A medieval question for you, if you believe in god....

by snare&racket 55 Replies latest jw friends

  • snare&racket
    snare&racket

    If he could write a maths equation he could not solve, it means he is not omnipotent because he can't solve a math problem. It is this easy to prove that 'all powerfull' is nonsensical, illogical and unnatural. It is simply a made up human idea.... without much thought too !

    The paradox just highlights the impossibility of anything or anyone being all powerful. It just isn't possible and is illogical.

    When you say what he can do and wold want to do, you are missing the whole point.

    But I will leave it there. For those that get the point, I hope it makes you think. This is the kind of stuff I mulled over when I was a kid but hid from the answers out of fear and no wanting to really consider the answers.

  • KateWild
    KateWild

    Fair point snare, I do get that it is a paradox. I don't believe that God is benevolent in any way at all, but I do believe he has power, and created the universe. In as far as omnipotence is concerned, yes it's a paradox, well done. Kate xx

  • Island Man
    Island Man

    " Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?"

    The answer is no.

    An omnipotent being's power cannot be inadequate to counteracting an external force because that would make the external force more powerful than him, thus making him not omnipotent. Now I know you're going to then suggest that his inability to create a force greater than himself suggests he is not omnipotent. But that is not so, because the issue with omnipotence is not the power of his creations but his own power/strength. The omnipotence paradox foolishly seeks to argue that God is not omnipotent because he can't ever be weaker than one of his creations. Worded another way, it is saying that God is not omnipotent because he can't not be omnipotent; God is not omnipotent because he always has to be omnipotent. Well, duhh!

    The fact that he cannot make an outside entity stronger than himself actually confirms his absolute omnipotence. It means that his power exceeds even his own creativity. So rather than denying his omnipotence, it actually confirms it.

    I think the fundamental flaw in the omnipotence paradox is in equating power with ability. I submit to you that they're actually not the same. Omnipotence does not and cannot mean God should have the ability to make an external entity stronger or more powerful than himself. That would be a recklessly absolute interpretation of the word omnipotent - absolute to the point of being contradictory!

  • humbled
    humbled

    This discussion has taken my wondering/wandering about the God question into a different conceptual space in the same way cofty's thread did...

    The idea of a God who is omnipotent creates irresoluable problems for me. For that god to create so vast a universe and who puts creatures so frail as ourselves as the axis for the sucess or failure of it???? It is ridiculous.

    The entire program of universal sovereignty is the stone too big for God to move.

    Once god a is styled all-powerfull and all-loving that god is screwed.

    Thomas Aquinas may have sensed that the God-theology he was teaching (he was a 13 century theologian, famous then, sanctified by Rome later) was being driven less by reason and truth than by fantasy. (See above^^^^ the problem of the Immaculate Conception.)

    Really--If God could have solved the problem of original sin by doing a great job of creation in the first place there would not have been the anguish on earth caused by the Fall. It is not credible that Thomas, forced by papal pressure to fall in with the popular feast of Mary's Conception in St. Ann, didn't see that the only way to assure a clean human was for god to do a retrofit in the womb. Thomas had God clean up the mess in Mary before she was born and before she could think or will to sin.

    WTF! (I believe) Thomas thought--If God did that for her then Jesus would not have to die for her sins because--- even if she had given birth to him--(which she hadn't yet because she born herself) she wouldn't have any inherited sin to die FOR.

    So Thomas had to tinker with it. And he had it that Ann and Joachim(Mary's ma and pa) did the deed and for only the briefest interval Mary existed in need of redemption before God operated on her sose she'd be perfectly sinless......for ever and ever.

    And so on.. and on...

    Thomas must have wondered ('Cause I am now) If God had that power AND he had love AND he was all-knowng ---in equal measure--why didn't he retro fit the kids in Eve's womb after she had sinned. Or better yet--why didn't he do that good a job on Eve to begin with?

    If God is all-powerful then he really is between a rock and a hard place.

    Maeve

    Can someone link Snare's thread to the Epic Thread? I don't know how.

  • snare&racket
    snare&racket

    Yes Humbled !!!!! Yes indeed ! x

    Kate- please remember this is not my argument, it is nearly a thousand years old, I gain nothing from you accepting it. It is the start of opening the mind to consider things we were indoctrinated with without question. Illogical, fallible, senseless ideas that were fed to us before we had the ability to rationalise. Makes reading the bible story book to infants, somewhat more sinister when you realise why it is promoted.

    Island man- listen to yourself... an omnipotent being can't by definition be omnipotent if he is restricted in any manner. The emotional attachment to god can cloud the purpose of this question. The second you go into theology or semantics you are missing the point.

    Focus on merely the CONCEPT of 'all powerful' or 'omnipotent' and see that it is a flawed concept in of itself.

    There is no right or wrong answer, you say he cant make something so heavy he can't lift it... well then he has restrictions, that is not omnipotent. Simple.

    The reason it makes your mind noodle, is that it is illogical and flawed. It is clearly the concept of a lazy human, personifying a god charachter and making him supreme and all powerful without realising that it is impossible for anything to have that trait.

    This kind of thinking is exacly the kind of thinking religions hope you ignore. There is nothing facile or vain in considering these issues of belief. Take it to your pastor and watch him/her pat you on the head and announce "you are thinking too much."

    Churches, the only place where that sentence will be said to you......

  • cofty
    cofty

    See Snare it was worth it because despite loads of replies that were "not even wrong", Maeve got it.

  • humbled
    humbled

    HotDamn ! mebbie the Jesuits will take me now that I got some stuff figured out!

    But seriously.

    It takes a long time to unwind from deep, long indoctrination.

    I was raised Catholic before I up/down-graded to the Organization. (7 children show how indoctrinated a Catholic I was) I am grateful for the large (cofty's) and strange-seeming(like this one, snare) questions that have made me pull back from the trees to discover what forest I am really in .

    I think there is plenty of meat left to pick on this bone, snare. At least for me. I talked to my husband about it--this thread that is. He has wonder how a person such as myself could have been so deluded by a religion like the JWs for so long--I told him --hey-Thomas A. studied Aristotle and all those folk were spinning webs long before I was born. It is hard to get free.

    I would so like to know what Thomas A. was thinking when he said of his theological writing "It is all straw". He died not long after.

  • snare&racket
    snare&racket

    Wow humbled, you are the real deal. Thinker and researcher.... How indeed did you fall for tigers in your garden and a free log cabin in a mountain range?

    Most of the worlds population believes in one myth or another, don't feel bad. These religious organisation's have had centuries of experience in advertising, consumer research and indoctrination.,,,, they know exacly what they are doing. All that is required, is for the duped, to surrender their thinking ability and exchange it for loyalty to an earthly authority, they use slight of hand to distract you with shiny, sparkly rewards as they do it.

    Simply be glad you figured it out with time left on the clock ;) xx

    Other things I found helpful to consider...

    1.

    Is there even one verse of the bible that is or could be intepreted several ways? Was the bible really the best mechanism for a god when communicating? Passed on by oral story for at least a thousand years, then penned over the next 2,000 by nobody knows who! Why not in stone, into the earth, indelibly, with all context and perspective and without any doubts!!?

    2.

    Would you do exactly the same things, make the same choices if we sent you back in time an hour without you knowing and let you play out that hour again?

    Think about it a moment...Of course you would, whatever reason you made those desicions the first time round, will make you take that exact same choice again and EVERY time. That being the case, your free will is illusionary. Choices are determined by previously exposed influences. You may chose Cornflakes because you saw the advert on tv the night before and when entering the kitchen felt like cornflakes. Replay that moment a million times, and you would make the same decision for the exact same reason every time.

    If you got up and got dressed in a blue dress, the reason you chose blue that dress remains the same, even if we sent you back and we replayed it. Whatever influenced you to make these desicions the first time round, would still be present the second time, third time, fourth time, and so you would react the same way EVERY time. We already know you would because you did it the first time and nothing in the whole universe has changed between the first play through and the millionth.

    So that being said, how could a god judge you for choices as if there is a crossroads at every juncture? The man walking in on his wife having an affair, that kills her in an emotional rage, and her lover.... was always goin to. The influences were in play before he opened the door. Maybe if the guy had visited his uncle in prison as a kid, he would have stopped just short of murdering them, because his influnces changed. Maybe the fact they had just been camping and there was a knife in the room atop a pile of camping gear, influenced him to kill them. The point is, how can a go judge and punish when there is no free will? If we will make the same desicions at a set point in time and space, because of previous influences and exposures, how can we be punished. It was always going to happen.

    The concept of free will is man made, though we seem to have a human desire to believe in it, likely due to the consequences of surrendering control should we admit we have alot less than free will than we once believed. We have none.

    i appreciate this concept is deep, you can read up on it under 'determinism' it has nothing to do with pre-destination by the way. Just that our choices are not really choices, but reactions to influences.

  • Razziel
    Razziel

    2. Utterly deterministic, yet often unpredictable. We would make the same decision every time yet do not know what the decision will be until the moment is upon us. Deterministic chaos.

  • Island Man
    Island Man

    " Island man- listen to yourself... an omnipotent being can't by definition be omnipotent if he is restricted in any manner. The emotional attachment to god can cloud the purpose of this question. The second you go into theology or semantics you are missing the point."

    I think the fundamental issue here is that the word omnipotent as used of God has a more loose meaning than its meaning in the paradox. Omnipotent as used of God does not mean there is absolutely nothing that he is incapable of doing. It simply means that he is the most powerful. Even the bible acknowledges that there are certain things that God can't do. For example, it says he can't lie. By the way, I'm an atheist. It just seems to me that the paradox reaks of smart alec technicality capitalizing on the fact that omnipotent is somewhat of a misnomer.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit