Can omnipotence coexist with free will?

[Belk]

Just as another point, assuming this God we're talking about created the universe, then the idea that something exists that is unknowable to him is absurd. He created the universe, so logically he should be fully aware of everything in it.

I don't see how that follows logically. Simply by instigating something does not mean you must therefore know everything. I instigate lots of things and have no idea where it will end up.

 

[Carmella Prochaska]

Omnipotence is unlimited power and free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. I believe they can indeed co-exist.

 

[elopez]

I'm an Atheist, therefore I don't believe God creates us as in my opinion, he doesn't exist.

However, I'm arguing from within the scope of Christian Theology. Many Christians believe God is indeed responsible for designing you. How many times have you heard a new mother call their baby a gift from God?

You may not be designed the same way as Adam was... seeing as he was supposedly made out of dirt. Likewise, Eve was supposedly made from a rib. Surprisingly, biologists have determined that this is not factually correct!

However, what's to stop God from creating a specific sperm and egg with a particular genetic code, then ensure those two meet up and implant, therefore creating you?

Okay so it is obvious to you that God does not presently create people, right? I mean if He did, we would notice something like that, wouldn't you think?

I understand that there are Christians who think God creates them, but you must also acknowledge the multitude that do not. I think my son is a gift from God but that doesn't mean I think he was created directly by God. And the fact remains we are not created in a similar way that A&E was, so in what sense does God "create" us now? And for whatever it's worth, I don't read Genesis literally, so I don't think Adam was formed from dirt. Though, I still don't think we are 'created' in an same way regardless of there being no special creation.

I am not saying God cannot do that, I am saying that I don't think He does.

Can you please cite your evidence? How do you know this?

What type of evidence? Other than Biblical evidence, there is nothing empirical to support this.

And who created nature?

The laws of nature are a result of God's first creative act. He 'set' them into motion. This is not to say that God cannot control the weather, just that He doesn't all the time.

This is false, God does lie in the Bible. For example he told Adam and Eve that eating the apple would cause them to die. This was not true, he simply got [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off and threw them out of the garden.

... Which of course you figure an omniscient God would have been aware of in advance, and put the tree somewhere that they couldn't have gotten to it. But hey, maybe God isn't a very good designer either! Is it possible to be omnipotent and still be a poor landscaper?

That isn't a lie. God said they would die, not that they would die immediately. They did die eventually, so it was true. It was also a spiritual death in that they were cut off from the presence of God.

God is aware of everything. No matter where He put the tree they would have eaten from it at some point. It has nothing to do with God or the way He designed things.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Okay so it is obvious to you that God does not presently create people, right? I mean if He did, we would notice something like that, wouldn't you think?

I understand that there are Christians who think God creates them, but you must also acknowledge the multitude that do not. I think my son is a gift from God but that doesn't mean I think he was created directly by God. And the fact remains we are not created in a similar way that A&E was, so in what sense does God "create" us now? And for whatever it's worth, I don't read Genesis literally, so I don't think Adam was formed from dirt. Though, I still don't think we are 'created' in an same way regardless of there being no special creation.

I am not saying God cannot do that, I am saying that I don't think He does.


What type of evidence? Other than Biblical evidence, there is nothing empirical to support this.


The laws of nature are a result of God's first creative act. He 'set' them into motion. This is not to say that God cannot control the weather, just that He doesn't all the time.

Then, by not acting, he's culpable for all deaths that result from weather.

That isn't a lie. God said they would die, not that they would die immediately.

Well...

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." - Genesis 2:17

If God spake those words to you, wouldn't you infer that eating of the fruit would make you on that very same day? And if the 'death' isn't death at all, but some spiritual separation, why wouldn't God state as such? Why would he use deliberately confusing language concerning a rather crucial point?

They did die eventually, so it was true. It was also a spiritual death in that they were cut off from the presence of God.

God is aware of everything. No matter where He put the tree they would have eaten from it at some point. It has nothing to do with God or the way He designed things.

If God didn't put the tree there at all, then no, they wouldn't have eaten from it. If God had had some foresight, he wouldn't have made it so that eating fruit damns all humans to hell, expels the species from paradise, makes roses grow thorns and lions eat meat, etc. If pain, suffering, evil, death, etc exist in the world because of the Fall, then God is at fault for making it that way - after all, God, not humans, set up the laws of the universe such that, if Eve ate a piece of fruit, then pain, suffering, evil, death, etc, would come into the world.

If I create a Rube Goldberg machine that beheads a mouse when it eats a piece of cheese (like an elaborate mousetrap), I am absolutely at fault if the mouse dies as a result. Likewise, God is at fault as he knowingly and willingly set the whole thing up.

Even if you don't take Genesis literally, the question of why God would knowingly and willingly create things such that suffering is the result, still stands (though it's admittedly more pertinent for Creationsts ).

 

[elopez]

Then, by not acting, he's culpable for all deaths that result from weather.

Only by acting as to cause weather is God culpable for deaths. He has no moral obligation to humanity, so He cannot be responsible for what He doesn't cause regardless of inaction.

Well...

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." - Genesis 2:17

If God spake those words to you, wouldn't you infer that eating of the fruit would make you on that very same day? And if the 'death' isn't death at all, but some spiritual separation, why wouldn't God state as such? Why would he use deliberately confusing language concerning a rather crucial point?

I think I would interpret these words as "for in the day that you eat thereof your death penalty will begin." I wouldn't think as God so cruel as to literally kill me right away. He is slow to anger and gives us opportunities. There are two deaths, biological and spiritual. Both are indeed death, just in different senses.

​

If God didn't put the tree there at all, then no, they wouldn't have eaten from it. If God had had some foresight, he wouldn't have made it so that eating fruit damns all humans to hell, expels the species from paradise, makes roses grow thorns and lions eat meat, etc. If pain, suffering, evil, death, etc exist in the world because of the Fall, then God is at fault for making it that way - after all, God, not humans, set up the laws of the universe such that, if Eve ate a piece of fruit, then pain, suffering, evil, death, etc, would come into the world.

The point is sin would have happened regardless granting free will. Only the two deaths are consequences of the Fall. Roses would have already had thorns and lions were never vegetarian. God never said those things would happen as a result anyway.

If I create a Rube Goldberg machine that beheads a mouse when it eats a piece of cheese (like an elaborate mousetrap), I am absolutely at fault if the mouse dies as a result. Likewise, God is at fault as he knowingly and willingly set the whole thing up.

This analogy is a dime a dozen. They all have the same inconsistency, too, which is they have relevant dissimilarities that make the analogy incomparable to the actual situation. One such relevant dissimilarity is that of the Rube Goldberg machine itself. That is designed specifically for death. It is a dangerous object in and of itself. Everything that God made in the beginning was inherently good and not dangerous. There was nothing special about the tree or the fruit, but it was the action itself that was dangerous and deadly.

So, God didn't really set up some death trap. He made things good, and man cam along and spoiled it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Only by acting as to cause weather is God culpable for deaths. He has no moral obligation to humanity, so He cannot be responsible for what He doesn't cause regardless of inaction.

I disagree - the concept of criminal negligence exists for a reason. If a diabetic collapses and asks for his insulin, and I, with the insulin in my hand, stand over him and do nothing, I am culpable for his death. In the real world, when religious parents withhold medicine from their children and instead put their faith in God and prayer, they're held culpable for the inevitable death.

Likewise, God, having the power to control the weather and stop hurricanes (etc), is culpable for the deaths that result when he doesn't stop them.

I think I would interpret these words as "for in the day that you eat thereof your death penalty will begin." I wouldn't think as God so cruel as to literally kill me right away. He is slow to anger and gives us opportunities. There are two deaths, biological and spiritual. Both are indeed death, just in different senses.

For such an important point, it seems strange that the Bible would espouse exactly the opposite view. It doesn't say "The day you eat this fruit you will suffer a metaphorical, non-literal death-like process of the spirit". It says, without qualification, "On that day you will die". Why the unnecessary confusion?

​

The point is sin would have happened regardless granting free will. Only the two deaths are consequences of the Fall. Roses would have already had thorns and lions were never vegetarian. God never said those things would happen as a result anyway.

No, so one wonders how suffering can exist (thorny roses, carnivorous lions, etc) prior to the Fall. Indeed, without a literal Fall to fall back on, at what point did sin enter the world? This isn't a trick question, I'm genuinely curious.

This analogy is a dime a dozen. They all have the same inconsistency, too, which is they have relevant dissimilarities that make the analogy incomparable to the actual situation. One such relevant dissimilarity is that of the Rube Goldberg machine itself. That is designed specifically for death. It is a dangerous object in and of itself. Everything that God made in the beginning was inherently good and not dangerous. There was nothing special about the tree or the fruit, but it was the action itself that was dangerous and deadly.

So, God didn't really set up some death trap. He made things good, and man cam along and spoiled it.

Suppose the machine incidentally kills the mouse when it ate the cheese. The actual function of the device is to be a piece of art. But so precariously is it placed, that a mouse, attracted to the cheese, ends up dead. The intention is all well and good, but the execution leads to death.

 

[elopez]

I disagree - the concept of criminal negligence exists for a reason. If a diabetic collapses and asks for his insulin, and I, with the insulin in my hand, stand over him and do nothing, I am culpable for his death. In the real world, when religious parents withhold medicine from their children and instead put their faith in God and prayer, they're held culpable for the inevitable death.

Likewise, God, having the power to control the weather and stop hurricanes (etc), is culpable for the deaths that result when he doesn't stop them.

Unlike the parents withholding medicine from their children, they owe the children something, while God does not owe us anything. He doesn't have to stop the weather.

For such an important point, it seems strange that the Bible would espouse exactly the opposite view. It doesn't say "The day you eat this fruit you will suffer a metaphorical, non-literal death-like process of the spirit". It says, without qualification, "On that day you will die". Why the unnecessary confusion?

The Bible does in fact state there are two deaths. The text doesn't need to say that, and nor does any other verse having "death" in it when it is referred to must, either. I see nothing confusing.

​

No, so one wonders how suffering can exist (thorny roses, carnivorous lions, etc) prior to the Fall. Indeed, without a literal Fall to fall back on, at what point did sin enter the world? This isn't a trick question, I'm genuinely curious.

I wouldn't say there really was 'suffering' prior to the fall, but rather plant and animal death. "Suffering" is a concept that is founded and experienced after the fall since it has to do with moral responsibility. There is a literal fall, a literal Adam and Eve, just not 6,000 years ago.

Suppose the machine incidentally kills the mouse when it ate the cheese. The actual function of the device is to be a piece of art. But so precariously is it placed, that a mouse, attracted to the cheese, ends up dead. The intention is all well and good, but the execution leads to death.

A machine that is designed to decapitate mice unintentionally does so? That seems to be stretching it a bit there. When it ate the cheese, the machine is set to go off, so how could that be accidentally? The intention is death. That is still unlike the one for creation as the intention was good.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Okay so it is obvious to you that God does not presently create people, right? I mean if He did, we would notice something like that, wouldn't you think?

I think if God existed, there would be rather profound evidence for that too... however, that also doesn't exist. That doesn't stop people from believing in the idea.

I understand that there are Christians who think God creates them, but you must also acknowledge the multitude that do not. I think my son is a gift from God but that doesn't mean I think he was created directly by God. And the fact remains we are not created in a similar way that A&E was, so in what sense does God "create" us now? And for whatever it's worth, I don't read Genesis literally, so I don't think Adam was formed from dirt. Though, I still don't think we are 'created' in an same way regardless of there being no special creation.

So you already have stated that you don't believe in a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis... so how can you then go on to state that God created Adam and Eve? What process do you believe lead to the existence of modern humans?

And by what standard do you use to figure out you are right and the other Christians are wrong? How do you know God doesn't design everyone specifically?

I am not saying God cannot do that, I am saying that I don't think He does.

Based on what?

What type of evidence? Other than Biblical evidence, there is nothing empirical to support this.

And the Bible is not evidence. The Bible is the claim, the evidence is what is used to support the claim. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.

Extra-Biblical sources that would corroborate what is in the Bible is what I am asking for... and from what I can tell, you just admitted there are none. So again, why would you believe it?

The laws of nature are a result of God's first creative act. He 'set' them into motion. This is not to say that God cannot control the weather, just that He doesn't all the time.

If he designed how weather works, and has the power to do whatever he wants with it, whenever he wants to.... then he is always in control.

The only time he would not be in control is if he was powerless to change how the weather works.

That isn't a lie. God said they would die, not that they would die immediately. They did die eventually, so it was true. It was also a spiritual death in that they were cut off from the presence of God.

Oh come on...

Every other passage within the Bible that states "they shall surely die" or whatnot implies that they are to be put to death or killed immediately.

Do you honestly believe God would threaten someone with death, and then after they eat the apple, his punishment is that they'd go on to live about a thousand years before dying?

God is aware of everything. No matter where He put the tree they would have eaten from it at some point. It has nothing to do with God or the way He designed things.

Sure it does, if he put the tree in a location where Adam and Eve could not access it, then they would have never eaten from it.

The whole design in and of itself is absurd, why even create a tree of knowledge of good and evil in the first place?

The very existence of the tree would suggest God was purposefully setting them up for a fall. There is no other reason to even create the tree.

 

[Sebb]

Question: Can omnipotence coexist with free will?

Omnipotence: The state of being omnipotent; having unlimited power.

Free will: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

God being omnipotent would have no effect on our ability to practice free will, unless he wills it! So short answer yes omnipotence can exist with free will, simply because he allows us to exercise it.

But scripture states there are two roads we can choose. The road to death which is in disobedience that is sin or the road to life which is obedience and faith in God for everlasting life. He has given us a very personal choice what to do with this fate. God also says that he wants us to choose life, he doesn't desire anyone to perish. But he is giving us the power to do this. I guess he is searching for treasures you can say

 

[Illuminaughty]

For example. When theologians say God is omnipotent, they mean very simply that He is able to actualize any state of affairs so long as they are not logically impossible.

Wouldn't that make logic greater than God?

 

[Crandaddy]

Wouldn't that make logic greater than God?

Not necessarily. Maybe what we know as laws of logic derive from God's nature. In fact, I think that all of God's knowledge is really knowledge of his own nature. God is omniscient because he has perfect knowledge of himself, basically.

 

[Gottservant]

Omnipotence can exist with free will, if neither one wants to interfere with other, without first exercising the initial.

For example, God wants to change someone's mind *wrong* He is not thinking of Himself, He should want to change someone's mind while using His own.

For another example, Man wants to be freer than free *wrong* God made him free, he should want to be as free as he is consistently, as that would mean he was using his freedom.

For another example, God and Man are discussing freedom, but Man wants to argue with God as if "Freedom" is his alone *wrong* if God created freedom then it belongs to every body, not just some one who uses the word "freedom" "first".