The Omnipotency Contradiction

[Pro_Domina]

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.”

Evil has no substance. It is a lack of Good rather than a thing in itself.

We are trying to analyze THE BEING which is God through the eye of a contigent being.
This discussion of the Will of God compared to human free will is like trying to say how is God the Father a father if there is no mother? My friend, it is human paternity that resembles God and not the opposite.

Our free will is nothing to His Divine Will. Trying to compare like this is called athropomorphism.

 

[jkiernan56]

Evil has no substance. It is a lack of Good rather than a thing in itself.

We are trying to analyze THE BEING which is God through the eye of a contigent being.
This discussion of the Will of God compared to human free will is like trying to say how is God the Father a father if there is no mother? My friend, it is human paternity that resembles God and not the opposite.

Our free will is nothing to His Divine Will. Trying to compare like this is called athropomorphism.

Evil is the lack of Good and has no substance? The substance of evil is Good being misused and diseased. Evil cannot exist on its own. It depends on the Good whereas Good does not depend on evil for its existence. Therefore I don’t know if I can agree with you that evil has no substance. The substance of evil is Goodness wrongly misused.

Your comments on Anthropomorphism seems to conclude that we cannot understand God’s nature through reason. Please correct me if I am wrong with that statement. What we are discussing here is Theology - not Anthropomorphism. Sometimes human analogies are used to express an idea, but they cannot fully express the fullness of God’s BEING. If you have a disagreement with the ideas expressed here about the nature of God and His Omnipotence, your argument is with St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. It is an accepted fact in Theology that God cannot do something contrary to His Nature. God’s nature is to exist. God cannot NOT exist. The same is true of God and evil. God cannot do evil any more than He can will Himself to not exist. Now God could will if He wanted that you and I and the whole universe cease to exist - and it would cease to exist. We are contingent beings - God is not.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

You might state the following: “God will live forever”

This is a “logical” statement, but it is also false, because God does not have “life” as we understand it in human terms. Therefore, that statement (that God will live forever) is not rooted in reality.

I disagree with your conclusion. The statement “God will live forever” is rooted in reality and therefore logical. The problem with the statement is that it does NOT fully express the reality of God’s life. Just because a statement does NOT express the fullness of reality does NOT make it FALSE.

I’m beginning to think we might be arguing for argument’s sake…

The statement “God will live forever” is not rooted in reality, because it does not express a truth. It is a false statement. God does not have “life.” Therefore, “God will NOT live forever” is just as valid a statement as “God will live forever.”

Life is defined variously as:

• a characteristic state or mode of living; “social life”; “city life”; “real life”
• the experience of being alive; the course of human events and activities; “he could no longer cope with the complexities of life”
• the course of existence of an individual; the actions and events that occur in living; “he hoped for a new life in Australia”; “he wanted to live his own life without interference from others”
• animation: the condition of living or the state of being alive; “while there’s life there’s hope”; “life depends on many chemical and physical processes”
• the period during which something is functional (as between birth and death); “the battery had a short life”; “he lived a long and happy life”
• the period between birth and the present time; “I have known him all his life”
• the period from the present until death; "he appointed himself emperor for life

Life is specifically an attribute of God’s creation. It is NOT an attribute of God.

 

[jkiernan56]

The statement “God will live forever” is not rooted in reality, because it does not express a truth. It is a false statement. God does not have “life.” Therefore, “God will NOT live forever” is just as valid a statement as “God will live forever.”

No, I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I am sincerely interested in your ideas and on what basis you hold them. I may not agree with you, but I sincerely want to learn what you think and why.

Where do you get the idea that God does not have life?
Spirit that is BEING is not life?

God is Spirit. Spirit consists of a BEING that has both KNOWLEDGE and WILL. Do you disagree that God is not Spirit?

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

I agree with you 100% that God has free will. But I do not agree that God could NOT will himself to non-existence. This would not only mean that God’s will was limited, but that His power was limited as well.

Does God have the will to kill Himself? No. Does He have the free will to do so? Yes, His will is absolutely free …

Everyone including God is limited by reality.

God is unlimited in all realities. Otherwise, He could not be God.

God’s reality is TO EXIST.

I’m not sure what that means. God’s “reality” is that “I AM.” All His attributes, as taught from the Bible, teach us how that reality is manifested in His attributes.

It is not reality to say God could will Himself to cease His own existence.

Yes it is. It’s called “God’s holiness.” If God does not have the will to choose even the most despicable choices to our minds, then He is not free. If He is not free, then He cannot ensure our salvation. If He cannot ensure our salvation, then He cannot ensure that He would receive glory for each soul saved.

Yes - REALITY does have limitations.

Yes, MAN’S reality is limited. God is the “I AM” where all realities are possible.

 

[jkiernan56]

God is unlimited in all realities. Otherwise, He could not be God.

Realities? Do you think there is more than one? There is only one reality - God.

I’m not sure what that means. God’s “reality” is that “I AM.” All His attributes, as taught from the Bible, teach us how that reality is manifested in His attributes.

God’s essence and reality is TO EXIST. God is the fullness of BEING and EXISTENCE. When Moses asked God what to say to the Egyptians about WHO it was asking to let His people go free from slavery, God responded that His name is “I AM”. You can find this in the book of Exodus in the Old Testament. Christ also mentions this in the Gospel of John when He said “Before Abraham was - I AM”.

If God does not have the will to choose even the most despicable choices to our minds, then He is not free.

God not only has a free will but is completely FREE at the very core of what FREEDOM means. To be completely FREE is to always will what is Good. If God were to will anything less than what is Good, then He would not be completely free. God and Goodness are not two separate realities. They are one and the same reality.

Yes, MAN’S reality is limited. God is the “I AM” where all realities are possible.

Again, there is only ONE reality - God. Here again is what St. Thomas Aquinas says about what is possible for God:

**It remains therefore, that God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely; which is the second way of saying a thing is possible.

Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. **

To paraphrase, what is possible for God is determined and rooted in His reality - God’s reality. There is no other reality. You use the word “realities”. There is only ONE.

God willing Himself to not exist is not a possibility. It is NOT real. Because it is NOT real, it is NOT a possiblity. It is a contradiction of God’s essence which is TO BE - “I AM”.

This thread “The Omnipotency Contradiction” is completely FALSE. God cannot create a rock so large and heavy that He Himself cannot lift it. It is a contradiction and therefore NOT real and therefore NOT a possibility. That doesn’t mean God is NOT Omnipotent because He isn’t able to do something that isn’t real. Only what is real is possible for God (and us).

 

[jkiernan56]

To summarize everything I have been trying to say -

**There is NO Omnipotency Contradiction !!! **

 

[greylorn]

Hm. So you’re saying that since God already knows everything, he can’t think of something he didn’t already know. The same argument, “Can God create a rock so big that he can’t lift it?” which I think would be parsed as, “IF A, THEN NOT A,” logical nonsense.

Really, I disagree with your definition of “thinking”. None of us can think something we didn’t already know – how could it enter our minds to be thought? Every scientific theory and mathematical proof is a result of learning, of being shown something external to ourselves. This includes guesses, like Max Planck’s constant, and even art. (A guess is something you assert without being able to logically deduce it, perhaps utilizing ideas in the back of your mind of which you’re not fully cognizant.)

It may sound a little odd, that I’m saying we are not creating new ideas out of thin air with art, that even art is a result of learning from our environment, or maybe you see what I mean: Art is the result of mulling things over in your mind, stirring things around like a pot of soup (some call this “brainstorming”), and regurgitating ideas in different combinations.

So, actually, God has one above us in this situation, not the other way around – we can only function with information given to us, while God is the source of this information, with which he also functions.

Perhaps this is what is meant by the terms “omnipotent” and “almighty” – he does not depend on an something external to provide information like we do.

If God is the source of all information, and we have this dependence on things external to provide us with information, then perhaps this consideration of the nature of thought is a sort of ontological proof of our need for God and purpose of existence – to be with God.

You’ve replied to this without doing your homework, which involves reading and comprehending the definition of thought for the purpose of this thread. It is specifically defined as “creative thought,” the ability to have an idea which you’ve not previously had. In the context of humans, it can be argued by religionists that God already knows all thoughts that humans might invent. In the context of God, the question becomes, “Can God think of something of which He’s not previously thought?”

I am sorry that you’ve never had a creative thought. But all forms of virginity are curable. Try it. I guarantee that you will love the experience of driving your mind down an unmapped road, and from there into the wilderness.

I’ll address your issues after you make them relevant to the topic. However, if you persist in the claim that this is analogous to the “rock too big” question, I can only invite you to grow with age, study, and the various applications of logic to life.

The Planck constant is not a guess. What weird physics book did you pick up?

Nonetheless, thank you for engaging a worthy question.

 

[greylorn]

Realities? Do you think there is more than one? There is only one reality - God.

God’s essence and reality is TO EXIST. God is the fullness of BEING and EXISTENCE. When Moses asked God what to say to the Egyptians about WHO it was asking to let His people go free from slavery, God responded that His name is “I AM”. You can find this in the book of Exodus in the Old Testament. Christ also mentions this in the Gospel of John when He said “Before Abraham was - I AM”.

God not only has a free will but is completely FREE at the very core of what FREEDOM means. To be completely FREE is to always will what is Good. If God were to will anything less than what is Good, then He would not be completely free. God and Goodness are not two separate realities. They are one and the same reality.

Again, there is only ONE reality - God. Here again is what St. Thomas Aquinas says about what is possible for God:

**It remains therefore, that God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely; which is the second way of saying a thing is possible.

Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility**.

To paraphrase, what is possible for God is determined and rooted in His reality - God’s reality. There is no other reality. You use the word “realities”. There is only ONE.

God willing Himself to not exist is not a possibility. It is NOT real. Because it is NOT real, it is NOT a possiblity. It is a contradiction of God’s essence which is TO BE - “I AM”.

This thread “The Omnipotency Contradiction” is completely FALSE. God cannot create a rock so large and heavy that He Himself cannot lift it. It is a contradiction and therefore NOT real and therefore NOT a possibility. That doesn’t mean God is NOT Omnipotent because He isn’t able to do something that isn’t real. Only what is real is possible for God (and us).

Kindly consider your boldfaced text, presumably an Aquinas quote or equivalent. It declares that there are indeed things which God cannot do, which are “everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms.”

That is actually a weak and illogical statement because of the weasel-word, “imply,” but no matter.

So by those terms we know that God cannot declare 2+2=5 because this would be illogical. (Since logic exists irrespective of God, He is not empowered to change it.) It also means that God cannot create the energy from which the universe is apparently constructed, because energy cannot be created or destroyed. (Creating something which cannot be created would be analogous to making a rock so big that He cannot move it.)

Now, I know from reading your posts that you will object to this idea. Before you do, consider this invitation: The proposal that God cannot create energy is not a problem— it is a solution.

Thank you for your many posts on worthy subjects.

 

[williamric]

To summarize everything I have been trying to say -

**There is NO Omnipotency Contradiction !!! **

Yeah, and as I have said earlier, G-d’s omniscience implies that He can think…

Anyway, I’ll go now…

 

[jkiernan56]

Kindly consider your boldfaced text, presumably an Aquinas quote or equivalent. It declares that there are indeed things which God cannot do, which are “everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms.”

That is actually a weak and illogical statement because of the weasel-word, “imply,” but no matter.

So by those terms we know that God cannot declare 2+2=5 because this would be illogical. (Since logic exists irrespective of God, He is not empowered to change it.) It also means that God cannot create the energy from which the universe is apparently constructed, because energy cannot be created or destroyed. (Creating something which cannot be created would be analogous to making a rock so big that He cannot move it.)

Now, I know from reading your posts that you will object to this idea. Before you do, consider this invitation: The proposal that God cannot create energy is not a problem— it is a solution.

Thank you for your many posts on worthy subjects.

When I write about God as “I AM” - it comes from an experience I had which I shared with you in another post. That understanding of reality (God) is in my bones and not just in my head. That one statement “I AM” is the very heart and center of Theology. From it (at least for me) all understanding of reality comes and is explained. It would be total intellectual suicide for me to deny what I experienced and come to understand from that experience.

In a nutshell, in my experience I came to understand God could have continued in BEING for all eternity WITHOUT ever creating anything or anyone. God does NOT need anything or anyone. It is sheer GRACE that God did create. You and I and the whole universe do not deserve to exist let alone even have this discussion. My experience also allowed me to understand that there is only one reason why you and I and the universe do exist - because we were wanted and willed to by God. God brought us into being and holds us in being each and every moment of our existence. If God for one brief moment should stop thinking of us and willing us to exist, we would no longer exist. I don’t think I am any more special than you or anyone else. I think we are all very special and loved (wanted) by God. I am very passionate about this subject as you can probably tell.

If St. Thomas Aquinas were still alive, he might change the word “implies” to a better suited one “contains”. As I mentioned, words don’t change reality. They can only try to express what is - and some words are better at expressing it than others.

 

[PEPCIS]

Where do you get the idea that God does not have life? Spirit that is BEING is not life?

Life ends. God’s existence never ends. He is infinite. Therefore, God Exists:

"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." (Exodus 3:14)

Life is an attribute of God’s creation:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)

Jesus, as God, is eternal, and therefore EXISTS. However, his life as a human ceased to exist somewhere around 30 A.D.

 

[jkiernan56]

Life ends. God’s existence never ends. He is infinite. Therefore, God Exists:

"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." (Exodus 3:14)

Life is an attribute of God’s creation:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)

Jesus, as God, is eternal, and therefore EXISTS. However, his life as a human ceased to exist somewhere around 30 A.D.

I respectfully disagree with you. God is LIFE. All Life comes from God. And God’s Life is eternal … has always been and will always be.

God is Love, God is Life, God is Goodness. While they describe different characteristics of God, they are all one and the same reality - God. “I AM”

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

God is unlimited in all realities. Otherwise, He could not be God.

Realities? Do you think there is more than one?

It’s just a saying. It doesn’t mean that there are multiple realities, but THERE COULD BE. And if there were, God would be unlimited in all of them. For example, if there were another dimension where the 2nd law of thermodynamics did not exist, God would still be unlimited in all His attributes.

God’s reality is TO EXIST.

PEPCIS:

I’m not sure what that means. God’s “reality” is that “I AM.” All His attributes, as taught from the Bible, teach us how that reality is manifested in His attributes.

jkiernan56:

God’s essence and reality is TO EXIST. God is the fullness of BEING and EXISTENCE.

You must be saying that God’s NATURE is to exist. But, I don’t accept the notion that God has a “nature.” “Nature” means: “the natural physical world including plants and animals and landscapes etc.” God is not a part of nature. Instead of referring to God’s “nature”, I refer to His “attributes.”

The reason that I reject the notion of “nature” is because it pigeon-holes God, just like you do when you claim that He can’t do something that He chooses not to do. That’s a contradiction in logic, and God is a logical God, therefore it is not true.

 

[PEPCIS]

I respectfully disagree with you. God is LIFE. All Life comes from God. And God’s Life is eternal … has always been and will always be.

Well, there certainly is nothing wrong with disagreeing with me.

But, just know that you are using terms that are designed to bolster your argument that are not consistent with how they are generally defined by others.

When speaking of God, theologists typically use terms that clearly separate man from God. You, on the other hand, are using terms which apply to man, to explain who God is, and how we are to understand His attributes. Terms like “life” are terms which define God’s creation. While you could apply this term to God when speaking of Him casually, when we get to the brass tacks of who He is, we need to be extremely specific and use terms that explain His true essence.

I hope you understand what I am trying to relate to you.

 

[jkiernan56]

Well, there certainly is nothing wrong with disagreeing with me.

But, just know that you are using terms that are designed to bolster your argument that are not consistent with how they are generally defined by others.

When speaking of God, theologists typically use terms that clearly separate man from God. You, on the other hand, are using terms which apply to man, to explain who God is, and how we are to understand His attributes. Terms like “life” are terms which define God’s creation. While you could apply this term to God when speaking of Him casually, when we get to the brass tacks of who He is, we need to be extremely specific and use terms that explain His true essence.

I hope you understand what I am trying to relate to you.

I think I understand what you are trying to say. Correct me again if I’m wrong, you are trying to say I am taking human attributes and applying them to God (ie - anthropomorphism).

What I am really trying to say is in a nutshell - GOD IS.
All reality, all life, all existence is from God’s eternal BEING. I am really trying to (but obviously unsucessfully) communicate that everything comes from God to explain reality.

When a rock is thrown in a pond, we see the ripple effects (cause - effect). I am trying to express what is PRIOR to the splash. The universe is the ripple. The originator (first cause) of the ripple is God. And here is the kick in the pants - nothing causes God.

God is the great “I AM”. God’s existence and reality always existed and will always exist. In fact that is the very essence of God - TO EXIST. He is existence itself.

Even though you and I don’t agree, at least we can understand why we don’t and what each others position is and why we hold our position.

My position comes from an experience I had and which futher study has illuminated even more.

 

[williamric]

I think I understand what you are trying to say. Correct me again if I’m wrong, you are trying to say I am taking human attributes and applying them to God (ie - anthropomorphism).

Isaiah 55:8-9 “For My** thoughts **are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And **My thoughts **than your thoughts."

P.S. I used your post because of the point you made, not to “answer” your post

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

If God does not have the will to choose even the most despicable choices to our minds, then He is not free.

God not only has a free will but is completely FREE at the very core of what FREEDOM means. To be completely FREE is to always will what is Good.

Sorry, but that is not logical. A logical sentence would be: “To be completely free is to be able to do whatever you will to do.”

Or, here’s another logical sentence: “To be Holy is to always choose what is Good.”

But it would be completely illogical to say “To be completely Good is to be completely Free.” Freedom does not produce Goodness anymore than Goodness produces Freedom. Holiness produces Goodness. Freedom is analogous to the Will, while Holiness is analogous to Goodness.

jkiernan56:

God cannot create a rock so large and heavy that He Himself cannot lift it. It is a contradiction and therefore NOT real and therefore NOT a possibility. That doesn’t mean God is NOT Omnipotent because He isn’t able to do something that isn’t real. Only what is real is possible for God (and us).

I stand with you on this one! I agree completely.

 

[PEPCIS]

Wait, just a quick comment or maybe it’s a question:

Where does it say God CANNOT lie or sin? In all honesty, I think that God, being able omnipotent according to the OP’s definition of the word, certainly COULD sin or lie if He truly wanted to. But there are things that He WILL NOT DO. Minor nuance.

He WILL NOT sin and DOES NOT sin. He DOES NOT nor WILL NOT commit evil acts.

Well said.

 

[jkiernan56]

Sorry, but that is not logical. A logical sentence would be: “To be completely free is to be able to do whatever you will to do.”

Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with you again on this one. I do not think for one second that being free means “to do whatever you will to do.”

A distinction has to be made between free will and being free. Having a free will is the ability to make choices. Being able to choose what is Good is the very essence of freedom. The reason you and I are not totally “free” (even though we have a free will) is because we are still slaves to sin. If you study St. Paul’s writings on this, you will find that being a “slave to sin” means that we are not able to always choose what is good and right (even though we have the ability to make choices). We are not able to make the choice for good at all times. That is why we must continually go through the process of conversion. Only when we have been made completely holy (sanctified) by God’s grace will we be completely “free”. Free to love, free to do what is always good and just. In this life, we are not totally free although we have a free will and can make choices. If we cooperate with God’s grace, one day we will be completely free (holy).

“I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.” Romans 7:15-20

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Conversion