Gods limitations

[Sheldon]

Not in my opinion. Suffering has a unique purpose, it causes a person to focus on what really matters to them.

This a rather facile observation, some suffering is precisely because a person has lost everything that matters to them. You're trying to make the evidence fit the belief, rather than making the belief fit the evidence, thus confirmation bias is inevitable.

 

[Sheldon]

To improve in spite of our flaws. If humans were immortal, there would be no incentive to improve. A person could sit and do nothing all day and it would be no different than a person who is productive.

Yet theists abound who claim eternal existence can not just have meaning, but be an eternity of bliss.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Can God create a Rock he cannot lift

The answer is proven no since He MOVES THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, and therefore ALL the rocks.

 

[Brian2]

You know I can post on RF. Can god?

I don't know God can't post of RF.

Because nobody can make a stone so heavy they themselves can't lift it.

I could do that.

 

[ppp]

Seems like more of a philosophical question than religious, but I'll bite the bait anyway. All powerful would imply that God has that power. I might suggest that the limitations are self imposed, much like physics. Some things need not change, which is another characteristic attributed to "God". Unchanging - if not self imposed, thw unchanging nature natural to the existence of - like the universe.

It exposes the fact that omnipotence is actually an incoherent concept. The only way to make it work is to obscure the concept by talking about something else. For instance in the above you are shifting to issues of will, whereas omnipotence is about ability.

 

[Brian2]

What you did above is called an analytical truth statement. The question is logically absurd. It's like asking if a married man can be a bachelor.

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.

 

[ppp]

What you did above is called an analytical truth statement. The question is logically absurd. It's like asking if a married man can be a bachelor.

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.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

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.

I mean, I don't know if this is true. Classical theism pretty openly defines God as a divine simple that's internally self-consistent in its essence, so it would be strange if such a divinity undertook an action that was not given warrant to do so by its own essence. Though honestly, I have no real stakes in this particular debate. Just pointing out that traditional theism did heavily consider this question.

 

[Brian2]

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.

Do you say that for God to be omnipotent He should be able to make a rock that He cannot lift?
If you do say that, do you know that God cannot do that and if so, how do you know that?

 

[Heyo]

Unless one is one of the subset of modern theists who define omnipotence as maximal power, or all power that is logically possible.

And with modern you mean "not older than 750 years". Those "modern theists are also known as Thomists, named after Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

And with modern you mean "not older than 750 years". Those "modern theists are also known as Thomists, named after Thomas Aquinas.

Yeah, this. Clarification though, for others (if needed): the maximal power view of omnipotence being capability to bring about a set of facts about the world with a higher cardinal number than any other agent's set of possible facts is definitely new, but the all power as logically possible is very old, and found in Aquinas and Maimonides.

 

[Clear]

Can God create a Rock he cannot lift

Hi @Madmogwai

While the question itself creates (or reveals) a paradoxical paradigm, I think the problem consists in the way individuals often define "omnipotence" as it applies to God.

Sometimes there is an insistence that "omnipotence" means that God can do absolutely anything, even the illogical or irrational thing. (e.g. Can God annihilate himself and then restore himself? and other illogical things, etc). It is as though religionists are unable to admit there might be something God cannot do rather than a logical definition for omnipotence (such as God can do anything that can be done by a God or etc.)

For example, I agree with @YoursTrue suggestion that there are eternal laws that God himself cannot break and retain his current Characteristics.

He cannot for example, arbitrarily change certain moral laws and remain a good and just God. If he suddenly declared that it was a GOOD thing to torture and rape a child, and encouraged his followers to do this, then torture and rape would not suddenly be a GOOD thing, but instead, God would become an EVIL God rather than torture and rape of a child become GOOD. Certain principles have an eternal basis if one is to remain logical and rational.

In any case Madmogwai, I hope your own spiritual journey is a good one.

Clear
σεσιφυω

 

[Notthedarkweb]

Hi @Madmogwai

While the question itself creates (or reveals) a paradoxical paradigm, I think the problem consists in the way individuals often define "omnipotence" as it applies to God.

Sometimes there is an insistence that "omnipotence" means that God can do absolutely anything, even the illogical or irrational thing. (e.g. Can God annihilate himself and then restore himself? and other illogical things, etc). It is as though religionists are unable to admit there might be something God cannot do rather than a logical definition for omnipotence (such as God can do anything that can be done by a God or etc.)

For example, I agree with @YoursTrue suggestion that there are eternal laws that God himself cannot break and retain his current Characteristics.

He cannot for example, arbitrarily change certain moral laws and remain a good and just God. If he suddenly declared that it was a GOOD thing to torture and rape a child, and encouraged his followers to do this, then torture and rape would not suddenly be a GOOD thing, but instead, God would become an EVIL God rather than torture and rape of a child become GOOD. Certain principles have an eternal basis if one is to remain logical and rational.

In any case Madmogwai, I hope your own spiritual journey is a good one.

Clear
σεσιφυω

I'm curious, how do you deal with the problem of cherem in the Old Testament if this is your view?

 

[ppp]

I mean, I don't know if this is true. Classical theism pretty openly defines God as a divine simple that's internally self-consistent in its essence, so it would be strange if such a divinity undertook an action that was not given warrant to do so by its own essence. Though honestly, I have no real stakes in this particular debate. Just pointing out that traditional theism did heavily consider this question.

There are difference schools of thought on the matter in Christianity. Descartes was all about his god being able to do the logically impossible. Aquinas too, if from a different convoluted direction.

But as I pointed out before, the question of omnipotence is about ability, not about will or want.

 

[ppp]

Do you say that for God to be omnipotent He should be able to make a rock that He cannot lift?
If you do say that, do you know that God cannot do that and if so, how do you know that?

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

 

[ppp]

And with modern you mean "not older than 750 years". Those "modern theists are also known as Thomists, named after Thomas Aquinas.

Yeah. But even Aquinas had his weird twisty workarounds.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

There are difference schools of thought on the matter in Christianity. Descartes was all about his god being able to do the logically impossible. Aquinas too, if from a different convoluted direction.

But as I pointed out before, the question of omnipotence is about ability, not about will or want.

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.

 

[Balthazzar]

It exposes the fact that omnipotence is actually an incoherent concept. The only way to make it work is to obscure the concept by talking about something else. For instance in the above you are shifting to issues of will, whereas omnipotence is about ability.

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.

 

[Trailblazer]

I can't see why or how humans are supposed to know exactly what God can or cannot do.

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

Can God do the impossible and what is impossible?
What seems impossible to us might be possible for God.

But of course.

Personally I believe that when the Bible tells us that all things are possible for God, it means that all possible things are possible. But that still leaves the question of what is possible and what is not possible.

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

 

[ppp]

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 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