The Omnipotency Contradiction

[Agripa]

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?

As I have said, sects whose founders were not rulers would still name their founder as a god or as posessing godlike powers - in fact in a world of very little education, atributing godliness to very bright people would have been common.

And in Rome, while it was formally the Senate’s role to declare godlike status to a Ruler, there were instances where he named himself a god - Augustus was one of them. I think Nero was one too, although I could be wrong.

As far as persecution, Rome persecuted all sorts of sects and movements, not just christianity. But at one point, it became politically advantageous for later Emporers to accept Christianty. Once Constantine did this on a personal level, it was just a matter of time that the institutions into which the Emporer’s power flowed would follow suit, especially as Rome began its sad decline and its old mythologies aplied less and less to political life.

What I am saying is that the Church derives so much of its form, identity and function from an ancient time, and the Church strives very hard to retain those traditions and histories. (Did you know that the wearing of purple vestments on certain feast days in the Church came right form a tradition of Roman priests and Emporers? Did you know that the spiritual value of being and remining a virgin is not peculiar to Christian thought and the vestile virgins who became alcolytes to various gods thrived in the ancient world and this is the model of the celibate life Catholics value in their nuns to this day? Did you know that hailing leaders with palms was common throughout the ancient world?

This can all be difficult to see if we simply accept christianity just magically rose up - it did not - it became accepted politically and culturally. It grew through very human ways and through one of the most powerfull civilizations on earth - ancient Rome!!

 

[jkiernan56]

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!

Shike - I look forward to hearing from you sometime. There are many things I don’t understand or even wonder if I should try to understand as Psalm 131 says:

"
My heart is not proud, O LORD,
my eyes are not haughty;
I do not concern myself with great matters
or things too wonderful for me.
But I have stilled and quieted my soul;
like a weaned child with its mother,
like a weaned child is my soul within me.

O Israel, put your hope in the LORD
both now and forevermore. "

Is it better to be simple minded and not try to think of things beyond me?

 

[grannymh]

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.

Hope you got yourself dug out of the snow.

Dear Pepcis,

I’m no longer cranky because you brightened my day even though I never made it out of the snow. You’ve added to my exploration of the logical process. Thanks.

Regarding my pet peeve #37- I make it a point to never point my finger at an individual. Thus, I used the words “to hear people”
I did not agree or disagree with any particular ideas.

Because of being cranky, I made it a point to address the tool of logic not any particular poster’s ideas or references. I thought about your above statement: “The process of logic requires a systematic format, but that is not typically followed in this forum.” In my humble opinion, there are some debaters on some threads who are not logical. Thus, I am glad you are also defending the process.

I am grateful for the challenging ideas on this thread. Thank you.

Blessings,
grannymh

.

 

[ethereality]

However, if you persist in the claim that this is analogous to the “rock too big” question, I can only invite you to grow with age, study, and the various applications of logic to life.

Interesting. By your own admission, you are incapable of distinguishing this “thought too new” argument from the “rock too big” argument – because it is the same argument.

 

[grannymh]

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 …

Dear jkiernan56,

Yes, it helps a lot even if it took more than one reading. I do have one question. What happens if the premise consists of two parts and only one part is true, while the other part is false?

I have an observation from this thread and another one.
There are different opinions of the meaning of free will in an all-powerful being. I always considered free will to be a human ability to make choices. Being free is a condition of being and is not the same as free will or doing whatever one wills to do. To do whatever one wills to do is really a human action but that does not imply that one can actually do what one wills because human actions are limited. I do see that human words can reflect God, but not all words.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[jkiernan56]

Dear jkiernan56,

Yes, it helps a lot even if it took more than one reading. I do have one question. What happens if the premise consists of two parts and only one part is true, while the other part is false?

I have an observation from this thread and another one.
There are different opinions of the meaning of free will in an all-powerful being. I always considered free will to be a human ability to make choices. Being free is a condition of being and is not the same as free will or doing whatever one wills to do. To do whatever one wills to do is really a human action but that does not imply that one can actually do what one wills because human actions are limited. I do see that human words can reflect God, but not all words.

Blessings,
grannymh

As I mentioned, I have not studied philosophy or logic. And so I am open to correction, when it is clear to me. This is what I currently understand about your question: “what happens when a premise consists of two parts and only one part is true?”

You’ll find the answer in something called BOOLEAN Logic. Here is the link to understand this better than I could ever explain:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_logic

The way I would try to answer your question is I would ask another question - “what is the relationship between question 1 and question 2 in the premise?” Is it an AND relationship? This relationship by definition means that both of them must be TRUE in order for the outcome to be TRUE.

Is it an OR relationship between the two questions?
By defnition, in an OR relationship only one of the questions must true in order for the outcome to be TRUE.

Here is an example of the AND relationship between two questions in a premise:

Lets say that by definition the following:
A = 1
B = 5

If A AND B then TRUE. If A really is 1 AND B really is 5 then the result is TRUE in the AND relationship.

Here is an example of the OR relationship between two questions in a premise.

Lets say that by definition the following:
A = 1
B = 5

If A OR B is TRUE then TRUE else FALSE.
If A really is 1 AND B is not 5 then the result is TRUE in the OR relationship. If A really is not equal to 1 and B really is not equal to 5, then in an OR relationship, the result is FALSE because it does not meet the criteria for one condition must be TRUE in this relationship.

Now to answer your question, the best way to answer is to say that first TERMS must be defined and the relationship between the 2 questions. Once this is established, now you have the key to the map to determine the correct outcome or direction.

I hope that helps. If you click on the link above, I’m sure it will explain it alot better than I have.

 

[jkiernan56]

Originally Posted by PEPCIS
Actually, I don’t consider Aquinas’ statement to be of much value, because he cannot answer questions.

My response to PEPCIS:

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 …

I want to clean up something that I did not intend to mean or imply. I do not put Aristotle on equal foot with the Gospels or the words and life of Christ. I do know that all truth comes from God. But the choice between Aristotle or Christ is very clear for me. I could choose Christ. It is the different between choosing the song or the artist. Christ is the artist who made Aristotle … and Socrates, and Plato. For me Christ is the most brilliant mind there ever was and ever will be. He is God incarnate with a human nature. It is in Christ and through Christ that we can see God. That is WHO I think and know Christ is.

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

As it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, **Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. **For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength." 1 Corinthians 1:18-25

 

[jkiernan56]

Dear jkiernan56,

Yes, it helps a lot even if it took more than one reading. I do have one question. What happens if the premise consists of two parts and only one part is true, while the other part is false?

I have an observation from this thread and another one.
There are different opinions of the meaning of free will in an all-powerful being. I always considered free will to be a human ability to make choices. Being free is a condition of being and is not the same as free will or doing whatever one wills to do. To do whatever one wills to do is really a human action but that does not imply that one can actually do what one wills because human actions are limited. I do see that human words can reflect God, but not all words.

Blessings,
grannymh

Granny, after I submit a post, I usually re-read it and continually revise it until it is more succinct and hopefully better expressed. You might want to look at the next posting of the explanation of Boolean logic for a better understanding. Blessings to you as well.

 

[jkiernan56]

Originally Posted by greylorn:

“However, if you persist in the claim that this is analogous to the “rock too big” question, I can only invite you to grow with age, study, and the various applications of logic to life.”

The response to Greylorn by ethereality:

“Interesting. By your own admission, you are incapable of distinguishing this “thought too new” argument from the “rock too big” argument – because it is the same argument.”

Ethereality - I am in totally agreement with you on that. It was very well said.

 

[PEPCIS]

No hard feelings … I’m just being a straight shooter …

Using crooked arrows, huh?

 

[PEPCIS]

I am grateful for the challenging ideas on this thread. Thank you.

Blessings,
grannymh

Blessings back to you.

 

[PEPCIS]

What happens if the premise consists of two parts and only one part is true, while the other part is false?

As a computer programmer/analyst (which is what I gather JK does for work), he should be able to tell you that a computer is just a “logic machine.” It is a machine which processes logic.

As I noted in an earlier posting, a statement of logic is not necessarily a truthful statement. That’s what the process of logic is supposed to discover. It is for that reason that computer techies know all to well the acronym G.I.G.O., which stands for “Garbage In, Garbage Out.”

That’s because the computer cannot distinguish between a truthful statement and a lie. It assumes that all statements are statements of truth. Even with a computer, humans must still examine the process of logic of computers.

We should also continue to check and examine the process of other humans. The Bible tells us to prove all things, because God does not like lies, and he doesn’t want His people to be found in error.

Being free is a condition of being and is not the same as free will or doing whatever one wills to do.

I would really appreciate it if you could explain this to me. I asked JK but he never followed through. What is the “condition of being”, and how is that different than “free will?”

To do whatever one wills to do is really a human action but that does not imply that one can actually do what one wills because human actions are limited. I do see that human words can reflect God, but not all words.

Well said.

 

[PEPCIS]

missing answers here

Wow. You chose to ridicule me for my opinion rather than answer the more important issues of my post?

 

[jkiernan56]

As a computer programmer/analyst (which is what I gather JK does for work), he should be able to tell you that a computer is just a “logic machine.” It is a machine which processes logic.

Absolutely FALSE. A computer is not a machine that processes logic. That is the tale of the dog wagging the dog. A computer is a machine that processes information. Logic involves reason. If a computer operates logically, it is because of the REASONING that has been built into the software (the set of instructions) given to it by human beings who designed the software. A computer will work only the way it is told to work. Logic comes into play by the instructions that have been programmed into the computer by reason. What I am trying to explain is that it is not a computer that is logical … that is the tail of the dog … what is logical is the set of rules that have been programmed into the computer by reason … BY HUMAN REASON to determine if something is TRUE or FALSE. The head of the dog is this built in set of rules that the computer follows … but a computer is nothing more than a machine that does what it has been told to do.

I would like to respond to the rest of your statements in at a later time. There is one comment in particular that someone made that I want to respond to in the next post.

 

[jkiernan56]

PEPCIS, I’m sorry if you felt like I insulted you. That was not my intention. I am a very straight shooter and sometimes I say things that are not meant to insult, but rather show you what is gold in my hand. Your statement about Aquinas “that he does not answer questions” showed your ignorance about Aquinas.

What I would really like to respond to is a statement that you said “Well said” in response to.

Here is the statement that you responded to:

**I do see that human words can reflect God, but not all words. **

Here is what is gold in my hands. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

For me there is ONE Word that does completely and utterly reflect God. It is Christ. He is considered by Christians to be “The Word made flesh”. Everything that God has spoken is contained and expressed in a PERSON - Christ. He is the Word of God now visible to us in this PERSON. Christ for me IS the ONE Word of God that does FULLY reflect God.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The outcome of a previous thread titled, “Can God Think?” resulted in the overwhelming conclusion (all respondents) that God does not spontaneously create information— i.e. God cannot think.

However, it is clear that human beings can have creative thoughts. Since we can do something which God cannot, God is not omnipotent.

##** Non sequitur.**

• It makes us different from God - but so is a zebra. Is a zebra God ?
• Our abilities may be signs of incompleteness, imperfection.
• **Numerical totting-up of abilities has nothing to do with how they are evaluated: a thousand bits & pieces are more numerous than an entire car, but which are you going to drive: car as unified machine, or car as heap of bits & pieces ? **
• **God cannot run from a lion - zebras can; is a zebra better than God ? And so one could go on, until God, far from being all-excellent in every perfection, would seem a very poor & impotent trifle of a god. **
  **God cannot be compared with creatures - to do so makes no sense, for there is no possible comparison. The objection implies that God is only a bigger & better version of earthly things, “Our Borg that art in Heaven”, or something like it. God need do none of these things - creatiutes can do them, for they are various, & hint thereby at the varied Wisdom by which each of them was made - He does these things in that way, in the lives & beings of His creatures, & not in His own Nature; for it cannot be expressed by anything that He has made. He far exceeds any creations, however great. **

By creative, I mean creative in the context of one’s own mind. It does not matter that Newton and Leibnitz both invented the mathematical system known as “calculus” at pretty much the same time, for neither know of the other’s work. It was a creative work for each.

Nor does it matter for the sake of this argument that God knows calculus, so long as He did not reveal it in the Bible, which would have allowed Newton and Leibnitz to crib it therefrom. The point of the argument is simply that human minds can have what passes in them for creative thought. God cannot, because He knows everything.

Knows all things, yes - but in what manner ? ​

This means that we can do something which God cannot. Therefore if God cannot generate a new idea, He is not omnipotent.

What are your thoughts about this?

 

[greylorn]

Interesting. By your own admission, you are incapable of distinguishing this “thought too new” argument from the “rock too big” argument – because it is the same argument.

I don’t know where I admitted the incapability you referenced, and if I actually did, I apologize.

Yours is actually an interesting question, so let’s engage it.

The rock argument addresses omnipotence (infinite capability and power), and is inherently self contradictory. I once posed it in 4th grade to the priest assigned to teach theology weekly to ignorant children, and nearly got kicked out of school for my efforts. As an adult, and after about 30 math credits, I realized that it implicitly addresses a more complex issue: the mathematics of infinity.

In the context of this forum, I must limit comments to those which might make sense to conscientious readers, yourself included. Perhaps the best way I can put it is that infinity-math addresses abstractions which cannot be realized. The bottom line of infinity-math is that when the solution to an equation (e.g. x divided by 0) is infinite, we know that the event described is not a real event. Applying infinity-math to God implies that He is an abstract and non-existent entity.

I do not like that idea. I believe in a created universe. But in the course of seeking an explanation for its existence, I find that the omnipotent God theory and the Big Bang theory are essentially equivalent, and equally incorrect. That is because both theories postulate inexplicable events (singularities) at the beginning.

I personally do not believe that the creator of the universe is infinite in any respect because I choose to believe in a God who actually exists. Participants in this thread will universally disagree, so, tonight, I will initiate a new thread entitled… well, just check it out.

You may be correct that my “thought vs. omniscience” argument is another form of the big rock conundrum. I’d not intended it so. I see it as a legitimate question which gets us to a honest exploration of the nature of the Creator. Remember that the God concept embraced by Christians and Muslims today was invented by intelligent men who thought that the earth was the center of the universe.

Intelligent men sometimes get things wrong.

Perhaps you’ve noticed that the Church’s teachings are not accepted by educated scientists, except for maybe 2-3% One reason for this is, I believe, that the Church has defined an impossible Creator. It has an omnipotent, omniscient God, an unlimited entity worshipped by members who actually believe that they can know something about such an entity using brains limited to a brief period of activity.

I am simply inviting the occasional open mind who might check out this site to consider the possibility that the good old boys who invented the God-concept might just have gotten it wrong.

And remember, I’m not an atheist. Think on this a few days before reacting, please.

 

[greylorn]

##** Non sequitur.**

• It makes us different from God - but so is a zebra. Is a zebra God ?
• Our abilities may be signs of incompleteness, imperfection.
• **Numerical totting-up of abilities has nothing to do with how they are evaluated: a thousand bits & pieces are more numerous than an entire car, but which are you going to drive: car as unified machine, or car as heap of bits & pieces ? **
• **God cannot run from a lion - zebras can; is a zebra better than God ? And so one could go on, until God, far from being all-excellent in every perfection, would seem a very poor & impotent trifle of a god. **
  **God cannot be compared with creatures - to do so makes no sense, for there is no possible comparison. The objection implies that God is only a bigger & better version of earthly things, “Our Borg that art in Heaven”, or something like it. God need do none of these things - creatiutes can do them, for they are various, & hint thereby at the varied Wisdom by which each of them was made - He does these things in that way, in the lives & beings of His creatures, & not in His own Nature; for it cannot be expressed by anything that He has made. He far exceeds any creations, however great. **

Knows all things, yes - but in what manner ? ​

Gottle of…
Have you swapped G’s with b’s tonight? That was a lot of pointless shouting.

 

[greylorn]

Wow. You chose to ridicule me for my opinion rather than answer the more important issues of my post?

And exactly what were the important issues in your post?

 

[jkiernan56]

I don’t know where I admitted the incapability you referenced, and if I actually did, I apologize.

Yours is actually an interesting question, so let’s engage it.

The rock argument addresses omnipotence (infinite capability and power), and is inherently self contradictory. I once posed it in 4th grade to the priest assigned to teach theology weekly to ignorant children, and nearly got kicked out of school for my efforts. As an adult, and after about 30 math credits, I realized that it implicitly addresses a more complex issue: the mathematics of infinity.

In the context of this forum, I must limit comments to those which might make sense to conscientious readers, yourself included. Perhaps the best way I can put it is that infinity-math addresses abstractions which cannot be realized. The bottom line of infinity-math is that when the solution to an equation (e.g. x divided by 0) is infinite, we know that the event described is not a real event. Applying infinity-math to God implies that He is an abstract and non-existent entity.

I do not like that idea. I believe in a created universe. But in the course of seeking an explanation for its existence, I find that the omnipotent God theory and the Big Bang theory are essentially equivalent, and equally incorrect. That is because both theories postulate inexplicable events (singularities) at the beginning.

I personally do not believe that the creator of the universe is infinite in any respect because I choose to believe in a God who actually exists. Participants in this thread will universally disagree, so, tonight, I will initiate a new thread entitled… well, just check it out.

You may be correct that my “thought vs. omniscience” argument is another form of the big rock conundrum. I’d not intended it so. I see it as a legitimate question which gets us to a honest exploration of the nature of the Creator. Remember that the God concept embraced by Christians and Muslims today was invented by intelligent men who thought that the earth was the center of the universe.

Intelligent men sometimes get things wrong.

Perhaps you’ve noticed that the Church’s teachings are not accepted by educated scientists, except for maybe 2-3% One reason for this is, I believe, that the Church has defined an impossible Creator. It has an omnipotent, omniscient God, an unlimited entity worshipped by members who actually believe that they can know something about such an entity using brains limited to a brief period of activity.

I am simply inviting the occasional open mind who might check out this site to consider the possibility that the good old boys who invented the God-concept might just have gotten it wrong.

And remember, I’m not an atheist. Think on this a few days before reacting, please.

Greylorn, thank you for being so candid with us. I would like to take some time and think about the things you said and then respond. By the way, when I read your comments the thought came to mind and a chuckle … that what a rebel you are … but in a good way …