What does Divine Omnipotence really mean?

[Prodigal_Son]

I think one sign of this goodness is the general direction of evolution (not only biological evolution, but also social evolution, including the development of morals). I think if you look at this on a graph, you would see a general upward progression of human morality (notwithstanding deep downward spikes along the way).

What makes you think that the modern idea of morality is significantly better than more ancient ideas? I’ll agree that we have our virtues (greater equality of opportunity, less formalized slavery), but we also have some characteristic vices (the dehumanization of commerce, laws against banning infanticide, the triumph of license over liberty). Are these really much worse than ritual sacrifice, or selling human beings as chattel?

God created a framework where the trajectory of evolution travels a certain way, a direction I think must be interpreted as good.

I can understand that your god couldn’t create the universe as it is now all in one fell swoop, but how could he a) create creatures that would gradually become moral, without b) being able to create creatures who never stopped being moral?

If we assume god is intelligent (and I think we must assume this, or describing our creator as a god wouldn’t make much sense) then it’s logical to assume he wouldn’t have created a world where there was a substantial risk of backfire (or where the result could substantially deviate from his desired result, or where there was a significant risk the world he created would turn against him). God would want a world that reflected him, at least as much as possible. Therefore, it makes sense to believe god is good.

If I start creating a set of robots with a certain intention, I will be quite careful to make sure that they do not attack me. This does not mean, however, that my intentions are good. I agree that the creation often reflects the creator, but couldn’t an evil creator have some particular motive to create beings capable of good? You seem to be conflating intelligence and goodness, which are quite distinct.

Better or worse isn’t the question, it would avoid logical contradiction and a discriminatory result if god created a world where limbs and other organs could regrow naturally. An assumption of absolute omnipotence must assume god could have created any world he wanted to; and it must also assume that god knew this problem would develop before the point change became impossible (and in fact an assumption that there could have been a point where change became impossible itself dilutes omnipotence).

I agree, somewhat, on your point about “absolute omnipotence” being potentially overstated. But I do not see, at all, how not healing amputees miraculously is discriminatory. There is certainly a distinction involved, but the distinction is equivalent to God allowing some people to play brilliant music and others not to have that talent. Your demand for equality of healing would, if taken to its logically extreme, do away with most expressions of individual worth.

 

[James_S_Saint]

No matter what world God creates, if God is consistent, whatever life within that world will ALWAYS want for more than it has and always want for something unavailable. God is the consistency and as long as there is consistency, there must also be what is not available. Nothing can be possible until something is impossible.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No matter what world God creates, if God is consistent, whatever life within that world will ALWAYS want for more than it has and always want for something unavailable. God is the consistency and as long as there is consistency, there must also be what is not available. Nothing can be possible until something is impossible.

 

[Lutheranteach]

All of this begs the question of whether or not there is a divine plan. If God knows all things that ever happened and will happen and when they will happen than what is purpose of prayer? God will do what God is going to do. He’s not going to change his plan because it’s perfect. So I can pray all I want that something will or won’t happen but the determination has already been made? —*just playing devil’s advocate

 

[James_S_Saint]

All of this begs the question of whether or not there is a divine plan. If God knows all things that ever happened and will happen and when they will happen than what is purpose of prayer? God will do what God is going to do. He’s not going to change his plan because it’s perfect. So I can pray all I want that something will or won’t happen but the determination has already been made? —*just playing devil’s advocate

Glad you added that last bit. I was starting to wonder about Lutherans.

The issue of prayer is not [supposed to be] an issue of getting something you want, but rather an issue of asking for humble guidance, which might or might not lead to what you originally wanted.

Humility is the key, but humility (the reason for bowing one’s head), means that you are giving up your desires for sake of God’s.

The word “pray” is the same concept as the word, “prey”. It is the seeking of something, not the begging for favors, but stealthily sensing the presents of what is there. When one prays, he asks for a bit of enlightenment as to what to want for, not merely how to get what is already wanted.

Truth is often lost due to improper prayer, the lack of humility in seeking what is or isn’t true. Most often, when in doubt, a person has a preference for the answer to a question concerning truth and thus, lacking that humility, blinds himself from the answer to their prayer as to what really is true. Passion defeats prayer. Wanting defeats prayer. “The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want.”

By praying properly as to what your situation really is, what is or is not available to be had, seeking truth, one discovers that accomplishments are far more available than he thought. But it requires giving up the desire in order to clearly see. Clarity is the issue of freedom and accomplishment (potency).

 

[tonyrey]

All of this begs the question of whether or not there is a divine plan. If God knows all things that ever happened and will happen and when they will happen than what is purpose of prayer? God will do what God is going to do.

This suggests that all God’s activity is determined! That with sufficient information we could predict exactly what He will do… What happens to free will?

He’s not going to change his plan because it’s perfect.

This implies that perfection is static rather than dynamic… Surely perfection entails creativity, originality, novelty and development.

So I can pray all I want that something will or won’t happen but the determination has already been made? —*just playing devil’s advocate.

Then the devil needs a better one! Suppose His determination is to accept our prayers on certain conditions, e.g. that we prove ourselves worthy by making sacrifices for others. His decision will then depend on us…

 

[James_S_Saint]

This suggests that all God’s activity is determined! That with sufficient information we could predict exactly what He will do… What happens to free will?

“God’s activity” is a dubious new term, but God is most definitely determinate and what happens to free will is that you freely decide to walk with God or perish for not wanting to.

This implies that perfection is static rather than dynamic… Surely perfection entails creativity, originality, novelty and development.

No, perfection doesn’t involve “development”.

Suppose His determination is to accept our prayers on certain conditions, e.g. that we prove ourselves worthy by making sacrifices for others. His decision will then depend on us…

The only proof God demands is that you pay attention and try to live by what you foresee (prayer is what allows you to “foresee”).

 

[bridgeforsale]

What makes you think that the modern idea of morality is significantly better than more ancient ideas? I’ll agree that we have our virtues (greater equality of opportunity, less formalized slavery), but we also have some characteristic vices (the dehumanization of commerce, laws against banning infanticide, the triumph of license over liberty). Are these really much worse than ritual sacrifice, or selling human beings as chattel?

I do think we’re much more moral than we were a century ago; and a century ago we were more moral than we were three centuries ago, and so on. I don’t think commercialization is “dehumanizing” (indeed I think capitalism allows us to be more human than any other system, in fact it inherently corresponds with our human nature).

Probably the only compelling issue is abortion, and there’s serious disagreement over what is the “more moral” stance (but NOT a can of worms I have even the slightest desire to open ).

I can understand that your god couldn’t create the universe as it is now all in one fell swoop, but how could he a) create creatures that would gradually become moral, without b) being able to create creatures who never stopped being moral?

random mutations! In other words god created, for the most part, through random process. While he understood (at least roughly) what the final result would look like, he lacked the capacity to create in another more efficient way. In other words randomness achieves maximum efficiency, but it’s far from perfect. Indeed in evolution there’s been near total waste (99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct). Nonetheless, it is still the most efficient and best way to create intelligent/sentient life. Therefore, the general trajectory we’re on is subject to derailment by the ocassional mutation; but there is a guarantor these derailments will always be temporary (mortality).

If I start creating a set of robots with a certain intention, I will be quite careful to make sure that they do not attack me. This does not mean, however, that my intentions are good. I agree that the creation often reflects the creator, but couldn’t an evil creator have some particular motive to create beings capable of good? You seem to be conflating intelligence and goodness, which are quite distinct.

I assume the attributes of god include emotional stability (along with intelligence); and it is logical to say (I think) emotional stability in tandem with intelligence generally results in goodness. However, once again I make no assumption that goodness is an inherently necessary attribute of a god, its not. At the end of the day I really don’t have concrete evidence that god is good; I simply hope he is.

In comparison, traditional theists appeal to revelation, which they believe affirms the goodness of god (but hold an inconsistent view regarding omnipotence and divine “goodness”). I generally reject revelation, since I don’t think it’s reliable enough (and the reliability issue is too big a hurdle for me).

Continued …

 

[bridgeforsale]

I agree, somewhat, on your point about “absolute omnipotence” being potentially overstated. But I do not see, at all, how not healing amputees miraculously is discriminatory. There is certainly a distinction involved, but the distinction is equivalent to God allowing some people to play brilliant music and others not to have that talent. Your demand for equality of healing would, if taken to its logically extreme, do away with most expressions of individual worth.

I don’t think god allows anyone to be anything. I simply don’t believe he exerts that level of providence over human affairs. In other words some people become brilliant musicians because for a variety of reasons they have musical talent (it could be that mom and dad frequently played Mozart on the home stereo while the kid was in the womb, who knows). Not only are they fortunate enough, by chance, to have talent, but they realize it early enough in life to make use of it, and they have the requisite work ethic to succeed (probably because they learned the value of a good work ethic from somewhere). IMO it’s really that simple.

With regard to amputees, if we believe that god works to cure anyone (and I’m willing to entertain the possibility that he does) then it seems to me his policy against amputees (and the many who die for lack of an organ transplant donor) is a discriminatory policy. However, the real clincher is that the diseases god never cures just so happen to be diseases that cannot under any condition be cured. In other words, without an organ donor, a person cannot spontaneously regrow an organ, under any circumstances (at least not yet). Amputees cannot spontaneously regrow limbs, etc. Miracle cures NEVER involve these “impossible to cure” illnesses, rather they ALWAYS involve diseases that could have gotten better on their own anyway!

Is this a coincidence? This is how cases are built on circumstantial evidence, where eventually only one conclusion becomes reasonable. We look at illustrations of god’s curative power and see limitations (the only question is whether these are voluntary limitations e.g. god could but chooses not to cure amputees, or whether god actually lacks this power). We see what clearly appears to be limitations in the creative process, not only with regard to creation of the universe, but also biological evolution. Once again, the only real question is whether these are voluntary limitations or actual limitations. Indeed there aren’t any verifiable accounts of god speaking to anyone at any point in modern history. God has never revealed himself in an obvious way, and even where some believe god does reveal himself, those claims are easily explained by human psychology (usually).

The only evidence we have that god exists at all, apart from out of body experiences (and Plato’s logic) is revelation. However, the evidence is weak (at best). Copies of ancient documents written decades (even centuries) after the alleged events they describe took place, which few can agree on. A god who had a higher capacity to interact with the physical world could have transmitted his message using a more reliable medium. I’m not inventing this stuff, nor am I exaggerating the facts. I’m putting them all in one place, because we can only reach informed conclusions by looking at a totality of the facts & circumstances. I think here only two conclusions are logical. Either god doesn’t exist, or he does exist but he’s not omnipotent.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I don’t think commercialization is “dehumanizing” (indeed I think capitalism allows us to be more human than any other system, in fact it inherently corresponds with our human nature).

Don’t confuse or associate “commercialism” with “capitalism” They are not the same thing. Commercialism serves socialism. Get your “isms” straight.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Don’t confuse or associate “commercialism” with “capitalism” They are not the same thing. Commercialism serves socialism. Get your “isms” straight.

You’d have to explain that one?

The way I see it commercialism (as it’s normally defined) is the natural culmination of capitalism within a liberal democracy. But maybe you had something else in mind?

 

[James_S_Saint]

You’d have to explain that one?

Another thread. One of the [made] popular notions is that “Big Business” is all about selfishness and commercialism that destroys environment and happiness. The promotion was only to weaken big business for sake of creating a stronger socialistic reign. Commercialism was only a small part of capitalism that established the right for anyone to try by whatever means works to live in whatever direction they chose.

Socialism is the proposition that you live solely to serve “the greater good” (the government), you are an animal on their farm (or an insect in most cases) and what the government wants is money (i.e power). That means that the government must CAUSE commercialism by many nasty means so as to get the “fire” (chaos) going so as to produce money. Commercialism is the result. Without commerce, they cannot produce money (well, not counting printing money to manipulate the society).

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Bridge,

I enjoy this conversation, but I may not have time to finish it. A quick point, however.

However, the real clincher is that the diseases god never cures just so happen to be diseases that cannot under any condition be cured.

That’s just another way of saying that God doesn’t ever interfere in those cases. If he did interfere, then we would think that the condition could be cured (because, in fact, it was cured).

 

[tdgesq]

Yes, an act recorded in an ancient text with no correborating evidence (outside the text itself) is not a source I would find reliable (particularly considering how science has continually eroded the bible). The question is whether absence of evidence can or should be considered evidence (or at least a probative fact) in of itself?

It doesn’t matter whether you believe in the miracles contained within the Bible or as testified to by the Church. I don’t really care. Neither do you. This is supposed to be a thread about God’s omnipotence. The absence of evidence has never given us a basis to decide one way or another. That God doesn’t do something, say, drive a car in our presence, or watch American Idol with our family is not evidence of anything. Just like if you don’t drive a car in my presence or watch a sitcom with my family constitutes evidence.

I believe the answer is yes, but depending on the context. In this case there are numerous, perhaps thousands (or more) claims that god has miraculously cured people. Therefore, there is a basis to examine miracle claims, and a point of reference and comparison available to us. The pattern is god cures illnesses that could have been cured with no divine intervention (even though the probability of a cure may have been low). Indeed this general statement applies to each and every single modern miracle claim.

Who cares? What does this have to do with God’s omnipotence? It may have something to do with why God doesn’t prevent evil.

Is it fair to wonder why god has never caused the spontaneous regrowth of a limb or say a kidney, and the cures exclusively involve illnesses that could have gotten better on their own? Of course this is a relevant fact. This is the sort of pattern that forms the basis of rational thinking.

You mean that you don’t accept the evidence of such a spontaneous cure. But let’s just assume that God has never throughout all of time cured an amputee. So what? We can infer lots of things:

1. God exists, he does not choose to heal amputees;
2. God exists, he does not have the power to heal amputees (oh but wait, he has the power to create the universe);
3. God does not exist (in which case all being is an absurdity).

You are not talking about omnipotence. You want to talk about a moral issue with amputees. They are not the same thing.

 

[R_Daneel]

Before we can argue we must first paradoxically agree. And we cannot.

You will not persuade me on your own authority and I do not believe I will persuade you on either the Catholic teaching authority or U.S. jurisprudence ( first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, and justifiable homicide are all legal concepts at odds with your simplistic defintion of murder). So let’s part, friend.

Thank you for your participation.

 

[bridgeforsale]

You are not talking about omnipotence. You want to talk about a moral issue with amputees. They are not the same thing.

Sorry you don’t see the nexus between my assertion that god lacks the capacity to do certain things (create ex nihilo, heal certain diseases, etc.) and omnipotence; or that you fail to recognize that absence of evidence can be evidence, particularly where it forms a pattern that is consistent in “every case” (and is supported by physical evidence, providing an illustration of how god affirmatively performs certain acts; which is again consistent in every case). If you don’t believe these are probative and relevant facts, I simply must respectfully disagree (and we’ll probably have to agree to disagree)

 

[tonyrey]

This suggests that all God’s activity is determined! That with sufficient information we could predict exactly what He will do… What happens to free will?

All human language applied to God is dubious! What is the alternative?

…but God is most definitely determinate

                                                              How would you justify that statement?* "definitely" *seems inappropriate with the regard to the Infinite!

… what happens to free will is that you freely decide to walk with God or perish for not wanting to.

If God is determinate there is no such thing as free will.

This implies that perfection is static rather than dynamic… Surely perfection entails creativity, originality, novelty and development.

 No, perfection doesn't involve "development".

How would you justify that statement?

Suppose His determination is to accept our prayers on certain conditions, e.g. that we prove ourselves worthy by making sacrifices for others. His decision will then depend on us…

The only proof God demands is that you pay attention and try to live by what you foresee (prayer is what allows you to “foresee”).

I specified “suppose” as one example of how God **may **take into account the way we live and try to live… It is presumptuous to try to explain God’s “activity” in specific instances…

 

[James_S_Saint]

How would you justify that statement?* “definitely” *seems inappropriate with the regard to the Infinite!

It would be inappropriate for you. I know God whereas you merely have faith that there is such an entity.

If God is determinate there is no such thing as -]free/-] [uncaused] will.

And your point?

How would you justify that statement?

The word “perfect” refers to an exact match. If it is exact already, what is there to develop?

 

[tonyrey]

How would you justify that statement?* “definitely” *

You believe you know God - (and you believe I don’t know God! I wonder how you know that… Please explain what gives you such insight…) You may, of course, be enlightened but on a philosophy forum such assertions are vacuous.

If God is determinate there is no such thing as free [uncaused] will.

And your point?

You are misrepresenting me by altering my statement. Free will does not entail an “uncaused will”. It entails self-determination. A person is an agent. A choice or decision originates in the mind of a person, not in a physical event or process.

The word “perfect” refers to an exact match. If it is exact already, what is there to develop?

God is perfect but not static. If He were there would be stasis, i.e. a state in which nothing happens - including Creation. “**In **God we live, move and have our being.” God is creative and **causes **development to occur…

 

[James_S_Saint]

You believe you know God - (and you believe I don’t know God! I wonder how you know that… Please explain what gives you such insight…) You may, of course, be enlightened but on a philosophy forum such assertions are vacuous.

You **believe **you have faith - (and you **believe **I don’t know God! I wonder how **You **know that… Please explain what gives **you **such insight…).

How is you knowing that I do not know any more valid than me knowing that I do? Did I ask you to prove that you have faith to me, implying that I wasn’t going to believe you if not proven?

You are of the Abramic faithful. I am not. My sources are not from faith and my sources are not your sources.

You are misrepresenting me by altering my statement. Free will does not entail an “uncaused will”. It entails self-determination. A person is an agent. A choice or decision originates in the mind of a person, not in a physical event or process.

Since you just said it again, I don’t think that I misrepresented you. You seem to believe that you have “free-will” and by that, you seem to mean that nothing external to you accumulates into all of your decisions, that you make decisions void of deterministic causation. Whether physical or not is irrelevant.

God is perfect but not static. If He were there would be stasis, i.e. a state in which nothing happens - including Creation. “**In **God we live, move and have our being.” God is creative and **causes **development to occur…

Why are you mixing “perfect”, “static” and “development”? A perfect thing need not be static, but it cannot be in need of development, else it would not be perfect. What is so hard to understand about that? “Perfect” == “exact match”. If what it is matching is changing, then it is changing along with it perfectly such as to never lose that exact match, but it needs no development.