Hence, God’s omnipotence cannot contradict logic.The definition of omnipotence being “the power to do anything and everything” has never been abandoned.
The thing to be defined clearly in that definition is the word … “thing.” Surprisingly enough Aristotle and the Scholastics use it to mean any possible real being (this would be the formal philosophical use of the word. Although sometimes it’s used more broadly to include purely logical beings like “nothing” or even “square circle.” Technically (as the Scholastics have said) “nothing” is not a “thing” … and a “square circle” is not a “thing” … at least in the technical way they used it. All “things” are beings that have the intrinsic possibility of existence … that is, real beings that do not have a contradictory essence. Any being that does result in a contradiction would not be a “thing” and hence it cannot be accomplished by God. In this traditional use of the term “thing,” God’s omnipotence can be defined as “the power to do anything and everything” … but in the broader and less formal use of the term (such that “thing” includes absurd beings), then that definition of omnipotence does not work.
Now, depending what you mean, there are indeed some “things” humans do that God cannot. Humans can sin (and even though this is bad … it’s not a logical contradiction). But God cannot sin … for that would be contradicting Himself. There are other examples. But I’ll just mention that for now.
Just keep in mind that when omnipotence is defined as “power to do anything and everything” … the “-things” are referring to real possible being, excluding absurd being that leads to logical contradictions.
All I am getting from you is something along the lines of: “This is the Catholic answer, hence the right one. Anything else is wrong, although I am not going to explain to you as to why it is wrong.”I am speaking of things you as a Catholic should clearly know what I say. If not, seriously, you are in no position to be defending the faith, much less God.
The only things that come to my mind are beings who are a part of God, hence their intellect would stem from that (Pantheism) or assuming we determined, maybe there is no real intellect only our perceptions of what we consider to be intellectual.the more I think about it as I write this response, the more I suspect that it might be impossible to have an intellectual being without a will, so it might simply be a logical contradiction for us not to have free will.
Well, put it this way, it’s clear with where you are at, understanding of things spiritually related in general, that you have much to learn along the basics. The problem being here, if you are going to consider yourself an authority, one that’s capable of fully representing the faith, you need to actually be learned, otherwise you end up making us look rather inadequet in debate. The dangerous part though, not being strong in your full understanding, chances are very high that you will be forced to come to conclusions that are pressed to you by the opposition. I’ts because you have came unarmed and that’s the bottom line, the fact I had to explain my answer, the fact you had to post that original text clearly shows, you are still learning and not ready for debate.All I am getting from you is something along the lines of: “This is the Catholic answer, hence the right one. Anything else is wrong, although I am not going to explain to you as to why it is wrong.”
Also, who are you to tell me what I can defend and not defend? I can defend God, Catholicism, or anything else I want to for that matter.
I think God’s omnipotence could possibly contradict logic, in the sense that contradictions exist only in reality (i.e. time and space). Assuming God exists outside of time and space, then it could be possible. Do I know of any such worlds where time and space do not exist? No, but I don’t deny their possibility.With regard to omnipotence and logical contradiction, please forgive me as I shamefully cite myself from a previous thread:
Hence, God’s omnipotence cannot contradict logic.
These are your problem premises. My car lacks a donut; is it incomplete? But furthermore, how does the lack of something indicate the presence of imperfection?If he does not have it, it means he is incomplete
If he is incomplete, it means he is not perfect
Contradictions don’t exist, nor could they. Nonexistence is entailed by the definition of a contradiction.I think God’s omnipotence could possibly contradict logic, in the sense that contradictions exist only in reality (i.e. time and space).
What do you base my understanding on, your lame responses? It is obvious that you consider yourself to be a doctor of the church, without even having an understanding of basic philosophy. You seem to be avoiding the questions I pose and instead, you respond with insults that do not contribute anything to the conversation, other than a revelation of your weak understanding.Well, put it this way, it’s clear with where you are at, understanding of things spiritually related in general, that you have much to learn along the basics. The problem being here, if you are going to consider yourself an authority, one that’s capable of fully representing the faith, you need to actually be learned, otherwise you end up making us look rather inadequet in debate.
Again, what do you base this on? Are you able to tell how I am going to respond in a situation? No, you don’t. Stop think you know everything, you do not.The dangerous part though, not being strong in your full understanding, chances are very high that you will be forced to come to conclusions that are pressed to you by the opposition.
Of course I don’t know everything, but you sure don’t either. Judging by your posts, it’s clear that you don’t even have a mastery of basic English grammar or spelling. And do realize that there is a difference between having an answer and having a good one. I’ve had an answer to my question, just not a good one, which would satisfy my logic.I’ts because you have came unarmed and that’s the bottom line, the fact I had to explain my answer, the fact you had to post that original text clearly shows, you are still learning and not ready for debate.
I think you should learn how to write clearly before you insult me. You seem to have all the answers, professor but yet you won’t answer my question. The others on the board have, why can’t you?Your arrogance is also getting in your way of learning, it’s clear you have a long way to go before you come to a true and full understanding of the faith due to that one as well and I’ll give you some advice here. Still your lips and open your ears, there is much to be learned here, not your place to be teaching.
False analogy. What constitutes a perfect car? When I say God is perfect, I me he is omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence. To say he wanted something would be undermining his omnipotence. I want a car. I cannot a afford a car. This means that I lack the means to obtain a car. This means a lack of power. If God wanted something from us, he would be able to have it, right?These are your problem premises. My car lacks a donut; is it incomplete? But furthermore, how does the lack of something indicate the presence of imperfection?
Your definition is too vague. A better possible definition of perfect: Lacking in nothing needed or wanted. This would fix the “existing without the world” problem. Does God need the world, no? Is there something that exist in the world that he wants, no?Possible definition of perfect: Lacking in nothing.
But “lacking in nothing” resists analysis. Does God “have” everything in the world – that is, is the world a part of Him? No, for He exists without the world. I’m not sure how the term “lacking in nothing” can be a predicate, unless we give an account of it that could possibly even begin to apply to God. In other words, our definition of “perfect” is flawed. If God is lacking in just one thing – in my love, for example – He is nevertheless lacking. He has no *need *of my love, however. But I need to love Him; for He is the rest of my restless soul.
They don’t exist, but since God is all-powerful, then he could make them exist, right?Contradictions don’t exist, nor could they. Nonexistence is entailed by the definition of a contradiction.
Again, you choose to avoid my questions, yet you classify me as ignorant. I’m not going to insult you. I leave it at this.Well, put it this way, it’s clear with where you are at, understanding of things spiritually related in general, that you have much to learn along the basics. The problem being here, if you are going to consider yourself an authority, one that’s capable of fully representing the faith, you need to actually be learned, otherwise you end up making us look rather inadequet in debate. The dangerous part though, not being strong in your full understanding, chances are very high that you will be forced to come to conclusions that are pressed to you by the opposition. I’ts because you have came unarmed and that’s the bottom line, the fact I had to explain my answer, the fact you had to post that original text clearly shows, you are still learning and not ready for debate.
Your arrogance is also getting in your way of learning, it’s clear you have a long way to go before you come to a true and full understanding of the faith due to that one as well and I’ll give you some advice here. Still your lips and open your ears, there is much to be learned here, not your place to be teaching.
He “wants” exactly what he has.I came across this thought in my head after discussing Spinoza one day:
Does God wanting something from us? If so, would that make him imperfect?
God wants us to stop sinning
If God wants something, it means he does not have it
If he does not have it, it means he is incomplete
If he is incomplete, it means he is not perfect
Since God is perfect, he has everything he wants
Discuss.
No. All powerful does not entail the ability to create contradiction, just like the ability to speak any words does not entail the ability to honestly say “This sentence is false.”They don’t exist, but since God is all-powerful, then he could make them exist, right?
Omnipotence is the *ability *to do any possible thing, not the actuality of doing so. And, about the car, you didn’t even notice what I was saying. You said that “If he does not have it, it means he is incomplete”. The question, then, isn’t “What constitutes a perfect car?” but “What constitutes a complete car?” The answer: everything that is contained within the essence of a car. But a complete car is not a perfect car, nor is the concept of a “perfect car” intelligible, until we define perfect.False analogy. What constitutes a perfect car? When I say God is perfect, I me he is omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence. To say he wanted something would be undermining his omnipotence.
Yes, God could take anything He likes from us, including our free will. But He could not force us to choose His ways freely, because that is a contradiction.I want a car. I cannot a afford a car. This means that I lack the means to obtain a car. This means a lack of power. If God wanted something from us, he would be able to have it, right?
God lacks (or “wants”) something in the world, but He does not need anything in the world. There is a tremendous difference. Perfect as “lacking in nothing needed” is an intelligible definition, but perfect as “lacking in nothing needed or wanted” is simply not an intuitive (anthropomorphic) definition of “perfect”.Your definition is too vague. A better possible definition of perfect: Lacking in nothing needed or wanted. This would fix the “existing without the world” problem. Does God need the world, no? Is there something that exist in the world that he wants, no?
Probably “power-sharing” is a more accurate term. God remains omnipotent. He shares His power with us but He has the power to override any decisions we make at any moment. He does not do so because He knows that without free will we would be incapable of evil but also incapable of love.Omnipotence does not imply the power to create logical contradictions, which is in fact what you are proposing. It is just like the example of the rock so heavy that God cannot lift it. no such rock is possible, and the impossibility of it does not violate God’s omnipotence. Likewise, having a limit to one’s powers means that one is not omnipotent, so if you say that God’s power is limited, you are explicitly denying this attribute. God does not have the power to limit His own power. That is a contradiction.
If the world were under His direct control He would be directly responsible for all the disasters, diseases and deformities that cause suffering and death.God is the first cause of everything that is, and so there is a sense in which the world is in no way “out of His control”.
If God did not chose to share His power we could not have free will because all our decisions would be determined by God and He would be directly responsible for all the moral evil in the world. Our decisions may coincide with God’s will but not always.It is an inherent contradiction to say that God could create a free will that is not free, so the fact that God cannot force our will doesn’t imply a limit to His power but refers to a logical contradiction.
An unfulfilled desire is not a deficiency if it stems from God’s freedom and love. He is not subject to human categories.An unfulfilled desire is by definition a deficiency! A desire involves a moment of the will toward an absent good. There is, however, no good that God does not encompass and possess for He is Goodness Itself.
Therefore His desire is sometimes unfulfilled with respect to the reason why He created us. Otherwise Hell would not exist!God does desire people to be in hell according to His consequent will but not according to His antecedent will.
The problem is, you are “trying” to find fault with God, you keep prodding and prodding in an attempt to find some tidbit you can use against having faith in him as is written in the bible and taught by the church.Again, you choose to avoid my questions, yet you classify me as ignorant. I’m not going to insult you. I leave it at this.
Fair enough then. I agree.No. All powerful does not entail the ability to create contradiction, just like the ability to speak any words does not entail the ability to honestly say “This sentence is false.”
Fair enough then. Your answers satisfy the questions I wondered about well. Much thanks!Omnipotence is the *ability *to do any possible thing, not the actuality of doing so. And, about the car, you didn’t even notice what I was saying. You said that “If he does not have it, it means he is incomplete”. The question, then, isn’t “What constitutes a perfect car?” but “What constitutes a complete car?” The answer: everything that is contained within the essence of a car. But a complete car is not a perfect car, nor is the concept of a “perfect car” intelligible, until we define perfect.
Yes, God could take anything He likes from us, including our free will. But He could not force us to choose His ways freely, because that is a contradiction.
God lacks (or “wants”) something in the world, but He does not need anything in the world. There is a tremendous difference. Perfect as “lacking in nothing needed” is an intelligible definition, but perfect as “lacking in nothing needed or wanted” is simply not an intuitive (anthropomorphic) definition of “perfect”.
“Perfect” pertains to areas of expertise. We would say that a second baseman is “perfect” if he had a 1.000 batting average, had tremendous fielding range, and never made an error. The fact that he wasn’t very good at something he didn’t want to do – for example, fishing – would not qualify as an imperfection.
Likewise, God is not very good at something He doesn’t want to do, i.e. metaphysically forcing human beings to obey Him. But you have not shown how this makes Him imperfect, unless you adopt a highly controversial definition of “perfect”.
He wants us to both have freedom and to love Him fully and without reservation. By allowing the former, He knew it would take time and struggle to achieve the latter. But the latter can’t be achieved to a meaningful degree without the former, and in any case this is a situation He’s willing to put up with for the greater good He’s after in us.I came across this thought in my head after discussing Spinoza one day:
Does God wanting something from us? If so, would that make him imperfect?
God wants us to stop sinning
If God wants something, it means he does not have it
If he does not have it, it means he is incomplete
If he is incomplete, it means he is not perfect
Since God is perfect, he has everything he wants
Discuss.