How do we know God is omni-..?

[Hubertus]

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-_____?

 

[SonCatcher]

It is characteristic of perfection. If it is good to be strong and God is strong then God is perfectly strong (omnipotent). et cetera

 

[StrawberryJam]

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-_____?

Don’t get hung up in the Omni thing. It would help to have some information to give to atheists that would address if god existed, and was not good. But, we have been round and round on that one haven’t we?

 

[tonyrey]

How could we believe the Supreme Being is anything else?

It’s a question of all or nothing. There are no half-measures!

The alternative is that God is absent, impotent, nescient or indolent…

If we try to sit on the fence we eventually fall off - on one side or the other…
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<:confused:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[hansard]

Well, a god could be almost entirely powerful, almost entirely present, etc. You know, far in excess of our capacity to understand, giving us the impression that he is omni-this and omni-that.
A god would just have to be far, far more powerful than his/her/its subjects to have complete validity as a god. Not only apparent power, of course, but demonstrable power–such power that caused people to worship him/her/it. I suppose that’s why people have worshipped the sun: it seems to be omnipresent and has great power. Of course, we now know that the sun is not god-like; it just seemed like it for many years.

Logically, is there any need for god to be omni? Can he just be* very*, exceedingly or almost entirely?

 

[meltzerboy]

I would also include the idea that G-d is “extra” (outside of) as well as “omni,” including extra-temporal, extra-spatial, extra-physical, extra-natural.

I think the reason for this belief is that anything less than “omni” and “extra” would mean that G-d is lacking something, even if that something is a very small quantity or quality. Since we view G-d as perfect, we cannot reconcile perfection with any kind of absence or lack. If, on the other hand, we are able to conceive of G-d as not perfect, then a lack would be acceptable. However, in that case, G-d would be as a point of comparison with ourselves and perhaps with alien beings superior to ourselves, and can even mean we may eventually be able to approach G-d in our abilities. This idea that G-d is a comparative Being would diminish the distinction between G-d and His creation in both a quantitative and qualitative sense. Instead, our own being would be on a continuum with respect to that of G-d, which I believe is unacceptable to our understanding of G-d.

 

[tonyrey]

I would also include the idea that G-d is “extra” (outside of) as well as “omni,” including extra-temporal, extra-spatial, extra-physical, extra-natural.

I think the reason for this belief is that anything less than “omni” and “extra” would mean that G-d is lacking something, even if that something is a very small quantity or quality. Since we view G-d as perfect, we cannot reconcile perfection with any kind of absence or lack. If, on the other hand, we are able to conceive of G-d as not perfect, then a lack would be acceptable. However, in that case, G-d would be as a point of comparison with ourselves and perhaps with alien beings superior to ourselves, and can even mean we may eventually be able to approach G-d in our abilities. This idea that G-d is a comparative Being would diminish the distinction between G-d and His creation in both a quantitative and qualitative sense. Instead, our own being would be on a continuum with respect to that of G-d, which I believe is unacceptable to our understanding of G-d.

There can be no defect or deficiency in “He Who Is”.

 

[hicetnunc]

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

Great question!

St Thomas deals with all of these things. I’ll share a couple from both Summas (Theologica and Contra Gentiles, particularly Book 1).

Let’s start by considering God’s omnipotence (which doesn’t mean that God can do everything, but rather that God can do everything that is possible, for “doing the impossible” is a logical contradiction. The same principle here will apply to the other ‘omnis’). Now imagine for a moment that there is something God cannot do that is possible to be done…let’s say create another parallel universe or to prevent evil from happening. Then, by the virtue of the fact that God’s power is limited in some way, then God would not be the first cause and we would have to seek another necessary cause for created being or a parallel first cause. But Thomas explains that there can only be one first cause of things (which St Thomas explains in the Summa Contra Gentiles: SCG 1.42.8). His argument runs like this:

If there were two or more necessary beings, or multiple first causes (let’s call them A and B for simplicity’s sake) then this would mean that A has some quality that B doesn’t have (because if A and B were identical in every respect, they would simply be two names for the same being). Now let’s call A’s differentiating quality Q. “Q” makes A different from B. But what is the cause of this quality Q? Either it is A itself, or something outside of A. If it is A itself, then it is a necessary feature of A thus B would have it too (since if a had it by necessity and B didn’t, then we would have our answer: A is the first cause and B isn’t). But if Q is not a necessary feature of A, then A is contingent, and there must be another necessary cause for Q which will not be A, but something upon which A is contingent or dependent. Then we will have to continue looking for our first cause of things because it clearly won’t be A.

In other words, if there are multiple first causes, they will need differentiating qualities which of necessity renders them non-necessary. Thus the first cause can only be one, and this first cause must be omnipotent in reference to everything that is possible. All the other omni’s are kinds of omnipotence, since they all involve God’s power and will, thus the same argument extends to them at least implicitly.

Hope this helps!

 

[Qoeleth]

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-_____?

Good point. The idea that God is perfect is logical, but how do we know what perfections are? For example, is knowledge really a ‘good’? And what’s so good about power? Why does God need to be be omniscient in order to be perfect.

I suggest that love is the only real good. Therefore- I would say God is omni-loving. This is the only attribute necessarily implied in the perfection of God (IMO). And that’s what we find in Jesus.

 

[tonyrey]

Great question!

St Thomas deals with all of these things. I’ll share a couple from both Summas (Theologica and Contra Gentiles, particularly Book 1).

Let’s start by considering God’s omnipotence (which doesn’t mean that God can do everything, but rather that God can do everything that is possible, for “doing the impossible” is a logical contradiction. The same principle here will apply to the other ‘omnis’). Now imagine for a moment that there is something God cannot do that is possible to be done…let’s say create another parallel universe or to prevent evil from happening. Then, by the virtue of the fact that God’s power is limited in some way, then God would not be the first cause and we would have to seek another necessary cause for created being or a parallel first cause. But Thomas explains that there can only be one first cause of things (which St Thomas explains in the Summa Contra Gentiles: SCG 1.42.8). His argument runs like this:

If there were two or more necessary beings, or multiple first causes (let’s call them A and B for simplicity’s sake) then this would mean that A has some quality that B doesn’t have (because if A and B were identical in every respect, they would simply be two names for the same being). Now let’s call A’s differentiating quality Q. “Q” makes A different from B. But what is the cause of this quality Q? Either it is A itself, or something outside of A. If it is A itself, then it is a necessary feature of A thus B would have it too (since if a had it by necessity and B didn’t, then we would have our answer: A is the first cause and B isn’t). But if Q is not a necessary feature of A, then A is contingent, and there must be another necessary cause for Q which will not be A, but something upon which A is contingent or dependent. Then we will have to continue looking for our first cause of things because it clearly won’t be A.

In other words, if there are multiple first causes, they will need differentiating qualities which of necessity renders them non-necessary. Thus the first cause can only be one, and this first cause must be omnipotent in reference to everything that is possible. All the other omni’s are kinds of omnipotence, since they all involve God’s power and will, thus the same argument extends to them at least implicitly.

Hope this helps!

There’s no doubt St Thomas was a genius.

 

[tonyrey]

Good point. The idea that God is perfect is logical, but how do we know what perfections are? For example, is knowledge really a ‘good’? And what’s so good about power? Why does God need to be be omniscient in order to be perfect.

I suggest that love is the only real good. Therefore- I would say God is omni-loving. This is the only attribute necessarily implied in the perfection of God (IMO). And that’s what we find in Jesus.

It follows necessarily because love is the greatest power that exists.

 

[Sam_777]

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

Those are direct words which help narrow our understanding to GOD.
But since we in the current form cannot fully understand GOD, then it’s better to represent GOD with symbols and let everyone (including atheists) imagining Him.

 

[Poseidon]

How could we believe the Supreme Being is anything else?

It’s a question of all or nothing. There are no half-measures!

The alternative is that God is absent, impotent, nescient or indolent…

If we try to sit on the fence we eventually fall off - on one side or the other…

                                 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<:confused:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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.

 

[Poseidon]

Good point. The idea that God is perfect is logical, but how do we know what perfections are? For example, is knowledge really a ‘good’? And what’s so good about power? Why does God need to be be omniscient in order to be perfect.

I suggest that love is the only real good. Therefore- I would say God is omni-loving. This is the only attribute necessarily implied in the perfection of God (IMO). And that’s what we find in Jesus.

Why exactly do you say that it’s logical to assume God is perfect? As far as I know it’s just an assumption most Christians make, without any real reason to think it other than it being dogma, so I’m curious what your thought process was.

 

[fred_conty]

God is greater than which cannot be thought.
Nothing can be equal because it would not be greater.
Nothing can be greater because if so, that being would be God.

Therefore if God is greater than which cannot be thought,
then he is greater in all perfections greater than which cannot be thought as well.

This also is true that God is love, greater than which cannot be thought.
So his mercy is without measure and his forgiveness likewise.

So he showed this measureless love when he came to us as a child and by dying on the cross in his manhood. “For greater love than this noone has than to lay down his life for his friends”
both in the wooden crib and on a wooden cross.

Just a thought about real true love, and mercy.

 

[tonyrey]

*How could we believe the Supreme Being is anything else?

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?

And what evidence or logical proof do you have that God is not absent, impotent, nescient, or indolent?

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.

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.

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

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!

 

[JDaniel]

How could we believe the Supreme Being is anything else?

It’s a question of all or nothing. There are no half-measures!

The alternative is that God is absent, impotent, nescient or indolent…

If we try to sit on the fence we eventually fall off - on one side or the other…

                                 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<:confused:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[JDaniel]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

 

[Qoeleth]

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?

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

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!

God is, by definition, ‘perfect’- it is all or nothing in that respect- but there still remains the unknown question of what such perfection includes. Aristotle, for example, said the perfection of God meant He could only contemplate perfect things, i.e. Himself. Plotinus said that God did not even contemplate Himself, since that would reduce His perfection.

I think we fall into troubles when we start to assume that God’s perfections are simply what we regard as ‘good’, but to an infinite degree. And it will vary with cultures- the ancient Norse regarded strength and valour as ''goods", and therefore developed a warrior-God image. The Greeks regarded intellect, and developed a kind of Reason-based God. I suppose Christians regard love as the greatest good- so our image of God is primarily loving.

I suppose there is a need for humility, in recognising that our language about God is not the same as God Himself.

 

[tonyrey]

God is, by definition, ‘perfect’- it is all or nothing in that respect- but there still remains the unknown question of what such perfection includes. Aristotle, for example, said the perfection of God meant He could only contemplate perfect things, i.e. Himself. Plotinus said that God did not even contemplate Himself, since that would reduce His perfection.

I think we fall into troubles when we start to assume that God’s perfections are simply what we regard as ‘good’, but to an infinite degree. And it will vary with cultures- the ancient Norse regarded strength and valour as ''goods", and therefore developed a warrior-God image. The Greeks regarded intellect, and developed a kind of Reason-based God. I suppose Christians regard love as the greatest good- so our image of God is primarily loving.

I suppose there is a need for humility, in recognising that our language about God is not the same as God Himself.

I entirely agree. I was responding to the statements:

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.

!