Shouldn't the space inside a totally sealed cube, container or ball be regarded as divided (separated) space from the outer space? — Corvus
If the cube moves, then the space inside the cube moves also, thus it is not technically the same space. It is the same amount of space, yes, but not the same space technically speaking. For example, if that cube is in New York, it is a space in New York. If in Boston, then a space in Boston, etc. And, if we simply chose to demolish the cube, the same space still exists, just now without the cube, it can't be demolished with the cube...
Omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience are only meaningful real attributes, if a subject with such attributes demonstrates omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience in action in front of us any time when asked. — Corvus
This is the definition of magic. For those who believe the greater existence has free will and can choose to completely ignore you if it chooses, then the way to go about this is prayer which may or may not be answered.
Omnipresence is really meaningful when the subject is visible and contactable whenever required — Corvus
You can only see what is finite and exists separate from you, so whatever is truly omnipresent extends everywhere so you could never go outside it and never see or contact it externally, everything must occur within it.
omnipotence doing and manifesting the right things (divine beings cannot perform bad things by definition?) — Corvus
I wouldn't use the term "bad" to explain it, but there is an obvious contradiction if omnipotence is used to remove omnipotence thus establishing the reality that the being doesn't truly have omnipotence...In other words, the greatest power is to create, destruction is a lesser power, creating can go on indefinitely but there are only so many things you can destroy--it is no surprise here that in Christianity, the Devil who opposes God strives to destroy all things...
omniscience telling us what is right from wrong, good from bad, and all the controversial topics such as being able to answer how the universe had been created, if it had, what happen to living beings when dead etc. — Corvus
I personally see the word omniscience as a tricky word, and there is a reason this has been used as a way to attack the concept of "God." You could say it means knowing what is going on everywhere all at once, knowing all future, knowing all good and bad, etc. I think the least contested of these would be knowing what is going on everywhere all at once. The reason I am not inclined to not accept the "know all future" idea is because I don't consider an all-existent being as being required to establish all future. It actually creates problems for omnipotence to say this being "decided" all things and can decide no more, but if you open to door to say not all things are decided, then not all future is set in stone, and not all future can be known. Christianity, at the very least, seems to embrace this idea with Bible passages that confuse many people (things were declared changed by God from the original plan).
As far as "knowing" bad, I reject this concept also on the premise that what is "bad" is simply a negation of everything which is "good," and what is "good" is that which is sustainable for an eternity without destruction: a destruction which unfortunately we see all too much of in this world which many religions have described as "broken" or "fallen." To put this simply, lets say you lecture me on a subject, then I go through and change everything you said to be the opposite. For example, you say "climate change is occurring due to the industrial revolution and the use of fossil fuels and is causing great harm" and I then alter it to say "fossil fuels are good for the environment, solar panels are bad, we need to abolish them from all rooftops!" I then study this opposite version and hold my head high at my "knowledge." But you, who realize it is just the opposite of what you were lecturing on, say "it isn't knowledge." I reply, "you think knowing bad things is knowledge, and this is a bad thing, therefore by your own definition I have knowledge!"