Gods limitations

[ppp]

The universe and how it operates, complete with physics - natural set in stone laws of nature would be omnipotent all powerful in contrast to anything else, including vain philosophical meandering such as the question presented in the opening post.

Speaking of grammatical meandering. Omnipotence is an absolute. Not a comparator.

 

[Brian2]

We can't know and it would be very presumptuous for us to believe we can know what God can do.

And yet we do say that God cannot do the logically impossible.
Do you think that is unnecessarily limiting God's power because of our logic, or is out logic sound?

Agreed. The Bible is correct, but we still don't know what those 'things' are.

The Bible says that God can do all things and does not say "God can do all things that are logically possible"
Logically impossible does seem like a good place to draw the line as to the extent of God's power however. That would mean that we would be presuming that is what Jesus meant when he said all things are possible for God.
Matt 17:20 He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."
Genesis 11:6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.

We assume at least that with these verses.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

I can see how you might think that of Aquinas. I don't agree, but I can comprehend it. But Descartes? Mr God could make 2x4=9...no way

It's a view that originates with Peter Geach and Harry Frankfurt (iirc?), but RR La Croix argues that it's wrong to attribute this view to Descartes in a fairly influential article, and I tend to agree with him. "Descartes on God's Ability to Do the Logically Impossible" by R.R. La Croix. Croix brings out pretty clear evidence that Descartes rejects the idea that eternal truths can be changed by God.

As for Aquinas, I don't know how interpretative disagreement can arise. See Summa Theologiae, Ia, 25, 3;

It remains therefore, that God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely; which is the second way of saying a thing is possible. For a thing is said to be possible or impossible absolutely, according to the relation in which the very terms stand to one another, possible if the predicate is not incompatible with the subject, as that Socrates sits; and absolutely impossible when the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject, as, for instance, that a man is a donkey.​

 

[Balthazzar]

Descartes' ontological argument is not that his God is able to do everything, but that his God has infinite formal reality i.e. has all possible attributes that can be attributed of a substance. This is decidedly not a view of omnipotence of logical impossibility.

Similarly, Aquinas doesn't have a logical violation view, and considering that he endorsed divine simplicity, it would be absurd to believe that he did. He's quite clear that any divine agent cannot bring about impossible states since it is impossible for an agent to bring about states of affairs that violate the principle of non-contradiction.

I've never read Descartes but considering omnipotence, the only omnipotent thing I know of would apply to the infinite universe, or all things, which might help make the case for what you stated Descartes brought to the table. Improbable fallacies dont follow logical lines of reason, nor natural law inherent to what exists. The universe exists of which we exist in and as, and as individual attributes of the whole.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

I've never read Descartes but considering omnipotence, the only omnipotent thing I know of would apply to the infinite universe, or all things, which might help make the case for what you stated Descartes brought to the table. Improbable fallacies dont follow logical lines of reason, nor natural law inherent to what exists. The universe exists of which we exist in and as, and as individual attributes of the whole.

No, Descartes is clear that God is other than the universe, since he thinks existence is an attribute of God whereas the universe, being created, is contingent upon God's action.

 

[Brian2]

No. I am saying that omnipotence is self-contradictory and therefore impossible. Whether or not there is a god is irrelevant.

You seem to have purposely defined omnipotence in such a way that it is self contradictory and therefore impossible.
I presume that you do that just so you can say that omnipotence is self contradictory and impossible and draw implication from that about and God that claims omnipotence.
Do you really think that omnipotence, having unlimited power, means that the omnipotent one can do what is actually impossible to do, or are you playing a game?

 

[ppp]

It's a view that originates with Peter Geach and Harry Frankfurt (iirc?), but RR La Croix argues that it's wrong to attribute this view to Descartes in a fairly influential article, and I tend to agree with him. "Descartes on God's Ability to Do the Logically Impossible" by R.R. La Croix. Croix brings out pretty clear evidence that Descartes rejects the idea that eternal truths can be changed by God.

I will check it out. It's going to be hard to argue when Descartes explicitly cites events that necessitate logical contractions, then says that God can do that.

 

[Balthazzar]

Speaking of grammatical meandering. Omnipotence is an absolute. Not a comparator.

OK, so it's absolute and comparative-

 

[Balthazzar]

No, Descartes is clear that God is other than the universe, since he thinks existence is an attribute of God whereas the universe, being created, is contingent upon God's action.

Like I stated, I never read him, but I am a panentheist.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So if you drink a big old glass of cyanide then you are not actually drinking a big old glass of cyanide. You are actually doing nothing?

Lolol

I'm not God. Think about it. If God could end himself, he would not be God. He would be less than all powerful if it were possible to harm him or erase him.

 

[firedragon]

Yes it's hard to work out if some atheists realise the absurdity of the question. I know with other questions and topics that seem just as absurd to me, there is serious debate about from people.
Of course I'm sure they see me as only seeing what I want to see also.

But actually informed atheists don't make this kind of argument.

 

[Trailblazer]

And yet we do say that God cannot do the logically impossible.
Do you think that is unnecessarily limiting God's power because of our logic, or is out logic sound?

I do not believe that God is subject to human logic. God might operate according to His own kind of logic, but that logic is not something that humans can ever understand.

Everything in this physical world is subject to the rules of logic but the rules of logic do not apply to God. God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can ever be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. As the Bible says, no one has ever seen God (John 1:18, 1 John 4:12, John 5:37, 1 Timothy 6:16). God can never be subject to human logic because one cannot encapsulate an infinite God with the finite human mind.

The Bible says that God can do all things and does not say "God can do all things that are logically possible"
Logically impossible does seem like a good place to draw the line as to the extent of God's power however.

I do not believe we can draw a line on God's power because we cannot ever know what God is capable of. Only God knows what He is capable of.
Logically possible? Perhaps you have been listening to atheists for too long, you and me both.

That would mean that we would be presuming that is what Jesus meant when he said all things are possible for God.
Matt 17:20 He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

I don't think that Jesus meant that we could actually move a mountain I think He meant that figuratively to demonstrate how important it is to have faith, and even a little faith is very powerful.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

Like I stated, I never read him, but I am a panentheist.

Right, I think your view is somewhere closer to Spinoza, but Descartes would deny this.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

I will check it out. It's going to be hard to argue when Descartes explicitly cites events that necessitate logical contractions, then says that God can do that.

At the very least its an interesting paper worth considering, even if you don't agree with it!

 

[firedragon]

Yup. Absurd. Because "omnipotence" is like stating that a married man can be a bachelor. Unless one is one of the subset of modern theists who define omnipotence as maximal power, or all power that is logically possible.

The question is like asking if a married man can be a bachelor. Directly.

Saying God can do anything does not mean he can do illogical things. That's why most atheist scholars don't make that kind of silly argument. They know that asking if a square can be a triangle if God wanted it to be is nonsensical.

 

[ppp]

You seem to have purposely defined omnipotence in such a way that it is self contradictory and therefore impossible.

It may seem that way to you, but it is theists who do the defining. Watch your fellow theists on this debates forum for examples. Check out the arguments for the problem of evil. I have already acknowledged that there are multiple schools of thought on what how omnipotence is defined. In fact I made that acknowledgment in a post that you directly replied to. Please. Pay attention.

I presume that you do that just so you can say that omnipotence is self contradictory and impossible and draw implication from that about and God that claims omnipotence.

You know you do this every time. You present your arguments and assertions. They are disassembled one by one. Then you accuse the person of just wanting to be a big meanie with dark dastardly motives. '

I would look kinda hot in this...

 

[ppp]

I'm not God.

Can you prove that?

He would be less than all powerful if it were possible to harm him or erase him.

If he were unable to harm himself, then that would be something that your god does not have the power to do.

Out of curiosity, is your god unable to violate the rules of logic? I am asking about ability. Not willingness.

 

[ppp]

The question is like asking if a married man can be a bachelor. Directly.

Saying God can do anything does not mean he can do illogical things. That's why most atheist scholars don't make that kind of silly argument. They know that asking if a square can be a triangle if God wanted it to be is nonsensical.

Dearest Firedragon,

If you are not going to read my post, then don't pretend you are replaying to it.

Thanks,
The Policy

 

[Balthazzar]

Right, I think your view is somewhere closer to Spinoza, but Descartes would deny this.

Cool ... I don't know much about Spinoza either. I figure the "I am that I am" written in the OT along with what's written in Acts would clarify God's reality, and also the "all and in all" part written in there also. Was Descartes limited in biblical literacy?

 

[Notthedarkweb]

Cool ... I don't know much about Spinoza either. I figure the "I am that I am" written in the OT along with what's written in Acts would clarify God's reality, and also the "all and in all" part written in there also. Was Descartes limited in biblical literacy?

No, Descartes was a devout Catholic and the doctrine of God's otherness is dogma (in the specific Christian sense of the term) in the creedal Churches, especially the RCC.