Let’s start with omnipotence and benevolence. These are two characteristics of God that describe different categories. Omnipotence is the answer to the question what is God. Benevolence is the answer to the question who is God. I’m going to try to start with just these two assumptions and see if I can make a case for some striking similarities between the ethic taught by Jesus and what we should expect from this starting place.
But first I want to explore the idea that benevolence actually follows from omnipotence. An omnipotent being existing by itself has nothing interesting to do except share power. Any possible creation without the sharing of power is merely an extension of the omnipotent being. It is simply the omnipotent being essentially remaining in isolation. Omnipotence becomes trivial if the omnipotent being does not allow at least provisional power outside of its control. But if provisional power is taken away arbitrarily, omnipotence remains trivial and uninteresting. Only the allowance of at least potentially opposing power creates a meaningful ‘other,’ and only the creation of a meaningful other is anything more than an extension of the omnipotent being. So the omnipotent being is left with two basic choices: no creation (or a controlled creation) with no meaningful others or a creation of an other or others given the ability to act in opposition to the omnipotent being. This is acting in the interest of another rather than oneself. This is benevolence.
May 7, 2007 at 7:04 pm
I’ve been waiting to find some time to read through these skeletons. I appreciate the project. Have you taken a look at “The God Theory” video from Bernard Haisch that I posted on my blog? (http://heartyheresy.net/2007/04/26/speaking-of-god/.)
He may be getting to the same “creation given the ability to act in opposition to the omnipotent being” that you’re talking about.
May 9, 2007 at 11:49 am
I pretty much agree with the video. The fine tuning of the universe may be purposeful or just chance. To make the chance theory work, you’d have to make the very unscientific assertion that Stephen Hawkings makes (he should call it an hypothesis instead) about many or infinitely many other universes.
May 9, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I think Haisch wants to avoid the multiverse business. My simple equation for this universe is something like: the need for togetherness + the need for individuality = an evolving universe. And, perhaps, an evolving God?