The Omnipotency Contradiction

[greylorn]

God is the Creator of all, absolutely all. He created humans to be both physical and non-physical. Spiritual is another way of referring to what is not physical matter. It is our spiritual ability which allows us to search for God. This process of searching is creative. This search can be seen in the context of one’s own mind.

Now, let us look at the issue from God’s point of view. He is a total Creator and He creates humans. And so that humans can search for Him, God gives them the gift of ability to create such a search in their own mind… Please note: God does not give His own total ability to create to humans; He gives only a part or a share of His creative ability.

Because humans have only part or a share of God’s creative powers, humans cannot be greater than God.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I appreciate that you understand and speak from conventional religious dogma. Clearly you are content with your beliefs, and I invite you to remain so. One way to do this is not to consider the questions which I propose, which come from a place which you have probably not visited.

There is a conflict between religion and science. I mean to resolve it. If it could have been resolved by Catholic apologists arguing theory and parroting dogma, it would have been resolved long ago.

I understand your attachment to the beliefs which you were taught, for I was taught those beliefs, and I’ve been beaten up for defending them. May I ask you a hypothetical question?

Suppose that the Pope stood up on the day of B.O.'s election and declared that the Church has readjusted its position. That, after analyzing the writings of Augustine and Aquinas, it found its definition of God to be “excessive.” God need not be omnipotent in order to have created the universe. Nor does God need to be omniscient, and therefore unable to have creative thoughts. God is an entity smart enough and powerful enough to have created the physical universe.

If the Pope made such a statement (don’t worry! He won’t!) would it affect your life? Would it change your desire to be the best person you can possibly be? Would you stop worshiping God? Would your appreciation for your own personal existence suddenly go to zero?

Or would you realize that because God has limitations, the creation of the universe (and your body) took more than a simple act of will---- more than an omnipotent finger snap. It took thought, experiment, trial and error, study and effort. Would you devalue your Creator if you discovered that making your body and a universe within which it could survive was hard work?

 

[greylorn]

I agree that discovery of truth is a wonderful event for humans.

With the quoted part, however, we part company. Living in truth (actuality) is a better state of affairs than potentially living in truth.

Potentially I know Hebrew. It would be better to actually know it.

You will find no joy in simply knowing Hebrew. Should you undertake actually learning it, you will find an internal, mental joy with every step of your achievement.

I invite you to spend some mental time with my previous reply, rather than simply react. That is because I’d like to engage your mind on this subject, rather than your reactive brain. I believe that you have thoughts to contribute.

 

[greylorn]

Bad premises and bad spirit.

God since all eternity thought of ALL the INFINITE POSSIBLES!

But God created only the optimum.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, this valley of tears gives God more glory than the other infinite universes that God is capable of creating, because He is incapable of doing something that glorifies Him less.

Ah, yes. “God created only the optimum.” Illiterate welfare mothers flushing their babies down toilets because they can’t get additional benefits for more kids. Hitler. Genghis Khan. Attila the Hun. The Inquisition.

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel;4575881:

Greylorn:

You, sir, are a scholar and a gentleman! I will take you up on your offer.

I have bolded the part of your argument that gives me a problem. But, perhaps, you could refine it in furtherance of our discussion. You have used the word “create” so I can, with some validity, assume you meant just that. But, the statement does not touch on the holding

of an abstraction. We have not discussed whether of not God can “hold” an abstraction.

Since we mortals can “create” abstractions, and since God knows our thoughts, it would seem reasonable that He would be able to hold our abstractions. Thus, what God knows is more than just what is real. Now, is there any conceivable real need for God to create abstractions?

I believe that there is such a need, but that is because my concept of God differs from yours.

But then, God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, which is the slippery slope you traverse next.

Having found what appear to me to be contradictions between the concept of an unlimited God and physical reality,

Please extrapolate on these, if you would.

plus a few logical glitches

(I hate to ask you again, but,) could you extrapolate on these as well?

I long ago devised a concept of a Creator Who I would characterize as, sufficiently powerful and intelligent enough to create the universe, perhaps with assistance.

“Assistance” from whom?

My life and work experience have taught me the value of practical theories over those which cannot be translated into action.

Rhetoric without meaning to me.

So from my perspective, God is an extraordinary entity Who does not know all things. This allows us to have free will, which is a concept I like.

I believe, as does the Catholic Church, that God is a “lover” and that the return of love can ONLY instantiate from “free will”.

Whereas the God in Whom you believe does not, by definition need to do anything (the infinitely powerful couch potato)

A tad disrespectful, however, I have no objections with Him doing whatever He wishes to do, whenever He wishes to do it, however He wishes to do it, and, whereever He wishes to do it.

the Creator in Whom I believe will find creating abstractions quite useful.

Well, this is the “subject” of the debate, isn’t it? The word “creating” was added by me because, for some reason, you forgot to include it.

He’ll have devised systems of mathematics which allowed him to precisely adjust the parameters of the 20 essential constants necessary to make the universe work, before undertaking its creation.

Completely unnecessary as He already knows beforehand what is necessary to create the universe.

As for “holding” an abstraction, your God and mine must be able to do so. Else every interesting idea would be like those you’ve gotten upon awakening in the middle of the night, but didn’t write down.

As for your first sentence, I would, with some reservation, agree.

As to your second sentence, it is a statement that smacks loudly of anthropomorphism and pantheism.

JDaniel;4575881:

Generally, except for the creation of abstract monsters for science fiction, the majority of our meaningful abstractions deal with our need to “universalize” into such things as classes (or large sets) and species (or simple sets), for example - those things that are required determinates of real and conceptual things - for our limited minds. What need would God have for universalizing things?

Again, the same as ours. Since God has assembled a coherent universe, we might assume that His own internal arrangements of information and concepts are equally coherent. The coherent mind puts things into categories. The competent mechanic does not store spare parts in buckets of drain oil. Scientists don’t interpose their grocery lists with their lab notes. That’s common sense organizational strategy, which is a useful and practical abstraction.

But, He does all of that - except without having to create an abstraction each time He regards something.

CONTINUED . . .

 

[cpayne]

You will find no joy in simply knowing Hebrew.

I invite you to spend some mental time with my previous reply, rather than simply react. That is because I’d like to engage your mind on this subject, rather than your reactive brain. I believe that you have thoughts to contribute.

First paragraph: How do you know that? Even non-Christian philosophers wrote of ataraxia, the joy of contemplation, of possessing knowledge.

Second paragraph: Gee, thanks.

After reading your reply to grannymh and then this one, I think I’m over and out. See you, perhaps, on other threads.

 

[JDaniel]

Some believers seem to think that common sense doesn’t need to apply to God.

I can’t attest to that. I can attest, however, to what I believe. And, that is that God is the author of “common sense.”

I guess that when one can invent an unconstrained God concept, the advantage is that one can say whatever one chooses about that God. That seems to be the case with the omnipotent omniscient God of static belief systems.

But, your concept is no different than what you just implied about Christianity. Except that, in your concept, God would be ever-changing. God, under your restrictions, would be amorphous. We would wake up on each of the mornings you mentioned and not know who or what we were dealing with that day. Neither would the world; neither would the universe. A little shift in His thinking and, “too many people on the planet - I shall eliminate all but 10,000 of them!” Or, “they’re learning too much about my universe; I’ll just alter the Laws of Thermodynamics!” Or, I’ll just put harder tests in front of them; we’ll see who really loves me!"

The only argument one can really have about such a God is whether or not He exists.

My friend, you have not been reading the CAF if you can look me in the eye and assuredly state that!

Way too many people, particularly highly intelligent and well educated people, cannot accept belief in such a God.

The numbers are statistical. adherents.com places the number of people who “cannot accept belief in such a God” at about 16% of the earth’s population. And, from all indications, it appears that that number is receding.

The latter three quarters of your statement is simply not factual.

JDaniel;4575881:

God, we believe, knows all things all the way down to their smallest components and largest potentialities. He has no need to discover.

I understand your belief, for I once devoutly held it myself.

That, my friend, would be impossible - for (all due respect) you do not have anywhere close to a good grasp of it.

And I respect it.

All due appreciation is headed your way! :clapping: Likewise, I really want to learn why you think as you do. It’s fascinating to me.

(1.) I believe that Catholicism (and most derivative sects) allowed their intellectual philosophers to invent a concept of God which sounds good on paper, but which is not realistic.

You are begging the question here. You state the debate and use it as proof of your proposition.

They did this long before Galileo introduced the scientific method. It’s time to re-examine these old theories.

Maybe. Maybe not.

(2.) Why? Because 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.

It is no different now than it was centuries ago. Nothing statistically has changed, except that the numbers of disbelievers may have reduced. There have always been numerous world-views (as people on these forums like to say); numerous heresies; numerous philosophies, numerous attacks. From my POV, society may, as a direct result of the observed effects of pluralism, immorality and anthropomorphism, be resoundingly returning to the Christ-like principles the Church was founded on.

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
JD

 

[grannymh]

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
I appreciate that you understand and speak from conventional religious dogma. Clearly you are content with your beliefs, and I invite you to remain so. One way to do this is not to consider the questions which I propose, which come from a place which you have probably not visited.

re: Post 21

Dear greylorn,

How wonderful to meet you.

The recent conflict between Catholicism and physics is what I am interested in. I read on the net that modern physics made scholastic thought obsolete. Unfortunately, the only physics course I took was in high school more than 50 years ago.

Furthermore, I have observed that the relationship between the spiritual (not necessarily organized religion) and science is broken. I do not think it is necessary to parrot “dogma” to resolve the conflict for oneself. I do think “theory” in the broadest sense of the word can be helpful since “theory” is part of science. In a way, one’s own theory can be motivation. Twice now, I’ve read in other threads that this person or that person had what I would call gut instinct but couldn’t quite produce all the proof needed for his theory. In both instances, in time, proof was found by those who followed.

Your hypothetical question (s) reminds me of what was on the website regarding the “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake” ads by the American Humanist Association.
The website info did not attack the Pope directly. But they were presenting life without religion. Their conclusion was that one could be the best person possible. One would appreciate the freedom of one’s own personal existence. And so on…

Your hypothetical question is based on the supposition that the Catholic Church no longer existed. I am open to correction on this – but it seems to me that you have a mutually exclusive “or”. when one considers what it means to be a Catholic Church. My apology for making your question (s) so convoluted, but I prefer simpler ones and even those, at times, will make me laugh. Chalk it up to old age

You may ask me another hypothetical question, if you wish. I won’t promise, but I will try not to be so nitpicky And thank you for inviting me to remain content with my beliefs. That is considerate of you. However, my strong beliefs are what enables me to visit places I have not visited. Though I have probably been with people who have. Please know that I am sorry that you experienced hurts when defending the beliefs you were taught.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[Dranu]

Rossum:

Any description of God automatically limits God.

No, otherwise you aren’t describing God (unless you are merely pointing out an aspect and not denying the others), rather any description of God is incredibly circular since God is self-sufficient and unlimited. However, not all circles are bad, reason inevitably has to come full circle on a first principle, circles only mean that they add no knowledge.

Omnipotence, and being in a constant state of eternal presence is no more a limit than ‘full color spectrum’ is to ‘red’ when red can also not contain blue (which ‘full color spectrum cannot do’) What is being unreasonably treated is the idea that one can ‘do’ something without value. Omnipotence means to be able to do all things, and something (rendered nonsense by what follows) that is either a deprivation of ‘thing’ or ‘not a thing at all’ does not fall under anything in the set ‘all things’. This is like others said (Fran65 for isntance), God can do all possible things, because non-possibilities are not things at all and thus don’t violate omnipotence if by omnipotence we mean ‘ability to do all things’.

 

[MindOverMatter]

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?

If God is all knowing, what does that have to do with somebody creating a knew idea? There is know idea that you could create that God does not know about; and since God is the reason that one can discover calculous, It is God who generates that which man discovers in his ideas and uses in his creativity. God is all powerful; but that does not require God to actualise all possible displays of his power. Creating the world is the most creative and perfect act. Mans creativity is pale in comparison.

What is the point of this thread?

 

[MindOverMatter]

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

Gods creativity is perfect creativity. What i mean by that is, Gods creative plan is perfect, and since God is perfect, God does not require thinking about it, for God lacks in nothing, and all things that are relevant to his perfection resides in Gods being. Neither does God need to think about which way to act; nor does God take time to act, for Gods being is an “eternally perfect act”, which is itself rooted in Gods eternal and perfect creativity. Thus God does not need to make plans, like a creature whom lacks in Gods perfection and knowledge. God is love, and love is creative and sharing is a perfection. Gods creativity stems from Gods nature. It is in Gods nature to eternally create the Universe, because thats what a perfectly loving God would do. Its not that God is not creative. God creates only that which is relevant to Gods perfection. Since God is perfect; he created a universe in which human beings, and other creatures, could come to know the perfection and love of God. There is nothing more creative then that.

Im suprised that you have failed to grasp that.

 

[grannymh]

Dear greylorn,

Good morning, My eyes are open which is more than I can say for last night.

Going over posts, I spotted reference to the ability to have useful creative thoughts. This, plus choice of creative actions, is what I used to distinguish humans from animals/insects. I also used it as evidence that free will exists because both creativitiy and choice of creative actions are possible due to the presence of free will. Music was my example.

Belief in the Creator is important because it affirms the value of one’s own personal and others’ personal existence. It also gives one the ability to explore the meaning of God…especially regarding relationships. I may be older than dirt, but I have never lost my curiosity…

Since this is Christmas and I will be traveling to be with my family, I will have to wait until the new year to detail other thoughts. There was a lot in your individual posts which appealed to me.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[jkiernan56]

Creating the world is the most creative and perfect act. Mans creativity is pale in comparison.

What is the point of this thread?

Side note to this thread - Creation of the world in my opinion is NOT the most perfect act of God. There is something that makes physical creation pale in comparison. For me, it is what the God-man Christ did and accomplished through his act of love on the cross. It is God’s new creation. There is so much more that can be said about this, but I don’t want to divert from the thread too much.

With regard to the point of the thread, Greylorn is proposing logic to show that God cannot be Omnipotent since there appears to be an inherent contradiction.

His basic premise is that God does not have creative thought and human beings do. Greylorn states “This means that we can do something which God cannot. **Therefore if God cannot generate a new idea, He is not omnipotent.” **

The old addage “garbage in = garbage out.” seems to apply here. I am not suggesting the idea or person who proposed the thread is garbage, but the basic premise is garbage (in) and thus the conclusion is also garbage (out).

I don’t accept the premise that God does not have creative thought while human beings do. Therefore I don’t accept the conclusion that God cannot be omnipotent because God cannot do that which is obvious we can.

I do accept that God does think and know. But there is a huge difference between what God thinks and knows and what human beings think and know. It is the difference between infinity and finite. And what is the difference? Infinity - finite = Infinity. What God thinks and knows is Himself in one act of BEING. God does not move from past to present to future in the same way human beings do. Creativity presupposes moving from point A to point B in thought (with point B having never been thought of prior (at least not for that person doing the thinking using Greylorn’s definition). God does not move from point A to B. What God thinks and knows is already possessed by God since He is pure actuality. God’s thought and knowledge is infinite and incomprehensible to a finite contingent being.

What I don’t understand is how God can possess infinite thought and knowledge without change. There is nothing that can change for God - there is no going from point A to B. In God their exists infinite activity - yet no change - a seemingly inherent contradiction. But that is only because of our finiteness.

Yes human beings can think creatively. But for human beings to use the same ruler to try to measure and understand how and what God thinks - is an impossibility. Finiteness cannot comprehend infinity.

Is it possible for Infiniteness to have creativity? I don’t know. Even if it can be proven that God does not have creativity (since He possesses all infinite knowledge in one complete act of being) - just because human beings do have creativity DOES NOT necessarily result in the logical conclusion that God is not omnipotent. I have to think on this one more.

 

[jkiernan56]

Even if God (who is pure Spirit) does NOT have what human beings have, it does NOT result in the logical conclusion that God is NOT omnipotent. I hate double negatives. Human beings have the ability to taste and smell. Does God taste and smell? Does God in Spirit have all the abilities humans have? And if God does not, does it mean He is not omnipotent?

I again start with the understanding that God is infinite and human beings are finite. Whatever human beings have, it was given to them by God. There is another old saying that goes “a person cannot give what they do not have.” How can God give us abilities such as taste, smell, creative thought if God does not possess them in some way? Can I give you something I don’t have? Logic tells me that is an impossibility. I think the same pertains to God, but what God has is infinitely more than what we have. In what manner or form, I am not clear on. I’m sure there is a lot more that can be said about that statement. Whatever we have God was able to give it to us. God cannot give what He does not possess in some form or manner. Human creativity was given to us by God.

 

[Pro_Domina]

Ah, yes. “God created only the optimum.” Illiterate welfare mothers flushing their babies down toilets because they can’t get additional benefits for more kids. Hitler. Genghis Khan. Attila the Hun. The Inquisition.

That is sin’s fault. And even still with sin, it gives Him more glory than if everything was impossible to go wrong (which means we would not have free will as well, a thing a wacko liberal I think probably adores.)

 

[Pro_Domina]

These conclusions are quite senseless.

Having a new idea is a sign of not bein omnipotent, because the first impulse did not reach all the infinite conclusions and possibles.

God eternally has, therefore there is nothing new because EVERYTHING POSSIBLE has been thought of.

 

[Mijoy2]

God cannot create new ideas because God encompasses all ideas. To suggest God cannot create new ideas seems like a non-sensical topic. Much like “can God create a rock so heavy He cannto lift it”?

Not worth pondering, I suggest.

 

[grannymh]

Let’s look at God as a Transcendent Being which He is.

Here are some wonderful descriptions from the dictionary definition for transcendent: Lying beyond ordinary perception. Surpassing others, preeminent or supreme. – and my all time favorite – Being above and independent of the material universe.

One of the definitions for transcendental is Beyond common thought or experience. Isaiah knew this way back. Read Isaiah 55: 8-9

As a Transcendent Being, God is outside of time. He is beyond any process which requires time as we perceive it. He is beyond instant and spontaneous because these are words connected with time in our material universe. He is beyond actions because these are connected with time and so on.

God is not beyond loving us. He loves us regardless.
Read John 3: 16 & 17.

As humans we are intensely curious. And it is natural for us to seek answers to our curiosity about God. But we shouldn’t stake everything on getting answers to all questions about God.
As The Supreme Being, God is the One Who defines His relationship with us. May I suggest that our response should be on His terms. And His terms are? Seek Jesus. In the Catholic Eucharist, Jesus is the light, strength, and love of our souls.

Blessings for the New Year,
grannymh

 

[jkiernan56]

As a Transcendent Being, God is outside of time. He is beyond any process which requires time as we perceive it. He is beyond instant and spontaneous because these are words connected with time in our material universe. He is beyond actions because these are connected with time and so on.

God is not beyond loving us. He loves us reagardless.
Read John 3: 16 & 17.

And God who is Transcendent Being is at the same time both the farthest thing from us and the closest thing to us - even closer than we are to ourselves. Thank you Granny for your thoughts on His love for us.

 

[grannymh]

I have an observation…

Seems to me, that the product or result of humans doing the thinking and acting all relies on something already in the universe albeit mostly unknown. Thus, neither product nor result is even close to being on the creative level of God, the true Creator.

What is that saying? There’s nothing new under the sun! In other words, what humans are thinking or doing is not something God cannot do – because God has already done it.

Blessings for 2009
grannymh

 

[Pro_Domina]

Not that He did it already. He created one universe. Though He could create infinite ones, and He already thought of all the possibles, which are infinite.

How can He entirely know an infinite capacity that He has?

Well if I knew I would not write in a forum but in your heart!