You're defining omnipotence as something physical, though. That's what matter and energy are, physical. But that wouldn't be the case for the classical God. That's the issue.
-
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!
Poll: The best argument against God, capital G.
- Thread starter dybmh
- Start date
You're defining omnipotence as something physical, though. That's what matter and energy are, physical. But that wouldn't be the case for the classical God. That's the issue.
Not at all, I don’t particularly believe in deity.
Well, the question that I was responding to was that of the definition of “power”, which appeared to be at issue between yourself and @Ostronomos, not power as it applies to the God concept.
I am not defining omnipotence, i am using the accepted definition.
As i understand it many would disagree with you on your definition of God though.
Yes i realise that.
The whole thread is about the god concept, that's what my argument is based on
Omnipotence is the ability to do all things. How the doing gets done isn't part of the definition, generally. Either way, your definition doesn't apply to something non-physical.
Nearly everyone I know, or have heard of, who believes in a monotheistic sort of God believes that God is non-physical. People who believe God is a physical object are most certainly the minority.
Well that begs the question what is the point of talking to a deity? Is it to serve you or is it for other reasons?
For me in paganism it's to build a mutal relationship. How can you do that with a hidden god? Also to your point a god that cares about you will be present in a time of need.
@dybmh This is another argument that i dont see your list. It's not a good argument but it is an argument. That is the relatability of a deity. Oftentimes wanting a relationship with a deity is a reason to honor them. In abrahamic religions their God is perfect. Super powerful unable to make mistakes. I don't want to work with a god like that. I can't relate to them. With pagan gods or luciferian ones you can relate to them. They are flawed. As flawed as humans but on a bigger scale cuz of how powerful they are. And i can see an argument for why worship something that's flawed but for me that's easier then worshiping a perfect being. I can also see an argument for ways you can relate on other levels to an abrahamic God.
I see omnipotence as in Oxford languages as : the quality of having unlimited or very great power.
And omnipotent as : (of a deity) having unlimited power.
It's the words power i am working with.
So are you saying no physical power doesn't need energy? Could you please explain.
Probably but of more than half the world population believing in a big G God even a minority is a lot
Yes, this is power as potential, as is suggested by the etymology of the word omnipotence. It is power describing a state of being, rather than relating to a process in which work is done. Do you see? The word omnipotence is re-analyzable into English as “all potency” (omnis + potentia); potency here more obviously has nothing to do with work or the expending of energy.
Last edited:
Something non-physical wouldn't be bound by physical laws of matter and energy.
If you're interested in critiquing the view of a tiny minority...okay?
I can't stop you.
Nor would it exist.
If you're interested in critiquing the view of a tiny minority...okay?
My belief is more than a tiny minority.
Potence : having great power, influence, or effect.
Not particularly obvious if you take big G religious belief of the abilities of their God
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Then you have to prove that the universe is as such physical and everything that exists. Can you do that?
Yeah, that is my personal estimation, and obviously yours as well, but it is unprovable and unverifiable.
I'd love to see you prove that.
Your belief that God is a physical object?
Yes, Christine, yes it is a tiny minority.
Correct but just as a believer sees evidence for a God, i see evidence against a god. Not proof, but evidence. My E=MC2 argument is (to me) one piece of that evidence.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, but you have to show that all of the universe for all cases is physical and that the universe is everything that exists.
E=MC is not a universal theory of all of the universe. It only applies to a part.
That works both ways. My E=MC2 argument is a step but not proof
No my belief that a goodly number of god believers believe god is physical
I don't believe it's tiny. Certainly judging by comments on these pages it is a good percentage. Even a few percent of over 3.5 billion is substantial
Go ahead and show the whole argument.
Mkay. You're not dealing with the mainstream view of the God of the Philosophers and Abrahamics, but...okay.
Do as you wish.
The bible claims the Abrahamic god to be omnipotent. Omnipotemce is infinite power. Power is energy expended over time. If energy were infinite (as required by omnipotence) then mass couldn't exist. You and I are mass
As i said, a percentage.