The Problem of Omnipotence?

[lesliedellow]

Quite so. God cannot create a square circle either, but only because the phrase "square circle" is logically incoherent. It is as meaningful as "wumper trabey"

 

[stevevw]

God may not be able to be two things at the same time or make a square circle but aren't we talking about how we see things. The logic is according to our reality. As we know in the quantum world our reality doesn't fit with what goes on down there. The laws of logic dont always apply. So when you take an action the results that we would get in our reality may have many possibilities in the quantum world. We also know that particles in this world can be in two different states at the same time being as particles and as waves. The Schrödinger's cat experiment can have the cat in the box both dead and alive at the same time. So what can happen outside our reality is different and the possibility that things can be in two different states at the same time is there. Some say the quantum world is really how things exists and our reality is just a manifestation of this. If God made what we see then He certainly made what we dont see and the bible speaks about Gods invisible qualities making up creation.

What is Schrodinger's cat? - Definition from WhatIs.com

 

[Neogaia777]

It comes from saying that if God can do anything, then he can be two contradictory things at the same time.

For example, I couldn't be both married and also single. I couldn't be a mother if I had never been pregnant.

And yet, if I was omnipotent, then any sentence that began "I can't..." could never apply to me. If I am omnipotent, then I must be able to do ALL things. And yet, there are many things, like my above examples, that contradict each other. If I was omnipotent, then I should be able to do all things, I should be able to be both single AND married. And that's not logically possible.

Here's another way of looking at it.

Premise: All grown women in my household are married.
Premise: I am not married.

Now, assuming that both premises are true, it is not possible to reach the conclusion that I am a woman, because if I was a woman, I must be married (as shown by premise 1), which contradicts premise 1.

In fact the only possible conclusion that can be reached from the above premises is that I am not a woman. Since I am a woman, then one of the premises must be flawed (in this case, it is premise 2, as I am married).

God "created" two contradictory (or what was in the beginning not contradictory, but became later on contradictory things) (Good and Bad (Evil)) (the truth and the lie) what was to become, when Lucifer fell, two contradictory things, but God has ultimate control over both.

I just can't believe your saying that just because there is such a things as supposeingly two contradictory things, that God cannot be omnipotent, I'm just not getting it, I guess?

God Bless!

 

[stevevw]

What about When Jesus was risen from the dead. Even though His flesh had had died in this world He still was able to appear to people as though He was flesh when He rose from the dead. The disciples seen Him like they were seeing a person and Jesus spoke to them. But He did have the wounds from the crucifixion on Him and Thomas was able to feel them. So He was also a sort of Ghost in some ways. But because He was able to appear in this world He comes across as being able to be two things at once.

 

[Aldebaran]

What about When Jesus was risen from the dead. Even though His flesh had had died in this world He still was able to appear to people as though He was flesh when He rose from the dead. The disciples seen Him like they were seeing a person and Jesus spoke to them. But He did have the wounds from the crucifixion on Him and Thomas was able to feel them. So He was also a sort of Ghost in some ways. But because He was able to appear in this world He comes across as being able to be two things at once.

Unbelievers also sometimes ask how God could not be of this universe, yet be in it as well, influencing us. It may sound like a contradiction, but it's really not.

 

[Kylie]

God "created" two contradictory (or what was in the beginning not contradictory, but became later on contradictory things) (Good and Bad (Evil)) (the truth and the lie) what was to become, when Lucifer fell, two contradictory things, but God has ultimate control over both.

I just can't believe your saying that just because there is such a things as supposeingly two contradictory things, that God cannot be omnipotent, I'm just not getting it, I guess?

God Bless!

Let me put it this way. The laws of logic state that it is impossible to be two things if the two things contradict each other. For example, I cannot be both married and also single. Being married contradicts being single. I can be one or the other, but not both.

So, if God is ever required to be two contradictory things (such as "able to lift the rock" and "unable to lift the rock") then one of the following must apply:

1. God does not exist.
2. God is not bound by the laws of logic.

Take your pick. 1 or 2?

 

[Neogaia777]

What about When Jesus was risen from the dead. Even though His flesh had had died in this world He still was able to appear to people as though He was flesh when He rose from the dead. The disciples seen Him like they were seeing a person and Jesus spoke to them. But He did have the wounds from the crucifixion on Him and Thomas was able to feel them. So He was also a sort of Ghost in some ways. But because He was able to appear in this world He comes across as being able to be two things at once.

When he appeared to the apostles in the flesh as a different looking man that they didn't recognize until they broke bread together, that form, a human body different in appearance from what they previously knew, he appeared to them in the flesh and there were no holes in this strangers hands or feet, this was one form he could take, but he also showed them his true form, appeared in his spirit body that gleamed like the sun, this form was different from the fleshly form (which he could also manifest himself as)

His spirit form shows the scars on him as proof of who he is) But He took two different forms as/when he was resurrected, he could take the fleshly form of a stranger with no scars, which most of us don't even recognize, and the Spirit form, which does show his scars and is like (looks like) his old self when he was here on earth with the apostles/disciples.

Try to remember that the next time you meet a homeless or down and out stranger that you'll more than likely never see again, one of them just might be Jesus, you never know, but I believe he does work this way sometimes...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Let me put it this way. The laws of logic state that it is impossible to be two things if the two things contradict each other. For example, I cannot be both married and also single. Being married contradicts being single. I can be one or the other, but not both.

So, if God is ever required to be two contradictory things (such as "able to lift the rock" and "unable to lift the rock") then one of the following must apply:

1. God does not exist.
2. God is not bound by the laws of logic.

Take your pick. 1 or 2?

"2"

Our logic is formed by what we can currently observe, up till now It been pretty predictable and seemingly sound and reliable, but recently what we are observing in lets say quantum physics is making us question and reevaluate our logic.

Our logic if flawed and the arena of quantum physics is showing us that. So God is not bound by our flawed logic, just as some particles in quantum physics break the rules of physics (laws of logic) So, does God exceed our limited logic, some of which is being made to be questioned by quantum physics anyway.

God Bless!

 

[Kylie]

"2"

Our logic is formed by what we can currently observe, up till now It been pretty predictable and seemingly sound and reliable, but recently what we are observing in lets say quantum physics is making us question and reevaluate our logic.

Our logic if flawed and the arena of quantum physics is showing us that. So God is not bound by our flawed logic, just as some particles in quantum physics break the rules of physics (laws of logic) So, does God exceed our limited logic, some of which is being made to be questioned by quantum physics anyway.

God Bless!

Well, actually, the laws of logic do hold, even in the quantum mechanical. They are just a bit different to what we normally experience. But once you know them, they work just fine. It's not a case of quantum mechanics being illogical. There's a ton of stuff that we know about QM, and we wouldn't know anything at all about it if it was all illogical.

But I'm still guessing that you would choose option 2 anyway, yes? God is not bound by logic? God can do things that are logically impossible, yes?

 

[Neogaia777]

Well, actually, the laws of logic do hold, even in the quantum mechanical. They are just a bit different to what we normally experience. But once you know them, they work just fine. It's not a case of quantum mechanics being illogical. There's a ton of stuff that we know about QM, and we wouldn't know anything at all about it if it was all illogical.

But I'm still guessing that you would choose option 2 anyway, yes? God is not bound by logic? God can do things that are logically impossible, yes?

Yes, Thank you for your replies,

God Bless!

 

[Kylie]

Yes, Thank you for your replies,

God Bless!

Okay, so if we agree that God can do the logically impossible, why doesn't he make me believe in him?

 

[Radagast]

Okay, so if we agree that God can do the logically impossible

Neither Christians generally nor Christians on this thread agree that at all.

"All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, "God can do all things," is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent. Now according to the Philosopher (Metaph. v, 17), a thing is said to be possible in two ways.

First in relation to some power, thus whatever is subject to human power is said to be possible to man.

Secondly absolutely, on account of the relation in which the very terms stand to each other. Now God cannot be said to be omnipotent through being able to do all things that are possible to created nature; for the divine power extends farther than that. If, however, we were to say that God is omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible to His power, there would be a vicious circle in explaining the nature of His power. For this would be saying nothing else but that God is omnipotent, because He can do all that He is able to do.

It remains therefore, that God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely; which is the second way of saying a thing is possible." -- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1:25:3

To say that God cannot do the logically impossible is not to limit His power, because the logically impossible is not a thing.

 

[stevevw]

Okay, so if we agree that God can do the logically impossible, why doesn't he make me believe in him?

Then He would be taking something from you for that to happen. Everything comes at a cost.

 

[Aldebaran]

Okay, so if we agree that God can do the logically impossible, why doesn't he make me believe in him?

He wants you to believe in Him by choice. You have to make that choice because nobody can make it for you. We can't, and God won't. It has to be yours. It's part of having free will.

 

[Tree of Life]

Okay, so if we agree that God can do the logically impossible, why doesn't he make me believe in him?

How is you believing in God logically impossible?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Agreed. Even parents don't want children who obey without free will. There would be no such thing as love, but rather only unwilling obedience.

If I were omnipotent, I would have created a child with free will that only chose to to do good and loving things.

Just like any omnipotent god could...

 

[Aldebaran]

If I were omnipotent, I would have created a child with free will that only chose to to do good and loving things.

Just like any omnipotent god could...

Good for you!

 

[stevevw]

If I were omnipotent, I would have created a child with free will that only chose to to do good and loving things.

Just like any omnipotent god could...

Thats a contradiction in itself. How can you create someone to only do one thing yet have free will at the same time.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Thats a contradiction in itself. How can you create someone to only do one thing yet have free will at the same time.

It's not a contradiction at all. Never choosing a particular option isn't the same as not having the ability to choose that option. For example, I'll never choose to molest a child. It doesn't mean I'm unable to choose to molest a child, it's the case that I won't. So if you believe that I have free will, then you have to accept that we can be limited in the things we choose but retain free will. Or you deny my free will, which brings up a whole host of issues for most theists.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's not a contradiction at all. Never choosing a particular option isn't the same as not having the ability to choose that option. For example, I'll never choose to molest a child. It doesn't mean I'm unable to choose to molest a child, it's the case that I won't. So if you believe that I have free will, then you have to accept that we can be limited in the things we choose but retain free will. Or you deny my free will, which brings up a whole host of issues for most theists.

You may choose never to molest a child, but that's you excercising your own free will. Other people use their free will, which is to molest a child. You and the child molester are created with the same free will. The two of you just choose to use it differently.