An omni-everything God is a dead God

[cloudyday2]

I'm just curious if others will agree or disagree with this opinion. If God is omniscient then how can He laugh at the punch line of a joke? Surprise makes us laugh at a joke. God can't be surprised if He is unchanging and knows everything and so forth. The God of the Bible experiences disappointments, changes of mood, etc. None of that fits with the omni-everything God.

 

[Winken]

https://www.gotquestions.org/God-omniscient.html

What does it mean that God is omnipresent?

 

[Eryk]

There is more than one way to be conscious. Why would the limits of our knowledge set the standard?

Laughing at jokes is good for our mental health because it gives us a safe way to be surprized. It also helps us to cope with anxiety by helping us laugh at what we fear. A being who has no need for our adaptive functions is not mindless. He just has a different mind. For theists, this higher persepective is important because this is how we will live when God heals his creation and makes all things new. An existence free from fear and coping mechanisms, free from tyranny and the need for satire.

 

[cloudyday2]

O.k. let's take the claim that God is omnipresent. But we have people inviting God into their hearts. That doesn't make sense if God is omnipresent. ... You might say that God is present somewhat in everybody's heart, but we can ask Him to be more present. ... But whoops, God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, so He can't be more present in your heart today than He was yesterday.

I don't know which Christian theologian started all that omni-this and omni-that, but he didn't think it through. It's all very flattering to God, but it doesn't work IMO.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I wonder if God created man with a free will so He could be surprised?

 

[cloudyday2]

I wonder if God created man with a free will so He could be surprised?

It's hard to be surprised when you're an omniscient, omnipresent, unchanging God (as many Christian theologians like to claim).

 

[Silmarien]

I'm just curious if others will agree or disagree with this opinion. If God is omniscient then how can He laugh at the punch line of a joke? Surprise makes us laugh at a joke. God can't be surprised if He is unchanging and knows everything and so forth. The God of the Bible experiences disappointments, changes of mood, etc. None of that fits with the omni-everything God.

There is a 2000 year old tradition within Judeo-Christianity of allegorizing this type of biblical language specifically because of this problem. The idea that God experiences emotions in the same sense that humans do is so much crazed anthropomorphism, as far as I'm concerned.

Actually, here's a post by Father Aidan Kimel that might be interesting to you. It deals specifically with this theological debate.

O.k. let's take the claim that God is omnipresent. But we have people inviting God into their hearts. That doesn't make sense if God is omnipresent. ... You might say that God is present somewhat in everybody's heart, but we can ask Him to be more present. ... But whoops, God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, so He can't be more present in your heart today than He was yesterday.

We can ask him to be more present, sure, but that doesn't mean that he changes. It would make more sense to say that he is affecting change upon us, I would say, or that our position relative to him is being altered. I don't think it has any effect upon the concept of omnipresence, unless we think the word "presence" has the same meaning in every context. I wouldn't say that at all.

I don't know which Christian theologian started all that omni-this and omni-that, but he didn't think it through. It's all very flattering to God, but it doesn't work IMO.

Mmm, I doubt Aquinas started it, but he sure thought it through. Too much, probably.

 

[paul1149]

let's take the claim that God is omnipresent. But we have people inviting God into their hearts. That doesn't make sense if God is omnipresent. ... You might say that God is present somewhat in everybody's heart, but we can ask Him to be more present.

It's a good question. First consider the prayer of the psalmist:

Spoiler: Psalm 139

O LORD, you have searched me and known me!
You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar.
You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways.
Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.
You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it.
Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.
If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light about me be night,”
even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is bright as the day, for darkness is as light with you.
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.
How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!
If I would count them, they are more than the sand. I awake, and I am still with you
[...]
Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts!
And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting! -Ps 139:1-24

It's clear from that text that God has access to everywhere. Man cannot escape Him forever. But that psalm is written from the perspective of one who has actively invited God in and yielded fully to Him.

On the other hand, in general, God has limited Himself for our benefit, otherwise we wouldn't be able to exist (exod 18.18-23). Even in heaven there are angels who cover His face (ezek 28.14). We see it also in the anthropomorphic language of the OT as well. He is relating to us in terms we can understand, for our benefit.

God created us with free will, and He is very, very good at meaning what He says, and at delegating authority. He gave Adam dominion over the earth, and did not take it back when Adam disobeyed, even at the price of the creation inheriting the consequences of Adam's disobedience. That's how committed God is to our freedom of choice. "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance." He instead chose to work with us to bring about our redemption, respecting our freedom all the way. This is why we suffer evil until the time comes to wrap this whole thing up. At the right time, He will put in the scythe.

And so He limits His presence in our hearts unless we invite Him in. (As we say, the Holy Spirit is a gentleman - though, most emphatically, not a wuss). And believe me, this is a problem even for believers, because along the road of sanctification we find again and again that we must dig deeper and give Holy Spirit greater access and dominion (Lk 6.48).

 

[cloudyday2]

There is a 2000 year old tradition within Judeo-Christianity of allegorizing this type of biblical language specifically because of this problem. The idea that God experiences emotions in the same sense that humans do is so much crazed anthropomorphism, as far as I'm concerned.

Actually, here's a post by Father Aidan Kimel that might be interesting to you. It deals specifically with this theological debate.



We can ask him to be more present, sure, but that doesn't mean that he changes. It would make more sense to say that he is affecting change upon us, I would say, or that our position relative to him is being altered. I don't think it has any effect upon the concept of omnipresence, unless we think the word "presence" has the same meaning in every context. I wouldn't say that at all.



Mmm, I doubt Aquinas started it, but he sure thought it through. Too much, probably.

I haven't read the link and thought in detail, but let me point-out another problem with this omniscient, unchanging God.

There is a connection between parsing a language and computation and thinking. Don't you imagine God should be able to think? One model of thinking is the Turing machine which requires state changes on an infinitely long tape storage device. If God can think then He cannot be unchanging. How can I think if I already know the answer to my question before I start thinking?

It's ironic that gospel songs often describe God as "the solid rock". The theologians make Him so solid that He is inert and dead.

One model of God that seems useful to me is to imagine Him as a human and imagine this universe as a computer simulation in God's universe. God is born, lives, and dies in God's universe, but God can rewind our simulation, fast forward, change parameters, restart from the Big Bang, etc. From our perspective inside the computer simulation, we might experience an elderly God one moment and a teenager God the next moment.

 

[cloudyday2]

Actually, here's a post by Father Aidan Kimel that might be interesting to you. It deals specifically with this theological debate.

Thanks, I read that post now. I'm glad to see that some modern theologians share my opinion about the omni-everything God. The only purpose of all these superlatives would be to flatter God, but the omni-everything God is impervious to flattery along with everything else; He is as responsive as a "solid rock"... so much for a relationship with God.

The theologians who make God so perfect and abstract also make him dead. They might as well be atheists IMO.

 

[SPF]

O.k. let's take the claim that God is omnipresent. But we have people inviting God into their hearts. That doesn't make sense if God is omnipresent. ... You might say that God is present somewhat in everybody's heart, but we can ask Him to be more present. ... But whoops, God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, so He can't be more present in your heart today than He was yesterday.

To be blunt, this is pretty much non-sense and only serves to show your complete lack of understanding of "Christian jargon". And granted, there is no reason why you ought to understand Christian jargon unless someone has taken the time to explain it to you.

A person "inviting God into their heart" is the Christian way of saying that a person has accepted the basic tenants of Christianity that would cause them to become a Christian. Namely, that person has recognized that they are a sinner, that they need forgiveness, that this forgiveness comes VIA the atoning work of Christ, and that they are believing that Christ did die for them on the cross, rose from the grave, and has the power to forgive them of their sins and transform their lives.

God, if He exists would by definition be a maximally perfect being. In theology, what we say about God is that He has both communicable and incommunicable attributes. Everything you're speaking to here would fall into the incommunicable attributes.

What I personally find humorous is that you're complaints about the nature of God seem to be focused on the attributes that you can't comprehend. And your response to the fact that there might be things about God's nature that you can't comprehend must mean that either God doesn't exist or we're wrong about them.

From the outside looking in at your posts, honestly you sound really arrogant. What I mean by this is that you come across as someone who actually thinks they ought to be able to comprehend and understand the nature of an eternal being who has the capacity to create out of nothing and exists. Why in the world would you come from the default position of thinking that you ought to be able to understand and comprehend the nature of God?

 

[Silmarien]

There is a connection between parsing a language and computation and thinking. Don't you imagine God should be able to think? One model of thinking is the Turing machine which requires state changes on an infinitely long tape storage device. If God can think then He cannot be unchanging. How can I think if I already know the answer to my question before I start thinking?

I don't, actually. The idea that God "thinks" in the same way that we do is odd to me, since we can only really model things in human terms, and turning around and applying them back to God in a direct sense just seems to be making a god in our own image. I don't think it works.

One model of God that seems useful to me is to imagine Him as a human and imagine this universe as a computer simulation in God's universe. God is born, lives, and dies in God's universe, but God can rewind our simulation, fast forward, change parameters, restart from the Big Bang, etc. From our perspective inside the computer simulation, we might experience an elderly God one moment and a teenager God the next moment.

My problem with this is that if this god is a being within its own universe that is simulating our own, no theological questions are addressed. Now you simply need to explain why that universe exists, why there is something instead of nothing with regards to this particular god, and the whole issue simply moves up another level.

If you think the existence of God is theologically necessary to avoid infinite regresses or to model what "necessary" being instead of "contingent" being would look like, in the Thomist tradition, then you need to make at least some concessions to classical theism. Otherwise you might as well believe in Artemis or Freya. (Which... sure, if you want to. Just don't get turned into a deer.)

But I know you've spent time with the Orthodox. I'm surprised you've never had this view seriously defended, since they generally insist upon it. And take a mystical enough approach that it really doesn't look dead at all.

Thanks, I read that post now. I'm glad to see that some modern theologians share my opinion about the omni-everything God. The only purpose of all these superlatives would be to flatter God, but the omni-everything God is impervious to flattery along with everything else; He is as responsive as a "solid rock"... so much for a relationship with God.

It's not about flattery. Usually, it's about Aristotelian metaphysics and making sense of what the term "God" really means at all.

I'd recommend spending some time over at Ed Feser's blog if you want to get a sense for how it works. He's probably the strongest modern defender of this view, and has managed to convert both theists who disagreed and the occasional skeptic to this approach. (Actually, it's best to read both him and David Bentley Hart together--one is very logically oriented and the other very poetic, so there's a lot of synergy between their styles. Even if they don't exactly get along.)

The theologians who make God so perfect and abstract also make him dead. They might as well be atheists IMO.

We do occasionally get accused of atheism, yes. Which is a little bit odd, though there is a point at which negative theology does slip into fullblown agnosticism. Too much of a focus on God as unknowable and you can end up saying nothing whatsoever.

Christianity usually doesn't run into this problem, though. Trinitarian theology in particular really revolutionizes the concept--now you're positing a grounds of being that is both unity and diversity, and you can talk about God in truly dynamic terms as you've got this eternal interaction between the persons. Trinitarianism is... difficult conceptually, but in a way, I think it's actually the most coherent form of classical theism. (Which is funny, since it means that the one thing I always thought most insane about Christianity is what's likely to finally overthrow me altogether. )

On the other hand, I don't think Trinitarianism works at all except in the concept of classical theism. If we do not think of God as a particular instance of being, but as Being Itself, then it's not incoherent to say that God is also in some way diverse and three persons. I have no idea how God can be both one person and three persons at the same time, though. That's polytheism.

 

[cloudyday2]

I don't, actually. The idea that God "thinks" in the same way that we do is odd to me, since we can only really model things in human terms, and turning around and applying them back to God in a direct sense just seems to be making a god in our own image. I don't think it works.

If God made us in His image, then it seems reasonable to assume that humans share certain traits with God. The omni-everything God seems to share no traits with humans. I would expect at the bare minimum that "thinking" should be a common trait.

My problem with this is that if this god is a being within its own universe that is simulating our own, no theological questions are addressed. Now you simply need to explain why that universe exists, why there is something instead of nothing with regards to this particular god, and the whole issue simply moves up another level.

That's true, but that mystery is for God to solve. We can feel comfortable knowing that our universe is merely a simulation in God's computer. Maybe God is an atheist.

But I know you've spent time with the Orthodox. I'm surprised you've never had this view seriously defended, since they generally insist upon it. And take a mystical enough approach that it really doesn't look dead at all.

Our parish was very small and the priest was a bit wacky. Here is an Orthodox link I like that seems to argue for a more personal God with human traits.

In the Orthodox Church we believe that God reveals Himself to us in truth. This means, basically, that as human beings we have the inherent ability to know God directly and simply i.e., personally. Just as Enoch and Noah “walked with God,” (Gen. 5:24, 6:9), and just as Moses “spoke with the Lord face to face, as a man speaks to a friend,” (Ex. 33:11), so are we able to enter into the same intimate communion with the Triune God. The knowledge of God that is the outgrowth of becoming united with Him is what we call theology. As such, all genuine theology is not merely the knowledge about God, but the knowledge of God – because it is experiential in nature.

The Science of Sciences | A Russian Orthodox Church Website

On the other hand, I don't think Trinitarianism works at all except in the concept of classical theism. If we do not think of God as a particular instance of being, but as Being Itself, then it's not incoherent to say that God is also in some way diverse and three persons. I have no idea how God can be both one person and three persons at the same time, though. That's polytheism.

Take the model where our universe is a simulation running on God's computer. "God" is whoever happens to be sitting in front of the keyboard at that moment. "Sally" might be "God" from 3 pm to 6 pm on Wednesdays and "Joe" might be "God" from 6 pm to 9 pm. There might be times where there is no "God" at all and the simulation is on its own. Of course an hour for "God" might be 1000 years for us.

 

[SPF]

If God made us in His image, then it seems reasonable to assume that humans share certain traits with God. The omni-everything God seems to share no traits with humans. I would expect at the bare minimum that "thinking" should be a common trait.

God possesses both communicable and incommunicable attributes. We should actually expect that are ability to grasp the nature of an eternal being would be beyond our grasp.

Maybe God is an atheist.

This is non-sensical. God lacks belief in Himself?

Take the model where our universe is a simulation running on God's computer. "God" is whoever happens to be sitting in front of the keyboard at that moment. "Sally" might be "God" from 3 pm to 6 pm on Wednesdays and "Joe" might be "God" from 6 pm to 9 pm. There might be times where there is no "God" at all and the simulation is on its own. Of course an hour for "God" might be 1000 years for us.

You need to work on your definition of "God". This example suggest a definition of God that is outside the classical philosophical understanding of God and His nature. God is by definition a maximally great being, do you know what that means? If so, then you should recognize that this analogy is absurd.

 

[Silmarien]

If God made us in His image, then it seems reasonable to assume that humans share certain traits with God. The omni-everything God seems to share no traits with humans. I would expect at the bare minimum that "thinking" should be a common trait.

I think the problem here is lack of familiarity with the specific theological context in which these concepts really come up. I'd recommend some reading in what the major proponents of this view really said. Someone like Aquinas in the West or Maximus the Confessor in the East. Or Maimonides if you'd rather look at Judaism. Otherwise you're just coming up with objections that they spent plenty of time addressing.

The fact of the matter is that theologically speaking, we do not say that God shares no traits with humans. The question is whether traits are shared in a univocal or analogous manner, which means whether the words we use to describe ourselves can be used exactly in the same sense to describe God, or if they are approximations. Humans are intelligent, so we can attribute something that is like intellect to God, but we would not say that God possesses intelligence in the same manner that we do. That would be the Thomist approach.

I would say that there is something like a subjective, mental character to God, but I would not say that it is "thought" in the human sense, since our minds and thoughts are shaped by linguistic and neurological realities. I am not sure what a mind unlimited by such things would look like, but the fact that it's inconceivable doesn't mean it's not real.

Our parish was very small and the priest was a bit wacky. Here is an Orthodox link I like that seems to argue for a more personal God with human traits.
The Science of Sciences | A Russian Orthodox Church Website

That article really doesn't address the debate between classical theism and theistic personalism. All it does is challenge intellectual attempts to know God and stress an experiential approach instead. Which is definitely very in line with what I'd expect from Orthodoxy.

The problem is that classical theism doesn't posit that God is not personal or that we are incapable of intimate communion. What it mainly does is stress transcendence. God is personal, but God is not a specific instance of a person.

Take the model where our universe is a simulation running on God's computer. "God" is whoever happens to be sitting in front of the keyboard at that moment. "Sally" might be "God" from 3 pm to 6 pm on Wednesdays and "Joe" might be "God" from 6 pm to 9 pm. There might be times where there is no "God" at all and the simulation is on its own. Of course an hour for "God" might be 1000 years for us.

That's still polytheism.

Actually, you might be interested in this: Sorry, Elon. Physicists say we definitely aren't living in a computer simulation.

 

[cloudyday2]

Actually, you might be interested in this: Sorry, Elon. Physicists say we definitely aren't living in a computer simulation.

I have seen that article before. They argue that a computer to simulate this entire universe could not be built within this universe. This is a very silly argument.

(1) God's universe is not a subset of this universe, so it is irrelevant whether a computer in this universe can be built to simulate this universe. The computer is in God's universe, and that might be a much larger universe. God's universe also might have different physical laws, different types of matter, and so on.

(2) God doesn't need to simulate our entire universe to perform His experiments. God may only be simulating you and your immediate environment to a precision that is relevant for His simulation.

Honestly, I think that article was just a publicity stunt to get the university's name in the news. It's hard to believe the physicists gave it much thought with such glaring oversights. IMO
EDIT: Actually, I suspect the physicists were answering a more limited question, but the journalists ignored the details of the actual question/answer and misapplied them to the more general question/answer.

 

[radhead]

God possesses both communicable and incommunicable attributes. We should actually expect that are ability to grasp the nature of an eternal being would be beyond our grasp.

This is non-sensical. God lacks belief in Himself?

You need to work on your definition of "God". This example suggest a definition of God that is outside the classical philosophical understanding of God and His nature. God is by definition a maximally great being, do you know what that means? If so, then you should recognize that this analogy is absurd.

It's interesting how fundamentalists of any faith (all religions) can call non-believers' ideas "nonsense." Yet, we are told by these same kinds of people that faith doesn't make sense, or, in other words, everyone should believe in their particular "nonsense."

 

[cloudyday2]

This is non-sensical. God lacks belief in Himself?

God might be an atheist computer programmer in another universe, and this universe might be a simulation in God's computer. God might take breaks from watching His simulation to debate theists on the internet in His own universe. You never know...

 

[Silmarien]

I have seen that article before. They argue that a computer to simulate this entire universe could not be built within this universe. This is a very silly argument.

(1) God's universe is not a subset of this universe, so it is irrelevant whether a computer in this universe can be built to simulate this universe. The computer is in God's universe, and that might be a much larger universe. God's universe also might have different physical laws, different types of matter, and so on.

(2) God doesn't need to simulate our entire universe to perform His experiments. God may only be simulating you and your immediate environment to a precision that is relevant for His simulation.

Honestly, I think that article was just a publicity stunt to get the university's name in the news. It's hard to believe the physicists gave it much thought with such glaring oversights. IMO
EDIT: Actually, I suspect the physicists were answering a more limited question, but the journalists ignored the details of the actual question/answer and misapplied them to the more general question/answer.

The university's name is Oxford. They really don't need a publicity stunt.

I don't fully understand the study, but I interpreted it as claiming that there aren't enough particles in the universe to support the sort of complexity that a simulation would require. I imagine that this computing power would show up internally, so the point is the universe itself cannot be a simulation, not that there is no theoretical other universe that could have the power to produce such a simulation. I don't think the number of particles in this universe has anything to do with computing power within our hard drives, though the amount of RAM you have certainly would. So I assume they were measuring the amount of RAM this universe would require against the amount it seems capable of sustaining. Or something.

I mean, Oxford physicists aren't going to make completely idiotic mistakes. Probably.

 

[Tayla]

If God is omniscient

I think these kinds of "God is omni..." arguments from the philosophy of Aristotle are misguided. Using them, you can only prove things about the human mental faculties, but nothing about God. He transcends all this.