The Omnipotency Contradiction

[cpayne]

I respectfully disagree with the statement “that having potential is a better state of affairs than having actuality.”

Also having actuality is NOT a passive boring state of BEING.

If you wanted to go to the Superbowl, would you rather have the potential to get tickets or the actual tickets in your hand?

God is pure actuality and has no potentiality in the sense there is nothing more for God to be gained.

Yes, we are in agreement. I was disagreeing with a previous poster. The part you quoted was what I was disagreeing with. Best, cpayne

 

[grannymh]

I believe “fear of the Lord” is more properly translated as “in awe of His love for me”. Any “fear” would be that of my doing or saying or thinking something that diminished that love, not because I will get punished for it. Particularly that given God’s mercy, there is hope that I won’t get what I truely deserve.

Sorry for jumping into the middle before I finish reading posts. I do want to share how happy I was when I first heard the deffinition above. :extrahappy:

Blessings,
granny

 

[grannymh]

But how relevant are these notions today? If you lived 2000 years ago, you probably had very, very real notions of heaven and hell right here in real life. You were probably dirt poor, totally uneducated, were oppressed or held in bondage under some very rough forms of government and you owed duties to your oppressors and masters who held the lives of you and your families in their hands. Just having a large meal one day would be like heaven and getting fifty lashes the next day would be hell - don’t you ever wonder if those realities as lived by those who started Christianity had a way of helping create the myths of heaven and hell that many Christians still cling to today??

And what about the fact that heaven and hell concepts were common throughout the Roman and middle eastern worlds of that time?

Please accept my apology for not responding more intelligently about the era referred to above. But, I’m back in my cranky mood because of sub-livable weather conditions.

It seemed to me that you could have been talking about 2009 using old time language. Actually, heaven and hell concepts go back a lot further than Roman dominance of civilization. Also, one should consider that the concept of shamans have appeared in a variety of ancient cultures in both eastern and western worlds. Normally the idea of another world [not the visible one at hand] or the idea of “powers” beyond the ordinary human ones, were connected with the shaman rituals.

The idea that gods were created to fill needs is not all that relevant. – as a teenager, I preferred the Greek gods over the Roman ones because they seemed more personable – What is important is that human beings, on an universal scale, recognized that someone who was beyond them [transcendent being] was needed. How that was figured out is what I wonder about.

Blessings,
granny
:snowing:

 

[davidv]

But how relevant are these notions today?

Very relevant. How has human nature changed? We have more knowledge of technological things. What has this got us? A few conveniences, but more often than not they have allowed our screw-ups to happen quicker and affect more people.

If you lived 2000 years ago, you probably had very, very real notions of heaven and hell right here in real life. You were probably dirt poor, totally uneducated, were oppressed or held in bondage under some very rough forms of government and you owed duties to your oppressors and masters who held the lives of you and your families in their hands. Just having a large meal one day would be like heaven and getting fifty lashes the next day would be hell - don’t you ever wonder if those realities as lived by those who started Christianity had a way of helping create the myths of heaven and hell that many Christians still cling to today??

These conditions exist in many places in the world today. Most in the USA chose to ignor this fact.

And what about the fact that heaven and hell concepts were common throughout the Roman and middle eastern worlds of that time?

What about it? Truth is truth no matter what its form.

 

[greylorn]

I respectfully disagree with the statement “that having potential is a better state of affairs than having actuality.”

Also having actuality is NOT a passive boring state of BEING.

If you wanted to go to the Superbowl, would you rather have the potential to get tickets or the actual tickets in your hand?

God is pure actuality and has no potentiality in the sense there is nothing more for God to be gained.

JK
If I was omniscient, I’d have already watched the Superbowl, the Orange Bowl, and the vegetable bowls. I’d have watched them before inventing the universe which makes their enactment possible.

So I would hardly care if I had actual or potential tickets.

But I (as an omniscient being), having seen the outcome of every sporting event, major and minor wars, and interpersonal squabbles on every planet in every one of the zillions of galactic clusters I assembled (in a fit of madness, 13-odd billion years ago) am ready for a nice nap.

 

[grannymh]

JK
If I was omniscient, I’d have already watched the Superbowl, the Orange Bowl, and the vegetable bowls. I’d have watched them before inventing the universe which makes their enactment possible.

So I would hardly care if I had actual or potential tickets.

But I (as an omniscient being), having seen the outcome of every sporting event, major and minor wars, and interpersonal squabbles on every planet in every one of the zillions of galactic clusters I assembled (in a fit of madness, 13-odd billion years ago) am ready for a nice nap.

Dear greylorn,

If I were omniscient or omnipotent, it would not be the outcome of any event that was important. What really would be important would be the people because I would be loving them with all my power, knowing them as they are.

Sure, I would listen to their complaints about evil and broken bones and poverty and I would do my best to help them through these bad situations. In fact, it was I Who gave people the gifts to get through the mess. First, I gave the ability to choose. It is the choice to seek Me as the goal of one’s life that will lead to peace within one’s soul. Then I gave people Myself in the person of Jesus Christ.

People need to unwrap my gift of faith to understand.

Blessings,
granny
:snowing:

 

[greylorn]

What about a God, that chooses to not know all things? What about a God, that chooses, limitations? Possible you think?

Before answering this, it might be worth pointing out that my God concept is derived from principles of physics, and physics is about learning the rules, and then manipulating those rules to make interesting things from the available material. This concept differs completely from the beliefs of normally religious people who declare that God can declare any rules He chooses. I believed similarly before learning a few of the rules (basic physics) and the implications thereof.

The power of knowing the actual laws of physics lies primarily in the consequential exclusion of an infinity of incorrect laws. Good laws of physics and logic allow for well-directed focus.

I would expect that God has a perfectly adequate understanding of all matter-energy relationships and wisely chooses to construct things from those which work, excluding from his repertoire of tricks all the potential laws of physics which do not actually exist.

My understanding is that the Creator is limited only by one principle of physics, and by the rules of logic (which exist independently of any universe or God)…He may certainly choose other limitations. But why?

I’m certain that if the entity which I imagine to be our Creator actually is, He certainly chooses to not know all things. Similarly, I’ve chosen to learn as little as possible about rap music or daytime television— just enough to keep my distance. The key to consciousness is selectivity.

Unfortunately, I must assume that your questions do not apply to my somewhat unusual Creator-concept. Applied to the conventional God, all you need is to go to the bible. Somewhere in there is a quote, “With God all things are possible.”

 

[Shike]

My understanding is that the Creator is limited only by one principle of physics, and by the rules of logic (which exist independently of any universe or God)…He may certainly choose other limitations. But why?
"

So that one principle of physics and all the rules of logic didn’t come from God? Then how did that one principle of physics and all the rules of logic come about, I wonder?

Either they always existed or not

• If they didn’t always exist, then what caused them (ad infinitum)?
• If they did always exist, then they must be uncaused; we’ll work with that to eventually arive and a concept pretty close to God.
  This is not a scientific question but rather a philosophical one.

 

[PEPCIS]

The first question to ask is: What is Grace?

I would define it the way that the Bible defines it, which is “unmerited favor”. But there is more than one type of grace, and the grace that I have noted is that associated with salvation for the sinner.

Once you have defined that, then you can go to the next step.

Which is?

Here is something I would like you to consider if you take me up on defining Grace … do you know that there are different kinds of Grace?

Yes.

I have a feeling that I already know what your answer is … call me a psychic … or psychotic … LOL

And what did you THINK my answer would be?

 

[PEPCIS]

PEPCIS -

Once you and I have come to a definition of Grace we might be able to bring into the equation its relationship to free will. I have a feeling though that you and I won’t be able to arrive at a common understanding of Grace. I will tell you this much, my understanding of Grace is not just from books or conversation, but rather from a very powerful profound personal experience.

Ahhhhh,extra-biblical…

 

[jkiernan56]

JK
If I was omniscient, I’d have already watched the Superbowl, the Orange Bowl, and the vegetable bowls. I’d have watched them before inventing the universe which makes their enactment possible.

So I would hardly care if I had actual or potential tickets.

But I (as an omniscient being), having seen the outcome of every sporting event, major and minor wars, and interpersonal squabbles on every planet in every one of the zillions of galactic clusters I assembled (in a fit of madness, 13-odd billion years ago) am ready for a nice nap.

Then you agree with me - God has front row seats to everything. God has actual tickets, not potential ones. Actuality is better than potentiality. “One in the hand is worth more than two in the bush.”

 

[Agripa]

Very relevant. How has human nature changed? We have more knowledge of technological things. What has this got us? A few conveniences, but more often than not they have allowed our screw-ups to happen quicker and affect more people.

These conditions exist in many places in the world today. Most in the USA chose to ignor this fact.

What about it? Truth is truth no matter what its form.

I would posit we, (particularly in the West) are generally far better off in terms of daily physical life in all sorts of ways then people 2000 years ago.

Medicine, transportation, education, dwelling conditions, food production, legal systems, etc., are all aspects that have greatly improved lives for millions of people.

This does not mean ALL enjoy such advancements globally or that the advancements are perfect or they necessarily improve us in terms of our spiritual or transcendant lives, but surely one can argue generally that living conditions are vastly improved and by that improvement, human kind might evolve into thinking of other perceptions of “God” than what we might have perceived 2000 years ago in what was a much rougher time to live. That is all I am saying.

 

[davidv]

I would posit we, (particularly in the West) are generally far better off in terms of daily physical life in all sorts of ways then people 2000 years ago.

Medicine, transportation, education, dwelling conditions, food production, legal systems, etc., are all aspects that have greatly improved lives for millions of people.

This does not mean ALL enjoy such advancements globally or that the advancements are perfect or they necessarily improve us in terms of our spiritual or transcendant lives, but surely one can argue generally that living conditions are vastly improved and by that improvement, human kind might evolve into thinking of other perceptions of “God” than what we might have perceived 2000 years ago in what was a much rougher time to live. That is all I am saying.

Then I don’t think you got my point. All of these so called improvements are external. They do not speak about the internal nature or essence of what it means to be “human”. As human, I am fundamentally unchanged from the earlies record of human beings.

 

[Agripa]

Then I don’t think you got my point. All of these so called improvements are external. They do not speak about the internal nature or essence of what it means to be “human”. As human, I am fundamentally unchanged from the earlies record of human beings.

But could we further speculate that as conditions improve, there is a shift in fundamental emotional outlook? If I am born in the West today, do I still think life is “nasty, brutish and short” to paraphrase an old saying?

Rather than expecting to live 30 or 40 years in very harsh conditions, can I not at lease expect to live 70 or 80 years? Does that not do something to the psyche, including how we might perceive God?

 

[grannymh]

Then I don’t think you got my point. All of these so called improvements are external. They do not speak about the internal nature or essence of what it means to be “human”. As human, I am fundamentally unchanged from the earlies record of human beings.

Dear David,

Glad to see your post as I was just about to comment on human nature. Yes, human nature is fundamentally unchanged since the earliest records.

What is also evidenced in the earliest records is the human recognition of power beyond the collective power of the tribe or culture. There are two distinct kinds of power. The first is the power of nature, its lightening, its floods, it’s molten lava, ash, and gases.

What distinguished the second kind of power is its relationship with humans. The concept of a shaman is based on his being a medium between a visible world and an invisible spirit world. The shaman concept is found in ancient times in both eastern and western worlds. It doesn’t matter one bit if the shaman did magic tricks a sixth grader could do. What matters is that the collective wisdom of the tribe recognized a spiritual power beyond physical nature, a spiritual power with which they communicated.

Nor does it matter that Greeks and Roman devised multiple gods with distinct personalities, the existence of the transcendent is being verified. Neither is the idea that gods were created to fill needs relevant.

The point is that human beings, on a universal scale, recognized the Transcendent Being as being all powerful. They never would have been able to imagine that unless there was a spiritual element within their nature.

Blessings,
granny

 

[grannymh]

But could we further speculate that as conditions improve, there is a shift in fundamental emotional outlook? If I am born in the West today, do I still think life is “nasty, brutish and short” to paraphrase an old saying?

Rather than expecting to live 30 or 40 years in very harsh conditions, can I not at lease expect to live 70 or 80 years? Does that not do something to the psyche, including how we might perceive God?

Yes, Agripa, better living conditions, etc. do wonderful things for the psyche. What usually happens in an affluent society is that our perception of God changes to where He is no longer needed. We are only fooling ourselves.

Blessings,
granny

 

[Agripa]

Yes, Agripa, better living conditions, etc. do wonderful things for the psyche. What usually happens in an affluent society is that our perception of God changes to where He is no longer needed. We are only fooling ourselves.

Blessings,
granny

I am not arguing God is not needed - in fact, as we peer more and more deeply into the physical world (i.e. further out to the edges of the galaxies and further in to the sub atomic), God’s presence is often seen in terms of a rational explanation for what wonderes we find in those realms, but the need for God moves from a very human concept (i.e. we need a good, loving Father, a sacrificing Son, a Virginal Mother) to more abstract concepts of “force”, “physical property” and Prime Mover.

 

[grannymh]

I am not arguing God is not needed - in fact, as we peer more and more deeply into the physical world (i.e. further out to the edges of the galaxies and further in to the sub atomic), God’s presence is often seen in terms of a rational explanation for what wonderes we find in those realms, but the need for God moves from a very human concept (i.e. we need a good, loving Father, a sacrificing Son, a Virginal Mother) to more abstract concepts of “force”, “physical property” and Prime Mover.

Dear Agripa,

Apparently we agree that God is needed. We most likely agree on a lot more. My apology. I’ve been working with an old concept of Agnosticism which probably wasn’t the best. Is your position like the dictionary one which says that the Agnostic is one who believes that there is no proof of the existence of God, but does not deny the possibility that God exists? One thing I’ve noticed on the threads is that there is a big difference between evidence of God’s existence and proof of God’s existence.

Where I think we differ is that I believe that in order to come up with the concept of a spiritual being in the first place, there has to be a spiritual component within human nature. To me that is evidence that there has to be a creator more powerful than all humans put together. (I also looked up your name. It’s a good one.)

Blessings,
granny

 

[patrickveech]

In my opinion creativity is God’s way of communication to the world. God wants to introduce the world to an idea or system, and works through others to create it.

 

[greylorn]

Then you agree with me - God has front row seats to everything. God has actual tickets, not potential ones. Actuality is better than potentiality. “One in the hand is worth more than two in the bush.”

I agree with you with a minor exception. I do not think that the Creator of the Universe is omnipotent or omniscient. The evidence does not support that assertion.

I do not believe in concepts which are not supported by evidence. If it is any consolation, I do not accept Big Bang theory or Darwinism either.