Omnipotence

I recently ventured an opinion on this subject on another board and was severely chastised for daring to think beyond logic and scripture. Since that was my point, I declined to respond further.However, I look to this board for a more diverse response. There is a classic question which I shall apply here: can an omnipotent being create a square circle?.My answer would be ‘yes’. And no! To me, an omnipotent being is capable of doing anything even if it is a paradox to us. Some Christian apologists refuse to accept this possibility and restrict God to what ‘we’ can comprehend. This reasoning may be the only one valid to the literalist, yet surely some Christians must accept that we ourselves are limited in knowledge and do not necessarily understand what omnipotence truly means?I don’t see how applying ‘our’ logic to omnipotence is valid, since the true answer could still be a paradox. Since I consider ‘omnipotence’ to mean ‘all powerful’, I don’t see a problem for such a being to create a square circle. If the only barrier to this is ‘logic’, then I don’t see that as necessarily valid.Am I missing something?Admittedly, I have mentioned Christianity, and my original post was at a Christian apologetics forum, however, I’m not arguing about the Christian God, but more about the notion of omnipotence — and what that means.Cheers.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I think the whole thing is utterly determined by what definitions you use for the various words.Once that is sorted out the answer falls out.It is only useful as an exercise to make some people {who throw the words about carelessly) to think.

The problem is, a "square circle" isn't a thing. Language is an agreement about the meaning of words and sentences. 'Square' and 'circle' are words that we've agreed upon to have meanings that happen to be mutually exclusive. If something is described as 'square', then, by definition, it cannot be a circle. And if it is described as a circle, then, by definition, it cannot be said to be square. Stringing these words together in one sentence doesn't produce a description of anything. It's just a meaningless utterance.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

Good explanation. But what's the difference between the paradox of a square circle and others like virgin birth or everlasting life? I'd argue that these are all oxymorons, not merely difficult feats. Aren't believers always explaining away contradictions by asserting that "with God, all things are possible"?regards,
Esteban Hambre

I've always wanted to know if an omnipotent being would be able to solve the famous Halting Problem. I guess this being should know whether any given piece of code will halt. I'd just love to know how they did it =)thanx
PM1K

How are 'virgin birth' (which is theoretically possible with modern technology) and 'everlasting life' oxymorons?

In the sense that Xians mean them, I believe they're oxymorons.Virgin birth to a Xian isn't just artificial insemination, it refers to a child born with no male parentage whatsoever. Did Jesus only have 23 chromosomes? If he had a full complement, where did the other 23 come from?Everlasting life isn't just prolonged existence or fortuitous resuscitation, it's life after physical death. How can someone be alive and dead at the same time?regards,
Esteban Hambre

Well, that's an interesting interpretation - churchs I came from believed that Jesus was fathered by god and presumably got his chromosones by 'magic' however being a miracle doesn't make it an oxymoron. Oh, come now, Mr. Hambre, this is just being silly. You know as well as I do that Xian's believe in the existence of a supernatural 'soul' which continues after death and is, in some way, responsible for life. The continuation of this 'soul' may be an absurd concept, but it is not oxymoronic.

I think this is an excellent topic. I've been thinking about this a lot lately.All of the arguments against God that I have run into all have some hidden assumption in them about the nature of God or what is truly possible. Obviously our understanding of God will be somewhat anthropomorphic or anthropopathic. At the very worst people envision God as a very large old ill-tempered grey-bearded man sitting in some cool chair somewhere with a scepter saying, Gosh-darnit! Why did he do that? Now I’m gonna have to smite him. So have to examine all our arguments and make sure the assumptions we make about God’s character, nature, and personality are undoubtedly true. And in fact there is a great deal we can’t know about God since we are finite and he is infinite.And then there is the question of what is truly true and truly nonsense. In the world we are familiar with it is common sense to know what makes sense. A ball cannot be both in a box and out of it at the same time. So if God is a God of order, then we can expect that certain things just make sense while others do not elsewhere as well.HOWEVER, when we go outside of the objects and logic we are familiar with, what is true doesn’t necessarily make sense and what makes sense isn’t necessarily true.2 examples:
1. QM theory: an electron is both a particle and a wave at the same time and knows where every other electron in the universe is.
2. God is omnipotent so he can do anything. Can God make something so heavy he can’t lift it?In the first, our ability to understand how the truth about fundamental elements of the universe makes sense is hindered by our lack of intuitive understanding and experience with such things. It’s true, but it doesn’t make sense. If this is so within our own universe, how much more so with God?In the second example, what makes sense on our scale of perception and experience doesn’t make sense with God. Furthermore there is a hidden assumption that God is bound by the universe which he created. This is simply a nonsensical question.These examples are simple, but how often do we make the same mistakes other ways in our thinking? Since we are so finite compared to Him, I would imagine we do this quite often.Perhaps it is true that we can have a thing called free-will while God maintains his sovereignty and omnipotence even if this doesn’t make perfect sense. Perhaps it is simply a nonsensical question to ask why God cannot create finite beings with free-will and at the same time guarantee that there shall not exist the thing we call evil. And our lack of knowledge and understanding makes it impossible to determine whether a good God can create the universe in the first place knowing the suffering and evil that would result and be truly good. IMO, God is only bound by the characteristics he is defined by. So the only thing God cannot do is become something other than God. Some of the things we ask just may not make sense with our vocabulary. I agree.

Yes, but in doing so he ceases to be omnipotent.

There are many churches that teach that humans are alive and dead at the same time. It is utterly ludicrous, illogical, and downright idiotic. Since God is not the author of confusion, someone else must be interested in confusing this very important topic.
God told Adam and Eve they would die if they disobey. Satan said no no you won't, but you will know the difference between good and evil and will be like gods. So I'd say he is behind all that.
The Bible says that when you die, you will go into your grave and you will 'sleep' until Christ returns and institutes the resurrection.
So why the invention of dead and alive at the same time? Well, it's called financial profit. You can ask for money, and in return pray someone out of certain places, or you can ask for money and assure some poor soul he/she will never go to those places to begin with. See that?
Yeah, that's how it works.

Hi Ned, That was my intention when I posted at the other forum. The message fell on deaf ears though!Cheers.

Hi, Parasomnium Just so you don't think I'm a complete loon, yes, I agree with what you're saying. However, I have no problem in imagining a being powerful enough that these rules could be broken; but obviously, I can't imagine how.As Ned mentioned, it's how 'omnipotence' is defined that is a problem. Personally, I take the definition to the limit of my imagination, which is why I see 'logical' arguments saying what such a being can and cannot do as pointless. With hindsight, I started this thread as more of a rant than anything! Cheers.

Hi MrHambre, I actually wish they would. There seems to a fascination among many Christian apologists to employ formal logical arguments on this issue. The flaw is that they are based on presuppositions on what 'omnipotent' means, based on... you guessed it... a literal reading of the Bible. It's good ole circular camouflaged amongst a plethora of logic babble.Faith I can respect. But some guy telling me what an omnipotent being can't do is laughable.Cheers.