The Omnipotency Contradiction

  • Thread starter Thread starter greylorn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by PEPCIS
God is a reality (not THE reality) which is uncreated

Pepcis - God IS REALITY!!! All reality comes from God who is REALITY. God is not “a” reality among many others. There is only ONE. Accept no substitute … LOL
 
jkiernan56 said:
Originally Posted by PEPCIS
God is a reality (not THE reality) which is uncreated

Pepcis - God IS REALITY!!! All reality comes from God who is REALITY. God is not “a” reality among many others. There is only ONE. Accept no substitute … LOL
Click to expand...
:clapping:
 
Shike said:
Only problem is that some might take that to mean that there are other realities just as real as God.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s a very real possibility - or should I say, a “possible reality”? 😛
 
jkiernan56 said:
Originally Posted by PEPCIS
God is a reality (not THE reality) which is uncreated

Pepcis - God IS REALITY!!! All reality comes from God who is REALITY. God is not “a” reality among many others. There is only ONE. Accept no substitute … LOL
Click to expand...
You were right, Mike!
 
jkiernan56 said:
Originally Posted by PEPCIS
God is a reality (not THE reality) which is uncreated

Pepcis - God IS REALITY!!! All reality comes from God who is REALITY. God is not “a” reality among many others. There is only ONE. Accept no substitute … LOL
Click to expand...
Just to set the record straight for you jk, the context for each reply is DIFFERENT. The meanings have subtle variations in definition.
 
Shike said:
Only problem is that some might take that to mean that there are other realities just as real as God.
Click to expand...
That was giving the “scientists”, the “mathematicians” and the “logicians” an opportunity to declare, if they could, that there are other uncreated realities aside from Almighty God. What mattered to me was to belie the allegation that, “Logic created all realities.”.

There is one reality that was uncreated. Therefore, the allegation that “logic created all realities” is false.
 
agangbern said:
That was giving the “scientists”, the “mathematicians” and the “logicians” an opportunity to declare, if they could, that there are other uncreated realities aside from Almighty God. What mattered to me was to belie the allegation that, “Logic created all realities.”.

There is one reality that was uncreated. Therefore, the allegation that “logic created all realities” is false.
Click to expand...
God, then, created logic? I presume our logic only applies to things within our universe (and God is outside of our universe, so He would be allogical, in a sense.) Of course, you cannot divide God into His qualities, because He is a simple being. So to say this or that quality of God (such as what we percieve as logic) created all other realities in this universe would be false; the only conundrum, then, is that Christ is referred to in the Bible as Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom) and as the divine Logos. In this case, God’s Logos, His reason, is uncreated, and at the same time substantial with God, along with the Holy Spirit. Ugh, I just contradicted myself…
 
greylorn said:
The outcome of a previous thread titled, “Can God Think?” resulted in the overwhelming conclusion (all respondents) that God does not spontaneously create information— i.e. God cannot think.

However, it is clear that human beings can have creative thoughts. Since we can do something which God cannot, God is not omnipotent.

By creative, I mean creative in the context of one’s own mind. It does not matter that Newton and Leibnitz both invented the mathematical system known as “calculus” at pretty much the same time, for neither know of the other’s work. It was a creative work for each.

Nor does it matter for the sake of this argument that God knows calculus, so long as He did not reveal it in the Bible, which would have allowed Newton and Leibnitz to crib it therefrom. The point of the argument is simply that human minds can have what passes in them for creative thought. God cannot, because He knows everything.

This means that we can do something which God cannot. Therefore if God cannot generate a new idea, He is not omnipotent.

What are your thoughts about this?
Click to expand...
  1. Your argument doesn’t make sense when presented to a Catholic. God became man, in the person of Jesus Christ. God thus had a human mind and body, and did everything with it that humans typically do.
  2. Even if you were talking to a mere Platonist, the argument fails, and obviously so. God, knowing everything, has all possible creative thoughts.
 
Shike said:
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)
Click to expand...
Michael,

I’ll assume that you’ve addressed me.

I agree absolutely that the reduction of everything into a single formula would be bad news, and I’ve never believed that it could be done. I would not wish to do it. My personal beliefs, although not Catholic, declare such a notion absurd. I do not believe that there is an equivalent of the Hamiltonian formula which applies to the universe.

I never forget love. I’ve felt it on several occasions, but in the aftermath, looking upward from the bottom of the outhouse of human affection, I’ve analyzed it. I could write a book about it but won’t, because love is clearly not my area of expertise. I write about things I’ve been able (IMO) to develop some understanding about.

I’ve experimented with the introduction of “love” into my theories about how and why the universe came into being. Love is apparently important, else we’d not be living on a planet in bodies which introduce the emotion. There is no way that I can introduce my ideas about love, however paltry, in the context of CAF.

I certainly believe in “love” at the level of human experience. My universe view explains creation only on the basis of God’s need. That is an analytical concept, which I’m as qualified to make as anyone with access to data.

I would never claim to interpret love in the context of God. I’m not a theologian. I do not know on what grounds theologians make their claims that God loves mankind. They’ve never made much sense to me in the areas of their expertise, which are supposed to involve logic, and I’ve never encountered or read a theologian with even a basic degree in physics. They describe the origin and purpose of a universe which they are not prepared to understand. I do not know that they any more qualified to speak of God’s love, than I am. And that is a very low level of qualification.

We can speak of human love to the extent that we’ve experienced it, and acknowledge its existence. When talking about God’s love, our ideas are as likely to be correct as those of a chipmunk explaining quantum mechanics.

In summation: I don’t believe in love. There is little in which I “believe.” However, I am certain that love is a real, and extremely powerful emotion. I am certain that it plays a significant part in human affairs…

I do not believe that any human being’s interpretation of a notion such as, “God’s love for mankind,” has much to do with our Creator’s motivations. Kindly find that approach objective rather than cynical.
 
selylidne said:
  1. Your argument doesn’t make sense when presented to a Catholic. God became man, in the person of Jesus Christ. God thus had a human mind and body, and did everything with it that humans typically do.
  2. Even if you were talking to a mere Platonist, the argument fails, and obviously so. God, knowing everything, has all possible creative thoughts.
Click to expand...
Preconceptions do not allow one to make sense of ideas outside of their preconceptual belief set.

That’s okay. Retain your beliefs so long as they serve you. My questions and notions are intended only for those who are concerned about the dichotomy between science, reality, logic, and religion.
 
jkiernan56 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The “I am who am,” words you used were taken from the writings of man. Yes?

You used them. How is it that you claim not to be affected by them? (Being affected by words is okay, by the way. It is how we learn.)

I promise that there is an even more interesting level at which your experience can be understood. (Notice that I did not say, “interpreted.”) My sense of your experience is that it was subjective, relating to your relationship with the phenomenon of self-aware existence.

If I misunderstood you, and your experience included objective information about the creation of the universe, then of course I’m writing from incomplete information, because you’ve chosen to withhold some of it. Doesn’t seem fair.

Your apparent belief in self-unworthiness is not logical. If you were not worthy enough for an existence trial, you’d never know about it. You’d never have had your psychic experience of knowing.

My existence is not a gift. It is one of the things that happened at the beginning. My call to consciousness is another matter entirely; that is a trial, a gauntlet to be run, with more pain at the end of it. I hope to work hard enough to earn extinguishedness at the end of this conscious experience, making it my last. .
 
greylorn said:
The “I am who am,” words you used were taken from the writings of man. Yes?

You used them. How is it that you claim not to be affected by them? (Being affected by words is okay, by the way. It is how we learn.)

I promise that there is an even more interesting level at which your experience can be understood. (Notice that I did not say, “interpreted.”) My sense of your experience is that it was subjective, relating to your relationship with the phenomenon of self-aware existence.

If I misunderstood you, and your experience included objective information about the creation of the universe, then of course I’m writing from incomplete information, because you’ve chosen to withhold some of it. Doesn’t seem fair.

Your apparent belief in self-unworthiness is not logical. If you were not worthy enough for an existence trial, you’d never know about it. You’d never have had your psychic experience of knowing.

My existence is not a gift. It is one of the things that happened at the beginning. My call to consciousness is another matter entirely; that is a trial, a gauntlet to be run, with more pain at the end of it. I hope to work hard enough to earn extinguishedness at the end of this conscious experience, making it my last. .
Click to expand...
Even though the words are in the Bible, it is the difference between knowing the Grand Canyon exists and then actually being there and seeing it for myself. My experience was the latter - It was direct and very personal 🙂

My experience was of God’s BEING … not of His creation. Within that experience of God’s BEING, I realized I did not have to exist nor did the universe have to exist. Only God - it is His very essence. It is WHO and WHAT God is - “I AM”. I had a direct experience of God as God IS. I met God in a sense … just as if I knew about someone from reading about them, and then actually seeing them in person for myself.

Once you realize that you do not have to exist, and you realize the fact that your existence is a gift from God … a gift God did not have to create … it is an extremely humbling experience. I can’t even put this into words to express this adequately. It was an overwhelming experience of Grace … direct knowledge that I was wanted and willed.

Trust me when I say that there is nothing you can do change the reality of my experience … no more than you could try to explain away the feeling of a cool breeze on a hot humid summer day 🙂

I absolutely know that I am loved and wanted by God. If God did not want me, I would not exist - period. Neither would you … .neither would any of creation. 🙂
 
jkiernan56 said:
LOL :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Click to expand...
JK

Kindly honor this thread with your thoughts. A sequence of “bangheads” is the kind of crud I’d expect to see on Fox News’ Shepard Smith program. .
 
jkiernan56 said:
:signofcross: :highprayer: :knight2:

LOL
Click to expand...
Granny,

Your last two posts have consisted of weird icons devoid of meaning. Why waste thread space with such crud? Are you trying to run up a posting count?

I’ve come to expect much better of you.

If there was an icon available which included a smartly raised middle finger (as smart as that can be) I’d be seriously thinking about employing it here. Instead, I’d invite you to share your thoughts, rather than mindless symbols.
 
greylorn said:
IMO, declaring any entity in human form to be God is of detrimental value to the furtherance of thought, even if it be true. Humans are fearful enough to express genuine thoughts which differ from those of other humans. They are not equipped to express (or even have) thoughts which might differ from those of their God.
Click to expand...
Are humans really "fearful enough to express genuine thoughts which differ from those of other humans"? I don’t think all humans are so. Proof of this is our worthy co-poster, greylorn, himself. He fears no one in expressing his thoughts, and yet he is human no doubt.😉
 
greylorn said:
Surely you’ve been paying attention to what I’ve written, and have realized that my work is to reconcile belief in a Creator with the highest levels of modern science.
Click to expand...
One of the things that I’ve noticed about this particular thread, and about you specifically, greylorn, is that you are operating from an hypocrisy. On the one hand, you deny anyone any relevance who dares to speak from their personal belief system, while on the other hand, declaring your own personal belief system as tantamount to that of a scientific declaration.

It’s interesting, but sad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top