Magus55

I believe God is omnipotent, but I don't believe He can do anything. In the Biblical context ( which is really the only source we have of omnipotence in a contexual setting, cause lets face it, no human is omnipotent to compare to), omnipotent means complete and total rule. God is sovereign over everything in existence. That doesn't mean He can defy logic.

jdlongmire

pardon?

Gizmo

OK. This is omnipotence used with different meaning from that I would usually use it in. It is I think a valid definition of all powerful in that:

Power (D1): one possessing or exercising power or influence or authority

As oppossed to:

Power (D2): possession of the qualities (especially mental qualities) required to do something or get something done

The only problem I have with this is in fact your example stating that he cannot defy logic. Whilst this is a correct example, I find it misleading (as it barely scratches the surface of what use of D1 over D2 might include). I agree that under D1 of power there is no inference that he can defy logic, but to use that definition is also to except that there are other actions which God might also not be able to perform. Now I am keen to learn what other actions God is/might be incapable of - can you help me out?

Giz.

Edited to add Italicised text.

Gizmo

Sorry, it was late and I was tired. I'll try again.

You seemed astounded that I might deconvert without inrrefutable evidence of the non-existence of God. I was merely trying to point out that there is no burden of proof for a stance of non-belief. If I took a pro-evolution stance I would need to provide backup but I haven't done this.

For you to require of me evidence for my non-belief is like me requiring of you evidence for your non-belief in, let's say little green men from Alpha Centauri (personnally I believe they're orange ).

What lead me to my non-belief was a lack in evidence to support the belief in the Christian God. Similarly, if evolution lacked sufficient evidence I would not believe in it either*, I would not then be required to posit an alternative and prove that in order to stop believing in evolution.


*I use the word belief with regards to evolution here simply because if there was insufficient evidence, it would be a belief.

I hope that is clearer.

Giz.

Crucifiction

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Omnipotence


Omnipotence is having universal, unlimited power. If God is unable to defy logic, he does not have unlimited power; but is instead limited by logic.

ten to the eleventh

Earlier you claimed that because of our limited ability to reason, and the pre-exiting rule that God's actions must be good, any determination by reason that God has acted immorally is wrong. We are essentially not "seeing the forest for the trees" and no action of God's, despite appearances, can be properly judged "wrong." You say this because you have an a priori conclusion arrived at entirely through faith, independent of reason, that God must be purely good.

So, it seems that you must admit that reason cannot legitimately reinforce any assurance of God's goodness, either. You have determined that God is good independently of reason. What I think you are saying is that reason, independent of faith, could judge many of God's actions to be good, and that, because those judgements concur with the faith-derived premise of God's goodness, they are correct judgements. So your "premise" is verified by particular observations.

But from what you've said, to claim that reason and faith act together to arrive at a judgement of God's goodness necessarily means you have engaged in selective observation. Any observation of God's goodness is accepted, of badness is rejected. You have said that reason can judge an action of God to be immoral, but that when it does so, it must, because of the necessary condition of God's goodness, be wrong. And if it must be wrong, it is because there are unseen factors involved. But wouldn't any rational judgment of goodness be restrained by such limitations as well? For you to accept the findings of reason when they are of one kind, but to reject them when they are of another, is to engage in selection.

When Plato argued for his "forms," he said, "We shall approach astronomy, as we do geometry, by way of problems, and ignore what's in the sky, if we intend to get a real grasp of astronomy." He argued, similarly to you, that the "truth" was stamped on our souls, and that observation could only impede our determination of the "truth," as represented in perfect "forms." One of the "forms" to which he referred was "goodness." There was to be no rational determination of "goodness," rather, it must have been arrived at through spiritual purity, and in the absence of the cluttering effects of the real world, in which everything represented imperfect manifestations of the forms. The perfect "forms" could be understood by highly trained authorities, raised from selected children to achieve the sort of mental acuity required to grasp the "forms." They would then govern with absolute, unquestionable power the unenlightened masses who could not comprehend true "goodness" and the other concepts, such as beauty.

Fortunately for both science and government, Aristotelian "democratic" thought prevailed, and we seek to establish truth both in science and law through reason based on premises of universally accepted, but not dogmatic, axioms. Variations or expansions of "the golden rule" would be an example of such axioms. Of course, even the golden rule can be reduced farther to base axioms, the kinds of things ethicists, and evolutionary psychologists, consider.

Plato's ideas were dismissed because it was realized that any conception of "goodness" for instance, arrived at by one of the enlightened, could be countered by another's conception, and that there would be no way of determining whose conception was the "truth." When you say that knowledge of God's goodness, and His law, is "written on every heart," and that you recognize it "by faith, through Grace," you are making the same claims that Plato did, and just as unbelievably.

Comments? (on topic, that is)

10^11

edited for clarity

Magus55

Did you fail to read the other definitions? Omnipotence is also having universal or unlimited authority. And my point regarding dictionaries stands. Why do most dictionaries say omnipotence means all powerful? Because omni means all, and potence means power. Now does any dictionary actually have a basis by which to compare that definition too, or does it assume thats the meaning merely by the break down of the word?

Websters doesn't say all powerful, it says virtually, or relatively all powerful. That leaves room for there to be exceptions regarding logical contradictions. And based on the strong's definition of omnipotence, it means unlimited authority or rule - sovereign. Also,in a few translations omnipotent is only in the Bible once, and in most Biblical versions, its not in there at all. Almighty is used more commonly.

ten to the eleventh

Now where is all this going? Is the point being made that b/c God is omnipotent, He is able to do wrong? Is the response that it is logically impossible for God to do wrong? Could someone please tie this into the OP for me?

Magus55

The point is, God being omnipotent doesn't require Him to be able to logically contradict Himself.

ten to the eleventh

Yes, and that relates to the OP because?