The Omnipotency Contradiction

[jkiernan56]

Dear Granny,

I got that you’re accustomed to crossing the street with the help of a Boy Scout, or a cane, but you deserve the assistance of something with wheels and a motor.

The First Law of Thermodynamics either contradicts all beliefs in an omnipotent God, or suggests that the “scratch” God started with, energy, had previously existed.

I propose that He employed the services of a variety of physicists, engineers, microbiologists and artists in the construction of the universe. Do you imagine that God is so insecure and vain that He created angels to worship Him?

Universe creation is a lot of work. 13 odd billion years in the making, 4 billion for life on earth, tells a story of engineering design and trial and error, exactly what would be expected if God were to call his myriad of brilliant, intelligent, and freely-willed angels into court and say…

**"You guys get to work. Creating you clowns was enough trouble for a while. Here’s a set of rough specs, but you’ll need to work out some details. Right now I’m going to relax and watch the 1967 Green Bay Packers beat the Cowboys in the Ice Bowl, on a planet you’ll need to get about creating.

Oh, Michael. Be sure to work up a really nasty storm before that game, would you? I want it to be interesting. Now, get to work!"
**

Lucifer, of course, was a Dallas fan.

Street crossing assistance courtesy of Eagle Patrol leader First Class Scout, Troop 18.

Belly laugh here … I like your sense of humor Greylorn !!! I also do appreciate all you share … and all I am learning from you as well … by the way … I’m a Redskin fan … was rooting for the Eagles this time … and not really sure who i want to win in the Superbowl … I’m just curious … but are you also a Dallas Cowboy fan? LOL …

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

If God is truly Perfect, then this means that He has a Perfect Free Will that is able to exercise Perfect Goodness in all of His Perfect choices.

If God is truly Perfect then why woud He need Perfect Free Will since all the Perfect Goodess He could make with Perfect Choices would be Him already because He is truly Perfect?

If God is truly Perfect, then He would not “need” Perfect Free Will, but would own it. If God is truly Perfect, then He would not “need” Perfect Goodness, but would own Perfect Goodness. If God is truly Perfect, then He would not “need” to make Perfect Choices, but would always make Perfect Choices.

It would just not make sense to say that God is truly Perfect, and then to say that He has no need to have an equally matched will of Perfection, or perfect Justice, or perfect Goodness, or perfect Free will. etc.

 

[PEPCIS]

PEPCIS;4743728:

Thank you all, JK and Skike as well, for your thoughts. Regrettably they are off point to the thread. Please return to point.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. He’s apparently having trouble determining the connection to God’s Omnipotency.

 

[PEPCIS]

I am still thinking about the law of energy conservation and how it relates to an open system. I need to understand more about open systems. Closed systems are no problem for me. They are just a “bee in a bottle.” If the law of energy also applies to open systems, somehow that baffles me at the moment … when i try to conceptualize it …

Open systems operate exactly like closed systems. They are no different. Why should the laws of thermodynamics suddenly be suspended because they find themselves in an open system?

 

[PEPCIS]

True, it would seem. But are the laws of logic part of reality as well?

• If you say no, it would then be tempting to say the laws of logic aren’t real

Logic, if we really believe in a Creator, is nothing more than an extension of His “mind”. As greylorn pointed out so well, such “anomalies” as the Planck Constant, or the precise resonance of Carbon which is required as a necessity of life, are able to illustrate to us the wonderful logic of the Creator.

• If you say yes, then it would seem that logic constrains itself, or that the laws of logic constrain some things, and then again, not some things.

By stating that “logic constrains itself” is to equate the Creator with His own creation, as you seem to slip into elsewhere in your reply.

 

[greylorn]

"greylorn:

With all due respect, IMO you’ve gotten it backwards. Reality is constrained by logic.

True, it would seem. But are the laws of logic part of reality as well?

Depends upon your definitions. Here are mine. “Reality” is the physical universe and its contents, including its ill-defined Creator and ourselves.

 

[greylorn]

Open systems operate exactly like closed systems. They are no different. Why should the laws of thermodynamics suddenly be suspended because they find themselves in an open system?

I do not think that you would comprehend any explanation that I or anyone else could give you.

How could anyone possibly explain a simple principle to someone who thinks that the laws of physics “find themselves” in open systems, closed systems, or anyplace else, as if they were a new-age religionist on a weekend pot binge?.

It is possible that someone who knows about as much physics as a wood tick might not benefit from a detailed explanation of how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems, because a low level of mathematical expertise, or simple common sense, is required. Any basic physics text written at a level for prospective physicists and engineers will explain this. I’m sure that the internet holds this information, for it has not been kept secret.

 

[agangbern]

Is it problematic that there might be more truth out there besides scientific truth?

That sounds fair! What men today consider scientific truth may in the distant future be not scientific at all…

 

[jkiernan56]

greylorn:
Logic is constrained by REALITY… what is TRUE or what is FALSE … what is REAL … or what is NOT real

 

[agangbern]

Logic is constrained by REALITY… what is TRUE or what is FALSE … what is REAL … or what is NOT real

Yes, logic must bow down to reality…

 

[greylorn]

Logic is constrained by REALITY… what is TRUE or what is FALSE … what is REAL … or what is NOT real

JK

Can we move this impasse beyond an exchange of "I’m right, you’re wrong’s?

 

[greylorn]

Is it problematic that there might be more truth out there besides scientific truth?

That sounds fair! What men today consider scientific truth may in the distant future be not scientific at all…

I suspect that many religious people who do not understand science mistake its nature. Scientists would not use a term like “scientific truth,” but religious people commonly speak of their dogmas in such terms, taking them to be absolute truth.

Science,is all about the discovery of new and interesting ideas. You know this. You read the pop-science journals like Discovery, or Scientific American. You watch the History Channel. Since your attention span extends at least five years into the past, you know that yesterday’s science is today’s old fashioned notion.

This would not be possible if science was run like religion, which regards its dogmas as cast in concrete. The concept of “scientific truth” parallels the concept of “religious dogma,” except that there is no such thing as scientific truth.

(The pseudo-sciences are an exception. Evolutionary biology is not a science and so does not count. Evolutionists are, almost by definition, anti-creationists. That is because the evidence of evolution does not support the theory of evolution. When people choose to believe something which is not well supported by the experiential world, they become dogmatic about their beliefs. Eventually the Darwinists will figure this out. )

 

[agangbern]

I suspect that many religious people who do not understand science mistake its nature. Scientists would not use a term like “scientific truth,” but religious people commonly speak of their dogmas in such terms, taking them to be absolute truth.

Science,is all about the discovery of new and interesting ideas. You know this. You read the pop-science journals like Discovery, or Scientific American. You watch the History Channel. Since your attention span extends at least five years into the past, you know that yesterday’s science is today’s old fashioned notion.

This would not be possible if science was run like religion, which regards its dogmas as cast in concrete. The concept of “scientific truth” parallels the concept of “religious dogma,” except that there is no such thing as scientific truth.

(The pseudo-sciences are an exception. Evolutionary biology is not a science and so does not count. Evolutionists are, almost by definition, anti-creationists. That is because the evidence of evolution does not support the theory of evolution. When people choose to believe something which is not well supported by the experiential world, they become dogmatic about their beliefs. Eventually the Darwinists will figure this out. )

Oh, that’s nice! You clarified what you mean by science. In that case, I agree that it is not correct for scientist to use the term “scientific truth” to mean “dogmatic truth”.

And in that case, it would not be impossible that in the future, science would discover that dogmatic truths are after all in accordance with science. For indeed, one of the truths considered a dogma by religious people is the fact that the Virgin conceived and bore a Child. That is a truth which logic and even science should strive to discover, understand and accept, if they could.

 

[grannymh]

Science,is all about the discovery of new and interesting ideas.
quote]

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

Open systems operate exactly like closed systems. They are no different. Why should the laws of thermodynamics suddenly be suspended because they find themselves in an open system?

I do not think that you would comprehend any explanation that I or anyone else could give you.

It’s not me that requires an explanation of how the laws of thermodynamics operate. It was jkiernan56 who asked the question.

Of course, if you really believe that I do not comprehend the laws, then you are free to challenge me. My guess is that you are full of temerity, so you lash out with anger at anyone who dares to challenge your pathetically, inadequate understanding of our universe.

greylorn:

How could anyone possibly explain a simple principle to someone who thinks that the laws of physics “find themselves” in open systems, closed systems, or anyplace else, as if they were a new-age religionist on a weekend pot binge?

I can’t help those who may have moronic tendencies, or are otherwise incapable of grasping idiomatic language, or are otherwise hell-bent on trying to find some witty banter to thrash about at their opponent like some 3 year-old having a temper tantrum.

greylorn:

It is possible that someone who knows about as much physics as a wood tick might not benefit from a detailed explanation of how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems, because a low level of mathematical expertise, or simple common sense, is required.

Oh! Now we’re talking about CLOSED systems? Great.

greylorn:

Any basic physics text written at a level for prospective physicists and engineers will explain this. I’m sure that the internet holds this information, for it has not been kept secret.

Then you obviously should avail yourself of it. Considering how you connected thermodynamics to the Omnipotency Paradox, I would suggest that you may not know what you are seeking - or talking about.

 

[PEPCIS]

Logic is constrained by REALITY… what is TRUE or what is FALSE … what is REAL … or what is NOT real

Since God is the source of all reality, and it was His logic which created all reality, then your statement(s) are not conformable to reality OR logic.

Obviously, if God cannot be constrained, then neither can His logic. Now this goes much deeper than our previous conversation regarding free will, because if you attack His logic as being constrained, then you not only constrain His free will, but every aspect of His being.

That, to me, is illogical.

 

[Shike]

There are some gifts that you can refuse, but there are others that you have no power over their receipt. You can only acknowledge them for what they are.

I liked your story, and I agree up until a point.

The problem enters with the concept of time. Perhaps at that instant that Dantes spares the pirate’s life is a gift, it is accepted. But perhaps it isn’t wholly accepted. What if the pirate decided later that night that really, he wished he were dead and then killed himself.

In the end, did he really accept Dantes gift of life (my point applies better to God and salvation rather than Dante and the pirate)? Thinking that once you “accept Christ” (at one moment in time, for instance, reciting a prayer) you’re saved for all eternity is ridiculous; there isn’t 100% infallible insurance that you won’t reject the gift a few minutes down the road when you decide that you’d rather do what you yourself want. Now I’m not saying that your position is that strong, that you’re espousing “once saved always saved”, but there were at least the starting threads that lead there in your response.

There is no true love being forced to accept something. Sacraficial love is:
Total
Faithful
Fruitful
FREE

ciao.

 

[Shike]

And this is your MAIN POINT: ANY “potentiality in God” is just as good as an actuality residing within Him." This is why I stated that your claim of potentiality in God is the is the same as an actuality not chosen.

Just a few posts earlier you said:

No, I don’t think this is “besides the point.” It’s worthy of the point, because it doesn’t matter if you said “not chosen” or not, because the choice of evil is implied (by you) as being an actuality - something that is just as good as “chosen.” You prove that out by your very next statement, below.

Maybe it would help for me to lay out my thought process in a different way.

1. God can choose evil
2. God can choose evil <-> God has the potential to choose evil (<-> roughly means that these are equal, interchangeable)
3. God is pure actuality

---

Therefore it’s actual that God has the potential to choose evil <-> an actual potential

Wait, the conclusion can’t be right, it contradicts 3. To fix this:

A. The actual potential must be changed to an actual actuality based on 3.
B. A and 2 gives, it’s actual that God has the actuality to choose evil.
C. The actuality to choose evil is evil​

Therefore, there is evil in God.

Do we throw out #1 or do we throw out #3? We must throw out one or both of those because the conclusion is unacceptable. Throwing out a premise does not mean it’s opposite is true.

• If we throw out #1, it means that it’s not the case that “God can choose evil”… It does not mean “God cannot choose evil”.
• If we throw out #2, it means that it’s not the case that “God is pure actuality”… It does not mean “God is pure potentiality”
  If you agree with me to this point, it would seem everything rests upon God being pure actuality. What exactly does that mean and why is this so? Should we reject it? This is a good question. It is proven in one of Aquinas’ 5 arguments for the existence of God (A God at this point that is only seen to be the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, etc.). I will have to refer you to studying what he says on potentiality/actuality, as that is where my study is soon to focus more closely, and I don’t think it would be wise of me to say more than what I have.

The only thing that I have been able to surmise from all of your replies, is that you base this claim on the BELIEF that a “potentiality is nothing more than an actuality not realized.” (my paraphrase of my understanding of what you have stated so far)

That’s not quite right, as potentiality is mixed actuality and potentiality, it would seem. It’s not so simple as you make it. I have to study further however.

If God never actualizes this potentiality…

It is wrong to talk about this like that, we aren’t talking about choosing or not choosing. We are talking about what has existed in God from all eternity, His nature.

But if we used your scenario, there are many saints who have not yet been born, and therefore do not exist in the material, or the spiritual world.

Be careful. Those that haven’t been created yet are in God as an effect exists perfectly in a cause. Your misunderstanding comes from what actuality means.

This is what you have done - to pre-qualify the question of existence as “not real” without a basis for stating that it is not real.

When you go through the argument (more than what I put in this post), you’re contradicted until you deny God’s perfection or deny the reality of the claim God can choose evil… and it makes a lot of sense based on other arguments of God’s nature.

hope this post helps a little bit. We’ll go from here.
ciao.

 

[jkiernan56]

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Just a few posts earlier you said:

Maybe it would help for me to lay out my thought process in a different way.

1. God can choose evil
2. God can choose evil <-> God has the potential to choose evil (<-> roughly means that these are equal, interchangeable)
3. God is pure actuality

---

Therefore it’s actual that God has the potential to choose evil <-> an actual potential

Wait, the conclusion can’t be right, it contradicts 3. To fix this:

A. The actual potential must be changed to an actual actuality based on 3.
B. A and 2 gives, it’s actual that God has the actuality to choose evil.
C. The actuality to choose evil is evil​

Therefore, there is evil in God.

Do we throw out #1 or do we throw out #3? We must throw out one or both of those because the conclusion is unacceptable. Throwing out a premise does not mean it’s opposite is true.

• If we throw out #1, it means that it’s not the case that “God can choose evil”… It does not mean “God cannot choose evil”.
• If we throw out #2, it means that it’s not the case that “God is pure actuality”… It does not mean “God is pure potentiality”
  If you agree with me to this point, it would seem everything rests upon God being pure actuality. What exactly does that mean and why is this so? Should we reject it? This is a good question. It is proven in one of Aquinas’ 5 arguments for the existence of God (A God at this point that is only seen to be the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, etc.). I will have to refer you to studying what he says on potentiality/actuality, as that is where my study is soon to focus more closely, and I don’t think it would be wise of me to say more than what I have.

That’s not quite right, as potentiality is mixed actuality and potentiality, it would seem. It’s not so simple as you make it. I have to study further however.

It is wrong to talk about this like that, we aren’t talking about choosing or not choosing. We are talking about what has existed in God from all eternity, His nature.

Be careful. Those that haven’t been created yet are in God as an effect exists perfectly in a cause. Your misunderstanding comes from what actuality means.

When you go through the argument (more than what I put in this post), you’re contradicted until you deny God’s perfection or deny the reality of the claim God can choose evil… and it makes a lot of sense based on other arguments of God’s nature.

hope this post helps a little bit. We’ll go from here.
ciao.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: LOL!!!

 

[PEPCIS]

I liked your story…

Then you’d probably like the movie. I certainly did. One of my favorites. I do like Caviezel as an actor, and think that he has done some excellent work.

Shike:

…and I agree up until a point.

Well, there’s always something… LOL

Shike:

The problem enters with the concept of time. Perhaps at that instant that Dantes spares the pirate’s life is a gift, it is accepted. But perhaps it isn’t wholly accepted. What if the pirate decided later that night that really, he wished he were dead and then killed himself. In the end, did he really accept Dantes gift of life (my point applies better to God and salvation rather than Dante and the pirate)?

Those are good questions. To begin with, time cannot alter what has ALREADY OCCURRED. Certainly, the pirate could later reject his life, but it cannot negate the very fact that the life that he is taking could not be taken by him unless it were first given to him by Dantes at the earlier date.

Another consideration is to recognize that the pirate did not “accept” the gift. It was inherently connected to his existence, and because Dantes did not end his life, then it stands to reason that the pirates’ existence did not end.

The pirate could not reject the gift anymore than he could accept it. Even if he killed himself 10 seconds after Dantes gave it to him, it would never negate the gift that was given AT THAT MOMENT 10 SECONDS BEFORE.

Shike:

Thinking that once you “accept Christ” (at one moment in time, for instance, reciting a prayer) you’re saved for all eternity is ridiculous; there isn’t 100% infallible insurance that you won’t reject the gift a few minutes down the road when you decide that you’d rather do what you yourself want. Now I’m not saying that your position is that strong, that you’re espousing “once saved always saved”, but there were at least the starting threads that lead there in your response.

Actually, my position is exactly that. I’m glad that you can see how I am trying to analogize the eternal gift by sharing the story of the pirate and Dantes. It makes it easier to grasp what is going on when Christ brings salvation into our being.

Now, let me take this up in another posting…