Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
This is not a necessary conclusion. Omnipotence does not mean the ability to do anything whatsoever, but the ability to do everything that is possible. Since God is Love, he could not create something distinct from himself unless his creation were at least capable of not loving. Evil is simply a consequence of creation’s capacity for unlovingness. So he’s not able to prevent evil even if he’s willing to, but he’s still is omnipotent of the word is correctly defined. If you want to keep the maximalist definition then I, as a Christian, will cheerfully say that God is not omnipotent. But it’s just a wordplay.
I’m ready to respectfully discuss this idea, but will ignore any disrespectful or insulting message.
I would consider your comment wordplay. Mainly because your arguing semantics while semantics were never the point of the argument.
If a god said to be all powerful but allows for evil to exist it’s either not all powerful or evil itself, or both. In any case, why would I want or need such a god?
I know I’m exaggerating myself, but it doesn’t affect the argument.
It’s a wordplay, it’s true. It’s the necessary precondition for a discussion: to use the same definition for words.
It only becomes necessary when it’s all you have. Taking ones words, understanding what one meant and then arguing that actually there’s a slight difference in semantics is a misdirection and I’d like to ignore it going forward.
Is the ability to make a squared circle necessary for a God to be worthy of worship?
That’s a strawman.
I don’t need a squared circle. I want children that don’t die of cancer. I want leaders that don’t bomb countries for personal gain and ambition. I want women not being raped at night. I want brown people treated with the same respect I get. I want a planet that is not on fire.
A god that tolerates suffering is all too human and I reject it.
Let me ask you this way: in a world where evil is caused and solved by people, what is the role of a god? Why should I want a god if I still have to solve these problems myself?
Ah the Christian apologists final form: “God and the Bible mean whatever I want them to mean whenever it’s convenient”.
God killed everyone on the planet but that’s obviously bad so that story is a myth but all the ones that I want to be true are true.
God says he’s omnipotent but that makes his existence impossible so I’ll just change the definition of the word omnipotent. Thereby admitting that god isn’t even powerful enough to speak clearly in his sacred texts.
Going even further down the rabbit hole and they’ll start talking about how they learned ancient Greek and Hebrew just so they can manipulate the text further. God is all powerful but just really bad at translating words in a book.
You’re grasping at straws. God does not exist and if it does it is evil.
if “omnipotent” doesn’t mean “can do literally anything”, then “real” doesn’t necessarily mean “exists in our reality” either.
You can squirm and manipulate the terms however you’d like, just know that nobody in the right mind would take your words seriously if you do that. If a manual needs to be interpreted, it’s a bad manual. Any religion is just a fiction, pretending to be non-fiction. Same kinda thing as horrors with “based on real events” tagline, just turned up a few notches.
If a fiction needs interpretation and head-canons to be coherent, it’s a bad fiction. The Bible is just bad from a literary standpoint, fiction or non-fiction. Its authors failed miserably at portraying a being that is so potent, it created literally everything.
I squirm nothing. The discussion about exceptions to omnipotence predates Christianity by several centuries. You can’t use a term without studying how people use it: words don’t have meanings on their own; their meanings are given to them by their users. And when a word has meant “maximal power” (and not “absolute power”) for at least 2500 years, you can’t reject that definition as illegitimate simply because of its etymology. That would be like refusing to call a smartphone a smartphone because it isn’t “smart” in the strict sense.
And the word itself doesn’t appear in the Bible at all.
You see, I’m not refusing the definition you’re giving. I say that using it, rather than the definition of the term people usually assume hearing it is misleading at best. In other words, what you’re doing can be considered a demagogy.
Whether the term appears in the bible is immaterial to this discussion, because what the bible does, is it attempts at describing an omnipotent being, as said being creates the world, and then does some stuff that breaks the laws of physics and logic.
Words are polysemous. In all fields, most words have different technical and general meanings. When discussing statistics for example, it’s normal to use “significant” with a different sense than when you’re speaking about something else. I can say that a totally unimportant statistical result is significant. It wouldn’t be demagogic, would it be? In philosophy and theology, omnipotence always had a different meaning than in the general population. But again, the chosen word is absolutely not important. God can be omnipotent of the word is technically defined, and not omnipotent when it’s not. I don’t understand why you think it’s important, as I have already said more than once that I have no problem saying that God is not omnipotent if the word is broadly defined, for the Bible never describe God as capable to break the laws of logics.
Cool, and? It’s the first time i’m hearing someone use the term “omnipotent” not in its most literal sense. I bet i’m not the only one.
it’s normal to use “significant” with a different sense than when you’re speaking about something else.
Because “significant” is an abstract term, not a concrete one. “Omnipotent” is a concrete term though, and a pretty straightforward one at that. The only time you’d unironically use it not in its most literal sense would be to mislead people.
Yes, lots of words have multiple meanings. “Omnipotent” is hardly one of them, and even then, as you’ve already noted yourself, the bible doesn’t use it directly. People derive this characteristic of Christian God from his actions, and when they talk about god’s omnipotence, they use the word in its literal sense. People here also were using the literal meaning of the word.
Idk about you, but where I’m from, there’s a saying: “terms aren’t argued over, they’re agreed upon”. People here colloquially used the term “omnipotent” as a substitute for “all powerful”, until you chimed in with your “uhm acshually ☝️🤓” remark, offering an arbitrary and dubious definition, basically solving a non-existent problem.
_It’s the first time i’m hearing someone use the term “omnipotent” not in its most literal sens
You don’t discuss with philosophers often then. It’s not an arbitrary definition, but one often used by philosophers. Isn’t normal, while discussing philosophy, to use the technical words of philosophy?
Omnipotence does not mean the ability to do anything whatsoever, but the ability to do everything that is possible.
Omni - all, potent - powerful/able. All powerful. Having unlimited or universal power. You can of course interpret as you want, but words are words and they have meaning.
Etymology doesn’t work like that, or a pineapple would be an apple that grows on pines. For real, omnipotence is defined by philosophy as maximal power.
And I used both a philological and a philosophical argument. So both a scientific one and one that didn’t pretend to be scientific (but can be true nonetheless).
what’s that philological argument? “Trust me bro”? The cambridge dictionary’s definition of the word omnipotent is literally
having unlimited power and able to do anything
It both is the most common definition of the word, and the most logical one, based off its components literal meaning, whereas yours is dubious, misleading and requires you to define the “maximum power”. In other words its inferior according to the Occam’s Razor.
The dictionary gives a broad, ordinary-language definition; it doesn’t settle the technical or philosophical interpretation. Someone asked something similar, and I answered here.
that “someone” was me. If your reading comprehension is so lacking, that you can’t even read a username, your words have as much credibility as a baby babble.
Yeah, I generally don’t read usernames. I care about the arguments, not the people who use them. If you think that’s a criteria of intelligence… it’s not very flattering for you.
But now you became insulting, so as I said in my first message, I’ll now ignore you. I’ll have to read usernames now, so you should be happy.
No. Omnipotence is the ability to do everything possible, regardless of who or what is acting. The limitation is on the reality side, not on the actor.
I get that part, since more is possible than I can do, but God is the one who decides and creates what is possible, so he should be able to do anything whatsoever.
God can’t create a squared circle. He did not decided that, it just is. If you think that this kind of limitation makes him not omnipotent, then again, I’ll happily recognize that he is not omnipotent. But I’ll still hold that he can do everything possible.
Nobody and nothing. If you read the beginning of Genesis carefully, God doesn’t create out of nothing; he transforms matter that is already there. Of course, it’s a myth, not a practical description of the beginning of the universe. But it suggests that some things simply are. I think the laws of logic simply are, or, put differently, God is logic itself. He can’t go against himself. He is his own limit.
Huh. As an atheist, I’ve always heard the argument that the universe is far too complex to have just happened on its own, and that God was the maker. Which makes no sense to me, because God is complex enough to make the universe, and God just happened.
Actually, upon reflection, this explanation makes more sense to me, that God is a part of the universe and created humans. I may not share what belief, but it’s interesting. Thanks for sharing!
In the Christian biblical sense and beliefs of creation … God created everything out of nothing … which implies that they are capable of creating and controlling everything … the story of Noah is God deciding he didn’t like his creation so they hit the reset button and wiped everyone out
So now we live in a world where so many terrible things are happening … sure there are many good things and good people but there are also an overwhelming number of bad people and bad things making this world very, very uncomfortable … so where is God? Things are worse (or just as bad) now than they were before the biblical flood … so why hasn’t God stepped in to either make things better - or hit the reset button again.
Which then begs the question of the paradox and asks where is God, what are they doing, and why aren’t they doing anything?.. and leads to the ultimate question about God … do they actually exist?
the story of Noah is God deciding he didn’t like his creation so they hit the reset button and wiped everyone out
This story is a myth. God didn’t wipe anyone out. In fact, the story answers your question: the text presents the Flood as a bad thing. The destruction of everything because evil exists is portrayed negatively; that’s why God promises never to do it again. Instead, he promises to walk alongside humanity. For Christians, he fulfills that promise by becoming human and suffering with us.
He had only three choices: to create nothing, to create something completely obedient, or to create something capable of not following his will. He chose the third because it was the best option. But he knew that, in creating it, he was also creating the possibility of suffering. He didn’t wish for suffering, but it was a necessary consequence. In response, he had two options: simply let suffering continue, or accompany his creation through it. He chose the second.
So no, he doesn’t do nothing. He does what he can to help us while still respecting us as independent beings.
But he knew that, in creating it, he was also creating the possibility of suffering
If a being is capable of creating anything and everything from the own will, how could they allow suffering to become reality? If creation from nothing is spontaneous and under their full control, why would they allow suffering to enter the equation?
It either means that creation is something that is not under their full control therefore does allow them to be completely omnipotent … or they chose to create a reality with suffering on purpose which provides for some questionable ethics and morality (why create something that will suffer?)
He didn’t wish for suffering, but it was a necessary consequence
if an all powerful being is capable of creating life and reality out of nothing … then you’d think they would have full control over the process. If there was nothing to start with, then how could side effects like suffering enter the process?
Who are we to say what God can or can’t do … or is capable of or incapable of … maybe they are able to do anything and everything they want and just sometimes does and sometimes doesn’t … or maybe they are just as influenced by the random universe as much as we are
Which means that we can’t know what a being that was at the start of universe is able to do … or even cares.
The christian god, in the myth, literally and tangibly did things and contorted reality to his will and plans to ensure his/his followers success. He blew people up, attacked children with an army of bears, flooded the earth, and a bunch of other stuff.
Also, according to your shit, in the beginning your god literally created everything. Not most things. Not some things. They claim that your god created all that has been and all that ever will be. How does that translate to “can do what it is possible to be done, but is not all powerful” without some high level mental gymnastics?
Edit: A dude (not jesus) died and was brought back to life, for fuck’s sake.
Religion is believing in myths as literal happenings, otherwise your just bumblefucking around and making it up as you go, which granted is no dumber than any structured theology.
End of the day, this is specifically your take on how it all works and not the ascribed organized christian interpretation of the bible, but it’s all just lying to yourself, anyway, so I really don’t have any more fucks for this idiot assery. It’s all voodoo nonsense as far as this cat’s concerned.
I think your read on omnipotence is tautological. As a Christian, you are familiar with your god’s resume: virgin birth, transubstantiation, worldwide simultaneous flood, resurrections, spontaneous healing of leprosy, temporary parting of the sea, hardening hearts, etc. What is canonically outside of his power?
Also your sentence about god being love and not being able to create… unless… Is not very clear to me. How can infinite love divide itself into unlove?
What do you believe is his reason for creating people? He placed the tree of knowledge to give us choice, but in doing so opened the pathway to suffering. Why create beings with free will in the first place and give them the opportunity to hurt themselves or others.
If I bred and trained some puppies to not step on red floor tiles and then put them in a room where stepping on a red floor tile caused them to be set on fire or something, people would (in my opinion rightfully) suggest I was being unnecessarily cruel. I could make plenty of arguments as to why I’m in the right “I’m the reason they’re here so I get to decide the conditions of their existence” or “I trained them first so I’m just seeing if they’ll follow directions”, but I don’t think anyone would think I’m in the right. It feels somewhat like that’s what god did. He made us fallible and gave us plenty of ways and reasons to fail. What is your interpretation of why?
This is not a necessary conclusion. Omnipotence does not mean the ability to do anything whatsoever, but the ability to do everything that is possible. Since God is Love, he could not create something distinct from himself unless his creation were at least capable of not loving. Evil is simply a consequence of creation’s capacity for unlovingness. So he’s not able to prevent evil even if he’s willing to, but he’s still is omnipotent of the word is correctly defined. If you want to keep the maximalist definition then I, as a Christian, will cheerfully say that God is not omnipotent. But it’s just a wordplay.
I’m ready to respectfully discuss this idea, but will ignore any disrespectful or insulting message.
I would consider your comment wordplay. Mainly because your arguing semantics while semantics were never the point of the argument.
If a god said to be all powerful but allows for evil to exist it’s either not all powerful or evil itself, or both. In any case, why would I want or need such a god?
I know I’m exaggerating myself, but it doesn’t affect the argument.
It’s a wordplay, it’s true. It’s the necessary precondition for a discussion: to use the same definition for words.
Now, the interesting question is:
Is the ability to make a squared circle necessary for a God to be worthy of worship?
It only becomes necessary when it’s all you have. Taking ones words, understanding what one meant and then arguing that actually there’s a slight difference in semantics is a misdirection and I’d like to ignore it going forward.
That’s a strawman.
I don’t need a squared circle. I want children that don’t die of cancer. I want leaders that don’t bomb countries for personal gain and ambition. I want women not being raped at night. I want brown people treated with the same respect I get. I want a planet that is not on fire.
A god that tolerates suffering is all too human and I reject it.
Let me ask you this way: in a world where evil is caused and solved by people, what is the role of a god? Why should I want a god if I still have to solve these problems myself?
Ah the Christian apologists final form: “God and the Bible mean whatever I want them to mean whenever it’s convenient”.
God killed everyone on the planet but that’s obviously bad so that story is a myth but all the ones that I want to be true are true.
God says he’s omnipotent but that makes his existence impossible so I’ll just change the definition of the word omnipotent. Thereby admitting that god isn’t even powerful enough to speak clearly in his sacred texts.
Going even further down the rabbit hole and they’ll start talking about how they learned ancient Greek and Hebrew just so they can manipulate the text further. God is all powerful but just really bad at translating words in a book.
You’re grasping at straws. God does not exist and if it does it is evil.
if “omnipotent” doesn’t mean “can do literally anything”, then “real” doesn’t necessarily mean “exists in our reality” either.
You can squirm and manipulate the terms however you’d like, just know that nobody in the right mind would take your words seriously if you do that. If a manual needs to be interpreted, it’s a bad manual. Any religion is just a fiction, pretending to be non-fiction. Same kinda thing as horrors with “based on real events” tagline, just turned up a few notches.
If a fiction needs interpretation and head-canons to be coherent, it’s a bad fiction. The Bible is just bad from a literary standpoint, fiction or non-fiction. Its authors failed miserably at portraying a being that is so potent, it created literally everything.
I squirm nothing. The discussion about exceptions to omnipotence predates Christianity by several centuries. You can’t use a term without studying how people use it: words don’t have meanings on their own; their meanings are given to them by their users. And when a word has meant “maximal power” (and not “absolute power”) for at least 2500 years, you can’t reject that definition as illegitimate simply because of its etymology. That would be like refusing to call a smartphone a smartphone because it isn’t “smart” in the strict sense.
And the word itself doesn’t appear in the Bible at all.
You see, I’m not refusing the definition you’re giving. I say that using it, rather than the definition of the term people usually assume hearing it is misleading at best. In other words, what you’re doing can be considered a demagogy.
Whether the term appears in the bible is immaterial to this discussion, because what the bible does, is it attempts at describing an omnipotent being, as said being creates the world, and then does some stuff that breaks the laws of physics and logic.
Words are polysemous. In all fields, most words have different technical and general meanings. When discussing statistics for example, it’s normal to use “significant” with a different sense than when you’re speaking about something else. I can say that a totally unimportant statistical result is significant. It wouldn’t be demagogic, would it be? In philosophy and theology, omnipotence always had a different meaning than in the general population. But again, the chosen word is absolutely not important. God can be omnipotent of the word is technically defined, and not omnipotent when it’s not. I don’t understand why you think it’s important, as I have already said more than once that I have no problem saying that God is not omnipotent if the word is broadly defined, for the Bible never describe God as capable to break the laws of logics.
Cool, and? It’s the first time i’m hearing someone use the term “omnipotent” not in its most literal sense. I bet i’m not the only one.
Because “significant” is an abstract term, not a concrete one. “Omnipotent” is a concrete term though, and a pretty straightforward one at that. The only time you’d unironically use it not in its most literal sense would be to mislead people.
Yes, lots of words have multiple meanings. “Omnipotent” is hardly one of them, and even then, as you’ve already noted yourself, the bible doesn’t use it directly. People derive this characteristic of Christian God from his actions, and when they talk about god’s omnipotence, they use the word in its literal sense. People here also were using the literal meaning of the word.
Idk about you, but where I’m from, there’s a saying: “terms aren’t argued over, they’re agreed upon”. People here colloquially used the term “omnipotent” as a substitute for “all powerful”, until you chimed in with your “uhm acshually ☝️🤓” remark, offering an arbitrary and dubious definition, basically solving a non-existent problem.
You don’t discuss with philosophers often then. It’s not an arbitrary definition, but one often used by philosophers. Isn’t normal, while discussing philosophy, to use the technical words of philosophy?
you calling yourself a philosopher is akin to a chihuahua calling itself a wolf. You’re a demagogue at best.
Omni - all, potent - powerful/able. All powerful. Having unlimited or universal power. You can of course interpret as you want, but words are words and they have meaning.
Etymology doesn’t work like that, or a pineapple would be an apple that grows on pines. For real, omnipotence is defined by philosophy as maximal power.
With all due respect, philosophy isn’t a fucking science unlike linguistics.
And I used both a philological and a philosophical argument. So both a scientific one and one that didn’t pretend to be scientific (but can be true nonetheless).
what’s that philological argument? “Trust me bro”? The cambridge dictionary’s definition of the word omnipotent is literally
It both is the most common definition of the word, and the most logical one, based off its components literal meaning, whereas yours is dubious, misleading and requires you to define the “maximum power”. In other words its inferior according to the Occam’s Razor.
The dictionary gives a broad, ordinary-language definition; it doesn’t settle the technical or philosophical interpretation. Someone asked something similar, and I answered here.
that “someone” was me. If your reading comprehension is so lacking, that you can’t even read a username, your words have as much credibility as a baby babble.
Yeah, I generally don’t read usernames. I care about the arguments, not the people who use them. If you think that’s a criteria of intelligence… it’s not very flattering for you.
But now you became insulting, so as I said in my first message, I’ll now ignore you. I’ll have to read usernames now, so you should be happy.
I can do everything that’s possible for me. Am I omnipotent?
No. Omnipotence is the ability to do everything possible, regardless of who or what is acting. The limitation is on the reality side, not on the actor.
I get that part, since more is possible than I can do, but God is the one who decides and creates what is possible, so he should be able to do anything whatsoever.
God can’t create a squared circle. He did not decided that, it just is. If you think that this kind of limitation makes him not omnipotent, then again, I’ll happily recognize that he is not omnipotent. But I’ll still hold that he can do everything possible.
Then who or what determined what is possible?
Nobody and nothing. If you read the beginning of Genesis carefully, God doesn’t create out of nothing; he transforms matter that is already there. Of course, it’s a myth, not a practical description of the beginning of the universe. But it suggests that some things simply are. I think the laws of logic simply are, or, put differently, God is logic itself. He can’t go against himself. He is his own limit.
Huh. As an atheist, I’ve always heard the argument that the universe is far too complex to have just happened on its own, and that God was the maker. Which makes no sense to me, because God is complex enough to make the universe, and God just happened.
Actually, upon reflection, this explanation makes more sense to me, that God is a part of the universe and created humans. I may not share what belief, but it’s interesting. Thanks for sharing!
In the Christian biblical sense and beliefs of creation … God created everything out of nothing … which implies that they are capable of creating and controlling everything … the story of Noah is God deciding he didn’t like his creation so they hit the reset button and wiped everyone out
So now we live in a world where so many terrible things are happening … sure there are many good things and good people but there are also an overwhelming number of bad people and bad things making this world very, very uncomfortable … so where is God? Things are worse (or just as bad) now than they were before the biblical flood … so why hasn’t God stepped in to either make things better - or hit the reset button again.
Which then begs the question of the paradox and asks where is God, what are they doing, and why aren’t they doing anything?.. and leads to the ultimate question about God … do they actually exist?
This story is a myth. God didn’t wipe anyone out. In fact, the story answers your question: the text presents the Flood as a bad thing. The destruction of everything because evil exists is portrayed negatively; that’s why God promises never to do it again. Instead, he promises to walk alongside humanity. For Christians, he fulfills that promise by becoming human and suffering with us.
He had only three choices: to create nothing, to create something completely obedient, or to create something capable of not following his will. He chose the third because it was the best option. But he knew that, in creating it, he was also creating the possibility of suffering. He didn’t wish for suffering, but it was a necessary consequence. In response, he had two options: simply let suffering continue, or accompany his creation through it. He chose the second.
So no, he doesn’t do nothing. He does what he can to help us while still respecting us as independent beings.
If a being is capable of creating anything and everything from the own will, how could they allow suffering to become reality? If creation from nothing is spontaneous and under their full control, why would they allow suffering to enter the equation?
It either means that creation is something that is not under their full control therefore does allow them to be completely omnipotent … or they chose to create a reality with suffering on purpose which provides for some questionable ethics and morality (why create something that will suffer?)
if an all powerful being is capable of creating life and reality out of nothing … then you’d think they would have full control over the process. If there was nothing to start with, then how could side effects like suffering enter the process?
God is not completely omnipotent, like I said more than once. He can’t do anything. He does have maximal power though; he can do everything possible.
Who are we to say what God can or can’t do … or is capable of or incapable of … maybe they are able to do anything and everything they want and just sometimes does and sometimes doesn’t … or maybe they are just as influenced by the random universe as much as we are
Which means that we can’t know what a being that was at the start of universe is able to do … or even cares.
Then what the fuck is the deal with parting the seas, bombing Sodom and Gomorrah, and annihilating humanity ten times over before we came along?
All these texts are myths.
Every religious everything is a myth, that doesn’t address my question in any way shape or form.
Then, you should explain how in your opinion these texts contradict my thesis, even if they are myths.
The christian god, in the myth, literally and tangibly did things and contorted reality to his will and plans to ensure his/his followers success. He blew people up, attacked children with an army of bears, flooded the earth, and a bunch of other stuff.
Also, according to your shit, in the beginning your god literally created everything. Not most things. Not some things. They claim that your god created all that has been and all that ever will be. How does that translate to “can do what it is possible to be done, but is not all powerful” without some high level mental gymnastics?
Edit: A dude (not jesus) died and was brought back to life, for fuck’s sake.
A myth, by definition, is not something that should be read literally.
Easy. Our world was the one he was able to create.
Religion is believing in myths as literal happenings, otherwise your just bumblefucking around and making it up as you go, which granted is no dumber than any structured theology.
End of the day, this is specifically your take on how it all works and not the ascribed organized christian interpretation of the bible, but it’s all just lying to yourself, anyway, so I really don’t have any more fucks for this idiot assery. It’s all voodoo nonsense as far as this cat’s concerned.
That’s absolutely not what religion is. But stay in your ignorance if you want… You became insulting, so I’ll ignore you from now.
I think your read on omnipotence is tautological. As a Christian, you are familiar with your god’s resume: virgin birth, transubstantiation, worldwide simultaneous flood, resurrections, spontaneous healing of leprosy, temporary parting of the sea, hardening hearts, etc. What is canonically outside of his power?
Also your sentence about god being love and not being able to create… unless… Is not very clear to me. How can infinite love divide itself into unlove?
What do you believe is his reason for creating people? He placed the tree of knowledge to give us choice, but in doing so opened the pathway to suffering. Why create beings with free will in the first place and give them the opportunity to hurt themselves or others.
If I bred and trained some puppies to not step on red floor tiles and then put them in a room where stepping on a red floor tile caused them to be set on fire or something, people would (in my opinion rightfully) suggest I was being unnecessarily cruel. I could make plenty of arguments as to why I’m in the right “I’m the reason they’re here so I get to decide the conditions of their existence” or “I trained them first so I’m just seeing if they’ll follow directions”, but I don’t think anyone would think I’m in the right. It feels somewhat like that’s what god did. He made us fallible and gave us plenty of ways and reasons to fail. What is your interpretation of why?
Never thought of it that way