The Omnipotency Contradiction

[greylorn]

Thank you for those kind words.

You said:

You said “BECOME” perfect. Yes, that is true for you and me. We are not yet perfect. But Christ says to us “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” If you read Catholic theology, you will find that orthodox teaching on this subject will tell you that God is not becoming perfect. God already is perfect. There is not becoming for God. That is not me telling you that. That is what I have learned is orthodox Catholic theology.

First, I do agree that God is absolute perfection. The problem I have with saying that He is only absolute perfection and not also becoming perfect, is that “absolute perfection” requires a kind of static way of being. And in Judaism we have a history of relationhip with a God that requires certain things from us. Whether it is sacrifice, prayer, good deeds, etc. We also have a belief that God goes into exile with the Jewish people.

I think when we discuss God being a verb, we are implying that Hashem is doing something, That it is a God of action. Absolute perfection does not do anything. It already is.

This is what I mean when I say I believe God is both Absolute Perfection and Becoming Perfect. To put it in a christian life, How could Jesus, if he wa absolute perfection, suffer?

I would never say anything to purposely detract or belittle this type of experience. I only say that such an experience does not preclude a belief that God may also need something, such as people loving each other. Jews have a teaching that one a person dies, it detracts from God and when a person does something to bring life into the world (birth, saving, healing), God i increased.
At the same time we know that God needs nothing. Paradox.

I don’t view paradox as a negative thing when it comes to theology but rather a necessary part of it.

The occurrence of a legitimate logical paradox is an indication that at least one of the concepts involved in the paradox is incorrect, or that the logic relating multiple concepts is faulty.

 

[greylorn]

Challenge to Posters and Readers Including Greylorn

There has been a lot of thought put into this thread.

Would you care to summarize…

Your thoughts? Your reactions? What you found interesting?

What your discovered? What you consider is the gist of the thread?

What are the real gems of insight?

Blessings,
grannymh
:snowing:

Excellent suggestion, Granny. Yes, there’s been a lot of thought from some, and lots of opinions from others. I’ve encountered some good minds and many good people. I experienced some attitude realignments as well— thanks to Jean Anthony, our fair-minded, kind, and objective referee.

I am disappointed, because I’d hoped for more diversity of opinion. But I learned what there is to learn, which is that the belief in an omnipotent creator is an immovable, implacable dogma which overwhelms reason.

This surprises me, for when I first recognized the omnipotency contradiction I immediately realized that it held the key to reconciling science and religion. The immutable dogma of omnipotency means that Catholic, Christian, and derivative religious beliefs cannot ever be reconciled with hard science. This saddens me.

I will pursue the subject from another perspective, hoping to understand why a belief about an arbitrary property of God which seems contrary to common sense, is fundamentally indefinable and unworkable, and logically unnecessary to belief in God, remains so important to believers.

Thank you to all of you who have conscientiously participated.

Perhaps we should perform the last rites for this thread,. I cannot imagine a better way to do this than for its contributors to answer Granny’s thoughtful call to summary. Her own answer to her own question, whatever that might be, deserves to be the final post.

 

[Valke2]

The occurrence of a legitimate logical paradox is an indication that at least one of the concepts involved in the paradox is incorrect, or that the logic relating multiple concepts is faulty.

You can’t discuss the Endlessness without paradox. I never said or expected anyone to prove God through logic.

 

[Shike]

Amazing retreat!!! God forgave my sins in the sacrament of confession; I want to tell the world! (and at the same time I don’t, ya know? I need courage!)

But here’s my response to your questions. I hope you get to read them.

…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?

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?

I at first thought that might be a valuable distinction but now I am forced to declare that they in fact mean the same for my purposes. Now I don’t understand everything fully but… All real things exist in God actually, in the way that an effect exists perfecly in a cause. So in reference to your question it would seem that the universe is actually and perfectly present in God in the way that an effect exists perfectly in a cause. Whether the universe was to be made or not, to be let loose so to speak from the cause, is up to God’s will (I wonder if this could have anything to do with Aristotle’s 1st and 2nd actuallity?).
Now with regards to my original post, I took the example of the possibility of God choosing evil. Let’s compare that with your example of the possibility of God creating the universe (I think both could be restated using the word potentiallity instead of possibility). You are right that the same reasoning from my original post applies… but let’s look at it. If we look at the aspect of being before the content of the claim, we get the same result, ie. that the claim can’t be a potentiallity in God (that would seem to be an imperfection). So it must be an actuallity in God, that is, in the way an effect is really and pefectly within a cause. In my original post we would now be at the point where God choosing evil is an actuality… but that is absurd (contradictory). But with regards to your example of the universe, it is not absurd at all.

Now the only concern I have is what if we looked at the statement the potentiallity of the possibility of God choosing evil and tried to make some kind of distinction between the two? It would seem that the possibility of God choosing evil is an actuallity in God. But I think this just begs the question a step further as it seems that possibility and potentiallity are the same in meaning in this case of God’s being. Being is the key here, there seems to be two levels going on that our language doesn’t always distinguish between, hence my wondering if Aristotle’s 1st and 2nd acuallity works here.

So it seems some things are absurd and cannot be apart of God’s being/reality itself (possible for God to choose evil), and some things are not absurd (possible for God to create the universe).

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?

In the way we commonly use words yes, it is God’s potentiallity; He could have done otherwise. We are having a disagreement right here of words. I agree with what you are saying though, but my original post never dealt with the potentiallity(exercise) of God’s will, instead it was the potentiallity of God’s being. The argument never got to the point where God choosing evil became an actuallity and therefore subject to His will.

What do we call it for what God CAN do but has not yet done? Is that a contradiction in terms?

I think we should keep our everyday language of possibility.

Your questions were greatly appreciated; I understand a little bit more now (I’m a beginner reading the basics of the Summa).

ciao!
Michael

 

[Shike]

Thanks for adding your view to the discussion. I think you brought up some interesting points.

… First, I do agree that God is absolute perfection. The problem I have with saying that He is only absolute perfection and not also becoming perfect, is that “absolute perfection” requires a kind of static way of being.

Absolute perfection is only static if you think infinite love is static.

And in Judaism we have a history of relationhip with a God that requires certain things from us. Whether it is sacrifice, prayer, good deeds, etc. We also have a belief that God goes into exile with the Jewish people.

I think when we discuss God being a verb, we are implying that Hashem is doing something, That it is a God of action. Absolute perfection does not do anything. It already is.

You’re right, Jews (usually) don’t believe in the revelation of the Trinity. So therefore God needs our love because God is not love in this scenario. So either God’s imperfection would need to be admitted or an appeal that we do not understand correctly.

This is what I mean when I say I believe God is both Absolute Perfection and Becoming Perfect. To put it in a christian life, How could Jesus, if he wa absolute perfection, suffer?

I don’t think you can pull the paradox card in this case. Can God be both perfect and imperfect (no because God is unchanging and to be both perfect and imperfect is a contradiction). If you mean it in the sense that Jesus (fully God and fully man) is imperfect, you must qualify it by saying that you mean His humanity is limited (as opposed to His divine nature)… but Jesus is still perfect man; he is perfect as a limited individual in His humanity). Unless you deny Jesus is God…

I would never say anything to purposely detract or belittle this type of experience. I only say that such an experience does not preclude a belief that God may also need something, such as people loving each other. Jews have a teaching that one a person dies, it detracts from God and when a person does something to bring life into the world (birth, saving, healing), God i increased.
At the same time we know that God needs nothing. Paradox.

I don’t view paradox as a negative thing when it comes to theology but rather a necessary part of it.

See my above point on the Trinity. But remember, paradox’s aren’t illogical, they’re alogical in the fact that they transcend full human understanding. We can understand the basics without contradictions.

Thanks for posting.

peace,
Michael

 

[Shike]

Doh, this should have been connected to the last post but oh well.

The occurrence of a legitimate logical paradox is an indication that at least one of the concepts involved in the paradox is incorrect, or that the logic relating multiple concepts is faulty.

I would say that in the paradox’s in the Christian tradition are those where at least one of the concepts involved in the paradox is incomplete not incorrect. See above paragraph.

A common tendency is to try to reduce God to a simple concept and put Him in a little box that we can fully understand… limiting God in the process. Trying to fit God entirely into the scientific method is a mistake!!! And here’s why…
Is the only truth that can be known that which is found through the scientific method? The scientific method can’t prove this claim. And common experience would deny it. The Catholic Church is not against science, only scientism, and neither am I. Science can be wonderful but it doesn’t encompass everything. For instance, science can teach us how to make a nuclear bomb, but it can’t tell us if we should use it or not.

I think Aristotle’s 1st and 2nd actuality could clear up a lot. There’s two senses of knowing, knowing something and thinking that eventually leads to knowing something. The goal is to know!!! Thinking is a means!!! I agree with those who define thinking in such a way that it only applies to us. The main weakness seems to lie in the part where you claim not thinking an imperfection.

Thank you both for posting.

peace,
Michael

 

[greylorn]

You can’t discuss the Endlessness without paradox. I never said or expected anyone to prove God through logic.

Thank you.

I understand your acceptance of paradox, and your lack of expectations about the provability of the existence of God. But I have expectations. While I’m not interested in rearranging your expectations, I cannot resist asking if you would be terribly upset if someone succeeded in proving the existence of God beyond any shadow of doubt, thereby releasing you from faith?

I do not accept paradoxes. God’s existence and nature will, I believe, be proven in exactly the same way that we have proven non-intuitive elements of physical reality, such as the fact that heavy objects fall at the same speed as light ones; also, the discontinuity of change (quantum mechanics) and the equivalence of matter and energy (special relativity).

Given workable hypotheses and logic as a basis for the evaluation of any discussion, I can discuss any subject without paradox and prove the existence of the Creator, not simply from logic alone, but in the manner of Galileo’s observations and the theories of Copernicus and Kepler. These men studied the only Bible certain to have been written by God, the physical universe, and made some conclusions about what God did not do.

These were simple conclusions: God did not put man on a planet about which the entire universe revolved.

Darwin made other observations, which, with respect to religion, produced the conclusion that God did not make all the critters on planet earth in a few days.

Science is gradually chipping away at mistaken ideas about the actions of God. This is interpreted by many as the attempt to eradicate the God-concept entirely, and that is often the agenda.

But, once people get accustomed to appreciating what God is not, they might be able to accept what He is. We’re not ready for that yet.

I believe absolutely that if there is a Creator, He will be known through his works, not according to what a bunch of long-dead old men who knew as much physics as your cat made up about Him.

 

[greylorn]

Doh, this should have been connected to the last post but oh well.

I would say that in the paradox’s in the Christian tradition are those where at least one of the concepts involved in the paradox is incomplete not incorrect. See above paragraph.

A common tendency is to try to reduce God to a simple concept and put Him in a little box that we can fully understand… limiting God in the process. Trying to fit God entirely into the scientific method is a mistake!!! And here’s why…
Is the only truth that can be known that which is found through the scientific method? The scientific method can’t prove this claim. And common experience would deny it. The Catholic Church is not against science, only scientism, and neither am I. Science can be wonderful but it doesn’t encompass everything. For instance, science can teach us how to make a nuclear bomb, but it can’t tell us if we should use it or not.

I think Aristotle’s 1st and 2nd actuality could clear up a lot. There’s two senses of knowing, knowing something and thinking that eventually leads to knowing something. The goal is to know!!! Thinking is a means!!! I agree with those who define thinking in such a way that it only applies to us. The main weakness seems to lie in the part where you claim not thinking an imperfection.

Thank you both for posting.

peace,
Michael

I was unable to derive the sense of your post from its wording. If you’d take the time necessary to make it coherent, I’ll do my best to reply. “Aristotle’s 1st…” Did he write a concerto?

The only thing I can deduce from this blather is that you’ve either not read any of the content on this thread, and certainly none of mine, or are incapable of understanding it. The stuff you’ve made up here is out of your own head, not part of this thread.

 

[williamric]

I was unable to derive the sense of your post from its wording. If you’d take the time necessary to make it coherent, I’ll do my best to reply. “Aristotle’s 1st…” Did he write a concerto?

The only thing I can deduce from **this blather **is that you’ve either not read any of the content on this thread, and certainly none of mine, or are incapable of understanding it. The stuff you’ve made up here is out of your own head, not part of this thread.

There is no need to be high and mighty when someone replies to you sincerely…

Either ignore the post, or give him the time (and respect) he gave you…Either way, now would be a good time to remove your head from you know where

 

[greylorn]

I was unable to derive the sense of your post from its wording. If you’d take the time necessary to make it coherent, I’ll do my best to reply. “Aristotle’s 1st…” Did he write a concerto?

The only thing I can deduce from this blather is that you’ve either not read any of the content on this thread, and certainly none of mine, or are incapable of understanding it. The stuff you’ve made up here is out of your own head, not part of this thread.

Greylorn,

You are getting cranky. Did you lose a bet on a football game, or just not have a good time dancing last Friday? Or did another day pass in which no one whomever agreed with you? Get used to it, you ornery old fort! Leave these folks be. Have another cup of coffee and get some sleep.

 

[williamric]

Greylorn,

You are getting cranky. Did you lose a bet on a football game, or just not have a good time dancing last Friday? Or did another day pass in which no one whomever agreed with you? Get used to it, you ornery old fort! Leave these folks be. Have another cup of coffee and get some sleep.

lol…

 

[jkiernan56]

Valke2:

This is what I mean when I say I believe God is both Absolute Perfection and Becoming Perfect. To put it in a christian life, How could Jesus, if he wa absolute perfection, suffer?

Greylorn, I will keep my comments on other ideas here in this thread rather than take the train off the track in your other thread (if you don’t mind).

Valke2, even if you don’t agree with me, I just wanted you to know if you had to write a book report on what does orthodox Catholic theology teach about the perfection of God - it is simply that God is absolute perfection already possessed in BEING. There is no becoming for God. I can understand why you think there is a paradox with the ideas that you hold.

As far as God being in a “static” state because of possessing absolute perfection already - that is how some might view it, but that is not how I view it. Again I am not asking you to believe this, but here is my logic:

God is infinite

Man is finite

A finite being cannot comprehend an infinite being

Conclusion - my interpretation and understanding of a being that is infinite is NOT in a static state.

Where I see paradox, is that some other great (in my book) Christian theologians have described God’s Life as infinite activity without change. Activity without change is a paradox to me. I accept it though I cannot understand it or prove it.

I don’t know what it is, but it doesn’t seem logical to me to make an absolute statement of fact and then in the same sentence say that something else is true at the same time that differs with the first part of the premise. How can anything be absolute in one thing, and then in another in a state of becoming? Maybe not for you, but for me there is a contradiction in terms … saying somethng IS absolute perfection and in the same sentence say something IS NOT absolute perfection in substance at the same existence. A woman cannot be half-pregnant. Either she is or she isn’t. But she can’t be both at the same time in my understanding.

 

[Valke2]

Thank you.

I understand your acceptance of paradox, and your lack of expectations about the provability of the existence of God. But I have expectations. While I’m not interested in rearranging your expectations, I cannot resist asking if you would be terribly upset if someone succeeded in proving the existence of God beyond any shadow of doubt, thereby releasing you from faith?

Any God that can be proven by logic or science is not a God I would like to worship. Science is in the business of measuring things and my God can not be measured.

I do not accept paradoxes. God’s existence and nature will, I believe, be proven in exactly the same way that we have proven non-intuitive elements of physical reality, such as the fact that heavy objects fall at the same speed as light ones; also, the discontinuity of change (quantum mechanics) and the equivalence of matter and energy (special relativity).

I disagree and I see a lot of headaches in your future if this is your goal.

Given workable hypotheses and logic as a basis for the evaluation of any discussion, I can discuss any subject without paradox and prove the existence of the Creator, not simply from logic alone, but in the manner of Galileo’s observations and the theories of Copernicus and Kepler.

I’ve yet to seen God proven by logic.

Science is gradually chipping away at mistaken ideas about the actions of God. This is interpreted by many as the attempt to eradicate the God-concept entirely, and that is often the agenda.

I don’t see this happening. Whether you find God in the Bible or your back yard, you won’t be able to prove Him by logic.

 

[Agripa]

Any God that can be proven by logic or science is not a God I would like to worship. Science is in the business of measuring things and my God can not be measured.

I disagree and I see a lot of headaches in your future if this is your goal.

I’ve yet to seen God proven by logic.

I don’t see this happening. Whether you find God in the Bible or your back yard, you won’t be able to prove Him by logic.

Well to a point that is a true statement - but may it not also be said God is not disproven by logic? (lots of negatives in that one, I admit!!)

For some, God is accepted quite rationally - the whole Prime Mover concept - I for one cannot accept mere chance created reality, life, time, space etc. Nor can I accept that mechanized things (organic or inorganic) have no creator. Its at this point we agnostics leave it - anything else is strictly human assumptions and presumptions.

 

[jkiernan56]

Greylorn, you have asked a question that I can’t answer. You asked “I cannot resist asking if you would be terribly upset if someone succeeded in proving the existence of God beyond any shadow of doubt, thereby releasing you from faith?”

Correct me if my understanding is not the same as what you mean in the context of your statement. Is it your understanding that faith is NOT having absolute proof? And once we have absolute proof, there is no more need for faith?

If I am correct in my understanding of your position, it raises a very perplexing question for me. In scripture, St. Paul says that in the end only three things will remain: Faith, Hope, and Love.

If it is true that people in heaven have an absolute truth of the reality of God, how is it that St. Paul says that Faith will remain? Could he possibly be thinking in a different way … such as Faith in the context of Trust? I don’t know.

 

[Valke2]

Valke2, even if you don’t agree with me, I just wanted you to know if you had to write a book report on what does orthodox Catholic theology teach about the perfection of God - it is simply that God is absolute perfection already possessed in BEING. There is no becoming for God. I can understand why you think there is a paradox with the ideas that you hold.

As far as God being in a “static” state because of possessing absolute perfection already - that is how some might view it, but that is not how I view it. Again I am not asking you to believe this, but here is my logic:

God is infinite

Man is finite

A finite being cannot comprehend an infinite being

Conclusion - my interpretation and understanding of a being that is infinite is NOT in a static state.

I didn’t say our understanding of God was static. I said absolute perfection by its very definition must be static. If you are infinite, where is there to go? Where can you move to? What can you do?

Now, since both Jews and Christians believe that GOd loves them and takes an interest in their actions, we need to figure out how this can be. One way to view this is that God purposely withdraws Himself, makes HImself less than absolute perfection. He limits Himself to make room for us.

Where I see paradox, is that some other great (in my book) Christian theologians have described God’s Life as infinite activity without change. Activity without change is a paradox to me. I accept it though I cannot understand it or prove it.

I’m not sure but I believe this is another way of saying what I am trying to say.

Replying to your last paragraph, I think that paradox is going to be there whenever we contemplate God. How can, for example, there be infinite justice and infinite mercy?

 

[PEPCIS]

God does not choose to be perfect. GOD IS PERFECT. God is ABSOLUTE perfection in BEING, There is nothing more for God to be gained or that God is lacking.

Perfect Holiness? Check.
Perfect Righteousness? Check.
Perfect Knowledge? Check.
Perfect Justice? Check.

Very much different than Mary Poppins - Practically Perfect in every way.

 

[jkiernan56]

Well to a point that is a true statement - but may it not also be said God is not disproven by logic? (lots of negatives in that one, I admit!!)

For some, God is accepted quite rationally - the whole Prime Mover concept - I for one cannot accept mere chance created reality, life, time, space etc. Nor can I accept that mechanized things (organic or inorganic) have no creator. Its at this point we agnostics leave it - anything else is strictly human assumptions and presumptions.

Is it your position Agripa that you do believe in cause/effect and that things (organic/inorganic) have a genesis or origin? I am not asking this to contend, just trying to understand your position. I find it enjoyable to at least try to understand what and why people think what they think even though I may not agree. Thanks

 

[Valke2]

Well to a point that is a true statement - but may it not also be said God is not disproven by logic? (lots of negatives in that one, I admit!!)

I agree that you cannot disprove God with logic.

For some, God is accepted quite rationally - the whole Prime Mover concept - I for one cannot accept mere chance created reality, life, time, space etc. Nor can I accept that mechanized things (organic or inorganic) have no creator. Its at this point we agnostics leave it - anything else is strictly human assumptions and presumptions.

I’m a person of faith and I was not intending to frame my posts as an apologetic for belief in God. I’m arguments start off with the premises that God exists.

 

[davidv]

I didn’t say our understanding of God was static. I said absolute perfection by its very definition must be static.

{snip}

This may be your definition of absolute perfection, but it is not the Church’s. The Church teachs that God is pure act. That is, having no potential.

Having no potential does not equal static in the sense I believe you are using the word.

If on the other hand, by static you mean unchanging, then I would agree. However, unchanging does not mean inactive.