How do we know God is omni-..?

[mangy_dog]

Where did Hubertus go off to?

Anyway, you had it right and complete in the first 3 omni’s.

What we know of God are called notions. They are derived from philosophical observations of reason but elevated by faith. However, Jesus, in whom the entirety of the divinity exist- revealed to us the Father and all the notions that we have of the Father.

No one knows God except the Son who reveals Him. We can only know of God.

You have to be careful with atheists. They will get you wrapped around the axle over an “issue” and turn out that they don’t even accept the premise from which they drew the issue.

God- per se, has all the perfections that the creature- per accidens, aspires to attain or proximate.

 

[empther]

If God wasn’t ‘omni-’ in every way than he would be limited in some way.

What would determine his limits? What would keep from becoming greater? What determined his size, limits, whatever?

This would presume there was something else that controlled God’s power or even created them. But this is ridiculous. Our concept of God is that he is eternal and the creator of eveything else. He would not be God if he weren’t infinite in everything that can be said of him.

 

[Poseidon]

The theory of a finite, limited supreme Being raises more problems than it solves…
What would be the limiting factors? What would bring such a being into existence?

I’m not saying that this doesn’t raise issues, I’m just saying that simply because it raises issues doesn’t mean that it is necessarily false. For example, God could be infinite in time but not in power.

All those qualities are incompatible with continuous Creation which is necessary to sustain everything in existence. Supremacy is not associated with defects or deficiencies but with power and permanence.

Yes, I agree with you here. Something or someone must be infinite in time (continuous). I just don’t think that it necessarily follows that this infinite thing is an omnipotent, omni-all that jazz being.

I don’t think we’re likely to be affected by such a distinction! For all our intents our purposes it makes little difference.

Exactly what I was saying! From our limited view infinity is indistinguishable from “mind-bogglingly enormous.” Therefore, God could just be mind-bogglingly powerful, intelligent, and benevolent, and we wouldn’t be able to tell that these traits he possesses in such enormous quantities aren’t infinite. For all practical purposes they are infinite, even if they literally aren’t.

Besides, the creation of persons is a different proposition altogether. The power of creativity, freedom and insight takes us into unchartered territory which makes nonsense of any of our definitions, stipulations and reservations. It’s really a question of all or nothing!

I don’t think I quite follow here. What’s the uncharted territory, and why is it all or nothing?

 

[Poseidon]

You have to be careful with atheists. They will get you wrapped around the axle over an “issue” and turn out that they don’t even accept the premise from which they drew the issue.

Yup, better watch out for us mean old atheists. We’re all out to getcha!

 

[Poseidon]

Woah! Lots of good stuff here! Alright, I’ll try to respond.

Poseidon:

Let’s reason: Since the universe was created, and did not create itself, and since it is finite, and not infinite, then something had to exist that was not only prior to it, but also outside of it. We call this prime mover and first cause, that existed precedent to, and consisted of extensively more than was passed on to his creature, the universe, God.

Alright, I accept this. However, all it concludes is that there is some “prime mover.” It does not conclude that this prime mover is God as defined by Christian theology. It could just be some sort of bubble from the multiverse, for example, and by your definition that bubble is God.

Let’s look at “creation.” Creation is different from causation in one, terribly important way. In order to cause, an agent requires something, some substance out of which to fashion, i.e., build, a relatively new something. I say “relatively new,” because as we have always seen, the causation of something always brings forward, into the “effect,” at least some of the matter of those pre-existing raw materials. Creation, OTOH, has no requirement for pre-existing raw material. And, in fact, from what we can conclude, there wasn’t any.

Yes, so something came from nothing. I still don’t see how “omnibenevolent,” for example, necessarily follows. Reading on…

As “perfect” as we are, none of us can build a house in a landscape of only air, for example. But, we do not live in such a landscape. So, we are able to find bricks, blocks, wood, plastic, metal, etc., and we can fashion those things into things that we are likewise able to fashion into homes.

So, our first clear give away that God is more than just some imperfect being, is from such reasoning. He has produced a universe where before there was absolutely nothing. Now, I don’t know about your take, but my take is that any being that can do that, must be unlacking in any requisite power. Hence, omnipotence.

Alright, so it seems to me that the meat of your argument here is that God is a creator, not just a causer, and therefore, since limited beings such as us have zero creative capacity then you can’t just multiply humans to a huge number and arrive at God.

But does this really mean omnipotence, or does it just imply a different sort of power than that which humans wield? I’m honestly not sure here - anyone else want to weigh in?

Really? Let’s reason some more: Where do you think such an “enormous” being might exist? Recall, you said he only needs to be “finite.” So, he must have made appearances somewhere, at some time. Yet, no trace. All of mankind: no trace. The Hubble, no trace. The WMAP, no trace.

But you yourself already defined God as outside the universe. So of course we wouldn’t see him with Hubble or whatnot. Hubble can’t see outside the universe.

Do you think that such a being might need to breathe? Do you think such a being might need to eat? Do you think that such a being might occasionally get the urge to pro-create? Do you think that such a being might want to play, from time to time? Is there only one such being? When would it sleep? (Not to mention, “where!”) Does it get around by flying, gliding, or riding? Does its food require cooking? Does it need shoes and socks?

Here you seem to be mixing up omni-x with self sufficiency. Why couldn’t a being exist that is self sufficient (needs no outside support or influence to exist) but not omnipotent, omniscient, etc?

Of course, if you were stupid enough - and I don’t consider you stupid, by any means - you could say, “Well, all of those same questions could be asked of God.” But no, they cant. Because God’s Perfections preclude them. All of them. Don’t you see, if He lacked any perfection, we could ask at least one of these kinds of questions, and be well within our right minds to do so.

God bless,
jd

Agreed. If God as defined by Christian theology exists then he would have no need for food or socks.

 

[mangy_dog]

Yup, better watch out for us mean old atheists. We’re all out to getcha!

Not so much to “watch out for” as to not give to many pearls and sacred things.

 

[tonyrey]

The theory of a finite, limited supreme Being raises more problems than it solves…

I think “could” reveals a degree of improbability! At all events you need to give a reason for this apparently unnecessary complication given that simple explanations are superior unless there are very strong grounds for thinking otherwise.

All those qualities are incompatible with continuous Creation which is necessary to sustain everything in existence. Supremacy is not associated with defects or deficiencies but with power and permanence.

Yes, I agree with you here. Something or someone must be infinite in time (continuous). I just don’t think that it necessarily follows that this infinite thing is an omnipotent, omni-all that jazz being.

You haven’t specified the limiting factors. What are they? And what would bring such a being into existence?

I don’t think we’re likely to be affected by such a distinction! For all our intents our purposes it makes little difference.

Exactly what I was saying! From our limited view infinity is indistinguishable from “mind-bogglingly enormous.” Therefore, God could just be mind-bogglingly powerful, intelligent, and benevolent, and we wouldn’t be able to tell that these traits he possesses in such enormous quantities aren’t infinite. For all practical purposes they are infinite, even if they literally aren’t.

So we may as well believe they are!

Besides, the creation of persons is a different proposition altogether. The power of creativity, freedom and insight takes us into unchartered territory which makes nonsense of any of our definitions, stipulations and reservations. It’s really a question of all or nothing!

I don’t think I quite follow here. What’s the uncharted territory, and why is it all or nothing?

Science hasn’t explained creativity, freedom and insight even though it is based on them. So we have a choice: either they exist or they don’t. There can be no half-measures.

 

[JDaniel]

Alright, I accept this. However, all it concludes is that there is some “prime mover.” It does not conclude that this prime mover is God as defined by Christian theology. It could just be some sort of bubble from the multiverse, for example, and by your definition that bubble is God.

Poseidon:

That is correct. We haven’t gotten to what many call a “personal God” yet. But, that’s been handled countless times in these fora. I assumed that you’ve run across it many, many times by now. Are you saying you’ve never seen anything about the idea? If so, do you want to get into it?

Yes, so something came from nothing. I still don’t see how “omnibenevolent,” for example, necessarily follows. Reading on…

I didn’t say Omni-benevolent necessarily followed from God created “something.” Allow me to ask: as a kid, did you every use a couple of close pins to attach a grasshopper to a clothesline, and use matches to burn its antennae off, or its legs off? (Sorry to sound so gross, but this is important.)

Alright, so it seems to me that the meat of your argument here is that God is a creator, not just a causer, and therefore, since limited beings such as us have zero creative capacity then you can’t just multiply humans to a huge number and arrive at God.

It is a rather powerful argument. But, actually, it was directed to yours about "why can’t something else cause the universe? or, something along those lines.

But does this really mean omnipotence, or does it just imply a different sort of power than that which humans wield? I’m honestly not sure here - anyone else want to weigh in?

Perhaps you could describe some “different kind of power” for me. Anything that might make sense of what possibly that could mean.

But you yourself already defined God as outside the universe. So of course we wouldn’t see him with Hubble or whatnot. Hubble can’t see outside the universe.

This response was directed to yours about this nebulous cause being finite? You have to re-read your questions, in order to make full sense of my answers.

Here you seem to be mixing up omni-x with self sufficiency. Why couldn’t a being exist that is self sufficient (needs no outside support or influence to exist) but not omnipotent, omniscient, etc?

I suppose one could: how many of them have you seen? (I haven’t seen any. But, maybe I’m hangin’ with the wrong crowds!)

Agreed. If God as defined by Christian theology exists then he would have no need for food or socks.

But if, as you suggested he might be finite, then certainly he’d have need of many things! Right? (As any finite, non-self-sufficient thing might.)

God bless,
jd

 

[Poseidon]

Not so much to “watch out for” as to not give to many pearls and sacred things.

Well I hope you won’t be giving me to pearls, sacred things, or anything else. I’ll give myself away, thank you very much. Unless of course you meant “too” instead of “to…”

 

[mangy_dog]

The “supreme being” doesn’t necessarily have to be infinite or omni-everything. It/he/she could just be far superior to everything else in existence and would still be the “supreme” of everything.

And what evidence or logical proof do you have that God is not absent, impotent, nescient, or indolent? Certainly none of the miracles attributed to him require infinite power to perform. Even the creation of the universe (which is finite) would only require a finite amount of power. Enormous, certainly, but not infinite.

Wrong again…imagen that.

To be “far superior” still leaves the possibility of a being that is just a little more superior.

God- in order to qualify for the job- must be the perfection of all the perfections aspired to by creatures.

God is necessarily necessary existence and His essence (per se) coincides or is the same as His existence. Complete knowledge of self to the power of eternal now. His will- passive or active also coincides with His essence and His existence. Such a being is not limited in any way, shape or form and His realm is the supernatural- that is- above the natural (you and me) and the praeternatural (the saints, martyrs and angels in heaven).

Miracles are only attributable to God. And only God can suspend the laws of nature in the bringing about of miracles. Grace and miracles are His work.

And with this: No more pearls to the pigs or sacred things to the dogs.

 

[fred_conty]

The “supreme being” doesn’t necessarily have to be infinite or omni-everything. It/he/she could just be far superior to everything else in existence and would still be the “supreme” of everything.

And what evidence or logical proof do you have that God is not absent, impotent, nescient, or indolent? Certainly none of the miracles attributed to him require infinite power to perform. Even the creation of the universe (which is finite) would only require a finite amount of power. Enormous, certainly, but not infinite.

Since he creates out of non-existent nothing, everything that is, then he certainly would have complete power over everything which came from nothing but His willing it to be. And everything created would require God’s will to continue to exist. For if all came from God’s will, it would need God’s continuing will to exist at every moment in time or it would fall back into nothing from which it came.

This would mean he knows all, since creatures only continue to exist thru his will.
He is all powerful, since he brought everything into existence and made it to be what it is.
He is present to everything, by not allowing anything to fall back into non existence.

God is not infinite because he created, but he is infinite because of what he himself is. “I am who am” God said to Moses.
Infinite means without limit in any perfection.
As humans, we see everything as having limits, so this is beyond us to grasp. It is outside our experience and imagination.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[Poseidon]

Poseidon:

That is correct. We haven’t gotten to what many call a “personal God” yet. But, that’s been handled countless times in these fora. I assumed that you’ve run across it many, many times by now. Are you saying you’ve never seen anything about the idea? If so, do you want to get into it?

I have probably seen it in passing, but I haven’t been on these fora for all that long. And we don’t need to hijack this thread and get off topic. Possibly a new thread?

I didn’t say Omni-benevolent necessarily followed from God created “something.” Allow me to ask: as a kid, did you every use a couple of close pins to attach a grasshopper to a clothesline, and use matches to burn its antennae off, or its legs off? (Sorry to sound so gross, but this is important.)

No, I never did that. If I killed bugs I’d use the shoe method.

Perhaps you could describe some “different kind of power” for me. Anything that might make sense of what possibly that could mean.

I mean perhaps there is a “creative power” that God has, and there is “causative power” which humans have (God would also have causative power). Basically, you can have infinite causative power but still not be able to create anything out of nothing. Creating things out of nothing is a totally different type of power.

This response was directed to yours about this nebulous cause being finite? You have to re-read your questions, in order to make full sense of my answers.

I suppose one could: how many of them have you seen? (I haven’t seen any. But, maybe I’m hangin’ with the wrong crowds!)

Haven’t seen any either, but I also haven’t seen any gods/Gods, so maybe both of us are looking in the wrong place.

But if, as you suggested he might be finite, then certainly he’d have need of many things! Right? (As any finite, non-self-sufficient thing might.)

God bless,
jd

Not necessarily, because as we said it’s conceivable to have a being that is self sufficient, as in it can survive by itself, but doesn’t have infinite power/knowledge/presence/benevolence.

 

[JDaniel]

I have probably seen it in passing, but I haven’t been on these fora for all that long. And we don’t need to hijack this thread and get off topic. Possibly a new thread?

Poseidon:

Thank you for carefully thought-out and hospitable response. I’m good with the idea of a new thread. Please send me notification, or do you want me to start it?

No, I never did that. If I killed bugs I’d use the shoe method.

That always seemed more humane! But, I once saw the less humane done. There were some kids that lived behind my house, on my block, who thought it would be fun, I suppose. I went home feeling a little nauseous.

I mean perhaps there is a “creative power” that God has, and there is “causative power” which humans have (God would also have causative power).

Hmmm? I understand “creative” power and that it is proper to God. “Causative” power, if it relates to agency (efficient causality), on the other hand, is something that I have recently become less certain of. Yppop said: “We and all around us are nothing more than configurations of discrete space in the mind of God.” - Space

If that is the case, and I have no reason to think that it isn’t, then all of God’s thoughts are essentially “creative”. “Cause” is how we and science see it, at the explicate level. But, everything that God does is at the implicate level, and as pure thought, is absolutely creative. (But, I want to think this through some more.)

Basically, you can have infinite causative power but still not be able to create anything out of nothing.

In the sense that physical things cause, we have infinite numerical causal power. Have humans performed a sequential infinity of causal exigencies yet? No. You can never make an infinity out of an aggregation of finite structures. However, I think you mean it differently here. I think you mean it as an act of extraordinary proportion, an act that exceeds anything we can conceive as doable by finite creatures. In which case, I do not believe it is possible for finite creatures to create in that sense. Even if seven billion people tried to will it.

Creating things out of nothing is a totally different type of power.

This is true. But, I’m not sure that is what God does. I can postulate that he reconfigures space, or more precisely, s-points and s-gaps, which would seem to indicate that nothing is really something, but that would be pantheism and it has its own questions to beg.

Haven’t seen any either, but I also haven’t seen any gods/Gods, so maybe both of us are looking in the wrong place.

At the explicate level - which is all we have - we’re not likely to see (measure, test, or otherwise sense) that which is not within our capability. But, that doesn’t mean that we can’t postulate it. As I have been extolling, I agree with Yppop, that God creates at a level that is far different than ours. but, we can see the effects, at our level. We can postulate “mass,” though it makes little physical sense.

Not necessarily, because as we said it’s conceivable to have a being that is self sufficient, as in it can survive by itself, but doesn’t have infinite power/knowledge/presence/benevolence.

That is too limited a definition of “self-sufficiency” - as we are speaking of it. “Self-sufficiency” is the full-boat: self-creational and self-sustaining. In this sense, the more complete sense, such a being could not be without all of the other attributes. Perhaps you can describe a situation where it might.

Gotta go get some work done on my car. I’ll be back, as Arnold would say.

God bless,
jd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

How do we know that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent? (am I missing any?)

I know omnipotence at least is in Scripture, and I’m assuming the others are too. But is this the only source of our belief on the attributes of God? Was there a philosopher who derived any logical proofs of these qualities (perhaps not even a Catholic philosopher, as even some of the Greeks believed in perfect gods)? It would help to have some of this information to give to atheists, as they often say, “Well even if a god might exist, he doesn’t necessarily have to be omni-…”

So why do we believe that God is omni-_____?

The most sure way is by following the teachings of the Catholic Church. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the proceedings of the Councils, the teachings of the Fathers, the Bible and lastly the Summa Theologiae and the Summa Contra Gentiles and the Modern Scholastic Philosophy manuals on Natural Theology - but you should study Scholastic Cosmology, Psychology, and Metaphysics first. Don’t worry about arguing with athiests and agnostics, it is a waste of time. An absolute wast of time.

 

[sw85]

How do we know that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent? (am I missing any?)

I know omnipotence at least is in Scripture, and I’m assuming the others are too. But is this the only source of our belief on the attributes of God? Was there a philosopher who derived any logical proofs of these qualities (perhaps not even a Catholic philosopher, as even some of the Greeks believed in perfect gods)? It would help to have some of this information to give to atheists, as they often say, “Well even if a god might exist, he doesn’t necessarily have to be omni-…”

So why do we believe that God is omni-_____?

The First Cause/Unmoved Mover is a being that is being itself, i.e., unlimited being. So it must be unlimited with respect to every possible way a thing can be said “to be.” This means unlimited with respect to materiality (i.e., not confined to any one point in space or time, so omnipresent), vitality (i.e., not limited with respect to any power or function it’s capable of executing, so omnipotent – including the power to create ex nihilo), and rationality (i.e., not limited with respect to any rational faculties, including reason, self-awareness, particularity, personality, and lovingness – Hence he is omniscient, all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-loving).

 

[tonyrey]

The most sure way is by following the teachings of the Catholic Church. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the proceedings of the Councils, the teachings of the Fathers, the Bible and lastly the Summa Theologiae and the Summa Contra Gentiles and the Modern Scholastic Philosophy manuals on Natural Theology - but you should study Scholastic Cosmology, Psychology, and Metaphysics first. Don’t worry about arguing with athiests and agnostics, it is a waste of time. An absolute waste of time.

For specialists other points of view increase one’s appreciation of the truth but for a non-specialist it would be like investigating a medical problem!

 

[StrawberryJam]

Scholastic Cosmology?