The nature of god. A stray thought.

If a god is claimed to be omnipotent, can it therefor simultaneously be god and not-god? Can an omnipotent being be of a nature that is not it’s own? If it cannot, then it is not omnipotent. If it can, then it loses it’s omnipotence.

If the latter were to be true, how do we know the Christian god, or Allah, or Taqyerpik hasn’t already done so?

Just a stray thought.

Advertisements
Tagged , ,

7 thoughts on “The nature of god. A stray thought.

  1. Tarnished says:

    We don’t. In fact, as deities are necessarily supernatural, one would think you can neither prove or disprove them via natural/scientific means.
    I’m Wiccan, and I love my faith…but even I recognize that it (like all religions) have no way of proving their Gods, or even that said Gods have all the powers we attribute to them.

  2. That which is omnipotent is omnipresent; everything, everywhere. Therefore, every thing is a part of it and comes from it. But the denser the form, the more diluted the awareness. Whether the purest of pure, the densest of dense, and everywhere in between, God Is.

    • Francis Roy says:

      > That which is omnipotent is omnipresent;

      How do you back that one up?

      > But the denser the form, the more diluted the awareness

      I’m not sure if you’re trolling or if you think this means something.

      PS: It would be good form to name the god you’re speaking of.

      • Not sure what you mean by ‘trolling’. For me, the words I’ve spoken do mean something, otherwise, I wouldn’t have said them. * smiles* I was passing by and saw your blog, thought I’d comment. That which I know, does not mean you will. You have to experience for yourself that which is. And then, they will no longer be only words, as they are now. Oh and one more thing. When I say the word God, it is not spoken of in the usual means society deems. I wish you peace.

      • Francis Roy says:

        Let me repeat my original question:

        > That which is omnipotent is omnipresent;

        How do you back that one up?

        > For me, the words I’ve spoken do mean something, otherwise, I wouldn’t have said them.

        And what meaning is another intended to glean?

        > Oh and one more thing. When I say the word God, it is not spoken of in the usual means society deems.

        What, then , is the point of speaking your own private language to someone in public, if you know that your meaning will not be understood using common language?

  3. When having a stray thought, or question not commonly asked, one should be prepared for an answer one may not necessarily understand. Therefore, when I passed by your blog, I understood the question, and answered the best way I could without taking up a lot of room and then perhaps still not be able to express to you the answer to your question in a way you might understand. If you really want to know what I’m speaking of, I would ask you to act like you do, rather than the way you are. if not, I’ll be on my way. Blessings… Sharon

    • Francis Roy says:

      Why are you dancing around two very simple questions? They are:

      1) > That which is omnipotent is omnipresent;

      How do you back that one up?

      and

      2) > For me, the words I’ve spoken do mean something, otherwise, I wouldn’t have said them.

      And what meaning is another intended to glean?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: