The Omnipotency Contradiction

[PEPCIS]

Their are several things God cannot do:

1. Lie
2. Be deceived
3. Sin

That’s not properly stated. God can do anything that He wishes. Nothing is impossible for Him to do. Yet we know that His Word declares Himself to be fully righteous, so we also know that because of this attribute that He does not lie.

But it is improper to claim that God cannot lie. Rather, it is better to say that God chooses always to speak truth.

While it is possible that a man might live his whole life without lying, because he is a “free agent” we would not claim that he could not lie, but that he never chose to do so.

Stating it as a positive affirmation, instead of as a negative proclamation makes all the difference. It’s like saying “The cup is half empty”, instead of the more positive “The cup is half full.” Both statements regard the same reality.

Similarly, saying “God cannot lie” is a negative statement which is rendered positively as “God will never lie.” They both speak of the same truth, but the second shows God as a free agent who always chooses good.

 

[PEPCIS]

If I was an omniscient and omnipotent God…

Therein lies the biggest problem of understanding God. I know I’m not telling you anything new, but His ways are not ours, and His mind is surely past our finding out.

It’s an interesting concept, but the main problem in the discussion is understanding that IF God does not think (which I’m tending to agree), then how could that be inferior to man’s need to think? The obvious answer is, “It can’t be.”

The actual fact of the matter is that man MUST think, because he lacks knowledge.

 

[PEPCIS]

So from my perspective, God is an extraordinary entity Who does not know all things.

That’s Open Theism, right?

…unless science and religion are integrated, the most intelligent of our children will not make correct belief choices. Society is becoming fragmented because of the dichotomy between science and religion. Not good.

Society is becoming fragmented because of the dichotomy between science and religion??? Please, I’d really like to hear how you came to this conclusion. I’ve always thought that society is becoming fragmented because their are lots of opinions out there.

I am an ornery person.

I’m sorry.

 

[grannymh]

Just a brief thought — Somewhere, this thread or another thread, someone commented that man was made in the image of God.
Seems to me, a lot of these posts are making God in the image of man.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[SeekingHeaven]

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?

What about before the world was made? Don’t you think God had to think and creatively envision and imagine this before He decided it was a good idea and went ahead and created it?

 

[jkiernan56]

God can do anything that He wishes. Nothing is impossible for Him to do.

God cannot do anything contrary to His nature or that is inherently contradictory.

God cannot cease to exist. Why? Because it is contrary to God’s nature - which is TO EXIST.

God cannot create a 4-sided triangle? Why? Because there is an inherent contradiction. A 4-sided triangle is NOT a possibility. It is NOTHING … and as you pointed out earlier … NOTHINGNESS is impossible for God to do.

By the way, I also totally reject the notion that God does not think.

 

[PEPCIS]

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.

We do have free will…and we don’t. “Free will” is a misnomer because, while it accurately portrays man’s mind in the realm of this world, it is typically not defined as it encompasses all realities. For example, we can truly say that God has Free Will, because God is omnipotent, and is therefore able to bring anything to pass that His will desires.

On the other hand, man may have the will to jump as high as a 2 story building, but because he lacks the power to bring this about, he is not truly free - because he cannot “effectualize” his true desires.

 

[MarkInOregon]

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?

If God knows everything–doesn’t that mean there are no new ideas to generate? If God knows everything–are we really generating a new idea or simply discovering something God already knows–hence it is not really a new idea.
Doesn’t omnipotent as it applies to God–preclude the generation of new ideas–if God knows all and is all powerful–there is nothing new to generate. In our limited state we are simply discovering–we are not creating in the sense that God “creates”

Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[PEPCIS]

If religion is to ever achieve the respect given to science…

Do you, personally, believe that science has MORE respect than religion?

 

[PEPCIS]

I wish to expand upon my curt statement about logic. Logic does not change. Aristotle laid down the basic principles about 3 milennia ago. Mathematics uses these basic principles, unchanged.

I know that I’ve interjected myself into this, but I feel compelled on this because I believe I understand what it was that he was trying to get across to you.

True, the FORMULA of logic does not change, but the application can be misguided by an imperfect handling of the process, resulting in an “illogical” procedure/result.

 

[PEPCIS]

The law of thermodynamics does not contradict evolution since the law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems (ie the universe) and not open systems (ie the earth)

Gee, I didn’t know that open systems suspended the law of thermodynamics…[facete button on full blast]

 

[PEPCIS]

God cannot do anything contrary to His nature or that is inherently contradictory.

I disagree, but that’s just my opinion. I happen to believe that He actively CHOOSES to do what is complimentary to His nature, while you believe that He CANNOT do what is against His nature. If what you say is true, then God is not a free agent. Do you believe that God has free will?

 

[jkiernan56]

I disagree, but that’s just my opinion. I happen to believe that He actively CHOOSES to do what is complimentary to His nature, while you believe that He CANNOT do what is against His nature. If what you say is true, then God is not a free agent. Do you believe that God has free will?

Yes, I believe that God has free will and that according to His nature CANNOT do evil. I know that sounds contradictory to you, but it doesn’t to me. What is Good does not depend on the existence of Evil … whereas Evil cannot exist without the misuse or disease of the Good. God is GOOD. It is Himself not a part of Himself. God’s Goodness and Free Will are both God - not parts of God.

Do you think it is POSSIBLE for God to CHOOSE evil because God has free will? Not me.

Do you think before the creation of the universe (before time and space and matter existed) when only God existed - that God was BOTH Good and Evil? Are you of the mind that Evil comes from God? If so, you and I will never be on the same page or have a common language for discussion.

 

[grannymh]

We do have free will…and we don’t. "

On the other hand, man may have the will to jump as high as a 2 story building, but because he lacks the power to bring this about, he is not truly free - because he cannot “effectualize” his true desires.

Free will is the ability to choose. It is not the ability to “effectualize” one’s desire.

There are times when a free will choice will be blocked, e.g., when we are not able to jump higher than two feet high. The fact that our athletic abilities are limited does not limit or change our freedom to choose an unattainable goal.

When we say that God is all powerful etc., we are saying that He knows the result of our free will choice whatever it is.

 

[Pro_Domina]

Dear Pro Domina,

I agree with greylorn in a preceding post that logic does not change.

Granted that its use may be faulty. Putting one’s foot on the gas pedal instead of the brakes when trying to stop the car does not change the basic mechanism of the car.

Furthermore, logic does not require a consensus for it to be logical. What does require a consensus is a society that wishes to establish some kind of order without reference to basic truths. This is called relativism. Principles decided by relativism are subject to change as society and individuals change their goals. Logic, as a discipline, does not operate from a relativist position.

Blessings,
grannymh

It does change because it depends on what the times say. If fornication was not wrong in pagan times, wrong in Catholic times and accepted today and then condemned tommorow, then who has the right to say that other’s logic was faulty?

Only if we base ourselves in something that does not change, that is constant and absolute. And that is God.

That is why nothing can be founded upon the logic and reasoning of natural man because it is subject to its changability, to its passiveness to error and obstination in it.

What it is silly yesterday could be common life today and abominable tommorow. Only a God who is absolutely perfect can be the base for any science and persuit of knowledge and sanctity.

 

[jkiernan56]

I disagree, but that’s just my opinion. I happen to believe that He actively CHOOSES to do what is complimentary to His nature, while you believe that He CANNOT do what is against His nature. If what you say is true, then God is not a free agent. Do you believe that God has free will?

I want to follow up to my earlier response to your statements. The problem seems to be the difference between your idea of freedom and mine. A distinction can be made between free-will and being free (freedom). Free-will is the ability to make choices. How free a person is depends upon WHAT is chosen. Being completely free (freedom) means the ability to choose what is Good. To the degree we are unable to choose what is Good is the degree to which we are not truly free (ie - slaves to sin). God is completely free because He is able to always choose the Good. According to your definition, God is able to choose contrary to the Good because of His free-will. I say that God cannot choose to do evil because God is Good and is totally free. God always wills the Good because He is Goodness Itself. God cannot will otherwise because it is contrary to His Nature. God cannot WILL Himself to stop existing. It is an impossibility for God. God’s nature is to exist. Yes God has free-will, but God cannot will what is contrary to His Nature.

Do you honestly think because God has a free-will, that God could choose to stop existing if He willed it?

Goodness does not need or depend on the existence of evil. Whereas Evil does depend on the existence of the Good because Evil is the misuse or disease of the Good.

 

[grannymh]

It does change because it depends on what the times say. If fornication was not wrong in pagan times, wrong in Catholic times and accepted today and then condemned tommorow, then who has the right to say that other’s logic was faulty?

Only if we base ourselves in something that does not change, that is constant and absolute. And that is God.

That is why nothing can be founded upon the logic and reasoning of natural man because it is subject to its changability, to its passiveness to error and obstination in it.

What it is silly yesterday could be common life today and abominable tommorow. Only a God who is absolutely perfect can be the base for any science and persuit of knowledge and sanctity.

Dear Pro Domina,

May we approach absolute truth and logic again?

When we turn to God, we do find constant, unchangeable, absolute truth. We see God’s truth in our world. For example, human life as God’s creation is sacred. Logic would tell us that human life should be treated as sacred. A further extension would be that the union between man and woman is also sacred because the product new life is sacred. The sacredness of all human life flows naturally from God.

Logic would discern that fornication is wrong because it opposes the sacredness of the union between man and woman. As Greylorn said “logic is just a tool. It is not truth, but is a method for discerning falsehoods.”

The logic behind sacredness of life has been consistent even when fornication becomes acceptable. The Catholic Church follows the logical line that because human life comes from God it should be treated as sacred including life in the womb. Thus fornication is wrong all the time. When God is ignored, the base or reason for the sacredness of human life becomes lost.

Natural man can be very clever when desires contradict the truth of God. For example, some people put personal pleasure on demand in the place of the sacredness of human life, thus, there is fornication.

You are right. Absolute truth of the absolute God is needed.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[JKing]

I’ve taken the time to read all the posts and although I have no formal training in any of these topics, perhaps I can contribute a small thing.

If I was the devil and I wanted to cause someone to lose salvation, would I be required to make them turn totally, 180 degrees away from God? Or would it be sufficient to nudge them off course by one degree?

I think it would be easier to cause an archer to miss the target by slightly altering his aiming point than by somehow causing him to aim in the opposite direction.

So, rather than causing a person to disbelieve in God, or oppose God, wouldn’t it be easier for me to convince someone that God is not as He has revealed Himself to be; let the person imagine God is what He is not?

Would that person then use phrases like “My God is…” and “Your God would not…”?

I believe God has revealed Himself to us in a most complete and perfect way in the life and teachings of His Son. I know I’m being very simplistic and probably un-thinking, but all I can do is trust the Church founded by Christ to continue His saving work in time. God, who is outside time, inserted Himself into time to effect our salvation and to “draw us up” into eternity. I don’t understand it, I believe it.

God is not a matter of opinion. He is what he is no matter what you or I think about Him.

Jeff

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

I disagree, but that’s just my opinion. I happen to believe that He actively CHOOSES to do what is complimentary to His nature, while you believe that He CANNOT do what is against His nature. If what you say is true, then God is not a free agent. Do you believe that God has free will?

Yes, I believe that God has free will and that according to His nature CANNOT do evil. I know that sounds contradictory to you, but it doesn’t to me.

It’s not whether it sounds contradictory to me or not. It IS contradictory. You cannot state that God has free will, and then state that he cannot choose to do evil. The two are contradictory in logic. Regardless of whether you attribute His choice to His nature or not. If He cannot choose, then he does not have the will to choose, and MUST do only good. That’s not free will.

What is Good does not depend on the existence of Evil … whereas Evil cannot exist without the misuse or disease of the Good.

Evil does not depend on the existence of Good, and Good does not depend on the existence of Evil. However, humans would not know what is Good without the presence of Evil, and vice versa.

Do you think it is POSSIBLE for God to CHOOSE evil because God has free will?

Yes. It MUST be possible if God is a free agent.

Do you think before the creation of the universe (before time and space and matter existed) when only God existed - that God was BOTH Good and Evil?

No. We say “God is Good” not just because we believe it is His “nature”, but because God is a righteous judge and would never choose any act which did not conform to His “nature.”

Are you of the mind that Evil comes from God?

No. But the creation of humanity created the potential for it because of man’s “free will.”

 

[jkiernan56]

It’s not whether it sounds contradictory to me or not. It IS contradictory. You cannot state that God has free will, and then state that he cannot choose to do evil. The two are contradictory in logic. Regardless of whether you attribute His choice to His nature or not. If He cannot choose, then he does not have the will to choose, and MUST do only good. That’s not free will.

Evil does not depend on the existence of Good, and Good does not depend on the existence of Evil. However, humans would not know what is Good without the presence of Evil, and vice versa.

Yes. It MUST be possible if God is a free agent.

No. We say “God is Good” not just because we believe it is His “nature”, but because God is a righteous judge and would never choose any act which did not conform to His “nature.”

No. But the creation of humanity created the potential for it because of man’s “free will.”

This I know is TRUE:

A. God cannot will Himself to no longer exist.
B. God does have free-will.

I may not have the words yet to explain it, but I ABSOLUTELY know that A and B are NOT contradictory in the example above.

Having free-will does not mean it is possible for God to choose evil. Again in this statement it seems there is an inherent contradiction, but I don’t agree. Right now I don’t have the words to explain yet how (A) having free-will coexists with (B) how it is impossible for God to choose Evil - but I know both are TRUE (just as in the former example).

I will ponder this a bit and see if there is a way to bring A and B together (even though you think they are mutually contradictory).