The Omnipotency Contradiction

[Shike]

Something tells me that I’m going to muff up what it was you stated, so I’ll try, but I’m gonna expect that you’ll correct me if I’m wrong.

My understanding of your position is that God does not have free will to choose good over evil. He is similar to His creation because, just as His creation, He is bound to (not free of) His nature.

Firstly, human nature IS bound, and this can easily be shown Biblically. Even so, man is still able to choose good over evil. Yet the mere act of choosing does not make his will free.

That tells me, logically, that I cannot apply this to God, because we know that God, being perfect, has perfect free will, being bound (limited) by NOTHING. To say that His character limits his choices is true, but does not negate the fact that he has that choice. The choice MUST BE REAL, or it is not a choice - ergo, no free will.

Not “no free will”, but should be seen as the category bound/free doesn’t even apply (these are two different things but easily mistook as the same).

The choice MUST BE REAL, or it is not a choice - ergo, no free will.

Bear with me.

This word “choice” is slightly ambiguous here. It could mean:
A - a verb, someone must actively choose something (a tautology, if I choose something, then I choose something)
B - a noun, what are the conditions for a choice to be real (ie free will)? I argue that you need first a proposition and then you must have the ability to accept, reject, and suspend judgement on the proposition.

I’ll assume B, choice as noun, as what you meant. So if I were to use symbols for my position (and nothing fancy here, I should put it in predicate logic but this should suffice now) it could look like this:
P - there’s exists proposition x
A - I have the ability to accept proposition x
R - I have the ability to reject proposition x
S - I have the ability to suspend judgement on proposition x (I’m not sure about this, this might be the same as R in degree, but no matter as it doesn’t change the end results)
F - I have free will

My view:
(P & (A & (R & S))) → F] & [F → (P & (A & (R & S)))]

Basically this says that free will is the conjunctions of P,A,R, and S and visa versa [it is read like thus: If P,A,R,S are all true then F will be true… and… if F is true then P,A,R,S will also be true] This is your argument:

Your view:
(A & (R & S)) → F] & (~A v (~R v ~S)) → ~F]

[it is read like thus: If A,R,S are true, then F will be true… and… if not A or not R or not S is true (at least one has to be true) then not F will be true. I completely agree with your logic here, and it makes perfect sense, but it is not the same as my argument.

The addition of P changes everything. In my argument, if the only knowledge we have is P is false (which is what I claim about “God can choose not to exist”), then free will is not true no matter what. BUT that doesn’t mean not free will is true. Your argument stresses ~F, but mine says ~F is not even reached. There are three positions F, ~F, and (roughly) neither; My position is neither.

So if ~F isn’t reached, then it isn’t limiting God’s free-will; it just means we aren’t really talking about free will. “Free will is not true” doesn’t mean “Free will is false”.

Secondly, I do not see a “contradiction” where you proposed one. It is not a “contradiction” to state something that is not possible.

Sorry, in my explanation of actuality and potentiality with the claim “God can choose to not exist”, I reach a contradiction and then weed out the possibilites to reach the only viable conclusion, that is that of nonsense. They are closly linked in my argument, but you are correct.

PS. I haven’t taken offense. I appreciate your reasoned answers, and your desire to find out what it is that is different in our views. Peace.

We agree on so much. It is the teeny-weeny-tinyest thing that we differ on, which leads in two different directions. That is unless you disagree with my definition of free-will.

thanks for patience
ciao.

 

[greylorn]

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

:nope:

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

No pontificators, no way. That would be terrible. Any potential pontificators should be admonished to abjure obfuscation, and never bloviate.

Granny, you need to visit southern Arizona. Chili IS spice.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, you need to visit southern Arizona. Chili IS spice.

Is southern Arizona a place where God is IS?

 

[greylorn]

Again, the problems here revolve around many lack of premises that are essential to the discussion.

First off, almost all of you are trying to describe God in human terms. Sure, we are forced to, as we have no other way. But the idea that God is not a human (OBVIOUSLY OUR LORD JESUS CHIRST IS.) has to be in our minds

God doesn’t have free will. Plain and simple.

**He *is ***freedom.

The juxtaposition of shared letters or partial words does not make a point to anyone interested in relevant concepts.

Free will and freedom are entirely different concepts.

Get a dictionary, maybe even a philosophy book. Check it out.

(Off point— it is Jesus Christ, not CHIRST.) You might find this technical detail irrelevant, even when you are referring to an entity Whom you regard as a god. If you do not think it important, continue to ignore the excellent spell-check feedback from the CAF support software, as well as simple logic from other sources.

 

[greylorn]

Human reasoning or logic is not always reality. And Almighty God cannot be placed into the box of human logic. To man, for example, the concept of a rectangle that has three sides is nonsense. So is a virgin conceiving and bearing a child! They are simply nonsense to human reasoning.

But let us not measure God by human logic. It is a reality, for example, that a Virgin conceived and bore a child. That is Divine Logic!

Luke 1:37 says, “For nothing shall be impossible with God.”

You’ll present your 3-sided rectangle to a mathematics journal, when?

 

[greylorn]

After due consideration (of all…sorry, most…of the posts) it can be assumed that there is after all no contradiction to the initial assumption of God’s omnipotence.
He has no need to think - not suggesting he cannot do so as this was the genesis for this thread - as all is known to Him.
He is not limited to act in our logical way.
He is not bound by our limited knowledge but is beyond but not inaccessible to our logic.
Just some thoughts!
Gerry

Consider that you might have gotten it exactly backwards. The universe is constrained by logic. God is constrained by logic. Gerry, however, can make up whatever amuses him and declare it to be true.

 

[agangbern]

The fact that Mary conceived as a virgin is recorded in the Bible, and is therefore not suspected of conforming to logic. It is received by faith.

However, there are aspects of God’s attributes that are not revealed in God’s Word that require that we do not suspend logic in lieu of some far-flung concepts that are nowhere intimated in His Word.

As we are made in His image, we should use the logic that He gave us to assist us in knowing what we can and which conforms to the logic that He gave us.

Remember, when God finished making man, replete with a brain and logical capabilities, He said: “It was good.”

I agree with you, that there may be aspects of God’s attributes that are not revealed in God’s Word.

But the topic of this thread refers to God’s omnipotence. And of this aspect God’s Word is very clear and categorical, therefore it does not call for us humans to rationalize it out.

It is very clear in Luke 1:37 that “nothing shall be impossible with God.” And human logic is suspended by this truth as when the Virgin conceived and bore a Child.

 

[raikou]

I guess the first few posts have already settled the matter.

Isn’t it true that God has an “infinitely perfect” knowledge? He knows everything that can be thought of. I think it’s like knowing all real numbers at once, however infinite they are.

Of course, to say that there is still some knowledge or idea that God has never thought of is an imperfection. It’s a lack of knowledge. To say that he doesn’t have this imperfection only supports his omnipotence.

The question posted is somewhat similar to one mentioned by Dawkins. He argues that God seems not to be omnipotent since because he knew already what he will do, he cannot change his actions, as though he is not free.

But then again, what he suggests is another imperfection - indecision. A person who can’t decide or know what to do and has not the will to do it is a weak person. This weakness is therefore expected to be incompatible with God’s omnipotence.

 

[Shike]

And human logic is suspended by this truth as when the Virgin conceived and bore a Child.

There’s a difference between the physical laws of nature and the laws of logic.

• A 4-sided triangle is nonsense.
• A virgin conceiving a Child, not nonsense; incredible and hard to believe as it is, and given our knowledge of reproduction it might seem impossible. But that’s an impossibility not against the laws of logic as is the 4-sided triangle.
  ciao,
  Michael

 

[agangbern]

There’s a difference between the physical laws of nature and the laws of logic.

• A 4-sided triangle is nonsense.
• A virgin conceiving a Child, not nonsense; incredible and hard to believe as it is, and given our knowledge of reproduction it might seem impossible. But that’s an impossibility not against the laws of logic as is the 4-sided triangle.
  ciao,
  Michael

Oh? You mean to say that physical laws need not abide with the laws of logic?

So you think that human knowledge about reproduction is still primitive, right? There are things we do not know about reproduction that is why we only consider it incredible but not logically impossible that the Virgin conceived and bore the Child, is this what you are saying? But how sure are we that our knowledge about logical laws are already perfect and that they are all what they are in the universe of thoughts?

 

[greylorn]

Oh? You mean to say that physical laws need not abide with the laws of logic?

So you think that human knowledge about reproduction is still primitive, right? There are things we do not know about reproduction that is why we only consider it incredible but not logically impossible that the Virgin conceived and bore the Child, is this what you are saying? But how sure are we that our knowledge about logical laws are already perfect and that they are all what they are in the universe of thoughts?

You would do well to study Shike’s post, for it is a clear example of the use of logic as a way to correct incoherent thoughts.

Incidentally, given modern artificial insemination techniques, a virgin birth now requires only a virgin, anonymous donor, and a suitably trained medical technician.

If you would take about five years to study the principles of logic you would find that they are few in number, and complete. However it is a waste of time and words to attempt to explain this to someone apparently not accustomed to logical thought.

 

[Shike]

Oh? You mean to say that physical laws need not abide with the laws of logic?

I’m saying that it’s in the realm of possibility that physical laws can be suspended, whereas there is no possibility for the laws of logic to be suspended. I’m not saying physical laws are not logical, just that they aren’t the laws of logic.

So you think that human knowledge about reproduction is still primitive, right?

No, I don’t think it’s primitive if you compare our knowledge about reproduction today with that oh say 100 years ago or even earlier.

There are things we do not know about reproduction that is why we only consider it incredible but not logically impossible that the Virgin conceived and bore the Child, is this what you are saying?

Our amount of knowledge about reproduction is besides the point in this case. I’m saying it’s possible physical laws can be suspended whereas with the laws of logic there is no such possibility.

But how sure are we that our knowledge about logical laws are already perfect and that they are all what they are in the universe of thoughts?

A better question is how do we know anything?
The laws of logic are pretty well mapped out and we depend on them every day. Try to think of a universe where something both exists and doesn’t exist at the same time in the same respect and you may start to see my point.

good questions

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

That tells me, logically, that I cannot apply this to God, because we know that God, being perfect, has perfect free will, being bound (limited) by NOTHING. To say that His character limits his choices is true, but does not negate the fact that he has that choice. The choice MUST BE REAL, or it is not a choice - ergo, no free will.

Not “no free will”, but should be seen as the category bound/free doesn’t even apply (these are two different things but easily mistook as the same).

I didn’t juxtapose “bounded” with “freedom.” Humans have will, but their abilities are restricted, thereby restricting their freedom, and their will as a consequence. It isn’t a question of being bound and having no freedom. It’s a question of the limitation of the will, which is the result of a limitation of the freedom to perform the will.

God has no such restrictions or limitations. His will is truly free because it is not restricted. I did not try to say that he has no free will if He cannot potentially choose evil. What I said is that His will is not completely free. There is a difference, no matter how subtle.

The choice MUST BE REAL, or it is not a choice - ergo, no free will.

Shike:

This word “choice” is slightly ambiguous here. It could mean:
A - a verb, someone must actively choose something (a tautology, if I choose something, then I choose something)
B - a noun, what are the conditions for a choice to be real (ie free will)? I argue that you need first a proposition and then you must have the ability to accept, reject, and suspend judgement on the proposition.

I’ll assume B, choice as noun, as what you meant. So if I were to use symbols for my position (and nothing fancy here, I should put it in predicate logic but this should suffice now) it could look like this:
P - there’s exists proposition x
A - I have the ability to accept proposition x
R - I have the ability to reject proposition x
S - I have the ability to suspend judgement on proposition x (I’m not sure about this, this might be the same as R in degree, but no matter as it doesn’t change the end results)
F - I have free will

My view:
(P & (A & (R & S))) → F] & [F → (P & (A & (R & S)))]

Basically this says that free will is the conjunctions of P,A,R, and S and visa versa [it is read like thus: If P,A,R,S are all true then F will be true… and… if F is true then P,A,R,S will also be true]

Ok, pretty close. Except that R and S MUST be considered as a logical whole. That is because if you have the ability to reject a proposal, you must also be able to accept the proposal. It does no good to say that you can reject the proposal if you cannot accept it, and vice versa. The outcome is connected to Free will, and either choice (accept or reject) is logically a part of the formula and cannot be given different outcomes.

I would then propose “B” as all choices which can be accepted and/or rejected.

I would then present it thus:
(P & (B) or (S)) → F] & [F → (P & (B) or (S))]

In this presentation, free will is the conjunctions of P,B, or P,S and; If P,B, or P,S are true then F will be true… and… if F is true then P,B, or P,S will also be true.

I hope that this clarifies.

Shike:

The addition of P changes everything. In my argument, if the only knowledge we have is P is false (which is what I claim about “God can choose not to exist”), then free will is not true no matter what.

The logic is solid, with one exception: it ASSUMES that we should suspend our logic. By “our logic”, I mean our ability to reason and assume certain facts about humans and project them upon God.

Before you shout 'nay", let me remind you that you have no evidence to establish that your proposition that “my P is false” is true. What evidence do you have to support your contention that my proposition is false?

Shike:

BUT that doesn’t mean not free will is true. Your argument stresses ~F, but mine says ~F is not even reached. There are three positions F, ~F, and (roughly) neither; My position is neither.

As I said, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You cannot simultaneously state that “God has free will,” and then hold that “He cannot exercise His will.” The two are LOGICALLY opposed. Therefore, you seek to suspend logic in your pursuit of your proposition.

Let me try to formalize it.
F=free will
nF=no free will
P=Proposal
A=Accept proposal
R=Reject proposal

[P & A → ~F]
[P & R → nF]

And acceptance of one proposal is nothing more than the rejection of another, and vice versa. They are logically united, and will thus lead to the same conclusion.

You have them leading to separate conclusions, therefore not logical.

Shike:

We agree on so much. It is the teeny-weeny-tinyest thing that we differ on, which leads in two different directions. That is unless you disagree with my definition of free-will.

I agree that we are very close.

Shike:

thanks for patience

Likewise. Peace.

 

[PEPCIS]

Incidentally, given modern artificial insemination techniques, a virgin birth now requires only a virgin, anonymous donor, and a suitably trained medical technician.

This is not how the Bible intends for “virgin” to be defined. “Virgin” is used in the Bible to indicate that there was no earthly donor to complete the conception process.

Greylorn, if you would take about five years to study the principles of logic you would find that they are few in number, and complete. However it is a waste of time and words to attempt to explain this to someone apparently not accustomed to logical thought.

Cheers.

 

[PEPCIS]

I agree with you, that there may be aspects of God’s attributes that are not revealed in God’s Word.

But the topic of this thread refers to God’s omnipotence. And of this aspect God’s Word is very clear and categorical, therefore it does not call for us humans to rationalize it out.

It is very clear in Luke 1:37 that “nothing shall be impossible with God.” And human logic is suspended by this truth as when the Virgin conceived and bore a Child.

Wooooo…you misunderstood me. I agree that the Virgin conception and birth does not agree with human logic, and that it forces us to reevaluate the manner in which we understand the world when it comes to God and miracles.

I wouldn’t necessarily say that we have to “suspend” human logic, but that we need to expand it to include miracles.

Peace.

 

[PEPCIS]

The question posted is somewhat similar to one mentioned by Dawkins. He argues that God seems not to be omnipotent since because he knew already what he will do, he cannot change his actions, as though he is not free.

This is just an ill-defined notion of what is happening. It is better to state that “God has committed Himself to a certain course of action,” rather than to state that “He cannot change His course.”

 

[Shike]

I didn’t juxtapose “bounded” with “freedom.” Humans have will, but their abilities are restricted, thereby restricting their freedom, and their will as a consequence. It isn’t a question of being bound and having no freedom. It’s a question of the limitation of the will, which is the result of a limitation of the freedom to perform the will.

‘Human abilities are restricted’ is ambiguous.

• Restricted in the sense that humans can’t do all that God can, that humans have a finite nature.
• Restricted in that something is preventing someone from exercising a natural ability.
  I think I noticed such an ambiguity earlier on in the thead, allowing two people to talk right past each other.

God has no such restrictions or limitations. His will is truly free because it is not restricted. I did not try to say that he has no free will if He cannot potentially choose evil. What I said is that His will is not completely free. There is a difference, no matter how subtle.

Fair enough, my terminology might be a bit unclear and I might have unknowingly mistated slightly your position. I think I see what triggered you to write this paragraph but it’s too tedious to respond to and not the main point. His will not being completely free is still addressed by my argument.

Ok, pretty close. Except that R and S MUST be considered as a logical whole.

I’m guessing you meant to say A and R must be considered as a logical whole. But it doesn’t matter because of the conjunction being employed. Whether both are true seperately or together in one letter doesn’t make a difference to the point of my argument.

It does no good to say that you can reject the proposal if you cannot accept it, and vice versa.

It does when the only outcomes you are interested in is when both are true. But va bene.

I would then propose “B” as all choices which can be accepted and/or rejected.

To keep ambiguity out it might be better to say: B - I have the ability to acept or reject proposition x.

I would then present it thus:
(P & (B) or (S)) → F] & [F → (P & (B) or (S))]

Using the or (v) sign is not what you want and ruins everything. What you just said opens the possibility for "I have the ability to suspend judgement on proposition x (even though we don’t know if prop x exists or not to be suspended from), therefore I have free-will. Actually, I’ll be happy to shorten it up even more:

(P & B) → F] & [F → [/COLOR](P & B)]

I hope that this clarifies.

Actually it doesn’t; And I need to change my definition of F. It should be F - I have the capacity to exercise my free-will. And I’m going to just forget about it, I should have used predicate logic as it doesn’t quite grasp all the nuances that it should.

The logic is solid, with one exception: it ASSUMES that we should suspend our logic. By “our logic”, I mean our ability to reason and assume certain facts about humans and project them upon God.

How can logic assume that we should suspend our logic.
But anyways, logic is not suspended. Logic leads us to see that there is a case where the capacity of free will is not there. This does not mean free-will is limited. This does not mean that overall there is no free-will.

Before you shout 'nay", let me remind you that you have no evidence to establish that your proposition that “my P is false” is true.

I don’t know how you could miss it; that’s really the main thing I’ve tried to show over and over. Look back on my posts in this thread, where I talk about potentiality and actuality (there are many).

As I said, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Yes, it’s quite unfair that Catholics can do that, especially when they won’t share.

You cannot simultaneously state that “God has free will,” and then hold that “He cannot exercise His will.”

True dat. Actually, I totally agree. However, what I can say is “God has free will” and then hold “there are some cases where the category of free will doesn’t apply” (ie. it doesn’t apply to nonsense because I don’t think anything applies to nonsense because it doesn’t exist).

The two are LOGICALLY opposed. Therefore, you seek to suspend logic in your pursuit of your proposition.

The laws of logic cannot be suspended (another thing you will no doubt say limits God’s free will) because the suspension of the laws of logic is nonsense. Now actually I realize you mean to say that I’m not thinking straight; perhaps. But I doubt it. I really shouldn’t have put that sentential logic example, it looks like it has furthered confusion rather than helping.

[P & A → ~F]
[P & R → nF]

And acceptance of one proposal is nothing more than the rejection of another, and vice versa. They are logically united, and will thus lead to the same conclusion.

You have them leading to separate conclusions, therefore not logical.

I’m just going to dismiss this as a “let’s forget about using the symbols”. Because nF is definitely not the same as ~F.

I agree that we are very close.

Further now than the last go round.

ciao.

 

[Shike]

Wooooo…you misunderstood me. I agree that the Virgin conception and birth does not agree with human logic,

There is one logic in the sense of the laws of logic. And the Virgin Birth does not contradict them. Read my reply to agangbern #486 & #489.

I wouldn’t necessarily say that we have to “suspend” human logic, but that we need to expand it to include miracles.

If by human logic you mean the universal laws of logic that transcend the universe, then no. If by human logic you mean we must distinguish between the laws of physics and the laws of logic, then yes.

 

[vera_dicere]

Of course God can think. He needed to think to create new information in the way of complete creation of everything.

Besides, its cleared up in the bible “God’s ways and thoughts above yours”. Essentially, we suck, our brains are pathetic blobs of flesh and we barely use 10%, we like to think we’re smart and clued in - but in the grand scheme of things, compared to God, we’re labotomised clumps of dirt.

 

[Shike]

Of course God can think. He needed to think to create new information in the way of complete creation of everything.

Besides, its cleared up in the bible “God’s ways and thoughts above yours”. Essentially, we suck, our brains are pathetic blobs of flesh and we barely use 10%, we like to think we’re smart and clued in - but in the grand scheme of things, compared to God, we’re labotomised clumps of dirt.

That’s not a nice thing to say of God’s creatures. Instead of dragging us down, why don’t we bump God up, it would be more proper anyways.