M
mattjak28
Guest
is god omnipotent in every sense of the word? more specifically, would he be able to reverse his own moral code, say , to make the murder of children a virtue?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
Pro_Domina
Guest
Can God create a rock so big that he cannot carry it?
Stupid question right?
But I’ll give you a theological answer. God cannot sin.
But not because a lack of power, but because sinning is not a power at all. It is a weakness. Ergo, God cannot sin.
Plus He arbitrarily decided those rules.
But yes, He could appear and tell you so and so rule is suspendend. But He won’t.
Stupid question right?
But I’ll give you a theological answer. God cannot sin.
But not because a lack of power, but because sinning is not a power at all. It is a weakness. Ergo, God cannot sin.
Plus He arbitrarily decided those rules.
But yes, He could appear and tell you so and so rule is suspendend. But He won’t.
A
ateista
Guest
Exactly. But not because “sinning” is a weakness, rather because “sinning” is the refusal to obey God. And God cannot disobey himself.But I’ll give you a theological answer. God cannot sin. But not because a lack of power, but because sinning is not a power at all. It is a weakness. Ergo, God cannot sin.
No matter how hard I would try, I could not say something more “disrespectful” about God. Of course, I agree. But I never thought that a believer would agree that God is capricious tyrant, whose “whim” is the current moral code. If one accepts the Bible, then the conclusion is inevitable.Plus He arbitrarily decided those rules.
We are back at the good old Euthyphro dilemma. Is something “moral” because God decides it so? Or does God enforce the objectively existing moral code?
Neither answer bodes well for the theist. In the first case (as you answered) God is simply a very powerful tyrant, whose only justification for the declared “moral” code is: “might makes right”! In the second case the God of the Bible is a murderer on an unprecendented scale, and a self-proclaimed liar.
Pretty bad choices!
G
gmknowles
Guest
God’s existence as well as his goodness is postulated from our existence and goodness.
That is we derive an understanding of the good from our understanding of goodness in specifics.
The existence of goodness; however, is derived from God, not the other way around.
What we percieve as evil is perceived such because God’s goodness makes it so.
To declare what we call bad, which is a defect of goodness, bad from God is a logical impossibility because of His nature. The question, is not logical in regards to the object it referred to.
That is we derive an understanding of the good from our understanding of goodness in specifics.
The existence of goodness; however, is derived from God, not the other way around.
What we percieve as evil is perceived such because God’s goodness makes it so.
To declare what we call bad, which is a defect of goodness, bad from God is a logical impossibility because of His nature. The question, is not logical in regards to the object it referred to.
P
Pro_Domina
Guest
I disagree that it is disrespectful.
Theologically speaking it is quite a decent adjetive.
He could have choosen this or that to be a law.
He could have made 500 commandments instead of synthesizing in 10.
Though that arbitrarity is perfect. We cannot see it as God does what every His capricious will wants.
He is not capricious. We have to model our way of thinking to His. Not His to ours.
That is like people saying that before the Encarnation, how can the Second Person of the HT be a son and the First a Father if there is no mother?
No, the human family is a reflection of The Family.
We have to remember that God is not like us in way thinking as well.
We humans begin from the bottom and then reach higher ideas.
God no. He since all eternity envision the highest thing first and then the secondary.
For example: We think that God created the Eucharist because human nurish themselves with food.
No He thought of the Eucharist and then food.
Theologically speaking it is quite a decent adjetive.
He could have choosen this or that to be a law.
He could have made 500 commandments instead of synthesizing in 10.
Though that arbitrarity is perfect. We cannot see it as God does what every His capricious will wants.
He is not capricious. We have to model our way of thinking to His. Not His to ours.
That is like people saying that before the Encarnation, how can the Second Person of the HT be a son and the First a Father if there is no mother?
No, the human family is a reflection of The Family.
We have to remember that God is not like us in way thinking as well.
We humans begin from the bottom and then reach higher ideas.
God no. He since all eternity envision the highest thing first and then the secondary.
For example: We think that God created the Eucharist because human nurish themselves with food.
No He thought of the Eucharist and then food.
C
cpayne
Guest
The essence of natural law ethics (held to by many in the CC) is that moral rules are not and cannot be “arbitrarily decided” by God or anyone else. Nor can they be “suspended.” They are found in God’s own nature, and He could not “suspend” His own nature. Nor is His nature or character “arbitrarily decided”–it is eternal.Plus He arbitrarily decided those rules.
But yes, He could appear and tell you so and so rule is suspendend. But He won’t.
P
Pro_Domina
Guest
God did act in accordance to His Nature because everyone and thing does act according to their nature.
Yet the Nature of God is to contemplate Himself, and so He gave us laws based upon what He sees in Himself.
Yet the Nature of God is to contemplate Himself, and so He gave us laws based upon what He sees in Himself.
C
cpayne
Guest
I agree completely. Yet this means that God’s moral laws are based on knowledge, not based on an arbitrary will, does it not?God did act in accordance to His Nature because everyone and thing does act according to their nature.
Yet the Nature of God is to contemplate Himself, and so He gave us laws based upon what He sees in Himself.
C
Camron
Guest
I’m very glad that someone pointed this out. The moral laws are not arbitrarily decided. They are a reflection of God’s divine essence.The essence of natural law ethics (held to by many in the CC) is that moral rules are not and cannot be “arbitrarily decided” by God or anyone else. Nor can they be “suspended.” They are found in God’s own nature, and He could not “suspend” His own nature. Nor is His nature or character “arbitrarily decided”–it is eternal.
Plus, I think that one should be careful to distinguish between the laws that were revealed by God to distinguish the Israelites from the pagans, such as dietary laws (these laws ended with the coming of Christ) and the laws which are always moral and eternal (and will never change, since they proceed from and are inferred by God’s eternal essence).
M
mattjak28
Guest
this round goes to tpayne. as i see it, divine morality emanates from divine nature, so to change the morals you must change the nature of god. there is more union between god and morality than is often thought because , as tpayne said, morality is itself inherent in the lord ,not just a system he authored. i think of ethics as being as inextricable to god as my own blood is to me.
so there was a catch in the question.
so there was a catch in the question.
P
Pro_Domina
Guest
Yet doctrinally the word arbitrially is just the word.
God is not subject to any laws. He is He. He acts as He is.
He did not stop and decide that this is the whay He is so this is the way humans ought to be.
He being He decided and that is it.
Why is it according to His nature?
Because nothing acts outside of it’s own nature
These last centuries have a bigger problem with arbitriarity and monarchical orders because of miscarried republicanism.
God does as He does and we should not try to justify it. We should only obey it.
God is not subject to any laws. He is He. He acts as He is.
He did not stop and decide that this is the whay He is so this is the way humans ought to be.
He being He decided and that is it.
Why is it according to His nature?
Because nothing acts outside of it’s own nature
These last centuries have a bigger problem with arbitriarity and monarchical orders because of miscarried republicanism.
God does as He does and we should not try to justify it. We should only obey it.
M
mangy_dog
Guest
To understand the answer to this question it is important to understand the concept of freedom.is god omnipotent in every sense of the word? more specifically, would he be able to reverse his own moral code, say , to make the murder of children a virtue?
Choosing between right and wrong is the lowest rung or bottom of the barrel as it concerns our freedom - Inasmuch as we are still capable of choosing right - we are free!
As soon as we choose wrong, bad,evil…we have destroyed our freedom and become slaves of our choice, at this point we are no longer free.
God - in whom there is no shadow or possiblity of wrong, bad or evil choices is infinitely free!
C
Camron
Guest
Very well said. Having to make a choice between good and evil is a limitation and not freedom. The only one who is truly free is God, because everything He chooses to do is good-- based on the most excellent way.To understand the answer to this question it is important to understand the concept of freedom.
Choosing between right and wrong is the lowest rung or bottom of the barrel as it concerns our freedom - Inasmuch as we are still capable of choosing right - we are free!
As soon as we choose wrong, bad,evil…we have destroyed our freedom and become slaves of our choice, at this point we are no longer free.
God - in whom there is no shadow or possiblity of wrong, bad or evil choices is infinitely free!
G
gmknowles
Guest
As you can see I am a bit new here. I hope someone can clear this up for me.
Under apologetics I see that the forum has three possible categories, of which this one states “philosophy”, On that basis I would expect philosophical based replies; however, I see many replies bases on theological concepts.
The posts here seem to be typical of this.
It seems we can argue by working to God’s omnipotence philosophically and then examining the arguments derive the nature of omnipotence or examine the general understanding of omnipotence, but many of the arguments appear to have unexplored, unexplained or/and presuppositions that have not been supported except as what is “supported by many in CC”.
This does not appear to be good philosophical arguments.
If we are speaking of omnipotence in general then it can be argued that, yes, a omnipotent being could make good evil and the other way around. For a non-believer, this argument makes good sense in which case we would have an arbitrary tyrant as a God, since He is omnipotent.
Further, arguing from God’s nature “other” than omnipotence does not respect the question, as the origianl question has only allowed for omnipotence.
So the first response speaks of “sin”. As a non-believer - “what has sin to do with omnipotence?”
Since the original questioner has indicated the question has been answered by cpayne, -
“The essence of natural law ethics (held to by many in the CC) is that moral rules are not and cannot be “arbitrarily decided” by God or anyone else. Nor can they be “suspended.” They are found in God’s own nature, and He could not “suspend” His own nature. Nor is His nature or character “arbitrarily decided”–it is eternal.”
I would argue that cpayne has postulated some attributes of God, separate from omnipotence. Omnipotence if the ability to do “anything”, “all power”. If omnipotence would have any true meaning that would include being able to change one’s own nature. If we allow that God “could not” then we allow that God is not omnipotent?
Under apologetics I see that the forum has three possible categories, of which this one states “philosophy”, On that basis I would expect philosophical based replies; however, I see many replies bases on theological concepts.
The posts here seem to be typical of this.
It seems we can argue by working to God’s omnipotence philosophically and then examining the arguments derive the nature of omnipotence or examine the general understanding of omnipotence, but many of the arguments appear to have unexplored, unexplained or/and presuppositions that have not been supported except as what is “supported by many in CC”.
This does not appear to be good philosophical arguments.
If we are speaking of omnipotence in general then it can be argued that, yes, a omnipotent being could make good evil and the other way around. For a non-believer, this argument makes good sense in which case we would have an arbitrary tyrant as a God, since He is omnipotent.
Further, arguing from God’s nature “other” than omnipotence does not respect the question, as the origianl question has only allowed for omnipotence.
So the first response speaks of “sin”. As a non-believer - “what has sin to do with omnipotence?”
Since the original questioner has indicated the question has been answered by cpayne, -
“The essence of natural law ethics (held to by many in the CC) is that moral rules are not and cannot be “arbitrarily decided” by God or anyone else. Nor can they be “suspended.” They are found in God’s own nature, and He could not “suspend” His own nature. Nor is His nature or character “arbitrarily decided”–it is eternal.”
I would argue that cpayne has postulated some attributes of God, separate from omnipotence. Omnipotence if the ability to do “anything”, “all power”. If omnipotence would have any true meaning that would include being able to change one’s own nature. If we allow that God “could not” then we allow that God is not omnipotent?
P
Pro_Domina
Guest
Power is a positive thing. It does things.
Even the power of things like “not sinning” is the power of Virtue.
Evil is not a thing you go to, but rather escaping from Good.
So it is not that God “cannot” sin as in that He is incapable therefore not omnipotent, but rather that He is inmoveable from His Goodness, more accuratly, He does not stop being He, for He is the Good.
Even the power of things like “not sinning” is the power of Virtue.
Evil is not a thing you go to, but rather escaping from Good.
So it is not that God “cannot” sin as in that He is incapable therefore not omnipotent, but rather that He is inmoveable from His Goodness, more accuratly, He does not stop being He, for He is the Good.
C
Camron
Guest
Exactly. The most powerful thing is goodness and love. To do an evil act is a loss (deprivation) of the most powerful thing imaginable: God. Therefore, in order for God to be all-powerful He must be all-good. His very essence defines what power is, and the height of this power is the forgiveness of sins out of Pure Divine Love.Power is a positive thing. It does things.
Even the power of things like “not sinning” is the power of Virtue.
Evil is not a thing you go to, but rather escaping from Good.
So it is not that God “cannot” sin as in that He is incapable therefore not omnipotent, but rather that He is inmoveable from His Goodness, more accuratly, He does not stop being He, for He is the Good.
As the Catechism says…
"You are merciful to all, for you can do all things"
270 God is the Father Almighty, whose fatherhood and power shed light on one another: God reveals his fatherly omnipotence by the way he takes care of our needs; by the filial adoption that he gives us (“I will be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty”): **finally by his infinite mercy, for he displays his power at its height by freely forgiving sins. **
271 God’s almighty power is in no way arbitrary: “**In God, power, essence, will, intellect, wisdom, and justice are all identical. **Nothing therefore can be in God’s power which could not be in his just will or his wise intellect.”
The mystery of God’s apparent powerlessness
Many people who think of omnipotence usually have the Enlightenment God in mind, doing the logically impossible (ergo an omnipotent being can do anything, so much so that an all-good being can even do an evil act). But that’s not really omnipotence by the Catholic definition.272 Faith in God the Father Almighty can be put to the test by the experience of evil and suffering. God can sometimes seem to be absent and incapable of stopping evil. But in the most mysterious way God the Father has revealed his almighty power in the voluntary humiliation and Resurrection of his Son, by which he conquered evil. Christ crucified is thus “the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” It is in Christ’s Resurrection and exaltation that the Father has shown forth “the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe”.
273 Only faith can embrace the mysterious ways of God’s almighty power. **This faith glories in its weaknesses in order to draw to itself Christ’s power. ** The Virgin Mary is the supreme model of this faith, for she believed that “nothing will be impossible with God”, and was able to magnify the Lord: “For he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.”
274 “Nothing is more apt to confirm our faith and hope than holding it fixed in our minds that nothing is impossible with God. **Once our reason has grasped the idea of God’s almighty power, it will easily and without any hesitation admit everything that [the Creed] will afterwards propose for us to believe **- even if they be great and marvelous things, far above the ordinary laws of nature.”
And anyone who absolutely insists that the Catholic Church use the world’s definition of omnipotence (instead of the Catholic Church’s definition of omnipotence) is, for whatever reason, not seeking the Catholic faith with open heart and mind.
M
mangy_dog
Guest
Actually…-MertonVery well said. Having to make a choice between good and evil is a limitation and not freedom. The only one who is truly free is God, because everything He chooses to do is good-- based on the most excellent way.
C
Cairone
Guest
See, the problem you encounter here is a matter of semantics. What do you even mean by omnipotent? What does it mean to be able to do anything? What does it mean to have all power? The very fact that people pose questions like:Omnipotence if the ability to do “anything”, “all power”. If omnipotence would have any true meaning that would include being able to change one’s own nature. If we allow that God “could not” then we allow that God is not omnipotent?
shows that there is an error in thinking, an error in the very definition. Perhaps the subject is not well-defined. If you look at the above, you realize that you can rephrase it in a hundred, a thousand different ways (as you did with the changing nature dilemma). The simplest way to rephrase it is: can an omnipotent being make a contradiction?If God is omnipotent, then can He make a stone He cannot lift?
Yet the answer to this question relies on the definition. Is being able to produce a contradiction part and parcel of being omnipotent? If the answer is no, then an omnipotent being need not be able to make a contradiction, and the question of whether God can make a stone so heavy He can’t lift it is worthless. On the other hand, if being able to make a contradiction is part of being omnipotent, then the question is still meaningless, because you can’t get a satisfactory answer out of it.
Suppose being able to produce a contradiction is part and parcel of being omnipotent, and suppose that God is omnipotent. Then not only could God produce a rock that He cannot lift, but He could also lift it. Why? Because if He can make a contradictory thing like a rock that He cannot lift, then He can make another contradictory thing by lifting the rock He cannot lift. There’s no dilemma here, because there is no dilemma when contradictions are permitted. Could God change his nature so that He is no longer omnipotent? Sure! And He could still be omnipotent! Why? Because He can make contradictions!
Simply put: if true is equal to false, then everything is true. Even the false stuff.
Yet this does not jive with the way we understand things. So we put limitations on our definition of omnipotence. We could say that omnipotence is being able to do everything that is possible, or that omnipotence is having all power that is possible to have. If this is the way we look at omnipotence, then asking if God could create a rock so heavy He can’t lift it is answered simply: no. And the negative answer would not contradict God’s omnipotence, because it is not possible, with any power possible, to produce a contradiction.
We typically accept this second notion of omnipotence, out of convenience if nothing else. The reason? If we allow contradictions, we can say nothing. Or rather, we can say anything. There need be no justification. We don’t allow contradictions because then we can know nothing. Every conclusion is both true and false.
But once we talk about omnipotence as having all power possible, then we have to have a notion of what power is possible. It is possible to tell a lie, but can an omnipotent being tell a lie? We have to qualify this by answering something like: is it more powerful to be able to lie, or to not be able to lie? Maybe there is something inherent about lying that makes the ability to lie a weakness, and thus an omnipotent being couldn’t lie because if He could, He wouldn’t be omnipotent.
In conclusion: to ask about God’s omnipotence requires a very clear realization of first what we mean by omnipotence and second what is part of and what detracts from omnipotence.
P
Pro_Domina
Guest
*In conclusion: to ask about God’s omnipotence requires a very clear realization of first what we mean by omnipotence and second what is part of and what detracts from omnipotence.
*
Well I believe several of us have tried to weed out the false ideas of omnipotence. Especially on the supposed “power to sin”.
*
Well I believe several of us have tried to weed out the false ideas of omnipotence. Especially on the supposed “power to sin”.
M
mangy_dog
Guest
Power vs. Grace.Power is a positive thing. It does things.
Even the power of things like “not sinning” is the power of Virtue.
Evil is not a thing you go to, but rather escaping from Good.
So it is not that God “cannot” sin as in that He is incapable therefore not omnipotent, but rather that He is inmoveable from His Goodness, more accuratly, He does not stop being He, for He is the Good.
The Immaculate, Perpetual Virgin Mother of God is incapable of sinning - not because of a “power” but because of Grace. A grace granted exclusively to Her pre-eminently by Her Son Jesus Christ to prepare a worthy vessel for God.
Lucifer has power and lacks grace. There is no power to sin or not sin… there is however grace to resist the temptation to sin.
Omni - all; potence - power. God is definitely ( but not only) omnipotent.
God does not however contradict His nature. He does not oppose Himself. Which is why He is infinitely free and all powerful.
For God to make changes to His own nature as if He needed improvement or “tweaking”… would be in opposition to His existence and His essence…which happen to coincide. Ergo He is also omniscient.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.