Is God Omnipresent?

quote:

---

Do you mean God is evil?

---

That is certainly a possibility, isn't it?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I don't think it's logically possible for God to be evil. The phrase "evil God" just means "no God."If God is all-everything, He has to be all good as well.

But if God is all-everything, it stands to reason that God must be all-evil.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

That's like saying, "if God is all-everything, it stands to reason that God is mortal."By all-everything, I simply meant all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing: the usual idea."Evil" is a lack.

According to what religion? That statement is false.Why does he have to be there to create it? If he is omnipotent he could create it from anywhere, or nowhere, simultaneously, from the past...etc.If he HAD to have that attribute to create everything, then he isn't omnipotent.

quote:

---

By all-everything, I simply meant....

---

Okay, if you make up your own words with your own meanings, then every argument can be made logically valid. However, the premises may no longer correspond to anything in reality (or anything in other peoples' conceptions of reality).By all-everything I mean that God is a cheese Danish. See how easy this is?-

quote:

---

"Evil" is a lack.

---

Unless evil is the positive quality, and good is the lack of evil.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Oh, what nonsense. My argument did not depend on some term for its validity. I was using "all-everything" as shorthand for the traditional concept of God.God cannot be evil. Evil is a negative quality. You might as well say God is stupid.

to imply otherwise suggests pantheistic theology

quote:

---

I was using "all-everything" as shorthand for the traditional concept of God.

---

Well, the traditional concept of God has problems with coherence and consistency -- that is why the followers of the traditional concept of God has to bring in the notion of "ineffability". But once we allow that God cannot be understood by mere mortals, then anything is possible and rational debate becomes short-circuited.-

quote:

---

God cannot be evil.

---

A staight forward and literal reading of the Christian Bible would dispel this notion as well.-

quote:

---

Evil is a negative quality.

---

By "positive quality" I didn't mean that evil is necessarily a desirable thing. I merely meant to say that evil might be the thing that exists in and of itself, and that good is the absence of evil. If you have some arguments otherwise I invite you to one of the other threads where we are trying to figure out what this whole "good/bad" thing really is.-

quote:

---

You might as well say God is stupid.

---

That, too, is a possibility.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Who cares about the Bible? I'm talking about a philosophical definition of God. Omnipresence would have to be included. Otherwise God has boundaries.But just because God is "present," that doesn't mean he is the thing he's present at.

quote:

---

I'm talking about a philosophical definition of God.

---

Who cares about your philosophical definition of God?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

One ought to care because it's pertinent to the thread. I would argue that an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good and omnipresent God is the only one logically possible, if we are assuming this God to be the Creator.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-12-2006 12:45 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-12-2006 12:46 PM

You would? Under what circumstances could you be induced to argue this? So far you have been mainly making assertians about the nature of God and objecting when the rest of us don't simply accept these assertians.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

The circumstances under which I would make such an argument would have to be favorable. This God the Creator could not have arisen out of nature, since He created nature. He would also have to be perfect. If imperfect, He would have arisen out of nature.

So, things that do not arise from nature are perfect?