How to recognise GOD?
- Thread starter hariharan
- Start date
God is discussing with Satan, his old buddy...
God says: ''My friend, I've reached a point in my life where I'm free to do whatever I want... I've reached omnipotence!... Isn't that great?''
Satan responds: ''Ah... but you CAN'T do all that you want!''
''How is that so?'' asks God
''You can't make yourself NOT free of doing what you want... because that would put an end to your omnipotence''
Perplexed, God thinks for a while and responds...''well... I guess you have a point... but why the **** would I want to limit my freedom... my power?... I just won't do it... cuz I don't want that... so my omnipotence remains total... I COULD decide to put an end to my omnipotence... but I won't.''
---
My point is that an omnipotent being would indeed have the power to put an end to its omnipotence. But it could very well and probably choose not to do so. There is no logical impossibility for an omnipotent being to exist. Omnipotence goes with the power to take decisions.. to choose.
An omnipotent being would either choose to remain omnipotent... or not.
Awesome try s_lone, one I had to think about for a minute.
But really, what you've done is demonstrate again the logical impossibility of omnipotence: an omnipotent being would have to lose its omnipotence in order to be omnipotent. . .but then it would no longer be omnipotent.
See how clever that Burmese Tiger Trap* is?
Pangloss
(sorry for the Bugs Bunny reference)
But really, what you've done is demonstrate again the logical impossibility of omnipotence: an omnipotent being would have to lose its omnipotence in order to be omnipotent. . .but then it would no longer be omnipotent.
See how clever that Burmese Tiger Trap* is?
Pangloss
(sorry for the Bugs Bunny reference)
Yes Talloola, the etymology can make us lose sight of what it is we're trying to define. I used a small 'g' in my use of the word god to indicate I don't hold that word in the same reverence as the conventional use of it. In fact I usually spell it "gawd".I don't have a better word either. It's much too big to be encapsulated with such a tiny word, no?
Yes, you're right, thanks again for the great post.
That's indeed a more subtle one to tackle...
The problem I see with this is that the concept of ''changing one's mind'' is very much embedded in a linear conception of time. It seems to me that an omniscient and omnipotent being would not be subject to time as we know it. Omniscience would require a consciousness of everything at once. That means an omniscient being would have unlimited access to everything at once. With that kind of omniscience, the concept of time becomes irrelevant, if we accept the notion that time and space are intricately related. If you inhabit the infinity of space, than you also inhabit the infinity of time. 'Changing one's mind' means to reconsider a position that was taken in the past. But a truly omniscient being inhabits all space-time at once. There's no such thing as the past if you are omniscient. No need for memory.
---
Honestly... I don't have a clue if omnipotence and omniscience is possible. But I find it practical to think in human creative terms. When a writer is writing a story, he is, in a way, omniscient and omnipotent. The writer is the God of his own creation. But the writer doesn't exist in a vacuum... That raises the good old endless question of the origin of God... Where does God come from... What is God's frame of reality?
Last edited:
Yes... it is a beautifully clever trap... To fully affirm his omnipotence, God would need to put an end to it.
All I can say is that it's beautiful but not impossible. Maybe God DID choose to sacrifice his omnipotence... Maybe he's a socialist and split his omnipotence in little parts and shared it with all his creation... That would explain free will...
Ok! OK!... I'll do whatever you want God... Now put the gun down... That's it... nice and slow!
What if we substitute the word universe for god? And then consider the terms "the one" or the "the way".
Does that change anything? Please expand.
I would gladly substitute the word 'God' for the word 'Universe', as long as the term 'Universe' is understood as being the absolute totality of existence... from matter to energy and to any other more subtle dimensions of existence. Perhaps our universe as we know it is part of a megaverse or multiverse... But the God-Universe I'm thinking of is all-including.
In other words, God is the principle of unity.
God is the UNI-verse... God is One.
But what about omniscience? Can a wholly unitary being be conscious of itself? I'd tend to answer both YES and NO. Consciousness is mainly understood as being a twofold relationship. To be conscious, a being must perceive something right? Because there is the perceiver and the perceived and they normally are 2 different things.
So if the God-Universe is conscious of itself through omniscience, a division happens through the moment of perception. God perceives himself and in a way, divides himself in two... What perceives, and what is perceived...
I said God divided himself in two by perceiving himself but you could as well say he multiplies himself by two. Because multiplication and division are practically the same thing... They simply are a reversal of each other. In division, a unit is divided in many parts. And in multiplication, a unit becomes part of a larger (divisible) unit.
So, while God is the principle of unity, multiplicity is needed for consciousness to take place. We are part of this multiplicity and I suspect we play an essential role in the consciousness of the God-Universe.
“All roads lead to Rome”. Everyone is searching for the truth. Some of them believe in God and others do not. The believers say God and non believers say Truth. What is the possibility that the truth and God are the same? I mean to ask when you understand the truth you will understand God or vice versa.