Why is the omnipotence dogma important?

[greylorn]

To create the universe, the Creator needs to be smart enough to create a universe. There is no logic or rule which says that infinite intelligence and all-knowledge are necessary.

Similarly, the Creator must be powerful enough to create a universe. That means, capable of overcoming any natural forces that might counter his efforts, and able to manipulate whatever forces and geometries he creates independently as part of his project. Again, no logic declares that the amount of force and power needed is infinite.

In other words, sufficient knowledge and power is necessary, but infinite knowledge and power is not.

So, when I propose that God need not be omnipotent or omniscient in order to be the Creator, why do so many Christians leap atop their dogma stools and insist that God is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient?

This is a philosophy section, so I'm not asking for another deluge of dogma. I'm wondering why the issues of omniscience and omnipotence evoke such emotional intensity, instead of logical thought. Insights are welcome.

[Mystic Banana]

Originally Posted by greylorn

To create the universe, the Creator needs to be smart enough to create a universe. There is no logic or rule which says that infinite intelligence and all-knowledge are necessary.

Similarly, the Creator must be powerful enough to create a universe. That means, capable of overcoming any natural forces that might counter his efforts, and able to manipulate whatever forces and geometries he creates independently as part of his project. Again, no logic declares that the amount of force and power needed is infinite.

In other words, sufficient knowledge and power is necessary, but infinite knowledge and power is not.

So, when I propose that God need not be omnipotent or omniscient in order to be the Creator, why do so many Christians leap atop their dogma stools and insist that God is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient?

This is a philosophy section, so I'm not asking for another deluge of dogma. I'm wondering why the issues of omniscience and omnipotence evoke such emotional intensity, instead of logical thought. Insights are welcome.

Hi Greylorn. I think it's partially the whole issue of infinity. The Ontological argument pursues this most rigorously, but ultimately, if infinity exists, you'd think, unless you can come up with a convincing alternative to the cosmological argument, that these infinities would be embodied in God

So I suppose I'm saying "the cosmological argument pretty much requires it, and since that trumps just about every other argument going, it justifies the idea of 3 'O' God."

[valentino]

How can one define infinite intelligence?you can't.All one can say is that its beyond our understanding.There were no natural forces.there was nothing.All God had to say was;Let it be"

[po18guy]

Originally Posted by greylorn

To create the universe, the Creator needs to be smart enough to create a universe. There is no logic or rule which says that infinite intelligence and all-knowledge are necessary.

Similarly, the Creator must be powerful enough to create a universe. That means, capable of overcoming any natural forces that might counter his efforts, and able to manipulate whatever forces and geometries he creates independently as part of his project. Again, no logic declares that the amount of force and power needed is infinite.

In other words, sufficient knowledge and power is necessary, but infinite knowledge and power is not.

So, when I propose that God need not be omnipotent or omniscient in order to be the Creator, why do so many Christians leap atop their dogma stools and insist that God is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient?

This is a philosophy section, so I'm not asking for another deluge of dogma. I'm wondering why the issues of omniscience and omnipotence evoke such emotional intensity, instead of logical thought. Insights are welcome.

Conversely, why is impotence, if even partial, important? Because it allows for accidental creation? Would you prefer to believe in a stumblebum creator that, by mere chance, got it right?

[mark a]

Originally Posted by greylorn

I'm wondering why the issues of omniscience and omnipotence evoke such emotional intensity, instead of logical thought. Insights are welcome.

Because a sufficient god is infinitely inferior to an omnipotent God.

[inocente]

Originally Posted by greylorn

To create the universe, the Creator needs to be smart enough to create a universe. There is no logic or rule which says that infinite intelligence and all-knowledge are necessary.

God is the greatest we can conceive and then some. So if we start with the greatest intelligence we can imagine and double it, that’s still a gross underestimate. This isn’t dogma, it’s by way of definition that God is beyond definition, that unless God is in some sense infinitely beyond us we’re not thinking of God. Otherwise spiritually God becomes merely a powerful agency to us, just a high-class alien boss as it were, and all real value to our relationship is lost.

Similarly, the Creator must be powerful enough to create a universe. That means, capable of overcoming any natural forces that might counter his efforts,

If God creates everything there wouldn’t be any natural forces to overcome as He didn’t create any yet.

[Mystic Banana]

Originally Posted by mark a

Because a sufficient god is infinitely inferior to an omnipotent God.

What about "all-powerful"? Is Omnipotent infinitely more powerful than the ultimate in exiatence?

[4Horsemen]

Originally Posted by greylorn

To create the universe, the Creator needs to be smart enough to create a universe. There is no logic or rule which says that infinite intelligence and all-knowledge are necessary.

Similarly, the Creator must be powerful enough to create a universe. That means, capable of overcoming any natural forces that might counter his efforts, and able to manipulate whatever forces and geometries he creates independently as part of his project. Again, no logic declares that the amount of force and power needed is infinite.

In other words, sufficient knowledge and power is necessary, but infinite knowledge and power is not.

So, when I propose that God need not be omnipotent or omniscient in order to be the Creator, why do so many Christians leap atop their dogma stools and insist that God is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient?

This is a philosophy section, so I'm not asking for another deluge of dogma. I'm wondering why the issues of omniscience and omnipotence evoke such emotional intensity, instead of logical thought. Insights are welcome.

I think I'm understanding what you mean. If the ultimate attributes of God are not necessary for Him to create the universe, then why are they dogma? IOW, you might say that God created the universe with sufficient power, knowlege, intelligence, etc . . . but not infinite. However, had He created a multiverse (which He may have done), He would possibly use His infinite power, infinite knowledge, infinite intelligence and so on?

IMO, since "infinite" is an attribute of God (or He wouldn't be God but, instead, a finite creature like ourselves), He is intrinsically and essentially infinite. And His nature is such that He is Himself at all times, that is, complete: infinite in Being, (the Supreme Being) omniipotence, omniscience, immutability, etc . . . He does not do anything half-way, you might say.

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by greylorn

To create the universe, the Creator needs to be smart enough to create a universe. There is no logic or rule which says that infinite intelligence and all-knowledge are necessary.

Similarly, the Creator must be powerful enough to create a universe. That means, capable of overcoming any natural forces that might counter his efforts, and able to manipulate whatever forces and geometries he creates independently as part of his project. Again, no logic declares that the amount of force and power needed is infinite.

In other words, sufficient knowledge and power is necessary, but infinite knowledge and power is not.

So, when I propose that God need not be omnipotent or omniscient in order to be the Creator, why do so many Christians leap atop their dogma stools and insist that God is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient?

This is a philosophy section, so I'm not asking for another deluge of dogma. I'm wondering why the issues of omniscience and omnipotence evoke such emotional intensity, instead of logical thought. Insights are welcome.

Greylorn:

No. Omnipotence involves every possible mode of origination and production, and is thus more than the power of causation whereby things other than itself are brought into existence. God does not simply create the universe, which is a mere speck compared to the immensity of One Infinite being. God's life is the constant origination and procession of the Son and the Holy Spirit, also, and that is not causal activity either.

Furthermore, God creates where there was nothing before. Then, by His infinite Providence He maintains each and every minute aspect of this creation - infinitely. The laws of the universe tell us what He is doing but not how He is doing it. You are making the mistake of separating God from His creation. You view it as the same sort of thing that transpires when a human being makes some gadget - that he can afterwords walk away from. That is simply not the case with God. God creates the universe and the Angelic multitude.

Considering all of the above (and, probably some that I have forgotten about) do you really think that 'smarts' is enough to see it all through? Really, Greylorn, all you have to do is think it through.

God bless,
jd

[4Horsemen]

Originally Posted by JDaniel

Greylorn:

No. Omnipotence involves every possible mode of origination and production, and is thus more than the power of causation whereby things other than itself are brought into existence. God does not simply create the universe, which is a mere speck compared to the immensity of One Infinite being. God's life is the constant origination and procession of the Son and the Holy Spirit, also, and that is not causal activity either.

Furthermore, God creates where there was nothing before. Then, by His infinite Providence He maintains each and every minute aspect of this creation - infinitely. The laws of the universe tell us what He is doing but not how He is doing it. You are making the mistake of separating God from His creation. You view it as the same sort of thing that transpires when a human being makes some gadget - that he can afterwords walk away from. That is simply not the case with God. God creates the universe and the Angelic multitude.

Considering all of the above (and, probably some that I have forgotten about) do you really think that 'smarts' is enough to see it all through? Really, Greylorn, all you have to do is think it through.

God bless,
jd

Excellent answer!

[greylorn]

Originally Posted by 4Horsemen

I think I'm understanding what you mean. If the ultimate attributes of God are not necessary for Him to create the universe, then why are they dogma? IOW, you might say that God created the universe with sufficient power, knowlege, intelligence, etc . . . but not infinite. However, had He created a multiverse (which He may have done), He would possibly use His infinite power, infinite knowledge, infinite intelligence and so on?

No, I did not mean anything like your interpretation. I meant that God need not even BE omnipotent in order to create the universe. Intelligent beyond our wildest imagination, yes. Extraordinarily powerful, of course. But omnipotence and all knowledge do not seem to be attributes necessary to create our universe.

My OP was not intended to argue the omnipotence question. It was an attempt to learn why Catholics are dogmatically attached to an unnecessary concept which is poorly supported by the evidence.

Your reply is a cut above the others but still fails to address this question.

Note that the dogma itself is so powerful that it overrides the question in the minds of readers.

Omnipotence is a relatively new concept, originating (I think) with Augustine, formalized by Aquinas. The Old Testament God was clearly not omnipotent and historically was not regarded as such by the Jews. He was their most powerful God, but they kept themselves covered by worshiping others, perhaps in smaller ways, at homes instead of temples. An honest reading of the OT discloses that YHWH did not foresee the outcome of his own creation of man, and other aspects of human activity. He changed his mind and his rules now and then, and was a ruthless terminator of his own creations.

So again, I ask, why are you so attached to the concept of omnipotence?

Originally Posted by 4Horsemen

IMO, since "infinite" is an attribute of God (or He wouldn't be God but, instead, a finite creature like ourselves), He is intrinsically and essentially infinite. And His nature is such that He is Himself at all times, that is, complete: infinite in Being, (the Supreme Being) omniipotence, omniscience, immutability, etc . . . He does not do anything half-way, you might say.

If so, why the gradual progression of life forms from simple and crude, to more elegant and complex? Makes sense if God was learning, as an engineer learns..

Personally, I am not fond of the omnipotence/omniscience concepts because of the large number of contradictions to which they give rise. Some are purely logical (an omniscient God cannot have creative thought) and others are practical (why create a bunch of nitwits?).

All contradictions between theology and logic disappear if the omniscience/omnipotence concepts are disregarded. I love logic, and dislike contradictions, which cannot occur in any logical thought system. Contradictions between beliefs about reality, and reality itself, are to my mind as ugly and esthetically wrong as the big, brown, hairy wart on the tip of Angelina Jolie's nose.

[greylorn]

Originally Posted by JDaniel

Greylorn:

No. Omnipotence involves every possible mode of origination and production, and is thus more than the power of causation whereby things other than itself are brought into existence. God does not simply create the universe, which is a mere speck compared to the immensity of One Infinite being. God's life is the constant origination and procession of the Son and the Holy Spirit, also, and that is not causal activity either.

Furthermore, God creates where there was nothing before. Then, by His infinite Providence He maintains each and every minute aspect of this creation - infinitely. The laws of the universe tell us what He is doing but not how He is doing it. You are making the mistake of separating God from His creation. You view it as the same sort of thing that transpires when a human being makes some gadget - that he can afterwords walk away from. That is simply not the case with God. God creates the universe and the Angelic multit

Considering all of the above (and, probably some that I have forgotten about) do you really think that 'smarts' is enough to see it all through? Really, Greylorn, all you have to do is think it through.

God bless,
jd

I re-read my OP and find that it was pretty clear about not wanting more dogma, such as your post.

I want to understand your reasons for your attachment to the dogma. (See my previous post, please, to 4Horsemen.) Probably can't get that from you, but from someone else, perhaps?

[4Horsemen]

Originally Posted by greylorn

No, I did not mean anything like your interpretation. I meant that God need not even BE omnipotent in order to create the universe. Intelligent beyond our wildest imagination, yes. Extraordinarily powerful, of course. But omnipotence and all knowledge do not seem to be attributes necessary to create our universe.

My interpretation certainly wasn't expressed very well. What I tried to imply is that God's attribute of omnipotence is crucial because anything less than completeness is unworthy of the nature of God. He is the superlative of all attributes. If this sounds like dogma, it is a reflection of who I am as a Catholic. You, too, have a dogma that includes reincarnation. Do you deny that you are just as dogmatic in your beliefs?

My OP was not intended to argue the omnipotence question. It was an attempt to learn why Catholics are dogmatically attached to an unnecessary concept which is poorly supported by the evidence.

So . . . how do you figure that omnipotence is "an unnecessary concept which is poorly supported by the evidence?" You say God doesn't need to be omnipotent to create the universe. What you seem to be getting at by saying that God needn't be all-Powerful or all-Knowing (supreme intelligence) is that He is a lesser being, a lesser god than the ontological essence of who He is.

Omnipotence is a relatively new concept, originating (I think) with Augustine, formalized by Aquinas. The Old Testament God was clearly not omnipotent and historically was not regarded as such by the Jews. He was their most powerful God, but they kept themselves covered by worshiping others, perhaps in smaller ways, at homes instead of temples. An honest reading of the OT discloses that YHWH did not foresee the outcome of his own creation of man, and other aspects of human activity. He changed his mind and his rules now and then, and was a ruthless terminator of his own creations.

So again, I ask, why are you so attached to the concept of omnipotence?

And why are you so attached to the concept of non-omnipotence?

The fulfillment of the OT is the NT, which I'm sure you're aware. The writers of the OT expressed their understanding of God and his purposes the best way they could without seeing the whole picture. The important thing was that they wrote down the prophecies, especially concerning the Messiah, which came to pass as written. The rest is fluff (sort of )

If so, why the gradual progression of life forms from simple and crude, to more elegant and complex? Makes sense if God was learning, as an engineer learns..

There is progression in biology, as well as history and in all things. That is the way life is. We are born, grow and die as individuals, nations, cultures.

Personally, I am not fond of the omnipotence/omniscience concepts because of the large number of contradictions to which they give rise. Some are purely logical (an omniscient God cannot have creative thought) and others are practical (why create a bunch of nitwits?).

God saw that His creation was "good" as Genesis informs. When sin entered the world through Adam's desire to "eat" from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (meaning he wanted to know the difference between evil and good), it brought something like, you could say, "a disturbance in the Force." Also, why do you say an omniscient God cannot have a creative thought, being the Creator of all things, which strikes me as original.

All contradictions between theology and logic disappear if the omniscience/omnipotence concepts are disregarded. I love logic, and dislike contradictions, which cannot occur in any logical thought system. Contradictions between beliefs about reality, and reality itself, are to my mind as ugly and esthetically wrong as the big, brown, hairy wart on the tip of Angelina Jolie's nose.

What's not logical about the o/o concepts? (Didn't know about any "hairy wart" on AJ's nose! )

[tdgesq]

Originally Posted by greylorn

This is a philosophy section, so I'm not asking for another deluge of dogma. I'm wondering why the issues of omniscience and omnipotence evoke such emotional intensity, instead of logical thought. Insights are welcome.

The ontological argument for the existence of God. Here is one version:

Say that an entity possesses “maximal excellence” if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. Say, further, that an entity possesses “maximal greatness” if and only if it possesses maximal excellence in every possible world—that is, if and only if it is necessarily existent and necessarily maximally excellent. Then consider the following argument:

1. There is a possible world in which there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.
2. (Hence) There is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.

This is a logically valid argument. You can attack the premises, which is fine. Here at least you would dispute the definition of "maximal excellence," but why?

You admit that God would have to be powerful enough to create the universe. If so, wouldn't it be reasonable to infer he has the power to manipulate the created universe at will? I guess you will have to explain how it would be reasonable to infer that God doesn't have the attributes of omnipotence that most theists hold.

Similarly, if God created the universe it seems reasonable to infer that he has knowledge of how he did it and the attendant product of his creation. This is close if not identical to the theistic claim of omniscience. Again, you will need to explain why it would be reasonable to infer that God lacks omniscience under these circumstances.

It looks to me like we are going to be forced into a theological dialogue at some point to get to the bottom of this. I see the logical problem of evil on the horizon and the testimony of revelation. Note though - I'm not arguing it here other than to say that I think it will be necessary if we are to continue. None of my arguments insert Catholic dogma and are purely philosophical - for the time being.

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by greylorn

I re-read my OP and find that it was pretty clear about not wanting more dogma, such as your post.

I want to understand your reasons for your attachment to the dogma. (See my previous post, please, to 4Horsemen.) Probably can't get that from you, but from someone else, perhaps?

Greylorn:

You are being absurd to ask me to comment within parameters that disallow me to adhere to my logic, which just happens to conform to the real meaning of the word and all that it entails, rather than your strawman mis-definition, that you no doubt believe is correct. If that's what it takes for you to bring your point of view home, I will tell you now: it's a sham; it will not serve you - except to allow you to harbor your own exquisite self-made error. Are you doing this just for the feel-good; damn the truth?

God bless,
jd