The Omnipotency Contradiction

[jkiernan56]

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

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.

Finally! You are acknowledging my argument.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

step AWAY from the keyboard … let go of those sharp objects in your hands … lol … you are giving me a good laugh

 

[PEPCIS]

PEPCIS: 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.

PEPCIS: 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: 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.

This is very puzzling to me. You claim that:

[SIGN]"The main point is that this “potentiality for evil in God…[will] eventually [bring you] to a point that says there is evil in God…”[/SIGN]

And this is your MAIN POINT: ANY “potentiality in God” is just as good as an actuality residing within Him." This is why I stated that your claim of potentiality in God is the is the same as an actuality not chosen.

In your scenario, God does not ever have to choose this “potentiality” because it is as good as chosen. Indeed, even if God never chose, according to YOUR logic this would bring you to the conclusion that any “potentiality for evil in God…[will] eventually [bring you] to a point that says there is evil in God…” - in other words, that He actually made the choice is just as good as if He had NOT chosen. The only thing that I have been able to surmise from all of your replies, is that you base this claim on the BELIEF that a “potentiality is nothing more than an actuality not realized.” (my paraphrase of my understanding of what you have stated so far)

To you, this may have a pleasant and agreeable nature to it, but it is inconsistent with what we do know about potentiality. Potentiality is most definitely “an actuality not realized.” But an actuality not realized is not the same as an actuality realized. If God never actualizes this potentiality (which is better known as “free will to choose evil”), then it is never actualized. THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION.

Shike:

Can something choose or even not choose if it doesn’t exist?

I’m going to assume that you meant to ask: “Can something be chosen or not chosen if it doesn’t exist?” The answer, on the face of it, would be “no.” But once we examine that SPECIFIC “something” (not to mention WHO would be exercising that choice), we realize that the question is moot, because it does not entertain a reality. You would like your question to imply that the reality is that something (in this case “God’s free will to choose evil”) does not exist. But if we used your scenario, there are many saints who have not yet been born, and therefore do not exist in the material, or the spiritual world. Yet, God chose us in the heavenlies BEFORE the foundation of the world. So, to answer your question, Yes, God CAN choose something even if it does not yet exist.

Another example: I could ask the question: “Can I stand on the Moon made of cheese.” I could certainly stand on the Moon, but because I have pre-qualified the Moon as being made of cheese, this is not a reality in my existence, and therefore the choice would be “not real” unless I also possessed the power to turn the Moon into cheese.

This is what you have done - to pre-qualify the question of existence as “not real” without a basis for stating that it is not real. We KNOW that the moon is not made of cheese, but how do I know that the choice of non-existence is not real to God? The obvious answer is that I don’t - excepting your assertions.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

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 don’t think I’ve never NOT acknowledged it. Least not in these specific terms, but I certainly understand that you have been making an unwarranted assertion.

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

Shike:

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

.

I don’t need strong backups. I’m LOOKING FOR THEM from you.

“If God is pure actuality,” I want to have that confirmed. I’m not just going to accept it on your assertion alone.

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

Shike:

Impossible. It is neither affirmed nor denied.

I’m not sure that we can proceed much further because of your obstinancy over God’s free will in all areas. You claim that you are neither affirming nor denying God’s free will, yet your argument does exactly that.

Shike:

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.

As I said, your whole argument is based around the faulty notion that the proposition is not real, therefore free will does not apply. There really is no sense in entertaining this part because you (plural, non-possessive) just can’t argue with a claim that has no basis.

Shike:

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

Who says that man does not act or think the way that God does in regards to moral questions? The Biblical evidence is contrary to that claim. We are made in HIS image. This is not some physical image, but a spiritual one.

The difference between God and man is not in the operation of choices, but in the ability to make perfect choices always.

Shike:

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?

Yes, I do agree that our nature can be restored by the grace of God, but not WITH it. We do not cooperate to get saved, because it is a GIFT. I don’t go to Wal-mart with my wife to participate in buying a gift!!

Shike:

We agree… except that our definitions of what free-will applies to differs somewhat.

No, I actually believe that we agree with what free will applies to - mainly because it is true that free will cannot apply to that which is not real. The question is whether your claim is real or not.

Shike:

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.

I will certainly check it out, time permitting. Thanks!!!

 

[Shike]

I don’t go to Wal-mart with my wife to participate in buying a gift!!

I’m strapped for time and it will be quite a while before I get to answer things.

But I thought it would be fun to respond to this sentence of yours. While it is true that your wife doesn’t participate in the buying of the gift, isn’t her acceptence of the gift required for it to be a gift truly given?

 

[jkiernan56]

I’m strapped for time and it will be quite a while before I get to answer things.

But I thought it would be fun to respond to this sentence of yours. While it is true that your wife doesn’t participate in the buying of the gift, isn’t her acceptence of the gift required for it to be a gift truly given?

Good question. Can something be given if it isn’t received?

 

[Agripa]

Good question. Can something be given if it isn’t received?

That may depend. In law, if I give or bequeth something in a will, it is presumed given at my death. The recipient is presumed to own it at that point or must take formal action to disown the thing given. :dts:

 

[jkiernan56]

That may depend. In law, if I give or bequeth something in a will, it is presumed given at my death. The recipient is presumed to own it at that point or must take formal action to disown the thing given. :dts:

Very interesting distinction. There is another one that needs to be pointed out here. If I know you like professional football and in particular you are a fanatical Pittsburg Steelers fan … and I have 2 Superbowl tickets that i needed to give away because I could not go to the game - one possibility is to “Offer” the tickets to you. That is a different kind of Giving… it is an offer … not forced upon you as in the example you made earlier. You are free to take or not take the offer. In this type of Giving … the Receiving has not yet taken place … it can only take place if the person the Gift is offered to accepts the Gift freely with the consent of their will. So I stand by what I said ealier but now with a qualifier … for SOME Gifts that are Given (Offered) … they are not Gifts to the person they are being offered to … until the Gift is Received by the Receiver. :coffeeread: :compcoff:

 

[Agripa]

Very interesting distinction. There is another one that needs to be pointed out here. If I know you like professional football and in particular you are a fanatical Pittsburg Steelers fan … and I have 2 Superbowl tickets that i needed to give away because I could not go to the game - one possibility is to “Offer” the tickets to you. That is a different kind of Giving… it is an offer … not forced upon you as in the example you made earlier. You are free to take or not take the offer. In this type of Giving … the Receiving has not yet taken place … it can only take place if the person the Gift is offered to accepts the Gift freely with the consent of their will. So I stand by what I said ealier but now with a qualifier … for SOME Gifts that are Given (Offered) … they are not Gifts to the person they are being offered to … until the Gift is Received by the Receiver. :coffeeread: :compcoff:

But then that is offer and acceptance, which shifts into a contracts-type of question.

 

[grannymh]

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.

This is break time from paying bills

Have no clue who wrote the above

If God is truly Perfect then why woud He need Perfect Free Will since all the Perfect Goodess He could make with Perfect Choices would be Him already because He is truly Perfect?

Say that 10 times fast without getting your tongue twisted

 

[agangbern]

They are enjoying futility…

 

[jkiernan56]

This is break time from paying bills

Have no clue who wrote the above

If God is truly Perfect then why woud He need Perfect Free Will since all the Perfect Goodess He could make with Perfect Choices would be Him already because He is truly Perfect?

Say that 10 times fast without getting your tongue twisted

Because God is Absolutely FREE … and this His will is ABSOLUTELY FREE.

 

[PEPCIS]

"Shike:

I’m strapped for time and it will be quite a while before I get to answer things.

But I thought it would be fun to respond to this sentence of yours. While it is true that your wife doesn’t participate in the buying of the gift, isn’t her acceptence of the gift required for it to be a gift truly given?

Good question. Can something be given if it isn’t received?

Yes, that is a good, rather excellent, question. But this is how I look at it:

There is a scene in the recent movie, The Count of Monte Cristo, where Edmond Dantes (played by James Caviezel) has escaped from his island prison, and has swum to the shores of a nearby island.

He finds, to his dismay, that there are pirates, and the captain of the pirates has determined that he must fight to the death one of his pirates who has dishonored his shipmates.

Dantes has learned the art of knifing in prison, and easily wins against his opponent. As his opponent lays beneath him, he warns him against the penalty of death not to move a muscle, and Dantes proceeds to bargain for the man’s life, and offers his own services as a pirate, doubling the Captain’s fortune.

The Captain agrees. As Dantes lifts the disgraced pirate from the sandy beach, the pirate grabs him by both shoulders and looks him fiercely in the eyes, and tells him, “I am your man for life!”

The moral/point of the story is that the life of the man belonged to Dantes, but he bargained for it, and he gave it freely back to the man. The man neither had the power, nor the will necessary to effect his own salvation. He could only acknowledge the gift that he ALREADY HAD RECEIVED.

Once the gift was received, we see how grateful he was to his new benefactor, declaring his allegiance to him for the rest of his life.

In much the same way, a man is drowning and I rescue him. I have literally given him the gift of life. He does not need to receive it. It is already received.

There are some gifts that you can refuse, but there are others that you have no power over their receipt. You can only acknowledge them for what they are.

 

[greylorn]

Yes, that is a good, rather excellent, question. But this is how I look at it:

 

[jkiernan56]

PEPCIS;4743728:

Thank you all, JK and Skike as well, for your thoughts. Regrettably they are off point to the thread. Please return to point.

I am still thinking about the law of energy conservation and how it relates to an open system. I need to understand more about open systems. Closed systems are no problem for me. They are just a “bee in a bottle.” If the law of energy also applies to open systems, somehow that baffles me at the moment … when i try to conceptualize it …

 

[agangbern]

Omnipotence is simply beyond man’s total understanding no matter how genius one may be…

 

[greylorn]

God is constrained by REALITY. Logic is a reflection of REALITY

True = 1 False = 0

Reality = 1 Non-real = 0

God = 1 Not God = 0

God can only do what is real and therefore all things that are possible (real) are possible for God.

JK

With all due respect, IMO you’ve gotten it backwards. Reality is constrained by logic.

An example. Stephen Hawking and other astrophysicists have pointed out that the structure of the universe is dependent upon 20 arcane “constants,” items like the speed of light, charge of an electron, etc. If any one of these constants varies in the slightest, the universe cannot exist.

I offer this as an example of constraints which mathematical logic imposes upon reality.

Taking this even more deeply, Hawking implies (correctly, I believe) that God would not have been successful at creation had He not paid careful attention to the precise value of certain items, such as the charge-to-mass ratio of protons, or the Planck constant.

I know that your reaction to this will be to declare that God could do whatever He wants, since He is omnipotent. If you eschew a reply, someone else will declare the same. I mention this in hopes of reducing the quantity of dogmatic mantras likely to follow this post by assuring you all that I know what you believe.

This level of issue, the delicate balance between physical constants and the existence of our universe, points up the profound conflict between science and religion to which I’ve previously alluded. These are non trivial issues which cannot be glossed over by wordy assurances and repetitions of ancient beliefs. They involve serious concepts.

Remember, please, that I believe in a Creator. I’m proposing simply that it is well past time for the Church to get serious about the relationship between its dogmas and the science-based understanding which has been expanding exponentially since Galileo’s first published treatise.

 

[grannymh]

How about a tiny, one line mantra from a little old granny who needs help crossing the street?

God didn’t need to consult physicists before constructing, creating, inventing etc., the universe because He started from scratch.

 

[Shike]

JK

With all due respect, IMO you’ve gotten it backwards. Reality is constrained by logic.

True, it would seem. But are the laws of logic part of reality as well?

• If you say no, it would then be tempting to say the laws of logic aren’t real
• If you say yes, then it would seem that logic constrains itself, or that the laws of logic constrain some things, and then again, not some things.
  It’s not so simple as you seem to explain it. If God’s nature was rationality itself, however, it would seem to make the problem above go away.

It’s not tenable to say that the Christian God is at odds with science, considering the very notion that God is the cause of the universe and therefore “primarily outside” of it; it’s something that can’t fall under the scientific method. If you agree that the laws of logic do not change, then it would seem we should give at least some of our attention to ancient dead guys.

Is it problematic that there might be more truth out there besides scientific truth?

Interesting topic, anyways. Thanks.
ciao.

 

[greylorn]

How about a tiny, one line mantra from a little old granny who needs help crossing the street?

God didn’t need to consult physicists before constructing, creating, inventing etc., the universe because He started from scratch.

Dear Granny,

I got that you’re accustomed to crossing the street with the help of a Boy Scout, or a cane, but you deserve the assistance of something with wheels and a motor.

The First Law of Thermodynamics either contradicts all beliefs in an omnipotent God, or suggests that the “scratch” God started with, energy, had previously existed.

I propose that He employed the services of a variety of physicists, engineers, microbiologists and artists in the construction of the universe. Do you imagine that God is so insecure and vain that He created angels to worship Him?

Universe creation is a lot of work. 13 odd billion years in the making, 4 billion for life on earth, tells a story of engineering design and trial and error, exactly what would be expected if God were to call his myriad of brilliant, intelligent, and freely-willed angels into court and say…

**"You guys get to work. Creating you clowns was enough trouble for a while. Here’s a set of rough specs, but you’ll need to work out some details. Right now I’m going to relax and watch the 1967 Green Bay Packers beat the Cowboys in the Ice Bowl, on a planet you’ll need to get about creating.

Oh, Michael. Be sure to work up a really nasty storm before that game, would you? I want it to be interesting. Now, get to work!"
**

Lucifer, of course, was a Dallas fan.

Street crossing assistance courtesy of Eagle Patrol leader First Class Scout, Troop 18.

 

[PEPCIS]

…I have 2 Superbowl tickets that i needed to give away because I could not go to the game - one possibility is to “Offer” the tickets to you. That is a different kind of Giving… it is an offer … not forced upon you as in the example you made earlier. You are free to take or not take the offer. In this type of Giving … the Receiving has not yet taken place … it can only take place if the person the Gift is offered to accepts the Gift freely with the consent of their will. So I stand by what I said ealier but now with a qualifier … for SOME Gifts that are Given (Offered) … they are not Gifts to the person they are being offered to … until the Gift is Received by the Receiver. :coffeeread: :compcoff:

Very good. Thank you for pointing out that there are different types of giving/receiving. If I offer my friend a $10 BILL, and he rejects the offer, that is not in any way similar to what God does for His children.

In God’s gift, He literally plucks you from damnation. The reason you are having difficulty with the concept is because you insist on looking at this from the perspective of some preconceptions of man having free will.

Yet God has painted a bleak picture in His Word. For example, in John 3:18, Jesus states that everyone is ALREADY DEAD and DAMNED in their sins.

[SIGN]“Whoever believes in Jesus is not condemned: but whoever is not a believer is ALREADY condemned.”[/SIGN]

As non-believers, the world stands in desperate need of salvation, to be plucked from the fires of damnation. So when God reaches down and saves a man from this horrible condition, and man becomes aware of what God has done, it is not something that can be ever walked away from or rejected. It has already been gifted.