Sentences with phrase «on omnipotent»

The success of Tesla's Spartan atmosphere relies on its omnipotent 15 - inch center touchscreen.

I always think it funny when people puts limits on a omnipotent being.

«Pure evil» is the only label that can be placed on an omnipotent and omniscient deity that creates humans for the sole purpose of eternal tourture.

If you have on omnipotent being always watching who controls your fate, you are far less inclined to murder indiscriminately.

Not exact matches

For a group of people with an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent deity on their side, everyone sure does seem really defensive and fearful.

How can any honest person with any integrity defend this ideology, with its bloody past, or its supposed founder, on whose omnipotent shoulders ultimately rests the responsibility for the management of the world and, thus, its endless atrocities?»

If you have faith, surely you believe that an omnipotent loving god would not put the burden of somebody else's eternal torment on YOUR shoulders.

Such a citizen would not regard himself or herself as essentially omnipotent, capable on his or her own of solving all our problems.

You wouldn't know GOD or JESUS if they stepped on you with their omnipotent feet!

Your Christian god missed out on 5 billion people today that do not believe any of your supernatural Christian beliefs, pretty lame omnipotent god you have there.

Christianity — the belief of «nothing created an omnipotent, omniscient, being out of nothing just to then create the entire universe out of nothing for a specific creature he created from dirt on a specific planet».

fred, They were atheists as far as your god is concerned, but I think the point was why couldn't an omniscient and omnipotent god have made itself known on all continents before the European invasion of the New Worlds?

Sheila,... but as an omnipotent being, he inflicted all this harm on us, his creations.

It is human arrogance at its finest to believe an omnipotent being has some stock in the outcome of the number of times a ball is on either side of a field.

The problem with free will is, that Christians have insisted on their god being Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent.

And the assertion that all suffering, however great, is one or the other makes eminent sense if you believe that God is good and omnipotent, and that God exercises this omnipotence to control events here on earth.

But to the writer God is no longer an anthropomorphic deity in the old sense; he is the one God, omnipotent and altogether righteous, transcendent in majesty and in rightful claim on man's devotion; and his holiness is expressed in his exclusive right to Israel's worship and service.

If god has a plan, and god is omnipotent, that excludes any ability on our part to choose differently.

Caring accepting forgiving evolving omnipotent omnipresent boundless morphing loving mystical allowing ultimate intelligence, I could go on

What would a day be in the Divine circadian cycle of an omnimodal, omnipotent being, 24 hours, 24 billion years, 24 milliseconds??? Nowhere in the Bible coes it say that evolution does not exist within the living realm, but Simon Peter does say that to the I Am»... one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day...» (the Bible DOES recognize the effects of animal husbandry, which is a form of artificially - induced evolution on livestock species, and narrates accounts of Divine intervention to influence it, so you can not factually say that it is outside the realm of Divine probability by biblical accounts, as Divine probability contains, by textbook definition, the sum of the laws of nature.

The essential point is to decide on the fundamentals: a restructuring of society as a League of Leagues, and a reduction of the State to its proper function, which is to maintain unity; or a devouring of an amorphous society by the omnipotent State....

«God existed before there were human beings on Earth, He holds the entire world, believers and non-believers, in His omnipotent hand for eternity.»

Dionysius did comment at one point about something he called «the omnipotent goodness of the Divine weakness,» 11 but he did not elaborate on the implications of this insight.

God's use of persuasion, as opposed to omnipotent coercion, which is so often attributed to God, is not based on a voluntary self - limitation.

If an omnipotent God has created nature, one must ask why one should not then posit nature as capable of causing natural events on its own steam rather than requiring intervention.

Why would an omnipotent God need to «rest» on the seventh day, and what could a «day» possibly mean to an Eternal God who exists outside of time, who, in fact, created ime?

If, he wrote, «the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world [that of Dante's age] rested on no sure foundation», still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove.

for most people (appearently) its just easier to believe an omniscient, omnipotent being wished it to happen... and that hes looking down on us, interceding on our behalf — even when doing so would act against others in the faith.

Where we disagree is that conclusion leads me to realize the non-existence of god since the existence of a good omnipotent god that created us in his image is an obvious logical fallacy; you, on the other - hand prefer to take that information and suspend your rational abilities to allow yourself to continue to believe such a paradox.

On the other hand his control and efficacy operate not by arbitrary (that is to say, independent and «omnipotent») overruling, nor by being the only active elements in the occasion; but by the persuasive molding of new possibilities, by redirecting the pressures of prior actualities, by providing new opportunity for advance, and by offering the «lure» which evokes from each occasion in the ongoing process the movement towards satisfaction of its «subjective aim».

The difference, however is always great: man's existence is totally dependent on God's act of creation whereas God's existence is eternal, infinite, omnipotent and dependent onnothing else.

There are, of course, proper names of God or gods, whether in the polytheistic religions or, as in ancient Israel, where the one omnipotent God, Yahweh, bears a special name because the people is convinced to have had a special experience of him in its history, which characterizes him despite his incomprehensibility and actual namelessness and thus confers a name on him.

Why would an omnipotent god let his people get the god right but stray on the rules and interpretations?

On this ground Stein finds it possible to hope that God's omnipotent love finds ways of, so to speak, outwitting human resistance.

Hmmm — a world where an omniscient, omnipotent being allows unspeakable evil to happen on an ongoing basis to people?

If they believe their God is so omnipotent, why do nt they just let him pass his self - serving, hateful judgement himself instead of going around imposing their own wills on people who do nt prescribe to their beliefs.

mzh, why does your omnipotent being rely on something as primitive as a book to get its message out, rather than use more modern and more direct means?

Yes, and the omnipotent got had to rest on the 7th day of creation.

It is Reichenbach's belief, rather, that to determine whether the God of the Bible is omnipotent, we must «see whether the conception of God espoused in its pages meets the criteria specified in (D)» — a complex philosophical definition of omnipotence Reichenbach has earlier defended on extra-biblical grounds (EGG 190 - 91).

That the issue at stake is a spiritual one is evident in the religious imagery that pervades Callahan's account of technological medicine: that the war on death is a search for «immortality»; that the dying patient might be «saved»; that medicine is seen as «omnipotent, holding life and death wholly in its hands»; that a lobbyist equates heart attacks, cancer, and strokes with sin (interesting rhetoric in the public sphere, but I'll save that discussion for another day).

There's been a misconception on earth for way too long that I am perfect, infallible, omnipotent, yada, yada, yada.

It's the omnipotent, all knowing force with articles on every subject; How do de-stress with meditation, how to make the best pizza (the video is ten seconds long, you need to get on with your day after all!)

I think he is able to be omnipotent, present, and so on, but exercises it only when it affects his people or his purpose.

David Johnston: «The problem with free will is, that Christians have insisted on their god being Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent.»

How is it that your omnipotent being couldn't do his «salvation» bit without the whole silly Jesus on sticks hoopla?

Griffin points out that in company with a great many other contributors to the recent literature on the problem of evil, Mackie assumes that an omnipotent being is one who can bring about any state of affairs the description of which is logically consistent.

If «X is omnipotent» means «X possesses the logical limit of power,» I suspect that the view most in accord with what Whitehead says in his later writings on metaphysics and religion is that no being is omnipotent.

You believe in your idea that The Omnipotent Creative Energy would activate on your COMMAND (another word for «pray», as in «Pray, leave my house at once!»)

And note, a being that is omnipotent on this selective view might exist even if Premise X turned out to be meaningless, logically false, or metaphysically false.

My point is that on the surface, at least, the analysis of «X is omnipotent» that goes with Griffin's third position concerning the deficiency of Premise X does not capture the idea of perfect power as understood by Griffin and as generally understood in discussions of this topic.