Is God omnipotent?

[Alexandergreat3]

Originally Posted by prothero

Well actually I respect agnostics and atheists and consider their position rational, but for the purposes of the thread one needs to at least consider the possibility that the "divine" exists and that it has attributes. If the divine exists does it need to be omnipotent? In fact is the notion of an omnipotent divine compatible with our knowledge of the history and nature of the universe as we understand it in the modern age? Could a non omnipotent entity still be considered god and an entity worthy of praise and worship?

Do you mean like a group or one highly genetically evolved living organism (may or may not look like a human) capable of superhuman abilities. A Superman type of living organism.

Sure, that seems possible.

In that case, the superhuman should be respected and admired.

[prothero]

Originally Posted by Alexandergreat3

In that case, the superhuman should be respected and admired.

A god who can bring order from the formless void, and "persuade" the universe into its various forms and values deserves respect and praise whether that "entity" is omnipotent or not.
I would say omnipotence is actually an undersirable trait of deity not a requirement at all.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by prothero

I would say omnipotence is actually an undersirable trait of deity not a requirement at all.

Perhaps. But in that case you may have a god. But not, God.

[prothero]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Perhaps. But in that case you may have a god. But not, God.

And just who "defined" God for you?

[salima]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Perhaps. But in that case you may have a god. But not, God.

what's the difference?
you mean it is speculation rather than fact? but again, as far as the idea is concerned, what's the difference?

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by prothero

And why would you think, God has the slightest interest in what happens to you while you are riding your motorcycle? or that god has that kind of a detailed plan for you or anyone else for that matter?

Personally I wouldn't think this. I don't think there is a plan. In fact, I don't even believe there is an architect.

Originally Posted by prothero

I never really argue with other people's subjective exprience. My response is that belief in god, in higher purpose, in transcendent value is capable of giving people the inspiration to do that which they think themselves incapable of doing on their own or for themselves. God may talk to you but if it is in a loud clear voice I would have my concerns.

I often find myself arguing with people's subjective experiences, because they are often wrong, and sometimes they try to create various rules, policies, and codes of conduct based on their erroneous experiences that they expect me to abide by. How can I not argue?

Other than that, I am in agreement with your thoughts on transcendent value as inspiration. As an artist, I often seek the transcendent. I share your concerns about the "loud clear voice." There are many of them these days . . .

[prothero]

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

Personally I wouldn't think this.

Neither would I. Even the religious should look both ways before crossing the street.

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

I don't think there is a plan.

Well not the kind of detailed plan the concept of divine omniscience calls for. I still see a sort of striving for order, complexity, life, mind, experience and aesthetics but not much “personal protection” involved.

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

In fact, I don't even believe there is an architect .

Well now you have gone too far. The universe remains ordered, rationally intelligible and aesthetically pleasing. Too much “telos” to be accidental or purposeless in my view.

[Reconstructo]

This four-dimensional (spacetime) universe is toy given to an adolescent deity on his 70000000000th birthday. This teenaged deity lives in 45 dimensions. His father sometimes goes on business trips to a hyper-verse of 505 dimensions.

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by prothero

Well not the kind of detailed plan the concept of divine omniscience calls for. I still see a sort of striving for order, complexity, life, mind, experience and aesthetics but not much “personal protection” involved.

This may be key. This is what you see, but is it really the case that it is so? Perhaps it is just our human minds that are detecting this supposed order you mention, and not some "divine creator mind" that exists out there somewhere.

Note: I am not suggesting that if human minds were not present to perceive the universe that it would not exist. I see no reason to believe that this would be the case.

Originally Posted by prothero

Well now you have gone too far. The universe remains ordered, rationally intelligible and aesthetically pleasing. Too much “telos” to be accidental or purposeless in my view.

Again, some of these points seems a bit subjective, but, as you noted, this is your view. Mine is slightly different.

Do you believe that the universe was created for our benefit? Your "aesthetically pleasing" remark just got me wondering.

[Reconstructo]

Both theism and atheism could described as white lies. Do we not have emotional reasons for adopting one view or the other?

But "lie" should be understood in an ironic metaphorical sense.