A Finite God and Omnipotence

[Divine Insight]

Can it be said that a finite God could be omnipotent?

I've heard many arguments that an omnipotent God is logically impossible because there could be no such thing as a God who could make an object so heavy that even he couldn't lift it.

But that assumes that God is infinite in what it can do.

What if a God is finite in what it can do? Could it still be said to be omnipotent?

I think it could be said to be omnipotent within this context.

Let's say that all possible things that can be done are indeed finite. That might be hard to imagine, but for the sake of argument let's assume this to be true.

If this is the case, and a God can do every possible thing in that finite set of possibilities, then wouldn't it be fair to say that this God is "omnipotent" in this context?

After all, if God can do everything that is possible to do then God could be said to be omnipotent in that situation. The fact that we can describe things that are impossible (like making an object too heavy to lift) wouldn't apply if that specific possibility simply doesn't exist within the finite set of possibilities.

In other words, the saying "With God all things are possible", could simply mean that, with God, everything that is contained within the set of possibilities are possible. If something is not in this finite set, then it's simply not within the realm of possibility.

In fact, if we look at this from a human point of view we can see why it would make sense to say that with God all things are possible.

Imagine that all possible things are finite in scope. However, within that finite set, humans on their own, can only do a small subset of those possibilities. Not only now, before forever. They will always be restricted to a small subset of what's possible no matter how technologically advanced they become.

But if God can do everything that's possible (albeit a finite number of things) then it still makes sense to say that "With God all things are possible". Because in this context it simply means that if anything is possible then God can do it. And if it's not possible to do then it's just not in the set of possibilities at all.

In other words, there is nothing within the set of possibilities that God can't do.

Therefore, in this context it makes sense to say that this God is "omnipotent" because God can do anything that's possible to do. And if something is impossible (like God making an object too heavy that even he can't lift it) then that's just not in the set of things that are possible in reality.

It seems to me that it would make sense to say that this God is "omnipotent" in this given context. This God can do everything that's possible to do. That's pretty omnipotent right there.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 28 by Divine Insight]

"I actually enjoy debating against Christianity very much because it's extremely easy to expose its fallacies. And besides, by pointing out the absurdities and self-contractions of this immoral cult I'm contributing to the betterment of humanity as a whole. And I like to contribute to the betterment of humanity and the world in general. "

So please tell us: what do you have to offer in place of Christianity?

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

How about just accepting what is knowable and what is unknowable and live with that?

If you really feel the need to imagine something more to life than meets the eye, then I would suggest Buddhism as a hope-based faith. At least it doesn't teach immoral principles in the name of an imagined jealous Godhead.

In fact, when it comes down to it, I wouldn't "replace" Christianity with anything. Christianity is asking people to live a lie. It's asking you to proclaim to know that some immoral judgmental jealous Godhead actually exists, when in fact, you can't know that. So why replace it with anything? Why not just drop it and move on to higher moral ground?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 30 by Divine Insight]

What you are saying is that you have nothing to offer.
Walk blind and hope for the best.
Perhaps we could build monuments to Baal? - I just don't understand the reason for it, is it to admire its beauty will it make us more beautiful, more loving, kinder..stop the wars, do we pray to it--?

[Divine Insight]

What you are saying is that you have nothing to offer.

That isn't what I said at all.

Walk blind and hope for the best.

I suggested to accept what you can know and acknowledge the things you can't know. As far as hoping for the best, that's all anyone can never do.

Perhaps we could build monuments to Baal? - I just don't understand the reason for it, is it to admire its beauty will it make us more beautiful, more loving, kinder..stop the wars, do we pray to it--?

If you're building a monument to idolize Jesus as the Christ you may as well build a monument to Baal. There's basically no difference. You can't possibly know that either of these historical myths have any reality. Moreover, praying to Jesus is futile. No need to take my word for it, just ask Mother Teresa.

We know for a fact, that the things attributed to Jesus are false. No one in all of history has ever been able to do greater works than Jesus was rumored to have done. Yet, those rumors include Jesus proclaiming that those who believe in him would indeed be able to do these things.

The fallacy of Christianity is crystal clear. In fact, to place your faith in Christianity is indeed to walk blind and hope for the best. Only it also includes the addition of placing yourself in denial of what can be known with confidence.

[Monta]

Perhaps we could build monuments to Baal? - I just don't understand the reason for it, is it to admire its beauty will it make us more beautiful, more loving, kinder..stop the wars, do we pray to it--?

If you're building a monument to idolize Jesus as the Christ you may as well build a monument to Baal. There's basically no difference. You can't possibly know that either of these historical myths have any reality. Moreover, praying to Jesus is futile. No need to take my word for it, just ask Mother Teresa.

ME: My faith does not hinge on what mother Teresa said.

We know for a fact, that the things attributed to Jesus are false. No one in all of history has ever been able to do greater works than Jesus was rumored to have done. Yet, those rumors include Jesus proclaiming that those who believe in him would indeed be able to do these things.

ME: There isn't one good reason why those who had done it are going to proclaim it to the world. Whatever they did to JC they will do anyone else.
But those who are aware of these things know and respect.

The fallacy of Christianity is crystal clear. In fact, to place your faith in Christianity is indeed to walk blind and hope for the best. Only it also includes the addition of placing yourself in denial of what can be known with confidence.

ME: Those who are threatened by Christianity will find ways to deny and to destroy. If it is blind hope it offers it's far more than dead-end.

[usassociatesllc@hotmail.c]

Divine Insight wrote:

Agreed. And there is no evidence at all for any of the supernatural claims made by the Bible. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence against those claims.

No there is evidence. Four eye witnesses. Just because something cannot be explained or replicated doesn't mean it did not happen. If you have eye witnesses to an event obviously something happened.

Divine Insight wrote:

There is no evidence that any God exists, much less one that supposedly governs over anyone.

There is evidence that God exists. The fact that man cannot create life is proof there is a designer. Cause and effect. You cannot have an effect without a cause.

Divine Insight wrote:

If he knew that God could restore him back to life then he made no sacrifice at all. Moreover, why would it even be necessary for him to be brutally crucified by humans so that humans could be forgiven their supposedly bad behavior? How do the end up earning forgiveness by crucifying God's Son? That thesis right there makes absolutely no sense.

Every dollar you give away is not a sacrifice if you know you can make it back?
I guess your kids should not be grateful to you.

Divine Insight wrote:

No, these are not traits of the world, these are traits and behaviors of some people who happen to live in the world. It's certainly not true of everyone.

Some people! WHO (world health organization) reported a Murder every 60 seconds. Crime committed every five seconds. I think that qualifies more than some.

Divine Insight wrote:

I don't need to be threatened to be accountable. Therefore I need no God to be accountable.

Who are you accountable to? Yourself?

Divine Insight wrote:

Guessing about a person's personal motivation and/or their state of happiness on this site is considered off-topic to debates. It can also be considered to be uncivil, so just as a heads-up you might not want to insinuate or guess about other people's motives of state of happiness.

Thanks for the heads up.


Divine Insight wrote:

It would seem to me that a God would necessarily need to think very highly of the atheist, and not very highly at all of the Christian who is merely restraining themselves from doing what they would do if there was no God.

Serving God is not just about restraint. Its not about not sinning. Its about choice and motive. Whether an atheists lives a good life or not, you cannot earn life. It is about choice and motive. Two issues that were brought up by Satan, the atheists proves true, that man doesn't want God although he needs him.

Divine Insight wrote:

Sorry there are thousands of atheists who are a counter-example to your claim here. Therefore your claim is necessarily false.

Based on thousands of atheist my claim is false. What about the thousands of atheists that do hurt others. Are you saying no one is hurting anyone? You indicate that a street dweller will not cause harm if he is an atheist?

Divine Insight wrote:

All humans are not nice. This is true. And this is why we need secular social laws. But for you to try to extrapolate that onto everyone is a falsehood. And this is also what Christianity tries to do. It tries to make criminals out of everyone.

Now all humans are not nice. So my claim is true. Is that what Christianity does, you just said all humans. And you indicated a law that is necessary. Your viewpoint of Christianity has blinded your judgement. Contrary to your conclusions people in general do not always want the good of everyone. Some people do want bad things. Without laws these people will hurt others. In fact time has proven with laws these people have hurt others. But according to you none of the people who break laws are atheist, only Christians who tries to make criminals out of everyone. Why do we have to claim the pseudo Christians. Do you claim the pseudo Atheist? The ones who claim a religion to fit in, but do not believe in God, or do not fully practice. If you do not have to claim these people, then we do not want to claim those people.

Divine Insight wrote:

If you need a God in order to restrain yourself from just going around killing people for no good reason then I certainly hope that you remain very religious until the day you die.

You got some rose colored glasses on, for real. Black Rose, with a peek hole for these thousands of atheist. The problem we are having right now is all these pseudo atheists killing people. Obviously it is their lack of belief in God that drives, these ones. Christianity teaches selflessness, where as these people are driven by selfishness. Let me ask you a question. Do you own a gun? If someone broke in your house would you try to use it on that person? Christianity teaches love of enemy and sanctity of life. Self preservation is the viewpoint that causes war, killing, stealing, lying, etc. Have you studied psychology on fight or flight, and the characteristics that govern the amygdala and hypothalamus?

Divine Insight wrote:

Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Mark.9
[43] And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
[45] And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
[47] And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

If you don't believe in the hell fire, then you can't very well claim to believe in Jesus.

During the greek's time fire was the best illustration for destruction. So basically Jesus is saying by not adhering to God, you will get death without resurrection. You will be destroyed forever. No torcher.

Divine Insight wrote:

But we have no reason to believe anything that has been attributed to Jesus. Jesus also said that if you believe on him you will be able to do greater works then he had done. Can you? If you can't then either Jesus lied, or you can't possibly believe on him. Otherwise you should be able to do greater works then he is said to have done, including healing people, and even raising people from the dead. You could probably make your own wine from pure water too, but that would be a minor trick in comparison with the other works.

Paul clarified, the greater works is Love. Not just any kind of love, but agape. 1 Corinthians 13:1-13. The gifts of the spirit will cease, the greater works or fruits of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, etc. These are the qualities that should govern a Christian life. If they do not they are not Christian.

Divine Insight wrote:

I spoken with many Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact, they have some to my cottage in the summer time and I have had lengthy conversations with them. They are actually quite confused, and some of them are clearly still searching. I had one Jehovah's Witness who came here and during our conversation he asked me what I believed. I explained to him that Buddhism seems that most valid spiritual picture of reality. I explained the concepts of Buddhism to him and before he left he was asking me for titles of books where he could learn more about Buddhism.

Do not confuse interest in another religion as searching. By taking interest in others line of thinking we are able to guide them to a more correct line of thinking.

[Divine Insight]

The fact that man cannot create life is proof there is a designer.

That's a "God of the Gaps" argument that is destined to become extremely obsolete very soon geologically and historically speaking.

Besides, the Biblical Dogma has already proven itself to be false beyond any shadow of a doubt. Even if a "God" exists it most certainly can't be as described by the Bible.

Who are you accountable to? Yourself?

I hold myself accountable to every sane and reasonable person.

You can even trust me to look out for your best interests, even though you may have no clue of the truth in that.

Serving God is not just about restraint. Its not about not sinning. Its about choice and motive. Whether an atheists lives a good life or not, you cannot earn life. It is about choice and motive. Two issues that were brought up by Satan, the atheists proves true, that man doesn't want God although he needs him.

Satan?

In other words, in order for the mythology you are supporting to be true you must believe in demons and boogiemen in order to make-believe that there also exists a jealous male-chauvinistic God who thinks that having his son butchered on a pole by humans is a great way to demonstrate his awesome love.

If this religion had just come out today no one in their right mind would give it the time of day. The only reason it's given any merit at all is because people have believed in it for centuries along with all the other superstitious religions. It certainly has no more merit than Islam or Judaism. Nor does it have anymore merit than Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion for that matter.

Based on thousands of atheist my claim is false. What about the thousands of atheists that do hurt others. Are you saying no one is hurting anyone? You indicate that a street dweller will not cause harm if he is an atheist?

Atheists who harm people don't matter in this context. All there needs to exist to prove your religion wrong are good atheists. And they certainly exist.

Not only that but there are tons of Christian Criminals, even serving time in prison for murder, rape, theft, etc.

So any "war" between imagined atheists versus Christians is nothing but a superficial farce.

Now all humans are not nice. So my claim is true.

No, your claim isn't true. SOME humans are nice. And that violates the claims of Christianity. Christianity needs for everyone to be evil, without exception.

Do you own a gun?

Actually I think there is an old .22 rifle in the attic somewhere. But no, for all intents and purpose I don't own a gun and I would be tickled pink if guns were totally outlawed.

Also I hold that a Christian with a gun for protection is an oxymoron right there.

What do they need a gun for? Don't they trust Jesus to protect them? Also, aren't they are supposed to turn the other cheek.

A Christian with a gun for self-protection is a hypocrite. They most certainly aren't following the teachings of Jesus. And if they feel they need to protect themselves with a gun, then they clearly don't trust in Jesus for much of anything at all.

Paul clarified, the greater works is Love.

Paul was clearly a very sick and troubled man. A very hateful man too if his writings are any indication of how religiously bigoted he was.

Do not confuse interest in another religion as searching.

I didn't confuse it at all. It was crystal clear that this particular Jehovah's Witness was very interested in learning more about Buddhism. He clearly wasn't sold on the religion he was currently affiliated with. That was pretty apparent. Especially because when I asked him questions about what he actually believes he actually said that he wasn't sure. And when I explained what Buddhists believe he became very interested.

Apparently his journey into the Jehovah's Witnesses was itself a journey of seeking answers, and apparently he wasn't finding any answers there.

[Bust Nak]

To make rock heavy...?
Yes let's have a God who would come down and play these
nonsensical games with us..
Getting some idea of the Infinite and Eternal Being we call God would be useful.

Take it up with those Christians who thinks omnipotence do indeed cover the logically impossible. It's not nonsense with these Christians, surely you've heard apologetics along the lines of "God is the author of the laws of logic, he is not bound by them."

What is your idea of an Infinite and Eternal Being you call God? Can he make a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift?

[Divine Insight]

What is your idea of an Infinite and Eternal Being you call God? Can he make a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift?

Actually this was the type of issue I was attempting to get at in the OP. I started this thread to originally discuss the philosophical merit of saying that a God (or entity) that can only do a finite set of things could be said to be omnipotent if it could indeed do everything that was within that finite set of possibilities. Couldn't it then be said to be omnipotent at least with respect to the set all possible things?

In that case this God could not make a rock that is so heavy that he couldn't lift it because that possibility is simply not contained within the finite set of possibilities. And for good reason. If it were contained within that set, then the set would necessarily also contain things that this God could not do (i.e. lift this rock that he had made so heavy that he can't lift it).

So in this sense the God could still be said to be "omnipotent" with respect to some imagined finite set of possibilities without conflicting with the claim that he is indeed omnipotent with respect to "all possible things".

From a human point of view this finite set of possibilities may appear to be "infinite" even though it isn't.

For example, within this finite set of possibilities it may be possible for God to change the fundamental constants and forces of the universe. In this way God could dramatically (and seemingly magically) change the very nature of our reality. And he could, in theory, do this on a whim with very little effort. This would be within HIS FINITE SET of possibilities. Yet it would clearly be far beyond the finite set of things that are possible for a mere mortal human to do, even with the grandest technologies. God may simply be able to do thing that humans could never accomplish using physical technologies no matter how advanced they ever become.

In this way God would certainly be (for all intents and purposes) capable of infinite possibilities from the point of view of the human mind and experience, even thought in ultimate reality even God has only finite possibilities available to work with. (i.e. he can't make a rock heavier than he can lift).

In fact, that even brings up a whole other mathematical question.

Just because there are things that God could not do, would that actually require that his "Set of Possibilities" must actually be finite?

I think mathematically speaking that wouldn't hold true.

I think in mathematics it's possible to have two infinite sets that contain elements that the other set does not contain.

In fact consider the following two infinite sets:

1. The set of all odd integers.
2. The set of all even integers.

Let's say that God A is given only the possibilities of the odd infinite set, and God B is given only the even infinite set.

Both of these Gods would be "omnipotent" with respect to the sets of possibilities that they have been given to work with. Both sets are infinite so both Gods have infinite possibilities. Yet God A could never make an even number, and God B could never make an odd number. So ironically even though both of these God are "omnipotent" with respect to the infinite possibilities they have before them, neither of them could do what the other God can do.

And either of them could make an irrational number. (i.e. a rock heavier than they could lift)

Yet they would both be "omnipotent" and infinite in possibility of what they could do.

Just because a God can't make a rock heavier than it can lift doesn't mean that it can't be omnipotent with respect to restricted situation, and STILL be infinite in possibility as well.

When I started this thread I was actually thinking of a God who only had finite possibilities, but now I realize that all that is required is that a God has restrictions on an infinite set of possibilities.

So an "omnipotent" God could be said to be both "omnipotent" within the scope of a particular set of possibilities, yet still be infinite in the number of things he could do anyway.

Also, let's not forget that from a human perspective this God would definitely be "omnipotent". This God could do anything that a human could ever hope to do, and MUCH MORE. So from the perspective of a human the God is indeed "omnipotent".

Only logicians who think up things like creating a rock that God can't lift get themselves into trouble. That's simply going to extremes and demanding that God could even do illogical things.

How in the world does that even fit in with the thinking of a logician? Why should they expect that an omnipotent God should be able to do illogical things? That wouldn't be "omnipotent", it would just be plain illogical.

[Monta]

To make rock heavy...?
Yes let's have a God who would come down and play these
nonsensical games with us..
Getting some idea of the Infinite and Eternal Being we call God would be useful.

Take it up with those Christians who thinks omnipotence do indeed cover the logically impossible. It's not nonsense with these Christians, surely you've heard apologetics along the lines of "God is the author of the laws of logic, he is not bound by them."

What is your idea of an Infinite and Eternal Being you call God? Can he make a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift?

I would say that if God were not in the rock with His sustaining power, it would cease to exist.
God is not only author of order, He is Order itself. To break this Order on the demand of showing His Omnipotence, would be to put Himself apart from Himself apart from Order which is impossible to do as He is Order itself.
We can not bring Him down to our understanding, our mathematics and fit Him into it.
This Order(ly) life descends into the universe by degrees similarly as our sun's heat and light descends to us through atmospheres.
Spiritual heat which is love descends from God's Love
and spiritual wisdom which is our understanding descends from His Light which is wisdom.
Divine Love and Divine Wisdom make One in God which is His Essence.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 38 by Monta]

That seems to me is self-contradictory.

If God is order itself and hence cannot be apart from order then why did you go on to say we can not fit God him into mathematics.

The former statement seem to falls into the "God cannot do the logically impossible" camp, where as the latter is the typical rhetoric from the "God can do the logically impossible" camp. Mathematic is the language of logic. Are you making the distinction between the logical nature of reality and our understanding of logic?