What does Divine Omnipotence really mean?

[NowAgnostic]

Saying that God can do everything (except the logically impossible, which aren’t really “things” to begin with) needs a bit of explication in the light of divine immutability and atemporality; I mean, we have an intuitive idea of what it means, but still.

God’s will is eternal and can’t change. If He has already willed tomorrow that it is going to snow, for instance, He can’t “change His mind”. It’s therefore impossible that He can make tomorrow a warm, sunny day - and yet, tomorrow being a warm, sunny day is certainly logically possible.

So, omnipotence might mean there’s a possible world in which God wills that tomorrow is sunny. But that’s not strong enough. There’s a possible world in which I have control over the weather and make tomorrow sunny. Yes, but you might say, I don’t have control over the weather in “this world” (meaning the relevant accessibility relation is that the past is identical) - I can’t change the course of the atmosphere. Yeah, but neither does God in “this world”, He can’t change His will, if His will is causing the course of the atmosphere.

You could further argue, yes, but in this world the reason why it’s going to snow tomorrow is because God willed it, not because I willed it. Fine, but that gets at the question I want to ask: does Divine omnipotence entail that every positive contingent fact has as its reason God’s will?

Thoughts?

 

[tonyrey]

Saying that God can do everything (except the logically impossible, which aren’t really “things” to begin with) needs a bit of explication in the light of divine immutability and atemporality; I mean, we have an intuitive idea of what it means, but still.

We can speculate about the nature of omnipotence, immutability, atemporality and how they are related - and but it is foolish to believe our limited intelligence can fully understand Supreme Reality. For that we need to be omniscient…

God’s will is eternal and can’t change. If He has already willed tomorrow that it is going to snow, for instance, He can’t “change His mind”. It’s therefore impossible that He can make tomorrow a warm, sunny day - and yet, tomorrow being a warm, sunny day is certainly logically possible.

Your concept of God seems to be mechanistic. If He can’t “change His mind” you have more freedom than He has!
So, omnipotence might mean there’s a possible world in which God wills that tomorrow is sunny.

But that’s not strong enough.

There’s a possible world in which I have control over the weather and make tomorrow sunny.

It depends whether you have absolute control…

Yes, but you might say, I don’t have control over the weather in “this world” (meaning the relevant accessibility relation is that the past is identical) - I can’t change the course of the atmosphere. Yeah, but neither does God in “this world”, He can’t change His will, if His will is causing the course of the atmosphere.

Can’t you arrange for modifications to a plan of yours once it is in operation?

You could further argue, yes, but in this world the reason why it’s going to snow tomorrow is because God willed it, not because I willed it. Fine, but that gets at the question I want to ask: does Divine omnipotence entail that every positive contingent fact has as its reason God’s will?

No! Most contingent facts stem from the laws of nature and many from human decisions. They are foreseen and permitted but not directly willed by God - pace Calvin who believed that not a drop of rain falls without His express command. Otherwise He would be directly responsible for all the disasters, diseases, deformities, disabilities and premature deaths in the world…

 

[tonyrey]

Saying that God can do everything (except the logically impossible, which aren’t really “things” to begin with) needs a bit of explication in the light of divine immutability and atemporality; I mean, we have an intuitive idea of what it means, but still.

We can speculate about the nature of omnipotence, immutability, atemporality and how they are related but it is foolish to believe our limited intelligence can fully understand Supreme Reality. For that we need to be omniscient…

God’s will is eternal and can’t change. If He has already willed tomorrow that it is going to snow, for instance, He can’t “change His mind”. It’s therefore impossible that He can make tomorrow a warm, sunny day - and yet, tomorrow being a warm, sunny day is certainly logically possible.

Your concept of God seems to be mechanistic. If He can’t “change His mind” you have more freedom than He has!

So, omnipotence might mean there’s a possible world in which God wills that tomorrow is sunny. But that’s not strong enough. There’s a possible world in which I have control over the weather and make tomorrow sunny.

It depends whether you have absolute control…

Yes, but you might say, I don’t have control over the weather in “this world” (meaning the relevant accessibility relation is that the past is identical) - I can’t change the course of the atmosphere. Yeah, but neither does God in “this world”, He can’t change His will, if His will is causing the course of the atmosphere.

Can’t you arrange for modifications to a plan of yours once it is in operation?

You could further argue, yes, but in this world the reason why it’s going to snow tomorrow is because God willed it, not because I willed it. Fine, but that gets at the question I want to ask: does Divine omnipotence entail that every positive contingent fact has as its reason God’s will?

No! Most contingent facts stem from the laws of nature and many from human decisions. They are foreseen and permitted but not directly willed by God - pace Calvin who believed that not a drop of rain falls without His express command. Otherwise He would be directly responsible for all the disasters, diseases, deformities, disabilities and premature deaths in the world…

 

[R_Daneel]

We can speculate about the nature of omnipotence, immutability, atemporality and how they are related but it is foolish to believe our limited intelligence can fully understand Supreme Reality. For that we need to be omniscient…

Yet, you (and the other Catholics) believe that you can speak authoritatively about God’s goodness. Looks like only the skeptics are the ones who should shut up, because of their limited intelligence…

Your concept of God seems to be mechanistic. If He can’t “change His mind” you have more freedom than He has!

This is again the Catholic concept. God is “unable” to commit evil, which indicates a lower level of freedom than a human has.

No! Most contingent facts stem from the laws of nature and many from human decisions. They are foreseen and permitted but not directly willed by God - pace Calvin who believed that not a drop of rain falls without His express command. Otherwise He would be directly responsible for all the disasters, diseases, deformities, disabilities and premature deaths in the world…

There is no real difference between “foreseen and permitted” and “directly willed”. And, of course, any and all disasters, diseases, deformities, murders, genocides, rapes and tortures are God’s responsibily. You would like to give credit to God for all the good things, and deny his responsibilty for the bad ones. Typical whitewashing technique… and it does not work. If there would be a desk in God’s study, it would carry the sign: “The buck stops here!”. That would be the honest attitude, take the credit for the good, and accept the blame for the bad.

 

[James_S_Saint]

does Divine omnipotence entail that every positive contingent fact has as its reason God’s will?

Yes.

 

[tonyrey]

Otherwise He would be directly responsible for all the disasters, diseases, deformities, disabilities and premature deaths in the world…

I should add that there is a vast difference between ultimate responsibility and immediate responsibility. Inventors, artists, scientists and parents are not held responsible for the decisions of others made possible by their creative achievements…

 

[R_Daneel]

I should add that there is a vast difference between ultimate responsibility and immediate responsibility. Inventors, artists, scientists and parents are not held responsible for the decisions of others made possible by their creative achievements…

The whitewashing continues? Your example is far off the mark. The people you mentioned are not responsible because they do not know and even if they knew, they have no control over the acts of those who might misuse their achievements. That is what makes your example so inappropriate. God is supposed to have both the knowledge and the power to step in. Not meekly staying on the sideline and washing his hands - a la Pilate…

 

[o_mlly]

…This is again the Catholic concept. God is “unable” to commit evil, which indicates a lower level of freedom than a human has.

One who commits evil does not have a higher level of freedom than one who does not. No person is free to commit evil for the commisson of evil is license not liberty.

There is no real difference between “foreseen and permitted” and “directly willed”. And, of course, any and all disasters, diseases, deformities, murders, genocides, rapes and tortures are God’s responsibily. You would like to give credit to God for all the good things, and deny his responsibilty for the bad ones. Typical whitewashing technique… and it does not work. If there would be a desk in God’s study, it would carry the sign: “The buck stops here!”. That would be the honest attitude, take the credit for the good, and accept the blame for the bad.

It follows that an effect may possess (but not exceed) an attribute which pre-exists in its cause. The creation of person (a contingent effect) with reason, limited intellect and free will does not diminish in its cause, its Creator same or other attributes. That is, the gift of free will to His creatures does not diminish God’s omniscience.

If I know that you are going to murder your brother, does that make me responsible for his death? God loves us too much to gift us a being in His own image only to rescind the gift when we abuse it.

 

[tonyrey]

I should add that there is a vast difference between ultimate responsibility and immediate responsibility. Inventors, artists, scientists and parents are not held responsible for the decisions of others made possible by their creative achievements…

In addition, parents are prepared to take the risk of being rejected when the children grow up and respect their freedom to live as they choose…

 

[R_Daneel]

One who commits evil does not have a higher level of freedom than one who does not.

And I never said this. What I said is: “the one who **can **commit evil, but **chooses **not to, has a higher level of freedom than the one who is unable to commit evil at all”.

No person is free to commit evil for the commisson of evil is license not liberty.

Strange definition of “freedom”.

It follows that an effect may possess (but not exceed) an attribute which pre-exists in its cause. The creation of person (a contingent effect) with reason, limited intellect and free will does not diminish in its cause, its Creator same or other attributes. That is, the gift of free will to His creatures does not diminish God’s omniscience.

**Omniscience **is not in question here. I see absolutely no relevance of this as pertaining to the post you answered.

If I know that you are going to murder your brother, does that make me responsible for his death?

If you know (really know - not just suspect) about it beforehand, **and **you are in the position to prevent it **and **you fail to do so - then yes, you are exactly as responsible as the one who commits it. You are an accessory to that murder.

God loves us too much to gift us a being in His own image only to rescind the gift when we abuse it.

That is not “love”, it is the lack of caring.

 

[buffalo]

Catholics know God as being almighty, that is He does what He sets out to do.

 

[NowAgnostic]

We can speculate about the nature of omnipotence, immutability, atemporality and how they are related but it is foolish to believe our limited intelligence can fully understand Supreme Reality. For that we need to be omniscient…

Ironically, this epistemologically nihilistic reply assumes we understand something about the “nature” of omniscience…

Look, there are three possibilities:

1. We can understand **everything **about omnipotence,
2. We can understand **something **about omnipotence,
3. We can understand absolutely nothing about omnipotence.

I’ll grant the impossibility of 1) - only an infinite intellect can understand absolutely everything.

I will maintain 3) is also impossible - this makes the expression “God is omnipotent” meaningless to us - a word salad - if “omnipotence” is a concept completely without meaning to us.

So therefore 2) we must be able to understand something, though not everything, about omnipotence, and be able to discuss it on those grounds.

Your concept of God seems to be mechanistic. If He can’t “change His mind” you have more freedom than He has!

If He can “change His mind”, He is changeable and mutable. Are you an open theist or a process theologian?

It depends whether you have absolute control…

Which is what I am trying to flesh out regarding God.

Can’t you arrange for modifications to a plan of yours once it is in operation?

Yes, of course, but that would be due to circumstances unforeseen by me. God, knowing everything right from the start, would take that into account making His plan in the first place!

No! Most contingent facts stem from the laws of nature and many from human decisions.

Did God not will the laws of nature, though? If so, then He is willing every natural fact that stems from them. It’s a logical contradiction to say He wills that there should be a gravitational force between two objects given by F = GmM/r^2 but yet He doesn’t will that the two bodies should move towards each other.

They are foreseen and permitted but not directly willed by God - pace Calvin who believed that not a drop of rain falls without His express command. Otherwise He would be directly responsible for all the disasters, diseases, deformities, disabilities and premature deaths in the world…

Notice that’s why I said “positive contingent fact”. Evil is not a thing, it is the privation of a thing. God doesn’t will an object not to exist, an object doesn’t exist because He fails to will it to, true, but a “not thing” can’t be a proper object of the will of God.

So the presence of evil is not really a good reply to this, because that’s a negative contingent fact.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Catholics know God as being almighty, that is He does what He sets out to do.

But surely you believe there’s more to the concept of omnipotence than this! I would be almighty then if I just did everything I set out to do.

 

[o_mlly]

And I never said this. What I said is: “the one who **can **commit evil, but **chooses **not to, has a higher level of freedom than the one who is unable to commit evil at all”.

I beg your pardon. I cited your post verbatim: “God is ‘unable’ to commit evil, which indicates a lower level of freedom than a human has.” Did the moderator change your words?

Strange definition of “freedom”.

The difference between “liberty” and “license” is well understood by most philosphers.

**Omniscience **is not in question here. I see absolutely no relevance of this as pertaining to the post you answered.

I did write “other attributes” so substitute “omnipotent” for “omniscient” if you like. That point is still valid. An effect does not in itself change its cause. Our free will, a contingent effect, moves from its Cause, but does not diminish the Cause in any respect.

If you know (really know - not just suspect) about it beforehand, **and **you are in the position to prevent it **and **you fail to do so - then yes, you are exactly as responsible as the one who commits it. You are an accessory to that murder.

Only one Being can really know the future so the rest of us are always and everywhere left with only suspicions about what happens next.

That is not “love”, it is the lack of caring.

That would be a possible conclusion of one who does not know how the play ends. See above.
Your idea of free will reminds me of the writings the “mystic atheist” Erich Fromm. Born an othodox Jew in Germany, Fromm could not sustain his faith. I suggest you peruse or re-peruse his book “Escape From Freedom.” It’s a humanistic explanation of man’s rejection of free will from one who has experience of its terrible abuse.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You could further argue, yes, but in this world the reason why it’s going to snow tomorrow is because God willed it, not because I willed it. Fine, but that gets at the question I want to ask: does Divine omnipotence entail that every positive contingent fact has as its reason God’s will?

Catholics know God as being almighty, that is He does what He sets out to do.

I agree with Buffalo here. God need not control everything in order to be omnipotent. It is perfectly possible that an omnipotent being do nothing at all. Potency is not actuality.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But surely you believe there’s more to the concept of omnipotence than this! I would be almighty then if I just did everything I set out to do.

If you would like to discover if you are omnipotent, keep setting out to do more and more outlandish things. If you don’t hit a limit, then – hey! – you happen to be God.

:tiphat:

 

[NowAgnostic]

I agree with Buffalo here. God need not control everything in order to be omnipotent. It is perfectly possible that an omnipotent being do nothing at all. Potency is not actuality.

But God is pure actuality and can have no potency.

If you would like to discover if you are omnipotent, keep setting out to do more and more outlandish things. If you don’t hit a limit, then – hey! – you happen to be God.

No, I just won’t set out to do anything. I’ll definitely accomplish that so hey! I’m God!!! I will accept your burnt offerings any time

 

[James_S_Saint]

No, I just won’t set out to do anything. I’ll definitely accomplish that so hey! I’m God!!! I will accept your burnt offerings any time

He foresaw that argument and defeated it before you stated it. It isn’t like you to pay so little attention. Did you have a hectic holiday?

 

[R_Daneel]

I beg your pardon. I cited your post verbatim: “God is ‘unable’ to commit evil, which indicates a lower level of freedom than a human has.” Did the moderator change your words?

No he/she did not. This is what you responded to my quoted text: “One who commits evil does not have a higher level of freedom than one who does not.” - which is not relevant. The Catholic teaching says that God is unable to act against his “nature”, and is therefore unable to commit evil. I simply pointed out that according to the Catholic teaching - God does not have the freedom to commit evil - which is a lower level of freedom than it is asserted by the Calvinist concept - which says that God is able to commit evil, but chooses not to.

The difference between “liberty” and “license” is well understood by most philosphers.

Still not relevant. If someone is able to act in a certain manner, then he is “free” to do so - as long as he could act otherwise.

I did write “other attributes” so substitute “omnipotent” for “omniscient” if you like. That point is still valid. An effect does not in itself change its cause. Our free will, a contingent effect, moves from its Cause, but does not diminish the Cause in any respect.

It sure does alter the perception and evaluation of that act. If an act allows evil then it is not good.

Only one Being can really know the future so the rest of us are always and everywhere left with only suspicions about what happens next.

And that is the reason why God cannot be let off the “hook”. Who has complete knowledge, and complete power has complete responsibilty.

That would be a possible conclusion of one who does not know how the play ends. See above.

You don’t know how the play ends, either - so this argument is invalid. Especially since the Catholic teaching says that “no good can out of evil”. Of course the Catholic teaching also says that “God can mysteriously bring forth good out of evil” - which is a plain and simple contradiction.

 

[James_S_Saint]

The concept of Evil doesn’t apply to God in the first place. It is the opponent to a Son of God and in the diminutive form, evil, is relative to each life.

It is illogical and irrational to use the term Evil in reference to God. It would be like asking why color prefers white to black.