The Omnipotency Contradiction

[PEPCIS]

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

True enough. Good has no substance, either. It is a lack of evil 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.

I agree with much of what you say.

 

[jkiernan56]

The only problem with this is that the Bible teaches that “with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26) It doesn’t say that “all thing that are possible, God can do.” That would limit God to only things that are possible, instead of what the Bible teaches that ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.

St. Thomas Aquinas on the subject of Omnipotence also says the following in reference to the quote from Matthew you mention:

“I answer that, All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word ‘all’ when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, “God can do all things,” is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent.”

It is a misunderstanding to interpret the scripture quote that says “with God all things are possible” out of the context of reality and what possibilities exist in reality. Reality is not defined as “anything goes”. In fiction, an author is at liberty to say and imagine anything that is not necessarily real. That is not true with God’s reality. His reality cannot be whatever He wants to make it. His very essence (BEING) is reality. It is not something that can change. God is existence. It is not real to say that God can will Himself out of existence. There is nothing for God to change to or lacking in His infinite perfection.

 

[jkiernan56]

True enough. Good has no substance, either. It is a lack of evil rather than a thing in itself.

Sorry, I don’t agree with this either. The substance of evil is goodness that has been misused and diseased. Evil cannot exist without the Good whereas the Good can exist without evil.

 

[Pro_Domina]

True enough. Good has no substance, either. It is a lack of evil rather than a thing in itself.

I agree with much of what you say.

That is not true. God is substancially Good. Then there is the participation of it in creation.

A thing cannot have any substance and be refered to as the opposite of something that has no substance as well. Since God is THE GOOD, evil is just a lack of this Goodness, though it cannot reach a an infinite separation, because it will to a certain degree always have something good.

Satan is not perfectly evil, the worst, but not perfectly, because there can not be a perfect separation from God, if not it does not exist, because everything that exists is sustained in existence by God, therefore has something good, among other possibilities, because of that.

 

[jkiernan56]

Since God is THE GOOD, evil is just a lack of this Goodness, though it cannot reach a an infinite separation, because it will to a certain degree always have something good.

Satan is not perfectly evil, the worst, but not perfectly, because there can not be a perfect separation from God, if not it does not exist, because everything that exists is sustained in existence by God, therefore has something good, among other possibilities, because of that.

You hit the nail right on the head. I prefer to refer to evil as Goodness gone bad … rather than say the lack of goodness.

To use a very simple analogy - A tomato can’t go bad (become rotten) unless there was a good tomato to begin with. Satan was not created evil. He was good that went bad because of the gift of free will. If God never gave Satan or us free will, we could never have gone bad. But then again, we would never be able to love either. We would just be robots or rather puppets on a string.

 

[greylorn]

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.

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

I am concerned about this thread being warped badly off course, because I believe that the stated Omnipotency Contradiction is a legitimate issue. Some posters are redefining words in their attempts to make their points. Please, have the integrity to use words fairly, honestly, and according to the standards of common language.

Pepcis,
With all due respect, if I was dictator of the world I would pass a law making it illegal for you to use the word “logical” in a sentence. Your statement, “To be completely free is to be able to do whatever you will to do.” is a definition. Likewise your second statement. These are not “logical sentences.”

Please learn something about logic. If you are unwilling to do so, please stop telling others what is and is not logical until you grow a pair of pointy ears. Fake rubber ears simply will not do.

 

[jkiernan56]

I am concerned about this thread being warped badly off course, because I believe that the stated Omnipotency Contradiction is a legitimate issue. Some posters are redefining words in their attempts to make their points. Please, have the integrity to use words fairly, honestly, and according to the standards of common language.

Greylorn, with respect to the OP, my reasoning leads me along the following path:

God does not have creative thought in the context that He has thoughts He did not have before. That implies time because of change - past, present, and future. To be Omniscence, there is nothing “more” for God to think since He KNOWs all there is to know. Simply, God KNOWS Himself. God does exist in time because God does not change. There is no past, present, and future for God in His infinite KNOWLEDGE.

My basic premise is that God DOES think because He has infinite knowledge. Can a being have knowledge if they don’t think? While God may not have creative thought in the way you define it, that does not negate that God does not think. God does THINK because He has ALL knowledge. Thinking cannot be separated from knowledge.

You and I can have creative thought because we do NOT have all knowledge and therefore can think something we have not thought of before. Basically, we can grow in knowledge and understanding. We lack the fullness of knowledge while God does not lack. What you and I can come to know by creative thought is already known by God.

Because God already KNOWS all things in one complete act of BEING, He does not “lack” something that we have. Our creative thought is the means which allows us to grow in understanding - knowledge already known by God. We desire to learn what God already knows.

You conclude with the idea “This means that we can do something which God cannot. Therefore if God cannot generate a new idea, He is not omnipotent.”

I disagree with you. The limitation lies in us, not in God.

One of the beauties of heaven I believe is that we will never exhaust God’s infinite knowledge. We will spend the rest of eternity learning what God already knows.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn, with respect to the OP, my reasoning leads me along the following path:

God does not have creative thought in the context that He has thoughts He did not have before. That implies time because of change - past, present, and future. To be Omniscence, there is nothing “more” for God to think since He KNOWs all there is to know. Simply, God KNOWS Himself. God does exist in time because God does not change. There is no past, present, and future for God in His infinite KNOWLEDGE.

My basic premise is that God DOES think because He has infinite knowledge. Can a being have knowledge if they don’t think? While God may not have creative thought in the way you define it, that does not negate that God does not think. God does THINK because He has ALL knowledge. Thinking cannot be separated from knowledge.

You and I can have creative thought because we do NOT have all knowledge and therefore can think something we have not thought of before. Basically, we can grow in knowledge and understanding. We lack the fullness of knowledge while God does not lack. What you and I can come to know by creative thought is already known by God.

Because God already KNOWS all things in one complete act of BEING, He does not “lack” something that we have. Our creative thought is the means which allows us to grow in understanding - knowledge already known by God. We desire to learn what God already knows.

You conclude with the idea “This means that we can do something which God cannot. Therefore if God cannot generate a new idea, He is not omnipotent.”

I disagree with you. The limitation lies in us, not in God.

One of the beauties of heaven I believe is that we will never exhaust God’s infinite knowledge. We will spend the rest of eternity learning what God already knows.

Can you imagine spending an eternity trying to teach chipmunks to solve astrophysics problems? That’s what you’re expecting God to do for you, and us. What a dreadful fate, for God.

Oh well. People believe what makes them feel good, not what makes sense.

The best I can do on this thread, given the overwhelming vote for rigorous dogma, is to clean up tidbits of falsehood. For example, your statement, “My basic premise is that God DOES think because He has infinite knowledge. Can a being have knowledge if they don’t think? While God may not have creative thought in the way you define it, that does not negate that God does not think. God does THINK because He has ALL knowledge. Thinking cannot be separated from knowledge.”

You are trying to fit your beliefs into your beliefs by redefining the conceptual information in my OP. For the purpose of economy I made it clear that the OP referred exclusively to one particular aspect of thought: creative thought, the ability to think of something which one has not previously thought of. You admit that can’t happen with God (given your definition of Him, of course). You don’t get to redefine my terms to suit yourself, because that is intellectually dishonest and you know better. Let’s settle on a clear conclusion: If God is omnipotent/omniscient, God cannot have a creative or unique thought.

That wasn’t so hard, was it? Except for the implications, of course.

Finally, let’s take a look at your statement, “Thinking cannot be separated from knowledge.”

This is true of creative thought. Humans who have ideas derive them from prior understanding. But you’ve declared that God knows everything, which excludes creative thought from His bag of tricks. Your God’s thought process is analogous to that of a computer, which has “all knowledge” (at least so far as it knows) and is very good at processing that knowledge. Computers do not create new ideas; they merely process and reprocess whatever it is they know.

I contend that the Omnipotency Contradiction holds, and that a God Who knows everything cannot have an original thought. Conversely, if God can have an original thought, He cannot know everything.

My preference is for a thinking God, but I understand that dogmatic believers need to hang onto the omniscience idea.

Let me ask a practical question. Since you are clearly an educated man, you know that the development of life from the first simple cells to human beings took about 3.5 billion years, and zillions of changes to trillions of DNA strands along the way. Does the history of biological evolution look to you like the process of a thinking God who engineered life, learning on the job how best to do it, or an omniscient God Who could have done it in an instant— but took 3.5 billion years instead?

 

[greylorn]

That’s Open Theism, right?

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’m sorry.

No need to be sorrowful. I like being ornery.

I suspect that explaining the reasons for my conclusions would be a major time burner. There are other questions I’ve addressed, some directly to you, which you might answer first.

There have always been as many opinions as people. Like elimination orifices, they come with the territory. But a cohesive society does not regard either the opinions or the orifices of its members as particularly significant, except to their owners.

 

[greylorn]

You make it sound as if God is a created being, and that His nature dictates his being. God is, of course, outside of His creation. His will is not bound to any power or action outside of His own.

As I said, you are creating a “nature” for Him. We certainly agree that His realm is the eternal, but to say that “God is existence” is to attribute to Him a nature as a created being.

Not quite. Willing myself to die, and bring that about is an immoral act. It would also be an immoral act for God - to remove God from His existence would jeapordize and destroy all His glory and the evidence for it in His creation. He freely chooses to live, just as you and I do.

Then you completely get it wrong. Man could never choose goodness and perfection on His own. It requires God’s grace for man to perform any good in this world.

EXACTLY!!! He CHOOSES to do what is right.

It is clear that most posters on this site already know exactly the properties and attributes of God. We are especially blessed to have someone who also knows God’s motivations.

 

[grannymh]

It is a misunderstanding to interpret the scripture quote that says “with God all things are possible” out of the context of reality and what possibilities exist in reality. .

May I add to the misunderstanding of the scripture quote above?
My pet peeve #37 is to hear people skip the verses before it. The context is Jesus’ teaching about salvation and who can be saved. Please read Matthew 19: 23-26 Sorry to be cranky, but we are getting more snow tomorrow and I need to go grocery shopping.

Blessings,
grannymh

Bible means: basic instrutions before leaving earth

 

[jkiernan56]

Can you imagine spending an eternity trying to teach chipmunks to solve astrophysics problems? That’s what you’re expecting God to do for you, and us. What a dreadful fate, for God.

Actually I think for God it is pleasing to watch us learn and grown in knowledge as a parent or teacher enjoys seeing their children or students learn.

For the purpose of economy I made it clear that the OP referred exclusively to one particular aspect of thought: creative thought, the ability to think of something which one has not previously thought of. You admit that can’t happen with God (given your definition of Him, of course). … Let’s settle on a clear conclusion: If God is omnipotent/omniscient, God cannot have a creative or unique thought.

That wasn’t so hard, was it? Except for the implications, of course.

If you read what I said in my earlier posting, I actually have already acknowledged that God does not have creative thought according to your definition.

Where you and I differ is in the conclusion. You conclude that God is not Omnipotent because He does not have creative thought and we do. The premise we both agree on is true, the conclusion is where we go separate ways.

 

[grannymh]

I do not see what is humble about an entity who demands that his creations do not use his name “in vain,” who demands that they shall hold no other entities in higher regard, etc.

As for Jesus, what exactly is humble about someone who stands up in front of thousands of people and declares himself to be the Son of the Creator of the universe?

What is your basis for belief in this “humility” attribute?

Dear greylorn,

Pardon me, but I am out of Pepsi and we are getting more snow. So this will be a short answer.

Humility comes from the Catholic belief that Jesus is the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity. He is truly both God and man.
For the creator to take on the nature of the created would be seen by humans as an act of humility.

In some circles, there is a phrase used which may be applied to Jesus declaring Himself to be God. The phrase is false humility.
It would be false humility for Jesus to declare Himself as anything less than God. Yes, I know that Jesus declared Himself human unto death on the cross. But being human was for our benefit and as such would be seen as an act of humility.

Please note the two very different points of view. The first example is from our human earthly existence point of view. The second is from the heavenly existence or truth of God’s point of view.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[jkiernan56]

Your God’s thought process is analogous to that of a computer, which has “all knowledge” (at least so far as it knows) and is very good at processing that knowledge. Computers do not create new ideas; they merely process and reprocess whatever it is they know.

Where do you get the idea that computers have knowledge? It may contain information, but information is only knowledge in the context of the entity able to interpret and understand it. By the way, a computer may not even contain information. It could be just a bunch of garbage that has no meaning whatsoever. God’s knowledge is not a bunch of information on a computer as if it were a static thing.

Here is an aximoron for you - In God’s infinite BEING is infinite activity, yet no change. Activity with no change. Huh? You and I will never comprehend an infinite BEING. The difference between infinity and finite is infinity.

You know what? Come to think of it, I’m not so quite sure now that I can accept the premise yet that God does not have creative thought. When I try to even look in the direction of the idea of a BEING that has infinite activity yet does not change - I would have to conclude at the moment that I do not know what the premise is.

 

[PEPCIS]

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.
PEPCIS;4642656:

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.”

Well, that does seem to be the greatest difficulty in our discussion.

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).

You are conflating and confusing the two. According to your own words above, you make NO DISTINCTION between free will and being free, because you claim the same exact thing for both of these things that you claim require discrimination.

It is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to distinguish in your paragraph above when it is that you are talking about “free will” and “being free.”

Suffice it to say, you didn’t convince me that there is a distinction between “free will” and “being free.”

 

[PEPCIS]

"Bastoune:

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.

I don’t think this has been answered yet. It’s Titus, chapter 1, verse 2. (In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began)

This is not a contradiction. When the Bible says “which God, that cannot lie,” it speaks a truth that is a consequence of God’s promise which was a choice made in eternity past. The difference is when some insist that God has no choice in the matter. The Bible does not indicate that God has no choice in this, and it is completely wrong to claim that He does.

Just because the choice was made “before the world began” does not negate that the choice was made.

This context of the verse is a choice made by God before the world began. The assurance is that it is impossible for the choice to not come true, because God made this choice and it is just as good as done. When God begins a task, it is sure to come true. The phrase “God cannot lie” is merely an euphemism for this expression. It’s as if to say that if God were to throw a comet toward some distant planet that there is nothing that can prevent it from occurring.

 

[PEPCIS]

Is God good because of what He wills? Or is it because what God wills that makes Him good?

I’d say that God is the opposite of man. We are sinners, everyone of us. However, we sin because we are sinners, we are not sinners because we sin.

For the other side of the token, God does good because He is holy. He is not holy because He does good.

The idea that because God has a free will He is able if He wanted to choose to do evil is a fallacy and contradictory to God’s Goodness.

Unfortunately, it is not an idea that you have been able to uphold in logic. You speak of “fallacies” and “contradictions”, but you haven’t shown where this is. You CLAIM that it is fallacious and contradictory, but I’m still waiting for you to show me.

If a premise is FALSE, the conclusion is also FALSE.

You state that free will is the ability to make any choice, including evil ones. I say that is FALSE. It appears you are the one practicing anthropomorphism - applying human attributes to God.

If a premise is false, then you could show it by logic. You have only made CLAIMS that free will does not include choices that you don’t agree to. For example, you say:

God cannot choose to do evil if He wanted to (even though He has a free will) because that is contradictory to God’s nature - His very nature is Goodness itself. And something that is contradictory (by St. Thomas Aquinas definition) is not real.

But this is not an argument, because you don’t define how God’s nature is contradictory to the concept of free will. And you explain free will away by claiming it to be conceptually distinct from “being free.”

 

[PEPCIS]

You state that free will is the ability to make any choice, including evil ones. I say that is FALSE.

I not only stated that free will is the ability to make any choice, I explained it in detail how that any impedance to the process of the will is to reduce the freedom of the will. The nearly universal understanding of the freedom of the will is the absence of physical obstacles to actions. While you can compartmentalize freedom of the will to the intellect only, true freedom of the will must include the ability to put your desires into action.

It appears you are the one practicing anthropomorphism - applying human attributes to God.

Anthropomorphism is not applying logic to God’s mind. It’s a distinct thing that we share in common with the Creator. Logic is not exclusive to God, but is a gift that He has bestowed on man.

You and I can and do make choices that are not good because we have a fallen sinful nature. Our free will allows us to do that. You cannot attribute that to God.

You do not have a proper understanding of the freedom of the will. If you did, you would understand that man does not have any such freedom to make choices that are not good. We are born into sin, and by our very nature, we cannot do any other thing than to sin. This is why we desperately need the salvation offered by God’s Son, Jesus Christ.

 

[PEPCIS]

Your post contains a contradiction. You don’t want to pigeon-hole God, yet you confidently declare Him to be “unlimited” in all possible universeses. Presumably you declare Him to be omnipotent and omniscient as well. Does this declaration not pigeon-hole God? If nothing else, it means that He cannot have a unique thought.

Surely you jest. It seems as though you are mocking logic itself to try and say that to be unlimited in all possible universes is contradictory to not being pigeon-holed.

Incidentally, what are God’s attributes, in your opinion? Anything different than the usual and customary?

My opinion is that the Bible declares who God is. “The usual and customary” indicates the casual approach that you take with Him.

I’m your “typical” conservative Christian. I suppose I believe in the “usual and customary.”

 

[PEPCIS]

The statements which you call “logical” are not logical statements. They are simply statements.

Statements are either logical or illogical. “A logical statement carries factual information, regardless of whether the information is correct or not. example: It is raining.” See here.

I could say “The chair’s hair needs to be cut.” This would be an example of an illogical statement. Chairs do not grow hair.

I could say “The chair’s cushion needs cleaning.” This is a logical statement, but it remains to be proved if it is true or not.

I am sorry to have to make such a basic correction, but since we can all make up whatever statements we want to make about God, nevermind our profound ignorance about the mechanisms of creation, let us at least not make up things about logic to support those arbitrary statements.

ahem…pot, kettle, black?

The basic principles of logic are quite simple and easy to understand. There are courses available on this subject. I believe that Aristotle has written a treatise on the subject which has been translated into English as is probably available at any bookstore.

You might get yourself a copy.