The Meaning of 'God is Almighty'
Jul 16, '07 1:09 AMby Mer for group philosophy
Have you ever thought about the meaning of God is almighty?
If God is almighty, he can be outside the universe or inside, can be omnipresence or somewhere, he can banish himself so he can be nowhere at the same time. He can live forever and even be dead. Of course later he can resurrect himself. He can even bo back to the past.
God is almighty and God is omnipresence, both are different in expression, but in reality the former includes the latter in notion.
Is there any omnipotent being? That is the eternal theme humans keep on raising. Omnipotent being can banish himself. Under the notion of Almighty God even atheism becomes just one phenomenon of theism.
Tags: almighty, omnipotence, omnipresence, atheism, theism
Prev: Reincarnation& Resurrection

Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded


rzks wrote on Jul 16Almighty mean, our logic just can't reach 'Him'. If there is a things that human logic can reach it, than it is absolutely not almighty God. Human can reach The Almighty God just by mean of his Heart. There's also a kind of logic in heart and we use it day to day, but not well defined yet.In Math we use infinite value (∞) then how could 'Mind Logic' accepted that ∞ - ∞ = ? It is not zero. It's just not defined. But we accept and use that value just like a number. We accepted it by combination of 'Heart Logic' and 'Mind Logic'. Omnipotent and omnipresence concept is out of 'Mind Logic'. There is nothing in our mind could accepted it. But it is a 'common heart senses'. Please don't try to analyze it just by 'Mind Logic', try to combined it with your heart.These are field of IQ-EQ-SQ.Salaam,K. Rezak16 July 2007


mercedo wrote on Jul 17Your reply is likely to be an optimal answer.


imelnychenko wrote on Jul 17, edited on Jul 17Infinity-Infinity=Infinity, not "?"

rzks wrote on Jul 17Infinity is something that we don't know. There is no way we can measure it.Then how could we explain(something we don't know) - (something we don't know) = ?The Result must be (things that we still don't know)Infinite or not, still we don't know. Or at least, I am not sure at all. :)


mercedo wrote on Jul 18I recall Georg Cantor's set theory. He insisted if we find one by one correspondence in each, we could define both are equal. This very questionable theory was commonly taught many years ago still while I was in primary school. I've heard it's been already long since set theory is no longer taught in compulsory education. Anyway, infinity minus infinity is zero according to 'set theory', I think.

rzks wrote on Jul 18HhmmmThere a lot of things to learn and thought.


baglava wrote on Jul 16, edited on Jul 16When god is almighty, can she create a stone too heavy for her to heave?

mercedo wrote on Jul 17This inconsistency is the primary question I had.


controlgroup wrote on Jul 16Ontologically, it's impossible to discuss an omniscient and omnipotent being, or even a merely omnipotent one. True philosophers don't discuss god in this context for this very reason; it's a stupid debate. The eternal theme humans keep on raising is not one of an omnipotent being; most humans don't even understand what omnipotence means. The eternal theme humans keep raising is "is there or was there a creator or a first cause?" That question is bounded and only takes about a decade to get up to speed on if you want to discuss it with the big boys.

mercedo wrote on Jul 17It is probably agnostic.


rzks wrote on Jul 17The next problems is 'how could we accepted the agnostics things ?'. In reality, it is influence our life, directly or indirectly. There should be a way to explain it to us.


controlgroup wrote on Jul 18Set theory distinguishes between aleph nought, "the first countable infinity" and aleph one "uncountable infinity". It's designed to measure whether a set is numerable or not, which is a fancy way of saying "theoretically countable". It doesn't really intersect with the "god" debate, in fact none of the infinity stuff does. YOu're not measuring "infinity" at all (except possibly as a set of things such a god could do, which would be ridiculous because the set of things I can do is uncountably iinfinite. Am I then a god?) No. The meta question that starts the debate is "can we define any characteristics of an omnipotent god that are testable either by theory, epistemology (theory again really), measurability, or comparison with the real external world?"