Is G-d truly omnipotent?

[Sbee0]

I think an omnipotent God implies the power of omniscience.

The modal error is here:
Statement A: God who is omniscient has the power to know that on this day, August 13 2019, I, as one particular person on earth out of of billions, will wear brown shoes today.
Statement B: I really am wearing brown shoes today.
If God is omniscient then (A—>B) is a logical truth, meaning God knew I was going to wear brown shoes today and I did.
Therefore because of A then B must be a logical truth itself- meaning since God knew this ahead of time then I was forced to wear brown shoes today and had no other option at all.

The last sentence is untrue by modal fallacy, therefore a contradiction that B on its own is a logical truth, therefore omniscience should not override free will.

Thus the contradiction means God’s omnipotence cannot override free will and choice.

 

[ForeverLearn]

Those are words we use to categorize something that’s outside of our ability to comprehend. It’s not that God existed, and then the Son came into being, and then the Holy Spirit. All three persons of the Trinity are co-eternal. We use those qualifiers to try to bring some order to our understanding of a reality fundamentally different from our own.

I don’t see how this would differ any from a 4-sided triangle, for example. Both, illogical concepts.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I don’t see how this would differ any from a 4-sided triangle, for example. Both, illogical concepts.

No, they are not.

A triangle has three sides, it is defined by its number of sides. That quality is inherent to its fundamental reality.

There is nothing in the fundamental reality of Being that requires a being to have only a single person. The fact that it is foreign to our normal experience does not make it irrational.

This is similar to how our inability to experience four-dimensional space doesn’t mean four-dimensional space doesn’t exist, it just means that it’s outside the scope of our experiential comprehension.

 

[goout]

We shouldn’t apply human conceptions of power to God absolutely.

What are some human conceptions of power?

1. if something is within my power, I do it. Like a pig at the feeding trough, I simply slop up every opportunity to exercise power for it’s own sake. Human beings behave this way, not God.
2. Power means explicit control of others, like a bad king who treats his subjects as marionettes in a play, controlling even their will and thought. Human beings behave that way, not God. Godly power is not domination.
3. Power aggrandizes me. The fruits of my exercise of power are for my sake and my aggrandizement, not for the good of others. God does not behave this way, rather God pours himself out in Jesus Christ, completely laying down this kind of distorted power for the good of others.

No other god is like our God.
And how can we say that God does not behave in these distorted ways? Because God is love, and God’s power is one with God’s love, and God’s power is conditioned by love, and is always at the service of love.

In God’s essential love, his potency of act is united as one.

 

[ForeverLearn]

No, they are not.

A triangle has three sides, it is defined by its number of sides. That quality is inherent to its fundamental reality.

There is nothing in the fundamental reality of Being that requires a being to have only a single person. The fact that it is foreign to our normal experience does not make it irrational.

This is similar to how our inability to experience four-dimensional space doesn’t mean four-dimensional space doesn’t exist, it just means that it’s outside the scope of our experiential comprehension.

Ok, sure. What would be an example of an illogical concept?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Ok, sure. What would be an example of an illogical concept?

You gave a perfect example. A four-sided triangle is an illogical concept. A triangle is defined by its number of sides, that is the foundational quality which makes it up. The length of the sides and the angles which compose the triangle can vary, but the triangle itself will always have three sides.

The same is true of the concept of a square circle. That’s an irrational concept. A circle is defined by it’s form, as is a square. It is impossible for them to take on attributes which contradict their fundamental realities.

 

[Economist]

You gave a perfect example. A four-sided triangle is an illogical concept. A triangle is defined by its number of sides, that is the foundational quality which makes it up. The length of the sides and the angles which compose the triangle can vary, but the triangle itself will always have three sides.

The same is true of the concept of a square circle. That’s an irrational concept. A circle is defined by it’s form, as is a square. It is impossible for them to take on attributes which contradict their fundamental realities.

Unless the surface is a rubber sheet, and we use topology to examine its properties.

 

[goout]

Ok, sure. What would be an example of an illogical concept?

Forceful love would be an example.
You might want to respond that any good parent keeps his child away from the fire…
right?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

No, that would be a modification in how we examine the fundamental reality of a triangle. It does not affect that actual reality of the three sided form, only how we look at it.

 

[goout]

No, that would be a modification in how we examine the fundamental reality of a triangle. It does not affect that actual reality of the three sided form, only how we look at it.

Yes, but when faced with clever semantics, any truth can be discarded.

 

[Wesrock]

I don’t want to derail this thread with a detailed discussion of the Trinity, but suffice it to say, comparing the Trinitarian relationships in an entirely univocal way with human relationships is insufficient.

 

[Economist]

No, that would be a modification in how we examine the fundamental reality of a triangle. It does not affect that actual reality of the three sided form, only how we look at it.

The concept of geometrical shape is contingent upon the surface it rest upon.

I still would like to see a proper definition of omnipotence.

 

[ForeverLearn]

You gave a perfect example. A four-sided triangle is an illogical concept. A triangle is defined by its number of sides, that is the foundational quality which makes it up. The length of the sides and the angles which compose the triangle can vary, but the triangle itself will always have three sides.

The same is true of the concept of a square circle. That’s an irrational concept. A circle is defined by it’s form, as is a square. It is impossible for them to take on attributes which contradict their fundamental realities.

It is illogical to say MY father can also be MY son. Any other explanation is attempting to resolve something because there is motivation to do so, in my opinion.

 

[ForeverLearn]

Possibly. Depends on how love and forceful are defined.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The concept of geometrical shape is contingent upon the surface it rest upon.

It’s really not. Our perception of it might be, but the fundamental reality of the concept which we have called a “triangle” is an enclosed form with three sides.

No matter how the shape is examined, no matter what it rests on, no matter what colorful language you use to describe it, that fundamental reality will always be constant.

I still would like to see a proper definition of omnipotence.

Having the ability to do anything which is logically consistent.

It is illogical to say MY father can also be MY son.

It’s almost as if you aren’t even bothering to read my responses. I have already given an explanation for this. But here you go, again. Try reading it this time.

The use of the language of God the Father and the Son is an effort to provide a framework for understanding a reality that is foreign to our own. Jesus is not the Son in the same sense that my son is born of the combination of mine and my wife’s genetic material, He is the Eternal son, begotten of the father. It is the use of a comprehensible word to analogize an incomprehensible reality.

As @meltzerboy2 pointed out, we already use the terms father and son in various ways to denote fundamentally different, although similarly meaningful, relationships. This is simply the application of the same principle. We use words that are familiar to us to lend meaning and understanding to a relationship that is similar in some senses, but still fundamentally different.

 

[goout]

Possibly. Depends on how love and forceful are defined.

Well, ok.
Using commonly accepted conceptions of the terms…

Love wills the good of the other for the sake of the other.
Force is inimical to that love, because it overrides the free will of the other. Force denies the space of the other to grow and love in return. And that is not the good of another.

Hence forceful love is a contradiction.

 

[goout]

Possibly. Depends on how love and forceful are defined.

And I would just like to add, don’t let semantics ruin your search for truth.

 

[goout]

I still would like to see a proper definition of omnipotence.

The Catholic Christian concept of omnipotence is rather easily available. If nothing else, Christianity makes itself vulnerable by expressing itself fully and with good will, seeking common ground with others.

You can see good expressions of omnipotence here, you can search things like Catholic encyclopedias, etc…

If you don’t like those, maybe you could provide a definition of omnipotence that you hold dear.

 

[Wesrock]

Some apologists argue that “omnipotence” simply means that God can do everything “that can be done”. Which is an empty proposition, since it would require to learn: “just WHAT can be done”.

Forgive me, but why must we exhaustively learn every specific of “what can be done?” That’s a pointless requirement.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Good points about our human conception of power, which is not applicable to G-d. But can we also apply similar points to our human conception of love? Thus if we define G-d as love, are we not defining G-d according to our human conception of love?