ramifications of omnipotence for God

quote:

---

It's like the bear joke: I don't have to run faster than the bear - I only have to run faster than you. In God's case, He doesn't have to be omnipotent - He only has to be more powerful than us.

---

Exactly! In the Bible I think he was touted as more powerful than other gods also.

quote:

---

but it isn't really "omni", is it?

---

Omni means all or universal. I think I see what you're saying. All powerful would mean that one has all the power to have or wield. The definition, on the otherhand, says unlimited or virtually unlimited power. Now I understand the money analogy.The next question would be, what power does God actually have? Now days I think they look at power as authority and not might. I think in the Bible, they viewed him as mighty.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Yes. God can be Allmighty without being Authoritarian. (The "all" in "Allmighty" being relative again.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

ICANT So just do as he says without thinking about it? Why give freewill to robots? And my point is that an omniscient God that created the serpent must take responsibility for enticing Eve to take an action to disobey the command which up till that time she had been obeying. If Eve was beguiled then this is also a responsibility of God's for not giving her sufficient critical thinking skills. She has no concept of right and wrong before eating the fruit so this is incorrect. That is possible however the wife never did inform him IIRC. 'Sides as any man knows you always eat what the woman gives you if you know whats good for you. How could he miss since whatever he called them is supposedly what they were called. It is not like he had to re-name them. Of course this is an easy claim to make since there was no list provided to confirm what Adam named things.
As for the eating of the fruit he also could not know it was wrong before eating it.Again with the missing critical thinking skills. Strike two for God. And surprise of all surprises Adam lived more than eight hundred years after consuming the fruit that he was supposed to have died eating. He did not have any knowledge of right and wrong , had never known death so could not understand the consequence of that. His wife gave him a fruit that he did not ask to inquire about but then he never asked about the serpent she was hanging around so he probably wasn't the brightest light in sky eh? So now you are equating God with a sergeant in the Army? I struggle to refrain from touching this one so I will let it go. You really do not get it do you? BEFORE they ate of the fruit they did not know WRONG!!! IS that a greater degree of clarity? Bullshit. He made the rules , gave the participants little in the way of reasoning skills and when they were obeying the command despite this he creates a serpent to, as you say, beguile them. Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

---

"The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss."Thomas Carlyle

First the man was supposed to die the same day not eating the fruit.Second can you prove this man lived 800 years after eating the fruit?I think I can prove he died the say day. But sidelined the first woman did not commit a sin. She had not been commanded by God not to eat the fruit by God. She was told by the man not to touch or eat the fruit. All she did was disobey him. You were there so you know for a fact she did not come running to the man saying Honey I ate the forbidden fruit and it is the best in the garden, I brought some for you. God gave the first man a commandment with consequences. It was not a suggestion.Why do you believe he would have to have eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to know that doing something that he was specificaly forbidden to do was something that he should not do. The scripture says they would know good and evil.It does not say anything about knowing the difference between good and evil, just that they would know both.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

God gave free will. He commanded but did not take away the ability to choose. No robot there. Critical thinking? Eve thought critically enough about the benefits as compared to the risks, of eating the apple. Correct, she had no guilt, but she had intelligence. She made an informed decision about the apple, and she thought it was therefore the 'right' decision. The best case you could make is that God was not honest in telling her the downfall of her choice, but that is a hard case to make when Christianity is screaming about death and hell and such. God DID tell her she would die, and the serpent DID say she would not, so... Hm...not knowing something is wrong does not mean it is not wrong. Catch my drift? You may be forgiven a fault you were unaware of, at work for instance...in my life never ...but again, regardless of whether Adam and Eve knew guilt or conscience, the most you can say is that God was evil because they did not know better and were still punished. Then, of course, you have to question whether anyone who actually talked to a supreme Being would be bothered with an ugly serpent anyway, and whether it could be said that they 'did not know better'. If you know that a parent will be upset at a choice, you 'know' better, even if you have no concept of guilt. My kids can link action to reaction, but they think it is funny. They aren't guilty about their actions quite yet. This is why I link intelligence and free will. One is no good without the other. When you reach the age of reason, you have real, true, free will.

anastasia My point as outlined here was a response to ICANT's statement To answer your reply I say that you cannot decide properly about such vital matters without a some understanding of the consequences. ICANT said that the command is just to be obeyed without question,yet since Eve was incapable of knowing right from wrong she could not anticipate the punishment nor weigh the consequences because she was wholly without experience in such matters.
After all what good is free choice without understanding? Put two children in a locked room with a loaded handgun and tell them not to touch it or they shall surely die and leave them alone long enough and do you think it possible they will discharge the weapon? And then on top of this ludicrous test have a friend go in their and convince them that it is not a problem and that they should go ahead and play with it. Here is the critical thinking she did. And here the mystery deepens. How could she determine it was good for food or more to the point that it was to be desired to make one wise without an understanding of right before she ate?
To answer your post could you point out where she considered the risks? Again I was replying to the post made by ICANT here I was pointing out that she could not be convinced it was the right thing to do since before she ate the fruit she could not know what 'right' meant.To answer you though, what good is intelligence in this situation without the wisdom provided by the fruit ?Also I am wondering what the "Christianity is screaming about death and hell and such" has to do with Eve making a decision since she is also uninformed of hell at this time.If God is not honest then the choice she makes can not fall on her shoulders.And another thing arises here. God said she would die. She did not . The serpent was correct. Of course but if the decision to make a choice in this case is not first preceded by a knowledge of right and wrong then your innocence remains intact even though the act is considered wrong by others.
This is why a child who discharges a weapon and kills another even after they are told not to touch it are seen as not culpable of a crime.
A God who places such a "weapon" in the hands of innocents IS guilty and has no right to inflict punishment upon those innocents. In Fact he is doubly so when he introduces an enticement into the picture.
He is triply so when he has full knowledge of the outcome. You do not "know" better, you merely play out the natural curiousity of your mind. How could she understand even death ? Was there death in Eden?

---

"The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss."Thomas Carlyle

ICANT That is what the Bible states yes. "I" cannot. However the Bible states this. Have at her mate. How does this reduce God's culpability in this matter? God created the serpent and God was aware of all that would transpire. I do not know one way or the other and it is also irrelevant. Because until he ate of the fruit he cannot know it was something he should not do because he has no criteria in his brain to allow him to distinguish right from wrong. Perhaps you would like to clarify the difference between knowing good and evil and knowing the difference between them?

---

"The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss."Thomas Carlyle

Hi sidelined, You quoted Genesis 5:3, 4. Did you notice God called their name Adam? MankindThis man(who the translators called Adam) was created in the likeness of God. Not formed from the dust of the ground.The woman was created in the likeness of God. Not made from a rib from the man. This man and woman was never placed in a garden, so they never ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Why were they told to replenish the earth?The earth must have had people before if they were to replenish it.Now to the man and woman that was in the garden. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth that is in Genesis 1:1. Notice Genesis 2:4 says in the day.The generations of Genesis 2:4 go until Genesis 4:26.That means everything from Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:26 took place the same day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth.Everybody screams that can't happen it took a long time for all those things to happen.But since there was no night it was just one long day.Night was made a very very very very long time (as you and I know time) after all these things took place. This man was formed of the dust of the ground.God planted a garden and put the man he had formed (not created) in it. Since there was no way of marking time there is no telling how long the period from the forming of the man until God took the rib and made a woman was.In the meantime God walked and talked with this man. God is Good, so this man knew what good was.God gave this man a specific command with consequences.He disobeyed a direct command.He did not have to know if it was good to obey.Nor did he have to know if it was bad to disobey.All he had to do was to obey a direct command.BTW that is how my children learned what was good and what was bad. If they disobeyed a direct command they were punished. Next time they knew the proper choice to make.I think we get into trouble when we try to make this man just as we are today. This man was not created in the image and likeness of God. So we do not know what he was like. He may have been a lot more like the angels than we think.I am not even sure he had freewill as we talk about it today.I like to think he had freewill, but he may have been programed to do exactly what he did so God could get to the experiment He wanted to do.That is to make man in His image and give him the choice to chose to believe in Him, worship Him, and serve Him, just because He is God.Or to not believe in Him. But believe in all kinds of different things and Gods.Now to the end of the day started in Genesis 1:1. Ever wonder why evening comes first?It came first because the day the Lord God made the heaven and the earth had to come to a close.If you look around in Genesis 1:2 you will not find the man that was formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:4 and placed in the garden.God's Word is true the man died the same day he ate the fruit.Enjoy

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

brennakimi responds to me:

quote:

---

why does allowing bad things to happen make god malevolent?

---

Because having the ability to stop evil and yet refusing to do so is also evil.

quote:

---

is god malevolent for letting us die?

---

That's not what was said. It may be good to die. But, if there is evil and god can stop it but is unwilling to do so, then god is malevolent.

quote:

---

is god malevolent because he allows nature it's course?

---

I think you're about to try and claim that humans are above nature, right?You're missing the point: If there is evil and it can be stopped but the one who is capable of stopping it is unwilling to do so, then that person is also evil.There's an old saying: The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.

quote:

---

is god malevolent because he allows men in their capacities to do awful things?

---

If he could stop it, yes.If god is capable of stopping evil but is unwilling, then god is malevolent by definition.

quote:

---

i think you want a sandbox god who absolutely micromanages everything. what's the point of making a functioning universe if you move all the pieces yourself?

---

Huh? Why would god need to micromanage everything if he is omnipotent? Are you saying god can't make a universe without evil that also manages itself and allows for free will?That would seem to be an admission that god is not omnipotent.But if god allows evil even though he could stop it, then god is malevolent. Allowing evil when you could stop it is also evil.Hint: There is only a finite amount of effort required to run things on earth. If god is truly of infinite power, then it doesn't matter how granular god must be in handling the affairs of the earth as it would not reduce his abilities one jot. The infinite cares not for the finite.So which is it? Is god willing or unwilling? Capable or incapable?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

omnipotence doesn't require that one not be bounded by logic.

quote:

---

Did you notice God called their name Adam? Mankind This man(who the translators called Adam) was created in the likeness of God. Not formed from the dust of the ground.The woman was created in the likeness of God. Not made from a rib from the man.

---

(KJV) Gen 5:1,2 "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."The Leningrad Codex 'Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia' presents us with significant differences which can be used to help put things into perspective.Gene 5:1,2 "This is the book of the generations of Adam: In the day that God created man. He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Man in the day of their being created."Reading that God created them male and female, helps put into perspective that they were physical beings. Throughout the bible, God referred to people as the offspring or son of Man. Since the name (Ad'am) signifies: Earthling Man; Mankind; Humankind; from a root meaning “red”. This complies with the claim that he was physically created from the ground. We can conclude from the scriptures that both beings were created in the likeness of God. Meaning that humans possessed godly attributes; justice, wisdom, and love which set them apart from the animals. These qualities gave them the ability to choose to do good or bad, placing them as free moral agents. There was no sin in the first human pair, no evil or suffering, it was indeed good.

quote:

---

Why were they told to replenish the earth? The earth must have had people before if they were to replenish it. Now to the man and woman that was in the garden.

---

Gene 1:28 "And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the seas, and over birds of the heavens, and over all beasts creeping on the earth."The term replenish was never used in this verse. These are yet more translation issues bound to the KJV.In past threads, I have raised issue on the consequences that the KJV translation creates for those scrutinizing the scriptures. While some downplay the severity of the differences. It is quite obvious that under the terms, 'a single word' is all that is needed to make a world of difference. In the short example cited above, it becomes apparent that only a few terms can fork out and derive an entirely different meaning from the original content.

brennakimi responds to me:

quote:

---

omnipotence doesn't require that one not be bounded by logic.

---

Nice try, but that's my argument. If the claim is that god can't make a universe without evil that also manages itself and yet still allows for free will, then that means that god is not omnipotent. After all, if god is not bound by logic, then one cannot claim that there is a logical barrier to having a universe without evil and yet still has free will.So can god do it or not? And if he can but chose not to, how is that not malevolence? To be able to stop evil and yet choose not to do so is evil.I've asked you straight out...I expected a direct answer: Is god willing or unwilling? Capable or incapable?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This brings up some great hypothetical questions and scenarios. I could go off on several tangents in discussing this stuff.

Is it wrong to be an honest atheist if there is simply no evidence of a God or if one chooses for any honest reason to accept no God as a fact? My answer would be no.

​

Lets engage in a hypothesis which asserts that a God could be real. For the sake of argument, we would first have to agree on the characteristics of this God. For now, lets assume foreknowledge and interaction with all creation at some point in our lives.

​

Thus, hypothetically, believers and non-believers all will interact with said Deity. Are we ok so far?

​

Now we come to your assertion:

​

Rrhain writes:

​

So which is it? Is god willing or unwilling? Capable or incapable?

I have no answers to this one, except to say that I believe God is capable of ultimate foreknowledge yet chooses to allow for human decision to determine ultimate destiny. Thus, God hypothetically leaves some foreknowledge open...awaiting our responses.

​

Now on to my scenario and belief:

​

Hypothetically, Gods foreknowledge is never evil if it involves my decisions. We could even go so far as to say that evil as an abstract reality exists, yet is never a personified reality unless chosen.

​

I have participated in a few of these hypothetical arguments which basically state that IF God exists, (premise 1) and if there are two groups of people...the saved and the damned, (premise 2)
and IF God foreknows which people will end up damned (premise 3) then this God is of necessity evil for fore knowingly creating damned people. Can you agree with me that my premise is OK so far?

​

Now... Many Christians will resort to standard replies to this line of questions and hypothetical situations.

​

Here is one:

God is God and can do whatever He wants. (The Potter and the Clay Argument, Romans 9:16-25) After reading that scripture, one could conclude that God could hypothetically call those who are not saved saved.

​

You may counter that by saying that this God would still foreknow who would actually end up damned or lost, or even stubbornly defiant in the name of rationality and freedom.

​

You would say that the Bible was not a trustworthy book and that if you ended up damned because of it, this God of the ignorant Christians would not be worth worshiping, trusting, or loving anyway. Right?

​

My point is that you, or I, or anyone else would only have a right to call this God evil if we ourselves were never given a chance to meet Him. We simply do not yet possess enough information to do otherwise.

​

It is irrelevant if this God foreknows that we will end up damned only if we are not given our day in court with such a Creator.

​

Would you be prepared to argue that such a God is still evil if He judges us based solely on our desire to be independent?

what i was suggesting is that god is bound by logic and this is simply a boundary of existence, and not something which reduces omnipotence. it's like the old "can god make a rock so big he can't lift it" argument. god chose to make a universe that runs itself. we are responsible for the bad things we do, not him.

Thread restored to today.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director