Christianity's Inescapable Paradox

[MrFrankZito]

This interesting paradox springs from merely two premises that, in my view, nearly all Christians hold to be valid.

Premise One: God is omnipotent; that is, God is all-powerful (a being than which no more powerful can be conceived).

Premise Two: Sin accurately can be defined as “acts which violate the will of God.” In short, God hates sin, and sinful acts, by definition, represent violation of God’s will.

The paradox takes the form of the following question: Can God’s will be violated by man?

If one answers Yes, then God is not all-powerful—not a being than which no more powerful can be conceived. Indeed, I can conceive of a being which possesses all of God’s qualities but, above and beyond those, also possesses the power to ensure its will never is violated. If the answer is Yes, then God is not omnipotent after all.

If one answers No, then sin does not exist. If humans cannot violate the will of God, then all human behaviors are executions of God’s will. Every behavior I have displayed—and all behaviors everyone ever will display—are simply the carrying out of God’s will—never violations of it. For, as indicated by the answer, God’s will cannot be violated by mere humans (or anybody).

This is a paradox from which I can envisage no escape.

Your thoughts?

__________________________

- My Case Against God - (http://mycaseagainstgod.blogspot.com/)

[Lensman]

Good one, logical & (to my mind) irrefutable.

[Marquis de Carabas]

The paradox takes the form of the following question: Can God’s will be violated by man?

If one answers Yes, then God is not all-powerful—not a being than which no more powerful can be conceived. Indeed, I can conceive of a being which possesses all of God’s qualities but, above and beyond those, also possesses the power to ensure its will never is violated. If the answer is Yes, then God is not omnipotent after all.
This is only a problem if it can be shown that God is incapable of making human beings adhere to his will. A theist can easily wiggle out of the paradox by stating that God is surely able to have every human being act according to his will, but he chooses not to for whatever reason.

[Ducky]

I thought the paradox was that God doesn't exist?

[Ginarley]

This is only a problem if it can be shown that God is incapable of making human beings adhere to his will. A theist can easily wiggle out of the paradox by stating that God is surely able to have every human being act according to his will, but he chooses not to for whatever reason.

They usually claim that for obedience to be meaningful it cannot be imposed.

It is however one of the numerous logical difficulties with an omnipotent being - the whole concept simply doesn't make sense.

[slyjoe]

I think it is a paradox, but it also will be answered by christians along the lines of:

"God's will is that man be free to sin". This doesn't necessarily violate premise 1.

[blobru]

The paradox takes the form of the following question: Can God’s will be violated by man?

My theologically-inclined friends tell me it is God's will that man have free will, for without free will and the possibility of sin neither can there be true "virtue" (submission to His will). And since he has so much faith in us (to do good), we must likewise have faith in Him (to be wise). Or something... <yawn>... like that anyway... ;)

[MrFrankZito]

Some Christians have said to me, "God could force everybody to follow his will, but he allows people to violate it because he wants people to follow his will voluntarily."

My question: How does that make him more powerful than a being whose will CANNOT be violated? All we're talking about here is power (omnipotence).

[andyandy]

yes we have to accept that even though there would be no quantifiable difference [to us humble homos] between a world in which free will existed and one in which merely the illusion of free will existed, that god in his infinite wisdom chose free will and evil above illusionary free will and none.

and if you question that infinite wisdom - well god works in mysterious ways - it is not man's role to understand the mind of god - that's the get out of jail free card. :D

[Metullus]

My question: How does that make him more powerful than a being whose will CANNOT be violated? All we're talking about here is power (omnipotence).I frankly don't see a paradox. If we are to posit an omnipotent being it does not follow that such a being must always excercise its omnipotence in every circumstance. Neither does a christian belief in an omnipotent god necessarily require that he/she not permit freewill in humans. Sinning against the laws of god need not be the same thing as violating the will of god if the will of god is that people are free to sin if they so choose.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Some Christians have said to me, "God could force everybody to follow his will, but he allows people to violate it because he wants people to follow his will voluntarily."

My question: How does that make him more powerful than a being whose will CANNOT be violated? All we're talking about here is power (omnipotence).
Well, turn it around. Assume there was a god whose will could not be violated by his creations. This is merely a way of saying god could not create beings who could violate his will. Would not a god capable of creating such beings be the more powerful god?

[Jon.]

I frankly don't see a paradox. If we are to posit an omnipotent being it does not follow that such a being must always excercise its omnipotence in every circumstance.

Except that if you also factor in omniscience, that is, perfect knowledge of all that is, was and will be, then said omnipotent being cannot avoid exercising its omnipotence in every circumstance, whether by acting or by failing to act and accepting the consequences (of which it has prior knowledge).

Neither does a christian belief in an omnipotent god necessarily require that he/she not permit freewill in humans. Sinning against the laws of god need not be the same thing as violating the will of god if the will of god is that people are free to sin if they so choose.


Omniscience plus omnipotence renders the concept of true free will void.

[Metullus]

Except that if you also factor in omniscience, that is, perfect knowledge of all that is, was and will be, then said omnipotent being cannot avoid exercising its omnipotence in every circumstance, whether by acting or by failing to act and accepting the consequences (of which it has prior knowledge).What requirement is there that such a being must exercise its omniscience in every case? Why cannot an omnipotent being avoid exercising its omnipotence?

Omniscience plus omnipotence renders the concept of true free will void.So I have heard argued many times, but the arguments frequently involve putting limits upon the omnipotent being that the concept omnipotence (as silly as it is) would seem to overcome.

[Dorian Gray]

Well, turn it around. Assume there was a god whose will could not be violated by his creations. This is merely a way of saying god could not create beings who could violate his will. Non sequitur. If that god has created beings who could not violate his will, it doesn't follow that he can't create beings who could violate his will.


Would not a god capable of creating such beings be the more powerful god?If one were incapable of creating such beings, then one is not omnipotent.

[Dorian Gray]

Except that if you also factor in omniscience, that is, perfect knowledge of all that is, was and will be, then said omnipotent being cannot avoid exercising its omnipotence in every circumstance, whether by acting or by failing to act and accepting the consequences (of which it has prior knowledge).

Omniscience plus omnipotence renders the concept of true free will void.
Can you be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time, or is that another paradox?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Non sequitur. If that god has created beings who could not violate his will, it doesn't follow that he can't create beings who could violate his will.
Well, you're right. Fortunately for me, that is not what I said. It follows that if a being's will is absolutely inviolable, he cannot create beings which violate it.

If one were incapable of creating such beings, then one is not omnipotent.
I did not say one was.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

This interesting paradox springs from merely two premises that, in my view, nearly all Christians hold to be valid.

Premise One: God is omnipotent; that is, God is all-powerful (a being than which no more powerful can be conceived).

Premise Two: Sin accurately can be defined as “acts which violate the will of God.” In short, God hates sin, and sinful acts, by definition, represent violation of God’s will.

The paradox takes the form of the following question: Can God’s will be violated by man?

If one answers Yes, then God is not all-powerful—not a being than which no more powerful can be conceived. Indeed, I can conceive of a being which possesses all of God’s qualities but, above and beyond those, also possesses the power to ensure its will never is violated. If the answer is Yes, then God is not omnipotent after all.

If one answers No, then sin does not exist. If humans cannot violate the will of God, then all human behaviors are executions of God’s will. Every behavior I have displayed—and all behaviors everyone ever will display—are simply the carrying out of God’s will—never violations of it. For, as indicated by the answer, God’s will cannot be violated by mere humans (or anybody).

This is a paradox from which I can envisage no escape.

Your thoughts?

__________________________

- My Case Against God - (http://mycaseagainstgod.blogspot.com/)



Firstly, You're assuming God a lot here. Including the fact that God wants to stop sin himself. EVEN IF God wanted sin to be stopped this doesn't mean he would actively try to stop it. I want people to quit smoking for the own health however I would never try to force it upon them. God WANTS people to stop sinning however he has granted us freewill and doesn't want to force us to do anything.


Secondly, Go to "User Cp" and then "Signature" to edit your signature. You don't need to post it in every post.

[joobz]

This interesting paradox springs from merely two premises that, in my view, nearly all Christians hold to be valid.

Premise second: Sin accurately can be defined as “acts which violate the will of God.” In short, God hates sin, and sinful acts, by definition, represent violation of God’s will.



This premise is wrong. Apologetics would define sin as the seperation of one's self from god and is not related to the will of god.

[MrFrankZito]

I really don't think the "free will" argument resolves the paradox.

I can conceive of a more powerful being than the "free will" God. I can conceive of a being whose will CANNOT be violated. Such, in my mind, is more powerful than a being whose will possibly can be violated if the being so allows.

Here's an analogy:

A being who CANNOT die is "more immortal" than a being who cannot die unless he allows somebody to kill him.

Omnipotence = Always getting one's way.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I really don't think the "free will" argument resolves the paradox.

I can conceive of a more powerful being than the "free will" God. I can conceive of a being whose will CANNOT be violated. Such, in my mind, is more powerful than a being whose will possibly can be violated if the being so allows.
How? The latter god can do something the former cannot. There is nothing the former can do that the latter necessarily cannot.

[The Great Hairy One]

This premise is wrong. Apologetics would define sin as the seperation of one's self from god and is not related to the will of god.


But that brings up the question of how a "mere" human could separate themselves from an omnipotent being.

And it doesn't take into account the omnipresence ability either, which adds yet another layer of paradox.

Cheers,
TGHO

[Marquis de Carabas]

But that brings up the question of how a "mere" human could separate themselves from an omnipotent being.
Easily enough, had the omnipotent being prior granted them the ability to do so.

And it doesn't take into account the omnipresence ability either, which adds yet another layer of paradox.
This much is true, as is Jon.'s earlier point about omniscience. However, the OP asserts a paradox without the required introduction of either of these attributes. If we allow for additional premises, things obviously will change.

[The Great Hairy One]

Easily enough, had the omnipotent being prior granted them the ability to do so.


But if something else challenges the being's "potence", it's no longer omni.

This much is true, as is Jon.'s earlier point about omniscience. However, the OP asserts a paradox without the required introduction of either of these attributes. If we allow for additional premises, things obviously will change.


True, but it's a rare christian who only assigns one omni-factor to their god, in my experience.

Cheers,
TGHO

[The Atheist]

I really don't think the "free will" argument resolves the paradox.

I can conceive of a more powerful being than the "free will" God. I can conceive of a being whose will CANNOT be violated. Such, in my mind, is more powerful than a being whose will possibly can be violated if the being so allows.

Here's an analogy:

A being who CANNOT die is "more immortal" than a being who cannot die unless he allows somebody to kill him.

Omnipotence = Always getting one's way.

Nope. None of this works, sorry.

Apart from using a strawman god which isn't as widespread as you imagine, you've fallen into the same trap as trying to argue, "god created sin..."

Always comes back to free will, and as you're finding, that's a dead end.

Nice try, though.

You'd be better off using Piggy's mode. I still think it's wrong, but it's less easily-challengeable than your one.

Stick to kicking them in the nuts instead of looking for debate. Far more fruitful.

[Marquis de Carabas]

But if something else challenges the being's "potence", it's no longer omni.
Elaborate on how acting against the will of an omnipotent being (with its permission, as it were) is a challenge to its power, please. I'm not quite understanding what you are getting at.

True, but it's a rare christian who only assigns one omni-factor to their god, in my experience.
Agreed.

[mhaze]

This interesting paradox springs from merely two premises that, in my view, nearly all Christians hold to be valid.

Premise One: God is omnipotent; that is, God is all-powerful (a being than which no more powerful can be conceived).

Premise Two: Sin accurately can be defined as “acts which violate the will of God.” In short, God hates sin, and sinful acts, by definition, represent violation of God’s will.

The paradox takes the form of the following question: Can God’s will be violated by man?

If one answers Yes, then God is not all-powerful—not a being than which no more powerful can be conceived. Indeed, I can conceive of a being which possesses all of God’s qualities but, above and beyond those, also possesses the power to ensure its will never is violated. If the answer is Yes, then God is not omnipotent after all.

If one answers No, then sin does not exist. If humans cannot violate the will of God, then all human behaviors are executions of God’s will. Every behavior I have displayed—and all behaviors everyone ever will display—are simply the carrying out of God’s will—never violations of it. For, as indicated by the answer, God’s will cannot be violated by mere humans (or anybody).

This is a paradox from which I can envisage no escape.

Your thoughts?

__________________________

- My Case Against God - (http://mycaseagainstgod.blogspot.com/)

In the Catholic world view this is handled nicely by having the Devil and his minions being agents of the God.

[The Great Hairy One]

Elaborate on how acting against the will of an omnipotent being (with its permission, as it were) is a challenge to its power, please. I'm not quite understanding what you are getting at.


The omnipotent being has given away some of it's power. This act might be fully conscious and by the will of the being, but in doing so, it lessens the power of the being. It's no longer omnipotent if some other creature can say "No" to it.

Cheers,
TGHO

[Marquis de Carabas]

The omnipotent being has given away some of it's power. This act might be fully conscious and by the will of the being, but in doing so, it lessens the power of the being. It's no longer omnipotent if some other creature can say "No" to it.
Thanks for clarifying. I thought that's where you were going, but wanted to make sure.

I disagree. This only challenges the omnipotent being's power if it cannot over-ride the no. One can presume that the being still retains veto power that it chooses not to exercise.

[Tony]

My theologically-inclined friends tell me it is God's will that man have free will, for without free will and the possibility of sin neither can there be true "virtue" (submission to His will).

I've heard the same retort, it's amazing how theists can make their god less powerful out of convenience. The answer to that is that if god is omnipotent, he/she can create a universe where there is freewill and no sin. If god can't, then god isn't omnipotent.

[yodaluver28]

I really don't think the "free will" argument resolves the paradox.

I don't think there is a paradox at all. Having free will isn't just about sinning or not sinning, it's also supposed to be about choosing whether or not to have a relationship with God. If you're speaking about the Jewish or Christian God, he is frequently thought of and worshiped as a father figure and the worshipers as his children. If that's the case, then him forcing everyone to obey him without question would be akin to parents trading in their children for Stepford Wife-like robot children who always cleaned their rooms, got perfect grades, and never fought but were also incapable of truly loving their parents from the heart. They'd simply be well-behaved automatons.

I can conceive of a more powerful being than the "free will" God. I can conceive of a being whose will CANNOT be violated. Such, in my mind, is more powerful than a being whose will possibly can be violated if the being so allows.

But if the "free will" God's creatures only defy him because he wished them to have the free will to be able to choose; he is no less powerful than one who creates beings who cannot defy him. In that case, it would be a decision, not a weakness.

Here's an analogy:

A being who CANNOT die is "more immortal" than a being who cannot die unless he allows somebody to kill him.

I disagree. I think the being who is immortal but can allow himself to be killed if he wishes is, for lack of a better term, more immortal because he has control over his mortality/immortality whereas he who cannot be killed under any circumstances is a slave to his nature.

Omnipotence = Always getting one's way.

Omnipotence doesn't mean always getting one's way. It means being all-powerful. That is capable of doing anything. Being capable of controlling someone and actually controlling them are not the same.

[MrFrankZito]

Free will, I feel, is bankrupt as a justification for the results (allegedly from God) with which we must live. Free will does not absolve God of the problem of human evil.

Here's an example of how God could preserve free will and yet, still, eradicate evil.

Say that there are 1000 potential humans in God's queue at some particular moment in time. God, being omniscient, already knows how each one's life would turn out.

Of the 1000, 200 would be atheists and never accept God. So, God aborts those creations.

Of the remaining 800, 550 would follow religions other than Christianity. So, God aborts them.

Of the remaining 250, 200 would be Christians in name, but live sinful lives that displease God. So, he aborts them.

So, now we have 50 potential creations left. These 50 people would freely embrace God and Christianity of their own free will and under no direct force.

Why can't God be a cosmic abortionist, only letting through those souls who will happily embrace Christianity of their own free will? This is not God forcing anybody to do anything. Rather, it's selective creation on the cosmic scale.

[Wolfman]

One of the more interesting arguments I heard in this regard were back in my Bible College days, which argued simultaneously for free will and no free will:

FIrst, if you take things such as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, and look at each one in isolation, they yes, this is a paradox. However, they don't operate in isolation, they operate together.

From the beginning, God, being omniscient, knew every human being that would exist; and knew what decision every human being would make if they were given free will to make such a decision. However, for a human being to actually make a decision of their own free will would give them the ability to do something against God's will...which would contradict God's omnipotence.

So, God omnipotently dictated that every human must do what they would do if they had free will. The result is that they act in exactly the same manner that they would have if they'd had free will...but they do it because God predetermined that they must act this way, thus there is no actual free will involved, and it is all according to God's omnipotent will.

Its a handy bit of mental gymnastics, and brings one to the whole "predestination" vs. "free will" theological debate within Christianity. Calvinists would have no problem accepting such an argument; Arminians, on the other hand, find the very idea repellent. And they all read exactly the same Bible, and claim to believe in exactly the same god.

[The Great Hairy One]

Thanks for clarifying. I thought that's where you were going, but wanted to make sure.

I disagree. This only challenges the omnipotent being's power if it cannot over-ride the no. One can presume that the being still retains veto power that it chooses not to exercise.


If the human says "No", the being has two ways to react:

1) Veto or override the No, thus forming yet another paradox with Free Will/Omnibenevolent.

2) Ignore the No. If it ignores, stating that it does not wish to respond, or some other caveat, it still loses power, even if only in the eyes of the human, and thus can no longer be considered omnipotent.

Cheers,
TGHO

[Marquis de Carabas]

If the human says "No", the being has two ways to react:

1) Veto or override the No, thus forming yet another paradox with Free Will/Omnibenevolent.
Not a problem considering the premises under discussion, which do not include omnibenevolence.

2) Ignore the No. If it ignores, stating that it does not wish to respond, or some other caveat, it still loses power, even if only in the eyes of the human, and thus can no longer be considered omnipotent.

What power does it lose? Power is the ability to act. The human's refusal removes no action from the being's repertoire.

[The Great Hairy One]

Not a problem considering the premises under discussion, which do not include omnibenevolence.


True.

What power does it lose? Power is the ability to act. The human's refusal removes no action from the being's repertoire.


The humans perception of the creature no longer includes omnipotence. Thus the being is no longer omnipotent - it can't be "omni" if it's not actually omni.

Cheers,
TGHO

[Marquis de Carabas]

The humans perception of the creature no longer includes omnipotence. Thus the being is no longer omnipotent - it can't be "omni" if it's not actually omni.

I don't see why a human's opinion of a being's power bears any relevance on the actual extent of that power.

[The Great Hairy One]

I don't see why a human's opinion of a being's power bears any relevance on the actual extent of that power.


It's no longer omni - as in "complete, all pervasive" etc., etc. The being has to revert to canceling the "No" to reaffirm it's omni-ness.

Cheers,
TGHO

[Wolfman]

TGHO,

I wouldn't go along with your argument here...in this case, you are making a god's omni-whatever dependent upon an inferior being's perception of that being. I'd argue that no human being could ever truly comprehend what it means to be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. To be aware of every atom in the universe, not only at this moment, but at every moment throughout all history, past and future. This is just one small example.

Thus, any human's perception of a god's omni-whatever will be limited, less than the god's actual ability. And, by your argument, that would mean that every god would be defacto rendered neutral, simply because of a human's inability to comprehend it status.

I could just as easily argue that omnipotence/omnipresence/omniscience does allow for free will, but in a manner which the finite human mind is unable to comprehend. Your inability to understand or comprehend it does not render it impossible, nor does it render the god less-than-omni-whatever.

Your argument makes some sense -- but I wouldn't entirely agree with it -- from the viewpoint of a finite, non-omni-whatever being's point of view. That doesn't mean that it would make sense to an omni-whatever being's point of view, or that such a being would be limited by your logic, or your ability to comprehend its nature.

[Marquis de Carabas]

It's no longer omni - as in "complete, all pervasive" etc., etc. The being has to revert to canceling the "No" to reaffirm it's omni-ness.

Cheers,
TGHO
Omni- is not an attribute; it is a prefix. The omnipotent being is one with all power, one with the ability to perform all actions. No ability to act is lost merely because some other being thinks it is.

[The Great Hairy One]

Omni- is not an attribute; it is a prefix. The omnipotent being is one with all power, one with the ability to perform all actions. No ability to act is lost merely because some other being thinks it is.


But it's lost power when the human realises that he/she can say "No" without any ramifications.

Wolfman - I see what you're saying, and I agree that a limited creature can not fully understand an unlimited attribute like "omnipotence" or something along those lines. I think these attributes are bandied about without any actual understanding of what they mean. Assigning them to an intelligent being of some sort immediately renders that being a paradox.

Cheers,
TGHO

[Beleth]

Maybe God wants humans to be able to violate His will. Maybe there's a "first-level" will which He lets humans in on, and a "meta-will" that He keeps to Himself but which has the possibility of violating the first-level will as one of the desired outcomes.

If I open the door to a hamster cage and leave it open just to see what the hamster does, does that mean I am less powerful than a hamster owner who is incapable of opening the cage door? Even if, from the hamster's viewpoint, it looks like perhaps I am incapable of closing the door?

[Marquis de Carabas]

But it's lost power when the human realises that he/she can say "No" without any ramifications.
The human can never be certain there will be no ramifications. Even if such assurance could be gained, however, what power has the being lost?

[Wolfman]

Assigning them to an intelligent being of some sort immediately renders that being a paradox.
...but would such a creature not also be omni-intelligent? ;)

[mylfmyhnr]

But it's lost power when the human realises that he/she can say "No" without any ramifications.

You're assuming here that the Omni has lost it's ability to apply said ramifications.

The point you made here...
2) Ignore the No. If it ignores, stating that it does not wish to respond, or some other caveat, it still loses power, even if only in the eyes of the human, and thus can no longer be considered omnipotent.
... is that the human perceives the Omni to no longer be omni. MdC's point is that perception of power, in this case, does not equate to the actual power.

[Beerina]

Firstly, You're assuming God a lot here. Including the fact that God wants to stop sin himself. EVEN IF God wanted sin to be stopped this doesn't mean he would actively try to stop it. I want people to quit smoking for the own health however I would never try to force it upon them.

If they could never quite bring themselves to stop smoking, would it be proper to then start torturing them for ever and ever after they died?

[MrFrankZito]

I’ve just posted a much fuller analysis of this paradox on my blog, for anybody to whom that would be interesting.

I'd post it here, but it's more than 1000 words....

[stamenflicker]

This interesting paradox springs from merely two premises that, in my view, nearly all Christians hold to be valid.

Premise One: God is omnipotent; that is, God is all-powerful (a being than which no more powerful can be conceived).

Premise Two: Sin accurately can be defined as “acts which violate the will of God.” In short, God hates sin, and sinful acts, by definition, represent violation of God’s will.

The paradox takes the form of the following question: Can God’s will be violated by man?

If one answers Yes, then God is not all-powerful—not a being than which no more powerful can be conceived. Indeed, I can conceive of a being which possesses all of God’s qualities but, above and beyond those, also possesses the power to ensure its will never is violated. If the answer is Yes, then God is not omnipotent after all.

If one answers No, then sin does not exist. If humans cannot violate the will of God, then all human behaviors are executions of God’s will. Every behavior I have displayed—and all behaviors everyone ever will display—are simply the carrying out of God’s will—never violations of it. For, as indicated by the answer, God’s will cannot be violated by mere humans (or anybody).

This is a paradox from which I can envisage no escape.

Your thoughts?

__________________________

- My Case Against God - (http://mycaseagainstgod.blogspot.com/)


You probably should rethink this one if you truly want it to carry water. In order for this to be remotely valid, you'd have to demonstrate that omnipotence = God's will = imposing will. There's way too many jumps in logic here to be of any use in a debate.

[stamenflicker]

Maybe God wants humans to be able to violate His will. Maybe there's a "first-level" will which He lets humans in on, and a "meta-will" that He keeps to Himself but which has the possibility of violating the first-level will as one of the desired outcomes.

If I open the door to a hamster cage and leave it open just to see what the hamster does, does that mean I am less powerful than a hamster owner who is incapable of opening the cage door? Even if, from the hamster's viewpoint, it looks like perhaps I am incapable of closing the door?

You're taking the argument way too seriously. Imagine I live in a society of arranged marriages and one supporting of utter male dominance. I can make my wife do anything. Maybe it is my will that she never leave a dirty dish on the counter. In my perfect world, there are no diry dishes left on the counter. I have full legal permission to torture my wife to persuade her to put up the dishes. Eventually, with enough "persuasion" on my part, she bucks up and does her job.

But what have I gained? A dish-free counter?

I'm not sure I see the benefit of enforcing my rules when there is a shot at a geninue relationship in which the dishes and counters play a secondary role to our love for each other.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think in making these arguments, we should always come back to the ideas of God as they're actually used among believers, and not some hyper-abstract one.

Many believers claim that God knows the future (and frequently reveals it through prophets, angels etc.), which means the future is fixed (and thus there is ultimately no free will). In the hamster analogy--which is an analogy and NOT an argument--the human master doesn't claim to know in advance what the hamster will do when the door is opened. Many believers will accept horrible injustices because they think God knows the outcomes and sees justice in some bigger picture than we can.

Plenty of believers DO define sin as acting against God's will--the Catholic "Act of Contrition" starts off, "Oh my God I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee. . . ." (Which implies that God can be offended.) In plenty of places in the Bible wrong actions are not defined in any OTHER moral terms except disobeying God's (often capricious and arbitrary) will. In other places, God's will is explicitly attributed to jealousy, one of mankind's more petty motivations that arises from (among other things) feelings of inadequacy and the inability to trust others (implying a severe limit to one's knowledge of others' motives and thinking).

FWIW, I wouldn't consider MrFrankZito's OP argument to point out a "paradox" but rather a "contradiction".

[Mobyseven]

People, people, you are all missing the important question here:

Could Jebus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?


On another note: I have to go with MdC here and say I don't see an inherant paradox. One would assume that an omnipotent god would itself have free will. As such, if it chooses not to exercise its power to completely eradicate sin, it is simply exercising its free will.

That a human no longer believes the god to be omnipotent has no bearing on the actual omnipotence of the god - in fact were a god obliged to veto anything that went against his will, the god would have no free will itself, and therefore would not be perfectly omnipotent.

My 2 centicles.

[Beerina]

[FONT="Arial"][SIZE="3"]This interesting paradox springs from merely two premises that, in my view, nearly all Christians hold to be valid.

Premise One: God is omnipotent; that is, God is all-powerful (a being than which no more powerful can be conceived).

Bzzzt. Invalid concept.

A god is an infinite bag of abilities. We know, thanks to transfinite mathematics that there are always inifinitely large sets that are infinitely larger than other infinitely large sets (there is no way to map the smaller one fully onto the larger one). And that there is no end to this, the next set up always exists (conceptually), and the one after that, and the one after that...

Hence conceptually, there's always a bag of abilities that's infinitely larger than any "existing" set, and one larger than that, and one larger than that...

Hence the entire concept of a god such that none greater is conceivable is invalid.

I hereby name this proof "Beerina's Proof".

[Beleth]

A god is an infinite bag of abilities. We know, thanks to transfinite mathematics that there are always inifinitely large sets that are infinitely larger than other infinitely large sets (there is no way to map the smaller one fully onto the larger one). And that there is no end to this, the next set up always exists (conceptually), and the one after that, and the one after that...


Interesting take on it. The problem with applying it to God is that we're not taking sets of sets; we're just taking the one large "everything" set.

Here's what I mean. Say God just has three abilities: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence (or OP, OS, and OB respectively). We can then define God as having the set (OP, OS, OB).

Now it's true that from those three elements of the set, we can make 2^3=8 new sets. And we can create a new set whose elements are the eight created sets.

But does this new set map to God?

Does ( (), (OP), (OS), (OB), (OP, OS), (OP, OB), (OS, OB), (OP, OS, OB) ) map to God's abilities any better than the original (OP, OS, OB) set does?

I'd say no. It gives us no new information, and in fact weakens the definition of God, since it suggests (via the necessary inclusion of the empty set) that there are things God can't do.

[Darth Rotor]

People, people, you are all missing the important question here:

Could Jebus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

42

DR

[The Grave]

Interesting take on it. The problem with applying it to God is that we're not taking sets of sets; we're just taking the one large "everything" set.

Here's what I mean. Say God just has three abilities: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence (or OP, OS, and OB respectively). We can then define God as having the set (OP, OS, OB).

Now it's true that from those three elements of the set, we can make 2^3=8 new sets. And we can create a new set whose elements are the eight created sets.

But does this new set map to God?

Does ( (), (OP), (OS), (OB), (OP, OS), (OP, OB), (OS, OB), (OP, OS, OB) ) map to God's abilities any better than the original (OP, OS, OB) set does?

I'd say no. It gives us no new information, and in fact weakens the definition of God, since it suggests (via the necessary inclusion of the empty set) that there are things God can't do.

There are plenty!:D

Griff...

[Nobby]

Unfortunatley, as with all religions, there is a huge element called 'Blind faith' which has the ability to explain and justify any entrenched belief. If it can't be proven then you must have faith, sigh....

Your never gonna win this arguement because they don't want to listen.

[elliotfc]

[FONT="Arial"][SIZE="3"]If one answers Yes, then God is not all-powerful—not a being than which no more powerful can be conceived. Indeed, I can conceive of a being which possesses all of God’s qualities but, above and beyond those, also possesses the power to ensure its will never is violated. If the answer is Yes, then God is not omnipotent after all.

You assume that a being which possesses all of God's qualities and *doesn't* allow sin is greater than the God who does allow sin. Due to this assumption, I reject the paradox.

-Elliot

[JoeTheJuggler]

Again, plenty of Christians subscribe to the doctrine of double predestination (that faith alone determines who will be saved and who has that faith has also been predetermined by God). For many believers, God knows already who will be saved and who will be damned. This is in fact a direct contradiction to the idea of freewill and therefore accountability for sins.

Again, any religion that espouses prophecy must believe in a fixed future. For all of these, there is the same contradiction.

I realize people can come up with a definition of a perfect being that doesn't include these things, but in the real world a great many believers adhere to ideas that are contradictory.

[elliotfc]

Again, any religion that espouses prophecy must believe in a fixed future. For all of these, there is the same contradiction.

I'm guessing you're defining prophecy in the way it is popularly understood, so I'll let that slide.

Yes, the future is fixed, but it is fixed by the totality of all who have free will. God sees it all in the big picture as he is outside of chronological time, unless he chooses to manifest in chronological time.

The contradiction is there if you assume that fixed means God's will fixes all that is fixed, but fixed does not have to be contingent on that. God may allow other free wills to fix the future. His omniscience is preserved, and prophecy as you use the word can follow through divine revelation if he chooses.

I realize people can come up with a definition of a perfect being that doesn't include these things, but in the real world a great many believers adhere to ideas that are contradictory.

They can be articulated to be contradictory, but it's all in the articulation. You may spell out something to the believer, but the believer would spell it out differently. Or, try to get a believer to say "of course it's contradictory". It's talking past each other. It's a helpful exercise to understand the articulations where contradiction is, at least, not obvious or evident. Also, there may be disagreements over definitions, operant assumptions which are not apparent, etc.

-Elliot

[Jon.]

I'm guessing you're defining prophecy in the way it is popularly understood, so I'll let that slide.

Yes, the future is fixed, but it is fixed by the totality of all who have free will. God sees it all in the big picture as he is outside of chronological time, unless he chooses to manifest in chronological time.

The contradiction is there if you assume that fixed means God's will fixes all that is fixed, but fixed does not have to be contingent on that. God may allow other free wills to fix the future. His omniscience is preserved, and prophecy as you use the word can follow through divine revelation if he chooses.

His omniscience may be preserved, but is his omnipotence preserved?

And if God already knows the outcome, how "free" are those other wills?

Also, if God chooses not to act, knowing that he could act and change the outcome if he so chose, is this not effectively the same as choosing the outcome?



They can be articulated to be contradictory, but it's all in the articulation. You may spell out something to the believer, but the believer would spell it out differently. Or, try to get a believer to say "of course it's contradictory". It's talking past each other. It's a helpful exercise to understand the articulations where contradiction is, at least, not obvious or evident. Also, there may be disagreements over definitions, operant assumptions which are not apparent, etc.

-Elliot

I rather think that this characterizes much of the discussion around free will, both on this board and off it. Definitions and assumptions need to be clear at the beginning of any such discussion in order for the discussion to be meaningful.

[l0rca]

Premise One: God is omnipotent; that is, God is all-powerful (a being than which no more powerful can be conceived).

Logical premise. That's fine.

Premise Two: Sin accurately can be defined as “acts which violate the will of God.” In short, God hates sin, and sinful acts, by definition, represent violation of God’s will.

Illogical premise. You assume that "God hates sin," but that's not implicit in what you said. You sort of just add that in there. You're also over-defining God's Will in relation to sin. The Christian God's Will allows sin, but encourages love, and gives freedom of will. There's no paradox in this.

The paradox takes the form of the following question: Can God’s will be violated by man?

If one answers Yes, then God is not all-powerful

Pardon the redundance, but you're over-defining "God's Will." Christianity goes to pains to state that it is God's Will that humans have free will". I think the ambiguity of the word "will," and the possible facets of defining it, is evading you here. You're not going to poke a hole in Christian doctrine this way. But you might confuse an idiot that doesn't understands semantics.

If one answers No, then sin does not exist. If humans cannot violate the will of God, then all human behaviors are executions of God’s will. Every behavior I have displayed—and all behaviors everyone ever will display—are simply the carrying out of God’s will—never violations of it. For, as indicated by the answer, God’s will cannot be violated by mere humans (or anybody).

Your definition is "sin" is "violaton of God's will". If God wills the concept to exist, but never allows someone to excercise it, the concept still exists. So this is illogical too, but only partly.

[elliotfc]

His omniscience may be preserved, but is his omnipotence preserved?

Sure.

I suggest that omnipotence includes the ability to choose *not* to do something, even though it can be done. God's will may desire that his imperfect creations act as they ought, but part of his omnipotence is that he allows them to act against his will. If God could not allow his imperfect creations to act contrary to his will, he would lack the power to allow imperfect choices, right?

If God was forced to act as we say he ought to act (force people to align their wills to his own), then such a force would be greater than God, and God would not be omnipotent.

And if God already knows the outcome, how "free" are those other wills?

Well it's true that God's omniciensce is greatre than anything from our will/mind/spirit. If, by definition, God's absolute knowledge negates free will, what can I possibly say in response? Now, that doesn't follow from my operant definition, in which God allows us to have free will, the free will manifests in chronological time, and God is outside of chronological time. I don't see a limitation here, as far as free goes...

Also, if God chooses not to act, knowing that he could act and change the outcome if he so chose, is this not effectively the same as choosing the outcome?

I dunno...I don't look at it that way I guess.

Let's say you're taking a test, given by your teacher. It's multiple choice. You could *blame the teacher* if the kid chooses the wrong answers to any given question. I mean, why didn't the teacher just give one answer to every question? If the teacher would have given one choice for every question, everybody would ace the test, see? So it's the teachers fault when students fail tests.

That's kind of my way of approaching this (the above being irony of course).


Cheers. -Elliot

[Jon.]

Sure.

I suggest that omnipotence includes the ability to choose *not* to do something, even though it can be done. God's will may desire that his imperfect creations act as they ought, but part of his omnipotence is that he allows them to act against his will. If God could not allow his imperfect creations to act contrary to his will, he would lack the power to allow imperfect choices, right?

This is, of course, one of the paradoxes inherent in the concept of omnipotence, and one of the reasons why I don't believe in an omnipotent being of any kind.

If God was forced to act as we say he ought to act (force people to align their wills to his own), then such a force would be greater than God, and God would not be omnipotent.

Who was talking about forcing God to act in any way whatsoever?



Well it's true that God's omniciensce is greatre than anything from our will/mind/spirit. If, by definition, God's absolute knowledge negates free will, what can I possibly say in response? Now, that doesn't follow from my operant definition, in which God allows us to have free will, the free will manifests in chronological time, and God is outside of chronological time. I don't see a limitation here, as far as free goes...

What does "outside chronological time" mean?



I dunno...I don't look at it that way I guess.

Try. Consider an insignificant event - what you ate for breakfast this morning. If God is omniscient, then he knew at the beginning of time (or "knows outside chronological time") what you would eat for breakfast this morning. From the beginning of time, therefore, there was no way that you could possibly have eaten anything different. God also knew all of the factors that went into your choice of breakfast food, even if you didn't know them yourself. Now, if God is omnipotent, he could change/have changed what you ate for breakfast, if he had wanted to. In fact, he set your action in motion, because he knew precisely all of the factors in the universe that all came together in your breakfast choice, and he set all those factors in motion at the beginning of time. If he is "outside chronological time", it's meaningless to talk of him "changing" your choice, but he certainly caused it. If you don't want to think of it that way, think of it this way: if he had wanted you to eat something different for breakfast, he would have set up the universe in a different way, such that you would have chosen something else. It appeared to you that you made a choice among several viable options, but in reality there was only one path you could follow.

Let's say you're taking a test, given by your teacher. It's multiple choice. You could *blame the teacher* if the kid chooses the wrong answers to any given question. I mean, why didn't the teacher just give one answer to every question? If the teacher would have given one choice for every question, everybody would ace the test, see? So it's the teachers fault when students fail tests.

That's kind of my way of approaching this (the above being irony of course).

Well, the analogy fails because the teacher is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. If s/he were, s/he could simply impart the requisite knowledge directly into the students' brains and skip the testing phase altogether.

Incidentally, how would you feel about a teacher who tested students on material regarding which they had been given no clear instruction; or, better yet, on material on which they had been given several different and mutually contradctory sets of instructions, and failed the students who gave the "wrong" answers forever, without giving them the opportunity to retake the test?


Cheers. -Elliot

[elliotfc]

This is, of course, one of the paradoxes inherent in the concept of omnipotence, and one of the reasons why I don't believe in an omnipotent being of any kind.

No fair! You are declaring it to be a paradox. I don't see it as a paradox. At least tell me why it is a paradox...spell it out for me. I'm not going to accept it on faith.

Who was talking about forcing God to act in any way whatsoever?

The OP. The OP implies that a God who allows creatures to act in ways disobedient to his will is not omnipotent. Therefore, our definition of omnipotence forces God to act in a particular way (not allowing people to be disobedient to his will) in order to be granted the title omnipotent.

God is omnipotent as he sees fit to be omnipotent, he is omnipotent in the way we say he needs to act in order to be declared omnipotent. If we are the arbitors for whether of not God is omnipotent, that itself is paradoxical...we are the judgers of God.

What does "outside chronological time" mean?

I'm not exactly sure. It means he doesn't live like we do...born at a certain point in time...live second to second and instant to instant...see life unfold cause/effect...die at a certain time...not be able to directly interact with people who lived before and after. That's how we live...we know how we live and what it "means". God doesn't live like we do. He's outside of chronological time. I'm not privy to the experience of living outside of chronological time, so I don't know exactly what it means.

I do think that it means that God is omnipresent, he exists in every moment, and his totality means that in every moment he is both immersed in each moment, and outside of each moment. The moments are real...cause and effect is real...free will is real...but God remains transcendent over all of the reality. He is not confined by our chronology unless he chooses to be (since he is omnipotent he can choose confinement if he desires, i.e. Jesus).

Try. Consider an insignificant event - what you ate for breakfast this morning. If God is omniscient, then he knew at the beginning of time (or "knows outside chronological time") what you would eat for breakfast this morning.

Agreed.

From the beginning of time, therefore, there was no way that you could possibly have eaten anything different.

False. I could have eaten something different, but then it would follow that God would know that I ate something different. We wouldn't call it *something different*, it would merely be what I ate this morning (and I haven't eaten yet this morning I'll have you know).

The way is free will, but you only choose once in any given situation. There is a singular result of the way, but the way is free will.

God also knew all of the factors that went into your choice of breakfast food, even if you didn't know them yourself. Now, if God is omnipotent, he could change/have changed what you ate for breakfast, if he had wanted to.

No, I agree that he could do anything he wants. He can also choose to limit what he does, that is an aspect of omnipotence. My cell phone is sitting right next to me. God could choose to levitate it right now. If he doesn't do it (and he didn't I'll have you know), that doesn't prove that he is non-omnipotent.

In fact, he set your action in motion, because he knew precisely all of the factors in the universe that all came together in your breakfast choice, and he set all those factors in motion at the beginning of time.

To the extent that you consider free will to be one of the factors, I agree with you.

If he is "outside chronological time", it's meaningless to talk of him "changing" your choice, but he certainly caused it.

God is the first cause, so to that extent I agree with you. But we don't imprison parents of 55 year olds who commit murder.

If you don't want to think of it that way, think of it this way:

I'm happy to think about anything that doesn't gross me out!

if he had wanted you to eat something different for breakfast, he would have set up the universe in a different way, such that you would have chosen something else.

You're assuming his plan for creation is contingent upon what he wants us to do, and I don't think that was the case. Meaning, God may in fact want us to do any number of things, but he did not let those desires effect his act of creation.

It appeared to you that you made a choice among several viable options, but in reality there was only one path you could follow.

No, we know that in reality we have many paths that we can follow. Do we only follow one? Yep.

I'm insisting that free will is part of our operating mechanism, regardless of how God set up the universe, or, because of how God set up the universe. If you're suggesting that God must have been thinking about the infinity of cause-effect moments of existence while creating the universe, I don't think he had to be thinking that way at all. God's omniscience does not have to pre-determine his activity. Our creation was his choice. He didn't have to create us, he was not forced to create us. He is free to allow for variability and uncertainty based on the existence of other creative beings like us. The uncertainty is limited to the specifics of causal reality, so we pre-determine God's omniscience in that way because God allows for that. Yet he still knows everything, even if that knowledge is, by design, contingent on our particular strain of potency (free will determining chronological reality).

Well, the analogy fails because the teacher is neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

OK, then could you consider it in the limited parameters? In that sphere of the questions/answers in the test, the teacher does know the correct answers.

If s/he were, s/he could simply impart the requisite knowledge directly into the students' brains and skip the testing phase altogether.

I've allowed for that possibility in the analogy without saying it. My point is...would she have to do that? What if she doesn't want to?

Incidentally, how would you feel about a teacher who tested students on material regarding which they had been given no clear instruction; or, better yet, on material on which they had been given several different and mutually contradctory sets of instructions, and failed the students who gave the "wrong" answers forever, without giving them the opportunity to retake the test?

First, the teacher understands the limits and the realities of the students.

Second, the instructions will be clear on a variability scale (clearer to some than others), and the teacher would take this into account.

Third, the existence of several contradictory sets of instructions does not mean that the teachers gave out all of those sets of instructions.

Fourth, the teacher does not have to fail students because they fail the test, because one question/answer is worth a lot more than the others. The test is not equally weighted. That particular question is the essential question which lies behind all of the questions, and we have thousands of chances to answer that question, and I personally think we can also answer that question after we die although that is not a belief held by all Christians.

-Elliot

[Jon.]

No fair! You are declaring it to be a paradox. I don't see it as a paradox. At least tell me why it is a paradox...spell it out for me. I'm not going to accept it on faith.

It is a paradox in the same sense that "Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it?" is a paradox: Can God create creatures with true free will, thus imposing limitations on his own omniscience and omnipotence?

The OP. The OP implies that a God who allows creatures to act in ways disobedient to his will is not omnipotent. Therefore, our definition of omnipotence forces God to act in a particular way (not allowing people to be disobedient to his will) in order to be granted the title omnipotent.

That is inherent in the definitions of omnipotence and omniscience.

God is omnipotent as he sees fit to be omnipotent, he is omnipotent in the way we say he needs to act in order to be declared omnipotent. If we are the arbitors for whether of not God is omnipotent, that itself is paradoxical...we are the judgers of God.

Either he is omnipotent or he is not. There are not different ways of being omnipotent. There cannot be, by definition.

I'm not exactly sure. It means he doesn't live like we do...born at a certain point in time...live second to second and instant to instant...see life unfold cause/effect...die at a certain time...not be able to directly interact with people who lived before and after. That's how we live...we know how we live and what it "means". God doesn't live like we do. He's outside of chronological time. I'm not privy to the experience of living outside of chronological time, so I don't know exactly what it means.

If you don't know what it means, how can you know it's true?

I do think that it means that God is omnipresent, he exists in every moment, and his totality means that in every moment he is both immersed in each moment, and outside of each moment. The moments are real...cause and effect is real...free will is real...but God remains transcendent over all of the reality. He is not confined by our chronology unless he chooses to be (since he is omnipotent he can choose confinement if he desires, i.e. Jesus).

But surely God was not solely present in Jesus during Jesus' lifetime? Why would Jesus have prayed to "the Father" so often?

False. I could have eaten something different, but then it would follow that God would know that I ate something different. We wouldn't call it *something different*, it would merely be what I ate this morning (and I haven't eaten yet this morning I'll have you know).

You could not have eaten anything other than that thing (or those things) that, at the beginning of time, God knew you were going to eat.

The way is free will, but you only choose once in any given situation. There is a singular result of the way, but the way is free will.

Now you're going in circles. If God knew at the beginning of time (or even the day before yesterday) what you would (or wouldn't) eat for breakfast, you could not have eaten anything other than what he knew. You can't get around that simply by declaring free will.



No, I agree that he could do anything he wants. He can also choose to limit what he does, that is an aspect of omnipotence.

Can he remove the limits on his own omnipotence? If so, they weren't really there. If not, he's not omnipotent.

My cell phone is sitting right next to me. God could choose to levitate it right now. If he doesn't do it (and he didn't I'll have you know), that doesn't prove that he is non-omnipotent.

You are confusing ability to act with action. Omnipotence only requires that he could levitate it if he chose to do so. Of course, the question whether God has free will is an interesting one, since he presumably knows all of his actions throughout eternity as well, but if he exists "outside chronological time" then maybe that somehow exempts him.

To the extent that you consider free will to be one of the factors, I agree with you.

You cannot assume that which you are attempting to prove.

God is the first cause, so to that extent I agree with you. But we don't imprison parents of 55 year olds who commit murder.

I hope we don't imprison the parents of 13-year-olds who commit murder either. How does this advance your argument for free will?

If you want to say that we shouldn't punish if there is no free will, I will call BS. Our actions are determined by a huge range of factors, which include the threat of punishment and the effect of prior punishments, so don't even go there.

You're assuming his plan for creation is contingent upon what he wants us to do, and I don't think that was the case. Meaning, God may in fact want us to do any number of things, but he did not let those desires effect his act of creation.

How could he not "let those desires affect his act of creation"? He is omnipotent. He is omniscient. He knows, to the minutest detail, the consequences of his every action and his actions have no constraints. How could anything be different from exactly how he wants it to be?

No, we know that in reality we have many paths that we can follow. Do we only follow one? Yep.

How do you "know that in reality we have many paths we can follow"? God knows exactly what you will do tomorrow, to the minutest detail. How can you possibly do anything other than that?

I'm insisting that free will is part of our operating mechanism, regardless of how God set up the universe, or, because of how God set up the universe. If you're suggesting that God must have been thinking about the infinity of cause-effect moments of existence while creating the universe, I don't think he had to be thinking that way at all. God's omniscience does not have to pre-determine his activity. Our creation was his choice. He didn't have to create us, he was not forced to create us. He is free to allow for variability and uncertainty based on the existence of other creative beings like us. The uncertainty is limited to the specifics of causal reality, so we pre-determine God's omniscience in that way because God allows for that. Yet he still knows everything, even if that knowledge is, by design, contingent on our particular strain of potency (free will determining chronological reality).

Lots of big words, but it really comes down to "Yes, we do so have free will!". You have not explained how free will is consistent with God's omniscience and omnipotence.

OK, then could you consider it in the limited parameters? In that sphere of the questions/answers in the test, the teacher does know the correct answers.

But the teacher does not have the power to ensure 100% that the students know the correct answers, nor is the teacher free (once the test has started) to provide the correct answers to the students.

Look, if you're going to use an analogy, you have to make sure that the analogy doesn't fundamentally change the concept under discussion. Here, when you use a teacher, you may say that the teacher's knowledge of the answers equates to omniscience (I would dispute that) but you cannot give the teacher a parallel to omnipotence. The analogy is therefore invalid.



I've allowed for that possibility in the analogy without saying it. My point is...would she have to do that? What if she doesn't want to?

That's why your analogy fails. We are not talking about a test - we are talking about the viability of the concept of free will in a universe where there is an omniscient and omnipotent god.

A better analogy is a movie. Your life is like watching a movie - you don't know how it's going to end, but you know you can't change it.

First, the teacher understands the limits and the realities of the students.

Second, the instructions will be clear on a variability scale (clearer to some than others), and the teacher would take this into account.

Third, the existence of several contradictory sets of instructions does not mean that the teachers gave out all of those sets of instructions.

Fourth, the teacher does not have to fail students because they fail the test, because one question/answer is worth a lot more than the others. The test is not equally weighted. That particular question is the essential question which lies behind all of the questions, and we have thousands of chances to answer that question, and I personally think we can also answer that question after we die although that is not a belief held by all Christians.

-Elliot


Well, that gets us into a huge derail about the morality of being God ("God is an overwhelming responsibility" - 10 pts. for the reference) that would deserve its own thread, and I don't have time to get into that now as I'm about to leave for a long weekend with my wife to celebrate our 10th wedding anniversary!

[elliotfc]

It is a paradox in the same sense that "Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it?" is a paradox: Can God create creatures with true free will, thus imposing limitations on his own omniscience and omnipotence?

The assertion is that an omnipotent being must have the power to create oxymorons. Logical absurdities *do not* limit God's omnipotent reality...that is the Christian position. For example, you could say that since God can not be Satan, therefore God is not omnipotent. But it that case you have different aspects of God nature butting heads. God can not be Satan because that is not his nature. He is still omnipotent, harmonious with all aspects of his nature.

Meaning, if you force the oxymorons on God, then other aspects of his nature will be affected, and you'll have deconstructed God (which may be the point or desire).

God's omnipotent as he is, and if he doesn't measure up to what a person decides omnipotence ought to be, that's because God is more powerful than what we declare an omnipotent being ought to be and do.

The second part of your sentence is not limiting God's omniscience, as I've already said that God does know the results of our free will, and as for omnipotence, allowing others to do things does not necessarily mean that a being lacks the power to do otherwise.

Either he is omnipotent or he is not. There are not different ways of being omnipotent. There cannot be, by definition.

OK. Is omnipotence *objectively true*? It is, or it isn't.

*I'm assuming that you think it is not objectively true, or objectively exists, manifested in some sort of entity*.

Then, omnipotence is mere conjecture, and as such, can be made to be absurd by introducing fallacies and paradoxes and oxymorons.

You take a concept that you reject, and make it absurd.

Now, my position is that there is a being who is...maximally powerful...within the logical confines of the totality of his nature. He is omnipotent in a logical way, and not omnipotent when logic is deconstructed.

So...I accept that there are different concepts of omnipotence (as we appear to disagree on the definition), yet the *objective* reality of omnipotence is realized as it actually is, and not as we surmise it to be, or not as we theoretically grasp it (while at the same time rejecting its existence, as you do).

Thanks for the reply, this seems a good place to clip, I'll get back to this tomorrow. -Elliot

[Stitch]

Many believers claim that God knows the future (and frequently reveals it through prophets, angels etc.), which means the future is fixed (and thus there is ultimately no free will).

If the prophecies were correct, you might have a point! What's to say god doesn't just use part of his power and just "fix" certain events in time leaving the rest to do as they may?

[Jon.]

The assertion is that an omnipotent being must have the power to create oxymorons. Logical absurdities *do not* limit God's omnipotent reality...that is the Christian position. For example, you could say that since God can not be Satan, therefore God is not omnipotent. But it that case you have different aspects of God nature butting heads. God can not be Satan because that is not his nature. He is still omnipotent, harmonious with all aspects of his nature.

Fair enough. However, if I can demonstrate that the simultaneous existence of a omnipotent + omniscient being and one or more lesser entities with free will creates an oxymoron, then surely we have to admit that fact and either admit we have no free will or change our view on God. And since we have no evidence regarding God's attributes other than various mythological accounts (which in the Christian view include omnipotence), and since our perception of our freedom of will would be exactly the same whether we have it or not (in other words, we can't tell, from our puny human points of view, whether we have free will or not), weare left with the choice of either abandoning God or admitting we have no free will.

Meaning, if you force the oxymorons on God, then other aspects of his nature will be affected, and you'll have deconstructed God (which may be the point or desire).

I'm not sure what you mean by "other aspects of his nature will be affected". I will assume that you mean that our view of these other aspects will be affected. In that case, I think you are correct. Omniscience, for one, is very closely tied in with the concept of omnipotence. In my view, it would not be possible to have true omnipotence without omniscience, because ignorance of some true facts about the universe would preclude freedom of action on those facts.

If by "deconstructed" you mean analyzed, then yes, my intent is to subject the notion of God to close scrutiny, and expose what I view as problems with the notion.

God's omnipotent as he is, and if he doesn't measure up to what a person decides omnipotence ought to be, that's because God is more powerful than what we declare an omnipotent being ought to be and do.

I don't quite follow you here. "Omnipotent" means "all-powerful." Not "super-powerful", but "all-powerful." There are no limits (except maybe ones imposed by logic*) on the being's action. It is this omnipotence that is claimed by/for the Christian god.

*Even these limits are arguable. One could answer, yes, God can create a rock so big even he can't lift it, but we are incapable of comprehending such a thing.

The second part of your sentence is not limiting God's omniscience, as I've already said that God does know the results of our free will, and as for omnipotence, allowing others to do things does not necessarily mean that a being lacks the power to do otherwise.

If God knows the results of our exercise of free will, how is it free? How could it be anything other than what God foreknows it to be? It may feel free to us (we could call this "soft" free will) in the sense that we are making choices between different options. However, it is not fully free (we could call this "hard" free will) in the sense that we could have done anything else.

Incidentally, it is not only the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient God that denies hard free will. A purely deterministic view of free will can come about if one considers that all of our decisions come about as a result of factors that have causes, and that those causes have causes, and create a chain of causality that ultimately stretches back to the Big Bang. The difference between theistic determinism and atheistic determinism, though, is that in the atheistic version, there is no being that knows of our future actions. The actions, though, are equally constrained.

OK. Is omnipotence *objectively true*? It is, or it isn't.

*I'm assuming that you think it is not objectively true, or objectively exists, manifested in some sort of entity*.

Then, omnipotence is mere conjecture, and as such, can be made to be absurd by introducing fallacies and paradoxes and oxymorons.

You take a concept that you reject, and make it absurd.

I consider that omnipotence and omniscience (which, as I said earlier, I view as a necessary condition for omnipotence) cannot exist in this universe. Whether they could exist in a being that exists outside this universe but can interact with it in some way is an interesting question, but until I see convincing evidence of such a being and its extra-universal existence, I do not consider that an omnipotent being exists.

I don't consider that I'm making the concept absurd so much as pointing out the inherent absurdities in it. :p

Now, my position is that there is a being who is...maximally powerful...within the logical confines of the totality of his nature. He is omnipotent in a logical way, and not omnipotent when logic is deconstructed.

Okay so far. But be careful with "the logical confines of the totality of his nature." It could be a weasel. I am maximally powerful within the confines of the totality of my nature - that is, I can do anything that I can do.

So...I accept that there are different concepts of omnipotence (as we appear to disagree on the definition), yet the *objective* reality of omnipotence is realized as it actually is, and not as we surmise it to be, or not as we theoretically grasp it (while at the same time rejecting its existence, as you do).

I don't think that there are different concepts of omnipotence, other than possibly applying or not applying the constricts of logic. If we accept those (and I think we can if we want to) then, in my view, an omnipotent being could exist (extra-universally) but lesser beings with free will could not co-exist with it.

I reject the existence of such a being in the same way that I reject the existence of fire-breathing elephants on the moons of Saturn. I (think I can) theoretically grasp the concept, but, seeing no evidence for it, I reject its existence.

Thanks for the reply, this seems a good place to clip, I'll get back to this tomorrow. -Elliot

Hope you had as good a weekend as I did.

[JoeTheJuggler]

If the prophecies were correct, you might have a point! What's to say god doesn't just use part of his power and just "fix" certain events in time leaving the rest to do as they may?

So then the contradiction is that humans have free will and don't have free will at the same time. Or the future is both predetermined and not predetermined--again, a contradiction.

[gnome]

God allows people to eat tacos, and this is good.

However, if people couldn't eat tacos, wouldn't that mean he's more powerful? See... since they CAN do something with one god that they CAN'T do around the other, that means the second god is more powerful.

See how a substitution of terms makes the argument's flaw more apparent.

[JoeTheJuggler]

God allows people to eat tacos, and this is good.

However, if people couldn't eat tacos, wouldn't that mean he's more powerful? See... since they CAN do something with one god that they CAN'T do around the other, that means the second god is more powerful.

See how a substitution of terms makes the argument's flaw more apparent.

I don't see how the substitution in terms makes anything more apparent.

Some people claim that God knows in advance who will eat tacos and who will refrain. Therefore the apparent "choice" to eat tacos or not to eat tacos is an illusion, since it must be predetermined.

Either God doesn't actually know in advance who will eat tacos (and therefore people who believe so are wrong), or God does know in advance, and there is no free will. If there's no free will. . .why should all us filthy sinning taco eaters burn in hell for eternity?

[Marquis de Carabas]

If there's no free will. . .why should all us filthy sinning taco eaters burn in hell for eternity?
Perhaps God has no free will, either.

[Jon.]

Perhaps God has no free will, either.

If he knows exactly what he's going to do, in advance of doing it, then he has no free will.

ETA: Not to mention a thoroughly boring existence.