this manner, undoubtedly, that we are to understand those passages of Scripture also in which we are commanded to love our neighbor, even our enemy. For love, as an affection, cannot be commanded, but beneficence for duty's sake may; even though we are not impelled to it by any inclination- nay, are even repelled by a natural and unconquerable aversion. This is practical love and not pathological- a love which is seated in the will, and not in the propensions of sense -- in principles of action and not of tender sympathy; and it is this love alone which can be commanded."
"Practical love" is a love of the will, an attitude that puts the object before the subject, note not for the sake of the object, but for the sake of the essense of the subject, because the essense of the subject is that of love to the object, and were this to be conditioned to the object, would we have the love of a hypocrite, who's love is not all encompassing, but a show that you put on to have access to their love.
A) God's wrath, B) the existence of evil are common objections to the possibility of an all loving God, but they are without merit.
Evil if often connotated with harm and suffering. The real meaning of evil is immorality or "foolishness", which we can see results in suffering for others. One would ask if God is good, why doesn't he wipe out all evil? Strangely enough this seems contrary to the first objection. The answer is the possibility that evil is a temporary condition and God gives one time to repent. Note that there is no such thing as pure evil, and that it is always composite of something else, and the dissolving of this composite, is two fold: It brings wrath upon the wicked who love the composite, and it purifies the repentant who love the atomary (unperishable) nature they have been reborn in. Two birds with one stone. Thus God's love is no way contrary with his justice.
