Video: the incoherence of omnipotence

[Lion IRC]

So you, at least, don't think the NT verses about eternal punishment are genuinely Christian?

The entire New and Old Testaments are genuinely Christian

...perhaps you should buy a statue of buddah.

Not quite sure what you find lacking in Buddhism or Buddhists, but....hey.

Lots. It's Religion Lite. "I Can't Believe its Not Butter...Buddah"

Yes, God - Jehovah - punishes unrepentant sinners.

What about sincere and genuine repenting after death, for example?

If you sincerely don't think something (like abortion) is wrong when you're alive why do you suddenly change your mind after you're dead?

And if you deliberately sin against God it is quite disingenuous to whine about God's supposed lack of (unconditional) love.

I'm not clear. Are you saying his love is unconditional, or are you saying that it's a sin to not love him back?

His love is like His honesty - unconditional.
All sins are essentially acts of stupidly because they harm us not God.
God's laws aren't for God's benefit they are for OUR benefit.

Now ask yourself the same question. If we hate God and make it clear we don't want to be in His Kingdom - not love Him back - then is that not ultimately a pretty stupid/stubborn thing to do?

Nowhere in the bible will you find God promising such unconditional love that He will never punish unrepentant sinners.

 

[Atheos]

<snip>

If you sincerely don't think something (like abortion) is wrong when you're alive why do you suddenly change your mind after you're dead?

<snip>

His love is like His honesty - unconditional.
All sins are essentially acts of stupidly because they harm us not God.
God's laws aren't for God's benefit they are for OUR benefit.

Now ask yourself the same question. If we hate God and make it clear we don't want to be in His Kingdom - not love Him back - then is that not ultimately a pretty stupid/stubborn thing to do?

Nowhere in the bible will you find God promising such unconditional love that He will never punish unrepentant sinners.

As a Christian I found the prospect of a Hell where some people I loved dearly would suffer for all eternity to be a bit disturbing. How could I be happy in Heaven, all the time knowing these people were suffering in Hell? These people were good, but they weren't Christian. I tried to convince myself that once I died and was resurrected I would understand and embrace this set of circumstances.

As an example, I had a dear friend who in his younger days got married to a girl he had only known for a month or so. As it turned out their marriage was short-lived. After he'd had time to grow up a bit he married someone else and started a family. He had grown into a good father, repentant of the wild oats he'd spent in his younger days and wishing to raise his two girls "right." Being seeped in southern tradition he believed that meant taking them to church.

So he approached me. I was a young preacher in the church of Christ, but also someone he had known from his youth, and someone he felt he could trust. "What must I do to become a Christian?"

Admittedly the church of Christ is a bit more conservative than some denominations when it comes to adherence to the letter of the law (the Bible). I asked him about his earlier marriage. "Was she unfaithful to you?"

"Not that I know of. We were at each other's throats. Neither of us were ready for the kind of commitment we'd gotten into. We divorced for irreconcilable differences. The divorce wasn't even ugly, we just went our separate ways."

Enter Matthew 19:1-9. "He that shall put away his wife and marry another, except for adultery, commits adultery. And he who marries her who is put away commits adultery." Several times in the Bible Paul is very clear that adulterers have no place among the faithful.

Sadly I informed my friend that he could not become a Christian until he repented of his sin of adultery. He was unlawfully (in the eyes of God) married to this woman and could no longer remain married to her if he wanted to become a Christian.

It was too high a price to pay. Fortunately he didn't heed my advice and break up his fledgling family over this oppressive Bible passage. Instead found a less conservative church to join.

As for me, I knew that his sin was an ongoing one of which he was unwilling to repent. Finding others willing to coddle him in it wasn't a substitute for repentance. I rued the fact that this otherwise good man would end up suffering for all eternity in Hell simply because he chose the more noble calling of being a good father and husband.

So when you say that God's laws are for OUR benefit, I have to wonder: What harm was being incurred by this 2nd marriage apart from pissing off the Big Guy? What good would have come from breaking up the home so that the children had parents who lived separately from each other?

 

[Lion IRC]

As a Christian I found the prospect of a Hell where some people I loved dearly would suffer for all eternity to be a bit disturbing.

As a Christian I dearly love everyone and I would equally find such a thing disturbing.
(If it were true)

Fortunately, I know that God shares the same view and does not WANT to punish unrepentant sinners.
Even more fortunately I find great comfort in the knowledge, which you somehow missed, that humans don't and can't decide on God's behalf who is and is not going to hell.

...How could I be happy in Heaven, all the time knowing these people were suffering in Hell? These people were good, but they weren't Christian.

If they were good God will know that at least as well as you claim to know.
God is a fair judge and there is ample scripture to show that Gods weighing people's lives is akin to a set of scales - for example He holds self-righteous people to a higher standard and He takes into account sincere/honest ignorance because He sees into peoples' hearts.

I tried to convince myself that...

I'm not sure that faith - trusting God - is a matter of trying to convince yourself.
I understand that's where you were at on your journey, but if you had to force yourself to accept an uncomfortable or confusing doctrine, maybe you misunderstood it.

I have heard hundreds and hundreds of (former-Christian) atheists tell me about why they converted and almost without fail, the version of Christianity they are describing is one that I would reject too!

...So when you say that God's laws are for OUR benefit, I have to wonder: What harm was being incurred by this 2nd marriage apart from pissing off the Big Guy?

I have to wonder too!
Personally, I believe God's laws about marital fidelity primarily protect women and children.
So if God gets "pissed off" it's invariably going to be because when a person, (or an entire society,) treats marriage and family like some sort of weekend in Vegas, the ripple effects cause harm to innocent, vulnerable people in ways that hedonists are too distracted to notice.

 

[Underseer]

So, uh, how did we get off the topic of the definition of omnipotence? Sorry for not reading the entire thread.

Did we all agree that the Christian definitions of omnipotence are incoherent and just moved on to other topics?

 

[Lion IRC]

No, we agreed that omni means omni and potent means potent.

 

[Atheos]

My recollection is that you asserted these things but haven't yet delivered on the "coherence" part. Yes, you said god could 'flaggle a snuffin' and implied it could 'create a married bachelor.'

Early on I had hoped to take the discussion in a relevant direction by discussing the logical implications of omnipotence.

Can he create 100% free moral agents who could sin but never do?

Sure. Why not?
And since He would know they will remain sinless He may decide that was a pointless exercise.
And wouldnt that simply invite satan to dare God that He create more people like Job instead?

The  Free Will Defense is an attempt to resolve the Problem of Evil by arguing that it is logically impossible to create free moral agents who never sin. Your response indicates that you do not subscribe to that resolution.

To me this is at the core of any discussion of omnipotence and it has gone largely ignored in this thread. Why wouldn't an omnipotent god create everyone like Job if it could? I challenged you to set forth your response to the Problem of Evil earlier in this thread that you never addressed. Perhaps you didn't notice it, or perhaps your silence is tacit agreement that I had assumed correctly and you do not believe your god to be omni-benevolent or omniscient.

If so, that's fine. Otherwise I'd be sincerely interested in your thoughts on this subject. I've never seen what I can honestly say is a worthy treatment of this problem. Solutions either limit the power, the benevolence or the intelligence of god. Or they resort to flowery language in an attempt to create a verbal smoke screen and pretend the solution is somewhere in all those words.

 

[ruby sparks]

There may be a few possible additional ways out of the problem, other than those already mentioned (that god is omnipotent but very strict, for example, or the 'maybe this or that happens for some reason we just don't know because of our limited abilities to understand' explanation).

First, god may not in fact be all-anything, he could just be very, very certain things. Don't ask me how or why mainstream Christianity might have gotten it wrong, maybe it just happened for some reason, that they thought too much of him/her/it.

Or (less likely and potentially more problematic imo) satan is all-stuff as well.

Oh. I forgot another possible alternative. Elves.

 

[ruby sparks]

The entire New and Old Testaments are genuinely Christian

Not quite sure what you find lacking in Buddhism or Buddhists, but....hey.

Lots. It's Religion Lite. "I Can't Believe its Not Butter...Buddah"

Yes, God - Jehovah - punishes unrepentant sinners.

What about sincere and genuine repenting after death, for example?

If you sincerely don't think something (like abortion) is wrong when you're alive why do you suddenly change your mind after you're dead?

And if you deliberately sin against God it is quite disingenuous to whine about God's supposed lack of (unconditional) love.

I'm not clear. Are you saying his love is unconditional, or are you saying that it's a sin to not love him back?

His love is like His honesty - unconditional.
All sins are essentially acts of stupidly because they harm us not God.
God's laws aren't for God's benefit they are for OUR benefit.

Now ask yourself the same question. If we hate God and make it clear we don't want to be in His Kingdom - not love Him back - then is that not ultimately a pretty stupid/stubborn thing to do?

Nowhere in the bible will you find God promising such unconditional love that He will never punish unrepentant sinners.

I don't wish to get into it here, and I reckon you are a very decent bloke, despite us occasionally crossing swords about religion, but to me, you love someone who you also believe would punish you eternally if you didn't love them, and that, to me, is very problematical indeed. It probably isn't to you and I accept that and that you have your reasons for it. We don't need to agree about it.

In any case, Underseer and Atheos have brought us back on topic.

 

[Atheos]

There may be a few possible additional ways out of the problem, other than those already mentioned (that god is omnipotent but very strict, for example, or the 'maybe this or that happens for some reason we just don't know because of our limited abilities to understand' explanation).

First, god may not in fact be all-anything, he could just be very, very certain things. Don't ask me how or why mainstream Christianity might have gotten it wrong, maybe it just happened for some reason, that they thought too much of him/her/it.

Or (less likely and potentially more problematic imo) satan is all-stuff as well.

Oh. I forgot another possible alternative. Elves.

Being "very powerful" is not the same as being omnipotent, so it's a non-starter as far as the logical Problem of Evil is concerned. The Problem of Evil is only relevant in the situation where a god is posited who is tri-omni. Any limit, however slight, to any of the three omni-'s makes the Problem of Evil irrelevant.

Lion IRC has asserted that he posits an unqualified Omnipotent god. I'm only interested in which of the other two attributes (omni-benevolence or omniscience) will be compromised. Can't have all three.

'maybe this or that happens for some reason we just don't know because of our limited abilities to understand'

This implies a limit on either omnipotence, omni-benevolence or omniscience. A god who requires a means to get to a desired end lacks the power to achieve the desired end directly and is subservient to the process required to achieve it. A god who has that power yet chooses the method that results in suffering anyway lacks the benevolence to desire a better method or the knowledge that suffering is going on as its plan works towards fruition.

 

[Underseer]

No, we agreed that omni means omni and potent means potent.

The entire point of the video was to talk about the meaning of those words, and how the three Christian interpretations of those words results in incoherent definitions of omnipotent.

Let's make this easier: which of the three Christian definitions of omnipotent do you agree with? One of the two logically impossible definitions, or the definition under which rocks would also count as omnipotent?

 

[Atheos]

No, we agreed that omni means omni and potent means potent.

The entire point of the video was to talk about the meaning of those words, and how the three Christian interpretations of those words results in incoherent definitions of omnipotent.

Let's make this easier: which of the three Christian definitions of omnipotent do you agree with? One of the two logically impossible definitions, or the definition under which rocks would also count as omnipotent?

Pretty sure Lion IRC already picked his poison.

 

[Juma]

I know that God shares the same view and does not WANT to punish unrepentant sinners.

How do you know that?

 

[Learner]

The  Free Will Defense is an attempt to resolve the Problem of Evil by arguing that it is logically impossible to create free moral agents who never sin. Your response indicates that you do not subscribe to that resolution.

Jesus was that very creation!

People can be "Christ-like" in which I'm sure people do exist although obviously requires those "will of choice(s)" or abstainance abilty in which no doubt can be infuentially difficult by the "knowledge/ now knowing / humans having already tasted" the urges of selfish desire, so to speak i.e."problem of evil" - powerful temptations that ignores but is harmful on the detriment and the well being of others .

Quite odd though when we (believers and non-believers) seem to understand there can be solutions with common sense to more or less solve these "evil" problems. An advanced mutual understanding and agreement with compassion "everyone treats his brother like himself" etc.... is required( using the terms of the theology or golden rule).

 

[Learner]

I know that God shares the same view and does not WANT to punish unrepentant sinners.

How do you know that?

I'm sure you would point it out and say he was making it up if it wasn't in the bible.

(cont..a bit later friend arrived)

 

[Lion IRC]

I know that God shares the same view and does not WANT to punish unrepentant sinners.

How do you know that?

He told me.

 

[ruby sparks]

Being "very powerful" is not the same as being omnipotent, so it's a non-starter as far as the logical Problem of Evil is concerned. The Problem of Evil is only relevant in the situation where a god is posited who is tri-omni. Any limit, however slight, to any of the three omni-'s makes the Problem of Evil irrelevant.

Lion IRC has asserted that he posits an unqualified Omnipotent god. I'm only interested in which of the other two attributes (omni-benevolence or omniscience) will be compromised. Can't have all three.

'maybe this or that happens for some reason we just don't know because of our limited abilities to understand'

This implies a limit on either omnipotence, omni-benevolence or omniscience. A god who requires a means to get to a desired end lacks the power to achieve the desired end directly and is subservient to the process required to achieve it. A god who has that power yet chooses the method that results in suffering anyway lacks the benevolence to desire a better method or the knowledge that suffering is going on as its plan works towards fruition.

I get that you might want to hear, and perhaps challenge, LionIRC's answer. I was just giving my own. So on that track, as you seem to agree, dropping (absolute) omnipotence (or even better, any or all of the absolute omnis) would considerably ease the problem(s).

It's a word. I believe it was applied to Roman emperors.

And 'Omnivore', for example, does not mean 'eats all things'.

I also read, incidentally (at the wiki page for 'omnipotence') that "there was no word for "Infinite Power" in ancient Semitic Languages like Hebrew or Aramaic"..

 

[lee_merrill]

So, uh, how did we get off the topic of the definition of omnipotence? Sorry for not reading the entire thread.

Did we all agree that the Christian definitions of omnipotence are incoherent and just moved on to other topics?

I posted a definition that I found in Wayne Grudem's systematic theology: "God is able to do all his holy will." I think that is defensible, and avoids the various conundrums proposed in the video.

Regards,
Lee

 

[Learner]

Being "very powerful" is not the same as being omnipotent, so it's a non-starter as far as the logical Problem of Evil is concerned. The Problem of Evil is only relevant in the situation where a god is posited who is tri-omni. Any limit, however slight, to any of the three omni-'s makes the Problem of Evil irrelevant.

Lion IRC has asserted that he posits an unqualified Omnipotent god. I'm only interested in which of the other two attributes (omni-benevolence or omniscience) will be compromised. Can't have all three.

'maybe this or that happens for some reason we just don't know because of our limited abilities to understand'

This implies a limit on either omnipotence, omni-benevolence or omniscience. A god who requires a means to get to a desired end lacks the power to achieve the desired end directly and is subservient to the process required to achieve it. A god who has that power yet chooses the method that results in suffering anyway lacks the benevolence to desire a better method or the knowledge that suffering is going on as its plan works towards fruition.

I get that you might want to hear, and perhaps challenge, LionIRC's answer. I was just giving my own. So on that track, as you seem to agree, dropping (absolute) omnipotence (or even better, any or all of the absolute omnis) would considerably ease the problem(s).

It's a word. I believe it was applied to Roman emperors.

And 'Omnivore', for example, does not mean 'eats all things'.

I also read, incidentally (at the wiki page for 'omnipotence') that "there was no word for "Infinite Power" in ancient Semitic Languages like Hebrew or Aramaic"..

I couldn't say myself how to explain it, perhaps because of what it actually may require to be omnipotent,omni-benevolence or omniscience. Which is what I'm wondering with the human conceptual logic: does being any of the mentioned omni's mean:without any sort of experience other than ... yeah I know "directly" without ever needing to pre-think the concept of a particular world yet to create?

The question is logically tricky(perhaps more so for me .. learner) ... a mental gymnastic with the set assumption already made ; that to possess these omni's for an entity; this HP (higher power) would not require a cosmic drafting up the idea beforehand like the much simpler designing and planning a house with pencil, rubbing out certain bits and altering the design as you go along... a pre-experience.. if you will , since this Higher Power has had non before to go on, so to speak.
(God regreted making man in Gen)

This entity would still be omnipotent imo.

edit: I would be ok with :"we just don't know (how to explain it) because of our limited abilities to understand..."

 

[Kharakov]

I hope you artful dodgers didn't forget that Satan has a Dodge Omni.... which goes like hell.

 

[Learner]

I hope you artful dodgers didn't forget that Satan has a Dodge Omni.... which goes like hell.

You may be on to something.

1.Can God make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it?

2.Can God commit suicide?

Christians would think NO obviously. "But...but.. you Christians think God can do anything" I hear you say. (Play with language) Well adding to the list which also answers the above two:

GOD cannot do stoopid.

GOD cannot do unwise things.


Since you mentioned it, Theists may have to be Artful-Dodgers after all if it means countering
Artful-Dodgy-Questions.