Is God omnipotent?

[xris]

We all try to invent a god that has all the attributes we admire and destroy all the nasty bits we cant explain. If i could do that ide be the next great prophet, I wish I could but it is an impossible task. I have tried but the logical consequences keep reoccurring. If he has self awareness or the power of contemplation he immediately fails to be logical. All the same failings reoccur, he cant help himself.

As a confirmed agnostic i have had to accept, if he exists, he is beyond our comprehension. I try taking the logical steps of excluding a thoughtful god and make the observation that we are the creators of gods because of our ability to reason. Our reasons are sometimes more important than our reasoning, so accept our weaknesses, our desires. We are the universes only means of reasoning and contemplation. We are its pinnacle of success , we alone can marvel at its creation. Is it possible we by thought are the masters of this universe, are we just subject and also the subject of this creation. Nature secures us and we are its flowering of success and we may be the next to plant the seed of creation knowing it will succeed and evolve into thinking beings such as us. We are the planters and the flowers, we may just be eternal souls we always thought we might be. Don't look for god because you are god. This is just my thoughts so don't think of them as dogmatic views.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by prothero

Without resorting to ineffable mystery; or the suspension of reason and logic. Philosophy is after all the application of reason to the problems of existence.
I wish an explanation from those who maintain that god must be omnipotent to be god: for the following facts:

The universe appears to be 14 billion years or more old.
The earth appears to be 4.5 billion of so years old.
Life has gradually developed on the planet over billions of years.
Man has been around for maybe one or two million years. If the entire history of the universe is regarded as a 24 hr day man has been around less than a minute and civilized for only a few seconds.
There have been multiple mass extinctions on the planet in which a majority of living things have been wiped out by natural disasters. Evolution is full of extinctions and dead ends even leaving the mass extinctions out.

Now I ask you if god is omnipotent, and this world was created as some kind of stage for the drama of creation, fall and redemption of man; or some kind of training ground for the soul of man; does the age of the universe, the age of the planet, the arc or trajectory of life and the final appearance of man look like the work of an omnipotent being who is subject to no constraints or setbacks whatsoever and knows the future in every detail.

The entire notion of divine omnipotence is at odds with the facts surrounding cosmic and biological evolution.

Mind you: I am not an atheist, I believe in god and in the divine; in transcendent values and ultimate purpose. It is just that I see little reason to maintain that god is omnipotent as opposed to god struggles to achieve value (order, harmony, and intensity of experience) against the forces of chaos and destruction. In other words I have a process view of divine nature and divine action in the world. My vision of god involves acting through nature and natural process to achieve value in the world. I can not understand how the traditional orthodox notion of a immutable, impassive, omnipotent, omniscient, god can be applied to the facts of the modern world.

David Hume asked this kind of question about the existence of evil. He asked what a person from a different planet would think if someone informed him that the world, with all its evils, had been created by an all-good, all-powerful God. And that is so. The world certainly does not look like a world created by such a God. And your question is very similar. But, then, philosophy has always assumed the task of attempting to reconcile appearance with reality. Leibniz attempted to explain how the world can contain all the evils it contains, and still be created by an all-good, all powerful God, by making certain assumptions. And theologians and philosophers have attempted to explain your paradox too. Here is one explanation-sketch: God created the laws of evolution, and then, let them work.

[prothero]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

. Here is one explanation-sketch: God created the laws of evolution, and then, let them work.

And to a great extent that would appear to be one rational theistic approach to the problem (so called theistic naturalism) . That belief is commonly labeled "deism" and is a belief attributed to several of the US founding fathers (Jefferson, Washington, Franklin and later Lincoln). The founding fathers commonly referred to divine providence, divine guidance and appealed to god for wisdom so although they did not expect miraculous intervention they did seem to feel there was still some sort of divine participation in human affairs. On reading their letters and writing I do not think such appeals and statements were mere rhetorical flourish.

The process theology, panentheistic system of belief is not far from deism as the divine works through nature and through natural law as well as through human inspiration. Perhaps god is a more active participant in the world in panentheism than in deism but there is still no contravention of the laws of nature. The notion of Nature is not confined to physicalism and determinism is rejected. I think it does matter religously and philosophically if the notion is one of divine self limitation (god is still omnipotent just chooses not to act) or one of divine inherent limitation (the divine is not omnipotent).

[prothero]

Originally Posted by xris

If he has self awareness or the power of contemplation he immediately fails to be logical. All the same failings reoccur, he can’t help himself. .

I am going to ask you to expound on why a self aware contemplative divine fails to be logical?

Originally Posted by xris

As a confirmed agnostic i have had to accept, if he exists, he is beyond our comprehension .

Bertrand Russell “Philosophy though unable to tell with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom”. Although any god is certainly incomprehensible from the more limited human perspective; rational speculation (philosophy of religion) is not only valuable but necessary to meaningful religion.

Originally Posted by xris

We are the universes only means of reasoning and contemplation. We are its pinnacle of success , we alone can marvel at its creation. .

I beg to differ. The universe is rationally intelligible and mathematically representational these are features which we discover not features which we create. Any god must be rationally intelligible.

.

Originally Posted by xris

Don't look for god because you are god. This is just my thoughts so don't think of them as dogmatic views.

We are the most rationally and highest level of experience in the universe that we know of. We are indeed (made in the image) but we are not god. Man is not the measure of all things.

I do not think anyone is being dogmatic just an exchange of views, a greater understanding of other perspectives and an enlargement of the possibilities.

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by prothero

There have been multiple mass extinctions on the planet in which a majority of living things have been wiped out by natural disasters. Evolution is full of extinctions and dead ends even leaving the mass extinctions out.

Now I ask you if god is omnipotent, and this world was created as some kind of stage for the drama of creation, fall and redemption of man; or some kind of training ground for the soul of man;

This is, of course, assuming that humans are the final product, rather than just one more species queued up for extinction.

Is there some form of evidence outside of our own anecdotal musings and perhaps anthropocentric interpretations of our surroundings that we are anything other than just a passing blip on the great radar screen of the cosmos?

Billions of years of evolution and we're the end result? Yikes. The whole R&D department needs to be sacked, and management is not available for comment . . . .

[prothero]

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

This is, of course, assuming that humans are the final product, rather than just one more species queued up for extinction.

Is there some form of evidence outside of our own anecdotal musings and perhaps anthropocentric interpretations of our surroundings that we are anything other than just a passing blip on the great radar screen of the cosmos?

Billions of years of evolution and we're the end result? Yikes. The whole R&D department needs to be sacked, and management is not available for comment . . . .

Actually I do not make that assumption. I am more in the camp pointing out that assumption is not coherent or rational and does not correspond to a modern worldview. Man is part of creation not the purpose of creation. The universe is not some staged drama for creation, fall and redemption. The classical conception of god (I,I,O,O,O) creates cognitive dissonance. A new conception of the divine is needed. Giving up notions of divine omnipotence is a good place to start.

[Inquisition]

Depends on what view of Omnipotence you hold.

For theists, there are two (i am aware of)

first view of omnipotence: god can bring about any state of affairs, including those contrary to logic.

second view of Omnipotence (this is the view most theologian scholars have, and what mosts theists should beleive, though they will say he can do anything because they are ignorant to even their own religion) it states: God can bring about any possible state of affairs, but cannot do what is logically impossible.

If you hold to the first view, your response to Bertrand Ruseel's querry : "can god make a rock so big he cannot move it" would be yes. You would would also beleive that god can lie and tell the turh at the same time, and god can be righteous and commit evil at the same time, which is problematic for the problem of evil.

THe problem of evil basically says why is there evil if god is good. If you hold to the first view, you have no rational way of explaining why god cannot just do away with evil.

If you hold to the second view, you can say that god allows some evil in order to create a greater good. And that he cannot extinguish all evil becuase that would involve a logical contradiction on many fronts.

I think all people postingon this thread should make clear what view they hold to, or if they are athiests like me, then neither.

[salima]

so if god doesnt answer prayers, who was that who answered mine? not too many times, and not for silly little things, but in my darkest moments when i am completely broken and unable to help myself, when i literally scream out of frustration...the answer comes.

also, i believe it is possible that god, if he exists, though doesnt appear to me to be omnipotent, would have the possibility of breaking natural laws when he himself reached that point as we do sometimes (illustrated in my first paragraph).

in that sense we are gods yet not omnipotent. fallen gods perhaps...

the thing about reason is that it can be used to substantiate opposing conclusions, the same as statistics. so as an offshoot to the original question in the OP, i wonder if god would have the same problems using reason as human beings do!

but if god is not a being, how would he be using reason and logic?

acatually i liked xris remark:
Originally Posted by xris http://www.philosophyforum.com/image...s/viewpost.gif
"If he has self awareness or the power of contemplation he immediately fails to be logical. All the same failings reoccur, he can’t help himself. ."

but i thought he was referring to those who are contemplating god, not god himself.

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by prothero

A new conception of the divine is needed.

Why is a conception of the divine necessary at all?

[Inquisition]

Thank you for responding Salima, you made some great points.

Originally Posted by salima

so if god doesnt answer prayers, who was that who answered mine?

I am not sure that if you prayed to a god, and had those prayers seemingly answered, that it follows that a god must exist, in the conventional sense. There is much work done on karma and positive and negative energies created by thought processes. By your reasoning you can not exclude these, except due to some need to beleive in a god, again, in the conventional sense. I do take not that you never said what kind of god, just god, so i made this assumption. Correct me if i am wrong.

Originally Posted by salima

also, i believe it is possible that god, if he exists, though doesnt appear to me to be omnipotent, would have the possibility of breaking natural laws when he himself reached that point as we do sometimes (illustrated in my first paragraph).

Omnipotence can have different meanings. The problem with beleiving that God is supremely omnipotent, that is he can do anything, at any time, creates an inumerable ammount of problems for the beleiver. I cannot hope to list them all but these problems are philosophical in nature.

So we say God is limited. that may sound blasphemous to some, but i assure you almost all theologians of almost all religions hold to this view. If you are familiar with the necessary existence argument for god, you will see where the problems arise.

Necessary existence states that a being that is infinite, omnipotent, all powerfull, MUST exist. I won't go over the details of the argument here, but if God is supremely omnipotent then he could be or note be, be infinite or not be infinite, he could exist outside the fabric of time and have created the universe, or not. He could even die or be evil and good at the same time. There would also exist the possibility of something greater than god.

Problem is that infinite neccesary beings must be infite, powerfull, and exist and maxiimun power by nature, and cannot not be these things. That is contrary to logic and would render all argument in favor of god as useless.

[/QUOTE]