Does omnipotent mean God can do anything?

[Theopulos]

well he could have made us stronger deformity free never to get sick or to have a need to eat or sleep he could have given us all equal intelligence arriving at the same conclusions,with no malice.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

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.

Storm I think it is simpler than that. How can God create anything apart from itself, and that something not be less than perfect. This is assuming one believes God is the true form of perfection, or the highest form.
Free will can be debated, as evidence of countless threads on the subject. Law of identity can not be debated, at least in any seriousness...
Not stepping on your theology, just throwing my two cents in. Hope you don't mind...

 

[Just_me_Mike]

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?

Doesn't matter if you are playing football, so long as you are doing something. The fact that you were created brings into question, if there is a God, could he have created you perfect?

I have pointed out how that is not possible...

 

[Just_me_Mike]

well he could have made us stronger deformity free never to get sick or to have a need to eat or sleep he could have given us all equal intelligence arriving at the same conclusions,with no malice.

How can you be so sure, that part of not being created perfect, results in those things you mention?

 

[Midnight Pete]

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.

Mew-Mew, this excerpt of your post fits *perfectly* into a scene from The Matrix. It's the scene where Agent Smith is interrogating Morpheus, casually mentioning how the "first Matrix" was a perfect world with no suffering and happiness for all. According to how the Machines were thinking at that time, it should have worked but it didn't. People were rejecting the program because it wasn't convincing enough. Why? Because there was no suffering. Because all those envatted humans somehow sensed it was literally too good to be true. Because part of how we define our reality (and this is true) is through misery and suffering. If it seems too good to be true it probably is. So the Matrix crashed.

The Fall of Eden, as metaphor.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Doesn't matter if you are playing football, so long as you are doing something. The fact that you were created brings into question, if there is a God, could he have created you perfect?

I have pointed out how that is not possible...

I was just proving it in a different way. If God made us perfect, would we be living anymore? Besides that, God could very well have made us perfect, because we are able to live, rather than be stagnant and basically dead.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Besides that, God could very well have made us perfect, because we are able to live, rather than be stagnant and basically dead.

If you try, you will realize God can not make anything perfect. By Law only God is perfect. If you agree with that, than you must agree that God can not create himself. Now once God creates something and it is not entirely perfect like God, who knows what it will become...

 

[Beaudreaux]

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'm sure I'm too late to be first.

Are you saying that we are living in the best of all possible worlds?

 

[Beaudreaux]

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?

You mean his desire that "none should perish"? I suppose he could have made earth like what the Bible describes as heaven.

 

[Beaudreaux]

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, God is subject to and bound by the rules of logic. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

But humans can be different than God by simply being non-omniscient and non-omnipotent. That doesn't mean they have to experience suffering. A non-omniscient/non-omnipotent being isn't defined by suffering; it's quite logical to imagine one that hasn't suffered and to imagine how it's different from God. Not a valid point, I don't think, in light of this.

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.

Nothing about this implies the existence of suffering. For instance a being who cannot make a bottle of coca-cola appear at will (even if it has one in a nearby fridge) is surely distinct from God, but doesn't necessarily experience suffering. Again, not a forceful argument in my opinion. Nothing about this implies that beings must suffer to be differentiated from God.

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.

Skipping further parts where the same answer applies...

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.

Imperfection doesn't require the existence of suffering. A being can be non-omnipotent/non-omniscient without suffering just fine. You haven't answered in this argument why suffering is a trait non-God beings must endure.

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

Thanks...

You haven't convinced me that I've errored. Pointing out that man is imperfect compared to God, and that he/she must be so in order to be distinguished from God, does not imply that suffering must exist. It simply doesn't follow whatsoever.

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

Omniscience is bound by logical limits, yes, but at the same time it's within those logical limits to have existence without suffering. Thence comes the Problem of Evil in full force.

Choices don't need to involve suffering. Those aren't exactly "choices" if the ramifications are fully understood.

Nor is it benevolent to give "choices" (one involving suffering) where the ramifications are NOT fully understood. Would you worship a God that said, "Choose door 1 or 2, once you make your choice you can't take it back, but by the way if you pick the wrong one you'll suffer forever?"

I'd think not. EDIT: or hope not. If you do then I'd just... well, to put it mildly, strongly disagree that such is a rational or "benevolent" thought.

 

[Meow Mix]

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?

You're assuming that there is something to learn by feeling the horror of realizing you've hit someone with your vehicle and maimed or killed them.

In a world where suffering isn't possible, there's nothing to learn by doing so, and your analogy falls flat on its face.

Sure, you learn nothing by being unable to hit somebody because "learning something about it" implies that you would learn not to hit people in the future, or to care for their feelings about being hit, for example. But if that's not even possible at all in the first place, there's nothing to learn about it.

Simple, see? No problems here, the problem you raise only matters if we assume suffering is necessary... which is exactly what's being called into question, so it's a little circular.

 

[Meow Mix]

Doesn't matter if you are playing football, so long as you are doing something. The fact that you were created brings into question, if there is a God, could he have created you perfect?

I have pointed out how that is not possible...

Can you explain how imperfection necessitates suffering?

Example: an imperfect square could have one side that's longer/shorter than the other while still connected to the other 4 angles (i.e., an angle is shorter) or it could be that a side is too short to reach the 4th angle and doesn't close all the way... etc.

There's lots of ways in which things can be "imperfect," depending on how you're defining perfection.

There is no reason why imperfection implies the existence of suffering. A non-perfect being may simply be non-omniscient, for instance -- but nothing can harm it or cause it pain. Or it may just be non-omnipotent... or both! Nowhere is it LOGICALLY implied that it must be able to suffer.

Your argument doesn't defend the existence of suffering whatsoever, not as far as I can see it.

 

[Meow Mix]

Mew-Mew, this excerpt of your post fits *perfectly* into a scene from The Matrix. It's the scene where Agent Smith is interrogating Morpheus, casually mentioning how the "first Matrix" was a perfect world with no suffering and happiness for all. According to how the Machines were thinking at that time, it should have worked but it didn't. People were rejecting the program because it wasn't convincing enough. Why? Because there was no suffering. Because all those envatted humans somehow sensed it was literally too good to be true. Because part of how we define our reality (and this is true) is through misery and suffering. If it seems too good to be true it probably is. So the Matrix crashed.

The Fall of Eden, as metaphor.

lol, "Mew-Mew" is a fun nickname. I'll take it

I've seen the Matrix, but I do have to point out that it's just a movie and that it does -- as other theists and individuals have in this thread -- assume (without justification) that suffering is somehow necessary for the human condition.

It isn't.

Furthermore if suffering weren't necessary for reality then it would "BE" reality that there was no suffering and humans couldn't "reject" it like they could a matrix.

I get what you're saying, I just don't think it really solves the problem I'm raising.

If suffering were necessary for existence and I were advocating for PRETENDING that it isn't, your point would trump me. But that's exactly what's being called into question: whether suffering IS necessary for existence or not. So far no one is able to convincingly argue that it is necessary; many have ASSUMED that it is though because indeed suffering is part of our world. That's not what the question is though!

EDIT: To make a more clear point, humans are raised in a world with suffering and so are used to it and expect it. Place any one of us in a fake environment and we'd probably reject it, yeah. But take someone who's never experienced suffering before and put them in an environment without it and they'd have no idea what they were missing. To quote my own movie -- the Truman show -- we accept the reality presented to us.

 

[Levite]

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?

Maybe God could have done it differently. We can't know, I think. But in this universe, suffering is a result of two things, and two things only: first is our reactions to natural processes that stem from chaos and entropy (e.g., aging, disease, accidents, natural disasters, etc.)-- two forces which are integral to the proper functioning of the physical universe. Perhaps a different universe might exist without chaos or entropy, but it would be so radically different than our own, we cannot properly conceive of how it might work. The second thing that results in suffering is the choices and actions of human beings. We cause each other more suffering and grief than any dozen natural disasters or diseases. And the only way we could have ensured that we would never do so would be if we had no free will. But that is the very thing that, I believe, God wishes us to have-- even knowing that it will take us thousands upon thousands of years to learn, as a species, how not to abuse that free will and work evil.

To my mind, the fact that God might be able to create a different universe, where there might be no suffering, is irrelevant. God did not create that universe: He created ours. And we can only assume that He has had good reasons, and is well aware of the price in suffering that we pay for this universe to function properly and for us to exist as creatures of free will.

Everyone suffers. Some in different ways, some more and some less, but everyone suffers. But what we do with that suffering is what makes all the difference. Suffering can break one, and lead to an endless recrimination of God, and a ceaseless asking of "why;" or it can be learned from, and used to create wisdom, enriching both the sufferer and those he teaches and touches. While I don't think that God was particularly deliberate in the creation of suffering-- in other words, I don't think God envisioned suffering as an end in and of itself, whose existence should be sought-- I do think that one of many reasons God might have for permitting it as a necessary side effect of the existential conditions of our universe is that it can be used, if desired, as a tool for creating wisdom and compassion for others. And those are things I think God very much wishes us to have.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

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?

IT MAY BE NON-SENSE OR IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO YOUR MIND.

YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING,AS IT MAKE NO SENSE FOR YOU. HOWEVER IT MAY BE POSSIBLE AND IT MAKE SENSE TO OTHER.

WHAT IS POSSIBLE MEANS IT FITS THE RULES.

GOD IS THE WHO PUT THE RULES, BUT RULES SHOULDN'T RESTRICT GOD's POWER.

THIS IS WHY WE RELATE MIRACLES TO GOD, BECAUSE MIRACLES DO NOT MAKE SENSE AND THEY ACT AGAINST THE RULES.

 

[Theopulos]

How can you be so sure, that part of not being created perfect, results in those things you mention?

because we are being punished.

 

[Storm]

Omniscience is bound by logical limits, yes, but at the same time it's within those logical limits to have existence without suffering. Thence comes the Problem of Evil in full force.

Yeah, I said that.

Choices don't need to involve suffering.

It depends on what the purpose is, doesn't it? If the goal is just "everybody's happy," you're right. But what if the goal is for us to be morally intelligent?

Those aren't exactly "choices" if the ramifications are fully understood.

I assume that was supposed to be "aren't."

I do agree with this, but can only assume you're referring to the Eden myth. I wasn't, and I don't see any reason to drag it in.

Nor is it benevolent to give "choices" (one involving suffering) where the ramifications are NOT fully understood. Would you worship a God that said, "Choose door 1 or 2, once you make your choice you can't take it back, but by the way if you pick the wrong one you'll suffer forever?"

I'd think not. EDIT: or hope not. If you do then I'd just... well, to put it mildly, strongly disagree that such is a rational or "benevolent" thought.

Indeed not. It's rather irrelevant, though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Even with that re-jigging of omnipotence, you still run into trouble.

For instance, can an omnimax god surprise itself? I surprise myself sometimes, so I know that surprising onesself is possible.