The Omnipotency Contradiction

[greylorn]

All of you who have shared their thoughts and the time to post them, thank you!

Upon returning to the inet after a total computer meltdown and a trip to the city for Midnight Mass, I’m delighted to find a handful of thoughtful postings. Clearly, this topic is not for everyone. Good thing.

I’ll address replies to individuals, but want to remind anyone reading this thread of the intention behind the initial question.

I’ve posed what appears to me, using the same principles of logic that make your computer capable of assisting this conversation, a contradiction between an explicit (dogmatic) attribute assigned to the Creator by men, and implicit attributes.

Dogma says that God is omniscient. Common sense (and readings from the Old and New Testaments) suggest that God is capable of inventing ideas, or having creative thought. Meaning that God can think of things which not even He had thought of before.

I’d not have posed this contradiction unless I found it legitimate.

An atheist might use this contradiction to conclude that God does not exist, but I am not an atheist. I am certain that at some time in the future the teachings of atheism, Darwinism first, will be cast into the biffy of obscurity. But at this time, atheism is strong enough to divert the most powerful nation on earth from effective courses of action.

That is because while the percentage of atheists is not large, it is concentrated within the population of those who make differences— scientists, technocrats, lawyers and judges, and journalists.

I believe that had the Church listened to Galileo 350 years ago instead of threatening him with torture and death for simply making legitimate observations about God’s universe, we would be living in a different and better world— one in which the conflict between religion and science did not exist. The Church did what its leaders ordered. Its current leaders recently acknowledged their predecessors’ error, but did nothing of functional consequence to mitigate the original error.

In other words, they admitted their error in condemning Galileo. They built a few telescopes and sent some Jesuits who weren’t bright enough to get admitted to M.I.T. to man them, and the Jesuits dutifully reported back that yes, there are indeed stars and galaxies out there. But the Churcn never took up the issue that Galileo presented it with three and a half centuries earlier.

It never asked itself, “What do these observations into the guts of God’s creation tell us about God?”

That’s my work. The reconciliation between science and religion. You may help or hinder, as you choose. I’ve spent a lifetime getting nothing but hindrance, so could certainly use some help.

The purpose of my contradiction question was not to pose a question which, if answered in my favor, would lead to the conclusion that there is no God. Neither of you readers have anything to defend in this respect.

However, if the contradiction I posed is acknowledged, it might lead to a redefinition of the properties of our Creator. The original definitions were invented by guys like Augustine and Aquinas, bright young men who knew as much about the laws of physics and the principles of microbiology as a hamster. Such a redefinition might lead to an understanding of the nature of God which fits perfectly with the discoveries of Galileo, Newton, Helmholtz, and Einstein— guys who actually studied physics. However, it may contradict the opinions of your pet hamster.

Having once been a devout Catholic, I understand the powerful effect of religious programming upon the human brain. I understand the desire to affirm and reaffirm the ideas which we were programmed with in first grade.

I did a lot of affirmation as a young man, and took my current course because I finally saw, thanks to some serious courses in physics, that my beliefs were full of holes. I considered a shift to atheism, but found their beliefs absurd. What else could I do but turn to the physical universe as God’s perfect Bible, a Bible untouched by human beliefs, a Bible certain to have been written by the Creator and none other. Yet, as with all bibles, subject to our best interpretations.

My work is simply to interpret this bible. I invite everyone to engage this process and share their thoughts, negative or not. If we trust our Creator and believe in the freedom of our own minds, anything less dishonors our existence.

 

[Pro_Domina]

Gallileo got in trouble for other reasons.

Second, got is capable of creative thought. Just that there are no “new” ideas because God thought of all of them, which are infinite, since all eternity.
How is that is mystery. But the concept of a “new” thought means God is not perfect and absolute because He had to think of something He never thought before, therefore again, not absolutely perfect.

 

[Pro_Domina]

Hinders…

Go hang out at the Gregorian during their philosophy classes and you will have lots of fun then. You have a bunch of whackos that are planning a huge science and faith convention next year.

Whackos…

Go Angelicum!

 

[greylorn]

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

Granny,
Having a few layers of offspring hasn’t hurt your mind. More likely, that process got your attention. Thanks for coming back on this.

You use creativity and incidentally, free will, to distinguish man from critters. My argument implies that if God cannot think, creativity differentiates us from bugs, beasties, and God himself.

Personally, I’ve little inclination to believe in a God Who cannot think. What say you?

I’d like to focus on this sentence:

“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…”

It is not simply belief in the Creator which affirms these things. It is belief in a Creator Who has a specific set of properties and to Whom we attribute a specific set of actions, including the creation of the universe and ourselves.

The God concept only affirms the value of your existence if you or your belief system can explain why God took the trouble to create you. That is difficult. I do not believe that God created me, because I’ve looked through telescopes and cannot believe that an entity capable of creating what’s out there would have created a jerk like myself.

That is because I cannot assign a reasonable motivation to the creation of mankind. .

 

[Pro_Domina]

You try to define everything with reason.

Reason is not a stable thing to base anything. Reason in pagan times said killing for demons is ok. Reason in the Middle Ages said that the Church is master of the World. In the Ren., man was the center of everything. Yesterday the world was flat and today it is round. Reason changes. Logic changes.

So what can we found any principle on if everything is mutable.

An eternal God.

Another thing is that God created the world because of His munificence. I’ll expand later.

 

[greylorn]

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.)

P.D.

Apparently you have confused “sin” with an entity, or something capable of exerting a mental force. I disagree. “Sin” is something that people do, which is regarded as negative in the context of some belief systems, not in others. It is not a force onto itself. But you knew that and were just testing to see if I was stupid, right?

If God is omniscient, we cannot have the free will which you seem to set some store by, because if God knows you’ll do something in the future, not doing it would make Him a liar.

I appreciate that you dislike my comments, but advise that you not imply that I am a liberal. I could not vote for either of the primary presidential candidates because both are way too liberal for me. I’d love to go moose hunting with Sarah Palin. I carry a loaded firearm and a CC permit because I believe in taking personal responsibility for my safety, and if it comes to that, the safety of others. I cut and split my own firewood, and fashioned my own crutch.

Liberal, not. But “wacko” is okay. After fifty years of studying the conflict between religion and science, I have concluded that both are wrong. Since you apparently believe that religion, at least Catholicism is right, I am comfortable being a “wacko” in your eyes.

Do note, please, that this wacko may have studied a tad more physics than what is taught in Sunday School, and still believes in a Creator.

 

[greylorn]

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.

I do not have the slightest idea what you are trying to say here, and it would not be appropriate to interpret your words. If you care to elaborate with more clarity, I’ll do my best to honor your efforts with a cogent reply.

In any case, thank you for engaging the topic.

 

[greylorn]

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.

You contradict yourself here.

You first declare that God cannot create new ideas. Okay. Most Christians believe accordingly.

Then you declare that to suggest that God cannot create new ideas in nonsense.

Please make up your mind. Clearly you did not intend to agree with me, but you do not even agree with yourself. There seems little profit in presenting an argument against a confused position.

 

[greylorn]

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

Thank you. You recognize, I’m certain, that your comments here are entirely of a religious nature. They represent an expression of your beliefs, and likely of the beliefs of many others. You’ve chosen not to address a logical quesion in logical terms. That’s okay. Just so we all know that you’ve already spun your answer.

You speak of time, as if you understand what time is. Does Stephen Hawking’s book, “A Brief History of Time,” repose on your coffee table? Have you evaluated Al’s theory of General Relativity thoroughly enough to understand his “spacetime” concept? Or is time, for you as for most people, simply the ticking of your daily clock?

I do not mean to be disrespectful of you, personally, but I have little respect for beliefs which have no origin other than beliefs.

The most common human sin is ignorance. Except that the Church has not declared ignorance to be a sin, else it would endanger its own existence. Our next most common sin is what I call “pretense,” which is simply pretending that we know something which we do not, or do things which we’ve never done. (Sean Connery drinks beer, not vodka martinis.)

It really is okay not to understand the nature of time. I do not. Many competent physicists do not. Do you really want to claim that you do?

Was it an excess of Christmas cheer that inspired you to introduce the idea of God as a “transcendent being” and declare, as if you were the Pope himself, that God is such an entity?
You’ll be in good company with the atheistic philosopher, Nick Bostrom.

If religion is to ever achieve the respect given to science, it and its practitioners had better give up the idea of defining God as an undefinable entity so far removed from the universe He allegedly created that He cannot be defined in the context of its objective reality.

Just our of curiosity, would you accept the possibility that God exists, that He created the universe, but that He is not quite as Aquinas and Augustine (both ordinary men) have defined him to be?

 

[greylorn]

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?

There could be some value in this thread, if only by encouraging contributors to it to spell correctly. Correct spelling, made easy by the excellent software this site provides to facilitate comments, does not insure the quality of comments. Incorrect spelling suggests that if the author of the comment didn’t care enough to put his thoughts into grammatically correct English, perhaps he didn’t give any more thought to his thoughts.

 

[greylorn]

Gallileo got in trouble for other reasons.

Second, got is capable of creative thought. Just that there are no “new” ideas because God thought of all of them, which are infinite, since all eternity.
How is that is mystery. But the concept of a “new” thought means God is not perfect and absolute because He had to think of something He never thought before, therefore again, not absolutely perfect.

Notice any contradictions here?

 

[greylorn]

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.

I apologize if I offended you. Given the quotation (from someone else) which comprises your signature, I expected you to be up for a conversation. Kindly reconsider my invitation for discussion, in light of your chosen quotation.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you. You recognize, I’m certain, that your comments here are entirely of a religious nature. They represent an expression of your beliefs, and likely of the beliefs of many others. You’ve chosen not to address a logical quesion in logical terms. That’s okay. Just so we all know that you’ve already spun your answer.

You speak of time, as if you understand what time is. Does Stephen Hawking’s book, “A Brief History of Time,” repose on your coffee table? Have you evaluated Al’s theory of General Relativity thoroughly enough to understand his “spacetime” concept? Or is time, for you as for most people, simply the ticking of your daily clock?

I do not mean to be disrespectful of you, personally, but I have little respect for beliefs which have no origin other than beliefs.

The most common human sin is ignorance. Except that the Church has not declared ignorance to be a sin, else it would endanger its own existence. Our next most common sin is what I call “pretense,” which is simply pretending that we know something which we do not, or do things which we’ve never done. (Sean Connery drinks beer, not vodka martinis.)

It really is okay not to understand the nature of time. I do not. Many competent physicists do not. Do you really want to claim that you do?

Was it an excess of Christmas cheer that inspired you to introduce the idea of God as a “transcendent being” and declare, as if you were the Pope himself, that God is such an entity?
You’ll be in good company with the atheistic philosopher, Nick Bostrom.

If religion is to ever achieve the respect given to science, it and its practitioners had better give up the idea of defining God as an undefinable entity so far removed from the universe He allegedly created that He cannot be defined in the context of its objective reality.

Just our of curiosity, would you accept the possibility that God exists, that He created the universe, but that He is not quite as Aquinas and Augustine (both ordinary men) have defined him to be?

Dear Greylorn,

Welcome back. Glad you explained about the computer meltdown 'cause I was beginning to wonder if an excess of Christmas cheer could have caused a meltdown…

We do have lots to discuss. This time, I have some questions for you.

Do you consider religious nature as used in your first paragraph above interchangeable with spiritual in the sense of the non-physical part of human beings? What is your term for the non-physical, non-material part of you? In other words, how do you describe your make-up, your substance, your whatever that makes you human? (Words that begin with j such as jerk, junk and jelly do not count.)

Your answers, and do expand beyond my questions, would, in my humble opinion, help determine if my post 37 on God as a Transcendent Being is written from a religious belief which has no origin other than beliefs. Or maybe, what is needed are the steps which go from observation to conclusion. I do admit to the assumption that you were familiar with the general concept of transcendent beings. My apology. Let’s go back to the drawing board. Oops, there is another question about the first paragraph.
You commented: “You’ve chosen not to address a logical question in logical terms.” What logical question were you referring to?

Until I hear your response, I will offer a clarification of your assumption, second paragraph above, “You speak of time, as if you understand what time is.” My sentence was “He [God] is beyond any process which requires time as we perceive it.” My “understanding” of time was not implied. “any process” could include the book by Stephen Hawking or any other writing including general relativity or the book which describes people living in time past, time present, or time future. “time as we pecieve it” is another wide open statement.

For now, I’ll answer your last paragraph above which consists of a question. My answer is yes.

Blessings for 2009
grannymh

 

[grannymh]

Granny,

Personally, I’ve little inclination to believe in a God Who cannot think. What say you?

I’d like to focus on this sentence:

“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…”
.

Dear Greylorn,

The sentence you chose is a good one to focus on.

But we both need to deal with my post 53 first. Then, if you are still speaking to me, we can continue.

As to your question “What say you?” My answer is: “It is your choice to believe or not believe. As for me, I’m inclined to believe in a God who loves all of humanity, including you and me. Thinking or not being able to think is not very high on my list of attributes.”

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[greylorn]

Dear Greylorn,

The sentence you chose is a good one to focus on.

But we both need to deal with my post 53 first. Then, if you are still speaking to me, we can continue.

As to your question “What say you?” My answer is: “It is your choice to believe or not believe. As for me, I’m inclined to believe in a God who loves all of humanity, including you and me. Thinking or not being able to think is not very high on my list of attributes.”

Blessings,
grannymh

What a curious reply from one who thinks. I invite you to look into the effect of your thoughts on your life, and the lives of those whom you’ve nurtured into consciousness. I understand that some of this will have been the consequence of love. But love is not thought. It can be a motivator for thought.

I propose that if you look into the core of your life, you will find that “thought” is a powerful component. If you compare your life to the lives of millions of others who have physically done exactly what you’ve done, in form, you will find that you’ve done something different. That will be because you introduced thought into the otherwise ordinary processes of life.

I will deal with post 53 when awake, and after my day job. I promise to continue our conversation even if you get ornery. Should our conversation stop, it will be because I’m dead or you’ve run out of questions.

In the interim I’ll direct you to a website if I can figure out how to engage the private communication system again.

 

[cpayne]

Dear Greylorn: Apology accepted. Best, cpayne

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stay on topic, everyone. This is not another discussion about the existence of God. If you wish to discuss that topic, there are plenty of existing threads to choose from. Thank you all.

 

[cpayne]

Okay, once more into the breach. Dear Greylorn: the reason I was offput by the tone of some of your answers is that five or six people have tried to explain, as carefully as possible, why “the omnipotency contradiction” is not a contradiction. It appears you have brushed off their answers and continued telling them (us) to think some more about it.

Let me offer a parallel argument. Let’s say I started a thread and said something like this:

“God cannot sin. God cannot lie. God cannot eliminate Himself from existence. God cannot learn something He does not already know. God cannot diminish in capacities. On the other hand, God cannot increase in capacities either. Etc., etc., etc. We, on the other hand, can do all these things. Therefore, God is not omnipotent, because we can do what God cannot.”

If I posted such a thread, people would write in and carefully explain to me that all these “abilities” God seemingly “lacks” do not in fact take anything away from God’s omnipotence, properly understood, because all of them in fact imply a LACK, a potential which does not exist in actuality. Since God is pure Act or actuality, God’s lack of potential is not a lack of omnipotence.

In the case of this thread, the major difference is that we are discussing omniscience or God’s knowledge, not omnipotence (despite the thread’s title).

Now let’s suppose I ignored what all these people wrote and kept repeating what I said in the third paragraph, the part in quotation marks above. Let’s suppose I kept telling people they just weren’t thinking enough about it.

Yes, after a while, I imagine people would begin thinking maybe they were wasting time on the thread.

This is where I arrived a while back, when I said farewell. This is my explanation of why I said farewell, and why I’m leaving (again) now. If others want to argue the exact same material over again, they are welcome to do so. I hope the understanding that you desire comes to you in a way you will accept. God bless you, see you around, bye-bye everybody. :coolinoff:

 

[Catholic_JIMMY]

That God does not ‘think’ in the way that human beings think places no limits on the divine omnipotence. Rather, it places limits on the power of human beings.

Hello! Christianity teaches that God became human, thus he could do anything we do!

 

[Catholic_JIMMY]

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.

Are you kidding I would have loved to be born knowing Hebrew.