Divine Simplicity

5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity

1/69

Divine simplicity

Not to be confused with monotheism .

In theology , the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God

is without parts. The general idea of divine simplicity can be

stated in this way: the being of God is identical to the

"attributes" of God. In other words, such characteristics as

omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc. are identical to

God's being, not qualities that make up that being, nor

abstract entities inhering in God as in a substance.

Varieties of the doctrine may be found in Jewish, Christian,

and Muslim philosophical theologians, especially during the

height of scholasticism, though the doctrine's origins may

be traced back to ancient Greek thought, finding apotheosis

in Plotinus' Enneads as the Simplex. [1][2][3]

In Christian thought

Part of a series on the

Attributes of God

AseityEternity

Graciousness

Holiness

Immanence

Immutability

Impassibility

Impeccability

Incorporeality

Love

Mission

OmnibenevolenceOmnipotence

Omnipresence

Omniscience

Oneness

Providence

Righteousness

Simplicity

Transcendence

Trinity

Veracity

Wrath

v t e

Part of a series on

St. Thomas Aquinas

Thomism

Scholasticism

negative theology

divine simplicity

Quinquae viae


2/69

Beatific vision

Actus purus

Sacraments

correspondence theory of truth

hylomorphism

substance theory (Ousia)

accident

substantial form

quiddity ( essence / nature )

peripatetic axiom

principle of double effect

cardinal virtues

theological virtues

intellectual virtues

natural law

just war

just price

concupiscenceWorks

Summa Theologica

Summa contra Gentiles

Contra Errores Graecorum

Commentaries on Aristotle

Influences and people

Aristotle ("The Philosopher")

St. Paul ("The Apostle")

Pseudo-Dionysius

St. Augustine ("The Theologian")

St. BoethiusAvicenna

Peter Lombard ("The Master")

Averroes ("The Commentator")

Maimonides ("Rabbi Moses")

St. Albertus Magnus

Reginald of Piperno

Related

Pange Lingua

Aristotelianism

Dominican Order

School of Salamanca

Catholic theology

Doctor of the Church

Empiricism

Neo-Thomism

terni Patris

Philosophy Portal

Catholicism Portal

v t e


3/69

See also: Classical theism , Trinity, and Nontrinitarianism

In Christian theism (to be accurate " Classical theism "), God

is simple , not composite, not made up of thing upon thing .

In other words, the characteristics of God are not parts of

God that together make up God. Because God is simple,

God is those characteristics; for example, God does not

have goodness, but simply is goodness. For typical

Christian theologians, divine simplicity does not entail that

the attributes of God are indistinguishable to thought. It is

no contradiction of the doctrine to say, for example, that

God is both just and merciful. Thomas Aquinas, for

instance, in whose system of thought the idea of divine

simplicity is central, wrote in Summa Theologica that

because God is infinitely simple, God can only appear to the

finite mind as infinitely complex. [ citation needed ]

Theologians holding the doctrine of simplicity tend to

distinguish various modes of the simple being of God by

negating any notion of composition from the meaning ofterms used to describe it. Thus, in quantitative or spatial

terms, God is simple as opposed to being made up of

pieces, present in entirety everywhere, if in fact present

anywhere. In terms of essences, God is simple as opposed

to being made up of form and matter, or body and soul, or

mind and act, and so on: if distinctions are made when

speaking of God's attributes, they are distinctions of the

"modes" of God's being, rather than real or essential

divisions. And so, in terms of subjects and accidents, as in

the phrase "goodness of God", divine simplicity allows that

there is a conceptual distinction between the person of Godand the personal attribute of goodness, but the doctrine

disallows that God's identity or "character" is dependent

upon goodness, and at the same time the doctrine dictates

that it is impossible to consider the goodness in which God

participates separately from the goodness which God is.

Furthermore, according to some, if as creatures our

concepts are all drawn from the creation, it follows from

this and divine simplicity that God's attributes can only be

spoken of by analogysince it is not true of any createdthing that its properties are identical to its being.

Consequently, when Christian Scripture is interpreted

according to the guide of divine simplicity, when it says that

God is good for example, it should be taken to speak of a

likeness to goodness as found in humanity and referred to in

human speech. Since God's essence is inexpressible ; this

likeness is nevertheless truly comparable to God who

simply is goodness, because humanity is a complex being

composed by God "in the image and likeness of God". The

doctrine aids, then, in interpreting the Scriptures so as to


4/69

avoid paradoxas when Scripture says, for example, thatthe creation is "very good", and also that "none is good but

God alone"since only God is goodness, while neverthelesshumanity is created in the likeness of goodness (and the

likeness is necessarily imperfect in humanity, unless that

person is also God). This doctrine also helps keep

trinitarianism from drifting into tritheism , which is the belief

in three different gods: the persons of God are not parts or

essential differences, but are rather the way in which the

one God exists personally.

The doctrine has been criticized by some Christian

theologians, including Alvin Plantinga , who in his essay

Does God Have a Nature? calls it "a dark saying indeed." [4]

Plantinga's criticism is based on his interpretation of

Aquinas's discussion of it, from which he concludes that if

God is identical with properties of God such as goodness

etc., then God is a property; and a property is not a person.

Plantinga concludes that divine simplicity does not dojustice to the personal nature of the Christian God. [5]

In Jewish thought

In Jewish philosophy and in Jewish mysticism Divine

Simplicity is addressed via discussion of the attributes

(

) of God, particularly by Jewish philosophers within

the Muslim sphere of influence such as Saadia Gaon , Bahya

ibn Paquda, Yehuda Halevi, and Maimonides , as well by

Raabad III in Provence. A classic expression of this position

is found in Maimonides' Guide to the Perplexed, 'If, however,

you have a desire to rise to a higher state, viz., that of

reflection, and truly to hold the conviction that God is Oneand possesses true unity, without admitting plurality or

divisibility in any sense whatever, you must understand that

God has no essential attribute in any form or in any sense

whatever, and that the rejection of corporeality implies the

rejection of essential attributes. Those who believe that God

is One, and that He has many attributes, declare the unity

with their lips, and assume plurality in their thoughts.' [6]

Some identify Divine simplicity as a corollary of Divine

Creation : "In the beginning God created the heaven and the

earth" (Genesis 1:1). God, as creator is by definition

separate from the universe and thus free of any property

(and hence an absolute unity); see Negative theology .

For others, conversely, the axiom of Divine Unity (see

Shema Yisrael ) informs the understanding of Divine

Simplicity. Bahya ibn Paquda ( Duties of the Heart 1:8 )

points out that God's Oneness is "true oneness" (

) as opposed to merely "circumstantial

oneness" (

). He develops this idea to show that

an entity which is truly one must be free of properties and


5/69

thus indescribable - and unlike anything else. (Additionally

such an entity would be absolutely unsubject to change, as

well as utterly independent and the root of everything.) [1]

The implication - of either approach - is so strong that the

two concepts are often presented as synonymous: "God is

not two or more entities, but a single entity of a oneness

even more single and unique than any single thing in

creationHe cannot be sub-divided into different partstherefore, it is impossible for Him to be anything other than

one. It is a positive commandment to know this, for it is

written (Deuteronomy 6:4) 'the Lord is our God, the Lord isone'." ( Maimonides, Mishneh Torah , Mada 1:7 .)

Despite its apparent simplicity, this concept is recognised

as raising many difficulties. In particular, insofar as God's

simplicity does not allow for any structureevenconceptuallyDivine simplicity appears to entail thefollowing dichotomy .

On the one hand, God is absolutely simple, containing noelement of form or structure, as above.

On the other hand, it is understood that God's essence

contains every possible element of perfection: "The First

Foundation is to believe in the existence of the Creator,

blessed be He. This means that there exists a Being that

is perfect (complete) in all ways and He is the cause of all

else that exists." ( Maimonides 13 principles of faith , First

Principle ).

The resultant paradox is famously articulated by Moshe

Chaim Luzzatto (Derekh Hashem I:1:5 ), describing the

dichotomy as arising out of our inability to comprehend theidea of absolute unity:

Gods existence is absolutely simple, without combinationsor additions of any kind. All perfections are found in Him in

a perfectly simple manner. However, God does not entail

separate domainseven though in truth there exist in Godqualities which, within us, are separateIndeed the truenature of His essence is that it is a single attribute, (yet)

one that intrinsically encompasses everything that could be

considered perfection. All perfection therefore exists in God,

not as something added on to His existence, but as an

integral part of His intrinsic identityThis is a concept thatis very far from our ability to grasp and imagineThe Kabbalists address this paradox by explaining that

God created a spiritual dimension[through which God]interacts with the Universe... It is this dimension which

makes it possible for us to speak of Gods multifacetedrelationship to the universe without violating the basic


6/69

principle of His unity and simplicity(Aryeh Kaplan,Innerspace ). The Kabbalistic approach is explained in

various Chassidic writings; see for example, Shaar

Hayichud , below, for a detailed discussion.

See also: Tzimtzum ; Negative theology ; Jewish principles

of faith; Free will In Jewish thought; Kuzari

See also

Tawhid (the Islamic concept of divine unity)

Ein Sof (A Jewish Kabalistic concept of divine unity)

References

1. ^ Bussanich John, Plotinus's metaphysics of the One

in The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus, ed. Lloyd

P.Gerson, p.42, 1996, Cambridge University Press,

UK. For instances, see Plotinus, Second Ennead,

Fourth Tractate, Section 8 ( Stephen MacKenna 's

translation, Sacred Texts)

2. ^ Plotinus, Fifth Ennead, Fourth Tractate, Section 1

(MacKenna's translation, Sacred Texts)3. ^ Plotinus, Second Ennead, Ninth Tractate, Section 1

(MacKenna's translation, Sacred Texts).

4. ^ Plantinga, Alvin. "Does God Have a Nature?" in

Plantinga, Alvin, and James F. Sennett. 1998. The

analytic theist: an Alvin Plantinga reader . Grand

Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 228. ISBN

0-8028-4229-1 ISBN 978-0-8028-4229-9

5. ^ K. Scott Oliphint in turn criticizes Plantinga for

overlooking the better expressions of divine simplicity ,

saying that his argument is "admirable" as a critique

of the impersonalism of speculative philosophy, but"not so valuable" as a criticism of the Christian

formulation based on verbal revelation. K. Scott

Oliphint, Reasons [for faith]: philosophy in the service

of theology (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian &

Reformed, 2006. ISBN 0-87552-645-4 ISBN

978-0-87552-645-4

6. ^ "Moses Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, Part 1,

chapter 50"

. Friedlnder tr. [1904], at sacred-texts.com.

Retrieved 2013-10-29.

Bibliography

Burell, David. Aquinas: God and Action . London;

Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979.

Burell, David. Knowing the Unknowable God: Ibn-Sina,

Maimonides, Aquinas. . Notre Dame: Notre Dame

University Press, 1986.

Leftow, Brian. "Is God and Abstract Object?". Nous. 1990.

Maimonides, Moses. The Guide of the Perplexed , trans. M

Friedlnder. New York: Dover, 1956.


7/69

Plantinga, Alvin. Does God Have a Nature? Milwaukee,

WI: Marquette University Press, 1980.

Plato. Parmenides. Many editions.

Plotinus. Enneads V, 4, 1; VI, 8, 17; VI, 9, 9-10. . Many

editions.

Pseudo-Dionysius. The Divine Names in Pseudo-

Dionysius: The Complete Works , trans. Colm Luibheid.

New York: Paulist Press, 1987.

Stump, Eleonore and Kretzmann, Norman. AbsoluteSimplicity. Faith and Philosophy. 1985.Thomas Aquinas. On Being and Essence ( De Esse et

Essentia ), 2nd ed., trans. Armand Maurer, CSB. Toronto:

Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1968.

Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica I, Q. 3, A. 3 "On the

Simplicity of God". Many editions.

Wolterstorff, Nicholas. "Divine Simplicity". Philosophical

Perspectives 5: Philosophy of Religion. Atascadero,

Calif.: Ridgeview Publishing, 1991, 531-52.External links

General

Divine Simplicity , Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy

God and Other Necessary Beings , Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Making Sense of Divine Simplicity (PDF ), Jeffrey E.

Brower, Purdue University

Christian material

On Three Problems of Divine Simplicity , Alexander R.

Pruss, Georgetown UniversitySt. Thomas Aquinas: The Doctrine of Divine

Simplicity

, Michael Sudduth, Analytic Philosophy of Religion

Jewish material

"Paradoxes", in "The Aryeh Kaplan Reader", Aryeh

Kaplan , Artscroll 1983, ISBN 0-89906-174-5

"Innerspace", Aryeh Kaplan, Moznaim Pub. Corp.

1990, ISBN 0-940118-56-4

Understanding God , Ch2. in "The Handbook of Jewish

Thought", Aryeh Kaplan, Moznaim 1979, ISBN

0-940118-49-1

Shaar HaYichud - The Gate of Unity , Dovber Schneuri

- A detailed explanation of the paradox of divine

simplicity.

Chovot ha-Levavot 1:8 , Bahya ibn Paquda - Online

class , Yaakov Feldman

v t e

Theology

Outline


8/69

Conceptions of God Theism Existence of God

God as

the Devil

Sustainer

Time

God in

the Abrahamic religions

the Bah'Faith

Buddhism

Christianity

Hinduism

Islam

Jainism

Judaism

Sikhism

Zoroastrianism

more...

Names of God inChristianity

Hinduism

Islam

Jainism

Judaism

more...

Theism

Deity

Divinity

Numen

MaleFemale

Gender

Deism

Dystheism

Henotheism

Hermeticism

Kathenotheism

Nontheism

Monolatrism

Monotheism

Mysticism

Panentheism

Pandeism

Pantheism

Polydeism

Polytheism

Spiritualism

Theopanism

more...


9/69

Singular God

Absolute

Brahman

Emanationism

Logos

Supreme Being

more...

Trinitarianism

Athanasian Creed

Comma Johanneum

Consubstantiality

Homoousian

Hypostasis

Perichoresis

Shield of the Trinity

Trinitarian formula

Trinity

Trinity of the Church FathersTrinitarian Universalism

more...

Other conceptions

Aristotelian view

Attributes of God in Christianity / in Islam

Binitarianism

Demiurge

Divine simplicity

Divine presence

Egotheism

Godhead in ChristianityLatter-Day Saints

Great Architect of the Universe

Great Spirit

Apophatic theology

Olelbis

Open theism

Personal god

Phenomenological definition

Philo's view

Sarav vipakTaryenyawagon

The All

Tian

Unmoved mover

more...

Existence of God

Against

Arguments from

Free will


10/69

Inconsistent revelation

Nonbelief

Poor design

Other arguments

God of the gaps

Incompatible properties

Noncognitivism

Omnipotence paradox

Problem of evil

Problem of Hell

more...

For

Arguments from

Beauty

Consciousness

Degree

Desire

LoveMiracles

Morality

Proper basis

Reason

Religious experience

Other arguments

Christological

Cosmological

Ontological

Pascal's wager

TeleologicalTrademark

Transcendental

Witness

more...

Apologetics Criticism Opposition

Persecution

Apologetics

General

List of apologetic works

Polemic

Positive deconstruction

more...

Christian

Apologists

List of works

Ecumenical

Presuppositional

Epistle to Diognetus

Trilemma


11/69

Urmonotheismus

more...

Other faiths

Bah'

Muslim apologists

Criticism of

Buddhism

Christianity

Hinduism

Islam

Jainism

Judaism

Opposition to

Christianity

Catholicism

Protestantism

Anti-Christian sentiment

GnosticismHinduism

Islam

Judaism

Cults / New religious movements

more...

Persecution of

Buddhists

Christians

Muslims

Zoroastrians

Related topicsDisengagement from religion

Secularism

Separation of church and state

Eschatology

By faith

Buddhist

Christian

Hindu

Islamic

Jewish

Taoist

Zoroastrian

Topics

Afterlife

Apocalypticism

Doomsday films

Ghosts

Ghost Dance movement

Heaven


12/69

Personifications of death

more...

Theologies

Christian

History

Outline

Biblical canon

Glossary

Christology

Cosmology

Ecclesiology

Ethics

Hamartiology

Law

Messianism

Movements

Nestorianism

New TestamentOld Testament

Philosophy

Practical

Sophiology

Soteriology

more...

Feminist

Buddhism

Christianity

Hinduism

IslamJudaism

Mormonism

Goddesses

more...

Hindu

Philosophical concepts

Ayyavazhi theology

Krishnology

more...

Islamic

Oneness of God

Prophets

Holy Scriptures

Angels

Predestination

Last Judgment

more...

Jewish

Abrahamic prophecy


13/69

Aggadah

Denominations

Kabbalah

Philosophy

Other

Death of God

Exotheology

Holocaust

Pope Pius XII

Process

More...

Education People and resources

Seminaries and

theological colleges

Anglican

Buddhist

Eastern Orthodox

EvangelicalIslamic

Jewish

Lutheran

Madrassas

Methodist

Reformed Church

Roman Catholic

more...

Schools by affiliation

Anglican

Assemblies of GodBah'

Buddhist

Baptist

Eastern Orthodox

Hindu

Islamic

Jewish

Latter Day Saints

Lutheran

Mennonite

Methodist

Nondenominational Christian

Presbyterian

Quaker

Roman Catholic

Seventh-Day Adventist


14/69

Divine retribution

For the TV series, see Divine Retribution (TV series) .


Attributes of God

Aseity

Eternity

Graciousness

Holiness

Immanence

Immutability

Impassibility

Impeccability

Incorporeality

Love

MissionOmnibenevolence

Omnipotence

Omnipresence

Omniscience

Oneness

Providence

Righteousness

Simplicity

Transcendence

Trinity

VeracityWrath

v t e

Divine retribution is supernatural punishment of a person, a

group of people, or everyone by a deity in response to some

action. Many cultures have a story about how a deity

exacted punishment on previous inhabitants of their land,

causing their doom.

An example of divine retribution is the story found in many

cultures about a great flood destroying all of humanity, as

described in the Epic of Gilgamesh , the Hindu Vedas , or

Book of Genesis (6:9-8:22), leaving one principal 'chosen'

survivor. In the former example it is Utnapishtim , and in the

latter example Noah . References in the Qur'an to a man

named Nuh who was commanded by God to build an ark

also suggest that one man and his followers were saved in

a great flood.

Other examples in Hebrew religious literature include the

dispersion of the builders of the Tower of Babel (Genesis

11:1-9), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis


15/69

18:20-21, 19:23-28), and the Ten Plagues visited upon the

ancient Egyptians for persecuting the children of Israel

(Exodus, Chapters 7-12). Similarly, in Greek mythology , the

goddess Hera often became enraged when her husband,

Zeus , would impregnate mortal women, and would exact

divine retribution on the children born of such affairs. In

some versions of the myth, Medusa was turned into her

monstrous form as divine retribution for her vanity; in

others it was as punishment for being raped by Poseidon.

In most cases, the Bible refers to be divine retribution as

being delayed or "treasured up" to a future time. [1] Sight of

God's supernatural works and retribution would mitigate

against faith in God's Word. [2]

Divine retribution is aligned with divine vengeance . [3]

Almighty God alone is a just judge. [4] Delayed judgment

will eventually become eternally displayed. [5]

The wrath of God is aligned with God's nature where He

loves righteousness and hates wickedness. [6] The wrath ofGod is closely associated with Divine administration of

justice . The wrath of God is commonly contrasted with the

love of God .

Some religions have no concept of divine retribution, or of a

god being capable of expressing such low human

sentiments as jealousy, vengeance, or wrath. For example,

in Deism and Pandeism , the Creator has no need to

intervene in our Universe at all, and so exhibits no such

behavior. In Pantheism (as reflected in Pandeism as well),

God is the Universe and encompasses everything within it,

and so has no need for retribution, as all things againstwhich retribution might be taken are simply within God.

This view is reflected in some pantheistic or pandeistic

forms of Hinduism, as well.

The concept of divine retribution is resolutely denied in

Buddhism. Gautama Buddha did not endorse belief in a

creator deity , [7][8] refused to express any views on creation

[9] and stated that questions on the origin of the world are

worthless. [10][11] The non-adherence [12] to the notion of

an omnipotent creator deity or a prime mover is seen by

many as a key distinction between Buddhism and other

religions.

But Buddhists do accept the existence of beings in higher

realms (see Buddhist cosmology ), known as devas, but

they, like humans, are said to be suffering in samsara , [13]

and are not necessarily wiser than us. The Buddha is often

portrayed as a teacher of the gods, [14] and superior to

them. [15] Despite this there are believed to be enlightened

devas. [16] But since there may also be unenlightened

devas, there also may be godlike beings who engage in


16/69

retributive acts, but if they do so, then they do so out of their

own ignorance of a greater truth.

Despite this nontheism , Buddhism nevertheless fully

accepts the theory of karma , which posts punishment-like

effects, such as rebirths in realms of torment , as a

consequence of wrongful actions. Unlike in most Abrahamic

monotheistic religions, these effects are not eternal, though

they can last for a very long time. Due to nontheism, these

are not punishment as in something imposed by an

authority from above, rather they are regarded as a natural

consequence of wrongful action.

"Wrath of God"

"The wrath of God", an anthropomorphic expression for the

attitude which some believe God has towards sin, [17] is

mentioned many times in the Christian Bible . Leaving aside

the references to it in the Old Testament , where it is used of

God not only when punishing the wicked but also when

sending trials to the just, as in Job 14:13 , it is mentioned inat least twenty verses of the New Testament . Examples are:

John 3:36 - Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life;

whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the

wrath of God remains on him.

Romans 1:18 - For the wrath of God is revealed from

heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of

men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

Romans 5:9 - Since, therefore, we have now been justified

by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from

the wrath of God.

Romans 12:19 - Beloved, never avenge yourselves, butleave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance

is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."

Ephesians 5:6 - Let no one deceive you with empty

words, for because of these things the wrath of God

comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Revelation 6:17 - For the great day of his wrath has

come, and who is able to withstand?

Revelation 14:19 - So the angel swung his sickle across

the earth and gathered the grape harvest of the earth and

threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

Revelation 15:1 - Then I saw another sign in heaven,

great and marvelous: seven angels having the seven last

plagues, for in them the wrath of God was finished.

Revelation 19:15 - From his mouth comes a sharp sword

with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule

them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the

fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.

The New Testament associates the wrath of God

particularly with imagery of the Last Day, described


17/69

allegorically in Romans 2:5 as the "day of wrath", and the

Book of Revelation .

Divine Retribution in the Pentateuch

Divine retribution is easily seen in the Pentateuch or first

five books of the Bible which set a hermeneutical

foundation of the other Bible books. Major examples of

divine retribution in the Pentateuch include:

Biblical passages

incident

reason

Genesis 3:14-24

Curse upon Adam and Eve and their expulsion from the

Garden of Eden

disobedience and excuses including blaming God

Genesis 4:9-15

Curse upon Cain after his slaying of his brother, Abel

deceit, murder, lies

Genesis 6-7The destruction of the Great Flood

rampant evil and Nephalim

Genesis 11:1-9

The confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel

impiety on a massive scale

Genesis 19:23-29

Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

people of no redeeming value

Genesis 38:6-10

Destruction of Er and Onan

wickedness in the Lord's sightExodus 7-14

Plagues of Egypt

to establish his power over that of the gods of Egypt

Exodus 19:10-25

Divine threatenings at Mount Sinai

warn that the mountain is off limits and holy

Exodus 32

Plagues at the incident of the golden calf

disowning the people for breaking his covenant with them

Leviticus 10:1-2

Nadab and Abihu are burned

offering unauthorized fire in their censers

Leviticus 26:14-39

Curses upon the disobedient

divine warning

Numbers 11

A plague accompanies the giving of quail meat in the

wilderness

rejecting his gracious gift of heavenly food and failing his


18/69

test of obedience

Numbers 16

The rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram - Their

supernatural deaths and the plague that followed

insolence and attempting self-promotion to roles they were

unworthy of holding

Numbers 20:9-13

Reprimand of Moses at the water of Meribah

disobeying the Lord's instruction, showing distrust and

indfference in God's presence

Numbers 21

Murmuring of the people and the plague of fiery serpents

spurning God's grace

Numbers 25

Whoredom with the Moabites and resulting plague

breaching God's covenant through sexual immorality and

worshipping other gods

Deuteronomy 28Curses pronounced upon the disobedient

another divine warning

Other notable biblical retributions

The Bible being full of cases of divine retribution, some

instances are particularly notable for heralding in new eras,

while others were meant to serve as abject lessons in

dealing with God and keeping faithful to his commands.

Biblical passages

Incident

Reason

(1 Samuel 6:19)some/many men of Beth Shemesh killed

looking into the ark of the covenant thus displaying

irreverent curiosity

(2 Samuel 6:1-7)

Uzzah struck dead after touching the Ark of the covenant

despite good intentions he was in clear violation of the

instructions given on how to deal with the object

(1 Kings 11)

God promises to tear Solomon's kingdom from his son

except for a single tribe.

Idolatry and unrepentance.

(Acts 5:1)

Ananias and his wife Sapphira struck dead

committed the first recorded sin of the new church by

pretending to be generous and lying to The Holy Spirit

about an offering.

Culture

Divine retribution is the driving force [ citation needed ] of

Shakespeare 's War of the Roses tetralogy, comprising the


19/69

plays 1 Henry VI, 2 Henry VI, 3 Henry VI and Richard III, in

which the House of York and Lancaster are made to atone

for the sin of deposing Richard II.

Divine providence


Attributes of God

Aseity

Eternity

Graciousness

Holiness

Immanence

Immutability

ImpassibilityImpeccability

Incorporeality

Love

Mission

Omnibenevolence

Omnipotence

Omnipresence

Omniscience

Oneness

Providence

RighteousnessSimplicity

Transcendence

Trinity

Veracity

Wrath

v t e

In theology , divine providence , or providence , is God's

intervention in the world. "Divine Providence" (usually

capitalized) is also used as a title of God . A distinction is

usually made between "general providence", which refers to

God's continuous upholding the existence and natural order

of the universe , and "special providence", which refers to

God's extraordinary intervention in the life of people. [1]

Etymology

The word comes from Latin providentia "foresight,

prudence ", from pro- "ahead" + videre "to see". The current

use of the word has the sense of "knowledge of the future"

or omniscience , understood as an attribute of God.

Catholic theology


20/69

Eye of Providence

Augustine of Hippo is perhaps most famously associated

with the doctrine of Divine Providence in the Latin West.

However, Christian teaching on providence in the high

Middle Ages was most fully developed by Thomas Aquinas

in the Summa Theologica . The concept of providence as

care exercised by God over the universe , his foresight and

care for its future is extensively developed and explained

both by Aquinas himself and modern Thomists. One of the

foremost modern Thomists, Dominican father Reginald

Garrigou-Lagrange , wrote a study of providence entitled

"Providence: God's loving care for man and the need for

confidence in Almighty God." In it, he presents and solves,

according to Catholic doctrine, the most difficult issues as

related to providence.

Reformed theology

See also: Reformed theology

This term is an integral part of John Calvin's theologicalframework known as Calvinism , which emphasizes the total

depravity of man and the complete sovereignty of God.

God's plan for the world and every soul that he has created

is guided by his will, or providence. According to Calvin, the

idea that man has free will and is able to make choices

independently of what God has already determined is based

on our limited understanding of God's perfection and the

delusion that God's purposes can be circumvented. [ citation

needed ] In this mode of thought, providence is related to

predestination . This concept remains prominent among

many Protestant denominations that identify with Calvinism,the Reformed churches .

Lutheran theology

See also: Lutheranism

In Lutheran theology, divine providence refers to God's

preservation of creation , his cooperation with everything

that happens, and his guiding of the universe. [2] While God

cooperates with both good and evil deeds, with the evil

deeds he does so only inasmuch as they are deeds, not with

the evil in them. God concurs with an act's effect, but he

does not cooperate in the corruption of an act or the evil of

its effect. [3] Lutherans believe everything exists for the

sake of the Christian Church, and that God guides

everything for its welfare and growth. [4]

According to Martin Luther , divine providence began when

God created the world with everything needed for human

life, including both physical things and natural laws . [5] In

Luther's Small Catechism , the explanation of the first article

of the Apostles' Creed declares that everything people have

that is good is given and preserved by God, either directly or


21/69

through other people or things. [6] Of the services others

provide us through family, government , and work, he writes,

"we receive these blessings not from them, but, through

them, from God." [7] Since God uses everyone's useful tasks

for good, people should look not down upon some useful

vocations as being less worthy than others. Instead people

should honor others, no matter how lowly, as being the

means God uses to work in the world. [7]

Swedenborgian theology

See also: The New Church

Divine Providence is a book published by Emanuel

Swedenborg in 1764 which describes his systematic

theology regarding providence, free will, theodicy , and other

related topics. Both meanings of providence are applicable

in Swedenborg's theology, in that providence encompasses

understanding, intent and action. Divine providence relative

to man is 'foresight', and relative to the Lord is 'providence'.

[8] Swedenborg proposes that one law of divine providenceis that man should act from freedom according to reason,

and that man is regenerated according to the faculties of

rationality and liberty. [9]

In Jewish thought

Main article: Divine providence (Judaism)

Divine providence (Hebrew

Hashgochoh

Protis / Hashgachah Pratit lit. [Divine] supervision of the

individual) is discussed throughout Rabbinic literature , and

in particular by the classical Jewish philosophers. These

writings maintain that Divine Providence means that God is

directing (or even recreating) every minute detail ofcreation. This analysis thus underpins much of Orthodox

Judaism 's world view , particularly as regards questions of

interaction with the natural world.

Specific examples

The text of Scripture

Those who believe in the inerrancy of the original biblical

manuscripts , often accompany this belief with a statement

about how the biblical text has been preserved so that what

we have today is at least substantially similar to what was

written. That is, just as God "divinely inspired the text," so

he has also "divinely preserved it throughout the

centuries." [10] The Westminster Confession of Faith states

that the Scriptures, "being immediately inspired by God, and

by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages,

are therefore authentical." [11]

This is an important argument in the King James Only

debates: Edward F. Hills argues that the principle of

providentially preserved transmission guarantees that the

printed Textus Receptus must be the closest text to the


22/69

Greek autographs.

Omnibenevolence

Omnibenevolence (from Latin omni - meaning "all", and

benevolent , meaning "good") [1] is defined by the Oxford

English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence ". It

is often held to be impossible, or at least improbable, for a

deity to exhibit such property alongside omniscience and

omnipotence as a result of the problem of evil . However,

some philosophers, such as Alvin Plantinga , argue the

plausibility of co-existence . The word is primarily used as a

technical term within academic literature on the philosophy

of religion , mainly in context of the problem of evil and

theodical responses to such. Although even in said contexts

the phrases "perfect goodness" or "moral perfection" areoften preferred because of the difficulties in defining what

exactly constitutes 'infinite benevolence'.

Philosophical perspectives

The term is patterned on, and often accompanied by, the

terms omniscience and omnipotence , typically to refer to

conceptions of an "all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful"

deity. Philosophers and theologians more commonly use

phrases like "perfectly good", [2] or simply the term

"benevolence". The word "omnibenevolence" may be

interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful,

or any number of other qualities, depending on preciselyhow "good" is understood. As such, there is little agreement

over how an "omnibenevolent" being would behave.

The notion of an omnibenevolent, infinitely compassionate

deity, has raised certain atheistic objections, such as the

problem of evil and the problem of hell . Responses to such

problems are called theodicies and can be general, arguing

for the coherence of the divine, such as Swinburne 's

Providence and the Problem of Evil , or they can address a

specific problem, such as Charles Seymour's A Theodicy of

Hell.

Proponents of Pandeism contend that benevolence (much

less omnibenevolence) is simply not required to account for

any property of our Universe, as a morally neutral deity

which was powerful enough to have created our Universe as

we experience it would be, by definition, able to have

created our Universe as we experience it.

Religious perspectives


Attributes of God


23/69

Aseity

Eternity

Graciousness

Holiness

Immanence

Immutability

Impassibility

Impeccability

Incorporeality

Love

Mission

Omnibenevolence

Omnipotence

Omnipresence

Omniscience

Oneness

Providence

RighteousnessSimplicity

Transcendence

Trinity

Veracity

Wrath

v t e

The acknowledgement of God's omnibenevolence is an

essential foundation in traditional Christianity; this can be

seen in Scriptures such as Psalms 18:30: "As for God, his

way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler

to all those that trust in him," and Ps.19:7: "The law of theLord is good, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord

is sure, making wise the simple." This understanding is

evident in the following statement by the First Vatican

Council [ original research? ] :

The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church

believes and acknowledges that there is one true and

living God, Creator and Lord of Heaven and earth,

almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible,

infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.

Since He is one, singular, completely simple and

unchangeable spiritual substance, He must be declared

to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world,

supremely happy in Himself and from Himself, and

inexpressibly loftier than anything besides Himself

which either exists or can be imagined. [3]

The philosophical justification stems from God's aseity : the

non-contingent, independent and self-sustained mode of


24/69

existence that theologians ascribe to God. For if He was not

morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but

nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would

involve an element of contingency, because one could

always conceive of a being of greater benevolence. [4]

Theologians in the Wesleyan Christian tradition (see

Thomas Jay Oord ) argue that omnibenevolence is God's

primary attribute . As such, God's other attributes should be

understood in light of omnibenevolence. Christians believe

in the idea of unconditional love.

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While

we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8 NIV)

Islam does not hold to the idea of omnibenevolence: [5]

"God loves not the unbelievers" (Sura 3:33)

"God loves not the impious and sinners" (Sura 2:277)

"God loves not evildoers" (Sura 3:58)

"God loves not the proud" (Sura 4:37)

"God loves not transgressors" (Sura 5:88)"God loves not the prodigal" (Sura 6:142)

"God loves not the treacherous" (Sura 8:59)

"God is an enemy to unbelievers" (Sura 2:99)

Rather, God has a conditional love of the elect:

"If you should love God, then follow me, God will love you

and forgive you your sins." (Sura 3:31)

"Work and God will surely see your work." (Sura 9:105)

"Every soul shall be paid in full for what it has

earned." (Sura 2:282)

"Those who believe and do deeds of righteousness and

perform the prayer and pay the alms--their wage awaitsthem with the Lord." (Sura 2:278)

"To those who believe and do righteousness, God will

assign love." (Sura 19:97)

Etymology

"Omnibenevolence" appears to have a very casual usage

among some Protestant Christian commentators. The

earliest record for its use in English, according to the Oxford

English Dictionary, is in 1679. The Catholic Church does not

appear to use the term "omnibenevolent" in the liturgy or

Catechism .

Modern users of the term include George H. Smith in his

book Atheism: The Case Against God (1980), [6] where he

argued that divine qualities are inconsistent. However, the

term is also used by authors who defend the coherence of

divine attributes, including but not limited to, Jonathan

Kvanvig in The Problem of Hell (1993), [7] and Joshua

Hoffman and Gary Rosenkrantz in The Divine Attributes

(2002).


25/69

Omnipotence

Omnipotence (from Latin : Omni Potens : "all power") is

unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute

omnipotence to only the deity of whichever faith is being

addressed. In the monotheistic philosophies of Abrahamic

religions, omnipotence is often listed as one of a deity's

characteristics among many, including omniscience ,

omnipresence , and omnibenevolence . The presence of all

these properties in a single entity has given rise to

considerable theological debate, the problem of theodicy

prominently included.

Meanings

The term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of

different positions. These positions include, but are not

limited to, the following:1. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do. [1]

2. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its

own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical

consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is

truth, then it is not able to lie ).

3. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent

and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go

against its own laws unless there was a reason to do

so. [2]

4. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its

omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.5. Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being

performed by the deity, either due to omni-

immanence, or because all actions must be

'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity.

Under many philosophical definitions of the term "deity",

senses 2, 3 and 4 can be shown to be equivalent. However,

on all understandings of omnipotence, it is generally held

that a deity is able to intervene in the world by superseding

the laws of physics, since they are not part of its nature, but

the principles on which it has created the physical world.

However many modern scholars (such as John

Polkinghorne) hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be

consistent and that it would be inconsistent for a deity to go

against its own laws unless there were an overwhelming

reason to do so. [2]

The word "Omnipotence" derives from the Latin term " Omni

Potens ", meaning "All-Powerful" instead of "Infinite Power"

implied by its English counterpart. The term could be

applied to both deities and Roman Emperors. Being the one


26/69

with "All the power", it was not uncommon for nobles to

attempt to prove their Emperor's " Omni Potens " to the

people, by demonstrating his effectiveness at leading the

Empire. [3]

Scholastic definition


Attributes of God

Aseity

Eternity

Graciousness

Holiness

Immanence

Immutability

Impassibility

Impeccability

Incorporeality

Love

MissionOmnibenevolence

Omnipotence

Omnipresence

Omniscience

Oneness

Providence

Righteousness

Simplicity

Transcendence

Trinity

VeracityWrath

v t e

Thomas Aquinas acknowledged difficulty in comprehending

a deity's power. Aquinas wrote:

"all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to

explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists."

In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally

understood to be compatible with certain limitations or

restrictions. A proposition that is necessarily true is one

whose negation is self-contradictory.

"It is sometimes objected that this aspect of omnipotence

involves the contradiction that God cannot do all that He

can do; but the argument is sophistical; it is no

contradiction to assert that God can realize whatever is

possible, but that no number of actualized possibilities

exhausts His power. Omnipotence is perfect power, free

from all mere potentiality. Hence, although God does not

bring into external being all that He is able to accomplish,

His power must not be understood as passing through


27/69

successive stages before its effect is accomplished. The

activity of God is simple and eternal, without evolution or

change. The transition from possibility to actuality or from

act to potentiality, occurs only in creatures. When it is said

that God can or could do a thing, the terms are not to be

understood in the sense in which they are applied to

created causes, but as conveying the idea of a Being

possessed of infinite unchangeable power, the range of

Whose activity is limited only by His sovereign Will".

"Power", says St. Thomas

"is not attributed to God as a thing really different from His

Knowledge and Will, but as something expressed by a

different concept, since power means that which executes

the command of the will and the advice of the intellect.

These three (viz., intellect, will, power), coincide with one

another in God". (Summa, I, Q. xxv, a. 1, ad 4).

Omnipotence is all-sufficient power. The adaptation of

means to ends in the universe does not argue, as J.S. Millwould have it, that the power of the designer is limited, but

only that God has willed to manifest His glory by a world so

constituted rather than by another. Indeed the production of

secondary causes, capable of accomplishing certain effects,

requires greater power than the direct accomplishment of

these same effects. On the other hand even though no

creature existed, God's power not be barren, for "creatures

are not an end to God." Summa Theologica upon a deity's

power, as opposed to implying infinite number of contingent

kinds of abilities: there are certain things, however trivial or

absurd, that even an omnipotent deity cannot do. Medievaltheologians drew attention to some of the fairly trivial

examples of restrictions upon the power of a deity. So, the

statement "a deity can do anything" is only sensible with an

assumed suppressed clause, "that implies the perfection of

true power". This standard scholastic answer allows that

creaturely acts such as walking can be performed by

humans but not by a deity. Rather than an advantage in

power, human acts such as walking, sitting or giving birth

were possible only because of a defect in human power. The

ability to 'sin ', for example, is not a power but a defect or an

infirmity. In response to questions of a deity performing

impossibilities (such as making square circles) Aquinas

says that "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under

the omnipotence of God". [4]

In recent times, C. S. Lewis has adopted a scholastic

position in the course of his work The Problem of Pain .

Lewis follows Aquinas' view on contradiction:

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is


28/69

intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically

impossible. You may attribute miracles to him,

but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If

you choose to say 'God can give a creature free

will and at the same time withhold free will from

it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything

about God: meaningless combinations of words

do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because

we prefix to them the two other words 'God

can.'... It is no more possible for God than for

the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of

two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because

his power meets an obstacle, but because

nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk

it about God.

Lewis, 18

In psychologyEarly Freudianism saw a feeling of omnipotence as intrinsic

to early childhood. 'As Freud and Ferenczi have shown, the

child lives in a sort of megalomania for a long period...the

"fiction of omnipotence"'. [5] At birth. 'the baby is everything

as far as he knows - "all powerful"...every step he takes

towards establishing his own limits and boundaries will be

painful because he'll have to lose this original God-like

feeling of omnipotence'. [6]

Freud considered that in a neurotic 'the omnipotence which

he ascribed to his thoughts and feelings...is a frank

acknowledgement of a relic of the old megalomania ofinfancy'. [7] In some narcissists , the 'period of primary

narcissism which subjectively did not need any objects and

was entirely independent...may be retained or regressively

regained..."omnipotent" behavior'. [8]

D. W. Winnicott took a more positive view of a belief in early

omnipotence, seeing it as essential to the child's well-

being; and "good-enough" mothering as essential to enable

the child to 'cope with the immense shock of loss of

omnipotence' [9] - as opposed to whatever 'prematurely

forces it out of its narcissistic universe'. [10]

Rejection or limitation

Some monotheists reject the view that a deity is or could be

omnipotent, or take the view that, by choosing to create

creatures with freewill, a deity has chosen to limit divine

omnipotence. In Conservative and Reform Judaism , and

some movements within Protestant Christianity, including

process theology and open theism , deities are said to act in

the world through persuasion, and not by coercion (for open

theism, this is a matter of choicea deity could act


29/69

miraculously, and perhaps on occasion does sowhile forprocess theism it is a matter of necessitycreatures haveinherent powers that a deity cannot, even in principle,

override). Deities are manifested in the world through

inspiration and the creation of possibility, not necessarily by

miracles or violations of the laws of nature.

The rejection of omnipotence often follows from either

philosophical or scriptural considerations, discussed below.

Philosophical grounds

Process theology rejects unlimited omnipotence on a

philosophical basis, arguing that omnipotence as

classically understood would be less than perfect, and is

therefore incompatible with the idea of a perfect deity. The

idea is grounded in Plato's oft-overlooked statement that

"being is power."

My notion would be, that anything which

possesses any sort of power to affect another, orto be affected by another, if only for a single

moment, however trifling the cause and however

slight the

effect, has real existence; and I hold that the

definition of being is simply power.

Plato, 247E [11]From this premise, Charles Hartshorne argues further that:

Power is influence, and perfect power is perfect

influence ... power must be exercised uponsomething, at least if by power we mean

influence, control; but the something controlled

cannot be absolutely inert, since the merely

passive, that which has no active tendency of its

own, is nothing; yet if the something acted upon

is itself partly active, then there must be some

resistance, however slight, to the "absolute"

power, and how can power which is resisted be

absolute?

Hartshorne, 89The argument can be stated as follows:

1) If a being exists, then it must have some active

tendency.

2) If a being has some active tendency, then it has some

power to resist its creator.

3) If a being has the power to resist its creator, then the

creator does not have absolute power.

For example, though someone might control a lump of jelly-


30/69

pudding almost completely, the inability of that pudding to

stage any resistance renders that person's power rather

unimpressive. Power can only be said to be great if it is

over something that has defenses and its own agenda. If a

deity's power is to be great, it must therefore be over beings

that have at least some of their own defenses and agenda.

Thus, if a deity does not have absolute power, it must

therefore embody some of the characteristics of power, and

some of the characteristics of persuasion. This view is

known as dipolar theism .

The most popular works espousing this point are from

Harold Kushner (in Judaism). The need for a modified view

of omnipotence was also articulated by Alfred North

Whitehead in the early 20th century and expanded upon by

the aforementioned philosopher Charles Hartshorne.

Hartshorne proceeded within the context of the theological

system known as process theology.

Scriptural groundsIn the Authorized King James Version of the Bible , as well

as several other versions, in Revelation 19:6 it is stated

"...the Lord God omnipotent reigneth" (the original Greek

word is , "all-mighty"). [12] Although much ofthe narrative of the Old Testament describes the Judeo-

Christian God as interacting with creation primarily through

persuasion, and only occasionally through force. However,

it could further be argued that the ability to conflict with

truth is not an appropriate representation of accepted

definitions of power , which negates the assertion that a

deity does not have infinite powers.Many other verses in the Christian Bible do assert

omnipotence of its deity without actually using the word

itself. There are several mentions of the Christian deity

being referred to as simply "Almighty", showing that the

Christian Bible supports the belief of an omnipotent deity.

Some such verses are listed below:

Psalms 33:8-9: Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the

inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spoke,

and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Genesis 17:1: And when Abram was ninety years old and

nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am

the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. (The

Hebrew word used here is "shadday") [13]

Jeremiah 32:27: Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh:

is there any thing too hard for me?

At his command a storm arose and covered the sea. ( Psalm

107:25)

Several parts of the New Testament claim Jesus to be one

with the Father, who is omnipotent, and others show Jesus


31/69

to have some separation from the Father and even self-

imposed limitations on his power. (Gospel of John)

Paradoxes

Main article: Omnipotence paradox

Some believe that omnipotence in any form can arguably be

disproved. A classical example goes as follows:

"Can a deity create a rock so heavy that even the deity

itself cannot lift it? If so, then the rock is now unliftable,

limiting the deity's power. But if not, then the deity is still

not omnipotent because it cannot create that rock." [14]

Augustine, in his City of God , argued, instead, that God

could not do anything that would make God non-

omnipotent:

For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing

what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He

wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no

means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do somethings for the very reason that He is omnipotent. [15]

Uncertainty and other views

All the above stated claims of power are each based on

scriptual grounds and upon empirical human perception.

This perception is limited to our senses . The power of a

deity is related to its existence.There are however other

ways of perception like: reason , intuition , revelation , divine

inspiration , religious experience , mystical states, and

historical testimony.

According to the Hindu philosophy the essence of God orBrahman can never be understood or known since Brahman

is beyond both existence and non-existence, transcending

and including time, causation and space, and thus can

never be known in the same material sense as one

traditionally 'understands' a given concept or object. [16]

So presuming there is a god-like entity consciently taking

actions, we cannot comprehend the limits of a deity's

powers. [17]

Since the current laws of physics are only known to be valid

in this universe, it is possible that the laws of physics are

different in parallel universes, giving a God-like entity, more

power. If the number of universes is unlimited, then the

power of a certain God-like entity is also unlimited, since

the laws of physics may be different in other universes, and

accordingly [18] making this entity omnipotent.

Unfortunately concerning a multiverse there is a lack of

empirical correlation. To the extreme there are theories

about realms beyond this multiverse (Nirvana , Chaos ,

Nothingness ).


32/69

Also trying to develop a theory to explain, assign or reject

omnipotence on grounds of logic has little merit, since

being omnipotent would mean the omnipotent being is

above logic. A view supported by RenDescartes [19] He

issues this idea in his Meditations on First Philosophy.

Allowing assumption that a deity exists, further debate may

be provoked that said deity is consciously taking actions. It

could be concluded from an emanationism [20][21] point of

view, that all actions and creations by a deity are simply

flows of divine energy (the flowing Tao in conjunction with

qi is often seen as a river; [22] Dharma (Buddhism) the law

of nature discovered by Buddha has no beginning or end.)

Pantheism and/or panentheism sees the universe/

multiverse as 'the body of God', making 'God' everybody

and everything. So if one does something, actually 'God' is

doing it. We are 'God's' means according to this view.

In the Taoist religious or philosophical tradition, the Tao is

in some ways equivalent to a deity or the logos . The Tao isunderstood to have inexhaustible power, yet that power is

simply another aspect of its weakness.

Omnipresence

Look up omnipresence in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.


Attributes of GodAseity

Eternity

Graciousness

Holiness

Immanence

Immutability

Impassibility

Impeccability

Incorporeality

Love

Mission

Omnibenevolence

Omnipotence

Omnipresence

Omniscience

Oneness

Providence

Righteousness

Simplicity


33/69

Transcendence

Trinity

Veracity

Wrath

v t e

Omnipresence or ubiquity is the property of being present

everywhere. This characteristic is most commonly used in a

religious context, as most doctrines bestow the trait of

omnipresence onto a superior, usually a deity commonly

referred to as God by monotheists , as with God in

Christianity. This idea differs from Pantheism , which

identifies the universe and divinity; in divine omnipresence,

the divine and universe are separate, but the divine is

present everywhere; see panentheism for a third variant.

Introduction

Hinduism, and other religions that derive from it, incorporate

the theory of transcendent and immanent omnipresence

which is the traditional meaning of the word, Brahman . Thistheory defines a universal and fundamental substance,

which is the source of all physical existence.

Divine omnipresence is thus one of the divine attributes,

although in Western Christianity it has attracted less

philosophical attention than such attributes as

omnipotence , omniscience, or being eternal.

In western theism, omnipresence is roughly described as

the ability to be "present everywhere at the same time", [1]

referring to an unbounded or universal presence. It is

related to the concept of ubiquity, the ability to be

everywhere or in many places at once. [2] This includesunlimited temporal presence. [3]

Some[ who? ] argue that omnipresence is a derived

characteristic: an omniscient and omnipotent deity knows

everything and can be and act everywhere, simultaneously.

Others propound a deity as having the "Three O's",

including omnipresence as a unique characteristic of the

deity. Most Christian denominationsfollowing theologystandardized by the Nicene Creedexplains the concept ofomnipresence in the form of the "Trinity", by having a single

deity (God) made up of three omnipresent persons, Father,

Son and Holy Spirit.

Historical origins

Several ancient cultures such as the Vedic and the Native

American civilizations share similar views on omnipresent

nature; the ancient Egyptians , Greeks and Romans did not

worship an omnipresent being. While most Paleolithic

cultures followed polytheistic practices [ citation needed ] , a

form of omnipresent deity arises from a worldview that does

not share ideas with mono-local deity cultures. Some


34/69

omnipresent religions see the whole of existence as a

manifestation of the deity. There are two predominant

viewpoints here: pantheism , deity is the summation of

Existence; and panentheism, deity is an emergent property

of existence. The first is closest to the Native Americans '

worldview; the latter resembles the Vedic outlook. [ citation

needed ]

Judeo-Christian beliefs constitute a third opinion on

omnipresence. To both mainstream Jewish and Christian

religions, God is omnipresent; however, some heterodox

branches, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, reject

omnipresence. [4] However, the major difference between

these monotheistic religions and other religious systems is

that God is still transcendent to His creation and yet

immanent in relating to creation. God is not immersed in the

substance of creation, even though he is able to interact

with it as he chooses. He cannot be excluded from any

location or object in creation (Thomas C Oden "The LivingGod: Systematic Theology Vol 1, pg 67). God's presence is

continuous throughout all of creation, though it may not be

revealed in the same way at the same time to people

everywhere. At times, he may be actively present in a

situation, while he may not reveal that he is present in

another circumstance in some other area. The Bible reveals

that God can be both present to a person in a manifest

manner ( Psalm 46:1, Isaiah 57:15) as well as being present

in every situation in all of creation at any given time (Psalm

33:13-14). Specifically, Oden states (pg. 68-69) that the

Bible shows that God can be present in every aspect ofhuman life:

God is naturally present in every aspect of the natural

order, in every level of causality , every fleeting moment

and momentous event of natural history ...(Psalm 8:3,

Isaiah 40:12, Nahum 1:3)

God is actively present in a different way in every event in

history as provident guide of human affairs (Psalm 48:7)

God is in a special way attentively present to those who

call upon his name, intercede for others, who adore God,

who petition, who pray earnestly for forgiveness ( Gospel

of Matthew 18:19, Book of Acts 17:27)

God is judicially present in moral awareness, through

conscience (Psalm 48:1-2, Epistle to the Romans 1:20)

God is bodily present in the incarnation of his Son, Jesus

Christ (Gospel of John 1:14, Colossians 2:9)

God is mystically present in the Eucharist , and through

the means of grace in the church , the body of Christ

( Ephesians 2:12, John 6:56)

God is sacredly present and becomes known in special


35/69

places where God chooses to meet us, places that

become set apart by the faithful remembering community

( 1 Corinthians 11:23-29) where it may said: "Truly the

Lord is in this place" (Genesis 28:16, Matthew 18:20)"

In the Judeo-Christian religions, God is omnipresent in a

way that he is able to interact with his creation however he

chooses, and is the very essence of his creation. While

contrary to normal physical intuitions, such omnipresence

is logically possible by way of the classic geometric point

or its equivalent, in that such a point is, by definition, within

all of space without taking up any space.

Omniscience

For the album by Swans, see Omniscience (album) .This article needs additional citations for verification .

Please help improve this article by adding citations to

reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged

and removed. (March 2011)

Omniscience /mnns/ , [1] mainly in religion , is thecapacity to know everything that there is to know. In

particular, Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions (Judaism ,

Christianity, and Islam ) believe that there is a divine being

who is omniscient. An omniscient point-of-view , in writing,

is to know everything that can be known about a character,

including past history, thoughts, feelings, etc. In Latin,omnis means "all" and sciens means "knowing".

Definitions


Attributes of God

Aseity

Eternity

Graciousness

Holiness

Immanence

Immutability

Impassibility

Impeccability

Incorporeality

Love

Mission

Omnibenevolence

Omnipotence

Omnipresence

Omniscience


36/69

Oneness

Providence

Righteousness

Simplicity

Transcendence

Trinity

Veracity

Wrath

v t e

There is a distinction between:

inherent omniscience - the ability to know anything that

one chooses to know and can be known.

total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can

be known.

Some modern Christian theologians argue that God's

omniscience is inherent rather than total, and that God

chooses to limit his omniscience in order to preserve the

freewill and dignity of his creatures. [2] John Calvin, amongother theologians of the 16th century, comfortable with the

definition of God as being omniscient in the total sense, in

order for worthy beings' abilities to choose freely, embraced

the doctrine of predestination .

Controversies

Omnipotence (unlimited power) is sometimes understood to

also imply the capacity to know everything that will be.

Nontheism often claims that the very concept of

omniscience is inherently contradictory.

Whether omniscience, particularly regarding the choices

that a human will make, is compatible with free will hasbeen debated by theists and philosophers . The argument

that divine foreknowledge is not compatible with free will is

known as theological fatalism . Generally, if humans are

truly free to choose between different alternatives, it is very

difficult to understand how God could know what this

choice will be. [3]

God created knowledge

Omniciencia , mural by JosClemente Orozco

This section needs additional citations for verification .



and removed. (July 2013)

Some theists [ who? ] argue that God created all knowledge

and has ready access there to. This statement invokes a

circular time contradiction: presupposing the existence of

God , before knowledge existed, there was no knowledge at

all, which means that God was unable to possess

knowledge prior to its creation. Alternately if knowledge

was not a "creation" but merely existed in God's mind for


37/69

all time there would be no contradiction. In Thomistic

thought, which holds God to exist outside of time due to his

ability to perceive everything at once, everything which God

knows in his mind already exists. Hence, God would know

of nothing that was not in existence (or else it would exist),

and God would also know everything that was in existence

(or else it would not exist), and God would possess this

knowledge of what did exist and what did not exist at any

point in the history of time.

The circular time contradiction can suppose anything

concerning God, such as the creation of life, meaning before

God created life, he wasn't alive. Moreover to assume any

more attributes, to then say God is merciful, but before the

creation of mercy, he wouldn't have been merciful, and

before the creation of the concept of negation (meaning to

assume something as not), no one would have any concept

of what is not. These apparent contradictions, however,

presuppose that such attributes are separately defined anddetached from God, which is not necessarily so. It is not a

given that attributes which can be assigned to or used to

describe mankind, can be equally (or even similarly)

ascribed to God. Take good and evil for example: goodness

is biblically defined as that which is of God; it is intrinsic to

his being and is revealed most prominently through his

provision of Old Testament Law, the keeping of which is the

very definition of goodness and the neglecting of which (on

even the slightest of grounds), is the epitome of evil. A

similar argument could be laid down concerning God's

omniscience (i.e. knowledge). It even eludes the idea a lotmore even to assume the concept of " nothing " or negation

was created, therefore it is seemingly impossible to

conceive such a notion where it draws down to a paradox.

To assume that knowledge in Plato's sense as described to

be a belief that's true, it then means that before everything

came into being, it was all to be conceived as total

imagination by God until the set of truth. One verse "God

created man in his own Image" states that God imagined the

form of humans, taking image as a root word for imagine,

mistakenly understood as man to look like God. [this verse

from Genesis 1 is in the Hebrew Scriptures. The word

'Image' is translated from two Hebrew words 'demuth' -

likeness or similitude and 'tselem'- an obscure word which

translates as image or idol. [4] It is difficult, therefore to

make a case for the author's reading of this verse to mean

'God imagined the form of humans']

The above definitions of omniscience cover what is called

propositional knowledge ( knowing that), as opposed to

experiential knowledge (knowing how ). That some entity is


38/69

omniscient in the sense of possessing all possible

propositional knowledge does not imply that it also

possesses all possible experiential knowledge. Opinions

differ as to whether the propositionally omniscient God of

the theists is able to possess all experiential knowledge as

well. But it seems at least obvious that a divine infinite

being conceived of as necessary infinitely knowledgeable

would also know how , for example, a finite person [man]

dying feels like as He [God] would have access to all

knowledge including the obvious experiences of the dying

human. There is a third type of knowledge: practical or

procedural knowledge ( knowing how to do ). If omniscience

is taken to be all knowledge then all knowledge of all types

would be fully known and comprehended.

Omniscience vs free will

A question arises : an omniscient entity knows everything

even about his/her/its own decisions in the future, does it

therefore forbid any free will to that entity ?See : Determinism , Freewill and argument from free will

Non-theological uses

Game theory studies omniscience; in the context of a game

players can be omniscient.

The field of literary analysis and criticism can discuss

omniscience in the point of view of a narrator. An

omniscient narrator , almost always a third-person narrator,

can reveal insights into characters and settings that would

not be otherwise apparent from the events of the story and

which no single character could be aware of.

A collection of surveillance techniques which togethercontribute to much disparate knowledge about the

movements, actions, conversation, appearance, etc. of an

individual (or organisation) is sometimes called omniscient

technology. [ citation needed ]

The word "omniscient" characterizes a fictional character in

the Devin Townsend album " Ziltoid the Omniscient ".

Theological representations

This section possibly contains original research . Please

improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline

citations . Statements consisting only of original research

may be removed. (June 2010)

This section does not cite any references or sources .

Please help improve this section by adding citations to


and removed . (June 2010)

The concepts of omniscience can be defined as follows

(using the notation of modal logic ):

x is omniscient =def

In words, for total omniscience:


39/69

x is omniscient =def For all propositions p: if p (is

true), then x knows that p (is true)

For inherent omniscience one interprets Kxp in this and the

following as x can know that p is true, so for inherent

omniscience this proposition reads:


true), then x can know that p (is true)

But a critical logical analysis shows that this definition is

too naive to be proper, and so it must be qualified as

follows:


In words:


true) and p is (logically) knowable, then x knows [/

can know] that p (is true)

The latter definition is necessary, because there are

logically true but logically unknowable propositions such as

"Nobody knows that this sentence is true":N = "Nobody knows that N is true"

If N is true, then nobody knows that N is true; and if N is

false, then it is not the case that nobody knows that N is

true, which means that somebody knows that N is true. And

if somebody knows that N is true, then N is true; therefore,

N is true in any case. But if N is true in any case, then it is

logically true and nobody knows it. What is more, the

logically true N is not only not known to be true but also

impossibly known to be true, for what is logically true is

impossibly false. Sentence N is a logical counter-example

to the unqualified definition of "omniscience", but it doesnot undermine the qualified one.

There are further logical examples that seem to undermine

even this restricted definition, such as the following one

(called "The Strengthened Divine Liar"):

B = "God does not believe that B is true"

If B is true, then God (or any other person) does not believe

that B is true and thus does not know that B is true.

Therefore, if B is true, then there is a truth (viz. " B is true")

which God does not know. And if B is not true (= false), then

God falsely believes that B is true. But to believe the falsity

that B is true is to believe the truth that B is not true.

Therefore, if B is not true, then there is a truth (viz. " B is not

true") which God doesn't know. So, in any case there is a

truth that God does not and cannot know, for knowledge

implies true belief.

While sentence N is a non-knower-relative unknowability, B

is a knower-relative unknowability, which means that our

concept of omniscience apparently needs to be redefined

again:


40/69


In words:


true) and p is (logically) knowable to x , then x

knows [/can know] that p (is true)'

Omniscience in Buddhist India

The topic of omniscience has been much debated in various

Indian traditions, but no more so than by the Buddhists.

After Dharmakirti 's excursions into the subject of what

constitutes a valid cognition, ntarakita and his studentKamalala thoroughly investigated the subject in theTattvasamgraha and its commentary the Panjika. The

arguments in the text can be broadly grouped into four

sections:

The refutation that cognitions, either perceived, inferred,

or otherwise, can be used to refute omniscience.

A demonstration of the possibility of omniscience through

apprehending the selfless universal nature of allknowables, by examining what it means to be ignorant

and the nature of mind and awareness.

A demonstration of the total omniscience where all

individual characteristics (svalaksana) are available to

the omniscient being.

The specific demonstration of Shakyamuni Buddha's non-

exclusive omniscience.

Transcendence (religion)

Not to be confused with Transcendentalism.

This article needs additional citations for verification .



and removed. (August 2009)

In religion , transcendence refers to the aspect of God's

nature and power which is wholly independent of the

material universe, beyond all physical laws. This is

contrasted with immanence, where God is fully present in

the physical world and thus accessible to creatures in

various ways. In religious experience transcendence is a

state of being that has overcome the limitations of physical

existence and by some definitions has also become

independent of it. This is typically manifested in prayer ,

sance , meditation , psychedelics and paranormal "visions".

It is affirmed in the concept of the divine in the major

religious traditions, and contrasts with the notion of God , or

the Absolute , existing exclusively in the physical order


41/69

(immanentism ), or indistinguishable from it (pantheism ).

Transcendence can be attributed to the divine not only in its

being, but also in its knowledge. Thus, God transcends the

universe, but also transcends knowledge (is beyond the

grasp of the human mind).

Although transcendence is defined as the opposite of

immanence, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive .

Some theologians and metaphysicians of the great religious

traditions affirm that God, or Brahman , is both within and

beyond the universe ( panentheism ); in it, but not of it;

simultaneously pervading it and surpassing it.

View by religion

Bah'Faith

Bah's believe in a single , imperishable God , the creator of

all things, including all the creatures and forces in the

universe. [1] God is described as "a personal God,

unknowable, inaccessible, the source of all Revelation,

eternal, omniscient, omnipresent and almighty." [2] Thoughinaccessible directly, God is nevertheless seen as

conscious of his creation, with a mind, will and purpose.

Bah's believe that God expresses this will at all times and

in many ways, including through a series of divine

messengers referred to as Manifestations of God or

sometimes divine educators . [3] In expressing God's intent,

these manifestations are seen to establish religion in the

world. Bah'teachings state that God is too great for

humans to fully comprehend, nor to create a complete and

accurate image. [4]

BuddhismIn Buddhism "transcendence", by definition, belongs to the

mortal beings of the formless realms of existence. However,

although such beings are at 'the peak' of Samsara ,

Buddhism considers the development of transcendence to

be both temporary and a spiritual cul-de-sac, which

therefore does not eventuate a permanent cessation of

Samsara. This assertion was a primary differentiator from

the other Sramana teachers during Gautama Buddha's own

training and development. [5]

Alternatively, in the various forms of BuddhismTheravada, Mahayana (especially Pure Land and Zen) and

Vajrayanathe notion of transcendence sometimesincludes a soteriological application. Except for Pure Land

and Vajrayana, the role played by transcendent beings is

minimal and at most a temporary expedient. However some

Buddhists believe that Nirvana is an eternal, transcendental

state beyond name and form, so for these Buddhists,

Nirvana is the main concept of transcendence. The more

usual interpretation of Nirvana in Buddhism is that it is a


42/69

cessation - a permanent absence of something (namely

suffering), and therefore it is not in any way a state which

could be considered transcendent.

Primordial enlightenment and the dharma are sometimes

portrayed as transcendent, since they can surpass all

samsaric obstructions.

Christianity


Attri

Documents

Divine Simplicity