The Omnipotency Contradiction

[Shike]

I didn’t really think so. I thought it was common knowledge among Christians that our will is not free to make certain choices. I may be making unwarranted assumptions here, but this certainly would go a long way in you understanding where I am coming from.

For reasons of clarity one shouldn’t say that our will is not free to make choices with concerns to something outside our nature. For instance, saying “I’m not free to create a skyscraper by screaming really loud” By saying I’m not free to do that is fundamentally looking at a human as an incomplete creation and comparing what one can do with God. Try rather to think of a human as an individual whole.

I choose to add:

• Restricted in the sense that man is depraved from before birth, and that because of that depravity, we stand condemned of God.

Correct, if you don’t mean total depravity, that is like Luther thought. But we are unable to earn our salvation… so this would actually fall under my 2 categories as something we don’t have the natural ability to do; not in our nature. No need for your extra category, but nevertheless a good point.

ciao.

 

[agangbern]

These are the only 3 options. Your option of “but He chooses to not not exist, but could choose if He wanted to” is not an option. Not in these types of cases. Fundamentally ruled out. And when I say fundamentally ruled out, it doesn’t mean that the opposite of your claim is true, that God doesn’t choose to not not exist. What it means is that categorically your claim is ruled out. That choosing yes or choosing no doesn’t even apply. No choosing applies categorically. “No choosing” in this case isn’t a limit or a denial of free-will since the concept of free-will cannot even be invoked.
ciao.

“God doesn’t choose to not not exist.”

How necessary is it to use three “not” in such a short sentence?

Is this what becomes of men when they attempt to equal themselves with God?

 

[grannymh]

It might have been better worded, but he is right - we cannot know God nor understand God - any attempt merely humanizes God and ascribes human attributes to God (Him, Father, Son, Ruler, etc.) but really, whatever or wherever God is, all we can do is accept that reality. However, it does make us feel better if we think we can have a relationship with un unfathomable concept!

Maybe, once we accept that reality, whatever or wherever God is (as described above) and I mean really, really accept it, we’ll experience somehow His omnipotent power to have a relationship with us.

Blessings,
granny

 

[Shike]

“God doesn’t choose to not not exist.”

How necessary is it to use three “not” in such a short sentence?

Is this what becomes of men when they attempt to equal themselves with God?

Are you saying that I am attempting to equal myself with God? That would be silly.

Actually, it’s extremly necessary to use 3 “not”'s. One for each time I’ve had to tear out some of my hair during the course of this thread. But there’s still some hair left, so don’t worry.

ciao!

 

[jkiernan56]

Are you saying that I am attempting to equal myself with God? That would be silly.

Actually, it’s extremly necessary to use 3 “not”'s. One for each time I’ve had to tear out some of my hair during the course of this thread. But there’s still some hair left, so don’t worry.

ciao!

Ouch!! I feel your pain … lol … if you run out of hair on your head … you could always start to pluck out your eyebrows next … be careful not to put your eyes while you do that … stay away from sharp objects

 

[PEPCIS]

…apparently, all I have to do now is show you that “God can choose to exist or not exist” is nonsense, ie. not a real proposition and therefore not true or false.

I’m not even sure that is possible. As I stated in an earlier posting, a logical progression would be to project what I do know regarding free will from personal experience and gained knowledge, to God. I speak specifically of doing this only in areas that are lacking any Biblical revelation concerning His will.

Shike:

But please stop saying that I have suspended my reasoning of logic; as I have good responses as to why your claim isn’t a real proposition. I do… yes. Yes, I do.

I gave the logical progression. You haven’t shown that it is in error, but have insisted that the proposition is not a real proposition.

Shike:

Oh and a side note… I think you are confusing terms in a reccent post when you contrast with the words “false” and “real” propositions. A real proposition can be true or(exclusive or) false. An unreal proposition cannot be true or(inclusive or) false.

I think YOU are confusing the terms. I would insist that you don’t get to define the proposition as being “unreal” until you can establish that as true. We are working toward that, and I do believe that I have made errors in interpreting what you have related. It slows the process down, but I have gained an insight into your position, so it’s a positive progression.

Shike:

There are 3…possibilities to address “God can choose to not exist”…
They are:
[1]God isn’t real
[2]God is imperfect
[3]the proposition is not actually a proposition ie. nonsense.

These are the only 3 options. Your option of “but He chooses to not not exist, but could choose if He wanted to” is not an option. Not in these types of cases. Fundamentally ruled out. And when I say fundamentally ruled out, it doesn’t mean that the opposite of your claim is true, that God doesn’t choose to not not exist. What it means is that categorically your claim is ruled out. That choosing yes or choosing no doesn’t even apply. No choosing applies categorically. “No choosing” in this case isn’t a limit or a denial of free-will since the concept of free-will cannot even be invoked.

Well then. You win. Congrats!! All without having to establish that your claim is true. I would have never thought that possible. Must be some “fundamentals” I’m not aware of that I thought would have been related to me.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

I didn’t really think so. I thought it was common knowledge among Christians that our will is not free to make certain choices. I may be making unwarranted assumptions here, but this certainly would go a long way in you understanding where I am coming from.

For reasons of clarity one shouldn’t say that our will is not free to make choices with concerns to something outside our nature. For instance, saying “I’m not free to create a skyscraper by screaming really loud” By saying I’m not free to do that is fundamentally looking at a human as an incomplete creation and comparing what one can do with God. Try rather to think of a human as an individual whole.

Here’s the rub: we don’t have free will. Not in any true sense of the word. The concept of free will that you seem to operate under is one in which man is free to do anything that is within his nature and power to do. So, if I want to smoke a joint, or if I wish to jump off a skyscraper, I can effect my will, because these are things within my power and grasp.

However, my whole point is that ability and power (or the lack of them) are exactly what defines the degree of freedom of the will. So it matters not if it is not in our nature to make a choice, but that if we desired to, there is nothing to prevent us from doing so except ability and power.

An example might be if I were an adulterer, you might claim that this is part of our nature and cannot be changed. Yet Christians understand that we have a will that can choose AGAINST our nature. Just because our natural tendencies are toward evil choices, we still have the ability to make the right, moral one.

If we are to believe the Bible, we are in bondage to our will. We are held captive by “the prince of the power of the air; the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience.” (Ephesians 2)

If the children of disobedience are doing the bidding of the prince of the power of the air, is it any wonder they cannot do what is right before the eyes of God?

Shike:

Correct, if you don’t mean total depravity, that is like Luther thought.

As far as I’m concerned, “total” is when you can’t earn your salvation. There isn’t anything worse than that, because all you have to be is depraved. The degree of depravedness matters not.

Shike:

But we are unable to earn our salvation…

Very true.

 

[Shike]

Well then. You win. Congrats!! All without having to establish that your claim is true. I would have never thought that possible. Must be some “fundamentals” I’m not aware of that I thought would have been related to me.

You were so close… the next line down were my posts that establish my position. But if you want to say that I just randomly spew things forth…

 

[Shike]

Here’s the rub: we don’t have free will. Not in any true sense of the word. The concept of free will that you seem to operate under is one in which man is free to do anything that is within his nature and power to do. So, if I want to smoke a joint, or if I wish to jump off a skyscraper, I can effect my will, because these are things within my power and grasp.

However, my whole point is that ability and power (or the lack of them) are exactly what defines the degree of freedom of the will. So it matters not if it is not in our nature to make a choice

It most certainly does matter.

, but that if we desired to, there is nothing to prevent us from doing so except ability and power.

Nature defines ability. So what you say here doesn’t make sense.

An example might be if I were an adulterer, you might claim that this is part of our nature and cannot be changed.

No, I don’t think I would say that it cannot be changed; it has something to do with our fallen nature, but as for the details I’m not all too sure yet.

As far as I’m concerned, “total” is when you can’t earn your salvation. There isn’t anything worse than that, because all you have to be is depraved. The degree of depravedness matters not.

It does matter if it is true or not just like any truth matters to some degree.

So all in all, read the 3 posts I linked to… then feel free to say that I haven’t followed “the process”.

ciao.

 

[jkiernan56]

Shike - The place I would start with anyone in logic is to teach:

True = 1 False = 0
On = 1 Off = 0
Real = 1 Not real = 0
Yes = 1 No = 0

God exists = True God doesn’t exist = False
God exists = 1 God doesn’t exist = 0

 

[Shike]

Shike - The place I would start with anyone in logic is to teach:

True = 1 False = 0
On = 1 Off = 0
Real = 1 Not real = 0
Yes = 1 No = 0

God exists = True God doesn’t exist = False
God exists = 1 God doesn’t exist = 0

Maybe I’m wrong, but be careful with the real/not real. It seems there’s a important difference between that and true/false. For instance, a proposition can be real and therefore true or it can be false. But if a proposition is not real, it cannot be true, it cannot be false, it cannot be both, but it must be neither.

This distinction might have been what was confusing to some reading my posts.

Then again, perhaps you weren’t really comparing them but rather showing the either/or nature of those things, at least when they’re taken separately. I’m tired.

 

[jkiernan56]

Maybe I’m wrong, but be careful with the real/not real. It seems there’s a important difference between that and true/false. For instance, a proposition can be real and therefore true or it can be false. But if a proposition is not real, it cannot be true, it cannot be false, it cannot be both, but it must be neither.

This distinction might have been what was confusing to some reading my posts.

Then again, perhaps you weren’t really comparing them but rather showing the either/or nature of those things, at least when they’re taken separately. I’m tired.

Thank you for the distinction … in computer language we call that a NULL. But in terms of logical progression (at least for me) … if something is NOT real, then it is FALSE … ie … it doesn’t exist … I will use a 0 for this … go ahead and try to use NULL … lol

 

[PEPCIS]

You were so close… the next line down were my posts that establish my position. But if you want to say that I just randomly spew things forth…

I’ve read all your posts. They don’t say what you claim they said.

For example, post #184:

[SIGN]“From what I see, it boils down to this: If God has the possibility of choosing evil, then He’s imperfect because there is a potentiallity not actualized in God, regardless of the content (ie. the evil part) of the potentiallity, it is not actualized. Existence comes before all else, so actuallity and potentiallity must be dealt with BEFORE content (I think this is the spot where the two different conclusions in this thread come from). So if “God chooses not to do evil” is not potentiallity, one would now assume that it’s indeed actuallity; but this becomes absurd, because we know that God is all good and perfect (leaving out the original poster’s views from this discussion) and there isn’t evil in Him. So that leaves one option left that I can think of in this scenario: that “God chooses not to do evil” is an impossibility because of a contradiction. Therefore, it would seem like the conclusion is that there are some things God cannot do like choosing evil, thus conflicting with omnipotence. But this “cannot” is not a limit but more of a definition of reality, so it is the special case where omnipotence is not contradicted.”[/SIGN]

You make the false claim that “potentiallity not actualized in God” is somehow equated with “not real.” You do this by claiming that potentiality for evil in God (if this potentiality is real) is the same as an actuality not chosen. Such a proposition is rejected because it would assume that God has a potential for evil, and that is simply anathema to you.

The point is this: I dealt with this by showing how you have suspended logic by not examining how free will is exercised in humans, and projecting that to God. There is absolutely no reason to reject that proposition.

The contradiction you cite is not real.

 

[Shike]

I’ve read all your posts. They don’t say what you claim they said.

For example, post #184:

[sign]“From what I see, it boils down to this: If God has the possibility of choosing evil, then He’s imperfect because there is a potentiallity not actualized in God, regardless of the content (ie. the evil part) of the potentiallity, it is not actualized. Existence comes before all else, so actuallity and potentiallity must be dealt with BEFORE content (I think this is the spot where the two different conclusions in this thread come from). So if “God chooses not to do evil” is not potentiallity, one would now assume that it’s indeed actuallity; but this becomes absurd, because we know that God is all good and perfect (leaving out the original poster’s views from this discussion) and there isn’t evil in Him. So that leaves one option left that I can think of in this scenario: that “God chooses not to do evil” is an impossibility because of a contradiction. Therefore, it would seem like the conclusion is that there are some things God cannot do like choosing evil, thus conflicting with omnipotence. But this “cannot” is not a limit but more of a definition of reality, so it is the special case where omnipotence is not contradicted.”[/sign]

You make the false claim that “potentiallity not actualized in God” is somehow equated with “not real.”

Correct, it would seem that I do say that… by why is that claim false?

You do this by claiming that potentiality for evil in God (if this potentiality is real) is the same as an actuality not chosen.

No, I don’t think the words “not chosen” should be added, it’s besides the point. The main point is that this "potentiality for evil in God must be a total actuality if it’s in Him at all. So not just “potentiality for evil in God” is actual, but that it begs the question of actuality one step further. And eventually you will come to a point that says there is evil in God… something that we reject, correct? Something that we would call a contradiction given the claim that God is all good?

The point is this: I dealt with this by showing how you have suspended logic by not examining how free will is exercised in humans, and projecting that to God. There is absolutely no reason to reject that proposition.

It is not suspended logic if examining free-will isn’t needed to prove my point.
Free-will being exercised is besides the point; and I provided reasons. Mentioning free-will isn’t necessary to my argument, because it looks at nature, at reality itself and is not concerned with choices first and foremost. Being and doing are 2 different things. Being comes first in idea when we talk about God.

The contradiction you cite is not real.

So is my proposition that there is a contradiction false, or not real. Which is it? Just want to make sure you caught this point, regardless.

We can start over a little slower if you’d like. Do you accept that God’s nature is entirely actuality, in the sense that an effect(s) is perfectly “contained” within a cause? This approach might be quicker.

ciao.

 

[agangbern]

Is southern Arizona a place where God is IS?

Toinkz!

 

[agangbern]

Ouch!! I feel your pain … lol … if you run out of hair on your head … you could always start to pluck out your eyebrows next … be careful not to put your eyes while you do that … stay away from sharp objects

ha ha ha ha…

 

[agangbern]

I thought these guys were serious about this thread,

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

You make the false claim that “potentiallity not actualized in God” is somehow equated with “not real.”

Correct, it would seem that I do say that… by why is that claim false?

Just as equally valid is to ask: “Why is that claim true?” Which is basically what I’ve been asking.

It would appear that you have taken an arbitrary proposition, and have unilaterally declared it to be “valid” without nary a contest. I’m merely challenging you on how you have validated it.

You do this by claiming that potentiality for evil in God (if this potentiality is real) is the same as an actuality not chosen.

Shike:

No, I don’t think the words “not chosen” should be added, it’s besides the point.

No, I don’t think this is “besides the point.” It’s worthy of the point, because it doesn’t matter if you said “not chosen” or not, because the choice of evil is implied (by you) as being an actuality - something that is just as good as “chosen.” You prove that out by your very next statement, below.

Shike:

The main point is that this "potentiality for evil in God must be a total actuality if it’s in Him at all. So not just “potentiality for evil in God” is actual, but that it begs the question of actuality one step further. And eventually you will come to a point that says there is evil in God… something that we reject, correct? Something that we would call a contradiction given the claim that God is all good?

But, this is assuming that your claim that “potentiality for evil in God must be a total actuality if it’s in Him at all” is a valid claim. I see no reason to extend a “potential for evil” as evil itself. That is absurd - pardon the strong language.

The real problem is with the rejection of free will for God in all areas. The way that you have designed God, is to make Him into a car that cannot turn left because the tires only turn right. This not only makes God into something created, but makes Him schizophrenic as well, because He can exercise His will in SOME areas, but not in all areas.

You say this is so because it’s part of His nature in certain areas, and therefore God cannot go against His nature. But, what we know about the exercise of free will in man gives us ample evidence to believe that God can certainly choose contrary to His nature if He so desired.

Man’s nature is to choose evil. Yet man can choose good. Man’s desire is to choose good. Yet man will often choose evil - according to his nature.

God, being perfect COULD choose evil, but He would never do so, because Perfection would imply that One would never err. If God is truly Perfect, then this means that He has a Perfect Free Will that is able to exercise Perfect Goodness in all of His Perfect choices.

Therefore there is no contradiction.

 

[Shike]

Just as equally valid is to ask: “Why is that claim true?” Which is basically what I’ve been asking.

And I’ve been answering that with the actuality/potentiality claim. So it isn’t arbitrary, but requires at least an attempt at refutation.

No, I don’t think this is “besides the point.” It’s worthy of the point, because it doesn’t matter if you said “not chosen” or not, because the choice of evil is implied (by you) as being an actuality - something that is just as good as “chosen.” You prove that out by your very next statement, below.

Actually, it is not “just as good” as “chosen” because we are talking about existence or non-existence. And this has been one of the points you seem to be brushing off. Can something choose or even not choose if it doesn’t exist? Can something that doesn’t exist be chosen or even not chosen? This is the point you are missing that refutes your claim that my argument shows God ‘can’t turn left’; if indeed what I said about actuality/potentiality is correct.

But, this is assuming that your claim that “potentiality for evil in God must be a total actuality if it’s in Him at all” is a valid claim.

Finally! You are acknowledging my argument.

I see no reason to extend a “potential for evil” as evil itself. That is absurd - pardon the strong language.

Your strong language must have strong backups. It wouldn’t be absurd at all… if God is pure actuality.

The real problem is with the rejection of free will for God in all areas.

Impossible. It is neither affirmed nor denied. And if by “all areas” you mean areas where free-will doesn’t apply categorically (very important distinction, see above… especially what you underlined), then that’s no worry at all.

The way that you have designed God

That would be horrible if I tried to design God. No, I’m interested in learning truth, wherever it can be found. So if you kindly explain why what you underlined above is “absurd”, I could possibly correct my understanding.

You say this is so because it’s part of His nature in certain areas, and therefore God cannot go against His nature. But, what we know about the exercise of free will in man gives us ample evidence to believe that God can certainly choose contrary to His nature if He so desired.

Because God does not “think” in the way we do, does that give us ample evidence to project it on God? Nope.

Man’s nature is to choose evil. Yet man can choose good. Man’s desire is to choose good. Yet man will often choose evil - according to his nature.

Man’s fallen nature, a nature that isn’t totally deprived of God’s goodness. A nature that can be restored with the grace of God. Perhaps we agree?

If God is truly Perfect, then this means that He has a Perfect Free Will that is able to exercise Perfect Goodness in all of His Perfect choices.

We agree… except that our definitions of what free-will applies to differs somewhat. If my argument isn’t refuted, it would seem that you want to make free-will apply to nonsense; so it would be good to explain to me why what you underlined is absurd.

I’ve been reading a little bit out of the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas (Today happens to be his feast day, hurray!). Perhaps if you’re interested in pursuing this in much greater depth you could check it out. If it’s a bit too daunting, I heard good things about Peter Kreeft’s Summa of the Summa.

ciao and thanks.

 

[PEPCIS]

PEPCIS: You make the false claim that “potentiallity not actualized in God” is somehow equated with “not real.”

Shike: Correct, it would seem that I do say that… by why is that claim false?

PEPCIS: Just as equally valid is to ask: “Why is that claim true?” Which is basically what I’ve been asking.

Shike: And I’ve been answering that with the actuality/potentiality claim.

I would disagree. I would say that you have been DISCUSSING the terms, and laying out what you BELIEVE to be true. But I would not agree that you have answered my charge that your claim is a “false claim that “potentiallity not actualized in God” is somehow equated with “not real”.”

PEPCIS: It would appear that you have taken an arbitrary proposition, and have unilaterally declared it to be “valid” without nary a contest. I’m merely challenging you on how you have validated it.

Shike: So it isn’t arbitrary…

If it isn’t arbitrary, then it must have a means to logically validate it. To say it is true/actual without that means it is arbitrary and without any logical basis.

Shike:

…but requires at least an attempt at refutation.

But I can’t refute what has no basis except to say “It is arbitrary.” Give me the basis for your claim and then I’ll see what I can do.

Thanks!