The Omnipotent

Chee Lan reminds David Falkayn that he is "'...not the Omnipotent...'" (Chapter XII, p. 447) (For full reference, see here.)

Do Cynthians have any concept of, or beliefs about, "the Omnipotent" or does Chee Lan merely refer to the human concept? In  a multi-species civilization, the various beings would learn about each others' ideas and a common pool of concepts would emerge. A Terrestrial referring to "God the Hunter" while speaking with an Ythrian has not necessarily converted to the New Faith. I suspect Aycharaych of merely trying to manipulate a human being when he refers to "immortal God." See here.

Falkayn proceeds to imagine van Rijn as the Omnipotent and "'...creation operated for profit!'" (p. 448) Joking aside, that is not possible:

I believe in neither an omnipotent creator nor a hereafter but what would follow from these premises? First, universalism. An omnipotent creator would be able to “save” all of his creatures. I did not include benevolence among the premises but I argue that it is implicit in omnipotence. Only finite power can be or needs to be oppressive. An infinitely powerful being would not be able to profit by exploiting finite beings. We would not be able to make anything for him that he could not effortlessly have made for himself. Indeed, by definition, he already is everything that he might want to be. Therefore, his only purpose in creating us must have been for our benefit. It follows that infinite power differs not quantitatively but qualitatively from finite power, however great.

Another difference is that resistance to finite but very great power is difficult but possible whereas resistance to infinite power, if it did exist, would be not only unnecessary but also impossible. Infinite creative power would be the source of even the thought of resistance. We do not resist air, Earth or the energy of which they are composed, still less a hypothetical creative power beyond but sustaining them. We resist only fellow beings in a common environment. The idea of Satan as a rebel angel was a concession to Zoroastrian dualism. Earlier monotheism did not recognise such an opponent of God. He alone both inspired Moses and hardened Pharaoh’s heart against Moses’ message and we must now ask why he would do the latter.
-copied from here.