Is omnipotence intrinsically paradoxical?

[Icebreaker]

Is omnipotence intrinsically paradoxical?

 

[The Rev]

I think so. The old saw about God creating a stone too heavy for Him to lift illustrates the idea pretty well. Infinite power in a universe of finites doesn't really make sense. For example, "How much of God's power is necessary to create a planet?" becomes non-sensical when that amount of power (X / Infinity), and 20 times it (20X / Infinity), have no relation to each other because they are both fractions of infinity, makes no sense.



The Rev

 

[loseyourname]

I like this example better than the rock example:

If God is all-powerful, he should have the power to create another God. What happens if both Gods want the same slice of pie? If God II gets it, then God I was not all-powerful. If God I gets it, then not only is God II not all-powerful, but God I is also not all-powerful, as he did not have the power to create another all-powerful God.

 

[Icebreaker]

Yes, and there is a general pattern emerging with these paradoxes. I just can't put it into words. It's like a generalized version of the unstoppable force vs. immovable object paradox.

 

[sneez]

Well guys i think you are dwelling into land your minds cannot encompass. Questions like can god create another god are begging the question. Just like the question if god can create rock heavy enough...

Since religious post are prohibited here, I am not going to go to deep, however, god by definition cannot create god. Anything created is creation and god is not created. God by "default" escapes these question which are just to bring him into our realm of "created reality". This post belongs to religious forum if you want there are plenty which will solve all these questions and many more you did not even think about yet.

with respect sneez

 

[Icebreaker]

God cannot create by your definition of God, or creating.

 

[sneez]

God cannot create god. It means that whatever HE creates cannot be called god because it is created and god by definition is not created.

i don't understand your post??

 

[Icebreaker]

If God cannot create another God, then God is not omnipotent.

 

[sneez]

Read my previous post. God cannot be created because it would not be god. If you want we can make this about definition of god but that would be silly.

Is infinity limited ? yet only one can exist.

 

[Icebreaker]

$$\mathbb{I}$$ and $$\mathbb{Q}$$ are both infinite sets, yet there are two of them, and none is a subset of the other, either, nor do they intersect. Unless you define "infinity" some other way.

The underlying paradox of omnipotence is created as soon as you bring a limit to it; i.e., God cannot do something. And that's the whole point -- God must be able to do everything, thus God is paradoxical.

But the topic is omnipotence, in general; not the trivial case of God.

 

[sneez]

Your view works only in theoretical mathematics. I agree that this does not belong here but as usual rethorics do not cut it.

I let you than go back to your wonderland.

 

[loseyourname]

God cannot create god. It means that whatever HE creates cannot be called god because it is created and god by definition is not created.

By whose definition? Did God himself tell you this? That a god can only be God if he is uncreated? Not all conceptions of god involve uncreated beings.

By the way, I'm familiar with theistic responses to the problem of omnipotence. The two common ones are that God cannot do what is logically impossible and that God cannot do what is outside of his nature, or power, to do (they aren't always phrased this way, but generally boil down to this). The first is a copout that doesn't deal with these paradoxes. Of course, God cannot behave in such a manner that leads to contradiction because it is logically impossible. That is the very argument being made here: That omnipotence is logically impossible. The second doesn't even defend omnipotence. Heck, I have the power to do everything that is in my nature to do. There's nothing special about that.

You can post theistic arguments as well as theodicies, so shoot away. You just aren't allowed to disuss the sacred texts of specific religions. Rational theology is allowed; revealed theology is not.

 

[sneez]

Like i said. It is about how we define god. However, only logic dictates that god cannot be created since he is considered(depends on your version of god) infinite(absolute) (Omnipotents, etc). For something relative cannot create absolute. But this might be on the edge of faith even though it is only logical.

As far as your nature goes i don't know if you are trying to compare your reality with that of God? But that is personal taste. For you and i came from non existence. God is not bound by time and nothing else, hence exists since ever. Like i said hardly can we discuss this without going into theology (even faith). I was trying to say that god creating god is bad example but i c that for some ppl it can work. Just depends on their definition of GOd which is personal believe and I am not going to go there.

 

[moving finger]

Is omnipotence intrinsically paradoxical?

I believe it is well established that concepts of infinite sets can easily lead to paradoxes. This is not limited to the paradox of infinity implied within the definition of omnipotence, but is applicable also to well-defined sets in mathematics. For example Russells paradox, or the Barber paradox. There are many examples on the same theme. None of these paradoxes have prevented eminent mathematicians from doing legitimate studies of infinite sets.

MF

 

[Icebreaker]

sneez, define this "infinity" of yours.

I let you than go back to your wonderland.

What's that supposed to mean? Seems to me you're the blue-pill.

 

[Chronos]

A friend of mine swears by hard boiled eggs and oysters.

 

[one_raven]

omnipotence means simply all-powerful.

By saying that it is a paradox to call God omnipotent since he can not defy logic is simply stating that God is limited by nothing more than the laws of existence.
It is a falsified catch-22...
If theists admit that God is not limited by the laws of existence, they are admitting that he is outside of existence or non-existent.
If they say that he is, they are admitting that his powers have limits.

It's crap.
Anything that is postulated to exist must inherently be limited to the laws of existence.
If the laws of existence are all that is limiting God, he can still be deemed omnipotent because he has the power and ability to do anything that it is conceivably possible or logically consistent to do.

That does not limit his power down to human levels.

Can you do anything that it is logically consistent to do?
I would like to see you create a second Sun in this Solar System.
You can't.
Not because it is logically inconsistent, because it isn't, but because you do not have the power to do so.
According to theists that believe God is omnipotent, God does have that power.

It should be noted that I am not a theist, I am simply making the argument that omnipotence is not logically inconsistent.

 

[dumuzi]

Why can't God exist, be omnipotent, and defy logic?

It seems to me that any proof on the necessity of logic for existence would have to rely on logic, and would be circular.

Therefore omnipotence might be paradoxical, but true.

Of course if God did not have to be logically self consistent, not only would this thread serve no purpose, but also this forum, and philosophy

 

[Les Sleeth]

Is omnipotence intrinsically paradoxical?

I'd say it isn't paradoxical, but rather that omnipotence isn't indicated. Here's how I contemplate it, and for this contemplation I will assume God exists (which I am not saying he/she/it actually does).

In these times, we've learned to look first to what evidence most supports. What evidence do we have of God's omnipotence? Before I offer my own views, I ask anyone to give us all one bit of evidence or one sound logical reason to assume God is omnipotent.

If we have no direct evidence which indicates omnipotency, then we are left with inference. Again, assuming God exists and is responsible for bringing about creation, and since we know creation doesn't require infinite power to have been brought about, then why assume its creator is omnipotent? The only logical assumption is that if God exists and is responsible for creation, then God is at least powerful enough to create this universe. "At least powerful enough to create this universe" is not omnipotence.

 

[loseyourname]

That's a very good point, Les. Where does the conception of God's omnipotence come from? Is it part of a sacred text, or was it invented by the early medieval scholastics?

 

[hypnagogue]

I don't know the background behind this, but an off-the-cuff guess is that God is attributed omnipotence because God is generally conceived of as the greatest possible being/entity. If God is not omnipotent, it follows that there could be a being more powerful than God, in which case the whole concept of God would be thrown off. The easy away around this is to essentially attribute infinite powers to God so that such a move is impossible.

 

[loseyourname]

I found an entry in the Catholic encyclopedia:

• The omnipotence of God is a dogma of Catholic faith, contained in all the creeds and defined by various councils (cf. Denziger-Bannwart. "Enchiridion", 428, 1790). In the Old Testament there are more than seventy passages I which God is called Shaddai, i.e. omnipotent. The Scriptures represent this attribute as infinite power (Job, xlii, 2; Mark, x, 27; Luke, 1, 37); Matt., xix, 26, etc.) which God alone possesses (Tob., xiii, 4; Ecclus. I, 8; etc.).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm

It begins with Aquinas' definition of God's omnipotence, but ends with the above paragraph. I guess it does have some scriptural backing.

This gets interesting. I looked up the meaning of the Hebrew word Shaddai. It is the plural form of the word Shad, which simply means "powerful one." Apparently when the term is used in the old testament, it literally means "powerful ones" and is used as one of the names of God (implying that early Hebrews were actually polytheistic?). It was first translated to the Greek Ikanos, which means "all-sufficient." It is translated into English versions of the bible as "Almighty." Strange that the Catholic Encyclopedia claims that the word literally means omnipotent.

 

[Les Sleeth]

That's a very good point, Les. Where does the conception of God's omnipotence come from? Is it part of a sacred text, or was it invented by the early medieval scholastics?

I was going to answer from the historical perspective but I see you came up with some good stuff.

It is distressing to follow the development of dogma because, IMO, all the places where it pops up (whether in religion or anywhere else) is right where there are explanatory "gaps" in some belief system. If there were evidence and logic which justified a belief, then why stick dogma in there?

It requires a careful study of early Judiasm and Christianity to see both the pious and the opportunistic reasons for the belief in omnipotence. I have challenged that belief on logic grounds for many years, and omniscience too for similar reasons.

 

[Zantra]

I like this example better than the rock example:

If God is all-powerful, he should have the power to create another God. What happens if both Gods want the same slice of pie? If God II gets it, then God I was not all-powerful. If God I gets it, then not only is God II not all-powerful, but God I is also not all-powerful, as he did not have the power to create another all-powerful God.

If a human gives birth to a child, then one day that child grows up to kill their parent,isn't that the same thing? On some level we could be considered "omnipotent". It's all in perspective. We are capable of creating things that destroy ourselves. Omnipotence doesn't preclude self destruction. Or at least it shouldn't IMHO. Basically a being who can do anything, can kill himself, Can make himself human, can create a being as powerful as he is( though not more powerful). because such a being can do anything by definition. You say he can make a rock too heavy to lift, but if he's mos powerful, he will not be able to create such a rock that he cannot lift, because there are no limits to his strength.

 

[hypnagogue]

If a human gives birth to a child, then one day that child grows up to kill their parent,isn't that the same thing? On some level we could be considered "omnipotent".

It's not the same thing at all. There is no extant claim that humans are omnipotent, as there are obviously things that are beyond our powers. (This holds even if we look at simple cases that don't involve paradoxes, such as the ability to fly unaided by aircraft). You're right in a sense to point out a sort of ambiguity in the word "omnipotent," which might be the cause of the apparent paradoxes being discussed in this thread. But it's safe to say that no remotely reasonable sense of the word "omnipotent" could be attributed to humans.

You say he can make a rock too heavy to lift, but if he's mos powerful, he will not be able to create such a rock that he cannot lift, because there are no limits to his strength.

Well, that's exactly the sort of question the paradoxes turn on. If God is omnipotent, shouldn't he/it be able to create such a rock? Does not the inability to create such a rock imply that God's creative powers are limited, and doesn't this imply in turn that God is not truly omnipotent?

 

[hypnagogue]

I looked up the meaning of the Hebrew word Shaddai. It is the plural form of the word Shad, which simply means "powerful one." Apparently when the term is used in the old testament, it literally means "powerful ones" and is used as one of the names of God (implying that early Hebrews were actually polytheistic?).

There could be any number of historical or semantic contexts within which the reference to God as "Shaddai" wouldn't imply polytheism. The pluralization is interesting, but I wouldn't take much from it without a deeper accompanying knowledge of the Hebrew language and perhaps also the historical facts (if they are even available) about how the Old Testament was written and studied.

 

[Zantra]

It's not the same thing at all. There is no extant claim that humans are omnipotent, as there are obviously things that are beyond our powers. (This holds even if we look at simple cases that don't involve paradoxes, such as the ability to fly unaided by aircraft). You're right in a sense to point out a sort of ambiguity in the word "omnipotent," which might be the cause of the apparent paradoxes being discussed in this thread. But it's safe to say that no remotely reasonable sense of the word "omnipotent" could be attributed to humans.

Now I think you're onto something. You don't see humans as omnipotent from your POV, but to a lower lifeform- say a pig, wouldn't we appear to be omnipotent? I"m not comfortable with calling something omnipotent. Just because it has powers and abilities beyond our comprehension doesn't make it omnipotent. It makes it beyond our ability to fully understand. And in a universe of infinity, I'm not comfortable designating one being as "the top of the food chain" when there may not be a top. Only an infinite series of levels.
Maybe the omnipotent being actually does have limits, but we are unable to understand what those limits are.

It's something like saying "bahh... we calculated PI to the 10 billionth decimal place, and I'm tired to trying, so will just say this is as far as it goes"

Well, that's exactly the sort of question the paradoxes turn on. If God is omnipotent, shouldn't he/it be able to create such a rock? Does not the inability to create such a rock imply that God's creative powers are limited, and doesn't this imply in turn that God is not truly omnipotent?

Then if God cannot create such a rock then he must not be omnipotent, right? And if you apply such logic further you have to conclude that there is no such thing as omnipotence. Only levels of understanding.

 

[Hector]

Then if God cannot create such a rock then he must not be omnipotent, right? And if you apply such logic further you have to conclude that there is no such thing as omnipotence. Only levels of understanding.

If you're really serious about logic, it's not difficult to conclude that the world does not exist, that we do not know anything, that other people are creations of our mind, and so on and on all the way to the madhouse.

I think many people fail to understand what theology is, and why dogmas are necessary. It's easy enough to think the Church is filled with evil idiots who have no basic understanding of logic, and like to manipulate concepts to satisfy their selfish, materialistic needs. That might well be the case, although I doubt it. I prefer to think of Christian theology as the result of 2,000 years of serious thinking about ideas so complex they need a lifetime of devotion to understand. The fact that some very bright people, such as Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and countless others, have contributed to the establishment of that theology makes me think there must be something to it.

That said, I think there are only two valid approaches to the question of omnipotence or any other Christian dogma. The first approach is simple: trust that the people who came up with the idea knew what they were talking about, and just accept the concept without understanding it. Most people follow that route, which is why (in my opinion) the Church needs dogmas. Dogmas are not a way of forcing an idea into someone's mind - that is not possible in any case. Dogmas are needed because people want to be assured that the ideas they choose to trust are the result of careful thinking and therefore dabbling with them is a waste of time.

Of course some people don't like that approach, in which case only one sensible alternative remains: try to understand why you cannot understand a concept most people have no problem with. "They're all fools" is not, in my opinion, a satisfying answer. You won't learn about modern physics by reading the myriad crackpot websites found on the internet; likewise, you won't learn anything about theology by reading its critics, since none of them are familiar with the subject in the first place. If you're serious about the subject, you may start with some of the excellent texts on Christian apologetics, most of them just a Google search away and available for free.

One can, obviously, ignore the whole subject, which is also perfectly fine. There are far more important things in life than to know whether it's right to ask if God can create a rock he cannot lift. Only I think one should refrain from making arguments out of ignorance.

The above said, all I have to say on the subject is that if one believes in God one must necessarily believe in his omnipotence. And omnipotence has nothing to do with the ability of creating rocks too heavy to lift, or creating other gods to engage in contests with. Those are, in my opinion, silly questions which divert from the more interesting pursuit of understanding what a belief in God necessarily entails. What omnipotence means, in my limited understanding, is that God is capable of doing things we consider possible in principle but impossible in practice, such as create a universe out of nothing, ressurect a person after death, knows the thoughts of every single living being, bring universal justice to all. If you believe God can do those things, would you really care whether God can do things that are impossible even in principle?

 

[bola]

I think we first need to define god..

For example, the creator of the universe cannot be made up of particles or atoms or energy or strings, why? Because then he woulkd hbave to create himself, and he would also be a slave to the system he created. Both options are logically impossible.
So what are we left with?
A god outside the system. Something who is not attached to the universe at all, but rather an external entity that can or cannot interfere with the ongoings inside the universe.

Regardless, this god would be omnipotent, but only to all the levels underneath him.
He would himself exist in a universe with logical happenings just like our universe, so it would be infinitely recursive.

Simply put, I don't believe in a god or creator. Unless the universe is infinite in nature.

 

[Zantra]

If you're really serious about logic, it's not difficult to conclude that the world does not exist, that we do not know anything, that other people are creations of our mind, and so on and on all the way to the madhouse.

I think many people fail to understand what theology is, and why dogmas are necessary. It's easy enough to think the Church is filled with evil idiots who have no basic understanding of logic, and like to manipulate concepts to satisfy their selfish, materialistic needs. That might well be the case, although I doubt it. I prefer to think of Christian theology as the result of 2,000 years of serious thinking about ideas so complex they need a lifetime of devotion to understand. The fact that some very bright people, such as Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and countless others, have contributed to the establishment of that theology makes me think there must be something to it.

That said, I think there are only two valid approaches to the question of omnipotence or any other Christian dogma. The first approach is simple: trust that the people who came up with the idea knew what they were talking about, and just accept the concept without understanding it. Most people follow that route, which is why (in my opinion) the Church needs dogmas. Dogmas are not a way of forcing an idea into someone's mind - that is not possible in any case. Dogmas are needed because people want to be assured that the ideas they choose to trust are the result of careful thinking and therefore dabbling with them is a waste of time.

Of course some people don't like that approach, in which case only one sensible alternative remains: try to understand why you cannot understand a concept most people have no problem with. "They're all fools" is not, in my opinion, a satisfying answer. You won't learn about modern physics by reading the myriad crackpot websites found on the internet; likewise, you won't learn anything about theology by reading its critics, since none of them are familiar with the subject in the first place. If you're serious about the subject, you may start with some of the excellent texts on Christian apologetics, most of them just a Google search away and available for free.

One can, obviously, ignore the whole subject, which is also perfectly fine. There are far more important things in life than to know whether it's right to ask if God can create a rock he cannot lift. Only I think one should refrain from making arguments out of ignorance.

The above said, all I have to say on the subject is that if one believes in God one must necessarily believe in his omnipotence. And omnipotence has nothing to do with the ability of creating rocks too heavy to lift, or creating other gods to engage in contests with. Those are, in my opinion, silly questions which divert from the more interesting pursuit of understanding what a belief in God necessarily entails. What omnipotence means, in my limited understanding, is that God is capable of doing things we consider possible in principle but impossible in practice, such as create a universe out of nothing, ressurect a person after death, knows the thoughts of every single living being, bring universal justice to all. If you believe God can do those things, would you really care whether God can do things that are impossible even in principle?

You lost me in about the 3rd paragraph. When you said that I have to trust that the people knew what they were talking about and don't expect proof. Most people have a hard time programming the vcr. I was the person who took apart the vcr to see what made it run. Accepting an explanation without exploring all possibilities isn't something I can personally do. While I'm not prepared to go so far as to say that everything around us isn't real, I'm most definitely not accepting an explanation of life without proof. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to swiss cheese the omnipotence theory. But just accepting that god can create a rock that he cannot lift is like jumping off a bridge because a bunch of people swear I won't die, but instead float away on the breeze. I'd rather throw someone else off first, and see what happens. I'm looking for answers, but I'm patient enough to look at a deeper meaning.

 

[Les Sleeth]

This gets interesting. I looked up the meaning of the Hebrew word Shaddai. It is the plural form of the word Shad, which simply means "powerful one." Apparently when the term is used in the old testament, it literally means "powerful ones" and is used as one of the names of God (implying that early Hebrews were actually polytheistic?).

If we ignore modern attempts by religionists to spin history in favor of their dogma and beliefs, it seems likely early Hebrews were polytheists, and most certainly were paganists (why else did Moses have to kick butt on finding them worshipping a golden calf?).

It is a great advantage for any modern person who can envision what life was like over three millennia ago. Except for a couple of places around the Mediterranean, it was primitive tribal life. Fortunately, today there still exists such primitive tribal circumstances, and we can study how things are. And virtually without exception, when it comes to metaphysics, primitives are superstitious and lacking any real insight into the nature of the universe. Why should we believe ancient Hebrew tribes were any different when even their own records indicate they understood little before Moses?

Consider the belief in Yahweh as “almighty.” You have to understand that back then nomadic tribes were constantly competing with other tribes, and sometimes were in danger of being taken into slavery by incipient civilizations (which happened twice to the Hebrews). When it came time to fight for something, your “god” was your assistant. If you won, then your god was more powerful than the competitor’s god . . . OR, as some early Hebrew theists suggested, if you lost your god was displeased with you for some reason and so didn’t help out.

Before Moses, there is absolutely no sign of any understanding of monotheism. The Hebrew god was just their god, and they likely saw the other tribes as having their own god. Moses was the guy who really realized something unique meditating up on the mountain.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I am going to take issue with most of your post . . . I hope you don’t take it too personally. Just so you know, I pretty much think there is some greater consciousness behind creation, so we might have something in common there. But after that, your way of reasoning I don’t care for much.

If you're really serious about logic, it's not difficult to conclude that the world does not exist, that we do not know anything, that other people are creations of our mind, and so on and on all the way to the madhouse.

Your statement above seems contradictory. How can one be serious about logic and conclude the world does not exist? Or, that people are creations of our minds? All that has been dumped long ago as the silliness of idealists.

I think many people fail to understand . . . why dogmas are necessary.

I agree with the "many people." Dogmas aren’t necessary, they are 100% stupidity.

I prefer to think of Christian theology as the result of 2,000 years of serious thinking about ideas so complex they need a lifetime of devotion to understand. The fact that some very bright people, such as Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and countless others, have contributed to the establishment of that theology makes me think there must be something to it.

Would you like me to create a list for you of 2000 year old thinking on subjects that are just as dim-witted today as they were way back then? 2000 years of thinking doesn’t make something profound if the thinking is primarily attempts to justify beliefs.

Let’s say you believe in alchemy. So you collect all the writers on the subject for the last 2000 years. All of them, because they believe in it, have developed a great many arguments. Given 2000 years to practice, later writers expand on what earlier writers said, and so the arguments get evermore sophisticated. Yes, you with only decades to live, will require a lifetime to understand all the points made. But that’s just because of the quantity of thoughts, and not the quality of thoughts.

Being “bright” doesn’t make right. Lots of wrong thinking people are quite brilliant.

That said, I think there are only two valid approaches to the question of omnipotence or any other Christian dogma. The first approach is simple: trust that the people who came up with the idea knew what they were talking about . . .

If you were in church, you might get away with that. But you are here in a philosophy forum. Why should we trust that somebody knows what they are talking about just because it was said “way back then”? Does the age of an idea make it valid?

. . . and just accept the concept without understanding it.

Boy are you at the wrong site if you think anyone is going to buy that here.

Most people follow that route, which is why (in my opinion) the Church needs dogmas. Dogmas are not a way of forcing an idea into someone's mind - that is not possible in any case. Dogmas are needed because people want to be assured that the ideas they choose to trust are the result of careful thinking and therefore dabbling with them is a waste of time.

What does needing to be assured have to do with the truth, or how each individual should decide what is true? If you were a manager I was hired to consult on good management practices, I’d accuse you of paternalism. With a pat on the head you say, “don’t worry your little brain about it, we’ve got it all figured out for you. Do what I say and you will be taken care of.”

It is a failed theory that others can understand for others. EACH individual must understand for himself, and paternalistic reassurances in this age are everyday (thankfully) being recognized as ignorance.

of course some people don't like that approach, in which case only one sensible alternative remains: try to understand why you cannot understand a concept most people have no problem with.

Boy do I hate this sentence. To me it seems the most despicable sort of sophistry. “Most people” isn’t a test for truth. If Jesus had acquiesced to what “most people” had no problem accepting, then there would be no Christianity would there? Are you a seeker of truth or an advocate for dogmatic idiocy?

. . . you won't learn anything about theology by reading its critics, since none of them are familiar with the subject in the first place. If you're serious about the subject, you may start with some of the excellent texts on Christian apologetics, most of them just a Google search away and available for free.

The more you reason, the more you reveal how little you are interested in objectivity. Do you really think “none” of the critics are unfamiliar with the subject? Well, I challenge you right here and now. Let’s hear you make your case for Church dogma, and defend the old apologists with logic and facts. I’ll take you on.

The above said, all I have to say on the subject is that if one believes in God one must necessarily believe in his omnipotence.

That statement there is just ridiculous, and why the vast majority of thinking people are turned off to the idea of God. Why should one have to believe ANYTHING to have faith? Do you think there is any irony in the fact that those most responsible for turning off intelligent people to God are the same ones calling themselves believers?

If you believe God can do those things, would you really care whether God can do things that are impossible even in principle?

I agree with this. But here you have expressed something you feel and not tainted it with your attempts to get people to buy religion. That bit of sincerity impresses me a zillion percent more than all that theological junk you fed us above.

 

[Hector]

You lost me in about the 3rd paragraph.

I suspect that is because you didn't read the 4th paragraph. Which is fine, I usually stop reading when the BS flag goes off, which the 3rd paragraph may have done for you. And, as always, there's the possibility I didn't make myself clear enough; if that is the case, I apologize.

When you said that I have to trust that the people knew what they were talking about and don't expect proof.

That is not what I said at all. I said that is one possibility out of two.

Most people have a hard time programming the vcr. I was the person who took apart the vcr to see what made it run. Accepting an explanation without exploring all possibilities isn't something I can personally do.

The analogy doesn't hold. Most people can't program a VCR because they never read the manual, or never take the thing apart, as you said.

I can't explain the concept of omnipotence to you, it's not as simple as learning to program a VCR. All I can say is that, if God exists, he must be omnipotent, otherwise he is not a God. That is the central issue, the only issue that matters.

I do get the feeling that you are not concerned with God's supposed omnipotence as much as you are about God's existence. You may be thinking that if God cannot be omnipotent, then he cannot exist, which is in fact very close to what I just said above. In other words, if that is your argument, then yes, you are absolutely right. But if you are trying to argue that God can exist and not be omnipotent, I can warn you that countless people tried to follow that path of reasoning before, and they were all proved wrong.

 

[hypnagogue]

Let’s hear you make your case for Church dogma, and defend the old apologists with logic and facts. I’ll take you on.

Actually, let's not. Abstract philosophical discussion of omnipotent beings and the like is acceptable, but when we begin to broach dogmas of specific religious traditions, we begin to approach a discussion that is not religion-neutral but rather religion-laden. And of course, such discussions are not permitted here, per PF policy. It's a fine line to walk, but let's please try to err on the side of caution here.

To repeat, discussion should be limited to purely philosophical arguments and considerations, and references to specific religious belief systems and the like should be avoided. If this thread cannot continue on such a path, it will have to be closed.

 

[Hector]

Let’s hear you make your case for Church dogma, and defend the old apologists with logic and facts. I’ll take you on

Sorry but you're talking to the wrong guy. I'm not interested in arguing religion, I just wanted to explain why omnipotence is a necessary concept in Christian theology, nothing more than that.

I pretty much think there is some greater consciousness behind creation

That is irrelevant. The existence of some greater consciousness behind creation can only be asserted through dogma. And in Christian theology, the assertion of that dogma requires the assertion of other dogmas. That's all I said.

You probably believe you are justified in thinking there is some greater consciousness behind creation, but if that is the case I'm quite sure you are mistaken. But, again, this would be a religious discussion, and not only I'm not interested, the forum rules do not allow it.

Now take a deep breath and calm down. You are overreacting.