Is the Golden Rule a Foundational Moral Principle or A Rule of Thumb?

[Peter_Plato]

Knowing the best option and being able to do it are two different things. I can know that plane, train or automobile are better options than walking across Canada in the middle of winter but if I lack the resources I can’t do it. I can only walk. It is the only resource available. So it is my “best” option because it is my only one.

It may be your best option, but it is not “the” best option, which omniscience and omnibenevolence can determine without regard for the capacity to carry it out. Determination of “the” best option does not depend upon omnipotence which is why omnipotence does not enter into the determination.

If YHWH is limited by his goodness then someone that is able to sin would be able to do something that god can not. Perhaps that’s why he ordered the Israelites. Sin by proxy. Still he is limited by his goodness. Who limits him?

Ordering the Israelites to carry out an act that was not the best possible option would not be an omnibenevolent act. Again, to assume omnibenevolence means the order wouldn’t involve allowing evil by proxy.

You are not addressing the actual terms of the argument. If it was commanded by the 3omni God it would have been the best possible option, not a “less than best option” allowed simply because someone else carried it out.

If it logic, then logic is more powerful,than YHWH. I think you’ve made atheists ( not one myself) happy with that notion or at the least giggle.

Only if logic is not ultimately sourced in God. If it is, then your claim amounts to saying God is more powerful than God, which is nonsense. If you think logic is not sourced in God - who is the source of all that exists - then you have the burden of showing how logic can even exist or pertain in an important way to what actually exists. Logic can only be “true” to the extent that it relates to being or existence. If God is the ground of existence, ipsum esse subsistens, then logic must depend upon God, not the other way around. God as Being determines logic, and is not subservient to it.

Only atheists who accept nonsense will be “happy,” since “logic” that is not grounded in God (existence itself) would be meaningless anyhow. It would be a waste of time trying to persuade someone who accepts incoherent dribble as logic about anything meaningful, in any case.

Any limitation means god isn’t omnipotent. Very powerful perhaps but not the top dog.

Performing meaningless and incoherent acts is not omnipotence, it is just the capacity to engage in incoherent activity. Why would any self-respecting omniscient being want to waste time (or eternity) accomplishing nonsense?

Personally, I think you’ve made atheists who promote nonsense positively gleeful that someone has bought into it.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Do you regard the inability to sin as a limitation? How about the inability to commit an error in knowledge, judgment, or wisdom? If so, do you also regard not having limitations as a limitation in itself? Perhaps it is G-d Who limits Himself. Judaism does believe that G-d created EVERYTHING, including evil, just by means of His thinking about it. Apparently then, G-d is familiar with evil without actually committing it. Does this seem possible to you?

I think it throws out the notion of omnibenevolence. I don’t know if that is a quality that Judaism ascribes to YHWH.

Ekhah 3:38
Out of the mouth of Elyon proceedeth not hara’ot and hatov

Even if it is self restraint, why? What is the drive? Something stands at the top, if it drives his actions.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

It may be your best option, but it is not “the” best option, which omniscience and omnibenevolence can determine without regard for the capacity to carry it out. Determination of “the” best option does not depend upon omnipotence which is why omnipotence does not enter into the determination.

The option that is ordered and carried out is the only one that we can judge. There may have been other options but no way to carry them out. You would have to be omniscient to know if the “Best” option was the one carried out. There is no way to determine if the best of all possibilities was carried out, if all possibilities aren’t an option. Omnipotency is the only way that all possibilities are an option. It has to factor or you are dealing with a limited set.

Ordering the Israelites to carry out an act that was not the best possible option would not be an omnibenevolent act. Again, to assume omnibenevolence means the order wouldn’t involve allowing evil by proxy.

You are not addressing the actual terms of the argument. If it was commanded by the 3omni God it would have been the best possible option, not a “less than best option” allowed simply because someone else carried it out.

If you throw out omnipotency, which you say isn’t necessary, then we have a limited set of possibilities. Keeping omniscience and omnibeneficence as qualities, what is something a omnibeneficent being can’t do. He can’t do evil, or sin. He has power over those who can sin. He can order them to do what he can not. It is the “best” option (omniscience) but he can not do it (omnibenevolence).

Only if logic is not ultimately sourced in God. If it is, then your claim amounts to saying God is more powerful than God, which is nonsense. If you think logic is not sourced in God - who is the source of all that exists - then you have the burden of showing how logic can even exist or pertain in an important way to what actually exists. Logic can only be “true” to the extent that it relates to being or existence. If God is the ground of existence, ipsum esse subsistens, then logic must depend upon God, not the other way around. God as Being determines logic, and is not subservient to it.

This is saying a senator because he makes the law isn’t subject to it. If god can only do the logical, he is dependent and subject to it.

Only atheists who accept nonsense will be “happy,” since “logic” that is not grounded in God (existence itself) would be meaningless anyhow. It would be a waste of time trying to persuade someone who accepts incoherent dribble as logic about anything meaningful, in any case.

I don’t think grounding anything in god is going to be persuasive to an atheist. They find meaning in their lives with out god. I think they can find meaning in godless logic. I think that’s the point actually. Just saying.

Performing meaningless and incoherent acts is not omnipotence, it is just the capacity to engage in incoherent activity. Why would any self-respecting omniscient being want to waste time (or eternity) accomplishing nonsense?

Personally, I think you’ve made atheists who promote nonsense positively gleeful that someone has bought into it.

Why would a 3omni being “want” anything? “Want” indicates a lacking. Why would a god want to create or “do” anything? He lacks nothing, …or does he?

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is saying a senator because he makes the law isn’t subject to it. If god can only do the logical, he is dependent and subject to it.

No. It means he is dependent on or subject only to his own nature, not something external to it.

The analogy doesn’t work because the “law” is not an aspect of the senator but something external to him. Goodness and truth are not something external to God, but come from him. He is goodness and truth itself.

If “logical” means anything it means consistent with the way things are actually. Since everything that is derives from God, logical simply means consistent with God’s nature from which all things come.

By the way, if it is true that “If god can only do the logical, he is dependent and subject to it,” then the problem with the OT narratives is solved. God could then simply declare the acts as “good” by fiat of his omnipotence because omnipotence entails no constraints, not even logical ones, remember.

I don’t think grounding anything in god is going to be persuasive to an atheist. They find meaning in their lives with out god. I think they can find meaning in godless logic. I think that’s the point actually. Just saying.

If the word God means anything it must mean the ground of all existence. Ipsum esse subsistens. There is no point in accepting any other meaning because any other meaning is not what God is. There is no point, either, in attempting to fabricate a definition that will appeal to an atheist.

At some point, “godless” logic will break down. I have no intention of being left holding the bag of “appealing to an atheist.” I have no reason to do so.

Why would a 3omni being “want” anything? “Want” indicates a lacking. Why would a god want to create or “do” anything? He lacks nothing, …or does he?

Want is not a correct word, “will” would be better. Willing doesn’t imply a “need” or lack. It was just an unfortunate choice of words. There is no need to conclude anything from an ambiguous term.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

No. It means he is dependent on or subject only to his own nature, not something external to it.

The analogy doesn’t work because the “law” is not an aspect of the senator but something external to him. Goodness and truth are not something external to God, but come from him. He is goodness and truth itself.

If “logical” means anything it means consistent with the way things are actually. Since everything that is derives from God, logical simply means consistent with God’s nature from which all things come.

By the way, if it is true that “If god can only do the logical, he is dependent and subject to it,” then the problem with the OT narratives is solved. God could then simply declare the acts as “good” by fiat of his omnipotence because omnipotence entails no constraints, not even logical ones, remember.

If the word God means anything it must mean the ground of all existence. Ipsum esse subsistens. There is no point in accepting any other meaning because any other meaning is not what God is. There is no point, either, in attempting to fabricate a definition that will appeal to an atheist.

At some point, “godless” logic will break down. I have no intention of being left holding the bag of “appealing to an atheist.” I have no reason to do so.

Want is not a correct word, “will” would be better. Willing doesn’t imply a “need” or lack. It was just an unfortunate choice of words. There is no need to conclude anything from an ambiguous term.

God is not his creation. How can god be logic? Even by saying logic is “the way things are” implies there are ways that things are not. God is again limited.

If you throw out “goodness” as a nessisity. Anything that god said is good, is. You get rid of evil. It is an illusion. There is only god’s will. Our only morality is obedience. God is neither good nor evil, just is. It’s only our perspective. The notion of heaven vs hell are also without meaning. Without evil how can there be hell. Without hell what do we need a savior for?

I don’t see the delineation you are making between will and want. They both express desire.

 

[Peter_Plato]

God is not his creation. How can god be logic? Even by saying logic is “the way things are” implies there are ways that things are not. God is again limited.

God is not logic (see below.)

The “way things are not” describes either 1) the limitations of created things or 2) evil in different ways. Limitations such as what a plant does not have that an animal does is not a limitation on God. Creation is not a limitation on God. The way a rock is limited is not a limitation on God. The existence of a rock is not a limitation on God.

There are all kinds of examples of “ways things are” and “ways things are not.” I don’t see how any of them impinge upon God’s omnipotence because their existence does not “limit” God’s omnipotence. Unless you hold some bizarre conception of omnipotence that becomes nonsensical when it’s unravelled. You don’t really believe that the existence of a radish is a limitation on God because its existence poses a limit on his power - he didn’t make it a cucumber, so he’s not omnipotent since he could have done so, but didn’t?

Your concept of omnipotent is incoherent because it results in absurd notions about what omnipotence ought to be capable of (i.e., nonsense.)

Which is another reason why I didn’t take omnipotence into account for the determination of what "best moral option” would be. Some people just have weird notions about omnipotence which serves to muddy the water regarding logical clarity.

Case in point.

If you throw out “goodness” as a nessisity. Anything that god said is good, is. You get rid of evil. It is an illusion. There is only god’s will. Our only morality is obedience. God is neither good nor evil, just is. It’s only our perspective. The notion of heaven vs hell are also without meaning. Without evil how can there be hell. Without hell what do we need a savior for?

You threw out goodness as a necessity by stating omnipotence means the capacity to do anything, even the illogical. Omnipotence according to you allows God to turn evil good because he has no limitations. I never claimed that.

The logical implication of your omnipotence has no limitations is that good would also serve as a limitation on God, so God’s omnipotence would not have that limitation either. So “throwing out goodness as a necessity” is your contribution to the discussion, not mine.
Why are you pinning that on me?

What I have been consistent with is that the good is an aspect of God’s Being. He is Who is and that is what makes good, good. Logic is merely derived from and characterizes the way things are. Logic, therefore, derives from God. I didn’t claim logic was God.

I don’t see the delineation you are making between will and want. They both express desire.

Want expresses a desire to fulfill a need. Will is not necessarily a desire, but rather a rational choice for the good or otherwise. Big difference.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

God is not logic (see below.)

The “way things are not” describes either 1) the limitations of created things or 2) evil in different ways. Limitations such as what a plant does not have that an animal does is not a limitation on God. Creation is not a limitation on God. The way a rock is limited is not a limitation on God. The existence of a rock is not a limitation on God.

There are all kinds of examples of “ways things are” and “ways things are not.” I don’t see how any of them impinge upon God’s omnipotence because their existence does not “limit” God’s omnipotence. Unless you hold some bizarre conception of omnipotence that becomes nonsensical when it’s unravelled. You don’t really believe that the existence of a radish is a limitation on God because its existence poses a limit on his power - he didn’t make it a cucumber, so he’s not omnipotent since he could have done so, but didn’t?

Your concept of omnipotent is incoherent because it results in absurd notions about what omnipotence ought to be capable of (i.e., nonsense.)

Which is another reason why I didn’t take omnipotence into account for the determination of what "best moral option” would be. Some people just have weird notions about omnipotence which serves to muddy the water regarding logical clarity.

Case in point.

You threw out goodness as a necessity by stating omnipotence means the capacity to do anything, even the illogical. Omnipotence according to you allows God to turn evil good because he has no limitations. I never claimed that.

The logical implication of your omnipotence has no limitations is that good would also serve as a limitation on God, so God’s omnipotence would not have that limitation either. So “throwing out goodness as a necessity” is your contribution to the discussion, not mine.
Why are you pinning that on me?

What I have been consistent with is that the good is an aspect of God’s Being. He is Who is and that is what makes good, good. Logic is merely derived from and characterizes the way things are. Logic, therefore, derives from God. I didn’t claim logic was God.

Want expresses a desire to fulfill a need. Will is not necessarily a desire, but rather a rational choice for the good or otherwise. Big difference.

If god isn’t logic it is something outside himself. If omnipotence is limited to the logical, he is bound by logic. Logic would supersede the power of God, even if he is the creator of it.

Your delineation of will/want isn’t clear to me. If you’ve made a choice, you desire one outcome (or thing) and not the other. If there is preference there is want.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If god isn’t logic it is something outside himself. If omnipotence is limited to the logical, he is bound by logic. Logic would supersede the power of God, even if he is the creator of it.

Logic, ultimately, is descriptive of reality. Logic is inert of itself - it has no power - so it cannot “bind” anything.

Your delineation of will/want isn’t clear to me. If you’ve made a choice, you desire one outcome (or thing) and not the other. If there is preference there is want.

This is true if you are only a sentient and not a rational being. In which case all you have is emotive desire. If you are rational you also have the capacity to judge whether your desires for some object are qualitatively better than other rational choices for which you have no preference or want. You might like ice cream and desire it (sentience) but the ability to discern that it is not good for you and therefore not act on the desire for ice cream is a rational capacity and act of the will - a judgement, not a desire.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Logic, ultimately, is descriptive of reality. Logic is inert of itself - it has no power - so it cannot “bind” anything.

This is true if you are only a sentient and not a rational being. In which case all you have is emotive desire. If you are rational you also have the capacity to judge whether your desires for some object are qualitatively better than other rational choices for which you have no preference or want. You might like ice cream and desire it (sentience) but the ability to discern that it is not good for you and therefore not act on the desire for ice cream is a rational capacity and act of the will - a judgement, not a desire.

It is descriptive of the limitation. If all that I have is a purple crayon, I can draw purple things, I can’t draw green things. Purple is the nature of the things I draw. If god can do anything that is logical and only logical things can be done by him. He can’t do an illogical thing. The description of his limit is logic.

I still don’t see any difference. You are describing self control, which is also another desire manifested. I want ice cream. I know ice cream is bad so I refrain. I desire something other than what my ice cream can offer. I have swapped one desire for another, namely the desire for good health out weighs my desire for ice cream. You haven’t circumvented “want.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is descriptive of the limitation. If all that I have is a purple crayon, I can draw purple things, I can’t draw green things. Purple is the nature of the things I draw. If god can do anything that is logical and only logical things can be done by him. He can’t do an illogical thing. The description of his limit is logic.

On the contrary, he won’t do an illogical thing because it contradicts his nature to do so. His nature determines the limits, nothing else does.

What is determines the truth. The truth does not determine what is. Truth is descriptive of what is. Being is not altered by abstractions.

I still don’t see any difference. You are describing self control, which is also another desire manifested. I want ice cream. I know ice cream is bad so I refrain. I desire something other than what my ice cream can offer. I have swapped one desire for another, namely the desire for good health out weighs my desire for ice cream. You haven’t circumvented “want.”

Except that reasoning and not another desire outweighed the first. The “desire for good health” was brought to bear by reasoning. The desire didn’t create the reason, the reason created the desire, so it wasn’t merely one desire outweighing another.

In addition, it merely isn’t the strength of the desires that compete, some other arbitrator determined which desire ought to have supremacy. That was not determined by desire pitted against desire, but by the intervention of reasoning that dictated which desire should have precedence and why.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

On the contrary, he won’t do an illogical thing because it contradicts his nature to do so. His nature determines the limits, nothing else does.

What is determines the truth. The truth does not determine what is. Truth is descriptive of what is. Being is not altered by abstractions.

Except that reasoning and not another desire outweighed the first. The “desire for good health” was brought to bear by reasoning. The desire didn’t create the reason, the reason created the desire, so it wasn’t merely one desire outweighing another.

In addition, it merely isn’t the strength of the desires that compete, some other arbitrator determined which desire ought to have supremacy. That was not determined by desire pitted against desire, but by the intervention of reasoning that dictated which desire should have precedence and why.

He won’t contradict his nature, so he is limited. There are limits to what he can and cannot do. Pretty straight forward.

Regardless if the want arises from a base nature or reason it is still a “want.”

 

[Aloysium]

God is beauty, truth and love; I suppose that limits His omnipotence to creating a rational universe of marvels and ultimate goodness - lol.

 

[Peter_Plato]

He won’t contradict his nature, so he is limited. There are limits to what he can and cannot do. Pretty straight forward.

To say God’s omnipotence is limited because his omniscience doesn’t allow him to undertake nonsense is, to put it mildly, an inane understanding of omnipotence.

It’s like claiming God should be able to render himself impotent or else he is not omnipotent. Who would want (in the sense of rationally will) that to be a working definition of omnipotent in any case?

There is a folk tale about a small boy who defeats a powerful magic giant by posing this challenge to the giant: “I bet you don’t have the magical power to turn yourself into a fly!” The giant proved he could and the boy swatted him. How is that a measure of omnipotence? Doing the idiotic just 'cause? If the giant had a measure of intelligence, intelligence would have placed a limitation on undertaking a foolish endeavor, no? How is omniscience (which precludes undertaking foolish or nonsensical acts) placing any kind of meaningful or important limit on omnipotence?

Your concept of omnipotence is one that would be irreconcilable with omniscience because God’s omnipotence would have to trump not merely omniscience but even simple common sense. It would insist that for God to be God he would have to be an omnipotent imbecile. Is that the kind of God you have in mind? That, certainly, is not the God of classical theism, Christianity or Judaism.

You should read more fables, Roscoe.

Regardless if the want arises from a base nature or reason it is still a “want.”

As with your concept of omnipotence, I have to respectfully disagree.

You would have to prove that moral ends (the proper intentions of the will) are always identical to what the moral agent emotively desires (wants.) If a distinction can be made then they are not identical. Wants necessarily have an emotive or appetitive component, that “willing” need not have.

This is precisely why free will in an operative sense is possible. Reason is transcendent to and can control the emotive or appetitive faculties. The fact that reason has “power over” wants is what makes us responsible moral agents and culpable when we allow wants to control reason and will.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

To say God’s omnipotence is limited because his omniscience doesn’t allow him to undertake nonsense is, to put it mildly, an inane understanding of omnipotence.

It’s like claiming God should be able to render himself impotent or else he is not omnipotent. Who would want (in the sense of rationally will) that to be a working definition of omnipotent in any case?

There is a folk tale about a small boy who defeats a powerful magic giant by posing this challenge to the giant: “I bet you don’t have the magical power to turn yourself into a fly!” The giant proved he could and the boy swatted him. How is that a measure of omnipotence? Doing the idiotic just 'cause? If the giant had a measure of intelligence, intelligence would have placed a limitation on undertaking a foolish endeavor, no? How is omniscience (which precludes undertaking foolish or nonsensical acts) placing any kind of meaningful or important limit on omnipotence?

Your concept of omnipotence is one that would be irreconcilable with omniscience because God’s omnipotence would have to trump not merely omniscience but even simple common sense. It would insist that for God to be God he would have to be an omnipotent imbecile. Is that the kind of God you have in mind? That, certainly, is not the God of classical theism, Christianity or Judaism.

You should read more fables, Roscoe.

As with your concept of omnipotence, I have to respectfully disagree.

You would have to prove that moral ends (the proper intentions of the will) are always identical to what the moral agent emotively desires (wants.) If a distinction can be made then they are not identical. Wants necessarily have an emotive or appetitive component, that “willing” need not have.

This is precisely why free will in an operative sense is possible. Reason is transcendent to and can control the emotive or appetitive faculties. The fact that reason has “power over” wants is what makes us responsible moral agents and culpable when we allow wants to control reason and will.

I think you are missing my point.

Adultery - I don’t commit adultery because of any ultimate law giver. I don’t commit adultery not because of any physical limitations but rather self imposed limitations. I don’t want to. I love my wife, it would hurt her, it would show a lack of respect for the commitment we made to each other, I don’t want to be “that” guy, I don’t want the complications that it would bring, I wouldn’t want my children to see me that way, etc, etc Basically I like what I have and I don’t want to screw it up. I put limits on my action.

Whatever you want to call it, love for my wife, fear of losing her, is stronger than a my base want of sex with other women. My actions are limited, they may be self imposed, but they are limited. The want for my marriage is stronger than the want for sex outside my marriage. It’s still based on want. I want one outcome and not the other.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think you are missing my point.

Adultery - I don’t commit adultery because of any ultimate law giver. I don’t commit adultery not because of any physical limitations but rather self imposed limitations. I don’t want to. I love my wife, it would hurt her, it would show a lack of respect for the commitment we made to each other, I don’t want to be “that” guy, I don’t want the complications that it would bring, I wouldn’t want my children to see me that way, etc, etc Basically I like what I have and I don’t want to screw it up. I put limits on my action.

Whatever you want to call it, love for my wife, fear of losing her, is stronger than a my base want of sex with other women. My actions are limited, they may be self imposed, but they are limited. The want for my marriage is stronger than the want for sex outside my marriage. It’s still based on want. I want one outcome and not the other.

I am not missing your point. Your wanting something is not what makes it morally right or not. Your wanting the right thing makes your “wanting” aligned with what is morally right, but the fact of your wanting it is not what makes your want morally right.

Even if you didn’t want it, the morally right thing would still be the morally right thing independent of your wanting it.

If you wanted the wrong thing and then rationally discovered what the morally right thing would be, then you would need to restructure your wants to the right thing. Until you restructure or “repatriate” your wants using the intellectual virtues, your wants would be out of alignment with your will to carry out the right action. Hence, “want” need not be identical to “will.”

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I am not missing your point. Your wanting something is not what makes it morally right or not. Your wanting the right thing makes your “wanting” aligned with what is morally right, but the fact of your wanting it is not what makes your want morally right.

Even if you didn’t want it, the morally right thing would still be the morally right thing independent of your wanting it.

If you wanted the wrong thing and then rationally discovered what the morally right thing would be, then you would need to restructure your wants to the right thing. Until you restructure or “repatriate” your wants using the intellectual virtues, your wants would be out of alignment with your will to carry out the right action. Hence, “want” need not be identical to “will.”

You still don’t transcend “want.” If you are deciding i.e. using your intellect, you want one more than the other. It is a hierarchy of want, regardless of the motivation, be it base or intellectual.

God’s omnipotence regardless of why he limits it, is limited.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You still don’t transcend “want.” If you are deciding i.e. using your intellect, you want one more than the other. It is a hierarchy of want, regardless of the motivation, be it base or intellectual.

You are just engaging in definitional obfuscation. What you are saying is that an object of a desire is a “want” because it has an emotional aspect and the object of intention is also a “want” even if it has no emotional aspect but merely a rational one. So it doesn’t matter if the want has an emotional aspect or not it is still a want.

So what is a want if it need NOT have an emotional aspect?

Yet, wants can be satisfied if the emotional aspect is satiated, but an object of will need not have an emotional aspect. It might even be true that the end intended by will actually produces unwanted emotions. A courageous act may involve accepting unwanted emotions (fear or dread) or leaving emotions unsatisfied (comfort and security) for no reason except to bring about a good end towards which no “emotional attachment” exists. I “will” the end good even though no benefit accrues to me and none of my personal wants are satisfied.

Which is to say the word “want” by your definition means something desired but not desired at the same time. Strike one for the law of non-contradiction.

God’s omnipotence regardless of why he limits it, is limited.

Which is about the same as claiming if omnipotence cannot make itself absolutely impotent then it cannot be omnipotent. And a triangle cannot be a triangle if it can’t be non-triangular.

Strike two for the law of non-contradiction.

That makes two contraventions of the law of non-contradiction in the same post. Impressive

You feel empowered by holding God accountable to contravening the law of non-contradiction simply because you think he ought to be able to by your definition of omnipotence?

God can’t be God unless he can make this

http://abilenescene.zacpubs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Crazy-Columns.jpg

a real 3D object?

What I think is you haven’t provided a reason to doubt what God’s omnipotence involves, but very good reasons to doubt your understanding of reality.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

You are just engaging in definitional obfuscation. What you are saying is that an object of a desire is a “want” because it has an emotional aspect and the object of intention is also a “want” even if it has no emotional aspect but merely a rational one. So it doesn’t matter if the want has an emotional aspect or not it is still a want.

So what is a want if it need NOT have an emotional aspect?

Yet, wants can be satisfied if the emotional aspect is satiated, but an object of will need not have an emotional aspect. It might even be true that the end intended by will actually produces unwanted emotions. A courageous act may involve accepting unwanted emotions (fear or dread) or leaving emotions unsatisfied (comfort and security) for no reason except to bring about a good end towards which no “emotional attachment” exists. I “will” the end good even though no benefit accrues to me and none of my personal wants are satisfied.

Which is to say the word “want” by your definition means something desired but not desired at the same time. Strike one for the law of non-contradiction.

Which is about the same as claiming if omnipotence cannot make itself absolutely impotent then it cannot be omnipotent. And a triangle cannot be a triangle if it can’t be non-triangular.

Strike two for the law of non-contradiction.

That makes two contraventions of the law of non-contradiction in the same post. Impressive

You feel empowered by holding God accountable to contravening the law of non-contradiction simply because you think he ought to be able to by your definition of omnipotence?

God can’t be God unless he can make this

http://abilenescene.zacpubs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Crazy-Columns.jpg

a real 3D object?

What I think is you haven’t provided a reason to doubt what God’s omnipotence involves, but very good reasons to doubt your understanding of reality.

You can have two conflicting wants. I want ice cream, I want good health. You can’t have both so you choose not to eat the ice cream in favor of your health. You’ve put your desire for ice cream aside for the good of better health. It does not mean you’ve stop wanting ice cream. You just didn’t indulge the want. It not a contradiction. It’s simply impulse control.

If god can only act out of love, he is limited by love. It’s pretty straight forward. It’s not contradictory in any way.

 

[tonyrey]

God is beauty, truth and love; I suppose that limits His omnipotence to creating a rational universe of marvels and ultimate goodness - lol.

The limitations are not in God but in that which He has created because only God can be perfect in every respect.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You can have two conflicting wants. I want ice cream, I want good health. You can’t have both so you choose not to eat the ice cream in favor of your health. You’ve put your desire for ice cream aside for the good of better health. It does not mean you’ve stop wanting ice cream. You just didn’t indulge the want. It not a contradiction. It’s simply impulse control.

If god can only act out of love, he is limited by love. It’s pretty straight forward. It’s not contradictory in any way.

Sure it is.

It is based upon an incoherent view of omnipotence as necessarily including absolute impotence as a “power.” Why would omnipotent Being be, in any meaningful sense, “limited” without the “power” to be absolutely impotent?

Why would the absolute power to create and sustain (which is what love means relative to God) be “limited” if God chooses (directly from his power to create and sustain) not to destroy what he has made. That he is “capable” of destroying everything he has made is clear from the fact that he created in the first place, so he can’t be “limited” in the sense of being incapable. You are insisting that if he chooses not to destroy, then he is “limited” in a meaningful way still. What possible sense does that make?

He is limited simply because he “chooses” (self-determines) not to act on a “possible” option that he fully has the power to carry out but doesn’t by choice?

It’s a bizarre notion of omnipotence because it proposes some strange mechanistic view of omnipotence as if God has less, not more, free will than human beings. That every choice he makes, he “had” to make and was, therefore, limited to it and by it.