N
NowAgnostic
Guest
Oh he did, really? Did he not say this: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?
- Status
O
o_mlly
Guest
It would be helpful to further the argument if you would cite the authority you quote as “Catholic teaching” as I fear you are misinformed. Let’s start with Catholic teaching says that “no good can out of evil.” And if you also claim as Catholic teaching: “If an act allows evil then it is not good” a citation would be helpful.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
He said IF you “keep setting out to do more and more outlandish things…”
Thus “merely doing nothing” doesn’t qualify.
I expected you to catch that one.
The fact that a god CAN do nothing does not equate to the idea that doing nothing is being a god. You’re slipping.
N
NowAgnostic
Guest
I asked for a definition of omnipotence, and what I got was “God is omnipotent if He does everything He sets out to do.” My point, of course, is that that definition is insufficient to distinguish God from something that isn’t God, especially if God needn’t do anything. According to **this **definition, I am omnipotent.He said IF you “keep setting out to do more and more outlandish things…”
Thus “merely doing nothing” doesn’t qualify.
I expected you to catch that one.
The fact that a god CAN do nothing does not equate to the idea that doing nothing is being a god. You’re slipping.
T
tdgesq
Guest
Catholics believe that God is almighty - all powerful. That is what is meant by omnipotence. For instance, he is the ultimate cause of the universe and everything in it. That seems pretty powerful to most people. I suppose somebody who had the time and the motivation could give you a list of attributes of God that would further elucidate his omnipotence. The ability to change one’s mind or to commit evil acts denotes a lack of perfection - a mistake. That God can’t make a mistake hardly entails a lack of omnipotence according to the above definition.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Frankly if you could really accomplish truly doing nothing, you would even greater than God.
But your response had quoted his explanation concerning your attempt to be God.
He wasn’t defining God, He actually gave more of a definition of “omnipotence” itself, not a definition for God. He associated that definition of omnipotence to God by saying that God had (included) the virtue of omnipotence - being able to accomplish all one sets out to do.
A being that truly accomplishes doing nothing at all (ignoring that such a being can’t exist) because that is all the being attempted is a little difficult to categorize. But no one said that being God is merely omnipotence. That is only one prime virtue.
T
tonyrey
Guest
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Thank you, Saint Thomas.
Now can you explain to me what on earth that means? 
This reminds me of people who say that things that you know are not things you merely believe. But of course, belief is necessary for knowledge, though insufficient. Likewise, potency is necessary for actuality, but insufficient.
To say that God is pure actuality entails that everything possible exists. Or so it seems to me…
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
I was a bit curious about that one myself.Thank you, Saint Thomas.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
If you do many things you set out to do, and never discover a counterexample, then it might seem increasingly likely that you’re omnipotent; certainly you would be polypotent. But chances are, you’re rigging the system, by choosing not to attempt things beyond your power.
Perhaps your question is this: how could a being ever know that he is omnipotent? Well, certainly this boggles the human mind, but perhaps no being could (depending on what conditions we place on knowledge). Perhaps one cannot know with absolute certainty that he is omnipotent until he has undertaken every possible combination of actions. But this does not preclude actual omnipotence, unless omnipotence is defined recursively (“the capacity to create a state of events in which God is absolutely certain that God is actually omnipotent”). Obviously, recursivity presents problems to our concepts, as does the distinction between necessity and possibility.
The trick is to realize that “meta-omnipotence” is not entailed by omnipotence (the same applies to meta-omniscience). God cannot actualize every meaningful sentence that exists in English, but only those meaningful sentences that occur within the domain of His existence, the domain in which we live.
It is perfectly plausible to imagine a being that encountered so few oppositions to his will that he inferred that he was God, willfully denying the fact that there were many things he had never attempted to do (perhaps out of a suspicion that he was incapable of doing them). Indeed, many Christians might say that Lucifer was just such a being.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Omnipotence is determined by the inability to fail or be defeated by anything else.
J
JDaniel
Guest
I find it absurd that we always seem to forget that we are not “Gods”; that we cannot define His omnipotence except, it seems, in purely human terms and in purely human ways. We tend to think that God considers himself as only “giving-ness” activity rather than self-activity. It never dawns on us that He most completely regards himself, in terms of his Omnipotence, as Himself.
The Church says, "Power is the intrinsic energy of being realized in activity. The Blessed Trinity, infinite in the immanence of its life, is the perfect self-realization of Power. In one omnipotent and eternal experience all powers of being, both absolute and relative, are completely actualized without the possibility of increase or diminution. Omnipotence suffuses all the Divine attributes, and is identical with the Godhood of God. It represents for us the dynamic aspect of the triune life of the divine essence, wherein the fecundity of the one subsistent nature expresses, manifests, and comprehends its own meaning and value, and all things within that fullness.
"Omnipotence involves every possible mode of origination and production, and is thus more than the power of causation whereby things other than itself are brought into existence. The eternal origination or procession of the Son and the Holy Ghost is omnipotent life; but it is not causal activity, inasmuch as the persons are identical with the one divine nature. They are not additions to its life, they are its life. The three persons are self-expressions and self-realizations of life, knowledge, love, and sanctity which constitute the very being of Deity. Thus subsistence is power, knowledge is power, will and eternity are power, all infinitely one. Omnipotence is distinctive of Deity, and creation is but a revelation of it in the order of finite being.
"Hence our idea of supreme power is but a distant analogy of that almightiness which characterizes the ultimate being. Power in creatures passes from a state of potential capability to the actual performance of an act. But Omnipotence is the subsistent energy of eternal being, and is not transient but immanent and permanent in its infinite actuality.
"Creation to us is but an aspect of an eternal activity. The statement of Genesis that God “rested” on the seventh day is metaphorical of the eternal contentment of God in the knowledge of all things in himself. In regard to the universe his activity has neither beginning nor end, and involves no change. Creation is not a local transference from God to the creature, nor is the creature a terminus of his power. The motive of that power is not the creature itself but God’s knowledge of his own being. Apart from God’s power the creature has no existence, and therefore cannot be regarded as an object antecedent to his production of it. Nor can the creature ever become an “object” reacting upon God in the sense in which objects react upon us. Likewise the continuance of the creative act in the conservation of and concurrence with creatures involves no new or different activity in Omnipotence.
"The contingency of the universe reveals the fact that it was created by Omnipotence. The dependence of finite beings upon God is not accidental or partial but total, involving their entire reality. Thus contingent mind and matter are essentially and qualitatively different from subsistent Being. They cannot therefore be regarded as natural emanations from the Divine Nature or as participating in its distinctive life. This complete distinctness of God and finite being implies that the universe was produced in no way other than creation in the full meaning of that term. For it is clear that creation is the only mode of causation whereby a cause can produce other being entirely distinct from itself.
more to follow . . .
J
JDaniel
Guest
follows from previous . . .
"It is evident, too, that creation is within the competence of Omnipotence alone. The universe, which is the product of the Creator, is indeed finite, but no power less than infinite could have produced it. Finite being cannot create; its activities presuppose already existing material upon which to operate. Not being subsistent, finite being cannot even maintain itself in being, and does not control its own existence. It follows, therefore, that finite being cannot create other finite being, as that would be equivalent to causing being equal to itself. The origination of being therefore requires a productive energy which is positively infinite. Subsistent being alone can create the finite, and the gift of grace which perfects nature and forgives sins by creative regeneration is likewise possible to Deity alone.
“Thus all modes of created being, whether natural or supernatural, normal or miraculous, are finite evidences of that power, wisdom, and mercy which is triune Omnipotence.” - The Teaching of the Catholic Church.
jd
"It is evident, too, that creation is within the competence of Omnipotence alone. The universe, which is the product of the Creator, is indeed finite, but no power less than infinite could have produced it. Finite being cannot create; its activities presuppose already existing material upon which to operate. Not being subsistent, finite being cannot even maintain itself in being, and does not control its own existence. It follows, therefore, that finite being cannot create other finite being, as that would be equivalent to causing being equal to itself. The origination of being therefore requires a productive energy which is positively infinite. Subsistent being alone can create the finite, and the gift of grace which perfects nature and forgives sins by creative regeneration is likewise possible to Deity alone.
“Thus all modes of created being, whether natural or supernatural, normal or miraculous, are finite evidences of that power, wisdom, and mercy which is triune Omnipotence.” - The Teaching of the Catholic Church.
jd
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
This universe and all that is in it was set into motion by God’s will. He created it, sustains it and will one day destroy it.
But having set the plan into motion, He has determined that certain things should be mechanically predetermined. Generally He doesn’t seem to interfere even when things will cause destruction and death. On occasions He does, but even in the case of the disciples they had to be brought to a panic by the storm on the lake before Christ acted.
There’s another will at work too - that of the evil one. Oddly enough it was God who permitted this state to exist. I can only assume, even though I don’t like suffering myself, that God has a reason for letting the weeds exist, both external and internal. There are weeds that cause me external suffering eg. the evil actions of others, and there are weeds that I carry around with me, and which have the effect of keeping dependent on God’s grace eg. carnal mindedness in my case. Paul, who probably had his thought life pretty much under control, was instead afflicted by another weed, imposed by Satan, to keep him humble.
When we talk about God’s omnipotence, we have to realise that His omnipotence is directed towards carryng out His plan. He’s not going to get sidetracked into giving us sunny days on demand (although we could do with a couple at the moment - our entire Christmas period has been showers and rain), or fall over backwards in compliance to our petty wills.
He has a plan. And His omnipotence is directed towards that plan. But the sorts of scenarios which we invoke as a test of omnipotence generally have nothing to do with his predetermined plan. He simply ignores them.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
I am sure you are much more familiar with the Cathecism than I am. It was quoted many times on the board. You can find it easily.
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
I’ve been talking about omnipotence in other threads; and I think the evidence taken from nature suggests god is not omnipotent (at least not in the way theologians once believed). God creates through process, not ex nihilo, while many claim god has curative powers he’s never caused the spontaneous regrowth of a human limb (it’s always averred to be illnesses that could have gotten better on their own), and so on.
Moreover, there’s the obvious problem with evil, and the inconsistency between a loving god and the existence of evil (and claims made, which seem to accuse god himself of evil acts, like the killing of all Egyptian male infants).
The response is usually along the lines of “we can’t know the attributes of god” – which of course ignores the fact that religion is itself based on a claim of “knowing god.” If we can’t match religious claims against facts we know to be true (or have a great amount of evidence for), then what can we possibly use to examine them? I suspect religion will, eventually, yield to science (as it always has in the past, at least here in the western world). We’re already seeing signs of this, for instance consider process or “open view” theism.
If god is framed as a concept that has little logical plausibility, then I’m afraid religion becomes the natural opponent of progress. If, after all, accepting religious dogma requires a suspension of our logical faculties, then the smarter one is, the more educated and well rounded they are, the less inclined they will be to accept religious dogma. The religious commonly make the mistake of comparing intellectuals of past generations to the intellectuals of today, insofar as having false confidence in a belief that “because intellectuals were able to have strong religious faith in the past, there’s no reason to think they won’t in the future.” The obvious problem is we have far more knowledge today compared to the past. We understand cosmology and evolutionary science in ways our predecessors couldn’t even imagine. We have telescopes, satellites, space vehicles, fossils dating back over 3 billion years, the skeletal remains of 14 different species of hominid (our evolutionary ancestor), etc. We know quite a bit about how god created our universe. Medical science has also advanced remarkably. While there may be some curative power in prayer or spiritual meditation and other remarkable facts that lack explanation (and really do leave the door open for a spiritual reality beyond the natural world), and some very good arguments that give us compelling reasons to think a creator may exist, we also can’t ignore the larger body of evidence that makes the classical rendition of god virtually impossible.
Moreover, there’s the obvious problem with evil, and the inconsistency between a loving god and the existence of evil (and claims made, which seem to accuse god himself of evil acts, like the killing of all Egyptian male infants).
The response is usually along the lines of “we can’t know the attributes of god” – which of course ignores the fact that religion is itself based on a claim of “knowing god.” If we can’t match religious claims against facts we know to be true (or have a great amount of evidence for), then what can we possibly use to examine them? I suspect religion will, eventually, yield to science (as it always has in the past, at least here in the western world). We’re already seeing signs of this, for instance consider process or “open view” theism.
If god is framed as a concept that has little logical plausibility, then I’m afraid religion becomes the natural opponent of progress. If, after all, accepting religious dogma requires a suspension of our logical faculties, then the smarter one is, the more educated and well rounded they are, the less inclined they will be to accept religious dogma. The religious commonly make the mistake of comparing intellectuals of past generations to the intellectuals of today, insofar as having false confidence in a belief that “because intellectuals were able to have strong religious faith in the past, there’s no reason to think they won’t in the future.” The obvious problem is we have far more knowledge today compared to the past. We understand cosmology and evolutionary science in ways our predecessors couldn’t even imagine. We have telescopes, satellites, space vehicles, fossils dating back over 3 billion years, the skeletal remains of 14 different species of hominid (our evolutionary ancestor), etc. We know quite a bit about how god created our universe. Medical science has also advanced remarkably. While there may be some curative power in prayer or spiritual meditation and other remarkable facts that lack explanation (and really do leave the door open for a spiritual reality beyond the natural world), and some very good arguments that give us compelling reasons to think a creator may exist, we also can’t ignore the larger body of evidence that makes the classical rendition of god virtually impossible.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Geez…
God the Father is the sum situation of all opposites, all concerns, all forces.
Logically there can be no higher power (“All-Mighty”). Science merely studies and pursues what those opposing concerns are in detail. Science has no argument against God, never has, never will.
The term “omnipotent” refers to having power over all concerns or in all directions.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Clever or just lazy? No, I could never “find it easily” and neither could you. Methinks you couldn’t “google” a single source, could you? Of course not, the real reason you cannot cite an authority for your claims is simply because you are badly misinformed as to Catholic thinking.
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
With all due respect, I’m not sure what any of this means, and herein lies one problem I have with theology. What does it mean to be “all-mighty”? I suppose if we look at the world around us we might be able to rule somethings out.
Apparently, while god is alleged to have curative powers, he either doesn’t like amputees or lacks the power to spontaneously regrow limbs. Additionally god apparently prefers to create through a process (rather than what we might think of as “ex nihilo”), suggesting he cannot create things ex nihilo (or by simply “calling them” into existence, without a building process like big bang cosmology or evolution).
Considering these limitations is it logical to think “there can be no higher power”? Isn’t it conceivable that we might be able to one day regrow natural limbs through some sort of stem cell therapy or maybe something like nanotechnology? There are ways I can imagine a spiritual entity will always maintain more power than its creation can possibly acquire (but it’s not a concept that can be presented with platitudes, which lack substance). The ancient idea of a god, and the theological constructs that flowed from them, to be honest don’t seem very useful. They ignore the tough questions (after all these ideas were invented long before the science I’m referring to existed; and they obviously didn’t anticipate how far science would come).
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
It means that you are using theological words but misunderstanding their concepts.
This is merely a study and theorizing of HOW God does things. The theological stance is that without considering the total, the whole, the Holy, you cannot discern what can or cannot be done because the entirety of a situation is what determines (causes) what can or cannot happen. Without really knowing ALL possible concerns, all knowledge, you cannot know what can happen. Thus seek the true balance of all concerns, all knowledge, all potential for doing anything, “God”.
Without God, the balance of ALL of a situation, you cannot accomplish anything. Man has never accomplished anything without the balance of all forces being a part of it. God is “in” all things, omnipresent.
Science has merely been a studing how to “walk with God” more precisely. What Science can or cannot do is determined by that same balance. Science inherently knows this as each experiment ensures a “controlled environment”. Science then attempts to isolate each “force” or principle, each “Eloha” so that for any real situation, an engineer can sum the principles into a realistic accomplishment. Without that sum being accurate, even if by accident, the effort fails.
- Status