Different concepts of omnipotence.

[mdsimpson92]

Actually, I want to bring this back because I think the concept of omnipotence is worht covering. Could God technically violate his goodness? Or how about the issue that most process theorists bring up, such as the covenants and God's tendency to make deals in the Old Testament.

[mdsimpson92]

Also I found this (on wikipedia wierdly enough but it is quoting Hartshorne.

My notion would be, that anything which possesses any sort of power to affect another, or to be affected by another, if only for a single moment, however trifling the cause and however slight the effect, has real existence; and I hold that the definition of being is simply power.

— Plato, 247E

Power is influence, and perfect power is perfect influence ... power must be exercised upon something, at least if by power we mean influence, control; but the something controlled cannot be absolutely inert, since the merely passive, that which has no active tendency of its own, is nothing; yet if the something acted upon is itself partly active, then there must be some resistance, however slight, to the "absolute" power, and how can power which is resisted be absolute?

— Hartshorne, 89

The argument can be stated as follows:
1) If a being exists, then it must have some active tendency.
2) If a being has some active tendency, then it has some power to resist its creator.
3) If a being has the power to resist its creator, then the creator does not have absolute power.]

[met]

Could God technically violate his goodness?

Over-anthropomorphism? Could love become "not love?"

Or how about the issue that most process theorists bring up, such as the covenants and God's tendency to make deals in the Old Testament.

... like deals with children?


(But the point in the other thread is better, IMO... lemme think about that! )

[mdsimpson92]

... like deals with children?

Or the Israelites and the covenant, or Abraham on multiple occasions etc. Why I bring that one up is that God cannot unilaterally bring about all logical possibilities. Such as a deal between God and a man. It takes two to tango so to speak.

[met]

God may have chosen to do it that way and still been able to bring it about unilaterally, had God chosen to do it that way....

The question is why didn't he then? And, as Hartshorne asks, if God's will is always efficacious, is there really anything else but God?

[mdsimpson92]

God may have chosen to do it that way and still been able to bring it about unilaterally, had God chosen to do it that way....

The question is why didn't he then? And, as Hartshorne asks, if God's will is always efficacious, is there really anything else but God?

I think his answer is basically "in a sense no, because in an sense everything is a part of God." In that case God would technically be all powerful in the sense of being ALL POWER. But I'm not sure how that would work with the traditional sense of omnipotence.

[Metacrock]

excellent topic. I have long argued that the term "omnipotent' needs to be rethought. On the blog I did a piece recently where I discussed the fact that the term as it is used in Greek in the NT is not related to ability but to jurisdiction. The term is "pantorapor" meaning "power of all" but in terms of jurisdiction. God has authority in all places and all instances, not that God can do anything we can say; God can't make Thursday be Tuesday and keep the calender the same. He can't make square circles. He can't smell next week.

[mdsimpson92]

excellent topic. I have long argued that the term "omnipotent' needs to be rethought. On the blog I did a piece recently where I discussed the fact that the term as it is used in Greek in the NT is not related to ability but to jurisdiction. The term is "pantorapor" meaning "power of all" but in terms of jurisdiction. God has authority in all places and all instances, not that God can do anything we can say; God can't make Thursday be Tuesday and keep the calender the same. He can't make square circles. He can't smell next week.

Huh, maybe you should post an article on that subject. I would be interested because I normally hear the St. Thomas Aquinas view generally.

[Metacrock]

excellent topic. I have long argued that the term "omnipotent' needs to be rethought. On the blog I did a piece recently where I discussed the fact that the term as it is used in Greek in the NT is not related to ability but to jurisdiction. The term is "pantorapor" meaning "power of all" but in terms of jurisdiction. God has authority in all places and all instances, not that God can do anything we can say; God can't make Thursday be Tuesday and keep the calender the same. He can't make square circles. He can't smell next week.

Huh, maybe you should post an article on that subject. I would be interested because I normally hear the St. Thomas Aquinas view generally.

good idea. Maybe I'll work on it for tomorrow's blog piece.

Here is one I did once in answer to an atheist argument that Christians are re-defining omnipotence to avoid incoherence.

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2012/09/a ... tance.html

here's a blog thing I did answering our buddy Fleet on some omnipotence related issue:

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2013/01/o ... -love.html

[mdsimpson92]

Thanks for that Meta. So the question is now is what is the limits of God's power aside from logical possibility.