The Omnipotency Contradiction

  • Thread starter Thread starter greylorn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
my misunderstanding, you said that absolute perfection by definition must be static. I am not able yet to accept that as true. A being that is infinite and absolute perfection is by definition not something we can comprehend and thus make a conclusion. At the moment I lean towards accepting that God’s infinite and absolute perfection is NOT static. If and when I am able to say more about that, I will get back to you. Again I am not saying you are wrong and I am right. Just what I my current position is.
 
But how can an infininte being of absolute perfection be in action? If it is absolute perfection already, what is the purpose of its action?
 
But how can an infininte being of absolute perfection be in action? If it is absolute perfection already, what is the purpose of its action?
It is absolute BEING. I don’t view God as static, but rather in action. If God were a ROCK, then I could accept your premise. But God is in my belief a “Living God” … a Personable God … and for me life implies activity.
 
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.
Thank you David. I wish I had the gift of being succinct like you. I prefer fewer words that say more than more words that say less. You were able to do the former and me the latter.
 
my misunderstanding, you said that absolute perfection by definition must be static. I am not able yet to accept that as true. A being that is infinite and absolute perfection is by definition not something we can comprehend and thus make a conclusion. At the moment I lean towards accepting that God’s infinite and absolute perfection is NOT static. If and when I am able to say more about that, I will get back to you. Again I am not saying you are wrong and I am right. Just what I my current position is.
I think you meant something that we can’t comprehend. I guess my question is, what kind of action is there for an infinite, divine being of absolut perfect, to do? If a diety is infinite and absolute perfection, there really can be no opportunities for action. Unless that being purposely limits itself.

This is the paradox that I believe happens/happened/happening with God. God limites itself so taht it can be in action and thus GOd is both perfect and becoming perfect at the same time.
 
It is absolute BEING. I don’t view God as static, but rather in action. If God were a ROCK, then I could accept your premise. But God is in my belief a “Living God” … a Personable God … and for me life implies activity.
First, I agree with you 100% that God is in action in our lives Or as so many like to say, that God is a verb. This is why I think there must be a paradox here. Because if God was only absolute perfection without also becoming perfect, there would be no action.
 
I think you meant something that we can’t comprehend. I guess my question is, what kind of action is there for an infinite, divine being of absolut perfect, to do? If a diety is infinite and absolute perfection, there really can be no opportunities for action. Unless that being purposely limits itself.

This is the paradox that I believe happens/happened/happening with God. God limites itself so taht it can be in action and thus GOd is both perfect and becoming perfect at the same time.
Is God Love?

Is Love static?

I believe the answers are Yes and No respectively. Therefore God cannot be static.
 
First, I agree with you 100% that God is in action in our lives Or as so many like to say, that God is a verb. This is why I think there must be a paradox here. Because if God was only absolute perfection without also becoming perfect, there would be no action.
I think David said it best earlier -

Originally Posted by davidv

"This may be your definition of absolute perfection, but it is not the Church’s. The Church teaches 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. "
 
Is God Love?

Is Love static?

I believe the answers are Yes and No respectively. Therefore God cannot be static.
Ok. but then God is acting from a place ofther than infinite absolute perfection. Or, He is paradoxically acting from a position of perfection and becoming perfect. (the term “absolute perfection” is redundant and I won’t be using it in the future.)
 
Ok. but then God is acting from a place ofther than infinite absolute perfection. Or, He is paradoxically acting from a position of perfection and becoming perfect. (the term “absolute perfection” is redundant and I won’t be using it in the future.)
If God is an object, then your position might make sense to me. But if God is a living BEING who is not becoming (as in your defintion), that is where your position doesn’t make sense to me. I do not believe a BEING is static.
 
If God is an object, then your position might make sense to me. But if God is a living BEING who is not becoming (as in your defintion), that is where your position doesn’t make sense to me. I do not believe a BEING is static.
The Jesuits - who first introduced me to critical thought - used to hold big theological seminars at St. Louis University. One Jesuite invited me to attend the lecture of Alfred Whitehead. This guy was a very old philosoher - no doubt dead now, but he was dedicated to the proposition that God was also in the process of becoming - I think it was all related to process theology. Anyway, some of Whitehead’s writings may be relevant to this discussion!
 
"jkiernan56:
A computer is not a machine that processes logic. That is the tale of the dog wagging the dog.
40.png
PEPCIS:
Oh, so logic processes the machine, huh? Does that really make any sense?
As far as computers go -
The machine only does what it is instructed to do by the rules of logic that are built into the machine.
I’ll interrupt you here to make a statement. It takes a mind of logic to understand logic. The mind requires an understanding of the rules of logic, and how to discern true statements from false statements with the use of those logic rules.

A computer is similarly constructed. It requires an understanding of the rules of logic in order to process logical statements. Without the framework of the software to do this, the computer would be just a pile of metal and circuit boards.

I said all that to say that: the human mind only does what it was instructed to do by the rules of logic that are built into it - whether those rules were placed there by God, or through the accumulative learning process.
A computer has two main divisions - hardware and software.
The human mind is similar. It has the hardware (the gray matter) and the software (the rules of accumulated logic).
The rules of Boolean logic are built into a computer … .and the software is translated into 1’s and 0’s … electrical current in an ON or OFF state.
I can imagine that human software may work similarly.

Summation: So far, I have made the assertion that computers are logic machines. You have denied this, yet all of your answers support my contention that computers are logic machines. Just as human brains work as logic machines, so too do computers.
I can understand what you are trying to say … and I really don’t mean to give you a hard time … but a computer does not “process logic” … the rules of logic are already BUILT into a computer …
That’s right. THE RULES OF LOGIC are built into the computer. It takes those RULES OF LOGIC to process logic. If you didn’t build the logic into the machine before you tried to process the logic, you would never get anything.
Even if you don’t agree, can you at least see what I am also trying to say?
Well, sure. But it doesn’t change the fact that you’re wrong.
By the way, thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut into this thread … I am really sorry about the mental patient comment … I just feel very strongly about St. Thomas Aquinas … and what you said upset me … it didn’t give me the right to belittle you … and just so you know, I think I am even more passionate about St. Augustine, so please be sensitive to your comments about him. I want to keep my bullheadedness in the stall. Peace
I appreciate your retraction, and if I’ve said anything in a belittling manner, I apologize as well. I may be passionate, but I certainly don’t dislike anyone here! 😃
 
Ciao folks!

Maybe my posts got overlooked… so:

#242 – This was primarily to jkiernan56, I’m interested in any feedback
#243 – This was primarily to Valke2
#244 – This was primarily to greylorn, but he blew it off as unintelligible. Do others understand what I am saying?

to** Valke2 **and others in the recent discussion about God and acts and potential and stuff. The problem looks like it’s one of definitions… God as pure act is of the meaning of actuality, in that all effects are perfectly present in the way that an effect is in a cause, not in the sense of motion.

And my post #243 would seem to address somewhat the issue of love and God. Valke2, I don’t know if you caught this or not, but the Christian revelation is God is love which is different from God loves (which is also revelation but should be understood in the context of the former). This is where the Jewish and Christian conceptions conflict, and what gives rise to the need to postulate a “perfect and becoming” God.

peace,
Michael
 
I’ll interrupt you here to make a statement. It takes a mind of logic to understand logic. The mind requires an understanding of the rules of logic, and how to discern true statements from false statements with the use of those logic rules.

A computer is similarly constructed. It requires an understanding of the rules of logic in order to process logical statements. Without the framework of the software to do this, the computer would be just a pile of metal and circuit boards.

I said all that to say that: the human mind only does what it was instructed to do by the rules of logic that are built into it - whether those rules were placed there by God, or through the accumulative learning process.

The human mind is similar. It has the hardware (the gray matter) and the software (the rules of accumulated logic).

I can imagine that human software may work similarly.

Summation: So far, I have made the assertion that computers are logic machines. You have denied this, yet all of your answers support my contention that computers are logic machines. Just as human brains work as logic machines, so too do computers.

That’s right. THE RULES OF LOGIC are built into the computer. It takes those RULES OF LOGIC to process logic. If you didn’t build the logic into the machine before you tried to process the logic, you would never get anything.

Well, sure. But it doesn’t change the fact that you’re wrong.

I appreciate your retraction, and if I’ve said anything in a belittling manner, I apologize as well. I may be passionate, but I certainly don’t dislike anyone here! 😃
I like you as well. Again I have to respectfully disagree. A computer in my opinion does not process logic. The rules of logic that are built into a computer are like a translater at the United Nations. Someone speaks in their own language on the floor and then a translater “translates” that into the language that is required for someone else to comprehend what is being said.
Logic is the traffic cop or “translater” for a computer. The computer uses logic to process information but does not process logic itself.

When software is being executed on a computer, the built in logic is used to direct traffic and is used to translate the software into machine language (1’s and 0’) true or false conditions that tell the computer what to do. If you did not have the rules of logic already built into the computer, the computer would not be able to understand the software program or determine what is true or not true for the computer to then perform its duties.

So when you say that a computer processes logic, it is a false statement in my mind. Logic is what processes the software and information, rather than the hardware/software or information that is processing logic.

A computer processes “according to logic” but logic is not what is being processed.

It is the a backboard in basketball. The basketball bounces off the backboard and then goes in a certain direction. If we did not have the rules of logic, the basketball could not go off the backboard.

I hope this helps.
 
If God is an object, then your position might make sense to me. But if God is a living BEING who is not becoming (as in your defintion), that is where your position doesn’t make sense to me. I do not believe a BEING is static.
I would tend to agree. But a being that is infinite, that is endlessness, and is perfect, leaves no room for action. But since we believe God is not static, there is an inherent paradox.
 
Ok. but then God is acting from a place ofther than infinite absolute perfection.
Why?

God has only one place, the eternal now. He has no past nor future. These terms only apply to us who are bound to temporal reality.
Or, He is paradoxically acting from a position of perfection and becoming perfect. (the term “absolute perfection” is redundant and I won’t be using it in the future.)
If God is perfection, then He cannot be “becoming perfect”.

God’s “acting” is love. God’s love is unchanging, but it is not static.
 
I would tend to agree. But a being that is infinite, that is endlessness, and is perfect, leaves no room for action. But since we believe God is not static, there is an inherent paradox.
When you cut your “tree”, it falls to the left. When I cut my “tree”, it falls to the right (opposite of yours).

Actually I believe a BEING that is infinite would have infinite activity. The paradox for me is how God can have both infinite activity and never change. But that is because I will never comprehend infinity and absolute perfection. I am finite. God is pure act, not potentiality.
 
When you cut your “tree”, it falls to the left. When I cut my “tree”, it falls to the right (opposite of yours).

Actually I believe a BEING that is infinite would have infinite activity. The paradox for me is how God can have both infinite activity and never change. But that is because I will never comprehend infinity and absolute perfection. I am finite. God is pure act, not potentiality.
I don’t really see a difference in our positions. I’m happy to substitute “perfection” for “never change” and “becoming perfect” for “infniite activity”. I think we are both addressing the same paradox.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top