Does omnipotent mean God can do anything?

[Just_me_Mike]

It is my position for this thread that omnipotent does not mean that God can do anything, but can do anything that is possible.
If God wanted to make a square circle it is asking God to do something that is non-sense and not possible. So it should be understood the phrase "with God all things are possible" inherently implies non-sense is not part of "things" that are possible. In other words, God can remain perfectly omnipotent, yet entirely unable to do things that are not possible.
One might then argue that the "all" in "all things possible" should include even things that are not possible. Which leads us to a self contradiction, which anyone with basic logic should understand can't happen.

Which leads me to a question to which I want your reply. On what basis and verbiage can you build the case that if God exists, and this God is omnipotent and a good God, how could he have created humans any different than he did?
I am suggesting God did as He did because it was the only possible way to do it.

Who will be the first to bring up suffering?

 

[logician]

I am suggesting God did the world as He did because it was the only possible way to do it.

This is not logical, first, there is no evidence of causation in evolution, second, the possibilities are considerable in how a planet can form and evolve.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

This is not logical, first, there is no evidence of causation in evolution, second, the possibilities are considerable in how a planet can form and evolve.

if this is the case let's focus the discussion a bit. How could God have created humans in another way than he did, and achieve the same results as put forth in what is said to be his desire throughout the bible?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

This is not logical, first, there is no evidence of causation in evolution, second, the possibilities are considerable in how a planet can form and evolve.

BTW, I revised my OP, thanks to your reply. Hope that helps a little.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

'Possible' is subjective. Things that are impossible are only so because something stops them from being possible.
Example: Ask a second grader to divide 3 by 4. Most will say you can't do it. Why? Because they don't know about fractions yet. Ask them to solve x+2=1, and they'll tell you that's nonsense (I mean how can you combine letters and numbers?) Plus the fact that you've introduced negative numbers.
The point is what's impossible, even in the laws of science and mathematics, is only impossible because there is an assumption being made within the law. Take F=ma(Newton's second law). That is only true if m (mass) is constant. If you try to get to the moon with that equation, you'll run into problems. Because the actual second law is the integral of change in momentum over change in time. (dp/dt) That allows for change in mass. (If you're not a math person, just trust me, it does).

My point is that we are the way we are because everything in our environment led to us being the way we are. How we are is not the ONLY possibility, but it is the only possibility that we know happened.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

'Possible' is subjective. Things that are impossible are only so because something stops them from being possible.
Example: Ask a second grader to divide 3 by 4. Most will say you can't do it. Why? Because they don't know about fractions yet. Ask them to solve x+2=1, and they'll tell you that's nonsense (I mean how can you combine letters and numbers?) Plus the fact that you've introduced negative numbers.
The point is what's impossible, even in the laws of science and mathematics, is only impossible because there is an assumption being made within the law. Take F=ma(Newton's second law). That is only true if m (mass) is constant. If you try to get to the moon with that equation, you'll run into problems. Because the actual second law is the integral of change in momentum over change in time. (dp/dt) That allows for change in mass. (If you're not a math person, just trust me, it does).

My point is that we are the way we are because everything in our environment led to us being the way we are. How we are is not the ONLY possibility, but it is the only possibility that we know happened.

I never said this isn't the only possible way we know what happened. However, the arguments put forth from atheists and others is often why didn't God do it this or that way. I am asking how could God have created human in another way and still achieve the same desired results that God intended in the first place.

In order to answer that we must first assume we truly know Gods intended purpose, which is quite a river to cross.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Anything we can imagine and lots of stuff we can't.

 

[Levite]

It is my position for this thread that omnipotent does not mean that God can do anything, but can do anything that is possible.
If God wanted to make a square circle it is asking God to do something that is non-sense and not possible. So it should be understood the phrase "with God all things are possible" inherently implies non-sense is not part of "things" that are possible. In other words, God can remain perfectly omnipotent, yet entirely unable to do things that are not possible.
One might then argue that the "all" in "all things possible" should include even things that are not possible. Which leads us to a self contradiction, which anyone with basic logic should understand can't happen.

Which leads me to a question to which I want your reply. On what basis and verbiage can you build the case that if God exists, and this God is omnipotent and a good God, how could he have created humans any different than he did?
I am suggesting God did as He did because it was the only possible way to do it.

Who will be the first to bring up suffering?

First of all, I think it is important to distinguish that, even within the universe that we have, there is a difference between what God can do and what God chooses to do. I think that there are any number of things that God clearly could do, but just as clearly refuses to do.

Second of all, I think that it is clear that in this universe, there are physical laws, probabilities, etc. that are difficult, if not well-nigh impossible to bend or break. So what I think this means is that God has voluntarily limited what He can do within this universe, lest by breaking or bending those laws too often, the entirety of the system fails. Certainly God could do things that violate those laws, but in doing so, an entirely new universe, with different rules, might need to be created; and for whatever reason, it seems clear that God wishes this universe to continue.

And I think that humans certainly could have come out different than we are. I think that what God wanted was reasoning, self-aware creatures of free will. What they look like, what their physiology consists of, what medium they exist in...all of those I think He left up to evolution. The fact that I am a Jew engaging in dialogue with members of other faiths about our beliefs and experiences of God might be important to God; the fact that I am a mammal, a primate, a carbon-based lifeform requiring breathable oxygen and liquid water...not so much. I don't think it would make any difference to God if we had evolved from dinosaurs, or whales, or trilobites, or had evolved from silicon life systems, or copper/manganese life systems, or breathed nitric acid, or what have you...so long as we were self-aware, reasoning, exercising free will, relating to God and to each other.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Anything we can imagine and lots of stuff we can't.

Well sure!
However for this thread I am hoping to determine how God could have created humans differently and achieved the same desired results that God set forth to achieve.

 

[Meow Mix]

'Possible' is subjective. Things that are impossible are only so because something stops them from being possible.
Example: Ask a second grader to divide 3 by 4. Most will say you can't do it. Why? Because they don't know about fractions yet. Ask them to solve x+2=1, and they'll tell you that's nonsense (I mean how can you combine letters and numbers?) Plus the fact that you've introduced negative numbers.
The point is what's impossible, even in the laws of science and mathematics, is only impossible because there is an assumption being made within the law. Take F=ma(Newton's second law). That is only true if m (mass) is constant. If you try to get to the moon with that equation, you'll run into problems. Because the actual second law is the integral of change in momentum over change in time. (dp/dt) That allows for change in mass. (If you're not a math person, just trust me, it does).

Physical laws are contingent though -- it's possible for them to be different.

Logical laws are not contingent. It's impossible to violate identity, noncontradiction, or excluded middle -- and we can be 100% sure that it's not just impossible because we don't know everything but that it truly is bona fide impossible.

Just throwing that out there. In fact, "possibility" is defined by whether it follows those three laws or not.

 

[Meow Mix]

It is my position for this thread that omnipotent does not mean that God can do anything, but can do anything that is possible.
If God wanted to make a square circle it is asking God to do something that is non-sense and not possible. So it should be understood the phrase "with God all things are possible" inherently implies non-sense is not part of "things" that are possible. In other words, God can remain perfectly omnipotent, yet entirely unable to do things that are not possible.
One might then argue that the "all" in "all things possible" should include even things that are not possible. Which leads us to a self contradiction, which anyone with basic logic should understand can't happen.

Which leads me to a question to which I want your reply. On what basis and verbiage can you build the case that if God exists, and this God is omnipotent and a good God, how could he have created humans any different than he did?
I am suggesting God did as He did because it was the only possible way to do it.

Who will be the first to bring up suffering?

I agree. Many theologians define omnipotence as the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs, which is identical to what you've said. It's the only definition that makes any sense.

Me, talk about suffering?! Never... :sarcastic

 

[Just_me_Mike]

First of all, I think it is important to distinguish that, even within the universe that we have, there is a difference between what God can do and what God chooses to do. I think that there are any number of things that God clearly could do, but just as clearly refuses to do.

Second of all, I think that it is clear that in this universe, there are physical laws, probabilities, etc. that are difficult, if not well-nigh impossible to bend or break. So what I think this means is that God has voluntarily limited what He can do within this universe, lest by breaking or bending those laws too often, the entirety of the system fails. Certainly God could do things that violate those laws, but in doing so, an entirely new universe, with different rules, might need to be created; and for whatever reason, it seems clear that God wishes this universe to continue.

And I think that humans certainly could have come out different than we are. I think that what God wanted was reasoning, self-aware creatures of free will. What they look like, what their physiology consists of, what medium they exist in...all of those I think He left up to evolution. The fact that I am a Jew engaging in dialogue with members of other faiths about our beliefs and experiences of God might be important to God; the fact that I am a mammal, a primate, a carbon-based lifeform requiring breathable oxygen and liquid water...not so much. I don't think it would make any difference to God if we had evolved from dinosaurs, or whales, or trilobites, or had evolved from silicon life systems, or copper/manganese life systems, or breathed nitric acid, or what have you...so long as we were self-aware, reasoning, exercising free will, relating to God and to each other.

I don't have a problem with most of that. My main problem stems from the many arguments put forth that God should, could have, etc... Done it this or that way.

It begs the opposing position of asking could God really have done it much differently and still achieve what He set out to achieve.

This calls into the discussion suffering of course, and one has to ask was suffering needed to achieve what he set out to achieve.

That can't be answered unless we first know what his goal really is. Much like saying, can we build a car without having different parts etc...

It also brings a new question up, about when God separates himself, his life force and sets out to create a certain type of creatures, can he do it in such a way that suffering is not required? Can that be a square circle argument.
Understand where I am coming from?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

However, the arguments put forth from atheists and others is often why didn't God do it this or that way. I am asking how could God have created human in another way and still achieve the same desired results that God intended in the first place.

In order to answer that we must first assume we truly know Gods intended purpose, which is quite a river to cross.

A river of infinite size. Asking that question is like asking someone to find a certain egg in an Easter egg hunt where there are an infinite number of eggs. Then ask everyone to join in...but ask them to find a different egg than the first person. Not only that, ask them all to find unique eggs. Then as people search, change the egg that they're supposed to find. Then make everything pitch black.
So not only can you not see anything, but you don't even know if the egg you find is right, or if your criteria has changed since when it was first given.
It's a convoluted nightmare.
Unfortunately, that's life. So, that being said...
The only thing that remains constant in the egg hunt is you. Only you can change you. So I think God's purpose has something to do with that. Mainly identifying the times you change yourself, both consciously and subconsciously, and learning to do that more consciously. In doing that, you can both help and show others to change in a positive way.
If that is God's purpose, then what we are, how we got that way, where we came from, where we are now, and any other limiter you want to put on, only mean something if you make them mean something. Thus every limiter is a chance for you to fulfill God's purpose.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

A river of infinite size. Asking that question is like asking someone to find a certain egg in an Easter egg hunt where there are an infinite number of eggs. Then ask everyone to join in...but ask them to find a different egg than the first person. Not only that, ask them all to find unique eggs. Then as people search, change the egg that they're supposed to find. Then make everything pitch black.
So not only can you not see anything, but you don't even know if the egg you find is right, or if your criteria has changed since when it was first given.
It's a convoluted nightmare.
Unfortunately, that's life. So, that being said...
The only thing that remains constant in the egg hunt is you. Only you can change you. So I think God's purpose has something to do with that. Mainly identifying the times you change yourself, both consciously and subconsciously, and learning to do that more consciously. In doing that, you can both help and show others to change in a positive way.
If that is God's purpose, then what we are, how we got that way, where we came from, where we are now, and any other limiter you want to put on, only mean something if you make them mean something. Thus every limiter is a chance for you to fulfill God's purpose.

Which is why it seems silly to put any weight on the argument that God would not create suffering if he was truly a good God. We don't know what God is up against, and therefor can't honestly conclude God could have done it another way. Which leads to the fail safe argument, maybe it was better for God not to create. Which has issues on it's own, but I digress.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Just because I can do something doesn't mean I will do it.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZPb50nn82lg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZPb50nn82lg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


Just because I choose not to do this doesn't necessarily mean I can't or won't do this.

 

[Meow Mix]

Which is why it seems silly to put any weight on the argument that God would not create suffering if he was truly a good God. We don't know what God is up against, and therefor can't honestly conclude God could have done it another way. Which leads to the fail safe argument, maybe it was better for God not to create. Which has issues on it's own, but I digress.

However it's fairly easy to conceive of how God could create without suffering.

If we can program something, then God could do it. It's easy to consider a virtual programmed world in which there's no suffering; especially if the programmer is omniscient: it just takes a little more code.

Consider... say, Grand Theft Auto. The reason people die in Grand Theft Auto is because the program allows for things like vehicles to strike them: rather than the vehicle passing through a person or stopping in a dead stop without worrying about inertia, the programmers have to deliberately and thoughtfully program into the world things like inertia for the vehicle and collision detection between the vehicle and the pedestrian.

It's easy to see how to resolve the problem of suffering in Grand Theft Auto: remove collision detection when a vehicle meets a person and the person won't suffer, or remove inertia when a vehicle strikes a person and the vehicle will just stop without hurting the person it struck or the person inside the vehicle.

It's easy to program a world without suffering. For any scenario in which suffering would arise physically (perhaps not mental suffering like unrequited love, but still), it just takes a little more or less code. The crudest of all codes that would solve the problem is a code frequently found in many games: the "god code," which makes player characters unable to be damaged. Very very crude, and a real method used by a God would likely be more than that, but I'm just pointing that that it's a myth that it's inconceivable how God could eliminate physical suffering; it's actually quite cognitive.

If we can program it, God can actualize it. Why didn't He, since we can program it?

Someone with even today's technology could program a virtual world where physical suffering isn't possible and where there are no innocent victims. Of course we don't know how to program sentience yet, but that's irrelevant; what's in question are the physical laws of the world that allow for suffering: just pretend the computer citizens are sentient. You can't argue "but maybe that which causes the sentience is what makes all other stuff that causes suffering necessary" either, because laws can be localized in programs (it's logically possible for laws to be localized in reality, too, which is the point).

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm starting another programming thread under general debates.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

However it's fairly easy to conceive of how God could create without suffering.

I am sure it is. What is not easy, is conceiving how God split his life force into fragments (humans for this discussion) and have those humans know or be aware that they exist. How God could do this in such a way that suffering was not needed. It is easy for us to sit here and wish it, much like I might wish a circle to become a square, it just can't do that by definition of identity. God by being God, can not become something else, unless it takes on a different nature (human aka: sinners, or rebellious to self.
This delves into how something singular can become dualistic, or pluralistic and those fragments be unique to the singular.

If we can program something, then God could do it. It's easy to consider a virtual programmed world in which there's no suffering; especially if the programmer is omniscient: it just takes a little more code.

Again you are right it is very easy to conceive of a world with no suffering. The problem is with my suggestion, that God is limited by the laws of identity (or intrinsic laws) and if God tried to create himself he is faced with an impossible task. God would have to first create a method by which his creations could perceive they existed. In order for God to do that, he would have to make them different. Once something is not God, it is no longer perfect. However it has to be imperfect to know it is alive by contrast to the perfect God.

For example, if I had identical apples down to the very last DNA particular, we would find they would have to be the same apple, because if they weren't than it would mean they occupy two separate places in space time, which means they are not the same.
So something gets its identity, by reflection of what it is not when compared to other things. Otherwise it would never know it exists.

So you see the task is not to conceive of a world with no suffering, but to create other conscious beings that are different than a perfect God.

Consider... say, Grand Theft Auto. The reason people die in Grand Theft Auto is because the program allows for things like vehicles to strike them: rather than the vehicle passing through a person or stopping in a dead stop without worrying about inertia, the programmers have to deliberately and thoughtfully program into the world things like inertia for the vehicle and collision detection between the vehicle and the pedestrian.

It's easy to see how to resolve the problem of suffering in Grand Theft Auto: remove collision detection when a vehicle meets a person and the person won't suffer, or remove inertia when a vehicle strikes a person and the vehicle will just stop without hurting the person it struck or the person inside the vehicle.

It's easy to program a world without suffering. For any scenario in which suffering would arise physically (perhaps not mental suffering like unrequited love, but still), it just takes a little more or less code. The crudest of all codes that would solve the problem is a code frequently found in many games: the "god code," which makes player characters unable to be damaged. Very very crude, and a real method used by a God would likely be more than that, but I'm just pointing that that it's a myth that it's inconceivable how God could eliminate physical suffering; it's actually quite cognitive.

So you are making an assumption here that God can create conscious beings without having them suffer.
Let's think about what is involved here for a second for God to create other beings that are conscious, or ANY creation at all for that matter.

God would first, have to exert a power or force or wish or something for an action to take place, and in this case we are saying the action is creating life. God would have to give off some of his life force which forms into humans or whatever. Now we learned from the above post I made that in order for God to do that, there would have to be some kind of difference, for identity, otherwise God can't create. At this point, is the crux. Since this new creation of life has to be different from God in order for it to have identity, can this life form be perfect? No, because only God is perfect.

So what does this life form become? At first it takes on a rough form (Adam) and eventually learns it's state, and then can become more like God (Jesus). This is the only logical way he could create. Now once something is not perfect (for identities sake) who are we to say that as a result of that, intrinsically, suffering wont exist? Could be simply cause and effect.

Example:
{Cause: Perfection becomes not perfect}
{Effect: Not perfect, suffers (at first)}

If we can program it, God can actualize it. Why didn't He, since we can program it?

But we can't create anything perfect, or perpetual, and it appear God can't either by law of identity. However he can create things that are eternal. Understand the difference here?

Someone with even today's technology could program a virtual world where physical suffering isn't possible and where there are no innocent victims. Of course we don't know how to program sentience yet, but that's irrelevant; what's in question are the physical laws of the world that allow for suffering: just pretend the computer citizens are sentient. You can't argue "but maybe that which causes the sentience is what makes all other stuff that causes suffering necessary" either, because laws can be localized in programs (it's logically possible for laws to be localized in reality, too, which is the point).

I hope you see the error of your way so far... this last paragraph seem irrelevant to me...

Thanks...

 

[Storm]

However it's fairly easy to conceive of how God could create without suffering.

Well, sure. It's also fairly ease to come up with reasons not to.

If we accept that omnipotence has logical limits, as you seem to, then it follows that God has to work within certain parameters. For instance, if you want your Creations to have free will, you have to give them a choice.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

If we can program it, God can actualize it. Why didn't He, since we can program it?

In your example no one would learn anything. You would drive everywhere, hitting everything, with no damage to you or the people around you.

I'll use a different example, because I don't play GTA very much. I do remember playing Madden for the N64. Plug a game shark in and you have a whole bunch of cheats to choose from. Take offsides off, get a sack the second the ball is snapped, take pass interference off...take every penalty the game has off and you can play however you want. And its fun too.
But let me ask you this:
When you do that, are you playing football anymore?