T
tonyrey
Guest
God can do whatever He wants to do as long as it does not go against His very being and against the purposes for which He has created the universe.
Omnipotence does not entail inconsistency!
- Status
Omnipotence does not entail inconsistency!
S
Spock
Guest
Do you have any idea who can be an authority in science? It is not an elected position, it does not come from power. An authority is someone who can substantiate what he says. In science it does not matter “who says it”, what matters is “what has been said”. A total unknown’s assertion will make him an authority if he can prove his case, while if a previous authority will say something incorrect, then no amount of “reverence” will turn his error into something acceptable. There is only one real authority: “the ability to prove what you say”. Evidence “rulez”, repeatable, observable, testable evidence. Everything else is wishful thinking or empty speculation.
The case cannot be overstated enough.
And again, no amount of “fame” or “authority” rescued his system when Einstein came along. And it was not a “duel” between two “authorities”.
Totally irrelevant. Back in those ages everyone was a believer, or pretended to be. It was literally a matter of life and death to be “caught” a nonbeliever.
S
Spock
Guest
Changing the parameters again? Getting tedious to point it out. Whatever I am doing in my bedroom does not mean that I am doing it during my working hours. I am doing it on my own time, when I do not have any outside obligations to perform. I did not think that I need to specify all the details, I was under the impression that I can rely on the common sense of the responders. As it happened so many times, I was wrong. I should have never underestimated the ability of twisting the subject and the eagerness to try to distort the scenario. Anything and everything is preferred to a direct answer to the simple question. To be sure, your “answer” was “par for the course”.
Well, that would affect some people, all right. But since it is my life, and I have dominion over it, if I would decide that my life is not worth to live any longer, it is none of their business.
And if I would build a bomb in the privacy of my bedroom with an intent to blow it up right there, that would also “affect” other people. Why do I have to write a whole study just to specify in painstaking details what the question is? One person is having a little innocent fun in the privacy of his or her bedroom - masturbating. Two or more people having some fun with sex - all of them consenting. This is the scenario. How does it adversely affect you? Or the same people have a pivate dinner in their own home. (No, they did not steal the ingredients, and they paid their electric bill, too). Maybe they drink excessively, but do not go out and drive under the influence. They may throw up in their bathroom, however. How does it have a negative effect on you? Is this clear enough? Of should I write it out in even more detail???
T
tonyrey
Guest
"It is the perfection of God’s works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion. And therefore as they would understand the frame of the world must endeavor to reduce their knowledge to all possible simplicity, so must it be in seeking to understand these visions. "- Sir Isaac Newton
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
If God cannot do something his omnipotence is not absolute.God can do whatever He wants to do as long as it does not go against His very being and against the purposes for which He has created the universe.
Omnipotence does not entail inconsistency!
P
PRmerger
Guest
CS Lewis addressed this decades ago (and I believe he was echoing the ECFs, but I may be wrong on that.)
Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, “God can” before it.
So, no, God cannot make a square circle. God cannot make a married bachelor. Both are nonsensical, and putting “God can” before that still makes it nonsense.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Catholics do not profess that something is wrong merely because it affects me, personally.
Some things are wrong, at their essence, objectively, ontologically, whether its actions affect me not a whit. They’re wrong because they’re contrary to the goodness and right action that is the intention of the Creator.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
You are saying that there are logical limits to God’s power?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Is that all that’s required? 2 consenting adults (at the very minimum)?
What if their spouses aren’t keen on this idea?
Do you mean 2 or more never married adults who are consenting?
P
PRmerger
Guest
I am saying that nonsense doesn’t cease to be nonsense when you put “omnipotent” before it.
T
tdgesq
Guest
Whether it’s absolute (whatever that means) or not, the omnipotence of God claimed by Catholics is well defined.
In Latin, the applicable part of the Nicene Creed reads “Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem . . . .” Omnipotentem is the Latin root for the English word “omnipotent.” The creed translated into English reads “we believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty . . . .” The Council of Nicaea was an ecumenical council, so what it teaches in this regard is absolutely binding on the consciences of all Catholics.
What you want to know is whether God being “almighty” means that he can do anything at all - even engage in a logical inconsistency such as creating a square circle. The Church clearly teaches that not even God can engage in logical contradiction.
Let’s suppose for a moment that God could create a square in physical space and at the same time create a circle in the same physical space. This would violate the law of non-contradiction. What this would mean is that God can create something that is a square and not a square at the same time and in the same sense. It would also mean that God creates a circle and not a circle at the same time and in the same sense. It would be true that he was creating a square, yet also false that he was creating a square. It would be true that he was creating a circle, yet also false that he was creating a circle. It would be a contradiction. And most importantly, it would mean that God could create a state of affairs that is not true. He could create a state of affairs that is false.
Yet one of the attributes of God is that he is truth. The First Vatican Council teaches that:
“God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.”
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.h…20and%20reason
“we believe to be true what He has revealed,
· not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason,
· but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.”
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.h…3%20On%20faith
These are de fide dogmatic statements of the Vatican council; the highest grade of theological certainty possible and something that all Catholics must believe.
Furthermore, St. Thomas Aquinas at length treats this question, and he concludes:
Code:
I answer that, All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, **this phrase, "God can do all things," is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent.**It is not possible for God to engage in a contradiction. He is not able to engage in something that is not true, whether it be a creative act or otherwise.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Then he is not all-powerful.
W
Wardog
Guest
I see you continue to be obtuse; or want it spelled out to reassure yourself.
If by all powerful you mean unable to contradict Himself, then yes, you are correct.
Does this satisfy you?
However, compared to me God is all powerful; the distinction you are making is of little relevance to my faith or belief. Actually, I am glad that He cannot contradict Himself; it would make life pretty confusing if a square could become a circle at whim.
Or that the rules of physics could change from day to day; or that the sun would start rising in the west and setting in the south.
Yes, God created order from chaos; I guess he could go back to chaos if he desired, but I pray to Him that he won’t do that.
P
PRmerger
Guest
He* is* all powerful, in that he can do all things that are possible. That’s the definition of all-powerful.
T
tdgesq
Guest
If being “all powerful” included the ability to engage in logical contradiction then you would be correct. However, the Catholic Church has never used the term this way. There are good reasons why it hasn’t; the primary reason being that it actually would result in God being less powerful.
If being “all powerful” means that God can do all things, even those things that are logically impossible, then God could be (1) all powerful and (2) not all powerful at the same time and in the same sense. Now, which of the two God’s proposed here is really omnipotent? Is it the one who can be simultaneously all powerful and not all powerful? Or is it the one who can do all things that are possible?
This is the problem that attends arguments like the one you propose: It allows the most powerful God to engage in things that make no sense (nonsense), like a God who is all powerful, yet not all powerful. This becomes manifest when the one taking this position is asked to explain precisely what he means by a God who is all powerful and not all powerful. We are unable to even imagine a logical contradiction (try to imagine your hand is on fire and not on fire at the same time and in the same way), let alone explain how one could exist in reality - other than to write it down in symbolic logic and conclude that the argument is invalid.
The Catholic definition of God’s omnipotence results in a more powerful God than your proposed definition.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I’m sure you are aware that evidence and conclusions do not equal fact. However, the Church has embraced science. She is aware that truth cannot contradict truth. Any truths we find because of science will not contradict any truth the Church teaches. I’m a scientist myself and I’m very happy about the Church’s position.
I’m sure you are also aware that the Pope is not infallible except in cases of faith and morals which are presented ex cathedra.
Now I’m ducking and running because I hear shouts of “Galileo!!” and I really don’t want to get into such a poorly misunderstood chapter of science and Church history.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Who is your authority on what is logical, plausible, etc.?So what God does doesn’t have to make sense, appear logical, be plausible, etc.?
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Thank you for your clarification!God can do whatever He wants to do as long as it does not go against His very being and against the purposes for which He has created the universe.
Omnipotence does not entail inconsistency!
I should have included that and when I just now read my post I realized I had left it out. I appreciate your help.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
When one attempts to clarify by including parameters which have not been listed but rather ignored, it is hardly “changing the parameters.”
It is their business. Are you aware of what happens when a person commits suicide? Do you know what a “suicide survivor” is? I am one and so are the rest of the members of my family. We suffered immensely because of one person’s belief that it was OK for him to not care about who would have to deal with the consequences of his suicide. He even wrote that down. We are still suffering and will suffer for the rest of our lives. I have PTSD because I am the one who found him. And my unborn son got to hear my screams until I was fortunate enough to black out. I would go into more detail but would probably be suspended if I described what I found.
Our lives do not belong to us. They belong to God. It is not our right to decide when it is appropriate to take our lives and I don’t think most people really understand what taking a life entails. At least I hope not.
Masturbation is a grievous act. I don’t know if sex outside of marriage is a grievous act but it certainly is a sin. There are victims involved and every sin that is committed introduces more evil into the world. That evil finds every little niche and affects every other human being.
If people want to have dinner in their bedroom that’s up to them. Having dinner is morally neutral. So is vomiting. But any sin affects every other person.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Grief? Sadness? You really have no conception of how far reaching and horrific suicide can be to the survivors. But then I had no conception either - until I learned first-hand.
If you had gone through what I went through and continue to go through and realized how many people are maimed emotionally because of suicide I don’t think you would have written what you did here.
Or do you think that selfishness, sadism, hatred, desertion of family, and complete self-centeredness are good traits? Well, I guess you’ve already decided that the last one is.
- Status