8

The claim that the Abrahamic god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent is popular among theologians, practitioners of Abrahamic religions and atheists alike (I am referring to the idea of god, regardless of whether there is a being that fits the bill or not). Many theological arguments rely on some or all of these attributes, e.g. the problem of evil (requiring all three), the impossibility of coexistence of free will and omniscience, the famous "could god make a boulder so heavy even he himself could not lift it" (omnipotence), et cetera.

Do these claims appear in major religious texts, such as the Torah, Bible, or Koran?

Some examples:

  1. An article from the Christian Research Journal asserts that god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
  2. An educational books publisher claiming to have their material used in 3500 educational institutions in the UK alone, as well as 85 other countries, claims the Abrahamic god possesses all of these attributes.
  3. Article by Rabbi Dovid Gottleib dedicated to the problem of evil in Judaism. It claims god is omnipotent, omniscient and just.
Christian
  • 33,271
  • 15
  • 112
  • 266
kotekzot
  • 247
  • 1
  • 9
  • 6
    This site is for the examination of scientific claims. It does not examine religious claims. You might like to try the sites for Christianity, Biblical Hermeneutics or Judaism. – DJClayworth May 03 '12 at 19:37
  • 1
    @DJClayworth I think the question of whether something was written in a book or not falls within the realm of science, even if the subject of the book may be unscientific. – kotekzot May 03 '12 at 19:48
  • 1
    @kotekzot Whether or not any book makes any statement is NOT a scientific claim. Such claims are off-topic here. – DJClayworth May 03 '12 at 20:24
  • @DJClayworth how is it different from this question with a rating of 15 then? http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1840/einsteins-debate-with-his-professor-about-god-and-evil This question is about whether something was written, that is about whether something was said. – kotekzot May 03 '12 at 20:42
  • 2
    In fact there is already a question about this: http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2643/biblical-evidence-for-omnipotence-omniscience – DJClayworth May 03 '12 at 20:47
  • @DJClayworth something being written is as much of an event as something being said. None of these sites have the necessary scope to answer the question in full, am I to ask the same question on 3 sites, including the one about Islam that doesn't exist yet? – kotekzot May 03 '12 at 20:49
  • 1
    @DJClayworth note that the question is very similar but not a dupe, this is a super-set if anything. – Sklivvz May 03 '12 at 21:57
  • 8
    @DJClayworth I'm with sklivvz on this. The question as currently stated is about a *factual* statement which could be subject to skeptical analysis independent of whether the statement itself is true or has religious significance. – matt_black May 03 '12 at 22:09
  • Can you give an example of people claiming that the relevant holy books do claim that God is "omnibenevolent"? This appears to be a strawman. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence) claims: '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.' Claims of omnipotence and omnipresence (and even omniscience) are easier to find. – Oddthinking May 04 '12 at 13:29
  • @Oddthinking this is exactly the stuff that I'm interested in, and the reason I'm asking this question - to find out if the arguments based on these attributed qualities are strawmen or not. Here's a link to an article from Christian Research Journal discussing the problem of evil and, by extension, asserting that god does exhibit these qualities. http://www.equip.org/articles/how-should-christians-approach-the-problem-of-evil These arguments have stirred thought for centuries. – kotekzot May 04 '12 at 13:49
  • 1
    I would rescind my downvote if the question is narrowed in scope so that answers need not be of heroic length. In fact, I sent in an edit to change "and" to "or", to make the possible answer shorter. – Paul May 07 '12 at 13:43
  • This is the first time I see Omnibenevolent, I'm used to see Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent instead. As an example see [How is God Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient?](http://www.cogwriter.com/god-omnipotent-omniscient-omnipresent.htm) As a proxy for popularity of those concepts of take a good old google fight of [Omnipresent vs Omnibenevolent](http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=omnipresent&word2=omnibenevolent). – Theraot Jan 07 '15 at 19:27
  • My brother if you want to know the truth about God, I will tell you the only path and it is very simple you can go to any local Mosque doesn't matter everyone is in on it everyone is together and a brother there and read the Koran with the brothers there and smoke the weed and you will know god soon enough my friend. – SSpoke Jan 08 '15 at 14:06

2 Answers2

11

Methodology: simple google searches, restrict results to direct quotes that are clear and straightforward and from the old testament (since the OP asks for Abrahamic books, not sure which he means but certainly not new testament).

Omnipotence:

"O Sovereign Lord! You have made the heavens and earth by Your great power. Nothing is too hard for You!" (Jeremiah 32:17).

as cited by discover God: God is all powerful and parallel translations from bible.cc

and from the Christianity SE site, in https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2643/biblical-evidence-for-omnipotence-omniscience

the 1st answer cites Genesis 17:1-2

Genesis 17:1 (ESV) 1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless,

Parallel versions of Genesis 17:1

As the OP of the Christianity SE question noted, here in Genesis GOD itself is making the claim that "I am God Almighty" rather than it simply being a record of praise from one of his believers, who might be offering mistaken praise. [Note: this was all still written down by believers, obviously...]

Omniscience:

Hearken unto this, O Job: stand still, and consider the wondrous works of God. Dost thou know when God disposed them, and caused the light of his cloud to shine? Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of Him which is perfect in knowledge ... (Job 37:14-18)

Parallel versions of Job 37:16 from bible.cc

Also a claim is made that God sees what everyone is doing:

Psalm 33:13,14 states, "The Lord looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men. From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth."

Psalm 33:14 parallel versions from bible.cc

Both of these cites were from

The Omniscience of God: Old Testament teaching

Omnibenevolence

A google search for "omnibenevolent god old testament" does not yield any positive claims among the first page of article titles.

However, a search for "God is good to all" quickly yielded:

New International Version (©1984) The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made.

from http://bible.cc/psalms/145-9.htm

and that seems a pretty clear statement of Omnibenevolence.

For counterexamples to omnibenevolence a simple google search is all that is required.

Community
  • 1
Paul
  • 5,380
  • 1
  • 41
  • 75
  • I specifically asked about the Torah, Bible and Koran. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the 3 main Abrahamic religions. Good answer, +1. – kotekzot May 07 '12 at 17:43
  • 5
    @Paul, The quote from Genesis 17:1-2 isn't correct. When you go to the Hebrew source, It says "I'm god shadai..." or in Hebrew "אֲנִי-אֵל שַׁדַּי". The word Shadai is one of the names for god in the old testament, the word has several possible meanings, non of them is Almighty. (One of the possible meanings is strong or does miracles, but not Almighty or Omnipotence). Source (in hebrew) with citetions inside is from wikisource: http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8:%D7%90%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%93%D7%99 – SIMEL May 08 '12 at 13:28
  • 1
    Paul has good stuff in his answer. **omnipotent** But (as Ilya points out) the word "almighty" is traditionally used in some phrases translated from the Hebrew to the English without that original meaning. Some of these may even have unknown meanings in the Hebrew. In the New Testament, the Greek word *pantokrator* is translated in the King James as *almighty* or (once, made famous by Handel) *omnipotent*. This is the most common translation. But of course it can be argued whether the Greek word means "all powerful" or merely "ruler of all"/"sustainer of all". – GEdgar Jan 07 '15 at 18:17
  • @GEdgar The issue of exact language and translations is an interesting one, that I have not studied and do not feel confident to comment. Christian denominations certainly vary on whether the Bible is best read in languages such as Hebrew and Greek, or whether particular translations or interpreters were divinely inspired or protected from error. See, e.g., [Wikipedia: King James Only Movement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement); [Papal Infallibility](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility) – Paul Jan 09 '15 at 14:11
4

The link you provide in the comments, has references to scripture to support its claims.

Scripture declares God’s omnipotence—God is able to accomplish everything He desires (Jer. 32:17; Matt. 19:26; Luke 1:37; 2 Cor. 6:18); omniscience—God knows everything, including all past, present, and future truths (1 Sam. 23:11–13; Ps. 139:2; Isa. 46:9–10; 1 John 3:20); and omnibenevolence—God is the standard of goodness, which primarily is reflected in His moral attributes, especially love (Ps. 25:8; Mark 10:18; Rom. 5:6–10; 1 John 4:8, 16).

On the site, it has pop-ups to give quotes from the Bible.

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
  • Which only leaves the Torah and the Koran. – kotekzot May 04 '12 at 16:34
  • -1, circular argument for omnibenevolence. Making God the moral standard and avoiding judging God by human standards are appropriate religious teachings for believers. But they are not, by nature, scientific or logical arguments. – Paul May 05 '12 at 02:51
  • Also, this might be hearsay. What does each cited passage say? Does it clearly say what these authors claim it says or do you have to be religiously trained to interpret it through the use of metaphor, other events, etc.? – Paul May 05 '12 at 03:03
  • 2
    Paul: I am not attempting to show that God is omnibenevolent. I am attempting to show that theologians have biblical references that they can point to items in the Bible that claim God is benevolent. The relative verses are directly quoted on the linked site to avoid hearsay. I decline to get into any discussion about how to best interpret those passages. Go see our colleagues at http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com for that. – Oddthinking May 05 '12 at 03:12
  • Interesting response. Perhaps the whole Q&A should be moved there. I saw the topicality discussion but I suspect that in hindsight this question will be off topic. Trying to answer it might at first appear to be helpful but not if the answers cannot be skeptically examined. – Paul May 05 '12 at 04:28
  • @Paul: [I think I agree.](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1753/do-literature-and-religion-questions-count-as-skepticism#comment4333_1753) – Oddthinking May 05 '12 at 04:51
  • 1
    The trouble with this answer is that it misses an important point about the nature of the texts: it is easy to produce quotes that verify a range of inconsistent propositions. The *spirit* of the question is not about whether there are some *selected* quotes that back the ideas, but whether the ideas are sustainably and coherently part of the texts. That is a useful skeptical question. – matt_black May 07 '12 at 01:11
  • 1
    @matt_black: "whether the ideas are sustainably and coherently part of the texts" - that sounds exactly like a hermeneutics question and one that will never have a definitive answer. I'm not saying it isn't a question that people might like to discuss. I am saying I want no part of it. – Oddthinking May 07 '12 at 01:34
  • @Oddthinking I think that skeptics who want to have debates about religion should at least start their debate with basic facts about the "holy" books rather than accept the interpretation given by groups such as modern christian (or jewish or islamic) fundamentalists. While many of the *implications* of the question don't belong here, surely the basic facts do. – matt_black May 07 '12 at 11:48
  • @matt, You seemed to be advocating discussing the subjective interpretation (as quoted above). Doesn't that go beyond the basic facts? We should probably continue this in the [related meta-question](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1753/do-literature-and-religion-questions-count-as-skepticism). – Oddthinking May 07 '12 at 12:49
  • @Oddthinking I decided to try to answer this after all. If you think it is more fair, I will delete my answer and you can copy it into a better answer -- after all, you tried first. My concern with your answer was mostly the part where the citation used a circular argument to support omnibenevolence. A circular argument is not needed, because the claim directly appears. – Paul May 07 '12 at 13:39
  • @Paul: I heartily endorse usurping my answer with a better one. Being first doesn't count for anything. – Oddthinking May 07 '12 at 14:40
  • @matt_black I'm fine with inconsistencies, no backsies in the supposed word of god. As long as the claims are plain (and even better, attributed to god himself), that's good enough to base an argument on, in my opinion. – kotekzot May 08 '12 at 10:16