The Omnipotency Contradiction

[grannymh]

Challenge to Posters and Readers Including Greylorn

There has been a lot of thought put into this thread.

Would you care to summarize…

Your thoughts? Your reactions? What you found interesting?

What your discovered? What you consider is the gist of the thread?

What are the real gems of insight?

Blessings,
grannymh
:snowing:

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

As a computer programmer/analyst (which is what I gather JK does for work), he should be able to tell you that a computer is just a “logic machine.” It is a machine which processes logic

Absolutely FALSE.

Somehow, this doesn’t surprise me that you would not find my answer true. Which is why I swear that you are arguing for argument’s sake. You SHOULD know what I said is true, if you are in any field of computer science. I only took a few courses but was unable to continue toward my degree.

A computer is not a machine that processes logic. That is the tale of the dog wagging the dog.

Oh, so logic processes the machine, huh? Does that really make any sense?

A computer is a machine that processes information.

l;akdsfoiewajrkimnoirt-0q34o;lm 'diutp9owe

That was a string of information. Did you understand it? No, of course not. Why? Because it was not formatted to fit your screen. (That’s just a play on the message you get when you stick your DVD into your DVD player)

Information could be “johndidandnotwherewentpetertodidknowhe”, but unless it is formatted, it cannot form a meaningful (logical) sentence.

All the computer does is to make sure that any information that is (name removed by moderator)utted is formatted according to certain rules (or as you said “Boolean logic”). If the (name removed by moderator)ut is not logical, then it does not fit the criteria of information, and it is rejected.

Logic involves reason.

But of course it does. The “reasoning” part is that part that informs the computer HOW to process the information. That is the operating software which comprises the “shell” of the system. If this is not present, nothing happens. But, the reasoning part comes from humans, and the computer can only “reason” as well as the information that is given to it, and the OS that it has.

If a computer operates logically, it is because of the REASONING that has been built into the software (the set of instructions) given to it by human beings who designed the software.

Of course. And this is supposed to say that computers do not process logic? You really don’t understand computer architecture if you believe that.

What I am trying to explain is that it is not a computer that is logical

And I never said that “a computer is logical.” I said that a computer is a logic machine - it processes logic.

In a review of a book by Martin Davis, (Engines of Logic: Mathematicians and the Origin of the Computer), James Case states the following:

Davis is particularly interesting on the subject of von Neumann, whose experience as a logician enabled him—according to Davis—to see at once that computers are logic machines

, and to propose the “von Neumann architecture” still incorporated in virtually every modern electronic computer.

 

[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.

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”

I had to come back to this, because this just isn’t true. For example, what does that mean, “God is Life”??? Life is an attribute of God? Where does it say that in the Word? We all know that God is Love and He is Holy (Goodness), but God is the Grantor of Life. Saying that He is life is lowering Him to His creation. His creation has life which God bestows upon them in His Goodness.

Life Begins. God DOES NOT have a beginning. Life Ends. God DOES NOT have an ending - He exists eternally.

 

[PEPCIS]

Challenge to Posters and Readers Including Greylorn

There has been a lot of thought put into this thread.

Would you care to summarize…

Your thoughts? Your reactions? What you found interesting?

What your discovered? What you consider is the gist of the thread?

What are the real gems of insight?

Blessings,
grannymh
:snowing:

Thanks for creating this opportunity! Let me begin by stating that I find the “contradiction argument” woefully weak, and it only originates from those who reject the God of the Bible. They may still be “Theists”, as Greylorn seems to be, so that gives us some common ground to form the basis for discussion.

But here is what I have experienced so far: I am still waiting for greylorn to respond to the following postings:

Post #80
Post #81
Post #85
Post #88
Post #177

I am still waiting for jkiernan56 to respond to the following postings:
Post #173
This post was made to someone else but deals directly with our debate.

It would be nice to see these posts/questions answered if you could find the time, since they go toward establishing your positions.

Blessings and thanks.

 

[jkiernan56]

Oh, so logic processes the machine, huh? Does that really make any sense?

First of all, again I want to apologize if I sounded demeaning and insulting in my remarks to you. I acknowledge that I can be abrasive and I am learning how to disagree with people, but in a respectful manner. It is a hard thing to learn because I can be like a bull in a china shop sometimes. So I will try to tone down my rhetoric … and at least validate that you have different views than my own … and not try to slam dunk you with my own. If you can be a little patient with me, you will see that underneath my bark, I really do not want to bite.

As far as computers go -
The machine only does what it is instructed to do by the rules of logic that are built into the machine. A computer has two main divisions - hardware and software. I am more of a software kind of person. The rules of Boolean logic are built into a computer … .and the software is translated into 1’s and 0’s … electrical current in an ON or OFF state. Honestly I am not trying to argue for the sake of argument.

And I never said that “a computer is logical.” I said that a computer is a logic machine - it processes logic.

I can understand what you are trying to say … and I really don’t mean to give you a hard time … but a computer does not “process logic” … the rules of logic are already BUILT into a computer … the software that it processes, it executes according to those rules of logic. Logic in other words is not what is processed … rather what is processed is done so by logic. Even if you don’t agree, can you at least see what I am also trying to say?

By the way, thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut into this thread … I am really sorry about the mental patient comment … I just feel very strongly about St. Thomas Aquinas … and what you said upset me … it didn’t give me the right to belittle you … and just so you know, I think I am even more passionate about St. Augustine, so please be sensitive to your comments about him. I want to keep my bullheadedness in the stall. Peace

 

[Pro_Domina]

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.

For starters, to think means you are processing something to reach knowledge that is not already in you. GOD IS THE ETERNAL WISDOM! He does not need to to think, it is all in Him already! Thinking already implies a lack of absolute perfection.
Second, time is a creature, and God is not created. God is.
The only reasonable way to plant such a thing is to say that the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Eternal Word, was made flesh in time. But then that is also a mystery, because He is still omnipresent and both in and out of time.

Mysterium Fidei!

 

[Valke2]

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?

My thoughts are that God is both perfect and that He is becoming perfect.

 

[Pro_Domina]

The thing is that God is not only perfect, He *is *absolute perfection. Abosolute means there is nothing to add, it is infinite.

 

[jkiernan56]

For starters, to think means you are processing something to reach knowledge that is not already in you. GOD IS THE ETERNAL WISDOM! He does not need to to think, it is all in Him already! Thinking already implies a lack of absolute perfection.
Second, time is a creature, and God is not created. God is.
The only reasonable way to plant such a thing is to say that the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Eternal Word, was made flesh in time. But then that is also a mystery, because He is still omnipresent and both in and out of time.

Mysterium Fidei!

I’m not quite sure I can agree with you on your statement. You said "For starters, to think means you are processing something to reach knowledge that is not already in you."

That statement has an inference of incompleteness reaching towards completeness … not yet quite full being filled … not possessing and stretching out one’s hand to take hold of … “to reach knowledge not already in you” … starting at position A and going to position B

Remember that God is one eternal infinite act of BEING in absolute perfection. God is all that He is in His BEING … God does not lack anything … there is never a position in God where he was not already in possession of what He thinks and knows. God is pure act … not a progression. There never was a moment in God’s existence when the Father existed first and then the Son … the Son has always existed with the Father … and all that He knows He already posesses in understanding … in other words - knowledge … there is nothing more he needs to gain that He does not already have. In God there is no reaching knowledge not already in God. God is “I AM”.

 

[Pro_Domina]

Did you like only read the first phrase or are you that intelligent?

I believe my arguement was against God thinking.

 

[Valke2]

Why can God not be absolute perfection and choose to become perfect or experience becoming perfect?

How else can we read about His empathy for Israel or his battle with Egypt? What need would an abolute perfection have with bringing the people of Israel out of Egypt?

 

[jkiernan56]

Did you like only read the first phrase or are you that intelligent?

I believe my arguement was against God thinking.

I know that your argument was against God thinking … and that was the very thing I disagreed with. I don’t claim to be an expert or more intelligent than anyone else. I just disagree with your fundamental premise. My position is that God DOES think because God DOES know. God is one complete act of BEING … which encompasses ALL knowledge and thus thought. This very thought of God is now visible to us in a PERSON - Christ. The WORD made flesh.

I’m sorry if you felt like I was being a smart aleck. If you postulated that 1 is equal to 2, I would just have to fundamentally disagree. There is nothing personal when I disagree with a premise of yours. I am a straight shooter and say it like it is. I am learning how to do that respectfully on this forum. I am a work in progress just like you.

 

[jkiernan56]

Why can God not be absolute perfection and choose to become perfect or experience becoming perfect?

How else can we read about His empathy for Israel or his battle with Egypt? What need would an abolute perfection have with bringing the people of Israel out of Egypt?

God does not choose to be perfect. GOD IS PERFECT. God is ABSOLUTE perfection in BEING, There is nothing more for God to be gained or that God is lacking.

 

[Valke2]

God does not choose to be perfect. GOD IS PERFECT. God is ABSOLUTE perfection in BEING, There is nothing more for God to be gained or that God is lacking.

I didn’t say He chooses to be perfect. I said He chooses to become perfect. It i a paradox of a God who is absolute perfection and a being achieving perfection. It is a paradox which explains why God both needs and does not need us.

 

[jkiernan56]

I didn’t say He chooses to be perfect. I said He chooses to become perfect. It i a paradox of a God who is absolute perfection and a being achieving perfection. It is a paradox which explains why God both needs and does not need us.

Valke, again I would respectfully disagree with your comments. Please do not think that I think of myself above you in anything when I say what I am about to say … I want you to know that I care more about you than about ideas. But I have a passion for ideas that are true … and it burns within me when I hear something that is not true to me. I am also open to learning. I don’t pretend to think I have it all figured out or know everything. One of my most favorite persons in the whole world was Hellen Keller. She made a couple of statements that I absolutely fell in love with. She said something close to … “the more i learn and know, the more I know how little I know.” That hit me like a 2x4. The riches of God are inexhausible. Hellen Keller also said “keep your eyes on the sunshine, and you won’t see the shadows.” That knocked me off my horse as well. I was in a place of alot of pain and anger in my life. But I found out that was because my face was pointed in the wrong direction. I was looking backwards and not forwards. There is so much more ahead than what is behind us. If we always looking behind, we will never see what is ahead of us or be open to what comes. It has changed my life. For me, this is my faith and love for Jesus. He is everything to me. So please don’t be upset or offended by my next remarks. I do not intend to inflict.

You said:

“He chooses to become perfect. It i a paradox of a God who is absolute perfection and a being achieving perfection. It is a paradox which explains why God both needs and does not need us.”

I have highlighted the words in your statement that tug at my soul. You said “BECOME” perfect. Yes, that is true for you and me. We are not yet perfect. But Christ says to us “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” If you read Catholic theology, you will find that orthodox teaching on this subject will tell you that God is not becoming perfect. God already is perfect. There is no becoming for God. That is not just me telling you that. That is what I have learned is orthodox Catholic theology.

And again you used the words “achieving” and “needs” in your comments. As I have already said, there is no achieving in God. God IS what He IS … perfection in BEING. Now with regards to the “needs” statement you made. I can answer that not only from my understanding of Catholic theology, but also my experience. That is the very core of my conversion. I experienced a moment in time when I absolutely knew the truth in reality that God does not need anything or anyone. God is perfect. God is a communion of Persons each sharing and possessing the same perfection. In my experience, I knew that God had created the world without ever needing to. It completely shook me to my core. I realized the truth that the only reason I existed or that anything or anyone existed … was because God thought and willed it … and continues to will it each and every moment of our existence. It was the first time in my life that I experienced LOVE and that everything is a gift. There is so much more I can say about this, but I don’t want to steer this thread too much more off course.

You said “God who is absolute perfection and a being achieving perfection.” How can God be a BEING in perfection and at the same time achieving perfection? There is a contradiction in terms. God cannot be both at the same time. PERFECT in truth and at the same time achieve something He already posesses.

OK Greylorn - you can slap my hands … LOL … I’ll try to stop.

 

[greylorn]

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

Yes.

This respect is pretty much limited to individuals of above average intelligence. I.e. the people who actually do things and implement ideas. If you are looking for an average respect level, you’d be including among that average: people who are illiterate, and people who watch Oprah, TV cartoon programs, and who purchase products advertised on TV. I do not particularly care what these people respect, because they do not have sufficient information to make an intelligent judgment. I imagine that you feel otherwise, and are likely to do so for a very long time.

 

[Valke2]

Valke, again I would respectfully disagree with your comments. Please do not think that I think of myself above you in anything when I say what I am about to say … I want you to know that I care more about you than about ideas.

Thank you for those kind words.

You said:

You said “BECOME” perfect. Yes, that is true for you and me. We are not yet perfect. But Christ says to us “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” If you read Catholic theology, you will find that orthodox teaching on this subject will tell you that God is not becoming perfect. God already is perfect. There is not becoming for God. That is not me telling you that. That is what I have learned is orthodox Catholic theology.

First, I do agree that God is absolute perfection. The problem I have with saying that He is only absolute perfection and not also becoming perfect, is that “absolute perfection” requires a kind of static way of being. And in Judaism we have a history of relationhip with a God that requires certain things from us. Whether it is sacrifice, prayer, good deeds, etc. We also have a belief that God goes into exile with the Jewish people.

I think when we discuss God being a verb, we are implying that Hashem is doing something, That it is a God of action. Absolute perfection does not do anything. It already is.

This is what I mean when I say I believe God is both Absolute Perfection and Becoming Perfect. To put it in a christian life, How could Jesus, if he wa absolute perfection, suffer?

I experience a moment in time when I absolutely knew the truth in reality that God does not need anything or anyone. God is perfect. God is a communion of Persons each sharing and possessing the same perfection. In my experience, I knew that God had created the world without ever needing to. It completely shook me to my core. I realized the truth that the only reason I existed or than anything or anyone existed was because God thought and willed it … and continues to will it each and every moment of our existence.

I would never say anything to purposely detract or belittle this type of experience. I only say that such an experience does not preclude a belief that God may also need something, such as people loving each other. Jews have a teaching that one a person dies, it detracts from God and when a person does something to bring life into the world (birth, saving, healing), God i increased.
At the same time we know that God needs nothing. Paradox.

I don’t view paradox as a negative thing when it comes to theology but rather a necessary part of it.

 

[greylorn]

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.

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.”

My previous advice stands: you should not use the word “logic” in a sentence until you learn more about what you speak. You can do that, but only if you first acknowledge that it would be of value to acquire understanding.

The bibles written by men had a number of ambiguous statements which are then interpreted by men who decide upon the attributes of God. The modern concept of an omnipotent, omniscient God is relatively new, and certainly post-Christian. I’ve been told that Augustine and Aquinas are credited with the concepts, although it was proposed in early Gnostic writings.

You’re a typical Christian in the context of beliefs, somewhat atypical in your anxiousness to warp the measuring standards of belief in order to justify your beliefs. JKiernan could be a good model for you. He just trusts his faith. While he and I disagree, we can do so with a generally coherent dialogue because we both accept commonplace logic as the measuring stick for our respective opinions and beliefs.

You remind me of the turkeys who did the most recent mathematical analysis of Big Bang theory and discovered that it didn’t work worth a hoot---- unless the speed of light was not constant during the first picosecond of the explosion. You’d admire their genius, which was to declare that the speed of light changed to suit their theories. Sounds stupid, but now all the documentary channels have picked up on that pinheaded idea. They’ve even given it a name, “inflation.”

That tells us how dumb astrophysicists have become. Now, you don’t want to follow that act, do you?

Inflated logic. What a horrid idea!

 

[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 sorry. I choose to be ornery.

You do have a bizarre style of processing information. You may not have “always thought” of anything, but have simply been programmed to believe in certain dogmas and trained to justify those beliefs. At least consider that as a possibility, unless you leapt from the womb with a full complement of Catholic beliefs already in that little brain.

There are lots of opinions about ideas whenever the ideas are wrong. The diverse opinions appear thanks to individuals who are seeking better ideas. You’ll notice (actually, you might not) that certain kinds of ideas are not questioned. For example, mathematical logic, classical physics. That is because these ideas work. Not only do they make logical sense, they lead to real world results.

Religious ideas, on the other hand, pretty much lead to various sects squabbling among one another, sometimes with serious firearms, over whose prophet was the true prophet, or whose interpretation of a lot of stuff written by men is actually right.

Do you see any difference? Anticipating your reply, lyrics from the fun country song, “Me Neither,” come to mind.

Open theism? That sounds like either the question to or answer for a multiple choice quiz in some mickey mouse comparative religion class. In any case, the answer is no. My thoughts are mostly derived from a complete but complex set of ideas which integrate belief in a Creator with the evidence and principles of science.

 

[greylorn]

Thanks for creating this opportunity! Let me begin by stating that I find the “contradiction argument” woefully weak, and it only originates from those who reject the God of the Bible. They may still be “Theists”, as Greylorn seems to be, so that gives us some common ground to form the basis for discussion.

But here is what I have experienced so far: I am still waiting for greylorn to respond to the following postings:

Post #80
Post #81
Post #85
Post #88
Post #177

I am still waiting for jkiernan56 to respond to the following postings:
Post #173
This post was made to someone else but deals directly with our debate.

It would be nice to see these posts/questions answered if you could find the time, since they go toward establishing your positions.

Blessings and thanks.

There. I’ve replied to most of your posts. 85 was to confusing to deal with, 80 has been addressed elsewhere, but I’ve now replied to 81 twice already. JKiernan’s question is his to answer, as he chooses.

What difference does it make to you if my “position” is established? Establishing positions is how one wins football games, but that’s not what thought is about.

Will any of these replies make a difference to your thoughts and future actions?