|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
The following is by no means a religious treatise but an honest effort to understand the meaning of these two words
A Christian writer maintains, “God...omnipotent and omniscient... has all knowledge knows exactly what we will do.” But how can that be? For if She knows precisely what is going to happen, then our future must be completely predetermined down to the last detail, and therefore we have absolutely no control over it. But this assertion is contradicted by the Christian idea that She has given us Free Will. Or do I misunderstand what's meant by "free"
Besides, if She knows unerringly how the future will unfold, why should She have bothered programming it in the first place
Furthermore, if She is omnipotent how can the future be predetermined? If She becomes unsatisfied at some point along the way and therefore decides to change it, then it could not have been preset in advance
But it’s also unlikely She be omnipotent, for if "omni" means everything, and if that were true She could perform the impossible. But the impossible--most miracles, we can assume-–often if not always entail contradictions of some sort. For example, if She can do the impossible, then She can make us–or even Herself–both exist and not exist simultaneously; just as She apparently has bestowed upon us Free Will but at the same time refuses it. Or do I not grasp the meaning of "exist"
Yet the foregoing notions gainsay another tenet of Christian doctrine, which is, as the Pope has recently confirmed, that everything about God and her works is perfectly logical. Thus Papal Decrees notwithstanding, the doctrine that the Universe both is and isn’t laid out in advance; that we both do and don’t have Free Will; and that She can yet can’t do the impossible, accord more exactly with the Muslim assertion that Her Works don’t necessarily conform to Reason
Sorry, Ben
So if I'm simply not comprehending their usu definitions, what else should I understand by those two terms, and what is it concerning the Pope's understanding about the word "logic" that I cannot seem to grasp
Note to admin: The above is by no means intended as frivolous or blasphemous though I have inserted a bit of persiflage. But if you find it offensive in any way, please feel free to delete it as the last thing I want is to trample anyone's sensibilities
Last edited by dalehileman; 01/14/07 01:47 PM.
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
omnipotent = all-powerful omniscient = all-knowing "That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." If you're looking to discuss theology, daleh, there are many message boards out there, including http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.phpI'm sure they'd love to have you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631 |
Quote:
"That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
Curiously, that seems to put the words "beauty" and "truth" in mind—if only I could remember why...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
Anna thank you for that link, I've placed it amongst my Faves, though i'm not so sure they'd love me
Hydra, Indeed I'm all for beauty and truth, except possibly where the truth is very unpleasant, as in "Thanks but I didn't need to know that"
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631 |
dale, I used to think about this theological paradox a lot. I call it a state of "mutual exclusivity". Eventually, I postulated the following solution:
God (if we suppose for a moment that he exists) holds his omnipotence in a state of abeyance with respect to the acts of man, which idea resolves itself into yet another paradox: It is within God's means as an all-powerful being to create beings over whom he has (ostensibly) no power. This is the terrible gift of free-will—that man is free to do what is monstrous and abominable in God's eyes.
There are many such paradoxes. Another is the co-existence of Divine Beneficence and Omnipotence. In other words, is God free to do evil? Or are there acts of which he is morally incapable?
Evidently, it seems omnipotence preponderates over beneficence:
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
—Isaiah, 45:7
Calling all theodiceans.
Last edited by Hydra; 01/14/07 03:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
Hydra, thank you for that thoughtful reply. However, your solution doesn't entail a contradiction if you allow that although She is omnipotent, once having created the Universe She observes a hands-off policy, simply choosing to perform no further miracles whatever, allowing everything to take place according to the laws of physics and chance In which case She just sits back and watches As to whether She can perform evil, how about a tsunami that wipes out a quarter of a million people. (If you create a rock that orbits around a hydrogen bomb, you will necessarily have to tolerate an occasional unfortunate incident such as an earthquake) But personally I can't see why She should be more concerned with morality than with other aspects of the Universe, such as logic and arithmetic. If you would care to pursue this subject, I am dalehileman@verizon.net and don't care who knows it
Last edited by dalehileman; 01/14/07 06:27 PM.
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,328
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
783
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
