The Omnipotency Contradiction

[greylorn]

The outcome of a previous thread titled, "Can God Think?" resulted in the overwhelming conclusion (all respondents) that God does not spontaneously create information--- i.e. God cannot think.

However, it is clear that human beings can have creative thoughts. Since we can do something which God cannot, God is not omnipotent.

By creative, I mean creative in the context of one's own mind. It does not matter that Newton and Leibnitz both invented the mathematical system known as "calculus" at pretty much the same time, for neither know of the other's work. It was a creative work for each.

Nor does it matter for the sake of this argument that God knows calculus, so long as He did not reveal it in the Bible, which would have allowed Newton and Leibnitz to crib it therefrom. The point of the argument is simply that human minds can have what passes in them for creative thought. God cannot, because He knows everything.

This means that we can do something which God cannot. Therefore if God cannot generate a new idea, He is not omnipotent.

What are your thoughts about this?

[buffalo]

Catholic understanding is that God is almighty, that is, He does what He sets out to do.

Their are several things God cannot do:

1. Lie
2. Be deceived
3. Sin

[greylorn]

Originally Posted by buffalo

Catholic understanding is that God is almighty, that is, He does what He sets out to do.

Their are several things God cannot do:

1. Lie
2. Be deceived
3. Sin

Drat. This thread is off to a horrid start.

That definition of "almighty" doesn't set God apart from any reasonably competent human being.

[Edited]

[rossum]

Originally Posted by greylorn

This means that we can do something which God cannot.

Any description of God automatically limits God. God is omniscient so He can never learn anything new - He already knew it. God is omnipresent so He can never move - He cannot leave the starting point and He is already present at the destination so He cannot arrive there. God is omnipotent so He can never fail at anything.

Humans can learn new things, humans can move from one place to a different place. Humans can fail at things.

rossum

[Cajetan]

Originally Posted by greylorn

The outcome of a previous thread titled, "Can God Think?" resulted in the overwhelming conclusion (all respondents) that God does not spontaneously create information--- i.e. God cannot think.

However, it is clear that human beings can have creative thoughts. Since we can do something which God cannot, God is not omnipotent.

That God does not 'think' in the way that human beings think places no limits on the divine omnipotence. Rather, it places limits on the power of human beings.

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by greylorn

The outcome of a previous thread titled, "Can God Think?" resulted in the overwhelming conclusion (all respondents) that God does not spontaneously create information--- i.e. God cannot think.

Hello, Greylorn:

I would have to say, at this point in the conversation, that I disagree with your premise and conclusion. First, you have defined thought as the "spontaneous[..] creat[ion] of information". This is a stretch, in my opinion. I might agree with your definition if you replaced the word "information" with the word "idea(s)", which is very different, on a reality level.

Second, You have limited thought to just "the creation of ideas". When we store mental images and pictures, we can ruminate through them, analyze them, juxtapose them, (half-way) delete them, call them up into RAM (so to speak), manipulate them, and so on. Thus, thought is much more than the spontaneous creation of ideas.

Thought seems, at least to me, to be an integral part of a being that is beyond mundane sentience. Animals have sentience and rudimentary thought capabilities. However, once their minds recall a mental image or picture, they are limited in what they can do with the "idea". (Notwithstanding the fact that apes have somewhat greater abilities than the majority of non-simian forms), most animals are left with but four actions that proceed from their ideas: run to, run from, eat, sleep.

Again, the point is, that there are many other particularities that thought can take, not just the "spontaneous creation of ideas". In my estimation, the creation of ideas is necessary for a lower being who has more mental capability than the other lower animals in some sense, perhaps, an outcome of his lack of strength, and lack of comparable sentience. IOW, his sight, sound, smell, taste and tactile are all much less keen.

Ask yourself this question, if one is the receptacle of all knowledge, past, present and future, what need would one have for creating new ideas? One can exercise His boundless "creativity" by creating, oh, maybe, a universe, instead.

However, it is clear that human beings can have creative thoughts. Since we can do something which God cannot, God is not omnipotent.

With this logic, if we agree that "creative thought" is not a superlative-maker, we salivate - something which God doesn't do either. Does not being able to salivate make us superior to Him? Your conclusion is in error.

By creative, I mean creative in the context of one's own mind. It does not matter that Newton and Leibnitz both invented the mathematical system known as "calculus" at pretty much the same time, for neither know of the other's work. It was a creative work for each.

Nor does it matter for the sake of this argument that God knows calculus, so long as He did not reveal it in the Bible, which would have allowed Newton and Leibnitz to crib it therefrom. The point of the argument is simply that human minds can have what passes in them for creative thought. God cannot, because He knows everything.

This means that we can do something which God cannot. Therefore if God cannot generate a new idea, He is not omnipotent.

(See above.) There are many things a dog can do that a human can't. Does that make us less superior somehow?

Merry Christmas and
God bless,
JD

[Fran65]

You concluded that God 'cannot' think because 'we' the posters you refer to on the other thread stated that God is omniscient. You then concluded that we must be superior to God!

Parallel processors work quite differently to the old sequential processors (in computing terms). That does not mean that PPs are inferior to the sequential. Quite the contrary. PPs are much faster and superior in many, many ways to the sequential. Just because they don't 'do one thing' and then 'do another' does not mean that they are inferior. They carry out multiple processes at the same time.. Similarly God knows everything simultaneously (at the same time), therefore He is omniscient and continues to be omnipotent.

Because God is omniscient and omnipotent there is nothing possible He cannot do and nothing possible He does not know. God having knowledge that He did not have before is a logical impossibility.

Still, we should be grateful that you haven't pulled the 'But He can't make a square circle therefore he's not omnipotent' argument out of its grave. As easy to rebut, but its nice to have a slightly different angle sometimes.

[crowonsnow]

Originally Posted by greylorn

The outcome of a previous thread titled, "Can God Think?" resulted in the overwhelming conclusion (all respondents) that God does not spontaneously create information--- i.e. God cannot think.

However, it is clear that human beings can have creative thoughts. Since we can do something which God cannot, God is not omnipotent.

By creative, I mean creative in the context of one's own mind. It does not matter that Newton and Leibnitz both invented the mathematical system known as "calculus" at pretty much the same time, for neither know of the other's work. It was a creative work for each.

Nor does it matter for the sake of this argument that God knows calculus, so long as He did not reveal it in the Bible, which would have allowed Newton and Leibnitz to crib it therefrom. The point of the argument is simply that human minds can have what passes in them for creative thought. God cannot, because He knows everything.

This means that we can do something which God cannot. Therefore if God cannot generate a new idea, He is not omnipotent.

What are your thoughts about this?

Think about what you are saying. I think what you perhaps fail to appreciate is that believing in a “God” is only a contradiction within axiological or axiomatic constraints. The “God” concept is in fact a suspension thereof. If I have a magic door for example, the hinges and keys and doorknobs are not really a big deal.

[cpayne]

Originally Posted by greylorn

The outcome of a previous thread titled, "Can God Think?" resulted in the overwhelming conclusion (all respondents) that God does not spontaneously create information--- i.e. God cannot think.

However, it is clear that human beings can have creative thoughts. Since we can do something which God cannot, God is not omnipotent.

Well, first of all, I would invite anyone reading this to go read the other thread (it's fairly short). I'm not sure this characterization of that thread is entirely accurate.

I was the last poster on that thread (so I guess I'm responsible for killing it off ). Allow me to re-post what I wrote (hope I don't kill THIS one off, too!).

"Maybe what we're grappling with here is the scholastic distinction between act and potential. Aristotle and Aquinas refer to God as "Active Intellect," because everything known by God has to be known by God all the time, actively. Humans, on the other hand, have potential--in the language you are using, we can "discover" truths new to us, or have "creative" thoughts.

But this isn't a limitation on God's ability, but on OUR ability. You seem to be saying that to have potential for improvement (like us, in our potential to discover new knowledge) is a better state of affairs than to have no potential for improvement (like God, in His complete knowledge). Your "ability to think new thoughts" (our position) is not a better state of affairs than to think all knowledge completely and simultaneously (God's position). Which is better, the potential thought or the actual thought?"

[cpayne]

I see that Cajetan, in post 5, says it much more briefly than I did.

[greylorn]

Originally Posted by Fran65

You concluded that God 'cannot' think because 'we' the posters you refer to on the other thread stated that God is omniscient. You then concluded that we must be superior to God!

Parallel processors work quite differently to the old sequential processors (in computing terms). That does not mean that PPs are inferior to the sequential. Quite the contrary. PPs are much faster and superior in many, many ways to the sequential. Just because they don't 'do one thing' and then 'do another' does not mean that they are inferior. They carry out multiple processes at the same time.. Similarly God knows everything simultaneously (at the same time), therefore He is omniscient and continues to be omnipotent.

Because God is omniscient and omnipotent there is nothing possible He cannot do and nothing possible He does not know. God having knowledge that He did not have before is a logical impossibility.

Still, we should be grateful that you haven't pulled the 'But He can't make a square circle therefore he's not omnipotent' argument out of its grave. As easy to rebut, but its nice to have a slightly different angle sometimes.

Fran,
I appreciate your gratitude. Square circle arguments are for pinheads. I too am grateful that I didn't write such intellectual trash and be required to endure the resulting embarrassment.

But honestly, do you really think that my arguments are in any way related to informational bandwidth?

And while you are about reconsidering what you wrote (perhaps in a fit of forgivable snobbishness) how about retracting your first sentence? In no way did I either state or imply that we are superior to our Creator.

Since you are not running for office, you may even want to apologize for putting words to a page that I did not write.

Thank you for your gracious apology, in advance.

[greylorn]

Originally Posted by JDaniel

Hello, Greylorn:

I would have to say, at this point in the conversation, that I disagree with your premise and conclusion. First, you have defined thought as the "spontaneous[..] creat[ion] of information". This is a stretch, in my opinion. I might agree with your definition if you replaced the word "information" with the word "idea(s)", which is very different, on a reality level.

Second, You have limited thought to just "the creation of ideas". When we store mental images and pictures, we can ruminate through them, analyze them, juxtapose them, (half-way) delete them, call them up into RAM (so to speak), manipulate them, and so on. Thus, thought is much more than the spontaneous creation of ideas.

Thought seems, at least to me, to be an integral part of a being that is beyond mundane sentience. Animals have sentience and rudimentary thought capabilities. However, once their minds recall a mental image or picture, they are limited in what they can do with the "idea". (Notwithstanding the fact that apes have somewhat greater abilities than the majority of non-simian forms), most animals are left with but four actions that proceed from their ideas: run to, run from, eat, sleep.

Again, the point is, that there are many other particularities that thought can take, not just the "spontaneous creation of ideas". In my estimation, the creation of ideas is necessary for a lower being who has more mental capability than the other lower animals in some sense, perhaps, an outcome of his lack of strength, and lack of comparable sentience. IOW, his sight, sound, smell, taste and tactile are all much less keen.

Ask yourself this question, if one is the receptacle of all knowledge, past, present and future, what need would one have for creating new ideas? One can exercise His boundless "creativity" by creating, oh, maybe, a universe, instead.



With this logic, if we agree that "creative thought" is not a superlative-maker, we salivate - something which God doesn't do either. Does not being able to salivate make us superior to Him? Your conclusion is in error.



(See above.) There are many things a dog can do that a human can't. Does that make us less superior somehow?

Merry Christmas and
God bless,
JD

JD,
Thank you for your well considered reply.

Perhaps you'd have replied differently if not for an initial preconception which does not reflect my thoughts on the matter. Let me clarify.

This thread is derived from a prior thread, "Can God Think?" In the course of that discourse I clarified my question and my definitions. I did not limit my notion of "thought." As you obviously know, thought is a complex process. I excerpted from the many integrated functions which together comprise human thought one function which separates us, or which seems to separate us, from critters. Imaginative thought--- the ability to create an idea which had not previously been known.

I need to refine this even further. It is the ability to create an abstract idea (something which does not translate into a physical form) which separates us.

This is but one aspect of what we refer to as thought. It is not my definition of thought. It is that aspect of information processing which is sufficiently interesting to be worth a philosophical discussion, and it is that aspect alone which I seek to evaluate in the context of a Creator.

Would you care to revisit your post in light of this correction?

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by greylorn

JD,
Thank you for your well considered reply.

Perhaps you'd have replied differently if not for an initial preconception which does not reflect my thoughts on the matter. Let me clarify.

This thread is derived from a prior thread, "Can God Think?" In the course of that discourse I clarified my question and my definitions. I did not limit my notion of "thought." As you obviously know, thought is a complex process. I excerpted from the many integrated functions which together comprise human thought one function which separates us, or which seems to separate us, from critters. Imaginative thought--- the ability to create an idea which had not previously been known.

I need to refine this even further. It is the ability to create an abstract idea (something which does not translate into a physical form) which separates us.

This is but one aspect of what we refer to as thought. It is not my definition of thought. It is that aspect of information processing which is sufficiently interesting to be worth a philosophical discussion, and it is that aspect alone which I seek to evaluate in the context of a Creator.

Would you care to revisit your post in light of this correction?

Greylorn:

You, sir, are a scholar and a gentleman! I will take you up on your offer.

I have bolded the part of your argument that gives me a problem. But, perhaps, you could refine it in furtherance of our discussion. You have used the word "create" so I can, with some validity, assume you meant just that. But, the statement does not touch on the holding of an abstraction. We have not discussed whether of not God can "hold" an abstraction.

Since we mortals can "create" abstractions, and since God knows our thoughts, it would seem reasonable that He would be able to hold our abstractions. Thus, what God knows is more than just what is real. Now, is there any conceivable real need for God to create abstractions?

Generally, except for the creation of abstract monsters for science fiction, the majority of our meaningful abstractions deal with our need to "universalize" into such things as classes (or large sets) and species (or simple sets), for example - those things that are required determinates of real and conceptual things - for our limited minds. What need would God have for universalizing things?

God, we believe, knows all things all the way down to their smallest components and largest potentialities. He has no need to discover.

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
JD

[greylorn]

Originally Posted by cpayne

Well, first of all, I would invite anyone reading this to go read the other thread (it's fairly short). I'm not sure this characterization of that thread is entirely accurate.

I was the last poster on that thread (so I guess I'm responsible for killing it off ). Allow me to re-post what I wrote (hope I don't kill THIS one off, too!).

"Maybe what we're grappling with here is the scholastic distinction between act and potential. Aristotle and Aquinas refer to God as "Active Intellect," because everything known by God has to be known by God all the time, actively. Humans, on the other hand, have potential--in the language you are using, we can "discover" truths new to us, or have "creative" thoughts.

But this isn't a limitation on God's ability, but on OUR ability. You seem to be saying that to have potential for improvement (like us, in our potential to discover new knowledge) is a better state of affairs than to have no potential for improvement (like God, in His complete knowledge). Your "ability to think new thoughts" (our position) is not a better state of affairs than to think all knowledge completely and simultaneously (God's position). Which is better, the potential thought or the actual thought?"

Labeling an attribute as a deficiency is very effective spinning. It seems that the only way to avoid the omnipotency contradiction is to label it unimportant.

I did not use the word improvement. A creative thought comes without any particular value except in the opinion of its creator.

Let's get to the meat of your argument.

I declare unequivocally that the the ability to have new thoughts, to invent ideas where none have gone before, is such a wonderful and powerful ability that without it there would be no point in living.

It is the only quality which sets man apart from animals The ability to have useful creative thoughts is a prized quality among successful civilizations, because without it we would have no art, architecture, medical advancements, interesting literature, etc. There would be no math, no language, no machinery. We'd never have invented the wheel or the spear, and would be reduced to chasing down our food and strangling it barehanded--- provided we first saw some other critter do the same thing.

It is fine for us to sit around and declare that God is omniscient because we think this the optimal state of being, but there is a cost to omniscience.

Without creative thought, life would be dreadfully dull. I invite you to step outside your philosophical world of actuality and potentiality and experiment in the world of reality. For one week, have no imagination.

To complete this experiment you'll need three recordings, one of a news program, one movie, and one sporting event. An Oprah Winfrey show may be substituted for the sporting event. Every day, watch the same news program, movie, and sports event or Oprah show three times.

Before doing this experiment, get a video camera and record the statements and actions of everyone you come into contact with for a single day. You'll need their cooperation. They are to memorize what they said and did using these recordings, then do and say exactly the same things every day during your non-imaginative week.

Do the same thing with your conversations on the recorded day. Memorize them, and repeat them exactly every day. It would be best not to have interesting conversations. Stick with, "How do you like this weather, dude?" and a repertoire of conventional phrases.

You may go on this site (and others) provided that each day you only reread posts which you've read before, and retype your replies, word for word, without change. Do not allow your mind to think of better ways of saying something, or anything different to say. (Lots of luck!)

Throughout this week, do not answer the phone or engage in any conversation for which you do not know every word in advance. Eliminate all potential for surprise. Check the weekly weather reports in advance so that you know if it will rain, snow, or be hot or cold.

You are getting the idea. Identical food for every meal, every day--- eaten at exactly the same time of course. I'd suggest a nutritious gruel served at room temperature. A daily laxative will insure regularity. 5 glasses of water drunk in evenly divided amounts at the same times each day. Of course, no TV, radio, or social contacts except for the repeated ones. Stay in your home, since the outside world is unpredictable.

You can figure out other rules in the spirit of this experiment on your own.

If you don't have a week to spend, try Plan B, a simple two day experiment. Tape either the Oprah show, Judge Judy, or one afternoon soap opera episode. Spend two days during which every free waking moment you watch the same program, with commercials, again and again. If you tape an hour-long program, you must watch that program at least 12 times each day. Watch or listen to nothing else. Avoid social contacts. Just watch the same soap opera. Of course, gruel for every meal. Same schedule, same routine. No Catholic Forum. No email. Don't even turn your computer on.

After completing either experiment you will have a clue as to what the life of an omniscient God would be like. Nothing new, no surprises. Every event is a replay. For such a God there is no such thing as an "opening night" or surprise ending, for He saw every movie ever made in our time long before the Stone Age.

I contend without reservation or equivocation that "potentiality" is a far superior state of being than "actuality." It is what being alive and conscious is all about.

If I was an omniscient and omnipotent God, the first thing I'd order up for myself would be a healthy case of amnesia. Then I'd go visit one of my planets and watch soap operas, if I remembered how.

[grannymh]

God is the Creator of all, absolutely all. He created humans to be both physical and non-physical. Spiritual is another way of referring to what is not physical matter. It is our spiritual ability which allows us to search for God. This process of searching is creative. This search can be seen in the context of one's own mind.

Now, let us look at the issue from God's point of view. He is a total Creator and He creates humans. And so that humans can search for Him, God gives them the gift of ability to create such a search in their own mind.. Please note: God does not give His own total ability to create to humans; He gives only a part or a share of His creative ability.

Because humans have only part or a share of God's creative powers, humans cannot be greater than God.