ramifications of omnipotence for God

omnipotent; having very great or unlimited authority or powerI think it's safe to conclude that whatever God wants, God gets(see God's will). However not doing whatever we want or whatever we conclude God wants is not much of a case in determining his omnipotence.It would be interesting as to "what" one would conclude God cannot do in reference to his authority over things. For example, is this of our own needs or His own need? Given our limited insight on things, can we even conclude what effect our own ideas would have on the universe and it's dependencies? And moreso, would such actions be beneficial at all levels of the universe?God, the root of stability and authority, would ultimately exemplify his righteousness in all that he does. This would include, upholding the integrity of all of his living creations physical and spiritual.

quote:

---

Can God create all men with the capability of free will and obedience to him?

---

Either they are free or not. If God created humans in such a way that they could not sin, then they could never claim absolute freedom.

I think that in this case the term "christians" is subjected to over-generalization. They are plenty of christians who support evolution. In fact, the Genesis account seems to favor evolution rather than contradict it as many would argue. Although we have countless people covering their ears at the sound of such things, it would seem as though God may have instilled an evolutionary process as a timeless mechanism to propel diversity on our planet.

quote:

---

my question becomes why would he not make one capable of freewill and one where the wrong choices are never made?

---

Again, free will... it is or it isn't. If God created humans without the capacity to exercise free will, then they would not have free will. This would include making provisions to avoid sinning.

quote:

---

Indeed being as another tribute of God is claimed the ability of omniscience {all-knowing} this would mean that he would know all the outcome choices that would be made by anyone so why the theatrical drama of placing men through the so called "fall from grace" and all the evil and misery supposedly produced by it? For an entity claimed to be synonymous with love could someone tell me how this is the action of a loving God?

---

That's a very interesting point. We could conclude that God(all knowing) could peer into the future of a particular human and see the outcome. However, God seemed to extend a measure of respect for his human creations, much like a parent would not go snooping in his or her child's room.Assuming for a moment that we ourselves had the capacity to create our own virtual life forms. We could conclude that the creation of personalities(companions) as a reflection of our own capabilities would be very rewarding. Now assuming all this was possible, would there be any value or grace in creating entities which choose to respect their masters based on code or on there own capacity to identify and appreciate their makers attributes?We could take things a bit further apply the same framework to evaluate the implications of free will also. - God created humans with free will. He implanted us with the faculty of freedom of choice. It was indeed a wonderful gift.Another question arises also, why then did Adam and Eve sin? were they defective from the start? It would seem that God allowed them to disobey because he never intended to create a world of automatons, beings who serve God only because they are programmed to do so. Like any parent, God wanted his human children to obey him out of feelings of trust and love instead of compulsion and fear. He gave Adam and Eve ample reason to trust and love him, but they disobeyed and rejected his rulership anyway.Another question arises also. Would Eve have sinned without the interjection of Satan? For the most part, it would seem as though Satan eludes much of his responsibilities in this entire matter. Let's face it, he is, in every sense of the word, a piece of shit. he knew exactly what was going on behind the scenes and yet he chose to mess with the system and work Eve while she was alone(less her husband). Between the two, Satan holds the keys to this entire fiasco. We can only conclude that God factored this into the equation when he chose a recovery instead of a wipe down. Otherwise, He issued the command and we all know that there was no changing that.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Omnipotent, omniscient... none of these descriptive terms are found in the Bible. We should remain mindful that these are human definitions.Taking into account God’s position as an absolute source of power on all things, earthly life is his to give and his to take away. Indeed, we lack the perspective legitimately and knowledgeably to question His use of force. We would first need to conform our thinking to God’s thinking and not of our own, if such a thing would be possible.

quote:

---

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.

---

Whether we are dealing on a mathematical, emotional or a rational level, absolute freedom requires a given set of conditions in order to exist. Absolute freedom not only implies movement in any direction but that the movement itself remains in an independent state of free will at all times. The arrangement rests on a system of dependencies which God himself chose to uphold. Any provisions made to limit the movement of the said body negates the condition of absolute freedom.Assuming that God did create a world without the possibilities of evil or sin, through our own consciousness we could not experience absolute freedom. It is also critical to understand that Eve as it were, was not defective or incapable of resisting temptation. After all, it was not the fruit that led her to betray God.

quote:

---

So can god do it or not?

---

I would say yes! God has already demonstrated that creatures and other forms of matter *can exist outside the implications of sin(see animals).

quote:

---

if he can but chose not to, how is that not malevolence?

---

Assuming for a moment that God did create evil and made provisions so that his creations were to fall into sin, then that would qualify him as an evil God, by our own standards. However, we have no reason to conclude that any of these conditions apply, therefore, the concept remains baseless.

quote:

---

To be able to stop evil and yet choose not to do so is evil.

---

It would seem as though God has already dealt with evil and quite possibly ensured that mankind for all of eternity will remain mindful of the event.

quote:

---

I've asked you straight out... I expected a direct answer: Is god willing or unwilling? Capable or incapable?

---

Assuming you are asking whether he is willing or not to adjust the system to avoid evil remains out of our grasp. Capable?... without a doubt! However, if we were to embark in a world where we could not sin, I for one would feel ripped off. Taking it a step further, if we remained in a world where we were unconscious of sin, then we could never claim or experience absolute freedom. I suppose one could reason that such a condition would only lack for those having experienced indifference. However, the thought of masking reality as it where seems somehow fraudulent. If one had to choose between, preprogrammed creatures and living in the likeness of God, I could see the latter being the popular choice.So the question could be narrowed down to this. Can we conclude that absolute freedom could exist without the possibility of or more freedoms of direction? better yet, can God make it so? I would say YES! - However, this we are not operating in truth now are we? Even if God were to make provisions to assure that evil never occurred, then the reality of truth has been altererd and no longer absolute.

The Septuagint LXX:
Greek and English
by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brentonpublished by Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd., London, 1851

quote:

---

(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."

​

(LXX) Gen 5:1,2 - This is the genealogy of men in the day in which God made Adam; in the image of God he made him:
male and female he made them, and blessed them; and he called his name Adam, in the day in which he made them.

---

quote:

---

(KJV) Gene 1:28 - And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

​

(LXX) Gene 1:28 - And God blessed them, saying, Increase and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the seas and flying creatures of heaven, and all the cattle and the earth, and all the reptiles that creep on the earth.

---

Here, as with the Leningrad Codex, the The Septuagint does not support the term 'replenish' as well. A careful examination of the the Septuagint will also show a number of differences between (it) and *many of the KJV in use today. Enough to conclude that the KJV is not entirely as reliable as the root documents it has been drawn from.-Genesis 5 was written as overview of the creation account from an alternate viewpoint. The earlier parts of Genesis deal with the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them. Later, in Genesis, we then move onto the creation of the human race and the implications of sin.In a case such as this, there is substantially more scriptural evidence to support that Adam was physically created on earth and in a physical garden than he would of remained as a spiritual being. However... having said this, I would not stand and argue this point, since the implications brought on by such a concept do not seem to create any significant differences in the big picture.Along these lines, it is interesting to note that Jesus himself, when he commenced his work, was about thirty years old, being the... son of David... son of Abraham... son of Adam. David and Abraham are well known historical persons. If Adam was not a real individual, what about Enoch? And if Enoch was a real person, how could he have been the seventh in line from a none physical Adam?Adam lived on for a hundred and thirty years. Then he became father to a son in his likeness, in his image, and called his name Seth. (Seth certainly was not fathered by all early men, nor did all early men father sons at 130 years of age)We seem to have more scriptural evidence to support that Adam was indeed a physical being from the get go than the result of a transitional phase brought on by sin. I have concluded this evidence across a multitude of biblical translations and sources. Including earlier documents which were used to compile the KJV.Edited by pbee, : typoEdited by pbee, : No reason given.Edited by pbee, : No reason given.

I just noticed a major typo in my post. The referenced data was not of the MT but of a Septuagint translation, as posted at the top.
Sorry about the confusion. The titles (MT) are wrong. They are in fact Septuagint references.I have updated the acronyms to (LXX) though not entirely accurate, it should suffice. I have no particular attachment to the MT or LXX myself. I do however enjoy the older documents as useful references for textual criticism. Edited by pbee, : No reason given.Edited by pbee, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Oh, let's not be disingenuous. The fact that the term "omnipotent" does not appear in the Bible doesn't mean that the concept isn't present. The Bible directly states that god can do anything. Do you really need me to quote the verses?

---

That is obvious. However, this does not systematically mean that God does whatever we wants. The point of it is, when it comes to scrutinizing God and religion, it is unsound(yet common) practice for people to present and apply man made terms and conditions in attempts to quantify a problem. Simply put, we do not have all the information to draw accurate conclusions on the matter, let alone accuse God of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior.

quote:

---

Why not? God can do anything, so why can't he do this? We're left with the conclusion that god is malevolent: Capable of stopping evil but unwilling to do so.

---

This is premature reasoning. Rushing the conclusion that God is malevolent does not make it any more valid . The short answer would be yes! - The better answer would be that we need to take into account all of the implications of removing evil from the system. It is quite obvious that God handles matters on levels which precedes our own understanding.

quote:

---

Then why doesn't he? If he can but chooses not to, then god is malevolent.

---

I believe He has chosen to deal with evil.

quote:

---

Excuse me? Did we or did we not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

---

While I cannot speak for others, despite my own inherited sin, I have never betrayed God.

quote:

---

Ergo, I know what good and evil is. If god can stop evil but chooses not to, then god is malevolent.

---

Once again, I believe it is quite clear that God has dealt with evil.

quote:

---

First, why? Why is it out of our grasp?

---

We simply do not have access to that information at this time.

quote:

---

Second, that isn't what I'm asking. I'm asking if god is capable of preventing evil.
Then why doesn't he? Is he unwilling? If so, then he is malevolent.
Then that would mean god is malevolent.

---

Those repeat questions and statements are residual.

quote:

---

Where does evil come from?

---

Evil is not a product. It is a by-product or consequence. Evil is the result of disobedience to God or God's divine laws.No matter how we reformulate things or snatch the term and run. We cannot logically rationalize that God is the source or cause of evil. We do however have evidence which proves otherwise. The same would apply for malevolence. Your entire problem seems to lie in the missuse and treatment of the components of your inquiry.The onset that God does not act according to our own feelings does not qualify him as malevolent. It is quite obvious that we are dealing with individual feelings in contrast to open qualifications. And to this, I would say we are all well within your rights to choose. For the most part, we all accept that there is more to God than we can comprehend. In order to come to a balanced conclusion, it would be necessary that we have the opportunity to examine and evaluate all the implicated data.So the short response could simply be this:
can He do anything he wants? Yes he can!
Does he do anything He wants? No he does not!
Does this qualify God as malevolent?
(Insert opinion here)The good news is(ironically), that we are all free to choose whether or not we want to take a position under God's rule. I myself find this ironic, since the very same attributes which are criticized in this discussion, also prove to set us free.

quote:

---

Is god capable of stopping evil but unwilling? Yes or no.

---

The honest approach would be:
----------------------------------------
Is god capable of stopping evil?
Is He willing or unwilling?Compounding multiple questions and demanding a singular answer is unsound. The first question is obvious. The second question calls on information we do not have. The entire argument seems to revolve around a need or desire to blame God. However, doing so honestly, would require information beyond the scope of this thread.If we are truly interested in the logistics of whether or not God is to blame, then my advice would be to spawn a new topic dedicated to that very question.It would seem as though God has intervened with evil on numerous occasions. As we covered earlier, evil is not an independent component, treating it as such only derives the objective further off course.

quote:

---

Did we or did we not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

---

Who is we? I didn't eat from the tree? and I don't know of anyone else who has other than Adam and Eve. Additionally, I don't see how this relates to the question.Here is another example of the unsound reasoning applied to the argument.

quote:

---

The short answer would be yes!
Congratulations. You've just agreed that god is malevolent.
The only way for you to deny that is for you to retract your answer of yes and switch it to no. So which is it?
Is god capable of stopping evil but unwilling? Yes or no.

---

Again, rushing past the implications to fulfill ones needs does not add credibility to an argument. First of all, we cannot treat the question with a yes or no answer. The question of whether or not God is willing or not requires a full discloser of the implications. Additionally, it would seem as though the nature of the question has now shifted. Which leads me to believe that we are now being dishonest. If you want to honestly raised the issue on whether or not God is malevolent, then you must present all the charges and be prepared to examine all of the information.

quote:

---

So answer them and be done with it.

---

1. Is god capable or incapable? CAPABLE
2. Is god willing or unwilling? *WILLINGIt would seem as though you began asking the question on whether or not God is willing to remove all evil from the system. In other words, eliminating all capacity to sin. However, under those terms, the topic moves in realm of freedom and balance. In which case the implications change. shouldn't you be asking whether or not God is willing to remove all possibilities of Sin instead? Whatever the case, we don't have the answers. We can only assume based on the information available to us.We do however have the following information:
And I heard a loud voice out of the heaven, saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God with men, and he shall tabernacle with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain for the former things are passed away.Since God's name itself means; He Causes to Become, we can be assured that the promise of a life without sin or evil will indeed take place. Considering all things, I would say this is a good as any example that God is willing.

quote:

---

God directly states that he IS the source of evil. Do you really need me to give you the quotations?

---

I may already know what you are referring too, however I would like to see your quotations or sources for this claim nonetheless.

quote:

---

Let's try it again, and we'll take it my original way. Is god capable?, Is god willing? Is there evil in the world?, is god capable of stopping it?, Is god willing to stop it?, If god can stop it and is willing to do so?

---

Yes to all of the above. We already have evidence that God has dealt with(stopping) it. (see Rev. 21:1,4)

quote:

---

Why is there evil in the world?

---

The Evil(sin) residing in our world today is the direct result of the actions of individual person(s). Namely an Angel now called Satan.

quote:

---

Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

---

(Isaiah 45:7) The Meaning of YHWH Bringing Evil.
Rightly, God brought evil or calamity upon Adam for his disobedience. Hence, in the Scriptures, God referred to as the Creator of evil or calamity would equal the enforcing of the penalty for sin, namely, death, which has proved to be an evil, or a calamity, for mankind. So, then, evil is not always synonymous with wrongdoing. Examples of evils or calamities created by God are the Flood of Noah’s day and the Ten Plagues visited upon Egypt. But these evils were not wrongs. Rather, the rightful administration of justice against wrongdoers was involved in both cases. However, at times God, in his mercy, has refrained from bringing the intended calamity or evil in execution of his righteous judgment because of the repentance on the part of those concerned. Additionally, in having a warning given, He has undeservedly provided opportunities for those practicing bad to change their course and thus to keep living.Since God himself determines the standard of right and wrong, it behooves the individual to acquaint himself with that standard fully in order to be able to discern what course must be followed. The danger of failing to live up to God’s righteous requirements is clearly seen in what Jesus stated concerning the evil slave. The severest punishment is to be meted out to that slave for his failure to care for the responsibilities entrusted to him and for going even to the point of beating his fellow slaves.

quote:

---

Amos 3:6: Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

---

(Amos 3:6) God's message of judgment against Israel
Israel has been specially favored by God; this results in special accountability When YHWH reveals his purpose to his servants, they prophesy; thus Amos warns that He will hold an accounting for false religious practices at Bethel and defrauding by luxury lovers in Samaria. - Israel has not returned to God despite punishments already meted out; now warned, “Get ready to meet your God”.

quote:

---

There are others, but that should be sufficient, yes?

---

To date, I have not seen anything other than textual misinterpretation. Since it is quite common for people to misinterpret the scriptures, I see no point in raising issue with your own personal position towards God. However, if you are seeking to establish a credible argument then you must be prepared to consider and evaluate all of the implicated data rather that pressing simplified yes and no questions to address your own emotional needs.In breaking things down for the better lack of terms. You're trying to accuse God of malevolence based on blindsided reasoning. If we applied such logic in our legal system, the world would certainly fall in to chaos and despair.The very term Malevolent implies that God wanted or encouraged his creations to do bad. However, we have no evidence to support this claim. In fact we have evidence which points to the opposite, In cases where God urged his creations to do good! Applauding kindness, and exemplifying goodness. All the while, evil was not in the original design of things.In closing, I would say, it is all to easy to blame God for sin and consequence. However, such reasoning is about as sound as blaming the law when one faces incarceration. It just doesn't make much sense.

quote:

---

So? What is he waiting for?
For you to repent.
So God is waiting for me to repent??

---

I don't mean to intrude. and I certainly don't mean any disrespect to the original poster of this conversation. However, I saw this post and although I agree with God wanting repentance from his human creations, I think we may be able to shed a little more light on the question.The bible speaks of "the war of the great day of God the Almighty." - Armageddon, or Har-Magedon. It is a transliteration of the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew expression Har Meghid-dohn' meaning "Mountain of Megiddo" or "Mountain of Assembly of Troops" - God’s war.Armageddon will occur when a certain conditions take hold affecting God's people across the entire earth inhabited.In terror, every man’s hand will be turned against his neighbor in a struggle for survival. They will be no fence sitters in God’s war, and as so often proved scripturally, those generations will not pass away before Armageddon occurs.In summary, it would seem as though God is waiting(hypothetically speaking) for certain conditions to occur. However, claiming that God is waiting around for the great day of judgment is not entirely accurate. Since God the almighty does not wait around for anyone. In fact the framework for Armageddon was cast from a time which precedes our own understanding. All that is required now, is the triggering of the event.Having said this, If one were to ask God, if he had any request prior to that day. I have no doubt repentance would come up in the conversation.

Good point! - I could of said sin and not evil(wrongdoing). Since the eating of the fruit was the epidemy of evil. Even though the tree remained in a controlled state. At first glance, it would seem as though they were indeed created along with evil in their perfect state.So this raises the question, how then, can evil be part of the system and not be present in the arrangement?
Evil became the counterbalance of good(good and bad), it provided humans with the absolute freedom over their own destinies.We could compare the original tree of good and bad to an inert substance. However, if combined with another substance, it now becomes lethal thus bringing on death. While the consequences or combination of the two components produce evil, the substance on it's own, remains harmless.Adam and Eve were sinless by origin, and evil was not in their design(or makeup). Evil could only come about if Adam or Eve consciously chose to produce it.As for the tree, it was in itself inert or harmless. The very existence or presence of the tree did not produce evil, nor did it compromise the system. It was not the tree or even the fruit that were evil, but the choosing to disobey God's divine law combined with the physical gesture(eating of the fruit) which sealed the deal.Evil is the by-product of Adam and Eves deliberate acts of disobedience against God's divine laws. Until Adam and Eve sinned against God, there was no evil present. Even when Satan came to tempt Eve, they would have had the absolute power over him. It is even conceivable that they had the authority to destroy him under there own accord, if they so chose. - Shame on them!

quote:

---

I asked a simple question: How did evil get into the system?

---

It was Adam and Eve who brought it into the system.

quote:

---

If it got in in spite of God's wishes, He isn't omnipotent.

---

Nonsense, control over the situation was left entirely in Adam and Eve's hands. God informed them of the consequences and left it up to them. He wasn't sitting on the sidelines pulling the strings. (wishing and hoping)

quote:

---

Nonsense. If God relinquished any control - whether willingly or not - He didn't have "all" control any more. He wasn't omnipotent.

---

So under your own standards, you beleive that an entity such as God could not create beings with the absolute freedom to choose between right and wrong and remain omnipotent? That's hardly convincing.

quote:

---

You can't blame Adam and Eve for evil and still have God be omnipotent.

---

Where omnipotent is concerned I have found the following: om·nip·o·tent I understand the statement, however I don't see how these conditions would somehow void God of His absolute power.