4 ms·

I think ultimately there’s no good answer to this line of questioning, because an omnipotent god can make whatever he wants happen regardless of what humans do.

I think ultimately there’s no good answer to this line of questioning, because an omnipotent god can make whatever he wants happen regardless of what humans do. Claims that someone is thwarting or enabling God’s will are subjective and religious leaders can deploy them however they wish.

mikeash 8y ago
Reminds me of people who say that their favorite President was chosen by God. I always want to ask them if that means the ones they don’t like are also chosen by God, and if not, how they can tell which ones are and which ones aren’t.
- ars 8y ago
  Yes it means the ones they didn't like were also chosen by God, and it means they have mistake in their belief of what God wants. It's no different from somebody wanting their loved one to live, and God disagreeing and the person passes away. So next time you hear that reinterpret it as "wow I must be doing something right if God wants the same thing I want".
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Can I also interpret it as “wow, I must have really fucked up if God wanted the total opposite of what I wanted the last time around?”
    - ars 8y ago
      Partly. But say you want your spouse to live, but God made them die. Are you wrong? No. You just don't have all the info. Could be the same here, you might be totally wrong as you say, or it could be you're not wrong, you just don't (and can't) know everything involved.
IgorPartola 8y ago
He could even create a rock he himself could not lift. Oh wait...
- ars 8y ago
  The answer to that is the concept of "can't" does not exist for God. Same as how the concept of alphabet does not apply to a number, or how you can't divide by zero. It's simply not a concept that can be applied.
  - IgorPartola 8y ago
    If he literally created the universe and all the laws of nature, couldn’t he create such a concept?
    - mikeash 8y ago
      I think this shows that the concept of omnipotence is itself logically incoherent. It’s the theological equivalent of Russell’s set of all sets that do not contain themselves.
      - ars 8y ago
        > If he literally created the universe and all the laws of nature, couldn’t he create such a concept? That would imply that there are two things: God, and this creation of his "the ability to can't", but since God is just "one" this entire concept can not be attributed to him. You can read about "Negative theology" if you are really interested in this topic. > I think this shows that the concept of omnipotence is itself logically incoherent. It’s the theological equivalent of Russell’s set of all sets that do not contain themselves. That's not a new idea, wikipedia has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox The subsection "Paradox is meaningless: the question is sophistry" covers it about as well as I could in a comment here.
- svieira 8y ago
  > If he literally created the universe and all the laws of nature, couldn’t he create such a concept? What is not, is not. Omnipotence means "being able to do anything that is possible to do", not "being able to do anything that is possible to be spoken of". Re-stating your argument: * "He could even make a square circle" * "He could even tell a true falsehood" * "He could even do that which contradicts itself" Making a rock too large to lift is "He could even make something that He could not control". What you have wound up rhyming with is Anselm's argument for the existence of God [1] - for if your god can make a rock to heavy for him to lift, then there exists a greater omnipotence that could lift that rock. Therefore, your god is not omnipotent, and is not god. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proslogion#Faith_Seeking_Understanding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proslogion#Faith_Seeking_Under...

mikeash 8y ago

Reminds me of people who say that their favorite President was chosen by God. I always want to ask them if that means the ones they don’t like are also chosen by God, and if not, how they can tell which ones are and which ones aren’t.

ars 8y ago
Yes it means the ones they didn't like were also chosen by God, and it means they have mistake in their belief of what God wants. It's no different from somebody wanting their loved one to live, and God disagreeing and the person passes away. So next time you hear that reinterpret it as "wow I must be doing something right if God wants the same thing I want".
- mikeash 8y ago
  Can I also interpret it as “wow, I must have really fucked up if God wanted the total opposite of what I wanted the last time around?”
  - ars 8y ago
    Partly. But say you want your spouse to live, but God made them die. Are you wrong? No. You just don't have all the info. Could be the same here, you might be totally wrong as you say, or it could be you're not wrong, you just don't (and can't) know everything involved.

IgorPartola 8y ago

He could even create a rock he himself could not lift. Oh wait...

ars 8y ago
The answer to that is the concept of "can't" does not exist for God. Same as how the concept of alphabet does not apply to a number, or how you can't divide by zero. It's simply not a concept that can be applied.
- IgorPartola 8y ago
  If he literally created the universe and all the laws of nature, couldn’t he create such a concept?
  - mikeash 8y ago
    I think this shows that the concept of omnipotence is itself logically incoherent. It’s the theological equivalent of Russell’s set of all sets that do not contain themselves.
    - ars 8y ago
      > If he literally created the universe and all the laws of nature, couldn’t he create such a concept? That would imply that there are two things: God, and this creation of his "the ability to can't", but since God is just "one" this entire concept can not be attributed to him. You can read about "Negative theology" if you are really interested in this topic. > I think this shows that the concept of omnipotence is itself logically incoherent. It’s the theological equivalent of Russell’s set of all sets that do not contain themselves. That's not a new idea, wikipedia has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox The subsection "Paradox is meaningless: the question is sophistry" covers it about as well as I could in a comment here.
svieira 8y ago
> If he literally created the universe and all the laws of nature, couldn’t he create such a concept? What is not, is not. Omnipotence means "being able to do anything that is possible to do", not "being able to do anything that is possible to be spoken of". Re-stating your argument: * "He could even make a square circle" * "He could even tell a true falsehood" * "He could even do that which contradicts itself" Making a rock too large to lift is "He could even make something that He could not control". What you have wound up rhyming with is Anselm's argument for the existence of God [1] - for if your god can make a rock to heavy for him to lift, then there exists a greater omnipotence that could lift that rock. Therefore, your god is not omnipotent, and is not god. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proslogion#Faith_Seeking_Understanding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proslogion#Faith_Seeking_Under...