Is G-d truly omnipotent?

[Wesrock]

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?

The key point theologians like Thomas Aquinas made is that there is an analogy of being. We are not restricted to only equivocal or univocal use of terms. Terms can be analogous, in that there is a similarity even if they are not exactly the same. A common example I see is the term “good.”

This food tastes good. This food is good for you. That is a good dog. You did a good job. That is a good man. The word good in all these cases does not mean the same thing in a univocal way. However, it’s not equivocal either, the way I might say “He swung the wooden bat” and “The bat flies in the night.” In the examples of the word good above, there is some analogous commonality between all of them.

Likewise, while God does transcend the mode of our existence, there is still something analogous between God’s power and our power, even while recognizing that God’s power is not an attribute of him but is what he is. Likewise, God as love is analogous to human love in some way.

This is not entirely meaningless, mind. For example, with goodness we might refer to the broader concept of manifesting the perfections inherent in the nature of a thing. When we refer to food being good for you, we mean that it’s nutrition brings about health in humans, or if it tastes good that it brings about pleasure and enjoyment and is fulfilling for a person in that sense, or if a man is good that he fulfills his moral obligations as a human that pertain to his nature well. What it is for a man to be good and for food to be good is not the same, but (while not getting into a deep discussion on the nature of being, for the sake of argument) one can elaborate on the commonality being brought about.

And for power, that seems to be a reference to the ability to do things or actualize potential, we just have to understand that the manner this is for God is not the same manner it is for man, not just in scale, but because a man’s power is not his essence whereas for God, because of his simplicity, it is.

Continued in next post…

 

[Wesrock]

Continued from previous post…

That is, when considering the power of God, we have to reduce the notion to its basic commonality and remove from it properties that only make sense for man or finite beings. There is a commonality, but we have to strip the anthropomorphism. Of identifying where it is similar (even if we can’t put ourselves in God’s shoes in empathizing with what that would feel like to experience) while also identifying what’s not included in it (things or connotations we commonly associate with the terms from the limits of what it means for us to have them).

So for the Divine Nature there are no passible emotions, no human senses, no animal like feelings that come from being animals. But, as an intelligible act, love is about doing the good of another, and we can understand that God does and even is that.

Or to put it in more pastoral terms, God is love. God is power. God is good. And our love, our power, and our goodness are but faint images or reflections of God, conditioned to limited expression in us, and we can’t impose the limits on the original.

 

[tafan2]

Thankyou, I get so tired of these questions, can God creat a square circle, it a four sided triangle.

God can create any geometric four sided object you could possibly imagine. But none of them will be a triangle or a circle. It’s actually a matter of definition more than logic. I don’t know why people can’t see this.

 

[Economist]

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

Precision is not pointless.

 

[woolycaterpillar]

God is omnipotent and never gives up His authority. However, I think that like children going off to school for the first time, people are allowed the leeway needed to learn and grow. Unfortunately not all people learn and grow. Some people are evil in what they choose to do, some just don’t “get it”.

Maybe God intervenes on occasion. He could intervene any time, anywhere; it’s just that he doesn’t choose to in all cases.

 

[goout]

Wesrock:

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

Precision is not pointless.

That’s not precision, it’s evasion. Precision leads to truth and expresses it, evasion avoids finding it.
Co-opting and parsing the language (aka semantic games) is one tactic of evasion.

 

[Economist]

That’s not precision, it’s evasion. Precision leads to truth and expresses it, evasion avoids finding it.
Co-opting and parsing the language (aka semantic games) is one tactic of evasion.

Sheesh. Since we use language, to demand precision is NOT evasion. But if you don’t understand it, it would be futile to explain in.

 

[goout]

goout:

That’s not precision, it’s evasion. Precision leads to truth and expresses it, evasion avoids finding it.
Co-opting and parsing the language (aka semantic games) is one tactic of evasion.

Sheesh. Since we use language, to demand precision is NOT evasion. But if you don’t understand it, it would be futile to explain in.

Come on now.
Language can be used in any way one likes, including begging questions to absurdity in an effort to evade.

You are not debating with infants here my friend.

 

[Wesrock]

goout:

That’s not precision, it’s evasion. Precision leads to truth and expresses it, evasion avoids finding it.
Co-opting and parsing the language (aka semantic games) is one tactic of evasion.

Sheesh. Since we use language, to demand precision is NOT evasion. But if you don’t understand it, it would be futile to explain in.

There is such thing as precise language and definitions, but the idea of needing an exhaustive list of specific instances of non-contradictory things is just an evasion.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Economist, the point is that you are obsessing over exactness in an inexhaustible list. It is impossible to categorize “everything that can be done.”

You are actively evading the meat of discussion by requesting a list that has no end. Why not work off of my definition and actually start the dialog?

Omnipotence is the ability to perform any logically coherent act.

You know what is intended by this definition, you’re just avoiding addressing it because you have no real argument. What you’re doing is the most basic stall tactic…

 

[Economist]

Omnipotence is the ability to perform any logically coherent act.

You know what is intended by this definition, you’re just avoiding addressing it because you have no real argument. What you’re doing is the most basic stall tactic…

Hmmm. What you call “stalling” tactics is really to demand a coherent linguistic platform. It is logically coherent to ask to create a temperature of minus one Kelvin degrees. But it is physically impossible. It is logically possible to have a speed greater than the speed of light. But it is also physically impossible. Something that is logically possible does not mean that it is also physically possible.

Can you create a bullet, which will penetrate any shield? Sure you can (conceptually). Can you create a shield which can withstand any bullet? Of course (also conceptually). Neither one is logically impossible, or even physically impossible. But you cannot have both.

It is logically possible to have a new atom, which contains one proton, one anti-proton, one electron and one positron. But it is not physically possible. And that is why your suggested definition is empty. If you cannot know what “can” be done, then the definition is vacuous.

What you call logically coherent involves to be consistent with the laws of logic. However the first law of logic is the “law of identity”, which says “A is A”, “everything is itself”. Therefore the so called “miracles” are impossible, since they violate the “law of identity”.

The omnimax attributes are nonsensical. They come from the desire to create “infinite attributes”. But the concept of “infinite attribute” is logically incoherent. Every attribute places a limit on the entity.

 

[Wesrock]

Every attribute places a limit on the entity.

It’s why God, properly speaking, has no attributes. But, since this is beyond our ability to identify with such a mode of existence, we relate to it in analogous terms we understand.

 

[Wesrock]

It is logically coherent to ask to create a temperature of minus one Kelvin degrees. But it is physically impossible.

The question is logical, the state of affairs of having - 1 Kelvin isn’t coherent, and is a nonsensical state of affairs given what the scale is.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Something that is logically possible does not mean that it is also physically possible.

We never said anything about physically impossible, we said logically coherent. Physics means nothing to God.

Incidentally though, it is logically incoherent to ask for -1 Kelvin. 0 Kelvin isn’t simply a number, it is the cessation of all molecular movement. If you were to attempt to lower it you would have to have the particles moving backwards, which would be movement and therefore more than 0 Kelvin. Saying the number -1 Kelvin doesn’t make sense because of what 0 Kelvin represents.

Similarly, the whole series of “could God create something that He couldn’t overcome” type questions are themselves also irrational. God is infinite, you cannot create something that exceeds infinity. To question the ability to do so is a sentence that you can construct, sure, but it’s nonsense in light of the definition of infinity. You can say “create something that can exceed infinity”, but that’s not rational. The ability to form the sentence doesn’t mean there’s an actual meaning to it.

Therefore the so called “miracles” are impossible, since they violate the “law of identity”.

No, they do not. Miracles represent a deviation from the normal mode of operation. That cancer vanishes, or that limb is miraculously healed. There are others, of course, but in all these cases, the object remains the same, it is simply acted upon by some force outside the normal scope of reality. It is super-natural. That does not imply any violation of what you call the Law of Identity.

The omnimax attributes are nonsensical. They come from the desire to create “infinite attributes”. But the concept of “infinite attribute” is logically incoherent. Every attribute places a limit on the entity.

Non-sequitor. There is absolutely no reason that an attribute demands a limitation.

 

[Economist]

It’s why God, properly speaking, has no attributes. But, since this is beyond our ability to identify with such a mode of existence, we relate to it in analogous terms we understand.

Unfortunately analogies are meaningless if there is nothing to compare to. We use the proportion of “A” is to “B” as “C” is to “X”. To resolve this proportion for “X”, we need to know “A” and “B” and “C”. With God in the picture we have two unknowns. “Human attribute” to “human nature” cannot be compared to “God’s attribute” to “God’s nature”, because both “God’s nature” and “God’s attribute” are unknowns. As such all attempts to describe God is unsuccessful.

We never said anything about physically impossible, we said logically coherent. Physics means nothing to God.

And you know this how? You run into the problem of trying to define something into existence.

God is infinite, you cannot create something that exceeds infinity.

Again, trying to define something into existence.

There is absolutely no reason that an attribute demands a limitation.

Any and all attributes also include a limitation. If something is “green” it also means that it is not “red”.

 

[goout]

ProdglArchitect:

Omnipotence is the ability to perform any logically coherent act.

You know what is intended by this definition, you’re just avoiding addressing it because you have no real argument. What you’re doing is the most basic stall tactic…

Hmmm. What you call “stalling” tactics is really to demand a coherent linguistic platform. It is logically coherent to ask to create a temperature of minus one Kelvin degrees. But it is physically impossible. It is logically possible to have a speed greater than the speed of light. But it is also physically impossible. Something that is logically possible does not mean that it is also physically possible.

Can you create a bullet, which will penetrate any shield? Sure you can (conceptually). Can you create a shield which can withstand any bullet? Of course (also conceptually). Neither one is logically impossible, or even physically impossible. But you cannot have both.

It is logically possible to have a new atom, which contains one proton, one anti-proton, one electron and one positron. But it is not physically possible. And that is why your suggested definition is empty. If you cannot know what “can” be done, then the definition is vacuous.

What you call logically coherent involves to be consistent with the laws of logic. However the first law of logic is the “law of identity”, which says “A is A”, “everything is itself”. Therefore the so called “miracles” are impossible, since they violate the “law of identity”.

The omnimax attributes are nonsensical. They come from the desire to create “infinite attributes”. But the concept of “infinite attribute” is logically incoherent. Every attribute places a limit on the entity.

What’s nonsensical is to inquire about the nature of a thing or person, and confine the person or thing to your personal theoretical considerations which are subject to your own shifting language usage.
If you want to find something or someone, you’ll have to find common ground with someone else, and that includes good faith language usage.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Judaism refrains from defining G-d in terms of attributes, perhaps for the reason you mention. If we do define G-d at all, it is in terms of what He is not rather than what He is. By definition, the word “definition” itself is limitative.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

As such all attempts to describe God is unsuccessful.

I don’t think you’ll find any serious theologian who will disagree with this. We cannot define God wholly, we are aware of that. That’s why we use analogous language… If you are unwilling to accept the use of analogy when describing God’s attributes then you are willfully choosing to never learn anything. If God does exist, then He is so far above us that analogy is the only way we could talk about him.

And you know this how?

Because, physics are a quality of physical existence, which was created by and is subject to God, much in the same way the code I am writing is under my control. I can chose to hard code in a circumvention of a particular standard rule-set. Similarly, God may chose, at times, to suspend the normal working of the universe in order to perform a miracle.

Again, trying to define something into existence.

Yeah, no I’m not, but go ahead and keep repeating that argument if it makes you feel better.

Any and all attributes also include a limitation. If something is “green” it also means that it is not “red”.

You’re committing the generalization fallacy, the same thing you accused Aquinas of committing in our other topic where you claimed his proofs were faulty. Just because some attributes incur limitations does not mean that all do.

I guess an infinite attribute does have the limitation that it doesn’t contain it’s own negative, so in that way you’re right. By being omnipotent, God’s not not omnipotent.

 

[Usagi]

Usually these options are excluded from the concept of omnipotence - on the basis that they violate the “law of (non)-contradiction”. But why should God be constrained by a laws of logic?

The “laws of logic” are not external constraints but exist as limits on how we can usefully use words. You can’t have an unstoppable force and an immovable object in the same reality (actual or hypothetical) because each one defines the other out of existence.

Basically, the error lies in using inherently relative terms as though they must refer to actual things. So God not being able to create a rock He can’t also lift is treated as an actual inability on God’s part — there’s a kind of rock He can’t make — when in fact just by postulating an omnipotent being (irresistible force) you have disallowed the real existence of “thing that cannot be affected by that being” (immovable object). There is no actual size or mass of rock that God is suddenly unable to create; the question has just sneaked in a concept that is already defined as not existing by the earlier part of the question. Same, only more obviously so, with “square circle,” “four-sided triangle,” and “married bachelor.” If we are to take those words in their ordinary meanings, then the very meaning of “triangle” disallows its being four-sided, and so forth. Just because you can string words together doesn’t mean they describe a thing that can actually exist, and not being able to cause the existence of a nonsense thing is not a shocking inability.

However, there is more to the question. If God cannot violate the law of (non)-contradiction, how about the “ law of identity ”? Can God create a hydrogen atom, which contains one proton and one positron (instead of an electron)?

It wouldn’t hold together naturally (it would be easier with an antiproton, resulting in anti-hydrogen), but presumably God could hold those two particles in an atomic-like relationship if He wanted. Whether that would properly constitute a “hydrogen atom” goes back to “that term has a definition, and you can’t ask someone to follow and violate the definition at the same time,” as above.

Or can God create another hydrogen atom with one proton, one electron and 52 neutrons?

That would be a ridiculously heavy isotope of hydrogen that I presume would not hold together under normal circumstances, though again God would be able to force it. That actually would be hydrogen, just a very weird kind that doesn’t appear in nature.

Or can God create a temperature of minus one Kelvin?

That’s a matter of a scale humans have constructed and defined. If I am remembering correctly, there is no molecular motion — no heat at all — at zero Kelvin, so less heat than that would be meaningless. Go back to the “violating definitions while thinking you are saying something meaningful” point.

Of make the speed of light in vacuum more than “c”?

Unlike the previous case, speed values above c exist, they are just not achievable for various good reasons. So, sure, God could modify a universal constant if He so chose.

 

[Usagi]

In other words, what about the laws of nature?

The “laws” of nature are generally understood to be created and contingent things. Even in materialist terms I don’t think it’s generally held that they would have to come out the same if there were another universe besides ours. So yes, in a classically theistic worldview God could alter them if He wished. Such a change would not violate the law of identity, as everything would still be itself. Also, be careful not to confuse the actual underlying rule (there is a speed faster than which mass and energy cannot go; there is a temperature at which all molecular motion ceases) with our definitions and measurements of those things (we call the former “c” and express it in meters per second, and define the latter as zero Kelvin units).

As for miracles, you realize, I hope, that every single such account is understood to be a violation of the ordinary course of nature. We don’t require, and would be disappointed by, scientific evidence showing that water spontaneously becoming wine, or a human woman conceiving a male child with no visible origin for the other set of chromosomes, or a three-or-four-days-dead corpse being restored to life and health in the tomb, is a thing that just happens sometimes. Even two thousand years ago and more, the people who told those stories knew that such things do not just happen in nature. They require direct intervention by a power that can say “Yes, normally things run this way, but we’re going to do it differently this time.” That’s why they are miracle stories, whether you take them as accounts of actual experiences or as wonder tales made up to illustrate the awesomeness of a deity or hero figure.