ramifications of omnipotence for God

quote:

---

Maybe, but then what of the reasons that we are often given as to why God refuses to simply come down and show Himself to the world so that we can actually know He exists instead of being left debating His existence in places like EvC?

---

It would be difficult for God to show himself when people have lost sight of how gods supposedly evolved.They were personifications of nature and the unexplained. Some people try to defy nature and lose, some don't.Is nature omnipotent?Even though we continually fight nature to maintain the manicured lawns and cities, when we abandon a place; nature takes it back.So mankind has evolved as a creature with "free will" and we obey the laws of nature.We have our own rules of behavior, just like many other mammals.

---

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

Back to my Dog/Wolf analogy. The dog and wolf pup have the same measure of free-will however the dog pup has a greater propensity to obey his master. The dog could (ie have the freedom to) clamp down on your leg every time you walk by, but he is not inclined to do so. Does this somehow make the dog's tendency towards obedience any less valuable or commendable?I won't respond to the parent/child relationship as I don't think it has bearing here, however I want to stress I am not talking about God being a "control freak" and making choices for people. You can have the freedom and free-will but I am referring to the inclination or propensity. A person can have free-will but varying measures of inclination to disobey or sin. Again free-will and propensity to obey/disobey or sin/not sin are not necessarily correlated. Errr.... that is contrary to what you said earlier. Now in reference to ideas hanging around that are shown to false. You say Astrology is an illusion and demonstratively false - yet it persists. My point is response to your earlier comment.... Which is wrong. Bad and false ideas persists irrespective if the contrary evidence.

You have not demonstrated this. I think it is a mistake and a straw man to worry about the degree of 'desire' a person has to sin. In a duality, there is the desire to serve a master, but a choice about which master.

Hi Ringo, I don't know where they exixted too.I do know what you meant.No I am arguing that if Long John Silver did not exist then he had no traits or sentences handed down to the real pirates.If there was no eve, no fruit, no disobedience, how could it be a symbol that affects me in any way?

---

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

The symbol doesn't necessarily have to "affect" you. It's a symbol of you.Adam and Eve gaining knowledge and making their own decisions is symbolic of how we all mature and learn to make our own decisions. We would still mature in the same way and learn to manage our own lives in the same way even if there had never been a story about it.So God is still on the hook. He can't be "omnipotent" if He gives us power over our own lives.

---

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

Sure He can He just does not exercise His omnipotent power until the judgment when He has the final word.Until then you are allowed to exercise your choice to live and believe as you desire.Edited by ICANT, : correct spelling

---

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

pbee I am not saying create humans without freewill, I am saying creating beings with freewill whose actions are also never evil. In fact why not do away with evil in the first place. Now, in talking about the biblical God we can even see that eve was obeying the request not to partake of the fruit until the serpent {created by God and a God that had to know that the serpent was tempting eve} made his case.Since God was {because of omniscience} fully aware of what both the serpent and eve were doing we are somewhat puzzled by the reaction of god who has to ask what happened { like he did not know} and commit them to a curse for that which God himself was fully responsible since he is the only one fully aware of the consequences and {until the actual eating of the fruit} the only one who knew the difference between a right act and a wrong one.If God had a problem with that scenario he need only look in a mirror for the answer.

---

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

Ah... the Bart Simpson defense: "I could do that but I don't wanna."A God who "could" do something but doesn't isn't really omnipotent.
And temporary free will isn't really free will.

---

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

quote:

---

So God is still on the hook. He can't be "omnipotent" if He gives us power over our own lives.

---

I don't understand how allowing someone to do what they want would take away my omnipotence.I have the ability to squash an ant or destroy an ant colony if I chose. Sometimes I squash an ant and sometimes I don't. Choosing not to doesn't take away my ability to do so.So I don't understand the concept that allowing us choice means God can't be omnipotent. What am I missing?

---

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

Hi sidelined,I want to wade into this blame game thing a little.First God gave a commanded to the man. He does not have to know if it is right or wrong it is just to be obeyed.The serpent begiled the woman into eating the fruit which the man had told her that God said not to touch. God did not give that command to man.The woman convinced she was doing the right thing ate the fruit.The woman gives the fruit to the man. He did not have to eat the fruit. He was not begiled or tricked into eating the fruit.Now you want to tell me that this man that was capable of naming all the animals on the face of the earth was stupid enough that he did not know what was going on.God had said the day ye eat thereof ye will die.The man chose to eat the fruit and die with the woman rather than go back to being alone with the animals.The man made a decision based on the facts known to him.He willfuly chose to disobey God.Before you say he did not know right from wrong Let me say:I was in the military, in the army there are 2 ways of doing something. The Army way or the wrong way. Try to tell the 1st Sgt. you did not know any better.God has the same rules. God's way or the wrong way.God is in no way to blame for the curse, the first man brought it upon the human race.

---

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

Are omnipotence and omnipotential the same thing?We all knew that kid who didn't "live up to his potential". He could have crushed a lot of ants, but he didn't. He could have been an omni-ant-crusher, but he wasn't. He could have been Lord of the Ants, but he didn't bother.Potential must be used to be potent.I think people often mistake infinite power for omnipotence.Donald Trump might have an infinite amount of money - he could keep spending it as fast as he can and never run out. But as long as I have some money, he doesn't have all of it.As long as I have some power over my own life, God doesn't have "all" of it. Even if He chooses to relinquish some power, he ceases to have "all power".

---

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

What have I not demonstrated? That is not a straw man as I understand the term.Again there may be choices but there is also the propensity for specific choices.

Still trying to get my head around what this means in practical application.From Websters:
Omnipotent - having virtually unlimited authority or influencepotent - having or wielding force, authority, or influence : POWERFUL
2 : achieving or bringing about a particular result : EFFECTIVEEven potent carries the meaning of having force, authority, or influence and not necessarily wielding it. One could have it and wield it or have it and not wield it.What you're describing seems to fit the second meaning.I had the impression that omnipotent in reference to God referred to the first meaning.Given that, just because someone chooses not to stomp ants all the time doesn't mean they lose their power to do so.IMO, they aren't saying that God has all the power, but that he is the most powerful. I feel that the Bible reference deal with being the most powerful, as opposed to, unlimited power.

---

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

Sorry, iceage, I am having computer trouble, and had to end my message prematurely. Take a dog and wolf. You claim one is 'more willing to obey'. I believe they are equally willing to obey, but have different perceived masters.Relate this to free-will, and you have a dog who is free to choose a master...be it human or canine. If the dog has no experience or knowledge of human masters, he will follow natural inclination. He still has equal 'propensity' for following a human, if he is given the knowledge. IOW, it is natural for him to follow some leader or dominant figure.

I agree.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.That's why I don't think "omnipotence" is a very useful concept. If it's watered down to "virtually unlimited", there's still wiggle room for free will - but it isn't really "omni", is it?

---

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