P
PEPCIS
Guest
Matthew 21:5 Say to the Daughter of Zion, “See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”
- Status
P
PEPCIS
Guest
So, all things that are possible are possible? I thought the Bible said “With men this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible.”
My reality is that there are certain things that are impossible for man to do, like travel at the speed of light. But this is not impossible for God, if He were of a mind to take on the task.
P
PEPCIS
Guest
"PEPCIS:
Surprise!!!
P
PEPCIS
Guest
"PEPCIS:
I didn’t say that God is not substantially good. I said that Goodness has no substance, just like evil has no substance. As you said, it is not a THING. Goodness is not a thing, and neither is evil. They are merely concepts which help us to understand the moral position of people, angels, governments, and even God.
P
PEPCIS
Guest
Grow up. Insults are for school yards.
S
Shike
Guest
Woot! I read all the posts! Yay me
There seems to be two main debates in this thread. Both seem to have been dealt with sufficiently. But the OP seems slightly less so because because of my inability to completely spit everything back out with reasons. I will have to think about it a bit more with more “tools”.
peace,
Michael
PS>I’m the real dumb ox so please be patient with me!!!
There seems to be two main debates in this thread. Both seem to have been dealt with sufficiently. But the OP seems slightly less so because because of my inability to completely spit everything back out with reasons. I will have to think about it a bit more with more “tools”.
- “OP” debate. I had a hard time staying interested because God’s infinity is very solidly (understatement) founded by Aquinas. Even if the OP argument should be granted, which I wouldn’t, there remains a contradiction between Aquinas’ proofs and what would now be believed; and if something has to go… well, like someone in this forum has said before, his ones for God’s existence are practically bullet proof and God’s infinity builds off of those wonderfully. To me it seems like perceiving a tear in a tiny leaf on an oak tree full of leaves and rejecting the oak tree, not regarding the roots. But I digress… To the actual debate I would add the question: “What would Aristotle’s 1st and 2nd actuality bring to the table?” I’m curious if it would help.
- “God chooses absolutely everything” debate. I used to think this way and had a very hard time letting go. I came up with it pretty much on my own, trying to make sense of the seemingly contradiction of the traditional qualities attributed to God, in this particular case omnipotence. The “problem” was presented to me in my intro college philo class (would anyone agree that this is a favorite of college intro philosophy classes?) and is where I came up with my answer. It’s not that bad of an argument in that only a fool would fall for it; for I think it’s well thought out, however, I think it ultimately doesn’t hold true.
peace,
Michael
PS>I’m the real dumb ox so please be patient with me!!!
J
jkiernan56
Guest
Have you ever looked at letters on a piece of paper that say one thing and then when you take a different perspective (ie - look at the white rather than the black) - you are able to all of a sudden see something entirely different?
St Thomas Aquinas (from Summa Theologica) -
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."
You are seeing the black in what St. Thomas is saying here while I am seeing the white. What you see and understand is completely opposite of what I see and understand from what St. Thomas is expressing.
Everything that is possible (real) is what God can do. God cannot do what is NOT real. He is Omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible (ie - that are in the REALM OF BEING POSSIBLE - that are REAL).
He isn’t Omnipotent because all things are possible (ie - including what is NOT REAL) for God.
I am not asking you to accept this understanding (althought I think it is the correct one) … but are you able to step back and at least see the OTHER way it is being understood (ie - the white letters rather than the black)?
God cannot cease His own existence because it is NOT real - therefore is not in the realm of possibility. What is real is that God exists and is not being caused. It is the very essence of God to exist.
You are holding on to the point of view that because we are saying that God cannot do something that is not real, that He is NOT Omnipotent. I am saying that God is Omnipotent because He can do ALL things that are real and in the realm of possibilities according to HIS reality (which is the ultimate reality).
G
grannymh
Guest
Actually, it would be better to actually find out what actually the above scripture was referring to which is what Aquinas is referring to since he actually studied scripture.
My pet peeve #37 is to hear people skip the context verses before this quote. The context is Jesus’ teaching about salvation and who can be saved. Please read Matthew 19: 23-26
Sorry to be so cranky, but I’m snowed in hoping that the plows will do their work in the window between snowstorms
But while I am so cranky…carpe diem…
Regarding greylorn’s comments about logic in a preceding post: A poster used a link in reply. To avoid cabin fever, I checked the link. The link went to Northern Illinois University, Department of Mathematical Sciences, and began with “Definitions from Chapter 2.” which started with the results of a logical process, i.e., the concluding statement, e.g., It is raining. The interesting thing about the explanation is that this “logical statement” carries factual information, regardless of whether the information is correct or not.
The important point that greylorn is making is that before one can have a “logical statement” the process of logic must be first employed. Normally, it is the process of logic that determines if the concluding informational statement is correct or not.
Another way to understand this important point is to scroll down in Chapter 2 and check out the definitions for premise, conclusion, logical argument, valid argument, invalid argument/logical fallacy. In addition to these brief definitions, the steps of the process need to be fully explained.
Granted that ordinary life is based on common sense logic. However, there are issues which call for deeper thinking.
Blessings,
grannymh
Bible means: basic instructions before leaving earth
J
jkiernan56
Guest
Here is a little example of the logical process for those who are interested:
I work as a software engineer and database analyst in the Healthcare field. When I write code, I define variables and their types/classes.
Once I have defined a variable and its type, I am able to assign a particular kind of value to that variable.
For instance, if I define a variable A as being type NUMBER, I am able to assign the value 1 to this variable A.
Where logic comes into play is when I begin to “evaluate” the variables within the code. I make a determination whether something is either TRUE or FALSE. I might start out with a statement such as:
IF A = 1 then …
Now either A is equal to 1 or A is NOT equal to 1.
The premise is either TRUE or NOT TRUE.
Now depending on whether the evaluation of the statement is TRUE or FALSE, will then determine in which direction I can go within the code.
But if A is FALSE (and I continue as if it is TRUE) in logical discussion everything I derive and conclude about A is also FALSE.
A conclusion cannot be TRUE if its premise is FALSE in the progression of logic.
Now for all the crazies out there who are tripping on LSD, anything goes. They can start with a premise that is FALSE, but end up with something TRUE … but that is only because the logical progression was NOT followed. Somewhere in the logical progression, logic was broken.
Hope that simple explanation helps …
J
jkiernan56
Guest
Hi Michael - thank you for your comments. I have never really studied philosophy in depth or taken any intro course like you have. Hopefully someday I will. You raise a question in my mind when you talk about God’s actuality and potentiality. If God is all actuality and has no potentiality (because there is nothing more to be gained by God as if there were something lacking), what do you call it when God created the universe out of nothing?Woot! I read all the posts! Yay me
There seems to be two main debates in this thread. Both seem to have been dealt with sufficiently. But the OP seems slightly less so because because of my inability to completely spit everything back out with reasons. I will have to think about it a bit more with more “tools”.
And as an aside to the OP poster; it’s a shame that you’re an ex-Catholic because the Catholic Church seems to be one of the few places where faith and reason, science and religion, etc. don’t contradict. In response to the comment about evolution looking like a cold and messy thing that took way too long… that’s assuming you know what the goal is, and that that goal has been reached. Really, I think everything goes together wonderfully. As for evolution taking too long, how long was that for God?
- “OP” debate. I had a hard time staying interested because God’s infinity is very solidly (understatement) founded by Aquinas. Even if the OP argument should be granted, which I wouldn’t, there remains a contradiction between Aquinas’ proofs and what would now be believed; and if something has to go… well, like someone in this forum has said before, his ones for God’s existence are practically bullet proof and God’s infinity builds off of those wonderfully. To me it seems like perceiving a tear in a tiny leaf on an oak tree full of leaves and rejecting the oak tree, not regarding the roots. But I digress… To the actual debate I would add the question: “What would Aristotle’s 1st and 2nd actuality bring to the table?” I’m curious if it would help.
From what I see, it boils down to this: If God has the possibility of choosing evil, then He’s imperfect because there is a potentiallity not actualized in God, regardless of the content (ie. the evil part) of the potentiallity, it is not actualized. Existence comes before all else, so actuallity and potentiallity must be dealt with BEFORE content (I think this is the spot where the two different conclusions in this thread come from). So if “God chooses not to do evil” is not potentiallity, one would now assume that it’s indeed actuallity; but this becomes absurd, because we know that God is all good and perfect (leaving out the original poster’s views from this discussion) and there isn’t evil in Him. So that leaves one option left that I can think of in this scenario: that “God chooses not to do evil” is an impossibility because of a contradiction. Therefore, it would seem like the conclusion is that there are some things God cannot do like choosing evil, thus conflicting with omnipotence. But this “cannot” is not a limit but more of a definition of reality, so it is the special case where omnipotence is not contradicted.
- “God chooses absolutely everything” debate. I used to think this way and had a very hard time letting go. I came up with it pretty much on my own, trying to make sense of the seemingly contradiction of the traditional qualities attributed to God, in this particular case omnipotence. The “problem” was presented to me in my intro college philo class (would anyone agree that this is a favorite of college intro philosophy classes?) and is where I came up with my answer. It’s not that bad of an argument in that only a fool would fall for it; for I think it’s well thought out, however, I think it ultimately doesn’t hold true.
peace,
Michael
PS>I’m the real dumb ox so please be patient with me!!!
Isn’t the act of creating the universe out of nothing God’s potentiality possessed by His actuality? St. Thomas says that God can do all things that are possible (that are real and in the realm of possibility according to reality). So if all things that are real are possible to God - isn’t that His potentiality? Maybe I am getting confused between potentiality and possibility - mixing them up as the same thing?
Before the world was created, God existed. The fact that it was possible for God to create the world out of nothing - isn’t that God’s potentiality? God possessed (actuality) the potential to create the world out of nothing and He acted on it?
What do we call it for what God CAN do but has not yet done? Is that a contradiction in terms?
Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.
P
PEPCIS
Guest
Apparently, there are others here who share your beliefs.
But, here are the quandries set before us:
- Premise A: God has Free Will, However, He CANNOT choose evil.
- Consequence A: Contradiction of God’s Free Will
- Premise B: God has Free Will, which means He CAN choose evil.
- Consequence B: Contradiction of God’s “perfection”
Consequence B is easily dismissed because it has no objective criteria to establish the truth of Consequence B, therefore, Premise B is correct.
Your question boils down to whether or not the Potential of choosing evil renders God “imperfect” or otherwise deficient in some way. I would readily concede on your point if you could show objectively how it is that God is rendered imperfect.
One of your assumptions is that “potentiality” is imperfection. I suppose because you see this potentiality expressed in man, and it often results in Sin, that this possibility is somehow transferred to God. But that is an error, because the Bible clearly states that God is not like a man that He can be influenced by temptation. (James 1:13) Therfore you cannot define “potentiality to evil” as an attribute of Imperfection for God.
P
PEPCIS
Guest
Actually, I don’t consider Aquinas’ statement to be of much value, because he cannot answer questions.
I’m not trying to insult, but this is really just philosophical pandering. Who are you (or Aquinas) to declare what is possible or real, and thereby declare what God can, or cannot do?
That statement doesn’t even make sense. If God does something new that has never been done before (not real), then it suddenly becomes real. There is nothing that is not “real” to God. With God, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. That’s the Bible, not Aquinas.
This is just constructing a god of your own liking, instead of sticking to what the Bible teaches us about who God is. God’s Word declares that ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. You claim that only those things that are in the realm of being possible are possible. That’s mumbo-jumbo.
Well, that’s contradictory to what the Bible claims.
No, this makes absolutely no sense when juxtaposed with the Word of God.
No, not even close. I’m saying that because you are claiming that God cannot do something, that you are contradicting His Free Will. You’ve never been able to answer that.
P
PEPCIS
Guest
"PEPCIS:
The process of logic requires a systematic format, but that is not typically followed in this forum.
You interjected for greylorn by claiming that “the process of logic must first be employed” before you can have a logical statement. That, of course, is plain hooey. As I said, the process of logic is a systematic process that requires that you FIRST FORMULIZE a set of premises (logical statements) that can be examined by a logical process. You can’t do anything without having a logical statement to begin with.
Hope you got yourself dug out of the snow.
Oh, as opposed to me, right?
Ok, so why do you assume that I skipped the context verses before this quote? Because I don’t agree with you? LOL
Well, then he better go back to logic school. Logic is a TOOL to help humans determine truth to the best of their abilities. The problem with forums such as this is that people spit out all manner of drivel without presenting their ideas in a logical fashion with premises and conclusions, so you have to make assumptions about what they are saying and try to put the missing pieces of their logic together.
The process of logic requires a systematic format, but that is not typically followed in this forum.
You interjected for greylorn by claiming that “the process of logic must first be employed” before you can have a logical statement. That, of course, is plain hooey. As I said, the process of logic is a systematic process that requires that you FIRST FORMULIZE a set of premises (logical statements) that can be examined by a logical process. You can’t do anything without having a logical statement to begin with.
Indeed.
Hope you got yourself dug out of the snow.
A
Agripa
Guest
I fully agree with the intent of your question and its good to read a post from one who appears to think critically of these matters. Since I was in Catholic high school, I thought it strange how many “mysteries” our Catholic teachers would tell us we had to accept as dogma. It seemed to be a way to short circuit a line of reasoning. As I grew older, I began to see all the holes in various precepts of the Faith - how God can be all-loving and Omnipotent on one hand, yet the same God allows his creatures to face wars, death, abuse and destruction. It seems strange really that we are created and placed in a bubble called “life” with all its imperfections and its up to us to travel through the bubble, face a terrible death in the end and we are expected by God to only know love and serve Him throughout life if we want to get back to Him. That is really not rational nor is it a mark of a loving, all powerful God.
What the common answer to this line of reasoning is that it is man that is imperfect, man who chooses all the terrible things in the world and its man that seperates himself with God and only through Jesus (also God) that we are redeemed and we can find a seperate, eternal life through Him. That response seems shallow, however, when we really consider what love demands of any Creator. I would never create a child, leave it to the wolves and tell it to do all these things if she wants to return to me.
Thus, for me, I think God is often made “human” because the concept of God demands we shrink it to understandable things: Wise Ruler, Holy Family, Crucified Son, whatever, but God is always seen in human terms as a ruler demanding something from us, a kind of bargain which in itself is a human condition (i.e. the Social Compact of the State: Nature is cruel and unpredictable, come form civil society with us, follow our rules and believe in our customs and you will propagate and thrive under our protection.)
This tends, however, to mask a reality none of us can fathom - that God is simply Creator, but not really involved with human activity. Nobody wants to think in those terms.
R
RCWarrior821
Guest
Peter Kreeft address the other Omnipotence problem in a talk on C.S. Lewis’ problem of pain.
The question Can God create a rock bigger than He can lift?
Peter Kreeft explained that, that question is a meaningless question and it’s like saying can God squibble squable squoovel?
Meaningless.
Similarly you’re whole problem is meaningless. You haven’t proved anything.
peterkreeft.com/audio.htm
D
davidv
Guest
Why would I want to think in terms of a falsehood.{snip}
This tends, however, to mask a reality none of us can fathom - that God is simply Creator, but not really involved with human activity. Nobody wants to think in those terms.
This denies that historisty of Jesus, whereby the creator took on the nature of man and redeemed it. How much more “involved with human activity” could He get?
A
Agripa
Guest
Perhaps is we remove faith for a moment and if we look at history with an open mind, we see that many men were made gods by other men. It was a very common practice in ancient Rome, for example - either a ruler or a ruling class (the Senate) would move to formally declare a ruler a god. There were many purposes served by the act - it strengthened political positions, it gave strength to the ruler and it made human many of the precepts set up by the state religion.
The nascent christian sect just forming in Rome during the later years of the emporers was one of many sects abounding in Rome at the time. In fact, if we look at these groups, there are found many similar traits - the founders were seen as having a special relationship with God, there were often notion of Triads - three gods ruling as one (Rome had a Capitoline Triad) and we see the notion that if a leader was executed, he reached martyrdom and this further supported a god like association. In fact, virgin births were also a popular notion held by various religious sects as well.
Assuming Christianity by the vessel of an old Roman civilization immediately elevated the stauts of the Christian sect. That Jesus was seen a God is not surprising and in fact he was not formally declared such (by other men) until over 100 years after his death.
S
Shike
Guest
Good questions!!! I only thought about them for a couple minutes but they seem to expand my understanding. I’m excited because it seems like there’s a good answer to all of this… I just won’t have time to really respond untill after 3 days or so, going on a retreat.
Thanks!
Ciao!
D
davidv
Guest
Problem is that Jesus was neither a ruler, nor declared to be god by the leaders of the time.
He formally declared Himself God. Far more rejected this claim that those who accepted it. How else would His follows come under the severe persecution that began before the close of the first century?
J
jkiernan56
Guest
That statement of yours reminds me of someone saying that Babe Ruth was not a very good hitter because he didn’t swing the bat the right way.
O trust me, If I had to make a choice between reading St. Thomas Aquinas and your ideas, that would be like choosing between reading on ONE hand Aristotle, or the Gospels as opposed to the other hand - the words of a mental patient.
Now which choice do you think I would make? LOL
Good Ghandi, do you have any idea how ridiculous your statement is to me … “Actually, I don’t consider Aquinas’ statement to be of much value, because he cannot answer questions.” ??? He doesn’t answer questions??? I don’t think you have read any of St. Thomas Aquinas before because that was a very ignorant statement to say. No hard feelings … I’m just being a straight shooter …
- Status