Keith Russell

Greetings:

Because we understand reality, and the fact that reality has limits; what is possible, makes the opposite of what is possible, impossible.

Things can act only in accordance with their nature.

Keith.

Clutch

Keith, This is exactly what's less than obvious, if Christianity is true. In that case, we understand only fragments of reality, and imperfectly at that. Even if Christianity provides reason to believe that we know that "reality has limits", it gives no reason to believe that those limits coincide with the limits of the thinkable-by-us. In which case it is unclear why conceivability should constrain divine omnipotence.

(I am reluctantly following your use of 'reality' to include what is non-actual but possible -- which it would have to mean in order for your note to make sense.)

Devilnaut

K said:
For the record i'm a he

But thanks, and yes, I really don't see how this problem can be dealt with without modifying God's omniscience, or omnipotence.

I think christians on this board could learn a lot from Amos' beliefs on the subject, because they are certainly a lot more sensical than the literal scriptual interpretations that most xians use...

Vanderzyden

D,

"Modifying" in what way? From what basis? We are presently discussing adequate, yet simple definitions.

Do you have alternative to what Thomas proposes, or can you demonstrate what being exists that may be defined by his definitions of strongly- or weakly-omnipotent?


Thanks,

Vanderzyden

Devilnaut

Well, you must modify his omnipotence to exclude his ability to control certain aspects of reality (specifically his ability to control causes in a chain of events leading to suffering). Personally, I don't see how any such modification can be made without bastardizing the word omnipotence completely. As for his omniscience, if he were truly omnipotent he could cause himself to be omniscient so this is sort of a non-issue I suppose.

I don't believe that any being exists in the universe who is strongly or weakly omnipotent, much less am I prepared to demonstrate the existence of one! Theists are the ones who claim that such a being exists, and they are the ones that must provide a workable definition of omnipotence.

Primal

Still waiting for that answer V.

Vanderzyden

Thanks for your reply, D.

Please elaborate upon this "chain" of events. I notice that you omit the concept of free agency from your exclusion criteria. Free agency would seem to be a complete isolator when considering causal "chains".

Consider this analogy: Does a parent avoid having children because they know that children disobey?

Let's agree to discard whatever notion you have of the term omnipotence. Instead let us consider existence itself, the universe, you, and me. From where did it come? Let's us presume, for the purposes of our discuss, that all of this has been created. Then, let us define omnipotence to be "unique, supernatural, creative power". Please read my last reply to Thomas and then answer:

Why is this definition insufficient?


Vanderzyden

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Primal,

He must necessarily have free will. At one time, the universe did not exist. Now it does. Therefore, before that, he refrained from creating. At a moment he choose--perhaps the very first moment of time--he said "Let there be light!" There is nothing essentially "random", or "contigent" about God's essence. It may be argued, however, that God becomes extrinsically contigent following the moment of creation. See, for example, William Lane Craig's "Time and Eternity."

God's nature and his actions are distinct. And, yet God will act in such a way that is consistent with his characteristics. This is not deterministic. His free will is preserved even while he acts according to his "nature".

Vanderzyden

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Primal

But if God could have chosen differently, and nothing else effected the process, then the decision must have been, by definition, random and contingent. If God's essence determined anything then the decision was not "free".

Besides are you now saying that the universe attained its current stay by pure chance?

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Darkblade

If god is omnipotent, then god can do absolutely anything, regardless of any logical (or any other kind of) constrictions. Those that disagree should look in the dictionary! Don’t create your own, lesser version of omnipotence. If you do, you are, in fact, saying that god is not omnipotent!

Would you worship a god that wasn’t omnipotent of your own pure (without being threatened by infinite or colossal quantities of pain) “free will”? I wouldn’t. The reason is this: all actions performed by something are either involuntary or “voluntary”. If god created everything involuntarily, then am I to worship god for something god couldn’t avoid doing anyway? If god created everything “voluntarily”, then why? Because god WANTED to. This means that god was selfish (believed god would benefit) in god’s desire to create everything. Why should I worship god for being no less selfish than I? This means that god doesn’t deserve worship if god isn’t omnipotent, which would negate god’s status as a god (if god doesn‘t deserve worship (in any form, including obedience), then it matters not if you believe in it (as a god), therefore negating any purpose in believing in it).

Therefore, the only possible true god that could exist must be omnipotent. Since being omnipotent means being able to perform actions that are impossible (as well as possible) in a logical context, being omnipotent is illogical. Why should I believe in a being that must be illogical, even though there is no proof that its existence is needed for mine to be? There is no reason, therefore there is no god.