The Omnipotency Contradiction

[jkiernan56]

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.

Very interesting. Thank you for that clarification. It was very informative and now I understand your position. Once we define terms, we are both speaking the same language!!! LOL I apologize for the misunderstanding and I know sometimes I am slow to grasp things.

 

[Valke2]

I still don’t follow the logic to this conclusion. Please define what you mean by the word “static” in this sentence.

Ok. In the terms of this discussion. A being that is perfection has nothing to do. It cannot increase its perfection. Any act would necessarily make it less perfect.

A ball that is perfectly still cannot become more still by any action.

Love that is perfect cannot become more perfect by any action.

A state of perfection is complete. Any action taken against or by such a state, can only make it less than perfect.

In order for an infinite perfect being to act, instead of just to be (which is what a “being” does. It "be"s)., it must in some sense limit itself. It must contract and be less than perfect and less than infininte to, as it were, make room to act. When God dwelled in the holy of holies, He limited himself and at teh same time did not limit himself. He dwelled in the holy of holies and at the time the entire world was/is/will be filled with His Glory.

I believe God is perfect and infinite.
I believe God acts in this world and that God is profoundly concerned with how we act.

Since I believe both this things, I am confronted with a paradox – from a human/finite being perspective. From God’s perspective, there is no paradox.
On another note, I’d like to explore the christian concept of God being love. This seems to me to be a little more abstract than the concept of God coming to earth in the form of man.

 

[Pro_Domina]

I know that your argument was against God thinking … and that was the very thing I disagreed with. I don’t claim to be an expert or more intelligent than anyone else. I just disagree with your fundamental premise. My position is that God DOES think because God DOES know. God is one complete act of BEING … which encompasses ALL knowledge and thus thought. This very thought of God is now visible to us in a PERSON - Christ. The WORD made flesh.

I’m sorry if you felt like I was being a smart aleck. If you postulated that 1 is equal to 2, I would just have to fundamentally disagree. There is nothing personal when I disagree with a premise of yours. I am a straight shooter and say it like it is. I am learning how to do that respectfully on this forum. I am a work in progress just like you.

Maybe I am the one who needs to rephrase myself. I see where my grave error came. Of course God thinks. It is His thinking that generates the Second Person. But what I meant to say is that He does not think of new things or has to process anything. He has a present, eteranal thought. It is complete, and infinite. He knows all possiblities, infinitely as they are. So what I meant to say is that He does not think of something esle, because it is already there since all eternity.
Got me?

 

[greylorn]

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

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

But then you have to explain why he created ornery people like me. You also must explain why He created you.

Perfect confusion would explain these lapses on His part, but the universe is too elegantly constructed for that hypothesis to work. The Creator appears to know what he’s about in all aspects except the creation of us ignorant and for the most part uninteresting human beings. Therein lies the glitch in any theory of God’s perfection.

It often seems to me that religious theories would make a lot more sense if man didn’t exist. Maybe the Creator didn’t make us after all.

 

[Pro_Domina]

Man was not meant to be faulty.

But anyhow, believe it or not, this Universe, out of the infinite possibilities, gives more glory to God than any other. The thing is that if the world was perfect in every detail, we could never see God in all His aspects. I mean I feel a grace when I think of God destroying Sodom. If the world was perfect, would we see that?

God cannot do anything that will not in the end bring Him more glory.

 

[jkiernan56]

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 apologize Shike - I haven’t been able to get back to you on your response yet. I have printed it out so that I can take a look at it and try to understand it. I will try to get back to you later today. Thank you for taking the time and effort.

 

[davidv]

Ok. In the terms of this discussion. A being that is perfection has nothing to do. It cannot increase its perfection. Any act would necessarily make it less perfect.

A ball that is perfectly still cannot become more still by any action.

Love that is perfect cannot become more perfect by any action.

A state of perfection is complete. Any action taken against or by such a state, can only make it less than perfect.

In order for an infinite perfect being to act, instead of just to be (which is what a “being” does. It "be"s)., it must in some sense limit itself. It must contract and be less than perfect and less than infininte to, as it were, make room to act. When God dwelled in the holy of holies, He limited himself and at teh same time did not limit himself. He dwelled in the holy of holies and at the time the entire world was/is/will be filled with His Glory.

I believe God is perfect and infinite.
I believe God acts in this world and that God is profoundly concerned with how we act.

Since I believe both this things, I am confronted with a paradox – from a human/finite being perspective. From God’s perspective, there is no paradox.
On another note, I’d like to explore the christian concept of God being love. This seems to me to be a little more abstract than the concept of God coming to earth in the form of man.

From bottom to top

God as love - I’d recommend starting a new thread to explore this topic.

Paradox “from human…perspective” - I believe this is an artificial construction based on falsely limiting God’s nature. for example why would “stillness” be an attribute of perfection for God.

“Any action taken against or by such a state, can only make it less than perfect.” - why do you exclude acting from perfection? Cannot a perfect action be an eternal act?

“A being that is perfection has nothing to do.” - This one I really have trouble with. Am I a more perfect husband if I am doing nothing or when I am complimenting my wife, or helping with the chores? It’s not doing nothing. In the same way God’s perfection is not “doing nothing”.

 

[jkiernan56]

Maybe I am the one who needs to rephrase myself. I see where my grave error came. Of course God thinks. It is His thinking that generates the Second Person. But what I meant to say is that He does not think of new things or has to process anything. He has a present, eteranal thought. It is complete, and infinite. He knows all possiblities, infinitely as they are. So what I meant to say is that He does not think of something esle, because it is already there since all eternity.
Got me?

Yes, thank you for that explanation. We are both on the same page. And this thought of God that expresses all that He knows and loves is completely in one WORD - A person who is now visible among us. For the Jewish people, Jesus was the Law incarnate. And all they held most dear and close to their heart was standing right in front of them. For the Greeks, Jesus was Wisdom incarnate. Imagine what that must have been like to stand before Incarnate Love. Anybody who has ever met Jesus, their life was changed forever. I know mine has

 

[davidv]

But then you have to explain why he created ornery people like me. You also must explain why He created you.

As I learned when I was a grade school, God made us to love Him and serve Him and be with Him forever in heaven.

If you where to let Him, He would put your “ornriness” to good use.

How does man’s imperfection impune God’s perfection? Our imperfection is rooted in the identical thing that allows us to share in His image and likeness; intellect and will.

Perfect confusion would explain these lapses on His part, but the universe is too elegantly constructed for that hypothesis to work. The Creator appears to know what he’s about in all aspects except the creation of us ignorant and for the most part uninteresting human beings.

I think you need a higher opinion of yourself, and us.

Therein lies the glitch in any theory of God’s perfection.

It often seems to me that religious theories would make a lot more sense if man didn’t exist. Maybe the Creator didn’t make us after all.

I believe the “glitch” is our interpretation of the creation.

 

[jkiernan56]

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.

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).

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.

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

I’m happy to hear you had a very good retreat

Thank you for that explanation on cause and effect. “An effect exists perfectly in a cause” for God. I found that very informative.

Regarding God choosing to do evil, wouldn’t you have to agree that evil is goodness gone bad? So if God is ALL GOOD, is it possible for God to go bad? I don’t think so because God is completely FREE and my understanding is that a BEING that is completely FREE would always choose what is Good. Not that it is God’s choices that make Him Good. He is Good and therefore His will is the same. So again t would be an impossibility or contradiction of Gods nature to do evil.

It seems that you confirmed that possibility and potentiality are one and the same.

I can’t believe that you are only a beginner starting to read the Summa. Here is something a very intelligent and holy person once (a Trappist Monk) told me about St. Thomas. He did not write it for believers. He wrote it for unbelievers. One of the reasons some people have a problem with faith, is it seems to them to be intellectual suicide and that they are being asked to believe in pink elephants that don’t exist. St. Thomas wanted to clear up the false ideas people have about God … ie … the junk in the trunk … .so that now with all falsehoods behind them, they could be able to take the step of faith.

I’m not sure if I told you this or not, but my understanding of God and creation is from experience and not just head knowledge. I had an experience once where God literally turned on the light (direct experience of God and infused understanding) that allowed me to see He did need to create anything or anyone. It was the first time I ever truly experienced Love/Grace. I used to hate myself something terrible and now Grace is moving in me in a way that it never did before. Thank you again for taking the time to respond to me.

 

[Shike]

I’m happy to hear you had a very good retreat

Me too!

Regarding God choosing to do evil, wouldn’t you have to agree that evil is goodness gone bad? So if God is ALL GOOD, is it possible for God to go bad? I don’t think so because God is completely FREE and my understanding is that a BEING that is completely FREE would always choose what is Good.

Right, but in this case it is primarily a being question rather than a free will question. This is the position that I was arguing against.

Not that it is God’s choices that make Him Good. He is Good and therefore His will is the same.

I agree… you should say this before the free will stuff.

Here is something a very intelligent and holy person once (a Trappist Monk) told me about St. Thomas. He did not write it for believers. He wrote it for unbelievers. One of the reasons some people have a problem with faith, is it seems to them to be intellectual suicide and that they are being asked to believe in pink elephants that don’t exist. St. Thomas wanted to clear up the false ideas people have about God … ie … the junk in the trunk … .so that now with all falsehoods behind them, they could be able to take the step of faith.

Cool! I haven’t heard that before but it makes a lot of sense!

I’m not sure if I told you this or not, but my understanding of God and creation is from experience and not just head knowledge. I had an experience once where God literally turned on the light (direct experience of God and infused understanding) that allowed me to see He did need to create anything or anyone. It was the first time I ever truly experienced Love/Grace. I used to hate myself something terrible and now Grace is moving in me in a way that it never did before. Thank you again for taking the time to respond to me.

Whoa, just whoa… I hope you have found (or starting to find) your vocation in life and living it out; be holy and go crazy

Thanks for taking my post seriously!
ciao

 

[grannymh]

Somewhere, a post sounded like the poster was an artist. Maybe whoever that was can better explain the following.

In beginning art class, we were taught how to draw perspective like the dictionary’s 4th definition.“The technique of representing three-dimensional objects and depth relationships on a two-dimensional surface.”

Our first assignment was to consider ourselves standing at the bottom of the sheet of drawing paper as if we were looking down a long road and then draw it correctly. We had to decide the width of the road with a point on each side. If we were actually standing on a country road, looking out into the distance, it would appear that the road became narrower and narrower. To achieve that perspective, we drew a dot beyond and outside of the top edge of the paper.Then we carefully connected each dot at the bottom of the sheet, which was the width of the road, to the single dot beyond our view.

Years later, I heard a speaker use that same technique to help us understand apparent contradictions in the nature of God. We are on earth at the bottom of the sheet. To our right is one concept; to our left is the other. As we grow in understanding, we find that the gap of the road (the gap in our knowledge) begins to close. It isn’t until we leave the earthly road, go beyond our present life, go beyond the top edge of the paper, that we reach the single dot, God, and can finally understand how apparent contradictions can be resolved.

 

[Shike]

Valke2;4658983:

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.

Very interesting. Thank you for that clarification. It was very informative and now I understand your position. Once we define terms, we are both speaking the same language!!! LOL I apologize for the misunderstanding and I know sometimes I am slow to grasp things.

I woundn’t agree (because I disagree with everything ). I think **Valke2 **has a different meaning of “infinite activity”. Maybe I’m wrong, but I understand “God as pure act” to mean act in the sense of actuallity (as in an effect in a cause), not in the human sense of act (for instance, like motion). God does not need to limit Himself when manifesting Himself in the burning bush. He is exercising His will; I like to think it’s like letting loose the effect from the cause (as primitive an understanding it may be). This isn’t to say God couldn’t limit Himself in a way, by the incarnation for instance (which should blow our minds in awe). But God is still God. It is wrong to formulate the “paradox” of God perfect and becoming; it is very misleading.

If “infinite activity” is in the human sense, then I can definitely understand why someone would say God is becoming. But I deny the general human sense of the words in this case as false.

I have yet to read Aquinas and the Trinity, so take all this with a grain of salt.

ciao,
Michael

 

[jkiernan56]

Me too!

Right, but in this case it is primarily a being question rather than a free will question. This is the position that I was arguing against.
I agree… you should say this before the free will stuff.

Cool! I haven’t heard that before but it makes a lot of sense!

Whoa, just whoa… I hope you have found (or starting to find) your vocation in life and living it out; be holy and go crazy

Thanks for taking my post seriously!
ciao

Michael, I didn’t feel good that I had not responded to your earlier response to me. It really was greatly appreciated.

 

[jkiernan56]

I woundn’t agree (because I disagree with everything ). I think **Valke2 **has a different meaning of “infinite activity”. Maybe I’m wrong, but I understand “God as pure act” to mean act in the sense of actuallity (as in an effect in a cause), not in the human sense of act (for instance, like motion). God does not need to limit Himself when manifesting Himself in the burning bush. He is exercising His will; I like to think it’s like letting loose the effect from the cause (as primitive an understanding it may be). This isn’t to say God couldn’t limit Himself in a way, by the incarnation for instance (which should blow our minds in awe). But God is still God. It is wrong to formulate the “paradox” of God perfect and becoming; it is very misleading.

If “infinite activity” is in the human sense, then I can definitely understand why someone would say God is becoming. But I deny the general human sense of the words in this case as false.

I have yet to read Aquinas and the Trinity, so take all this with a grain of salt.

ciao,
Michael

Michael, I would highly recommend St. Augustine when it comes to the Trinity. For me he is the cream of the cream when it comes to this subject

 

[Shike]

Michael, I would highly recommend St. Augustine when it comes to the Trinity. For me he is the cream of the cream when it comes to this subject

Noted.

By the way; you’ve refused to accept private messages. But thanks for the response.

 

[jkiernan56]

Noted.

By the way; you’ve refused to accept private messages. But thanks for the response.

I didn’t realize that I have refused to accept private messages. I’ll change that …

 

[PEPCIS]

"greylorn:

If religion is to ever achieve the respect given to science…

PEPCIS:

Do you, personally, believe that science has MORE respect than religion?

Yes. This respect is pretty much limited to individuals of above average intelligence. I.e. the people who actually do things and implement ideas.

As you so correctly perceived, I do find the manner in which you deign to speak of those “beneath” you to be a crass and un-Christian attribute.

There is no need to entertain the rest of your answer. But, I will leave you my opinion of science and religion and the “respect” issue. Stephen J. Gould had a very similar opinion to your own. It was Gould’s desire to elevate religion to the level of science, in spite of his being an agnostic, that gave me a keen insight to what it is that people like Gould are trying to do.

Agnostics don’t really care about religion. But what they DO care about, is what effect that religion (or more importantly, those who hold religious views) have on society and its mores.

In the area of homosexuality, such people beat at the Catholic Church and those Bible-beating Baptists for their views, trying to shape a new religion that is devoid of BIBLICAL VIEWS.

In the area of abortion, such people beat at the Catholic Church and those Bible-beating Baptists for their views, trying to shape a new religion that is devoid of BIBLICAL VIEWS.

In the area of evolution, such people beat at the Catholic Church and those Bible-beating Baptists for their views, trying to shape a new religion that is devoid of BIBLICAL VIEWS.

When Gould said that Science should stay out of Religion, and Religion should stay out of Science, what he really meant is that Scientific people could have religious views that differed from the mainstream, but that religious people could not have scientific views which differed from the mainstream.

Such “opinions” don’t get my vote.

 

[PEPCIS]

"greylorn:

o from my perspective, God is an extraordinary entity Who does not know all things.

PEPCIS:

That’s Open Theism, right?

Open theism? That sounds like either the question to or answer for a multiple choice quiz in some mickey mouse comparative religion class. In any case, the answer is no. My thoughts are mostly derived from a complete but complex set of ideas which integrate belief in a Creator with the evidence and principles of science.

Gee, so are my thoughts. We may be closer to each other’s beliefs than what we first thought!

…unless science and religion are integrated, the most intelligent of our children will not make correct belief choices. Society is becoming fragmented because of the dichotomy between science and religion. Not good.

PEPCIS:

Society is becoming fragmented because of the dichotomy between science and religion??? Please, I’d really like to hear how you came to this conclusion. I’ve always thought that society is becoming fragmented because their are lots of opinions out there.

You really do have a bizarre style of processing information. You may not have “always thought” of anything, but have simply been programmed to believe in certain dogmas and trained to justify those beliefs.

I was thinking the exact same thing of you! But I believe you meant it as a personal attack. But, even so, I asked you a question: I’d really like to hear how you came to the conclusion that Society is becoming fragmented because of the dichotomy between science and religion.

greylorn:

At least consider that as a possibility, unless you leapt from the womb with a full complement of Catholic beliefs already in that little brain.

I would LOVE to consider that as a possibility, which is why I asked you to explain how you came to that conclusion.

greylorn:

You’ll notice (actually, you might not) that certain kinds of ideas are not questioned. For example, mathematical logic, classical physics. That is because these ideas work. Not only do they make logical sense, they lead to real world results.

And so they do.

greylorn:

Religious ideas, on the other hand, pretty much lead to various sects squabbling among one another, sometimes with serious firearms, over whose prophet was the true prophet, or whose interpretation of a lot of stuff written by men is actually right.

Well, besides the fact that scientists squabble pretty much all the time over competing views, I can’t remember seeing too many times that Christians fight each other over doctrine using firearms. Of course, I’m pretty certain that the same things happen with similar frequency in scientific circles.

 

[PEPCIS]

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.

I’ve always found it puzzling that those outside of Christianity are the harshest critics of what Christians should and should not believe. I suppose from a Deistic or agnostic position, there may be a certain flexibility, what with being released from the constraints of a set of Scriptures.

But, I do see the logic in replacing the Holy Scriptures with that of the Writ of Science. There is a certain agnostic appeal to it.

II Thess. 2:1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. 3Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.