Omnipotence

[Ddes]

Alright, so. I've been thinking.
Most modern religions, including Christianity, postulate an omnipotent god.
Furthermore, Christianity and many other religions say God has given humans free will.
Most of these religions say that this free will is the reason for a number of evils - why children are raped and killed, why sexism is so prevalent, and so forth.

My question - couldn't a truly omnipotent god create a universe in which people had truly free will but also didn't kill children?

(Not trying to incite a crisis of faith or anything. I'm genuinely curious.)

 

[Echetus]

Well, Ive thought of this little. Why should suffering exist when God could create a world with out it. I think its a matter of faith. I have suffered alot. But in the end I dont mind it, because I have found God. His influence has been unmistakable. My testimony is light to others, that even though I have suffered I'm ok with it, as God has revealed himself to me. Further more, we are his children, he created the world, he has Omniscientence, he deemed that there was some purpose that we were gather out of this world. Like a father reers his children, so is he reering us. We couldve been created differently, but he choose these evils, these goods, this scenario for us. I guess it boils down to trust in God, his Omniscientence, and omnipotence, and all other omnis of his being.
Also, you think this is the only dimension God has? Being omnipotent, also existing beyond logic, this just happens to be the one we're in.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Maybe, but there may be other unforeseen consequences of such a universe. For instance, death is the disintegration of the composite parts of a person. Death is a result of sin (which is quite elegant, that our disobedience and disunity from God should lead to the same from the components of our selves - and from the world in general), that is our free will to choose to disobey God and disalign our will from His. Does this mean we must also be able to kill as well as to die though?
Well if another person is made of the same stuff as us (check) and subject to sin (excepting Mary and Jesus, check), then their components can disintegrate (and usually will do at some point), so really the issue is should we humans be able to be the cause of that disintegration? A vast number of things in the universe can trigger a process that will lead to the disintegration and disunity that is representative of the state of death, it is almost as if our parts are already always on the brink of civil war and only a precarious balance manages to keep it in check, the slightest thing reveals the fragility of that equilibrium and we are torn asunder. This state of war IS sin (not in the sense of anything we are necessarily personally guilty of though). If we are free to sin, we are free to promote the disunity which brings about our vulnerability to death, a vulnerability which we have to things far less sophisticated than human beings which even if humans could not directly kill, humans could manipulate.

Now you might ask if God could create a universe where we were free, but could not sin. But if to sin is to disalign ones will from God's will, to be unable to do so would not be freedom in the sense that we presently have freedom, we would not be man.

 

[Ddes]

Well, Ive thought of this little. Why should suffering exist when God could create a world with out it. I think its a matter of faith. I have suffered alot. But in the end I dont mind it, because I have found God. His influence has been unmistakable. My testimony is light to others, that even though I have suffered I'm ok with it, as God has revealed himself to me. Further more, we are his children, he created the world, he has Omniscientence, he deemed that there was some purpose that we were gather out of this world. Like a father reers his children, so is he reering us. We couldve been created differently, but he choose these evils, these goods, this scenario for us. I guess it boils down to trust in God, his Omniscientence, and omnipotence, and all other omnis of his being.

Unfortunately this doesn't really answer my question. Are you saying you think God could have created a universe in which children aren't murdered, but that you have faith that it was a good idea to create one where they are?

Now you might ask if God could create a universe where we were free, but could not sin. But if to sin is to disalign ones will from God's will, to be unable to do so would not be freedom in the sense that we presently have freedom, we would not be man.

See, it's this part I take issue with. Omnipotence implies God could create a universe in which we were not free to sin (or rather, in which we were not free to cause suffering to others) but would be still be exactly as free as we are now. And yes, I know this is logically inconsistent, but hey - a god isn't "all powerful" if he's limited by being logically consistent.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Unfortunately this doesn't really answer my question. Are you saying you think God could have created a universe in which children aren't murdered, but that you have faith that it was a good idea to create one where they are?




See, it's this part I take issue with. Omnipotence implies God could create a universe in which we were not free to sin (or rather, in which we were not free to cause suffering to others) but would be still be exactly as free as we are now. And yes, I know this is logically inconsistent, but hey - a god isn't "all powerful" if he's limited by being logically consistent.

I think that is a semantic argument.
God is truth. Truth cannot contradict itself. It's not that the law of non-contradiction is above God (it isn't) but that God in being truth is by nature non-contradicting.

 

[Ddes]

God is truth. Truth cannot contradict itself. It's not that the law of non-contradiction is above God (it isn't) but that God in being truth is by nature non-contradicting.

Yeah, but... an omnipotent god could create a universe in which man was truly free, as free as we are now, and man could not cause suffering to others, and these two facts weren't contradictory.


Also, the "God is truth" definition of god isn't widely accepted even by christians, and is in any case not really the sort of definition I'm interested in - I'm concerned more with a general-case omnipotent benevolent being.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

God Himself said He was truth, what Christian would disregard His own statement on this matter?

Yeah, but... an omnipotent god could create a universe in which man was truly free, as free as we are now, and man could not cause suffering to others, and these two facts weren't contradictory.

Perhaps you are certain of that, but I surely have no reason to suppose so.

 

[Washington]

I don't see how a god, omnipotent or not, could create a world with thinking creatures in which the will IS free. Unless it was a will that ALWAYS operated in an absolute vacuum. As it is now, all our "choices" are determined.

 

[Ddes]

God Himself said He was truth, what Christian would disregard His own statement on this matter?

I'm not sure where in the Bible God claims to be truth. Or at least only truth. Besides, many Christians haven't read the bible cover to cover. A significant number, being illiterate, can't.

Perhaps you are certain of that, but I surely have no reason to suppose so.

"Gen 17:1: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I [am] the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect."

"Rev 19:6: And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth."

"Almighty, adj: having unlimited power. See also omnipotent."

"Unlimited, adj: having no limits in range or scope."

 

[Ddes]

I don't see how a god, omnipotent or not, could create a world with thinking creatures in which the will IS free. Unless it was a will that ALWAYS operated in an absolute vacuum. As it is now, all our "choices" are determined.

I think you misunderstand "omnipotent."

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

I'm not sure where in the Bible God claims to be truth. Or at least only truth. Besides, many Christians haven't read the bible cover to cover. A significant number, being illiterate, can't.

He said "I am the way, the truth and the life". And if they can't read I am sure their pastors teach them basic doctrine.

"Gen 17:1: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I [am] the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect."

"Rev 19:6: And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth."

"Almighty, adj: having unlimited power. See also omnipotent."

"Unlimited, adj: having no limits in range or scope."

I am not doubting his omnipotence, only the fact that he can contradict himself logically. The world could be different, but "we" could not exist in a different world. Human beings could not exist and have the freedom we have now and yet suffering be impossible.

 

[Ddes]

He said "I am the way, the truth and the life". And if they can't read I am sure their pastors teach them basic doctrine.

First, I'd like to point out the difference between "The truth" and "Truth".
Second, their pastors could in theory dedicate their time to the less central doctrines, yes. Assuming they have pastors. Most churches, however, are more concerned with "This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." In my experience, anyway. In any case, this is somewhat off-topic, and it's clear I'm not going to convince you.

I am not doubting his omnipotence, only the fact that he can contradict himself logically. The world could be different, but "we" could not exist in a different world. Human beings could not exist and have the freedom we have now and yet suffering be impossible.

See, "omnipotence" implies there is nothing he cannot do. Nothing. Including contradicting himself, logically. Including creating a different world in which "we" could exist. Including creating a world in which human beings could exist, have the freedom we have now, and have causing suffering to others be impossible.

 

[Washington]

See, "omnipotence" implies there is nothing he cannot do. Nothing. Including contradicting himself, logically. Including creating a different world in which "we" could exist. Including creating a world in which human beings could exist, have the freedom we have now, and have causing suffering to others be impossible.

Then you simply open yourself to silliness. Your omnipotent god, with the ability to contradict himself, could both exist and not exist at the same time.

If this is the kind of unlimited omnipotence you insist on then I bid you adieu.

 

[Ddes]

Have I just been going on a different definition of "all-powerful" than everyone else?

 

[Washington]

Have I just been going on a different definition of "all-powerful" than everyone else?

Let's just say that I've never seen a definition or explanation of omnipotence that included self contradiction, or the simultaneous existence of contradictory concepts, such as an omnipotent god making an object both all white and all black.

 

[Echetus]

Well what Im saying is that when you have faith in God the evil we may suffer in this world is nullified in the end, as he has promised us Heaven. For some reason he did choose for children being murdered to exist. Horrible in this world yes, but God has a covenant with us, that covenant is eternal life.
Really it just boils down to trust in God.

 

[tcampen]

Logically, God could have created a world where free will remained intact, but there were no options to choose evil. The two are not interdependent. The freedom to choose does not require evil as an option. If I choose to walk or ride a bike to a friend's house does not necessarily invoke a good vs. evil decision, nor does whether I eat an apple over a banana, or choose to be an architect over a plummer. Most choices we make, in fact, do not involve the issue of evil.

Thus, it is a falacy to think the ability to choose and do evil is a necessary component of free will. If this were true, then the argument that god has free will, but could not do evil by his very nature instantly falls apart.

 

[70x7]

Have I just been going on a different definition of "all-powerful" than everyone else?

no. I understand your question and the answer to it is YES.
God most suredly can create a world where everything is cherry and no sin is developed...where no children are harmed, no stealing, no murder, etc. In fact, He has. Its called Heaven. Although God created earth, He also created free will. This does not mean however that we do not have a choice to do certain things. Yes, God does know the outcome of our choices and yes, He does know what we will choose, but He does not make us choose them. We, of free will, make that choice.
Satan is in control of this earth and the demise of christianity is the goal. God knows whats going on here and He knows what will happen. As a gracious and merciful God, He gives people the opportunity to come to know Him. Couldnt He force you to believe and be obiedient. Yes He can, but He doesnt. That is not characteristic of God Himself.

 

[Washington]

Logically, God could have created a world where free will remained intact,

I believe you're confusing free will, a will free of all determinants, with uncoerced will, a will that seemingly does exactly what it wants. But you are correct in regard to evil not being a necessary component of the concept of free will.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Alright, so. I've been thinking.
Most modern religions, including Christianity, postulate an omnipotent god.
Furthermore, Christianity and many other religions say God has given humans free will.
Most of these religions say that this free will is the reason for a number of evils - why children are raped and killed, why sexism is so prevalent, and so forth.

My question - couldn't a truly omnipotent god create a universe in which people had truly free will but also didn't kill children?

(Not trying to incite a crisis of faith or anything. I'm genuinely curious.)

God could have created a world where one group was protected, but then it wouldnt be completely free will. You could then argue about people who are adults but with childrens minds, or the elderly, animals, etc., abuse to all is horrible.