Omnipotence Paradox

[RCCB]

The omnipotence paradox is only an ‘apparent’ paradox in the sense that existing religious tradition including the RCC offers no means, by any path of faith, to an unambiguous demonstration of that ultimate reality. Personally I find this a contradiction of the scriptural record, which has lead me to question the authenticity of all ‘Christian’ tradition and theology.

While Christian tradition, in all it’s various forms, at some point expect God to resolve that paradox with an intervention of some sort, I have the suspicion that ‘when’ [or if] that happens, it may very well be contrary to all existing theological based teaching, In the same sense that Jesus ended up on the cross for questioning existing Jewish tradition. Could we see history repeat itself? energon.org.uk

 

[JDaniel]

The omnipotence paradox is only an ‘apparent’ paradox in the sense that existing religious tradition including the RCC offers no means, by any path of faith, to an unambiguous demonstration of that ultimate reality. Personally I find this a contradiction of the scriptural record, which has lead me to question the authenticity of all ‘Christian’ tradition and theology.

While Christian tradition, in all it’s various forms, at some point expect God to resolve that paradox with an intervention of some sort, I have the suspicion that ‘when’ [or if] that happens, it may very well be contrary to all existing theological based teaching, In the same sense that Jesus ended up on the cross for questioning existing Jewish tradition. Could we see history repeat itself? energon.org.uk

RCCB:

So, were we lied to by Christ? We were told by him that the Holy Spirit would never hang us out to dry, so to speak, that we could rest assured that what the Church taught was correct and true, because He wouldn’t lie to us, and that what we taught and wrote would be guided by the Holy Spirit.

God bless,
jd

 

[Anthony_V]

RCCB:

So, were we lied to by Christ? We were told by him that the Holy Spirit would never hang us out to dry, so to speak, that we could rest assured that what the Church taught was correct and true, because He wouldn’t lie to us, and that what we taught and wrote would be guided by the Holy Spirit.

God bless,
jd

This reality is available to us by the grace of faith, not by natural reason. Reducing paradoxes to the confines of natural reason was not promised. Advances can be made in this area by infusions of grace by the Holy Spirit, but that is not a systematic favor.

 

[Anthony_V]

The omnipotence paradox is only an ‘apparent’ paradox in the sense that existing religious tradition including the RCC offers no means, by any path of faith, to an unambiguous demonstration of that ultimate reality. Personally I find this a contradiction of the scriptural record, which has lead me to question the authenticity of all ‘Christian’ tradition and theology.

While Christian tradition, in all it’s various forms, at some point expect God to resolve that paradox with an intervention of some sort, I have the suspicion that ‘when’ [or if] that happens, it may very well be contrary to all existing theological based teaching, In the same sense that Jesus ended up on the cross for questioning existing Jewish tradition. Could we see history repeat itself? energon.org.uk

I accidentally replied to the post below this one at first rather than this one. Oops.
This knowledge is available by the grace of faith. Faith is systematically an “unambiguous demonstration”, as far as I’m concerned. If you’re as acquainted with the dogmatic system of traditional Christian theology, you’ll know that faith is a divine knowledge higher than natural reason. St. Thomas Aquinas said, “grace builds upon nature”. In this context, “faith builds upon reason.” Reason is actualized in the sense of understanding the divine Logos through grace only in beatific vision. The mustard seed of faith must grow. Furthermore, the Revelation of this in an actualized natural sense will not happen until the Last Judgment/Parousia. The great physical manifestation and mystery of Christianity is the Mystical Body of Christ–the Church–which is the living organism of Christ’s body in grace. It takes faith to understand that this reality is axiomatic. For instance, we cannot directly observe God at this point in the scheme of eschatology. We can observe his effects, which we systematize, and this makes him appear complex, though he is infinitely simple. This is also because the infinite Logos cannot fit within a finite logoi. The logoi must be expanded in grace to perceive this divine knowledge–faith, when at last a point is reached where the grace of faith is discarded and the grace of beatific vision, which is the fulfillment of grace, has been attained.

 

[RCCB]

" If you’re as acquainted with the dogmatic system of traditional Christian theology."

I am intimately acquainted with this system of self deception. Thus I do not regard any system of theology, founded upon philosophical ‘principles’ as anything other than human, self limiting, which has ‘revealed’ only the propensity for hubris and is not a valid human intellectual endeavor. Theology only exists as the futile attempt to regain what has yet to be understood. Or to quote Milton from Paradise Lost:

God, to remove His ways from human sense,
Place’d heaven from earth so far that earthly sight,
If it presume, might error in things too high,
and no advantage gain.

 

[Anthony_V]

" If you’re as acquainted with the dogmatic system of traditional Christian theology."

I am intimately acquainted with this system of self deception. Thus I do not regard any system of theology, founded upon philosophical ‘principles’ as anything other than human, self limiting, which has ‘revealed’ only the propensity for hubris and is not a valid human intellectual endeavor. Theology only exists as the futile attempt to regain what has yet to be understood. Or to quote Milton from Paradise Lost:

God, to remove His ways from human sense,
Place’d heaven from earth so far that earthly sight,
If it presume, might error in things too high,
and no advantage gain.

I think that is a rather unfair downplay of the human intellect, which is made in the image of God. Perhaps not perfectly, no, but we can most certainly move towards truth in a finite manner through our natural resources as humans. But this is merely incomplete, as I stated. Grace, divine assistance, whatever you should like to call it, is necessary to advancing any further. However, faith without reason is entirely ridiculous, as we cannot live a life of apparent contradiction if we are supposed to live one of truth.

And lastly, being a creature is not “self-limiting”. It simply means we do not possess the principle of autonomy and perfection within our own right. It’s not an all-or-nothing deal.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Impossible for all but Almighty God.

Well, there you go. The point of the supposed paradox is whether God can limit his own omnipotence by, in the classical example, creating a rock too heavy even for himself to lift.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

God would also be rational, evil, and a turnip since anything follows from a logical contradiction. While your argument is valid, it is not sound. But you are very close by affirming the irrationality of the OP’s contention.

Point taken and I agree, my statement there was not sound when rigorously interpreted. I was trying to make the double point that the “paradox” itself is an irrational idea and that God’s following the laws of logic is not a true limitation on his omnipotence, properly conceived.

 

[Shike]

Point taken and I agree, my statement there was not sound when rigorously interpreted. I was trying to make the double point that the “paradox” itself is an irrational idea and that God’s following the laws of logic is not a true limitation on his omnipotence, properly conceived.

Sounds good!

Anthony V,
although you seem to think RCCB knows what the heck you are talking about when you mention terms like logos, logoi, grace, nature, faith, and reason, I don’t think you should assume. Someone who has “outgrown” natural theology probably would require definitions, definitions, definitions. But that is exactly what most people are unwilling or too busy to do. And not only with the OP and RCCB, but the general public at large-we assume we are all speaking the same language and only find out very late, if at all, that we never really were.

Definitions must come first!

It’s also the only way to plow through a lot of contemporary militant atheist babble.

Then again, the original topic seems pretty dead by now and I don’t see your’s and RCCB’s taking off. And to stay on topic, it should not!

Good luck.

 

[Anthony_V]

Sounds good!

Anthony V,
although you seem to think RCCB knows what the heck you are talking about when you mention terms like logos, logoi, grace, nature, faith, and reason, I don’t think you should assume. Someone who has “outgrown” natural theology probably would require definitions, definitions, definitions. But that is exactly what most people are unwilling or too busy to do. And not only with the OP and RCCB, but the general public at large-we assume we are all speaking the same language and only find out very late, if at all, that we never really were.

Definitions must come first!

It’s also the only way to plow through a lot of contemporary militant atheist babble.

Then again, the original topic seems pretty dead by now and I don’t see your’s and RCCB’s taking off. And to stay on topic, it should not!

Good luck.

Haha, thanks for the suggestion! That lifted a little weight off my shoulders. I have a bad habit of taking life too seriously. They’re going to beat me with a tenderizer in seminary, I bet.

Peace and grace to you, friend.
Anthony

 

[fred_conty]

First, God does not make stones out of nothing. God creates, and that’s it. There is God and then there is God and a stone.

If God created a stone, He could create it as big as he wants to.
But even a tiny stone would be bigger than him because he is a spirit.

So how would he left this tiny stone if he is a spirit.

That is the real question.

Just a thought.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I don’t bother with this sort of hypothetical stuff much because of experience.

For example, I’ve had three “double whammies” (as termed by my Catholic psychiatrist since he’s had them also). They’re like a breath going through you in waves from head to foot, very pronounced, and in response to something.

In my case, they were in response to 3 statements by another speaker at the time. The first was a reference to King David, the second to St. Paul, and the third to CS Lewis.

I suppose a year or so had passed between first and third.

Now in each case no-one else knew about it, as I was the only person experiencing the phenomena, and I think all three were from God.

Now, in spatial terms-

1. The earth spins on it’s axis at around 1000 miles an hour at the equator, but a bit slower where I am as I’m on a smaller part of the ball.
2. The earth spins around the sun at around a million miles a day roughly.
3. The sun spins around the Galactic Centre at about 223 kilometres a second, or a million kilometres every one and a quarter hours, or getting on for about twenty million kilometres per day.

So in a year, we move a long, long way through space.

Yet on 3 separate occasions over about a year, God knew where to find me, what was about to be said, and by whom; the context and the relevance to me; and how to highlight the phrases for me without anybody else knowing about them, unless I chose to tell them about the “double whammies”.

If He can do that, He’s not going to have too much trouble with anything else. In fact, if there’s something that irritates me, it’s not His omnipotence, but how little He seems to use it.

Or to quote my old pastor, “He doesn’t seem to help His own people much”.

I don’t get too bothered with philosophical, hypothetical questions about God’s omnipotence. It’s God’s reluctance to use His omnipotence that gets on my goat.

 

[paduard]

“For God nothing is impossible” - affirmed by Christ Himself.

Just another thought.