Omnipotence

[Robin]

Don't tell me - it has all been argued before, but since this is being argued as a hijack to another post I thought I would give it a home of it's own.

This is the traditional Christian definition of omnipotence:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm
And here is the source for the definition that God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01546a.htm
So is omnipotence a meaningful concept or not?

 

[RandFan]

Don't tell me - it has all been argued before, but since this is being argued as a hijack to another post I thought I would give it a home of it's own.

Good idea.

Omnipotence

Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible.

IMO, omnimpotence is as others have suggested a nonsensical and pointless concept. It is a non-starter since it creates a paradox.

That being said, my opinion is not and should not be the end all to philosophical inquiry regarding omnipotence. Like many such concepts that rely on faith Omnipotence can be explored using logic. In other words we can ask logical questions and explore what we mean by "all powerfull".

For an excellent example of a Catholic philosophical exploration of omnipotence through logical inquiry please see:
God's Omnipotence

Here is the opening argument.

Omnipotence

"With God all things are possible"—Matthew 3:9

Catholic Dogma: God is almighty (De Fide)

If we grant the theists victory of the philosophical question "Does God exist?" we inevitably come to the question, "Does the Christian God exist?" This seems a valid question. For if the ontological proof is truly correct, then it implies that some being "which nothing greater can be conceived of" truly exists. A skeptic will ask what these "great-making" qualities are that make God the being "which nothing greater can be conceived". In answer to this, Catholic Christians posit a handful of divine properties that make God "great". The following list of properties are attributed to God by Catholic dogma:

• Omnipotent
• Omniscient
• Omni-benevolent
• Impassable
• Infinitely Just
• Infinitely Merciful
• Eternal
• Knowable by Nature
• Omni-present
• Absolutely Perfect
• Absolute Immutability
• The First Efficient Cause

If we are to answer the question, "Does the Christian God exist?" we must analyze the properties attributed to God and see if they are at least philosophically sound. In this first essay on God’s qualities I wish to consider God’s omnipotence (God’s power) and some of the difficulties with the idea of God’s omnipotence.

There are two major difficulties with an all-powerful being. The first problem has to do with the extent of God’s power. Does omnipotence allow God to redefine logic or break the laws of logic? Does God’s omnipotence mean that he is capable of sin? The second major difficulty is the apparent conflict between God’s power and his omni-benevolence. Namely, if an all-good, all-powerful God exists, why does evil exist in the world he created? These questions are real problems for Christianity, and I wish to address each of them carefully.

The reader should also be aware, that many of the problems with God’s omnipotence proceed from conflicts with his other "great-making" qualities. One possible solution to some of these conflicts is to abandon one of the properties which conflict. Another possible solution is to abandon Christianity entirely. As a devoted Catholic, I will not consider these "solutions" as valid alternatives. Indeed, I believe that most of these conflicts can be overcome or neutralized with some thought and a careful definition of the qualities of God. The definitions I will expound are Catholic definitions; in essence I will not address ad hominen arguments against non-Catholic doctrines. Instead, the following paper is a defense of the Catholic Faith from skeptics and not a general defense of the myriad of non-Catholic Christian doctrines. With this in mind I will proceed to analyze the first skeptical argument against God’s omnipotence.

Problem 1: The problem of the scope of God’s omnipotence

An Initial Definition of Omnipotence: God can do anything

The following question is often posed by skeptics of Christianity to bring about a conflict with the idea of omnipotence. The question often posed is, "Can God create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?" This question creates a dilemma in our initial definition of omnipotence. For if God can do anything then that means he must be able to create a rock he can’t lift (even if it’s infinitely heavy). Yet, if this were true then he would not be able to lift the rock; so we must conclude that God is not omnipotent. I think the argument can be broken down in the following manner:

Def. Omnipotence means a person X can do anything.

P1. Person X can make an object heavier and heavier by way of omnipotent power.

P2. Because Person X is omnipotent, X should be able to make a rock so heavy X can’t lift it.

P3. If Person X does not have the power to lift the rock this conflicts with omnipotence

C1. Person X is not omnipotent

I think this is not a valid argument against God’s omnipotence because P2 does not make logical sense. The reason P2 is not logical, is that P2 basically says:

• Suppose a Person X exists and is purportedly omnipotent
• Omnipotent beings must be able to do A (create rocks)
• Omnipotent beings must be able to do B (lift rocks)

• X must be able to do A such that B is not possible otherwise X is not omnipotent.

Do you see the logical conflict here? Our skeptical argument asserts that God must be able to do A and B or he is not omnipotent (which makes logical sense) AND God must be able to do A in such a way that B is not possible or God is not omnipotent. The argument sets God’s omnipotence up to fail by stating that in order to be omnipotent he must be able to do three things:

1. X must do A
2. X must do B
3. X must do A such that B is not possible [/list=1]
   
   There is no logical way God can "do B" and "not do B" at the same time! I suppose we must conclude that there is one limit on God’s power: logic. Yet, is that really a limit? Does the skeptic truly suppose that an illogical God is more powerful than a logical God? I don’t believe so, and if the reader disagrees than re-read the above argument. The implication is that an illogical God either doesn’t exist (by the stone-lifting example) or can’t be discussed at all. For if God transcends logic, then we have absolutely no way of knowing or discussing him. Logic is the only mode by which we can make sense of the world in a rational manner. How can we even conceive of a being whose very nature is based on illogic? I submit that only a logical God is part of Catholic dogma. In fact, I will now give the reader the proper definition of omnipotence as defined by the first Vatican council:

1. For the rest of the definition and argument please follow the link.

 

[Robin]

The classical definition of omnipotence might be described as:
O is omnipotent means that O can do anything that is not intrinsically impossible.
Intrinsically impossible means:
- Contrary to O's nature
- Has mutually exclusive elements

So for example God cannot send somebody to Hell just because they are of the wrong religion, or because they find the idea of God a bit hard to swallow since this would be punishment out of proportion to the crime and this is intrinsically impossible given God's nature which is understood to include love, mercy, compassion and justice.

Also an omnipotent God cannot prove that God is not omnipotent since proving a falsity is an intrinsic mutual exclusion. A rock too heavy for God to lift is an intrinsically impossible object and so cannot be created.

To me this is problematical since the intrinsically impossible clause might have different interpretations. For example it does not rule out that there might be more than one omnipotent being since any action where O1 overruled O2 would simply become intrinsically impossible.

You do not know which of the mutually exclusive elements that God might be able to do. If you defined God's nature to include being able to forget then remembering everything would become intrinsically impossible and hence not contradictory to omnipotence.

It seems to me that you could then define God any way you wanted to.

 

[Beleth]

The implication is that an illogical God either doesn’t exist (by the stone-lifting example) or can’t be discussed at all.

Do you agree with this statement you quoted, RandFan?

 

[L7Cz]

As long as we're trying on definitions to see what doesn't look too baggy on us, how about...

1) "God" is omnipotent.

2) "Omnipotent" means exactly that: all-powerful. There is nothing that "God" cannot do.

3) The question is posited: Can "God" create a rock so heavy He cannot lift it?

4) This appears to be illogical and to invalidate statement (1). However, lets

• Assume "God" is not equivalent to the physical Universe, that is, He has qualities that exist outside the physical Universe.
• Assume that "God" creates a rock that includes all of the physical Universe.
• Since "lift" is a term restricted to the physical Universe (must have an object to lift, must have another object to lift from, must have an attraction between the objects such as gravity, the second object must be able to support the first object and the lifter both separately and combined, etc.), and all the physical Universe is contained within this rock, "God" has no place to stand.[/list=a]5) Therefore, He cannot lift this rock He has created, not out of a logical inconsistency regarding omnipotence, but because lifting rocks is a physical concept with inherent limits. The limit is not on "God" but on the concept of "lift."
  
  6) So, the answer is "Yes." "God" can create a rock so heavy He cannot lift it. Or move it (again, nowhere to move it to -- moving is a physical concept).
  
  Now, what about: "Can God greate a rock so small He cannot find it?

 

[wollery]

As long as we're trying on definitions to see what doesn't look too baggy on us, how about...

1) "God" is omnipotent.

2) "Omnipotent" means exactly that: all-powerful. There is nothing that "God" cannot do.

3) The question is posited: Can "God" create a rock so heavy He cannot lift it?

4) This appears to be illogical and to invalidate statement (1). However, lets

• Assume "God" is not equivalent to the physical Universe, that is, He has qualities that exist outside the physical Universe.
• Assume that "God" creates a rock that includes all of the physical Universe.
• Since "lift" is a term restricted to the physical Universe (must have an object to lift, must have another object to lift from, must have an attraction between the objects such as gravity, the second object must be able to support the first object and the lifter both separately and combined, etc.), and all the physical Universe is contained within this rock, "God" has no place to stand.[/list=a]5) Therefore, He cannot lift this rock He has created, not out of a logical inconsistency regarding omnipotence, but because lifting rocks is a physical concept with inherent limits. The limit is not on "God" but on the concept of "lift."
  
  6) So, the answer is "Yes." "God" can create a rock so heavy He cannot lift it. Or move it (again, nowhere to move it to -- moving is a physical concept).
  
  Now, what about: "Can God greate a rock so small He cannot find it?

• But surely God being able to do anything, it could lift something without the need to stand on something, or even have anywhere to move it too. Furthermore, since God is omnipotent, surely it could create something infinitely heavy that was the size of a mouse. And lift it without even having to think about it too much.

 

[drkitten]

The classical definition of omnipotence might be described as:
O is omnipotent means that O can do anything that is not intrinsically impossible.

To me this is problematical since the intrinsically impossible clause might have different interpretations. For example it does not rule out that there might be more than one omnipotent being since any action where O1 overruled O2 would simply become intrinsically impossible.

One might argue that this second case proves that if an omnipotent being exists, then He is unique. That's basically the same argument that proves that an irresistable force cannot exist in the same universe as an immovable object, yes?

On the broader question of omnipotence, I think a key issue here is to try to avoid getting tangled in the question of semantics versus divine power. I think the great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis expressed it the best : "A meaningless sentence does not gain meaning simply because someone chooses to prepend to it the phrase 'God can.'"

For example, can God rarfle florpoo unbehelianly? In order to answer that question, one would first need to establish that those nonsense syllables actually meant something. As it stands, the answer to the question is "no," not because of a limitation on the Divine power, but because of a limitation on our human expressive capacity. But by the same token, can God create a (literally interpreted) "green idea that is sleeping furiously"? By a literal (non-metaphorical, non-poetic) interpretation, ideas have no color, do not sleep, and nothing can sleep furiously. The phrase is inherently not meaningful, and saying that God can create it does not add meaning.

A similar argument applies to most of the various other impossibilities that native athiests wish to apply to God -- "a married bachelor," "a rock so heavy God cannot lift it," "a four-sided triangle," "a valid proof of a falsehood," etc. are not themselves meaningful.

The question of God being able to sin is of a different nature -- obviously, "sinning" is a meaningful verb. Most theologians would have no problem accepting, however, that God chooses not to sin. It's not clear how you would phrase "is able to sin" in order to handle meaningfully a hypothetical case that by assumption will never arise....

 

[RandFan]

Do you agree with this statement you quoted, RandFan?

Yes and no. Depending on POV.

An atheist would rightly conclude that, by implication, that definition (any definition actually) of god cannot exist and is not worthy of discussion by default.

Dogmatic Def: God is almighty (De Fide)

Def. of almighty: God has the power to execute all that He may wish, that is all that is real and possible. God’s power is identical with God’s essence.[/b]

"All that is real and possible." This is your point. We can discuss this god because this definition is not illogical. Really? Let's carry on.

I posit that the definition put forth by this author is also illogical.

Now the skeptic may argue that it is ridiculous to keep redefining God’s omnipotence to suit the Christian position.

Bingo, ring the bell. (please see the authors response) The author's response not-withstanding what he and others are doing is to continually redefine omnipotence to suit their purpose. Here, let's take two contrary attributes. Infinitely merciful and infinitely just. How can one be both? One is often sacrificed for the other. Oh wait, he sent his son...THOUSANDS of years after Adam and Eve. And what of all the people before Christ? What of the people who lived in China before missionaries? And what of the Jewish children killed at the Nazi Concentration camps? "No man commeth to the father but my me?" They ALL mercifully were sent to hell.

If God is all knowing, then he knew that Satan would try to destroy mankind. He knew that most of us would fail. If he knew that, why did he create us at all? That's unfair. It is neither just nor is it merciful.

On earth we have a concept of equitable justice. In other words we believe the punishment should fit the crime. We also think that a person's age should come into play. For instance, a 13 year old who steals a candy bar will get a different sentence than a Convicted felon who is an adult and commits armed robbery.

Why do we do this? A sense of justice and mercy. This raises a question. If we as lowly humans can exhibit such common sense punishment why can't god? It (god) sends Hitler to the same punishment as his 13 year old victims. Oh, and BTW, if Hitler had asked for forgiveness shortly before he died he would get eternal salvation and his victims punished for all eternity. Which is an objection in and of itself. How is ALL eternity just and comparable to anything that any humans have done? Hitler snuffed out 6 million lives. If we average out each life span subtract the lives already lived and multiply that by 6 million and then add punitive punishment wouldn't a billion years be a good punishment? No? Couldn't Hitler get out after suffering unspeakable torment for a trillion years?

And what about the person who is a good and decent individual but is Muslim? Same punishment. Everlasting pain and anguish. Unstoppable because he was born into the wrong religion. Neither just nor merciful. And his real sin? He was born. That is just? That is merciful? Who's fault was it that he was born. Three guesses and the first two don't count.

The problem Beleth is that you think there is some way to make terms like omnipotent and omniscient palatable. We still come back to the same problems.

*Yes, I said "man". The bible constantly refers to god as "father" and "him". Ridiculous terms since god is not a person.

 

[Ossai]

Robin

The classical definition of omnipotence might be described as:
O is omnipotent means that O can do anything that is not intrinsically impossible.
Intrinsically impossible means:
- Contrary to O's nature
- Has mutually exclusive elements

Nice, except it is a redefinition of omnipotent.
If it is intrinsically impossible and O is omnipotent then O can make it not intrinsically impossible.
What the religious should do is create a new word meaning: can do anything that is not intrinsically impossible.

Ossai

 

[drkitten]

Here, let's take two contrary attributes. Infinitely merciful and infinitely just. How can one be both? One is often sacrificed for the other. Oh wait, he sent his son...THOUSANDS of years after Adam and Eve. And what of all the people before Christ? What of the people who lived in China before missionaries? And what of the Jewish children killed at the Nazi Concentration camps? "No man commeth to the father but my me?" They ALL mercifully were sent to hell.

Part of the problem, though, is that you are assuming on the basis of a single quote the fact of the pre-Christian Chinese and the Jewish camp victims. There's also a well-established view of thought that suggest that you're misinterpreting the phrase "No man commeth to the father but by me."

Does "by me" refer to Christ Himself in His capacity as the Redeemer, or does it refer to the organization we know as the Christian Church? And how does one reconcile this statement with the one in John 10:16 -- "0ther sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring." What is "this fold," and who are the "other sheep"?

Under an alternative interpretation, the good people, of whatever genuinely held religious interpretation, were accepted as "Christ's sheep," irrespective of whether or not they were of the Christian "fold" or not. C.S. Lewis wrote on this as well; his children's book The Last Battle spends nearly a chapter on this issue, in the context of a narrative. But it's got a much longer history -- for example, the (Muslim) Sultan Saladin was widely regarded by medieval Christians as being a perfect knight (and counterpart to Richard the Lion-Hearted), and considered by Dante, for example, to be a very good example of a "virtuous pagan," specifically not damned to Hell, but given the best eternal resting place (Limbo) available to those without the imagination to ask for Grace. Other commentators have placed him as an example of "salvation by works" in Heaven itself -- but of course, this only applies if you believe in salvation by works, which is itself a hotly contested issue in theology.

The problem really is one of assumptions. You assume that Jewish concentration camp victims are assigned to Hell, based on your interpretation of the Bible, and you equally assume that this is unjust based on your understanding of justice. This leads you to the conclusion that God is unjust. But there's an equally viable chain of reasoning that starts from the position that God is just and leads to the conclusion that your understanding either of the Bible or of the nature of justice is flawed. A lot of Christian commentators have attempted to take the second chain and to use it to refine either our understanding of the Bible or of justice. You may not necessarily believe them, but I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss them out of hand simply because they make different and equally unsupportable assumptions than you do.

 

[Wudang]

The whole "can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" issue strikes me as yet another problem of the intuitive approach to sums to infinity.
Let's try this phrasing of the question:
1 - can god create an infinitely heavy rock?
2 - can god lift an infinitely heavy rock?

In this sense I think we can see that the questions are resolved by which reaches infinity first, which is in effect a meaningless question just like which is the bigger infinity. And no this does not need transfinite numbers thank you.
Yes/no?

editted to add:

Extending the idea of infinity and transfinite numbers:
to be infinitely merciful does he have to be infinitely merciful for more than one sin? Say he's infinitely merciful on coveting, but not on sins against the holy spirit (not forgiven in this life or the next) isn't that still the same aleph(0) and to be infinitely forgiving for an infinity of sins would be infinity*infinity or aleph(1). (have I remembered the notation?)

If he is omnipotent is the first order of infinity enough to describe him for an given attribute?

 

[RandFan]

Thank you for the response.

Part of the problem, though, is that you are assuming on the basis of a single quote the fact of the pre-Christian Chinese and the Jewish camp victims.

No, not really. It is but one quote I gave. There is lots of data to support this. Not that you don't have a point. You do. It's just that most Christian church do absolutely believe that only those who accept Christ will go to heaven and the rest will goo to hell. That is unless you are Catholic and then there is purgatory and limbo and other awkward attempts to solve an unsolvable problem.

There's also a well-established view of thought that suggest that you're misinterpreting the phrase "No man commeth to the father but by me."

I will concede that there exists such a school of thought. However we can't ignore the problem simply because there are 10,000 views of salvation. Let's take one at a time and start with conventional wisdom.

Does "by me" refer to Christ Himself in His capacity as the Redeemer, or does it refer to the organization we know as the Christian Church?

Again, this is just one scripture.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: (John 11:25)

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

We can do nothing good to earn our way to heaven (Titus 3:5).

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23).

And how does one reconcile this statement with the one in John 10:16 -- "0ther sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring." What is "this fold," and who are the "other sheep"?

According to the Mormons they are the Native Americans.

You are asking me to defend Christian Dogma? Look, there are lots of nutty ideas trying to make sense from the Bible. I posit that it is simply impossible. However there is no question that many if not most Christians believe that salvation only comes through Christ.

The problem really is one of assumptions. You assume that Jewish concentration camp victims are assigned to Hell, based on your interpretation of the Bible, and you equally assume that this is unjust based on your understanding of justice.

No, I am saying that such a belief (a common one) will have a difficult time convincing anyone that god is just.

This leads you to the conclusion that God is unjust.

Quite the contrary. As a Mormon I grew up believing that everyone who had not heard of Christ would get a second chance. And even those who had heard of Christ could get a second chance.

When I was a missionary I gave the following admonition "Those who hear the Gospel in this life and reject it might not receive a second chance after this life". This was changed, AIU, from "will not get a second chance". I don't know what the status is at this time.

That is why BTW Mormons are baptized for the dead.

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? (1 Corinthians 15:29)

But there's an equally viable chain of reasoning that starts from the position that God is just and leads to the conclusion that your understanding either of the Bible or of the nature of justice is flawed.

I'm only commenting on prevailing wisdom. There are thousands of theories. It is rather difficult to address them all.

A lot of Christian commentators have attempted to take the second chain and to use it to refine either our understanding of the Bible or of justice. You may not necessarily believe them, but I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss them out of hand simply because they make different and equally unsupportable assumptions than you do.

I would be happy to address those that come up. That there are different beliefs is no reason not to make my argument based on the convential, Mainstream Christian and Catholic views.

 

[drkitten]

Again, this is just one scripture.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).

RIght. So let's switch attention to this scripture. What does this scripture really mean?

There are at least two possibilities. One is that your understanding of the scriptural quote is absolutely correct and that God is not omnibenevolent. The other is that God is omnibenevolent, and you don't understand the quote properly.
Make your assumption and draw your conclusion. Repeat ad libitum until you are convinced either that your understanding of God, why by definition works in mysterious ways, is inherently and irreparably flawed, or you are convinced that there is no God because you couldn't possibly have made a mistake in all that scriptural research.

I would be happy to address those that come up. That there are different beliefs is no reason not to make my argument based on the convential, Mainstream Christian and Catholic views.

The view that I cited is, in fact, a mainstream Christian and Catholic view. (According to a theology professor I just consulted, it originated with St. Augustine in the fourth century, and is part of accepted Catholic doctrine.)

If what you're complaining about is that most Catholics don't actually know the doctrine of their own church.... why is man's ignorance a slight on God?

 

[RandFan]

RIght. So let's switch attention to this scripture. What does this scripture really mean?

I would not base any assumptions on a single scripture. That is why I posted others. According to christian scholars they must be taken as a whole.

There are at least two possibilities. One is that your understanding of the scriptural quote is absolutely correct and that God is not omnibenevolent.

Why "absolute"?

Given the other scriptures that I quoted and much of the literature that I have read I'm confident that this is mainstream Christian belief.

But that isn't even the point. I'm arguing a single view of salvation. If you have another please cite it and we will look at it.

The other is that God is omnibenevolent, and you don't understand the quote properly.

{sigh} Forgive me. I don't like being put into the position of defending that which I don't believe in and find indefensible. It is not my intent to "understand the quote properly" because I don't honestly believe that there is any such understanding to be had.

Though it would be appropriate to understand what was "meant" by the scripture. Could you provide another interpetation?

That being said. I AM making a logical argument based in part on the interpetation of this scripture. However, it is not my interpetation that I am relying on but that of Mainstream Christian Dogma. It should be noted that the concept is not based on a single scripture. Why you choose to try and make it so is beyond me.

Make your assumption and draw your conclusion. Repeat ad libitum until you are convinced either that your understanding of God, why by definition works in mysterious ways, is inherently and irreparably flawed, or you are convinced that there is no God because you couldn't possibly have made a mistake in all that scriptural research.

You seriously missunderstand my intentions.

1. For the prupose of this discussion I am NOT now trying to attempt to prove that there is no god. Such an endevor is a waste of time for someone like me who is decidedly agnostic.
   
2. I am not trying to prove that omnipotence is a meaningless concept. On the contrary. My debate with Beleth is that there can be purpose in discussing any definition of omnipotence and anything philosophical.
   
3. I'm not trying to suggest that I am an expert or that I know everything there is to know about Christian and Catholic dogma. Far from it.
   
4. I AM trying to show that suggesting that one definition of omnipotence is wholy without merit while there are other definitions that have merit is silly.[/list=1]
   
   Are we straight?
   
   

   The view that I cited is, in fact, a mainstream Christian and Catholic view. (According to a theology professor I just consulted, it originated with St. Augustine in the fourth century, and is part of accepted Catholic doctrine.)

   Well hell, let's all go home since you have second hand information of Catholic AND Christian Dogma and found them to be the same.
   
   First off they are not exactly the same and Mainstream Christian (non Catholic is far from your representation).
   
   Catholic Beliefs vs. the Beliefs of God
   
   

   If what you're complaining about is that most Catholics don't actually know the doctrine of their own church.... why is man's ignorance a slight on God?

   And what is Catholic dogma acording to Catholics?
   
   

   The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: `For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.
   Verification: Pg. 215, #816
   
   ...all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is hisBody: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teachesthat the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation:... Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
   Verification: Pg. 224, #846

   If you are going to claim that I am wrong could you do a little research and post it here?
   
   

   The Catholic church teaches that only through faith in Christ plus Catholic baptism is salvation granted. There are exceptions; e.g., in the cases of martyrs for the faith (Catechism 1258), and infants dying without baptism (Catechism 1261).

 

[Jon_in_london]

The real problem with omnipotence is when it is coupled to omnibenevolence.

If god is Omnipotenet then there is nothing he cannot do. Yet if he is omnibenevolent then he cannot do evil. So evil is nothing. So satan cant exist. So hell cant exist. So heaven cant exist. so God doesnt exist.

 

[Upchurch]

The real problem with omnipotence is when it is coupled to omnibenevolence.

Is there any necessity to couple them in the first place? I would think a much more natural coupling, actually, would be omnipotence and omniscience. If God has the ability to do anything*, God has the ability to know anything*.






* Some restrictions apply. Not valid in Utah.

 

[Beleth]

Yes and no. Depending on POV.

And you accuse me of taking both sides of an argument....

An atheist would rightly conclude that, by implication, that definition (any definition actually) of god cannot exist and is not worthy of discussion by default.

God is not necessarily omnipotent. It doesn't take omnipotence to create a finite universe such as the one we inhabit. Besides, a being which is illogically omnipotent both exists and does not exist.

 

[RandFan]

And you accuse me of taking both sides of an argument....

Yes, and I agreed that I did in this instance also.

 

[ceo_esq]

Nice, except it is a redefinition of omnipotent.
If it is intrinsically impossible and O is omnipotent then O can make it not intrinsically impossible.
What the religious should do is create a new word meaning: can do anything that is not intrinsically impossible.

Ossai

I have to disagree here, Ossai. This is not a redefinition of "omnipotent". It has been the prevailing (though not exclusive) understanding of that concept as employed in Western philosophical discourse since before the word "omnipotent" entered the English language.

The definition to which you apparently adhere is extremely problematic conceptually, which is why it hasn't historically prospered in the philosophy of religion: that an omnipotent being ought also to be able to do anything that is intrinsically impossible.

That which is intrinsically impossible is simply not intelligible. For example, what does it actually mean to suggest that God ought to be able, for example, to create a married bachelor? Do the words "married bachelor" actually designate any intelligible concept? Can a married bachelor even be said to be a thing in any meaningful sense? It's just a nonsense expression; you might as well replace it with the word "splunge". Is an omnipotent being's power really limited if he cannot splunge?

 

[Robin]

As long as we're trying on definitions to see what doesn't look too baggy on us, how about...

1) "God" is omnipotent.

2) "Omnipotent" means exactly that: all-powerful. There is nothing that "God" cannot do.

3) The question is posited: Can "God" create a rock so heavy He cannot lift it?

4) This appears to be illogical and to invalidate statement (1). However, lets

• Assume "God" is not equivalent to the physical Universe, that is, He has qualities that exist outside the physical Universe.
• Assume that "God" creates a rock that includes all of the physical Universe.
• Since "lift" is a term restricted to the physical Universe (must have an object to lift, must have another object to lift from, must have an attraction between the objects such as gravity, the second object must be able to support the first object and the lifter both separately and combined, etc.), and all the physical Universe is contained within this rock, "God" has no place to stand.[/list=a]5) Therefore, He cannot lift this rock He has created, not out of a logical inconsistency regarding omnipotence, but because lifting rocks is a physical concept with inherent limits. The limit is not on "God" but on the concept of "lift."
  
  6) So, the answer is "Yes." "God" can create a rock so heavy He cannot lift it. Or move it (again, nowhere to move it to -- moving is a physical concept).
  
  Now, what about: "Can God greate a rock so small He cannot find it?

• 
  I think this demonstrates one of my problems with the 'intrinsically impossible' idea.
  
  Which side of a mutual exclusion wins?
  
  Most theists would say that God cannot create the rock in the first place because 'a rock so heavy that even God can't lift it' is a meaningless concept, but you have shown it is possible to argue that he can create the rock and not lift it because lifting an unliftable rock is a logical impossibility.
  
  Try the paradox with an unbreakable window pane. Can God create such a thing? Could God break it? Obviously not both, but which power would he have?
  
  After all Aquinas argues that God can create immutable laws and cannot break his own immutable laws so there is clearly a precedent for creating some unbreakable thing and not being able to break it.
  
  So if an immutable law that even God cannot break, then why not an unliftable rock that even God can't lift?