ax

I'm not sure it this belongs here, se feel free to move it, mods.
Can a God be all everything? What are the probs?
I can think of:
If it is all powerful, it's capable of doing everything.
If it's all loving, it's 100% love, no room for the ability to act out of hate. If you are incapable of doing an action out of hate, you are incapable of an action, and not all powerful.
I don't have any other examples, but I'm wondering what other examples you people have.
Could you also explain thigs a little dumber?
eg: "all powerfull, all loving" insread of "omni this and omni that.
Thanks for your help in this.

Nowhere357

"Can god create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?" or the modified "Can god create a race of people with the potential to become more powerful than god?".

IMO anytime infinity or eternity (or "all everything") is examined closely, we find things getting very strange.

The argument you gave I have seen attacked elsewhere with "god CAN hate, he just chooses not to".

So to answer your question "Can a God be all everything?": only if "God" is defined as "the natural universe".

Hope this helps.

Keith Russell

But, the 'natural universe' (existence/reality) is not omniscient, not omnipotent, not infinite, etc.

While certain entities within the 'natural universe' are conscious, the 'universe' itself is not.

I know of no concept of 'God' which corresponds accurately and/or completely to the universe--neither as a whole, nor in part.

Keith.

Nowhere357

Hi Keith. I agree with your first statement (although I think "infinity" is a bit problematic).

I think I agree with your second statement also, though the conclusion isn't obvious (IMO).

The third statement I disagree with: Because I defined the word "God" to mean "the natural universe", you are now aware of a concept of "God" which corresponds accurately and completely to the universe. If you mean that there is no organized or accepted religion with that view, then of course I agree.

What is your favorite logical fallacy based on the idea of an "all-powerful" god?

Philosoft

I always find this a curious defense. If god never performs "to hate," whatever the reason for his not doing so, in what sense can he perform "to hate"? Or, is there a possible world in which God can perform "to hate"?

Nowhere357

Hi Philosoft. I am honored to hear from you.

IMO, the only theistic argument with any weight at all, is "personal mental experiences". I can argue that they are INTERPRETING any such experiences incorrectly, and that it's not logical to expect others to accept their interpretations without evidence. I figure that if someone actually DID receive a "message from god" (or whatever), clearly it's a personal message and none of my business.

The_Ist

Most theists define all-powerful (omnipotence) as the ability to do anything logically possible. If God is 100% love (though I think some people would debate this), then he cannot hate; it is a logical impossibility, given his all-loving nature. Thus, this problem wouldn't limit his all-powerfulness, because it doesn't present a scenario where God is unable to do something logically possible.

BobW

The_Ist:
Most theists define all-powerful (omnipotence) as the ability to do anything logically possible. If God is 100% love (though I think some people would debate this), then he cannot hate; it is a logical impossibility, given his all-loving nature. Thus, this problem wouldn't limit his all-powerfulness, because it doesn't present a scenario where God is unable to do something logically possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Close, but I think the problem is deeper then the theistic explanation. Is motivation part of an action? One person might kill another for many reasons, financial gain (mugging), indifference, love, hate, etc. Is the motivation inextricably entwined with the doing? Are these illustrations to be considered different actions or are they all the same?
The original statement by Ax: " If it's all powerful, it's capable of doing everything. If it's all loving, it's 100% love, no room for the ability to act out of hate"
The conclusion hinges on the modifier " out of hate". Theists would also say that allowing the person to be killed was an act of love on the part of god. I don't believe we can rely on thiests for philosophical insights, when we do, things get muddled.

Philosoft

Heh. It's an honor to be heard.
Hmm. I'd say the only real weight "personal mental experiences" carry is that they are a priori unfalsifiable. In that case, I'm not sure how useful it is as an argument.

Philosoft

What I'd really like is for Thomas Metcalf to show up about now. Absent that, I'm going to try to summarize his standard rebuttal without causing too much semantic damage.

Suppose there is a being, McEar, who can only perform one action: he can scratch his ear. It is logically impossible for McEar to perform any other action. So, by the definition of "omnipotent" given, McEar is an omnipotent being.

Clearly then, the definition of "omnipotent" as "the ability to do anything logically possible" is incomplete.