The Omnipotency Contradiction

[greylorn]

Dear Michael,

Horrors :bigyikes: My kids would say I was busted.

Chalk the wrong meaning of sophistry to my using a word I haven’t heard in 50 years.

As I remember, sophistry was a tricky argument that appeared plausible or probable but wasn’t. It was connected with an extremely old usage of sophomoric. I see that a current dictionary uses the word fallacious regarding sophistry. In the part of the country where I was, sophistry meant no harm. It might be considered a mind game today. Example of the kind of argument would be this old saying – philosophers like to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I have read the post on the two issues involved and I definitely was not referring to any post in particular. However, some of the comments offered on the contradiction did not strike me as quite real, like they were two steps to the side.

By the way, I never debated about angels dancing. I was one of those who did not live in the ivory tower, another very old saying…

Seriously, I’m glad you questioned the usage. Have to get this granny up to speed.
Keep doing what you are doing

Blessings,
granny

One of the nice features of CAF as contrasted to normal human conversation is that it is less likely to become sidetracked.

 

[greylorn]

Dear Frater Bovious,

Thank you for this great post. You definitely should post more often. Since you went from "Can God Think? to here, how about about moving on to “Omnipotency Revisited”? That would be appreciated.

Blessings,
granny

Not by the OP submitter. Is there any way to put up an “invitation only,” or “no bloviators,” OP?

 

[greylorn]

Correct. It is meaningless to speak of God having free will… in this specific case. Saying that God has free-will in this case is like saying “sdasdfsdf” has free-will. What is “sdasdfsdf”? I have no idea.

This is the central point that we keep going in circles with. Basically the view is that God choosing to be or not to be evil is not actually a category that free-will can be applied to for God; it is a contradiction and therefore nonsense (indeed, since it is nonsense it is not actually a category at all); it is not nonsense for humans, however. greylorn would see this as evidence for God not being omnipotent, as something humans have that God doesn’t.

Greylorn would only see this as evidence that sdasdfsdf is not omnipotent either. Actually, that’s untrue. He would not confuse a vague, hand-waving, quasi-philosophical argument with genuine evidence.

 

[grannymh]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frater Bovious
The position that “we can do something God cannot” is more correctly stated as “we have to do something that God does not need to do.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by MindOverMatter forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
This is very good.

quote=greylorn;4701887]Yes, very good indeed. It means that we get to do whatever is irrelevant.

Whether or not greylorn’s reply fits exactly with Frator Bovious’ post is irrelevant. What is relevant is that his reply is dead center, on target, with real life.

Not only can calculus (example from OP) be considered creative in the context of one’s own mind but so also all the irrelevant actions being constantly created and re-created by my generation and those following. But who or what determines what is irrelevant? You, the reader, can determine irrelevancy, I can, my friends, including greylorn and other posters, can, and so can my kids. Call irrelevancy an equal opportunity.

Let’s shift to our surroundings. What would the actual universe be like if some of it was irrelevant? Irrelevancy, in practice, could lead to inconsistency and unpredictable outcomes. Where would scientists find jobs outside of Hollywood?

If God is not omnipotent, He would be more like us, unlimited in irrelevancy, changing like we do according to the popular mindset. Hopefully, God won’t tinker with earth’s gravity.

Blessings,
granny

 

[grannymh]

Quote:
Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Dear Frater Bovious,

Thank you for this great post. You definitely should post more often. Since you went from "Can God Think? to here, how about about moving on to “Omnipotency Revisited”? That would be appreciated.

Blessings,
granny

Not by the OP submitter. Is there any way to put up an “invitation only,” or “no bloviators,” OP?

:nope:

No bloviators? Would pontificators be welcomed? Posts without challenges would be like chili without spice.:crying:

 

[grannymh]

Kindly stay on point. If you wish to discuss music, please initiate your own thread.

Seems to me that the creation of music in its fullest sense, including that which is produced by insects at night, is connected to omnipotency…

 

[Pro_Domina]

Yes, but what of all the beautiful, glorious things created in the name of and for the:shrug: glory of other gods? I watched a special on India and the great civilizations of the Indus Valley - they too created tremendously gorgeous things in the name of their gods - as did most of the ancients. None of these things were created for Christ, they did not even know Christ, and yet they too found spiritual expression through offering up their work and skills. So is this a common human need? To offer up work for a deity?

The thing is that baptized or not, they are still made in the image of God. And the laws of God are engraved in their soul and His very existence. Their art is a manifestation of this, of their individual vocations, of their vocation as a race or nation as a whole. Baptism takes that and makes it reach that perfection which God envisioned in Paradise. The Middle Ages were going in that direction, but then…

 

[jkiernan56]

The thing is that baptized or not, they are still made in the image of God. And the laws of God are engraved in their soul and His very existence. Their art is a manifestation of this, of their individual vocations, of their vocation as a race or nation as a whole. Baptism takes that and makes it reach that perfection which God envisioned in Paradise. The Middle Ages were going in that direction, but then…

Would you then say that people who are not baptised are “children of God”? What would you say is the difference between the person created in God’s image and how baptism changes a person to be a “child of God” in the sense that John meant in chapter 1 of his Gospel?

Sorry Greylorn, I am staying on target in the Omnipotency Contradiction Revisted thread. This one has a life of its own … lol

 

[Pro_Domina]

Would you then say that people who are not baptised are “children of God”? What would you say is the difference between the person created in God’s image and how baptism changes a person to be a “child of God” in the sense that John meant in chapter 1 of his Gospel?

Sorry Greylorn, I am staying on target in the Omnipotency Contradiction Revisted thread. This one has a life of its own … lol

No they are not. A child is one who participates in the nature of that who gave it to them. A perfect statue of a human is not the son of a scupltor, but an image. Yes, there is some similarities, but not the participation of the same nature. With baptism, our souls are configured in such a great matter, that we truly become the sons and daughters of God because we participate in His Divine Nature.
Not even the powerful angels are sons of God. They, even though pure spirit and the least powerful of them could destroy and recompse the universe in a momment, are not participants in the Divine nature.

*** Qui crediderit, et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit: qui vero non crediderit, condemnabitur***

 

[agangbern]

There is a big difference between “What God can do” and “What God will do”.

There is no truth for example to the idea that “God cannot lie” as if He could not do it if He should will it. He can do it IF He should will it. But would He will it? Certainly NO. He would be violating His own nature if He decides to do it. But He can if He wills!

 

[jkiernan56]

There is a big difference between “What God can do” and “What God will do”.

There is no truth for example to the idea that “God cannot lie” as if He could not do it if He should will it. He can do it IF He should will it. But would He will it? Certainly NO. He would be violating His own nature if He decides to do it. But He can if He wills!

It is not our opinion that there are some things God cannot do. Please look into what St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine have said on this subject.

God can only do what is real … ie - what is in the realm of possibility. The phrase “all things are possible” is more correctly understood in the context that … “all things that are possible … are possible for God.” It is not understood to mean that God can do that which is not real and therefore not possible. For instance, God cannot will Himself to cease His own existence. That is an impossibility to God … because it is not within the realm of reality (possible things). It is Gods REALITY to exist. God cannot NOT exist.

 

[jkiernan56]

No they are not. A child is one who participates in the nature of that who gave it to them. A perfect statue of a human is not the son of a scupltor, but an image. Yes, there is some similarities, but not the participation of the same nature. With baptism, our souls are configured in such a great matter, that we truly become the sons and daughters of God because we participate in His Divine Nature.
Not even the powerful angels are sons of God. They, even though pure spirit and the least powerful of them could destroy and recompse the universe in a momment, are not participants in the Divine nature.

*** Qui crediderit, et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit: qui vero non crediderit, condemnabitur***

Thank you very much for your response. It is nice to see that your understanding is according to the Church’s teaching. The idea that all people are “children of God” is a huge misunderstanding even by Catholics. I can see that the Lord has blessed you a great deal.

 

[Pro_Domina]

My friends, what makes an act good or bad?

It is God’s *arbitrary, *(it is strong word, but theologically correct) will. He is God. His vision of things is *the *vision.

We would all agree that breaking your arm is bad. Would you say it is all powerful to will and break your arm?

Is evil power? No it is weakness. For God to do evil is to stop being Himself, that being OBVIOUSLY impossible, impossible because God is *the *being, unlike us that are complicated creatures, passive of doing things against ourselves.

Lying is evil. Lying is distancing from God. A being cannot distance from his very being. God cannot, being Truth also be a lie, because it is not a lie then.

These stupid “ideas” that some of you come up with are quite silly, first of all for trying to explain God, being that the greatest of all creatures, the Blessed Virgin Mary, in her unmeasurable greatness, known only to God, is still infinitly less than God. I mean way to go humility!

Trying to make a sand castle hold all the water in the ocean is infinitly easier.

 

[agangbern]

It is not our opinion that there are some things God cannot do. Please look into what St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine have said on this subject.

God can only do what is real … ie - what is in the realm of possibility. The phrase “all things are possible” is more correctly understood in the context that … “all things that are possible … are possible for God.” It is not understood to mean that God can do that which is not real and therefore not possible. For instance, God cannot will Himself to cease His own existence. That is an impossibility to God … because it is not within the realm of reality (possible things). It is Gods REALITY to exist. God cannot NOT exist.

He can IF He should will it! But He would not will it!

I would not dare put the Lord into a test.

 

[jkiernan56]

He can IF He should will it! But He would not will it!

I would not dare put the Lord into a test.

You make God’s Will and His Existence two separate realities or entities. They are one and the same. It is God’s very essence to exist. God cannot will Himself to cease to exist - it is not possible because it is not real … anymore than a 4 sided triangle. It is a contradiction in terms. God cannot contradict Himself.

 

[Agripa]

The thing is that baptized or not, they are still made in the image of God. And the laws of God are engraved in their soul and His very existence. Their art is a manifestation of this, of their individual vocations, of their vocation as a race or nation as a whole. Baptism takes that and makes it reach that perfection which God envisioned in Paradise. The Middle Ages were going in that direction, but then…

And yet I still say if God is actually concerned about what we may or may not do for God, the act of dedicating effort and art to God is equally valued whether if its from one baptised a christian or buddist or hindi, etc.

 

[jkiernan56]

And yet I still say if God is actually concerned about what we may or may not do for God, the act of dedicating effort and art to God is equally valued whether if its from one baptised a christian or buddist or hindi, etc.

Even if one does not know or believe in God, for a person to use the talents they were given to the best of their abilities - I agree with you that it DOES give glory to God - the source of all goodness and beauty.

 

[grannymh]

And yet I still say if God is actually concerned about what we may or may not do for God, the act of dedicating effort and art to God is equally valued whether if its from one baptised a christian or buddist or hindi, etc.

May I expand on the above?

The God, Who may be unknown in a person’s heart, is still present, calling the person to Himself. The magnificent beauty and poetry of the earth is one of the visible signs of the Creator. This sign is universal touching all people. The act of dedicating effort and art to God is universally valuable. God understands that not all people know Him through Christianity. God understands that some kinds of knowledge are deeply flawed. Still, God, being all loving, accepts all efforts as valuable.

God sees the soul, not the name tag.

Blessings,
granny

 

[joemccarron]

Since we can do something which God cannot, God is not omnipotent.

There are several different meanings for omnipotent. Can God do the logically impossible? If so your logical argument doesn’t stand in his way. We can’t see out of it but in some sense we can’t even conceive how logical axioms could be untrue.

But here is another thing to consider. God can be infinitely powerful but still unable to do certain things. Just like I can say I am considering the set of all real numbers except 3 and 7 and the set would still be infinite. In the same way God’s power can be infinite even though there may be things he can’t do.

 

[PEPCIS]

There is a big difference between “What God can do” and “What God will do”.

There is no truth for example to the idea that “God cannot lie” as if He could not do it if He should will it. He can do it IF He should will it. But would He will it? Certainly NO. He would be violating His own nature if He decides to do it. But He can if He wills!

I agree 100%. It’s that “free will” thingy that everyone keeps talking about. What’s amazing is that they want to credit man with COMPLETE free will, and with God they limit it. LOL