Does omnipotent mean God can do anything?

[strikeviperMKII]

No, logic is external to humans. We don't create it, we observe it. We create the symbols and the words to describe it with but logic isn't a human invention.

Logic is human's trying to explain the rules that our world has. It is never complete, never perfect, and is a product of our observations of our world. It did not exist until we existed. The world existed, but we created the names for certain rules that do certain things. We've found that those rules apply for a great number of things. But not everything. Our logic is always going to be incomplete. Because we created it.

 

[Meow Mix]

Logic is human's trying to explain the rules that our world has. It is never complete, never perfect, and is a product of our observations of our world. It did not exist until we existed. The world existed, but we created the names for certain rules that do certain things. We've found that those rules apply for a great number of things. But not everything. Our logic is always going to be incomplete. Because we created it.

So, before humans "invented logic," you agree that the world existed.

Was the world what it was?

For instance, was Earth itself (that is, was Earth... Earth) before humans were around to "invent" logic?

If you agree that it was, then you are agreeing that we did not create logic. We're only describing it, like a cartographer describes an undiscovered country outside of himself.

If you disagree that Earth was itself before humans existed, well, then you're just making irrational assertions.

In any case, this is a good example of how logic is incorrigible: even attempting to argue that it's possibly false (or possibly contingent, such as "Humans create it") self-refutes 100% of the time.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

So, before humans "invented logic," you agree that the world existed.

Was the world what it was?

For instance, was Earth itself (that is, was Earth... Earth) before humans were around to "invent" logic?

If you agree that it was, then you are agreeing that we did not create logic. We're only describing it, like a cartographer describes an undiscovered country outside of himself.

If you disagree that Earth was itself before humans existed, well, then you're just making irrational assertions.

In any case, this is a good example of how logic is incorrigible: even attempting to argue that it's possibly false (or possibly contingent, such as "Humans create it") self-refutes 100% of the time.

The universe's 'logic' (how it operates, whatever way that is) existed before we did. In fact, we were created from that 'logic'. We observed that 'logic' and said it was logic. The second we did that, logic was not of the universe, but our interpretation of the universe.
We created logic. The universe works the way it works. If you are trying to say that our logic is the same (exactly the same) as the way the universe works, you are being incredibly arrogant and setting yourself up for failure. Once there was a time when our logic said that they earth is flat. That it was impossible to fly. That we couldn't get to the moon. That there is no life beyond our solar system.
You can't say that any assumptions we make now, with our logic, are never going to be refuted. And if you agree with that, you can't say that our logic is the same as the way the universe works.

 

[Storm]

I am understanding this, I've grasped this.

I really don't think you have.

If we want to be good, we have to have an alternative. Without suffering and evil, the best we could hope for would be neutrality.

It comes down to personal preference: if you had to choose between happiness and knowledge, which way would you go?

 

[Meow Mix]

The universe's 'logic' (how it operates, whatever way that is) existed before we did. In fact, we were created from that 'logic'. We observed that 'logic' and said it was logic. The second we did that, logic was not of the universe, but our interpretation of the universe.
We created logic. The universe works the way it works. If you are trying to say that our logic is the same (exactly the same) as the way the universe works, you are being incredibly arrogant and setting yourself up for failure.

You're failing to distinguish between logic (the fundamental rules of reality) and logic (the symbols, syntax, words, and paradigms we use to describe the first context). We do indeed create the symbols, syntax, words and paradigms to describe logic but we don't create logic itself: it is external to us, and we just "map it out" like an explorer does to a new continent.

However, some logic we know absolutely. Identity, noncontradiction, and excluded middle are examples: not only do we know they are true, but we know that we know they are true (we have justification for our own knowledge of the knowledge, in other words: it is genuinely absolute knowledge... as in impossible to be false, contradictory to even assume could possibly be false, etc.)

Granted that doesn't get us very far. But it can't be said that we have no absolute knowledge. We do have at least some tiny specks; at least those who sufficiently understand logic do.

Once there was a time when our logic said that they earth is flat.

Not a statement pertinant to logic. Whether the earth is flat or round isn't a logical question but an empirical one. This is a VERY common mistake I notice: people confusing the contingent physical laws with logic.

That it was impossible to fly. That we couldn't get to the moon. That there is no life beyond our solar system.

Not logic, not logic, and not logic.

You can't say that any assumptions we make now, with our logic, are never going to be refuted. And if you agree with that, you can't say that our logic is the same as the way the universe works.

You're confusing logic with reason.

Logic gives absolutes, reason gives tentative truths that are subject to further evidence and refutation in the future. Logic is timelessly true.

 

[Meow Mix]

I really don't think you have.

If we want to be good, we have to have an alternative. Without suffering and evil, the best we could hope for would be neutrality.

It comes down to personal preference: if you had to choose between happiness and knowledge, which way would you go?

How is this different from asking, "If we want to be able to make vaccinations then we have to have a disease."

Virtues = vaccinations

Disease = suffering

WHY are vaccines so amazingly great that it's a good thing that diseases exist so we can... well, inocculate against them?

That's EXACTLY what your argument implies.

 

[Storm]

How is this different from asking, "If we want to be able to make vaccinations then we have to have a disease."

Virtues = vaccinations

Disease = suffering

WHY are vaccines so amazingly great that it's a good thing that diseases exist so we can... well, inocculate against them?

That's EXACTLY what your argument implies.

No, it really isn't. Now, would you like to have a productive conversation, or would you prefer to keep putting words in my mouth?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You're failing to distinguish between logic (the fundamental rules of reality) and logic (the symbols, syntax, words, and paradigms we use to describe the first context). We do indeed create the symbols, syntax, words and paradigms to describe logic but we don't create logic itself: it is external to us, and we just "map it out" like an explorer does to a new continent.

I understand the difference. I am saying that through this 'mapping process' the 'logic of the universe' gets turned into 'human's logic of the universe' Unless you are saying that our mapping process is completely accurate...

However, some logic we know absolutely. Identity, noncontradiction, and excluded middle are examples: not only do we know they are true, but we know that we know they are true (we have justification for our own knowledge of the knowledge, in other words: it is genuinely absolute knowledge... as in impossible to be false, contradictory to even assume could possibly be false, etc.)

Not argument there.

Granted that doesn't get us very far. But it can't be said that we have no absolute knowledge. We do have at least some tiny specks; at least those who sufficiently understand logic do.

I didn't say we can't have absolute knowledge. I said that not ALL of our knowledge is absolute. In fact, there will never be a point where ALL our knowledge is absolute. Therefore, there is no system of getting that knowledge (i.e. logic) will never get us all the knowledge. It is useless to pretend otherwise.

 

[Meow Mix]

No, it really isn't. Now, would you like to have a productive conversation, or would you prefer to keep putting words in my mouth?

I don't intend to put words in your mouth.

Can you explain why the analogy fails, though?

Why is virtue X (ANY virtue) such a good thing to have that it's actually good for suffering to exist in order to enable it, when all virtue X does is just diminish, alleviate, or prevent future suffering?

How is it different from saying it's good for a disease to exist in order for us to be able to inocculate against it?

Help me understand, maybe use a specific virtue.

1) In what way is that virtue NOT just a way to diminish, alleviate, or prevent suffering? (If you believe that it isn't)

2) Why is that virtue so good in and of itself that it's worth it for suffering exist in order to have this virtue exist?

3) Why would you not actively attempt to cause the suffering that this virtue addresses if you believe the existence of suffering is "worth it" for this virtue to exist? e.g., if you pick "justice" why would you not actively persue crime so that you can increase the world's justice? Why would you say it's "worth it" but then from the other side deny that you would want to actively cause this virtue to happen?

Please help me understand.

 

[Meow Mix]

I didn't say we can't have absolute knowledge. I said that not ALL of our knowledge is absolute. In fact, there will never be a point where ALL our knowledge is absolute. Therefore, there is no system of getting that knowledge (i.e. logic) will never get us all the knowledge. It is useless to pretend otherwise.

I agree with you. I can only wonder on what we thought we were disagreeing about, then?

If you agree that identity, excluded middle and noncontradiction are absolutely known and are not human creations then we're not disagreeing at all.

 

[Storm]

I don't intend to put words in your mouth.

Can you explain why the analogy fails, though?

Why is virtue X (ANY virtue) such a good thing to have that it's actually good for suffering to exist in order to enable it, when all virtue X does is just diminish, alleviate, or prevent future suffering?

How is it different from saying it's good for a disease to exist in order for us to be able to inocculate against it?

Because that's NOT all it does. Justice, compassion, and nobility make us BETTER than we were before. Suffering is only the catalyst, not the goal.

Help me understand, maybe use a specific virtue.

I would very much like to, but I'm not at my best right now. I keep saying x and you keep hearing y and I don't know where the problem is.

 

[Meow Mix]

Because that's NOT all it does. Justice, compassion, and nobility make us BETTER than we were before. Suffering is only the catalyst, not the goal.

In what way, can you be specific? I can't think of them in any other terms than simply addressing current or future suffering. Maybe I'm thinking about it wrong, can you help?

It's just that EVERY implication of these virtues appears to simply address suffering and doesn't seem to grant any privileges not related to alleviating suffering somehow. I can't think of any other benefits, I honestly can't.

I would very much like to, but I'm not at my best right now. I keep saying x and you keep hearing y and I don't know where the problem is.

Well missing the point happens, and I'm sorry about it... I know it's annoying. I'm trying to understand, and I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. But I simply can't conceive of what benefit these virtues have other than alleviating suffeirng.

 

[Storm]

In what way, can you be specific? I can't think of them in any other terms than simply addressing current or future suffering. Maybe I'm thinking about it wrong, can you help?

It's just that EVERY implication of these virtues appears to simply address suffering and doesn't seem to grant any privileges not related to alleviating suffering somehow. I can't think of any other benefits, I honestly can't.

I'm not sure I can. It's kinda like asking me what good an education is if you don't have to work. Either you value it for itself or you don't.

Well missing the point happens, and I'm sorry about it... I know it's annoying. I'm trying to understand, and I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. But I simply can't conceive of what benefit these virtues have other than alleviating suffeirng.

I believe it wasn't your intention to put words in my mouth. We're cool. :hug:

I really can't think of a way to articulate it, though. Maybe tomorrow when I'm not so tired.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

1) In what way is that virtue NOT just a way to diminish, alleviate, or prevent suffering? (If you believe that it isn't)

2) Why is that virtue so good in and of itself that it's worth it for suffering exist in order to have this virtue exist?

3) Why would you not actively attempt to cause the suffering that this virtue addresses if you believe the existence of suffering is "worth it" for this virtue to exist? e.g., if you pick "justice" why would you not actively persue crime so that you can increase the world's justice? Why would you say it's "worth it" but then from the other side deny that you would want to actively cause this virtue to happen?

Please help me understand.

I think this is the point where you need to actually participate in the virtue, rather than think it through. What a virtue does, is only seen by the person receiving that virtue.
In my experience, these three questions (and any variation of them) are the end of the road for logic. You won't get any further with it. You simply have to do it, and more than that, let it be done to you.

This, of course, directly violates all the laws of logic. That is what we disagree on. You live by logic (or at least you try to convince yourself that you do, if only subconsciously), I use it when necessary, and put it away when it is a hindrance (such as in answering your questions above).

 

[Katzpur]

Which leads me to a question to which I want your reply. On what basis and verbiage can you build the case that if God exists, and this God is omnipotent and a good God, how could he have created humans any different than he did? I am suggesting God did as He did because it was the only possible way to do it.

If He wanted to create His spirit offspring "in His image and after His likeness," I believe it's the only possible way He could have done so. The offspring of cats are kittens, and kittens resemble cats. The offspring of dogs are puppies, and puppies resemble dogs. It's obvious to me, though not to most people I am aware of, that the offspring of God would resemble Him -- both physically and spiritually.

Who will be the first to bring up suffering?

Not I. And that's a promise.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm not sure I can. It's kinda like asking me what good an education is if you don't have to work. Either you value it for itself or you don't.

Hmm. Seems to me like that isn't a good comparison because education can exist without work, but justice can't still exist without crime. When you think of a good way to explain why virtue X is "worth it" for suffering to exist if all it does is alleviate suffering I'd like to see it because I can't seem to get to any different conclusion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

*Observes in-depth intellectual debate on the nature of suffering*

*Attempts to add something to the debate*

*Fails*

Um... I agree with Meow Mix.

 

[Protester]

It is my position for this thread that omnipotent does not mean that God can do anything, but can do anything that is possible.
If God wanted to make a square circle it is asking God to do something that is non-sense and not possible. So it should be understood the phrase "with God all things are possible" inherently implies non-sense is not part of "things" that are possible. In other words, God can remain perfectly omnipotent, yet entirely unable to do things that are not possible.
One might then argue that the "all" in "all things possible" should include even things that are not possible. Which leads us to a self contradiction, which anyone with basic logic should understand can't happen.

Which leads me to a question to which I want your reply. On what basis and verbiage can you build the case that if God exists, and this God is omnipotent and a good God, how could he have created humans any different than he did?
I am suggesting God did as He did because it was the only possible way to do it.

Who will be the first to bring up suffering?

I see there should be quite a few responses to this message, but just to re-iterate, and I think I should be safe to say this should have already been said, God won't do something contrary to his nature. He is the Almighty.

While this short monograph, should answer your question, What does it mean that God is omnipotent? I'll just give you a short excerpt from the ISBE on Omnipotence:

6. Significance for Biblical Religion:

The significance of the idea may be traced along two distinct lines. On the one hand the divine omnipotence appears as a support of faith. On the other hand it is productlye of that specifically religious state of consciousness which Scripture calls "the fear of Yahweh." Omnipotence in God is that to which human faith addresses itself. In it lies the ground for assurance that He is able to save, as in His love that He is willing to save (Ps 65:5,6; 72:18; 118:14-16; Eph 3:20).

But we do not know all the things that God can do or won't do, because that is asking Can God sin? If God cannot sin, is He truly omnipotent? and it would mean we were as knowledgeable as God, but we aren't gods, What does it mean that God is omniscient?

Why should suffering have to be brought up? We can blame that on our Great, great...great grandfather and grandmother, Adam and Eve.

1 Corinthians 15
17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming,
24 then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.---Scripture Quotations Taken from the NASB

Or for a short answer, though of course not quite adequate, What does the Bible say about suffering?

 

[PolyHedral]

I really don't think you have.

If we want to be good, we have to have an alternative. Without suffering and evil, the best we could hope for would be neutrality.

It comes down to personal preference: if you had to choose between happiness and knowledge, which way would you go?

Both, and it's entirely possible to have both under certain laws of physics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see there should be quite a few responses to this message, but just to re-iterate, and I think I should be safe to say this should have already been said, God won't do something contrary to his nature. He is the Almighty.

What does "God's nature" mean in this context?