An omnipotent God can do anything, so that means that there is nothing in logic that would prevent an omnipotent God from doing something He does not want to do.
Would an omnipotent God ever do what He does not want to do?
The answers to choose from are
yes,
no, or
maybe.
- If you answer yes, explain why you think God would do what He does not want to do.
- If you answer maybe, explain why you think God might do what He does not want to do.
- If you answer no, explain why you God would never do what He does not want to do.
Thanks, Trailblazer
Alright, let's ask a question then.
You're a physicist, and fully capable of building a nuclear bomb.
However, you happen to know that this bomb is being sold to terrorists, who definitely will use it immediately to kill thousands or millions. You are fully capable of building the bomb, but if you refuse, you lose your job someone else will. You are in a position where your abilities have made you able to do something that you do not want to do. What do you do? Well, you can do it anyway, and take pride in your work, you can decide to quit or explain to the boss why you won't do it, or you can create a convincing dud.
Omnipotent is about what you
can do being unlimited. Morality is what you
should do. Free will is about what you
want to do.
You know where we got the idea that God is omnipotent? It's not really Biblical. God is often stopped by his people's lack of faith (see: chariots of iron).
The word omnipotent is mainly from popular songs, some of which I hate because they spread the "peace in our time" philosophy that helped appease people like Hitler and Stalin.
God's true power comes from kindness, not from show of force. In fact, omnipotence is a problematic (and unncessary) teaching that really does the church no good. We have this idea from Epicurus.
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
- Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
- Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
- Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Addressing Epicurus' quote about God willing to prevent evil | CARM.org
The problems with Epicurus' statements are as follows.
- Evil is not defined. Therefore, the assessment of the statements cannot be validated.
- If evil were defined, what would justify the definition as being the right one?
- Epicurus presupposes a moral absolute that if God can prevent evil, then he should. But how is such a moral absolute justified as being true?
- The problem of how much evil (all, most, some) ought to be prevented is not addressed.
- The problem of preventing evil thoughts and intentions with its implication of denying free will is also not addressed.
The thing is, if we abandoned that word and simply stuck to the following descriptions:
- Immortal
- Invisible
- Eternal
- Loving
- Just
then we are far closer to a real picture of God. You'll notice "perfect" wasn't on there.
