The Omnipotency Contradiction

[PEPCIS]

Shike:

Thinking that once you “accept Christ” (at one moment in time, for instance, reciting a prayer) you’re saved for all eternity is ridiculous; there isn’t 100% infallible insurance that you won’t reject the gift a few minutes down the road when you decide that you’d rather do what you yourself want.

The purpose of the story was only to exhibit the lack of necessity for someone to receive the gift of life from someone else. The analogy, like many analogies, is ineffective to share all aspects of the spiritual truths that are being dealt with.

For example, you correctly state how ridiculous the concept that “once you “accept Christ”…you’re saved for all eternity…” is. And I would agree - that if you SAVE YOURSELF, then it is impossible to guarantee your salvation to the end of your life, because we are not perfect enough.

Oh my goodness!! What if there is none to recite the last rites at my death bed!!!? I’ll have practiced a good life for nothing?

You’re so right, Mike, to make that point.

That is why the gift must have NOTHING to do with me. Which is why John 1:13 states that our new birth does not come about by [SIGN]“which family we were born into, or of any relationship to someone else, nor by anything that my power was able to accomplish, or because I ever desired to be born again, but was accomplished only by God.”[/SIGN]

The new birth is God’s Work alone: [SIGN]“For by grace are you saved through faith, and that NOT OF YOURSELVES; it is the gift of God, NOT OF WORKS, so that no man can boast.”[/SIGN]

Shike:

There is no true love being forced to accept something. Sacraficial love is:
Total
Faithful
Fruitful
FREE

God’s gift to us is one of love that literally forces us to walk in love. As the Scriptures say:
[SIGN]“We love Him, BECAUSE He first loved us.” (I John 4:19)[/SIGN]

Contrary to your statement above, my "true love’ toward you does NOT require your acceptance. It would be nice if you loved me back in return, but there is no guarantee.

When God opens our hearts and minds to understand the truth of the gospel message, we WANT to conform to His standards. We are not forced into it.

I know that there is much to digest in these two posts, so I ask your forgiveness in going as far as I have.

Peace,

Mark

 

[agangbern]

Since God is the source of all reality, and it was His logic which created all reality, then your statement(s) are not conformable to reality OR logic.

Obviously, if God cannot be constrained, then neither can His logic. Now this goes much deeper than our previous conversation regarding free will, because if you attack His logic as being constrained, then you not only constrain His free will, but every aspect of His being.

That, to me, is illogical.

There is a reality which is uncreated. Almighty God! He is a reality which was not created but existed through out. His logic of course did not create Him.

 

[jkiernan56]

There is a reality which is uncreated. Almighty God! He is a reality which was not created but existed through out. His logic of course did not create Him.

I especially liked the last line - logic did not create God.
Actually logic starts with God … with uncreated reality. Logic starts with … what is … and what is not. God IS … The name He revealed to mankind to call Him … “I AM WHO AM”. That is the summit of ALL truth, reality, and encompasses the totality of God’s BEING, ESSENCE in its most simple expression (or formula for the scientists out there). LOL

 

[Shike]

There’s some that I agree with and some that I don’t. I’ll ignore the comment about last rites, assuming you know what Catholic doctrine teaches.

Contrary to your statement above, my "true love’ toward you does NOT require your acceptance. It would be nice if you loved me back in return, but there is no guarantee.

I agree with this, even though it blows right by my point towards the end of my post… which I presume this comment was meant to address.

One thing that your love for me does require, is to not force me to love you. So while salvation is a gift freely given to us (at this very moment), we still must cooperate with God so he can fully give the gift he wants to give us (salvation which looks at all moments). If you force someone to love you in return, it automatically becomes something other than love, obviously.

I really don’t want to get into Once Saved, Always Saved debate… and besides, it’s stretching the OP. I guess it’s partially on topic because if God is love, and He can’t figure out a way where we could freely love Him back, then that’s a serious issue with omnipotency.

I still appreciate your comments, however.

 

[agangbern]

I really don’t want to get into Once Saved, Always Saved debate… and besides, it’s stretching the OP. I guess it’s partially on topic because if God is love, and He can’t figure out a way where we could freely love Him back, then that’s a serious issue with omnipotency.

I still appreciate your comments, however.

He certainly can “figure out”. But He would not deprive man of the dignity of exercising his free will in choosing between the two basic standards. That He would not do to man.

However, when man, in the exercise of his free will, shall have chosen God, then God unites man’s will with His.

Almighty God knows who is he who shall chose Him even before he has exercised his choice. That is why at times it would seem that God forces his will upon a man, as in the case of Jonas. It was simply because He knew in advance that Jonas would choose Him anyway.

 

[Shike]

He certainly can “figure out”. But He would not deprive man of the dignity of exercising his free will in choosing between the two basic standards. That He would not do to man.

However, when man, in the exercise of his free will, shall have chosen God, then God unites man’s will with His.

Almighty God knows who is he who shall chose Him even before he has exercised his choice. That is why at times it would seem that God forces his will upon a man, as in the case of Jonas. It was simply because He knew in advance that Jonas would choose Him anyway.

Fine, fine, fine. But do you absolutely know that when you exercise your free will and choose God (at least you think you choose Him), that you will be saved? What if your choice wasn’t really a choice… what I mean is, for example, God knows that at moment T1 you will “choose” Him and that at T2 you will reject Him… Overall you rejected Him; God knows this will happen. But the million dollar question is, do you know?

The answer is no, you do not. That is why you should work out your salvation with fear and trembling… ie. cooperating with the grace of God. You don’t know that you’ll be saved… you can only make a guess. You can hope. The minute you start assuming is the minute the Devil smiles.

 

[agangbern]

Fine, fine, fine. But do you absolutely know that when you exercise your free will and choose God (at least you think you choose Him), that you will be saved? What if your choice wasn’t really a choice… what I mean is, for example, God knows that at moment T1 you will “choose” Him and that at T2 you will reject Him… Overall you rejected Him; God knows this will happen. But the million dollar question is, do you know?

The answer is no, you do not. That is why you should work out your salvation with fear and trembling… ie. cooperating with the grace of God. You don’t know that you’ll be saved… you can only make a guess. You can hope. The minute you start assuming is the minute the Devil smiles.

I agree with that! In fact the Lord said, "Whoever perseveres to the end, shall be saved."

The point is: Almighty God certainly knows ahead who are those who shall persevere to the end. And He would not force His will upon those He knows would not persevere to the end.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

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.

Just a few posts earlier you said:

[SIGN]“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.”[/SIGN]

Different points, different subjects. In the second one, you stated, “No, I don’t think the words “not chosen” should be added, it’s besides the point.”

In the first one, you stated, "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…"

There’s been a lot said, so I’m sure there’s ample room for confusion.

 

[PEPCIS]

Shike:

Maybe it would help for me to lay out my thought process in a different way.

1. God can choose evil
2. God can choose evil <-> God has the potential to choose evil (<-> roughly means that these are equal, interchangeable)
3. God is pure actuality

---

I have to interrupt you here, because the problem with your proposition is not going to be changed by a rewording of the terms. Your “actuality” is simply a philosophical term that presupposes a definition that, when applied to God, imposes on His character a term that implies “actuality = action.”

Until we get around this, I don’t see any hope of crossing this impasse. Here, let me illustrate this in your comments by cross examining your comments.

Shike:

Therefore it’s actual that God has the potential to choose evil <-> an actual potential

Wait, the conclusion can’t be right, it contradicts 3. To fix this:

A. The actual potential must be changed to an actual actuality based on 3.
B. A and 2 gives, it’s actual that God has the actuality to choose evil.
C. The actuality to choose evil is evil​

Therefore, there is evil in God.

Now, how is this explanation any different than our last round of debate when I accused you of equating actuality with potentiality? Even if you and I are using the term “actuality” with a different meaning, the interpretation which I use is consistent with the end result, which is that “the potentiality of choosing evil is the same as God actually choosing evil, therefore, there is evil in God.”

The problem may very well be in how we define actuality, but we BOTH understand that the outcome is that IF we agree that God has the potential to choose evil, that this means there is evil in God, therefore there is a contradiction, and therefore we must reject this as a possibility."

You will notice that I said “IF” I agree with your definition of actuality. I don’t. I have simply asked you to establish this definition as being based in something other than some a priori bias you have in this matter.

Shike:

If you agree with me to this point

, it would seem everything rests upon God being pure actuality. What exactly does that mean and why is this so? Should we reject it? This is a good question. It is proven in one of Aquinas’ 5 arguments for the existence of God (A God at this point that is only seen to be the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, etc.).

That is fine. Let’s hear what he said.

Shike:

I will have to refer you to studying what he says on potentiality/actuality, as that is where my study is soon to focus more closely, and I don’t think it would be wise of me to say more than what I have.

Is it contained in the link you gave earlier?

 

[PEPCIS]

There is a reality which is uncreated. Almighty God! He is a reality which was not created but existed through out. His logic of course did not create Him.

Exactly. You said it great!

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

Contrary to your statement above, my "true love’ toward you does NOT require your acceptance. It would be nice if you loved me back in return, but there is no guarantee.

I agree with this, even though it blows right by my point towards the end of my post… which I presume this comment was meant to address.

I tried to make it clear that the physical/secular analogies which we can offer cannot clearly explain the totality of God’s love to His Elect.

The analogy of The Count of Monte Cristo was only to show that the pirate could not reject the gift, because his physical life had not been taken - it had been given. Yet it was clear that once it was given to him, that the pirate could not reject it.

At that point in the illustration, it breaks down between the spiritual and the physical, because while you could never give eternal life back, you CAN take the gift of physical life back.

In the illustration of true love, it was only meant to illustrate the spiritual concept of God’s love being extended. It does not require you or I to acknowledge it for it to be true, or for it to be effective. It was not meant to explain how the Elect come to love God without being forced.

Shike:

One thing that your love for me does require, is to not force me to love you.

Very true. My grace and love is not effectual to those I offer it to. However, God’s grace and love is. That is why Christ can say, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” (John 6:37)

Shike:

If you force someone to love you in return, it automatically becomes something other than love, obviously.

“People” love is not perfect, and therefore unable to perfect an effect in those loved. God’s love, on the other hand, is perfect, and is “…able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of God’s glory with exceeding joy” (Jude 24)

Shike:

I really don’t want to get into Once Saved, Always Saved debate… and besides, it’s stretching the OP. I guess it’s partially on topic because if God is love, and He can’t figure out a way where we could freely love Him back, then that’s a serious issue with omnipotency.

It certainly is. Here’s what I think: Man is depraved to the point that he cannot choose God without God’s intervention. If we hold to your belief that man can choose God’s love without God intervening, then we have a serious problem with what the Bible teaches regarding the depravity of man.

God’s perfect love requires us to recognize the miracle of eternal life in our depraved state, and make the choice to receive it, but our depraved state prevents us from seeing that. I don’t believe I’ve ever met someone who refused the gift of salvation to explain that his choice was based upon a rejection of THE TRUTH of believing what God said was true. All those that reject fail to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Shike:

I still appreciate your comments, however.

Thanks. I’ll leave it in your hands if you want to take it further.

 

[jkiernan56]

LOL :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[Shike]

Yet it was clear that once it was given to him, that the pirate could not reject it.

There are two different “givens” as was pointed out before. While spare-your-life given can’t be rejected (in the sense of that moment), the continue-to-accept given can be rejected. There are two “givens” and they both need to be there.

God gave you life. You didn’t have a say if you were created or not. But you do have the say to continue to live (ie. not commit suicide).

At that point in the illustration, it breaks down between the spiritual and the physical, because while you could never give eternal life back, you CAN take the gift of physical life back.

The spiritual and the physical (for us creatures) are very closely intertwined and dependent on each other. It’s certainly possible that when someone commits suicide they lose not only the gift of life, but eternal life as well.

In the illustration of true love, it was only meant to illustrate the spiritual concept of God’s love being extended.

A love that would require Him to let us reject Him in the second sense of the “given”.

“People” love is not perfect,

Generally, perhaps. But is perfect meant in the sense of quality or in quantity and quality? We can love like God (with His grace), but not in the sense of quantity.

If we hold to your belief that man can choose God’s love without God intervening,

That is not the view I espoused or that of the Catholic Church. God initiates, always. But I can choose to reject Him after He initiates. Anything less is denying our freedom to love God.

I don’t believe I’ve ever met someone who refused the gift of salvation to explain that his choice was based upon a rejection of THE TRUTH of believing what God said was true. All those that reject fail to come to the knowledge of the truth.

You’ll have to break it down because what you said isn’t clear to me.

ciao.

 

[agangbern]

Since God is the source of all reality, and it was His logic which created all reality, then your statement(s) are not conformable to reality OR logic.
Obviously, if God cannot be constrained, then neither can His logic. Now this goes much deeper than our previous conversation regarding free will, because if you attack His logic as being constrained, then you not only constrain His free will, but every aspect of His being.
That, to me, is illogical.

There is a reality which is uncreated. Almighty God! He is a reality which was not created but existed through out. His logic of course did not create Him.

Exactly. You said it great!

See how a poster contradicts himself!

 

[jkiernan56]

Pepcis, you would do very well and very wisely to study the words of Agangbern I have quoted below. He is talking about reality and is 100% ABSOLUTELY correct. Here is what he had to say:

Originally Posted by agangbern

There is a reality which is uncreated. Almighty God! He is a reality which was not created but existed through out. His logic of course did not create Him.

 

[greylorn]

I especially liked the last line - logic did not create God.
Actually logic starts with God … with uncreated reality. Logic starts with … what is … and what is not. God IS … The name He revealed to mankind to call Him … “I AM WHO AM”. That is the summit of ALL truth, reality, and encompasses the totality of God’s BEING, ESSENCE in its most simple expression (or formula for the scientists out there). LOL

JK
I am coming to appreciate your particular relationship with God, and confess that I am somewhat envious of it. But then, I asked long ago to be ignored. Sometimes we get what we pray for.

However, I propose that your relationship with your Creator is totally unaffected by any of my proposals. The Creator itself is unaffected as well.

I propose that the rules of logic are beyond the ability of any conscious entity to change. God included. This in no way detracts from the power of God.

I believe identically about the First and Third Laws of Thermodynamics, seeing in them something absolute and fundamental. This opinion is what allows me to connect principles of physics with the concept of a created universe. It would serve anyone else who wanted to do the same.

However, most individuals, whether atheistic scientists or devout believers, seem more interested in justifying the beliefs which someone else taught them.

If thread replies are any indication, it seems that religious people cannot abide the idea of a God whose properties are anything short of beyond rational understanding. I do not find this to their credit. The basis for belief in an omnipotent God is looking to me more like a case of “My God is Bigger Than Yours,” because He is beyond rational understanding.

IMO, an entity capable of building a universe within the constraints of the energy laws and mathematical logic is more impressive than an entity who can create the laws with an act of will.

Getting to the point…

You’ve honored everyone on this site by sharing elements of your personal religious experience on another thread. Perhaps you’ve noted that despite my differing God-concept, I envy your experience. In no way would I invalidate it with scientific obfuscation. From my perspective, your experience is just as real as Michelson’s measurement of the charge on an electron, but not reproducible.

Human thought is not reproducible either, and I am certain that if scientists conducted a laboratory experiment designed to prove that humans can have creative thoughts, they would fail.

Finally, the point…

Your personal experience is not invalidated by anything I’ve written on CAF. Nor is it invalidated by my unshared ideas. You and I have both experienced a sense that we live in a universe created by some awesome entity.

The only difference between us is that my Creator is defined by the bible I’ve chosen— the universe He created. Yours is defined by the words of men— men who had no access to 20th century understandings of physical laws.

The “I am who am,” of O.T. tradition is not a formula. It is a tautology. x +2y/x = z is a formula. x = x is a tautology.

I can say about myself, “I am who am,” and be correct. But it does not lead to interesting conclusions about me. I can say to you, “You are who is,” or “was,” and be equally correct while learning nothing about you.

So, x = x is a logical representation of absolute truth. And it is meaningless. It does not represent “all truth.” E = mc2 (does anyone out there know how to get a superscript “2”?) is also a logical representation. It may not be an expression of “absolute truth,” but it was derived from logical considerations about the way we measure things, it gives us insights into the innards of physical reality, and, more importantly, it works.
If belief in God is to survive in a secular society, it must be put on the same logical footing as Einstein’s famous equation.

The God concept must be made so logical and so powerful that it rigorously explains, without reverting to biblical teachings, the laws of physics and the real purposes of creation. This can be done.

Consider the power and value of doing so.

 

[Shike]

If everything could be fit into a nice little equation or formula… it would be horrible.

You are forgetting about the unique “thing” of love. Without love there is no point good enough to justify living. Love isn’t exactly something you can put under an equantion. Thank goodness no.

Do you believe in love? (as cliche as that sounds)

 

[jkiernan56]

JK
I am coming to appreciate your particular relationship with God, and confess that I am somewhat envious of it. But then, I asked long ago to be ignored. Sometimes we get what we pray for.

However, I propose that your relationship with your Creator is totally unaffected by any of my proposals. The Creator itself is unaffected as well.

I propose that the rules of logic are beyond the ability of any conscious entity to change. God included. This in no way detracts from the power of God.

I believe identically about the First and Third Laws of Thermodynamics, seeing in them something absolute and fundamental. This opinion is what allows me to connect principles of physics with the concept of a created universe. It would serve anyone else who wanted to do the same.

However, most individuals, whether atheistic scientists or devout believers, seem more interested in justifying the beliefs which someone else taught them.

If thread replies are any indication, it seems that religious people cannot abide the idea of a God whose properties are anything short of beyond rational understanding. I do not find this to their credit. The basis for belief in an omnipotent God is looking to me more like a case of “My God is Bigger Than Yours,” because He is beyond rational understanding.

IMO, an entity capable of building a universe within the constraints of the energy laws and mathematical logic is more impressive than an entity who can create the laws with an act of will.

Getting to the point…

You’ve honored everyone on this site by sharing elements of your personal religious experience on another thread. Perhaps you’ve noted that despite my differing God-concept, I envy your experience. In no way would I invalidate it with scientific obfuscation. From my perspective, your experience is just as real as Michelson’s measurement of the charge on an electron, but not reproducible.

Human thought is not reproducible either, and I am certain that if scientists conducted a laboratory experiment designed to prove that humans can have creative thoughts, they would fail.

Finally, the point…

Your personal experience is not invalidated by anything I’ve written on CAF. Nor is it invalidated by my unshared ideas. You and I have both experienced a sense that we live in a universe created by some awesome entity.

The only difference between us is that my Creator is defined by the bible I’ve chosen— the universe He created. Yours is defined by the words of men— men who had no access to 20th century understandings of physical laws.

The “I am who am,” of O.T. tradition is not a formula. It is a tautology. x +2y/x = z is a formula. x = x is a tautology.

I can say about myself, “I am who am,” and be correct. But it does not lead to interesting conclusions about me. I can say to you, “You are who is,” or “was,” and be equally correct while learning nothing about you.

So, x = x is a logical representation of absolute truth. And it is meaningless. It does not represent “all truth.” E = mc2 (does anyone out there know how to get a superscript “2”?) is also a logical representation. It may not be an expression of “absolute truth,” but it was derived from logical considerations about the way we measure things, it gives us insights into the innards of physical reality, and, more importantly, it works.
If belief in God is to survive in a secular society, it must be put on the same logical footing as Einstein’s famous equation.

The God concept must be made so logical and so powerful that it rigorously explains, without reverting to biblical teachings, the laws of physics and the real purposes of creation. This can be done.

Consider the power and value of doing so.

Greylorn, my experience of God as “I AM” is not the result of the words of man. It was an experience of reality. In the light of God’s presence, I realized and understood that “only God has to exist.” I felt total unworthiness that I even existed - because I realized I did not have to exist. I knew the only reason I did exist is because I was wanted and willed to exist. God who is “I AM” could have continued in BEING for all eternity without ever having created anything. God did not need to create the world …and did not need to create me. Your existence and mine are sheer underserved gifts. It was an experience of Grace.

Any created reality does not have to exist. That is why when we talk about the physical laws of energy, I already directly know from experience that whatever “IS” … is because God wills it to be. No created reality brought itself into being out of nothingness.

 

[PEPCIS]

Pepcis, you would do very well and very wisely to study the words of Agangbern I have quoted below. He is talking about reality and is 100% ABSOLUTELY correct. Here is what he had to say:

Here, I’ll kill two birds with one stone:

agangbern: "There is a reality which is uncreated. Almighty God! He is a reality which was not created but existed through out. His logic of course did not create Him."

PEPCIS: "Exactly. You said it great!"

agangbern: "See how a poster contradicts himself!"

ROFLMBO!!!

jkiernan56, you would do well to see that I agree with agangbern AS HE HAS STATED IT HERE. You will note that, contrary to your assertion, he is NOT talking about all reality. He noted that God is “a reality.”

God is a reality (not THE reality) which is uncreated. He is Almighty God! He is a reality which was not created, because He has ALWAYS EXISTED. He is the eternal “I AM”!! His logic did not create Him, but His logic did create all reality as we know it.

You may now cry in repentance…

 

[grannymh]

You may now cry in repentance…

Gratefully. :crying: