Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In your scenario, preferences is not the weakness/mistake; unfair actions are.
The reason it is a mistake is because he was unfair about his decision making. you can have preferences without being unfair about it.
Are you equating omni qualities with our concepts of morality?
IOW ... how are you defining "perfect" ?
Yes it is that doctrine of procession that split the church. Westerners for the latter and the East for the former. Though, does this controversy deal specifically with the omni issue we're talking about? Do not both say each person has the same nature and essence?Stuff like that has always been a question. Theologians got their shorts in enough of a bunch over whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or the Father and the Son that it split the church.
Again is this relevant to the omni-properties? I still would think each side maintains each person has the same divine nature and shares the same attributes.Another big debate has been over Jesus' nature. Did he always appeal to the Father because he temporarily put himself in that condition or because he is always in that condition?
I'm saying though does it really need to? We've already deduced that all three persons must share the same attributes. The doctrine is that is they share the same divine nature.The Athanasian Creed makes a few things clear, such as that all 3 are eternal, but it doesn't go through a laundry list of omni-properties, discussing each one ... and it's a pretty long creed.
I didn't intend this thread to be a specific debate about the Trinity. Whatever the case, I think God has what is needed to get the job done.
That only works for robots. If I prefer apples over oranges, it doesn't mean everyone will prefer apples if they include all things in the decision that I did!I covered both possibilities. To prefer is to discriminate between at least 2 things. One either considers all things in making that choice or one doesn't. If one doesn't include all things in the decision, the decision is less than perfect. If all things are included in the decision, then regardless of who makes the decision, it will be the same.
Yes it is that doctrine of procession that split the church. Westerners for the latter and the East for the former. Though, does this controversy deal specifically with the omni issue we're talking about? Do not both say each person has the same nature and essence?
Again is this relevant to the omni-properties? I still would think each side maintains each person has the same divine nature and shares the same attributes.
We've already deduced that all three persons must share the same attributes.
And I don't intend for this to be a debate about the Trinity. Though depending on your position it'd be interesting. The reason I brought up the Trinity is that it relates to the OP, as each person is said to be have omni-properties. Even if we wish to not discuss that, it still has a question begged of whether or not two omnipotent beings could exist:
In the scenario of two omnipotent beings destroying each other, why is even assumed in the first place that they are attempting to destroy one another? Suppose they are not, and they get along, and simply Co - exist, doing different things each exercising their omnipotence. Just not against one another.
That only works for robots. If I prefer apples over oranges, it doesn't mean everyone will prefer apples if they include all things in the decision that I did!
Preferences are subjective because we have freewill. If we were programmed preferences would be objective and there would be a correct fruit to choose between the two.
No you didnt; You asked is it possible! I gave you a scenario of it being possible assuming they have free will.First, I made no statement that these beings had to have free will.
Neither was I.Second, I wasn't arguing the omni-being would prefer one thing all the time.
Wrong again! If you prefer apples over oranges, it doesnt mean you dont appreciate oranges, it just means you appreciate apples more.As I said, that means they fail to appreciate the other options - a weakness.
There is no perfect choice when it comes to apples and oranges; its all subjective.I said they would make the perfect choice to fit the situation.
No you didnt; You asked is it possible! I gave you a scenario of it being possible assuming they have free will.
Wrong again! If you prefer apples over oranges, it doesnt mean you dont appreciate oranges, it just means you appreciate apples more.
There is no perfect choice when it comes to apples and oranges; its all subjective.
How do you conclude preferring apples to oranges involves limited information? Please explain.I can tell you prefer exclamation points. Other than that, all you're doing is making a statement, not substantiating it. I can't see that you're indicating anything more than a personal choice, which implies limited information.
That is impossible, just like an all capable being is impossible; which is what we are discussing. I am just stating my opinion I have no way of proving it. If you disagree with my opinion; perhaps you can state why.As others in the thread have suggested, a final resolution of such things is probably beyond us. But, if you can formalize how integrating all information about a state leaves that state indeterminate, I'd be very interested in such a thing.
My left hand looks different than my right hand, but they are part of one being.
Well I know the church doesn't hold the Father as more omnipotent than the Son or Spirit. So, are you meaning to say the church thinks Jesus less omnipotent because of the procession doctrine?It gets into the whole "first among equals" thing. For example, Rome graciously offered to the other bishops that Rome was not superior, it was just the first among equals. The other bishops weren't too keen about that. Why does Rome get to be the first among all those equals and not Constantinople? No, wait. What about Antioch? etc. etc.
Same thing here. When Rome offered that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, it had "first among equals" types of implications. If you ain't the first, are you really omnipotent?
Yes. And every Trinitarian would say the same. This goes into the whole two nature's of Christ, and in such instances like this he is displaying that human nature he had to take on. Doesn't make him any less divine, or any less God, though, does it?Same issue. If Jesus is asking the Father for info, is he omniscient?
Which has lead us to where we're at now: One God in three persons.The Byzantine Greeks spent a lot of time arguing about whether the Trinity was one being in 3 persons, or 3 beings, or etc. etc. There are a thousand heresies named after all those arguments.
From the doctrine of the Trinity at that too. What I mean is that it's been deduced in general.Well, you deduced that.
I just meant the general paradox. Why need to assume they destroy each other anyway, right? In such case they'd be using their omnipotence in different instances for different tasks. Their actions, and the consequences from their actions are what would differentiate them I'd think, not that it would be impossible.I didn't mean to imply they would destroy each other. Just that it would be impossible to distinguish between them.
How do you conclude preferring apples to oranges involves limited information? Please explain.
Well I know the church doesn't hold the Father as more omnipotent than the Son or Spirit. So, are you meaning to say the church thinks Jesus less omnipotent because of the procession doctrine?
Sure the church has wrestled with the idea and that struggle continues stilll, yet we can come to a censuses that 1) The Trinity is true 2) All 3 persons are the same divine God and 3) the doctrine of eternal generation and procession is true. The only difference being whether one thinks the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or both Father and Son.No, I'm saying the church has wrestled with the issue, and it's an issue people still wrestle with. Theodicy discussions come up all the time in this forum.
Personally, I think part of the reason people wrestle with it is because Scripture doesn't give a clear, definitive answer on the relationship of the Trinity - maybe because we wouldn't understand it if it did.
The choice he makes is based strictly on which taste better.2. I'm assuming the being makes a choice of fruit because it is beneficial
If this being already knows it prefers apples to oranges, it would be foolish to go thru all that trouble to make a decision he already has an answer to. Such foolishness would be a weakness/flaw3. I'm assuming it's possible for this amazingly gifted being to maximize the benefit of its choice. It is within the ability of this being to gather all the data needed and to process that data to determine a maximum.
4. If there are 2 different beings, the maximal choice of eating an apple or an orange might be different for them. This might seem to create a conundrum for answering the question if both were perfect beings,
Ken said:No it doesnt Just because their minds are equal doesnt mean their taste buds are going to be identical
Ken said:If this being already knows it prefers apples to oranges, it would be foolish to go thru all that trouble to make a decision he already has an answer to. Such foolishness would be a weakness/flaw
No, what you're calling the best choice is actually the foolish choice because there is no need to analyze to the extent you are suggesting when you already know the answer. Omniscient also means you know which one you prefer between the apple and the orange.The best choice is a foolish choice? That's an interesting approach.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?