Gendou
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Posted: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:49:44 +0000
It seems that lately in M&R, almost every debate about the Christian God ends up devolving into a discussion on omnipotence - whether this be a question of whether or not the Christian God is or is not omnipotent, or whether the argument rests on what omnipotence actually mean.
For the purposes of this discussion, the assumption must be made that the Christian God both exists and is omnipotent.
The question of the discussion is what 'omnipotence' means in terms of the Christian God.
In the terms of the Christian God, proponents of omnipotence usually fall into two camps:
Cartesian:
God is capable of doing anything, including the logically impossible:
Thus, God can make 2+3=6, or make a square circle, or make himself both exist and not-exist simultaneously.
Aquinian:
God is capable of doing anything, excepting the logically impossible:
Thus, God cannot make 2+3=6, or make a square circle, or make himself both exist and not-exist simultaneously.
The question now becomes: which of these two viewpoints is the correct one?
Edit:
It seems ridiculous to me that I must request that people read the first post before posting, but perhaps that's simply a sign of how far things have sunk in M&R. In any case, perhaps that titular addendum will prevent the influx of 'omnipotence means . . . ' posts.
For the purposes of this discussion, the assumption must be made that the Christian God both exists and is omnipotent.
The question of the discussion is what 'omnipotence' means in terms of the Christian God.
In the terms of the Christian God, proponents of omnipotence usually fall into two camps:
Cartesian:
God is capable of doing anything, including the logically impossible:
Rene Descartes
Yet when I turn to the things themselves which I think I perceive , I am so convinced by them that I spontaneously cry out, let whoever can deceive me, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I continue to think I am something; or make it true at some future time that I never existed, since it is noe true that I exist; or bring it about that two or three added together are more or less than five, or anything of this kind in which I see a manifest contradiction.
Thus, God can make 2+3=6, or make a square circle, or make himself both exist and not-exist simultaneously.
Aquinian:
God is capable of doing anything, excepting the logically impossible:
Thomas Aquinas
Whence, whatsoever has or can have the nature of being, is numbered among the absolutely possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent. Now nothing is opposed to the idea of being except non-being. Therefore, that which implies being and non-being at the same time is repugnant to the idea of an absolutely possible thing, within the scope of the divine omnipotence. For such cannot come under the divine omnipotence, not because of any defect in the power of God, but because it has not the nature of a feasible or possible thing. Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them. Nor is this contrary to the word of the angel, saying: "No word shall be impossible with God." For whatever implies a contradiction cannot be a word, because no intellect can possibly conceive such a thing.
Thus, God cannot make 2+3=6, or make a square circle, or make himself both exist and not-exist simultaneously.
The question now becomes: which of these two viewpoints is the correct one?
Edit:
It seems ridiculous to me that I must request that people read the first post before posting, but perhaps that's simply a sign of how far things have sunk in M&R. In any case, perhaps that titular addendum will prevent the influx of 'omnipotence means . . . ' posts.
