Unofficial Positions on Omnipotence

[greylorn]

The thread, “What is our official position on God’s omnipotence?” went off topic, my fault, and wandered into speculative territory beginning around Post #16. This thread is intended to continue some of the discussions on more appropriate grounds.

Official positions on God’s omnipotence will, in the spirit of fairness, be regarded as “off-topic” on this thread. This thread is intended to host questions, uncertainties, and perhaps alternative ideas about the subject of God’s omnipotence, power, and capabilities in general.

Those who wish to reiterate or clarify Church dogma on the subject are invited to post on the original thread.

This thread is not atheistic. Ideas which are contrary to reasonable belief that our universe is created belong elsewhere. Thank you.

 

[geometer]

Well, if there is something that you would like God to do, then you should ask him. It is really the only way to know…

 

[tonyrey]

Omnipotence is the power to do anything that can be done. How can we determine what can be done? Only from our experience. So what omnipotence entails is largely a matter of speculation but it is not entirely useless. For example, the belief that we can frustrate God’s Will implies that His omnipotence is restricted, i.e. self-imposed. This raises the question of how far God can go. Could He give up all his power? But then He would cease to be God! It would be equivalent to an act of self-destruction! The answer is obviously no because God is a Creator not a Destroyer and certainly not a Self-Destroyer…

So the question of God’s omnipotence cannot be isolated from His other attributes. His goodness and love have to be taken into account. He cannot transform good into evil and evil into good. This is not a limitation though. It is an aspect of His perfection. So can He destroy what He has created? Evil persons are the obvious example. To us it may seem better if He does and some Christian sects believe only the elect survive after death. It is certainly a very neat and tidy solution. Without hell everything would be lovely!

There is a problem though. It would imply failure and inconsistency on God’s part. Why create some one who is going to disappear? Why bother in the first place? And there is an even greater problem. That person would never have a chance to change. Why should we assume we can make up our minds for once and for all - and for the rest of eternity? Surely God’s gift of free will is unconditional. After all it is His power that He is sharing. He is hardly a miser who is going to grab it back if things go wrong. He know full well the implications of renouncing His absolute power but He does it for once and for all. God does nothing by halves. It is a question of all or nothing, of heaven or hell, of freedom or servitude. We humans tend to be extremists in some ways and not others, usually when it suits us… We shall never fully understand God or His omnipotence but I believe the surest way to gain some insight into His power is to relate it to His goodness and love. Arguments about what is logically possible for Him to do collapse if they fail to recognise the supreme purpose of creating us. I leave you to decide what that is…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Let us consider the term “maximally omnipotent”. By maximally omnipotent, I mean to be understood a being that creates the world, and determines the outcome of every action in the world.

Such a being may have free will, but if it (he?) has free will, then no other being in existence may have free will. Contained within the concept of maximal omnipotence is the determinacy of all matter. Freedom and morality (even perhaps rationality) are incompatible with such a power.

Any omnipotent being can be maximally omnipotent. This is an analytic truth.

The concept of a omnipotent being restricting his own omnipotence seems paradoxical. No a priori consideration, however, can prove that an omnipotent being cannot limit his own omnipotence. For consider: clearly, an omnipotent being can **choose not to **create an entity.

Just so, an omnipotent being may choose not to control an entity, or choose to create an entity he wills not to control – although he may change his mind at any point and choose to control that entity. (This is an antropomorphism, I know. Since an omnipotent being would logically seem to be outside of space/time, it is rather awkward to think of him changing his mind.)

If he can choose not to create an entity, it follows that he can choose not to control an entity that he created – but only if that entity is given the type of existential power that previously only belonged to the omnipotent being.

 

[Chiral]

Given an omnipotent/omnipresent/omnitemporal etc. deity, isn’t passivity contradictory to His nature? I have heard many Christians argue that God “allows” things to happen, but this has never made sense to me. To “allow” implies passivity with regard to an event. We may speak metaphorically of God “allowing” something to happen, like the Tsunami of some years past, but doesn’t that ellipse the logical reality necessitated by His “omni”-nature?
According to the law of bivalence, every choice is an active preference for one possibility over its antithesis, e.g. **X **and ~X.
“God wills X” is logically identical to “God does not will ~X” by the law of bivalence. Inversely, “God does not will X” is logically identical to “God wills ~X”.
Now, every event under God’s power to control can be reduced to X and ~X, and every event is under the power of an omnipotent being, which means that God’s will is active in every event in some way. This is termed omnificence.

Thoughts? Efforts at logical deconstruction or counter-proof? Condemnations?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

According to the law of bivalence, every choice is an active preference for one possibility over its antithesis, e.g. **X **and ~X.
“God wills X” is logically identical to “God does not will ~X” by the law of bivalence. Inversely, “God does not will X” is logically identical to “God wills ~X”.
Now, every event under God’s power to control can be reduced to X and ~X, and every event is under the power of an omnipotent being, which means that God’s will is active in every event in some way. This is termed omnificence.

Thoughts? Efforts at logical deconstruction or counter-proof? Condemnations?

I will agree that God’s will is active in every event in some way. The last three words are important, because the mode of His operation may be to permit the will of an underling to determine a real event.

Given an omnipotent/omnipresent/omnitemporal etc. deity, isn’t passivity contradictory to His nature? I have heard many Christians argue that God “allows” things to happen, but this has never made sense to me. To “allow” implies passivity with regard to an event.

I don’t see why God cannot allow things. If passivity is contradictory (contrary?) to His nature, doesn’t this imply that He *must *create all possible worlds? Otherwise, He would fail to act in some possible way, and thus be passive.

It is the case, however, that *when *God is passive, God becomes at very least an indirect cause of the action, the Tsunami for example. By not stopping something from happening, God has a role (though arguably an excusable one) in making it happen.

 

[Chiral]

I will agree that God’s will is active in every event in some way. The last three words are important, because the mode of His operation may be to permit the will of an underling to determine a real event.

I don’t see why God cannot allow things. If passivity is contradictory (contrary?) to His nature, doesn’t this imply that He must create all possible worlds? Otherwise, He would fail to act in some possible way, and thus be passive.

It is the case, however, that *when *God is passive, God becomes at very least an indirect cause of the action, the Tsunami for example. By not stopping something from happening, God has a role (though arguably an excusable one) in making it happen.

“All possible worlds” is a thought exercise with regard to hypothesis - “What if it were true?” There is no logical reason to suppose there is more than one reality.
However, there is a logical necessity that either X or ~X is True. IF truth is immutable and eternal, then it can contain no contradictions, meaning that there may only be one possible reality. If there is only one God and that God is one, and God is intimately familiar with the “truth”, can there be more than one truth or contradictory truths? Perhaps with regard to non-transcendental creation (i.e. limited to one reality and admitting of others); but transcendental beings cannot admit such multiplicity or they face an unanswerable contradiction. And aren’t both humans and God transcendental?
To illustrate, God knows (omniscience) what choice I will make in a given circumstance - my choice is already known to Him and so must be true: “C chooses X at T2”. But can there exist an alternate reality such that God knows and it is therefore true that “C chooses ~X at T2”? This would demand the existence of two separate C’s, Cz & Cy in realities Z & Y - but this implies an overarching final reality pertaining to that single unified deity, and thus reality is reduced again to ONE within which there exist merely 2 separate & unique universes. At “Judgement Day” there will be two separate C’s whose separate choices are reckoned each to the agent responsible - Cz is not guilty of Cy’s offenses because the two are separate creatures, like you and I.
To conclude, yes it does imply His activity in “all possible worlds”, but the notion of truly alternate realities is probably mistaken, given our understanding of God.

Secondly, all creative power emanates from God and is sustained by Him, yes? Then His “permission” is not passive but an act of sustaining the will and power of his “underling” to the effect willed by that underling - thus God’s action is a necessary part of the determination of the actual event willed by His “underling”. His “permission” is comparable to an adult “permitting” a quadriplegic child to swing a bat by holding both child and bat and assisting in the action of the swing… So who swung the bat? The child, the adult, or the child and adult together?

Third, it is “indirect cause” that I take issue with. If natural occurrences are only “indirectly” caused by an omnipotent being, doesn’t that make Him a clock-maker, deist god? Can you present a counter argument to the logical proof I offered in my post, “to not will X is to will not-X”?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

To conclude, yes it does imply His activity in “all possible worlds”, but the notion of truly alternate realities is probably mistaken, given our understanding of God.

Makes sense.

Secondly, all creative power emanates from God and is sustained by Him, yes? Then His “permission” is not passive but an act of sustaining the will and power of his “underling” to the effect willed by that underling - thus God’s action is a necessary part of the determination of the actual event willed by His “underling”. His “permission” is comparable to an adult “permitting” a quadriplegic child to swing a bat by holding both child and bat and assisting in the action of the swing… So who swung the bat? The child, the adult, or the child and adult together?

Here we have something like the idea of subsidiary. God wills not to interfere in human sovereignty, perhaps because He knows that the greatest good requires such a will. This is His *general *will. This general will trumps many different decisions that would be specified in His *specific *will, which has been intentionally subjected to the decisions of human beings. It is not His will that Bill drive drunk, for example, but He is perfectly willing to provide for that occurrence. (I know that omniscience would run ramshod over that last sentence, but I’m not precise enough to fix it).

In essence, we are talking about an ambiguity of language, though. The word will means both “to want” and “to be disposed to”. When I say that God wills that everyone be saved, I mean that he *wants *everyone to be saved. When I say that it is God’s will that Bill drive drunk (and experience the effects of his actions), I am saying that God is disposed to said action. Anything that God is disposed to – even though He does not desire it – happens. I imagine the New Testament Greek, by the way, has two different words for the two senses.

Third, it is “indirect cause” that I take issue with. If natural occurrences are only “indirectly” caused by an omnipotent being, doesn’t that make Him a clock-maker, deist god? Can you present a counter argument to the logical proof I offered in my post, “to not will X is to will not-X”?

I think the counterproof is based on the discrepancies in the meaning of the word “will”.

 

[greylorn]

Makes sense.

Here we have something like the idea of subsidiary. God wills not to interfere in human sovereignty, perhaps because He knows that the greatest good requires such a will. This is His *general *will. This general will trumps many different decisions that would be specified in His *specific *will, which has been intentionally subjected to the decisions of human beings. It is not His will that Bill drive drunk, for example, but He is perfectly willing to provide for that occurrence. (I know that omniscience would run ramshod over that last sentence, but I’m not precise enough to fix it).

In essence, we are talking about an ambiguity of language, though. The word will means both “to want” and “to be disposed to”. When I say that God wills that everyone be saved, I mean that he *wants *everyone to be saved. When I say that it is God’s will that Bill drive drunk (and experience the effects of his actions), I am saying that God is disposed to said action. Anything that God is disposed to – even though He does not desire it – happens. I imagine the New Testament Greek, by the way, has two different words for the two senses.

I think the counterproof is based on the discrepancies in the meaning of the word “will”.

With all due respect to your thoughtful posts, they are off topic here. This thread is for unofficial positions on omnipotence. Apologetics for issues caused by the official position should be posted on the “Official Position on Omnipotence” thread. Thank you.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

With all due respect to your thoughtful posts, they are off topic here. This thread is for unofficial positions on omnipotence. Apologetics for issues caused by the official position should be posted on the “Official Position on Omnipotence” thread. Thank you.

My apologies. I didn’t start the conversation, and I find it hard not to consider questions asked by other posters.

My first post, about maximal omnipotence, is something I’m curious about. What considerations would make one think that an omnipotent being would control every aspect of the world? Is determinism entailed by any omnipotent being, as many claim?

 

[greylorn]

Given an omnipotent/omnipresent/omnitemporal etc. deity, isn’t passivity contradictory to His nature? I have heard many Christians argue that God “allows” things to happen, but this has never made sense to me. To “allow” implies passivity with regard to an event. We may speak metaphorically of God “allowing” something to happen, like the Tsunami of some years past, but doesn’t that ellipse the logical reality necessitated by His “omni”-nature?
According to the law of bivalence, every choice is an active preference for one possibility over its antithesis, e.g. **X **and ~X.
“God wills X” is logically identical to “God does not will ~X” by the law of bivalence. Inversely, “God does not will X” is logically identical to “God wills ~X”.
Now, every event under God’s power to control can be reduced to X and ~X, and every event is under the power of an omnipotent being, which means that God’s will is active in every event in some way. This is termed omnificence.

Thoughts? Efforts at logical deconstruction or counter-proof? Condemnations?

So far, your posts have the scent of “official position” about them,

I don’t know the law of bivalance, so looked it up. “The principle that every proposition is either true or false.” I see that you have studied philosophy. Congratulations. Personally I found that an abstruse subject ill-suited to most real-world problem solving, and a poor mental return in value for study time expended.

I don’t see, for example, that it is worth the effort to figure out how your X vs. not-X argument applies to anything having to do with the question of whether or not God actually is omnipotent. It applies, if at all, to the kind of fuzzy considerations which arise once one declares that God is indeed omnipotent, and then tries to explain some of his actions in that context.

That kind of discussion belongs on the “Official Omnipotence” thread, thank you.

Let me clarify what I’m looking for on this thread, which was obviously not expressed clearly enough in the O.P.

I propose that God is not omnipotent. This proposition offers the benefit of putting philosophers out of what they regard as work and perhaps getting a few more people out in the fields picking beans, by eliminating the contradictions between the real evidence of creation and the omnipotent God concept.

I propose that it is unnecessary for the Creator of the Universe to be omnipotent, and invite you and others to consider the advantages of this proposition, or challenge it.

Kindly remember that I posted this on the philosophy forum. Surely a competent philosopher will not treat his dogmatic belief in omnipotence, or any aspect of religious dogma, as a suitable contrary argument.

 

[greylorn]

My apologies. I didn’t start the conversation, and I find it hard not to consider questions asked by other posters.

My first post, about maximal omnipotence, is something I’m curious about. What considerations would make one think that an omnipotent being would control every aspect of the world? Is determinism entailed by any omnipotent being, as many claim?

I have the same tendencies as you and have been responsible for pulling various threads off track, even to the point where several were closed. Now that I’ve seen the error of my ways, I’m doing this thread by way of penance. It might prove interesting to keep all threads on point. Others might benefit from practice in conversational discipline.

Whatever chance you have of resolving your admirable curiosities will be best found on the “Official Omnipotence” thread. When you find that it is impossible to resolve the logical contradictions posed by the omnipotence (and omniscience) concepts, and are looking for workable ideas which allow a God-concept to intelligently co-exist with science, you are welcome back here to contribute your own thoughts to the project. . .

 

[tonyrey]

The thread, “What is our official position on God’s omnipotence?” went off topic, my fault, and wandered into speculative territory beginning around Post #16. This thread is intended to continue some of the discussions on more appropriate grounds.

What do you consider to be more appropriate grounds?

Official positions on God’s omnipotence will, in the spirit of fairness, be regarded as “off-topic” on this thread. This thread is intended to host questions, uncertainties, and perhaps alternative ideas about the subject of God’s omnipotence, power, and capabilities in general.

Do you regard self-imposed restrictions on God’s omnipotence as an official position?

This thread is not atheistic. Ideas which are contrary to reasonable belief that our universe is created belong elsewhere.

Do you regard God as omnipotent in any sense? Your question seems to imply that God has a certain amount of power…

 

[greylorn]

What do you consider to be more appropriate grounds?

My statement was incompetently worded. I should have said, “a thread appropriate to an unofficial view of the Creator’s properties,” or something like that.

Do you regard self-imposed restrictions on God’s omnipotence as an official position?

I’m unclear as to your meaning. If it is that God has imposed restrictions upon his own omnipotence, I’d guess that’s not particularly official to the best of my knowledge, and therefore within the scope of this thread.

However, such a proposition smacks of neurolinguistic chicanery, and I’d prefer to limit this thread to functional ideas. I have a specific agenda, which is attempting to find and explain a God-concept which makes logical and common sense. Word games and manipulations of common meaning will not further that cause,

For an entity to relinquish omnipotence it must first have had that property to relinquish. I don’t see any reason why it could not take its power back.

I think that the best way for you to determine if your idea falls outside the official position category is to continue discussing it on the Official Position thread. If you do not get invited to start a different thread, as I’ve been, you have your answer.

I’d prefer that you keep the idea on the Official thread or start a new one. If you bring it over here, dogmatists will follow, and this thread will become polluted and no fun.

Do you regard God as omnipotent in any sense? Your question seems to imply that God has a certain amount of power…

No. Omnipotence is an unnecessary property. Its main value seems to be to keep theologians busy explaining away the contradictions arising from the property.

Given the meaning of omnipotent, the phrase “in any sense,” makes no sense to me. An entity is either omnipotent or not. I’d never try to sell the idea of a soap-like Creator, “99 and 94/100ths percent” omnipotent. That’s just another version of neurolinguististic poo, IMO.

My personal understanding of the Creator is fairly complex, and I don’t use the term power in my description. Power, after all, is a physics term defined as energy multiplied by the inverse of time— P = E/t. The Creator is not an “energy being” as some new age religious folks like to believe, so the term power does not apply to him.

I believe that the Creator was good enough to construct an awesome universe.

 

[tonyrey]

For an entity to relinquish omnipotence it must first have had that property to relinquish. I don’t see any reason why it could not take its power back.

There is no reason whatsoever why an omnipotent being cannot take its power back. But it would be rather inconsistent to do so. What would be the point of restricting its power in the first place? As an experiment to see what happens? Any discussion of omnipotence is valueless if it is conducted without any reference to the nature of the omnipotent being and the purpose of restricting its power. It becomes an intellectual exercise which leads nowhere.

 

[greylorn]

There is no reason whatsoever why an omnipotent being cannot take its power back. But it would be rather inconsistent to do so. What would be the point of restricting its power in the first place? As an experiment to see what happens? Any discussion of omnipotence is valueless if it is conducted without any reference to the nature of the omnipotent being and the purpose of restricting its power. It becomes an intellectual exercise which leads nowhere.

Posts from imaginative minds oft open up a rat’s nest of possibilities.

Consider these replies in the context of a 2:30am less than ebriated state…

It’s hard to tell if you are my friend in the context of this debate, or your own enemy. The God of the Catholic Bible is no stranger to inconsistency.

Since the notion of an omnipotent entity restricting its power was your idea, not mine, it behooves you to explain why He might have done so. That’s not my job. Personally, I think that the idea is not defensible.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that any discussion of omnipotence is valueless, etc. etc. as you describe. Therefore I’ve concluded that the concept of an omnipotent Creator is logically absurd. Why do you think I initiated this thread?

 

[tonyrey]

I agree with you wholeheartedly that any discussion of omnipotence is valueless, etc. etc. as you describe. Therefore I’ve concluded that the concept of an omnipotent Creator is logically absurd. Why do you think I initiated this thread?

In that case it would have been clearer if you had simply asked why the concept of an omnipotent Creator is logically absurd.