Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Shuma and Dogma beat me to the two big holes in the argument.

Knowledge is not causation. I know that when I see lightning, there will be thunder. I don't cause the thunder though.

God isn't the most powerful being in the monotheistic metaphysics: he exists beyond power. Why can god simultaneously create us, know the outcome, and still give us free will? Because he can break the rules! Its the same way he can create matter out of void, start time, etc.

If these answers sound a little mystical, it's because they are. Assuming a god that preexisted creation, and exists beyond and above it, is inherently mystical.

I don't cause the thunder though.

Sometimes I do

(apologies for imposing a fart joke in the middle of a philosophical debate)

The Dreadnote wrote:I don't really fancy having another big debate about free will, but since God was mentioned I thought I'd leave this here:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

- Epicurus

Thing is, there's natural, logical limits to omnipotence. If a being endeavoured to create a rock so heavy even he couldn't lift it... he can't have both. Either he has the power to create the rock, or he has the power to lift it.

Free will exists on the same level, because He can't give us free will without that granting us the ability to do evil. To remove the possibility of evil is to remove free will.

sebster wrote:Thing is, there's natural, logical limits to omnipotence.

Nope. Not even close. Why would the thing that creates the rules for logic be bound by them? Why would a being that's not natural care about natural limits?

Don't follow your reasoning Sebster.

Omnipotence is taken to mean all powerful
There is no natural limit, as there is no limit at all to God's potency.
He needs not the holy viagra.

sebster wrote:
Thing is, there's natural, logical limits to omnipotence. If a being endeavoured to create a rock so heavy even he couldn't lift it... he can't have both. Either he has the power to create the rock, or he has the power to lift it.

The 3 O argument (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) isn't something that applies to beings of any realistic sort. By granting something the ability too see everything, and make all the right decisions you're effectively talking about a natural "force" of the same kind as gravity or electromagnetism. These things will always react in largely the same way given a certain set of variables, and so would a 3 O God. The thing about this is that, just as a 3 O God defines the principles of reality, it would also define the principles of physics such that its actions would be universally definitive of our environment.

As such, a 3 O God can't create a rock too heavy to lift because, even it were impossible given a certain set of properties in our environment, those same properties would be subject to modification by a 3 O; most likely in a fashion that was consistent with what it "chose" to do.

Omnipotence should not have limitations, as that would mean omnipotence is impossible- simply a theoretical concept that could not be logically achievable.

Well, for all intents and purposes it probably is. That's why its confined to theology.

Polonius wrote:Nope. Not even close. Why would the thing that creates the rules for logic be bound by them? Why would a being that's not natural care about natural limits?

Okay. So can that being create a rock so heavy that even it can't lift it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Don't follow your reasoning Sebster.

The reasoning is that omnipotence has logical limitations. That no matter how great the power you grant to God, there is a point where even He cannot eat his cake and still have it to look at.

That can then be extended to free will, and to the question of evil in the universe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:The 3 O argument (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) isn't something that applies to beings of any realistic sort. By granting something the ability too see everything, and make all the right decisions you're effectively talking about a natural "force" of the same kind as gravity or electromagnetism. These things will always react in largely the same way given a certain set of variables, and so would a 3 O God. The thing about this is that, just as a 3 O God defines the principles of reality, it would also define the principles of physics such that its actions would be universally definitive of our environment.

As such, a 3 O God can't create a rock too heavy to lift because, even it were impossible given a certain set of properties in our environment, those same properties would be subject to modification by a 3 O; most likely in a fashion that was consistent with what it "chose" to do.

Except, by the argument for free will, God has created a rock so heavy even he can't lift it. He's granted us free will, and with that comes the ability to do evil.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:Omnipotence should not have limitations, as that would mean omnipotence is impossible- simply a theoretical concept that could not be logically achievable.

That's the point, basically.

dogma wrote:Well, for all intents and purposes it probably is. That's why its confined to theology.

Well, I am sure there are claims of some secular dirt-dwellers with omnipotence...

Okay. So can that being create a rock so heavy that even it can't lift it?

It would then lift it despite not being capable. Then to really get you it might both lift and not lift it then change the concept of lifting without altering it's perceived meaning even if it's new form is entirely dissimilar from the previous. It can do this because it's lot defined by logica structure and can "naturally" change the "nature" of such a structure.

The reasoning is that omnipotence has logical limitations. That no matter how great the power you grant to God, there is a point where even He cannot eat his cake and still have it to look at.

I don't understand the reasoning behind claiming that something with enough mastery over existence and reality can't both have it's cake and eat it too by simply wanting to do so. Or have it's cake, lose it's cake, and eat it's cake simultaneously. You seem to be putting a ceiling on something that doesn't conceptually have one.

That's the point, basically.

But thats not what the definition is.

If an immovable object and an unstoppable force knock over a tree in the forest and it lands on someone arguing metaphysics on a wargaming forum, does anyone care?

Monster Rain wrote:If an immovable object and an unstoppable force knock over a tree in the forest and it lands on someone arguing metaphysics on a wargaming forum, does anyone care?

More then they care about your opinion on the deffrolla rule.

Not that I have studied Divinity but as I understand the theology God is beyond human comprehension.

The argument of the rock applies only to our limited world.
God is transcendant of our limitations. Hence the 3 O's as Dogma puts it.
God acts from eternity which is Nowhere/Now Here

Omniscience etc is limitless
you can't have more than all
God is the all and yet transcends the all
that's all folks

ShumaGorath wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:If an immovable object and an unstoppable force knock over a tree in the forest and it lands on someone arguing metaphysics on a wargaming forum, does anyone care?

More then they care about your opinion on the deffrolla rule.

Shows what you know.

That's been FAQed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Not that I have studied Divinity but as I understand the theology God is beyond human comprehension.

The argument of the rock applies only to our limited world.
God is transcendant of our limitations. Hence the 3 O's as Dogma puts it.
God acts from eternity which is Nowhere/Now Here

Omniscience etc is limitless
you can't have more than all
God is the all and yet transcends the all
that's all folks

There's only one "everything."

ShumaGorath wrote:It would then lift it despite not being capable. Then to really get you it might both lift and not lift it then change the concept of lifting without altering it's perceived meaning even if it's new form is entirely dissimilar from the previous. It can do this because it's lot defined by logica structure and can "naturally" change the "nature" of such a structure.

Which is an answer. But it isn't the only answer.

I don't understand the reasoning behind claiming that something with enough mastery over existence and reality can't both have it's cake and eat it too by simply wanting to do so. Or have it's cake, lose it's cake, and eat it's cake simultaneously. You seem to be putting a ceiling on something that doesn't conceptually have one.

You're claiming that no such ceiling can exist. Which is something you cannot know.

Given that people have offered belief in an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God, but also observed evil in the world, one possible explanation is that a being with all possible power may still have not have the power to do all things, because somethings remain a logical impossibility. In this case, God cannot grant man free will, including the will to do evil, and protect all other men from that evil. That would be one of those logical impossibilities.

Given that people have offered belief in an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God, but also observed evil in the world, one possible explanation is that a being with all possible power may still have not have the power to do all things, because somethings remain a logical impossibility. In this case, God cannot grant man free will, including the will to do evil, and protect all other men from that evil. That would be one of those logical impossibilities.

Is it actually stated in scripture that god is omnibenevolent? The other two are definitely in there, but there is a significant amount of imoral action directly undertaken by god in those books. Also, I suppose I was arguing more from the position of the term omnipotent which means "almighty" or "infinite in power" both of which imply a lack of limits. Both sides of the argument can certainly exist, though omnipotence does not function logically when it is constrained by logic, making it an impossibility and thus making it a poor definition by which to consider an omnipotent being.

sebster wrote:
Except, by the argument for free will, God has created a rock so heavy even he can't lift it. He's granted us free will, and with that comes the ability to do evil.

Not necessarily, as a 3 O God can create any sort of universe that it so desired. You can have free will without the ability to do evil if evil simply doesn't exist. There are a number of ways that this could be accomplished, ranging from the provision of supernatural immorality, to the elimination of the unpleasant aspects inherent in evil such that it no longer resembles evil at all.

In essence, its not that God can't do what you describe, its that God simply doesn't do it.

Personally, I think its easier to simply posit that the Big Guy is not a 3 O God, but merely really powerful, wise, and perceptive; though strictly speaking merely eliminating the quality of omnipotence cleans up most of the problems. But that doesn't jive with traditional Christian theology.

There is another argument that states that omnipotence and omnibenevolence are conflicting ideas because an omnipotent being would be omnibenevolent simply because benevolence would be whatever it chose to be by its own decree, which kind of throws a wrench in the works insofar as we're talking about consistent ideas of God.

dogma wrote:

Personally, I think its easier to simply posit that the Big Guy is not a 3 O God, but merely really powerful, wise, and perceptive; though strictly speaking merely eliminating the quality of omnipotence cleans up most of the problems. But that doesn't jive with traditional Christian theology.

How far back are we talking "traditional Christian theology," as medieval Christian theologans attempted to describe the omnipotence of God. Failing to do so, they simply shrug and say "We cannot describe the full glory of our Lord (We don't know)."

there is also Omnipresence so you need more O's Dogma

WarOne wrote:
How far back are we talking "traditional Christian theology," as medieval Christian theologans attempted to describe the omnipotence of God. Failing to do so, they simply shrug and say "We cannot describe the full glory of our Lord (We don't know)."

Well, there's a difference between refusing the idea that a property describes God, and acknowledging one's inability to understand it; witness the Trinity.

God is described as omnipotent in the Bible. The majority of debates regarding the matter reinterpret the meaning of the term; usually distinguishing power as a manifestation of force, and power as a manifestation of ability. The basic idea is that omnipotence only references God's ability to do anything physically possible where the physical is understood in the Platonic sense, which is also the colloquial one.

There's also an argument which posits that things that exist have a nature, and that in order to define that nature they must act, if they can act in accordance with their nature then the thing that created them does no have absolute power. This is because a being with absolute power still be limited by its own nature, and so would lack the ability to go against itself in denying free will to man (assuming it has given free will to man). This also ties in with the problems inherent in combining omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

The Bible never specifically states that God is omnipotent. It does use the term El shadai "allmighty". In fact the Bible says that God cannot lie, God cannot sin. So the Bible refers to Gods nature, and God cannot do things outside of His nature.

By the way the "Can God create a rock that he can't lift" thing is as old as Aristotle.

Can God create a spherical triangle? Can God make 2+2 = 3? Can God divide by 0? Can God create a sandwich too big for him to eat? If God is infinite can he make himself finite? All of these questions are similar in nature.

dogma is a logistician so maybe he can shed light on this..but aren't these things logically impossible?

So the real question is, can God do things that are logically impossible.

If we say that God is the only infinite being... can he create another infinite thing? For example the aforementioned infinite rock. The rock would have to be infinite in order for it to be too big for God to lift.

Logically impossible.



As to Mr. mystery's question...he is basically asking why does God create men, when he knows that some of those men he creates will be condemned to hell. It's kind of ironic because I was pondering the same question myself a few days ago. In fact I was taking it bit further than that. Why does God create people that will never hear the gospel, and therefore never get a chance to know that Jesus exists. It is a theological conundrum for sure. Is it possible that God set it up, so that people that he foresaw would be believers, were born at the right places and right times? It's possible but is it the answer? I don't know.

I'm not a calvinist, but a calvinist would say that Christians are predestined from the foundation of the world to become believers, and all others are the "tares" that grow up with with the wheat. That is a hard teaching, and I have a hard time accepting that approach. (in fact I don't totally accept it)

Jehovas witness' have a problem with this as well, and they just do away with hell in their doctrine completely, which is in error because hell is a place clearly talked about, and described by Jesus and others in the Bible.

We also don't know what hell is "exactly" by the way.

GG

ShumaGorath wrote:Is it actually stated in scripture that god is omnibenevolent?

I don't know, I'm not all that well read when it comes to religion. The folk who are will likely come along to point out passages for you, no doubt.

The other two are definitely in there, but there is a significant amount of imoral action directly undertaken by god in those books. Also, I suppose I was arguing more from the position of the term omnipotent which means "almighty" or "infinite in power" both of which imply a lack of limits. Both sides of the argument can certainly exist, though omnipotence does not function logically when it is constrained by logic, making it an impossibility and thus making it a poor definition by which to consider an omnipotent being.

I know that the argument that evil exists because God granted man free will is a Catholic teaching, so they certainly consider free will a limit on God's power to exercise his omni-benevolence.

I think you can consider a being all powerful if it has all the power which is possible, even if it lacks powers that are logically impossible. It wouldn't be the only possible definition, but it would be a perfectly reasonable one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:In essence, its not that God can't do what you describe, its that God simply doesn't do it.

Personally, I think its easier to simply posit that the Big Guy is not a 3 O God, but merely really powerful, wise, and perceptive; though strictly speaking merely eliminating the quality of omnipotence cleans up most of the problems. But that doesn't jive with traditional Christian theology.

That's another way of doing it, yeah.

There is another argument that states that omnipotence and omnibenevolence are conflicting ideas because an omnipotent being would be omnibenevolent simply because benevolence would be whatever it chose to be by its own decree, which kind of throws a wrench in the works insofar as we're talking about consistent ideas of God.

Typically omni-benevolence assumes a human, emotive quality, the assumption that God cares infinitely for us, and for all the things we care about. Which, of course, may very well not be true. God could be all caring, just not about us.

generalgrog wrote:The Bible never specifically states that God is omnipotent. It does use the term El shadai "allmighty".

I though El shadai was "God Allmighty".

Either way, I was thinking of pantokratór, which also means "almighty", but is frequently taken to indicate omnipotence because the ancient Greeks didn't have an effective understanding of the infinite.

generalgrog wrote:
Can God create a spherical triangle? Can God make 2+2 = 3? Can God divide by 0? Can God create a sandwich too big for him to eat? If God is infinite can he make himself finite? All of these questions are similar in nature.

dogma is a logistician so maybe he can shed light on this..but aren't these things logically impossible?

A few of them are. For example, a spherical triangle is logically impossible due both to definitional limitations; basically a two dimensional object with three sides cannot ever also be spherical. The same goes for 2+2 equaling three, at least where what's being accomplished is more than a semantic change; ie. not just calling the result of 2+2 3 instead of 4, which any human could reasonably do.

However, it isn't logically impossible to create a sandwich too big to eat because its the ability to eat a thing isn't tied to the ability to make a thing. Its only logically impossible if we posit that God is bound by the laws of the Universe, and omnipotent. If he isn't, then it doesn't matter because an omnipotent being that can alter the laws of existence in arbitrary ways would not logically be subject to those laws.

generalgrog wrote:
So the real question is, can God do things that are logically impossible.

Essentially, yes.

generalgrog wrote:
If we say that God is the only infinite being... can he create another infinite thing? For example the aforementioned infinite rock. The rock would have to be infinite in order for it to be too big for God to lift.

Logically impossible.

Well, an infinite thing is still defined by its properties. For example, you can't say that an infinite series of events is not infinite because it does not include all possible events, or that an infinite line is not infinite because it isn't a plane. So yes, you can have more than 1 infinite thing insofar as the parameters of both things are not mutually exclusive. For example, you can't have to infinite lines defined by the equation y=2x+1.

Additionally, we aren't certain that a rock would have to be infinitely large to prevent God from lifting it, we only know that there might be a possible rock too large for God to lift. A being can be infinite, and very strong, but not omnipotent. Similarly, infinite power and infinite size do not conflict as size isn't necessarily defined as being predicted on immovability, unless infinite size is thought to mean an object that occupies all possible space and so cannot actually move anywhere.

The rock criticism really only attacks the notion of an omnipotent God anyway.

So God is kind of like "Q" on Star Trek then?

God defies all human logic. To understand the true nature of a being is to gain power over the said being by knowing all its parts, faults, and weaknesses, so God is all powerful because we cannot understand or know Him.

FITZZ wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

The Dreadnote wrote:I don't really fancy having another big debate about free will, but since God was mentioned I thought I'd leave this here:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

- Epicurus

Theodicy is a pretty tough issue.

As a believer, I think its kind of a fallacy to try and put one's own understanding on the same level as a deity. That's just my take on it.

This is one of the things concerning God existence/non-existence that I often find myself mulling over.

I have no problem accepting death,pain,misery,war,etc as all part of the "human condition"...particularly as a "non believer".
However...the idea of a "higher power" observing these events in a "dis attached" manner,or in a manner "I can not understand because I am not that higher power"..bothers me.

The concept of a loving and caring deity who allows his "children" to suffer in such manners is indeed perplexing.

I know this was from a page ago but I wanted to share my view on this point. If our souls are eternal (a pretty common understanding among most religions) then this life is an almost infinitesimally small portion of our existence. And if god is omnipotent, then there are no surprises to him. The baby who dies from being shaken by the baby sitter, the parents who die in a car accident leaving children behind, and even the women who is brutally raped- none of these things are a surprise. God, being an omniscient and omnipotent God, could render us physically unable to harm one another or suffer injury (or otherwise "sin") but then our free will would be for naught. Also if one believes we are here to choose and be tested (another belief common to many religions) then we must be free to choose and act on our choices. And in order for God's judgments to be just he must allow us to carry out our actions (even when they are bad).

Having said that, I do believe god does spare people from much of the pain in the world as he is also a God of mercy.

yep, your argument is similar to the "problem of evil" : If god is a truly loving god and demontrates the big O's, then why does he allow for natural disasters and other evils to occur. Its a good question to ask a hardcore bible beater!

By the way, I briefly skimmed through some of the replies to your post....I love that people are postulating the attributes of God and also gauging his abilities and their effectiveness. Arbitrarily pulling things out of the air makes you even less credible on the subject.

Not to offend anyone on this thread, but I suggest you take your argument to a level of higher education where you will get better responses...otherwise, expect to recieve some of the most ignorant retort you have ever heard in your life from the people in here.

Element206 wrote:Not to offend anyone on this thread...expect to recieve some of the most ignorant retort you have ever heard in your life from the people in here.

"I'm not a racist, but I think all black people are lazy and stupid"

Etc, etc

undivided wrote:God defies all human logic. To understand the true nature of a being is to gain power over the said being by knowing all its parts, faults, and weaknesses, so God is all powerful because we cannot understand or know Him.

I would agree and disagree with this statement.

I disagree that God defies "ALL" human logic. God certainly can defy "SOME" human logic. In fact I believe that logic, and that mankind uses it, is a confirmation that men were made in God's image.

I also disagree with the statement that God is all powerful "because we cannot understand or know Him", because
A. We can know Him through Jesus Christ, and
B. God is God and all powerful regardless if we understand Him or know Him.

I however, do agree with the statement that we cannot "completely" understand God.

GG