• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is omniscience or omnipotence really possible?

R

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
mball1297 said:
No, I'm actually not. The word omnipotent comes from the Latin words for "to be able to" and "everything". It means to have the power to do everything. That includes omnificence. Omnipotent is the umbrella under which omnificence falls. If you're omnipotent you are omnificent, but if you're omnificent, you're not necessarily omnipotent.
Click to expand...

Omnipotent, according to Webster's: "having virtually unlimited authority or influence."

Omnificience, according to the same source: "unlimited creative power."

These are exact quotes. The difference may be subtle, but they are significant. The former signifies primacy but not the doer of all things; the latter is pantheistic in its implications, implying God is the actual doer of all things.
 
mr.guy

mr.guy

crapsack
logician said:
And how is this set determined, by you or this supposed god?
Click to expand...
By existence (whatever that is).

What is possible (and whatever that means) is just that: possible.

What isn't, isn't.

In my supposition, i'd figured that what isn't possible is to be exempt from the set of "all", so it'd be outside the realm and potential manipulation and, presumeably, observation.

I'd long reckoned that to be pretty simple, really.


"To do anything",

...while a mouthful, doesn't simultaneously mean (to me):

"To do anything...and what isn't actually anything at all, as well".


Am i out on a limb here in supposing there's a difference between the above italicized statements?
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Rolling_Stone said:
Omnipotent, according to Webster's: "having virtually unlimited authority or influence."

Omnificience, according to the same source: "unlimited creative power."

These are exact quotes. The difference may be subtle, but they are significant. The former signifies primacy but not the doer of all things; the latter is pantheistic in its implications, implying God is the actual doer of all things.
Click to expand...

OK, let's go with the accepted definition better said by "The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary", according to which, omnipotent means "having unlimited power". There's no need for the "virtually", the omni- prefix means all or everything, not nearly all or everything. Combine that with your definition of omnificent, and you get one meaning to have unlimited non-specific, therefore all-encompassing power, while the other has only unlimited creative power. If I have unlimited power, period, then that includes unlimited creative power, and unlimited (insert adjective here) power. So, if I'm omnipotent, I'm necessarily omnificent. You can't be omnipotent without being omnificent, otherwise you wouldn't be omnipotent. Omnificence is a necessary part of omnipotence. :shout

I don't know how else to put it. Omnipotence implies that God can do anything and everything. That's why people started using that word for him. Nobody ever said he was omnificent because there is no need. Saying that he was omnipotent and omnificent would be redundant. It would be like saying "I'm wearing a suit, and I'm wearing pants". Obviously you're wearing pants, because you're wearing a suit. There's no need to say the pants part.

The reason the attribute of omnipotence is assigned to God is because he is seen to be able to do all things, which includes creating all things. If it didn't include that ability, he would not be said to be able to do all things, and wouldn't be thought to have created everything.
 
R

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
mball1297 said:
OK, let's go with the accepted definition better said by "The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary", according to which, omnipotent means "having unlimited power". There's no need for the "virtually", the omni- prefix means all or everything, not nearly all or everything. Combine that with your definition of omnificent, and you get one meaning to have unlimited non-specific, therefore all-encompassing power, while the other has only unlimited creative power. If I have unlimited power, period, then that includes unlimited creative power, and unlimited (insert adjective here) power. So, if I'm omnipotent, I'm necessarily omnificent. You can't be omnipotent without being omnificent, otherwise you wouldn't be omnipotent. Omnificence is a necessary part of omnipotence. :shout

I don't know how else to put it. Omnipotence implies that God can do anything and everything. That's why people started using that word for him. Nobody ever said he was omnificent because there is no need. Saying that he was omnipotent and omnificent would be redundant. It would be like saying "I'm wearing a suit, and I'm wearing pants". Obviously you're wearing pants, because you're wearing a suit. There's no need to say the pants part.

The reason the attribute of omnipotence is assigned to God is because he is seen to be able to do all things, which includes creating all things. If it didn't include that ability, he would not be said to be able to do all things, and wouldn't be thought to have created everything.
Click to expand...
Let's go by what you said. That does not mean God is the doer of all things. He can delegate to secondary causations. But to delegate and then intercede would invalidate the conferred authority. God would still be the primary causation, having all authority and the primary influence.

In other words, generalizing as you do can be misleading, leading people to think the "problem of evil" is a problem. For the vital distinction between first causes and second causes is that only first causes produce effects which are free from any limiting factor derived from any antecedent causation, whereas the effects of secondary causes invariably exhibit the limitations inherited from other and preceding causation
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Logician said..
"Posted by Ben D. 'I'm not sure that a non-omniscient being such as man can determine if the state of omniscience is an absurdity. Certainly it does seem to be an absurdity to postulate an omniscience and then attribute to it the limit of only knowing about 'things' and 'decisions unrelated to itself.'

Surely a god could have limitations, again this limited god would NOT be omniscient, I should have stated the limitation not in terms of omniscience, but just of knowledge only of things and actions which do not involve its own decisions.
I would still insist that "To do anything" is a limited statement; simply, "anything" would only be composed of what is in the set of "things that can be done".
And how is this set determined, by you or this supposed god?"

Omniscience can only be considered an attribute of the absolute, along with the other associated attributes of being eternal and infinite.
It, by definition can't be imagined to have any limitations as that would be
disingenuous and illogical.
However if you postulate the existence of a cosmic god that is interacting with the larger cosmic environment in which it has its existence, then of course it would be limited. It may be further up the food chain then mortals, but everything in existence has a complementary opposite that acts in a sort of adversarial role,.. that's why the cosmos has order. Such a being/force/god could not be omniscient.
However if one were to postulate a God absolute,... an infinite, eternal, all knowing oneness that was never created, here we dealing with the only concept that offers a logical framework for understanding the universe in which we live. The complementary opposite of this God absolute is...the not-omniscient, not-eternal, not-infinite, not-oneness, and created,....which is the very cosmos beheld by our perceptions.
 
crystalonyx

crystalonyx

Well-Known Member
mr.guy said:
By existence (whatever that is).

What is possible (and whatever that means) is just that: possible.

What isn't, isn't.

In my supposition, i'd figured that what isn't possible is to be exempt from the set of "all", so it'd be outside the realm and potential manipulation and, presumeably, observation.

I'd long reckoned that to be pretty simple, really.


"To do anything",

...while a mouthful, doesn't simultaneously mean (to me):

"To do anything...and what isn't actually anything at all, as well".


Am i out on a limb here in supposing there's a difference between the above italicized statements?
Click to expand...


Normally, terms can't be self-defining.
 
crystalonyx

crystalonyx

Well-Known Member
The way the universe operates does not lend itself to the idea of omnipotent or omniscient beings.

At best there may be super-intelligent aliens out there.
 
logician

logician

Well-Known Member
mball1297 said:
How the universe got here, for one. Ideas like eternity and omnipotence for another.
Click to expand...

I think we have gone a long way towards learning how the universe got here, and a blanket statement that it is beyond understanding may not hold into the future.

I don't believe there is such a thing as omnipotence, and an eternity is impossible to experience, although I can understand it means w/o end or beginning.
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
logician said:
I think we have gone a long way towards learning how the universe got here, and a blanket statement that it is beyond understanding may not hold into the future.

I don't believe there is such a thing as omnipotence, and an eternity is impossible to experience, although I can understand it means w/o end or beginning.
Click to expand...

Maybe someday we will understand how the universe got here, but I doubt it.

you don't believe in omnipotence because to us it's impossible. Why? Because we can't comprehend it fully. Try to actually imagine forever. What do yo come up with? A headache.
 
Popeyesays

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
"NOTHING CAN BE ALL POWERFUL"

I agree, however, God, the Creator of ALL things, is not a "thing" at all.

Therefore your statement is true but it is entirely irrelevant to the nature of God or God's capacity to be "all powerful".

Regards,
Scott
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top