Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Home > Forums > Teen Ink Forums > Philosophy and Thought > Why is(are) God(s) Omnipotent

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Next thread » « Previous thread

Why is(are) God(s) Omnipotent

Breece6 posted this thread...
Aug. 22, 2012 at 6:00 am

 
So one of the things I hear people constantly saying is that using the argument "God could have changed" or something along those lines, people dismiss it saying that if it implies that God is not Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Omnipotent than it is logically impossible.  
 
 
 
My question is, why do we assume that there is only us, the not omnipotent humans, and then an all powerful God and automatically dismiss any ideas of an entity existing in the middle?
 
 
 
What facts do we have to prove that God is Omni-present, Omniscient, and Omnipotent other than what some of us percieve to be "His Word"
 
 
 
We're pretty much trusting someone to tell us he's all powerful, if he even exists in the first place.  Why is it so much of a stretch to believe that the ability to create us requires someone(thing) to be all powerful and knowing?  Is that just Human hubris perhaps?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
Aug. 24, 2012 at 7:33 pm

By the way, I realized how oddly phrased my last few sentences were.  I meant to say:
 
Why is it that we can only concieve that the entity or force that created us has to be all powerful, why does creating us necessitate ultimate dominance and absolute power?
 
Also bump, surprised no one's come to answer this yet :/

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
half.noteThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 24, 2012 at 9:38 pm

 
 
Hey Breece, I haven't seen you around much lately. How are you?
 
Anyways, I can see why people haven't been replying. My excuse: I've been on vacation the past week. But still, this is a rather daunting topic, especially if you can't use the Bible as proof (as we Christians so often like to do). So I will just do my best without, and hopefully it seems even a little bit logical:
 
To start, we must begin with a few base facts:
1. If there is a God, we must assume that he was either created by an even Greater Being or he is eternal. 
2. The universe is complex.
3. If God was not all powerful and all knowing then he could not be perfect.
 
Now, to expand on these thoughts:
1. If God was created by a Greater Being, then who created that being? One even greater? The problem is, since we are created ourselves, we believe everything must have a beginning. And it is true: something can't come from nothing. But then, how are we here? Obviously there must be some force or being which was never created; someone who has always existed and decided to create us. We can assume that this is God and that since he created us, he must be eternal. And anything which has existed forever and will continue to exist forever is likely omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent as well.
2.  If you want to believe this mind-boggling massive and intricate universe came about because of a "Big Bang" then you have no reason to believe there is a God at all. But if you assume there is a God, you must assume he is the Creator, and therefore immensely intelligent and probably omniscient.
3. Since we see that the created universe (besides that corrupted by sin) is perfect: the planets rotate around the sun without colliding; the trees shake off their leaves in the winter and replenish them in the spring; our hearts continue to beat without our asking. Then we know that the Creator is perfect. Because just as something can't come from nothing, so too is it impossible for perfection to come from imperfection.
 
I hope I'm making some sense and not just rambling.
And please, feel free to dispute me or point out any flaws. I'll be happy to answer your questions.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DynamoThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 25, 2012 at 3:20 am

And why did God decide to create us, Half.note?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Aug. 25, 2012 at 9:34 am

Now I get the chance to quote the Catechism I've learned since I was two...
Dynamo: For his OWN GLORY!! (I'm not yelling at you, I'm saying it like I would always yell it when I was five. =P ))

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
Aug. 25, 2012 at 10:58 am

Half.note:
 
Hello!  Honestly I had better things to do during the summer :P  Now school is back on though so I'll probably be on more often.
 
So Half.Note, I have two major contentions with your response.
 
1.  We assume everything needs to be created because we can't help but frame everything into time, but what about if we assume that not everything is guided the same way as we are by time?  Perhaps our conception that "everything must have a beginning" is just because we cannot imagine anything being different because we ourselves our constrained by time.
 
2. You're making a lot of assumptions without facts here, such as "If you assume there is a God, you must assume he is the creator", "If he has always existed he must be eternal", "anything that has existed forever is likely omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent as well"
 
My question is why?  Why can't something be eternal and not all powerful?  Why can't something be eternal and not everywhere?  Why can't something be eternal and not have created us?  Why does our creation require infinite power and presence?  
 
Also, our planet rotates around the sun without colliding... so far.  Not all trees make it through the winter.  Some people's hearts never make it out of the womb.  
 
What's your definition of "perfect"?  If it's everything going happily and being all peachy then that's definitely not the case.  I'm guessing you're response will be somewhere along the lines of "Perfect is that everything is going along according to God's plan"  which leads me to question whether God is perfect.  How can you prove God is perfect?  Where is even the evidence that God is perfect?
 
And no, you made plenty of sense, I just disagree with a lot of it, but that's what debates are all about!
 
Thanks for your reply!

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Aug. 25, 2012 at 11:28 am

Half.note; I'm pretty much on your side here, but a mistake is a mistake. In the early solar system, planets collided all the time. In fact, all the planets we see today are the result of a bunch of tiny planets joining together. And some trees die, and not often, but sometimes, hearts just stop. 
 
However, that is not to say that the universe is a disorderly place. Lot's of things came out of the Big Bang, (and there is still a need for God with the Big Bang. For one thing, we have no idea what started it, and we will probably never know, because before the Big Bang there was no time.)  and many of these things had to be 'just right'. These include the speed of light, the relation between electromagnatism and the strong nuclear force, gravity v.s. dark energy,  and a lot more I havn't learned about yet. And if any of these were a lot different, then atoms wouldn't form, the universe would either blast apart or clump together, and there would be no way that life could form. 
 
 
Anyway, my argument for the all-knowingness of God is that the universe is so complicated, you would have to be all-knowing just to change it, let alone create it. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Aug. 25, 2012 at 11:28 am

Half.note; I'm pretty much on your side here, but a mistake is a mistake. In the early solar system, planets collided all the time. In fact, all the planets we see today are the result of a bunch of tiny planets joining together. And some trees die, and not often, but sometimes, hearts just stop. 
 
However, that is not to say that the universe is a disorderly place. Lot's of things came out of the Big Bang, (and there is still a need for God with the Big Bang. For one thing, we have no idea what started it, and we will probably never know, because before the Big Bang there was no time.)  and many of these things had to be 'just right'. These include the speed of light, the relation between electromagnatism and the strong nuclear force, gravity v.s. dark energy,  and a lot more I havn't learned about yet. And if any of these were a lot different, then atoms wouldn't form, the universe would either blast apart or clump together, and there would be no way that life could form. 
 
 
Anyway, my argument for the all-knowingness of God is that the universe is so complicated, you would have to be all-knowing just to change it, let alone create it. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
contemplatorThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 25, 2012 at 1:23 pm

What does eternal even mean? Does eternal mean perfection, or does it mean something else? I don't think anyone really understands this word. We can sum it down to 'with no end, with no beginning'. 
 
The question is 'why does an eternal being have to be omnipotent?'. I never thought of it. I've already said that we can't comprehend eternity, then why do we dare to advance on it with questions like this? Seriously! We don't know the rules of eternity, why do we try to apply it to God?!?!? So lets try to take eternity in chunks... if its possible. 
 
1. Eternity is not just a quality of time. It can can be used to describe love. It can be to describe knowledge. Actually, eternity is, in itself, an object with different qualities. Eternity's qualities are its love, not hate because hate is the absence of love, knowledge and time. And power and space.
This would mean that to be eternal would mean that you would have to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
Aug. 25, 2012 at 2:33 pm

Random:
 
As you said "My argument for the all-knowingness of God is that the universe is so somplicated you would have to be all knowing just to change it, let alone create it"
 
Why?  Who's to say the universe is big and complicated compared to everything else?  
 
We're big and unbelievably complicated compared to an atom, yet we manuever and change our bodies all the time.
 
You're comparing this to yourself, again you're saying "I cannot imagine how anything that is not infinitely more complex and powerful than me could have created this" but the problem is that human imagination is very limited.  I still don't see any solid reasons here.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
Aug. 25, 2012 at 2:40 pm

Contemplator:
 
Again, you're jumping to conclusions with no real logical bridges here.  For instance "Eternity is, in itself, an object"  Why is that?  I always thought it was an abstract concept, or at the most a noun that describes the length of time.  Time is still just a physical dimension, therefore eternity is still just a physical concept. 
 
Love is arguably a completely physical trait, it sure gives a lot of incentive to stay alive, sounds exactly like something the law of natural selection would cook up.
 
Your jumping to conclusions again, you say hate is the absence of love, knowledge, time, space and power.  That is extremely vague.
 
Let's say for instance I hate the taste of non-sweet tea (which I do), I guess I hate all the knowledge, power, space and time that comes with that tea as well.
 
Also why does omnipotence require omnipresence?  Why does omni-anything require omni-anything else?
 
You're pretty much just talking, there's no real facts to back it up, and you're jumping to a lot of conclusions and assumptions without any explanation other than "because this means this'
 
It's borderlining on a logical fallacy, "correlation implies causation"  because omni-potence is associated with omni-presence, they cause one another.  That's a logical fallacy.
 
Sorry if I sounded rude to either you or Random, just trying to make sense of this.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
Aug. 25, 2012 at 2:45 pm

Random brought up another point in his thread "Ship of Thesus"
 
All powerfullness is a self contradiction.
 
For instance, if you are all powerful, is it possible to create something you have no power over?  Saying yes would mean you are no longer all powerful, but saying no would also mean you are no longer all powerful because you are now limited.  Omni-potence just doesn't exist logically.  
 
Saying that God exists outside of logic means that we can no longer apply anything about him, his attributes, his powers or lack thereof, none of these concepts can exist without some kind of logical frame, yet some the attributes we give to him defy logic itself.  
 
Anyone care to refute this point?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Aug. 25, 2012 at 2:58 pm

Paradoxes, like the pardox of the stone, don't prove anything. There are pardoxes to prove that motion is impossible, (see 'the paradox of the arrow,') that time does not exist, (see 'the paradox of the specious present,) and that an olympic sprinter couldn't catch a snail. (Achilles and the tortoise). Just because a paradox 'proves' something doesn't make it true in the real world. If you could apply them, we wouldn't call them paradoxes, we would call it logic. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Aug. 25, 2012 at 3:09 pm

(P.S., grrr, wish I hadn't brought up that point.) 
(P.P.S., weren't you the one who just said a few posts ago that the human imagination is very limited? Just 'cause it seems unlogical to us mortals, doesn't mean there isn't an answer that is simple to God.)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
Aug. 25, 2012 at 3:30 pm

Random:
 
Many of the paradoxes you mention have refutations, I've already looked a lot up, most of those were created by the same guy, seems to go by the name Xeno, and he lived a long time ago. 
 
On the contrary, a paradox such as the one I described (you have yet to make or present a logical refute to it) prove that either a) something is logically impossible, or b) our concepts we're using to form this paradox our flawed.
 
If you want to provide some reasoning against it, I'm more than willing to listen.
 
In response to you saying that just because something seems too complicated for us to believe it doesn't mean it's simple to God:
 
So?  We're not God.  If we can't prove (or at least have a lot of really good reasons) that God is Omni-powerful, Omni-present and Omniscient then why  should we believe he is?  All we're going by is what we think he's trying to tell us.  For all you know he could be some kind of tyrannt playing with us in a sick game.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
Aug. 25, 2012 at 3:32 pm

P.S
 
   :P
I actually laughed when you brought up that point in your other thread because you pretty much provided a huge contradiction to your own argument in this one.  Really good point though, thanks for sharing :D

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
C.N.Red replied...
Aug. 25, 2012 at 6:01 pm

As humans, we always want to know more. I am a Christian, so I will make a few Christian referances.
If you've ever read the story of Adam and Eve, you know of how Eve is tricked by the serpent to eat the forbidden fruit of knowledge. Both Eve and Adam wanted to obey God, but they also thirsted for knowledge that God knew.
My personal theory is that after they ate the fruit, they not only gained knowledge that only God knew, they also began to question God.
So that is why I think people question whether God is truly out there. It goes back to the first man and woman. It's just my theory though.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
contemplatorThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 25, 2012 at 6:13 pm

I did not sense any rudness in your post. Don't worry about it! :D 
 
I don't think you understood my comment. I'll try to do better. 
 
First, you greatly misunderstood me. (This is my fault) Hate is the absence of love. Other qualities of eternity are knowledge, time, space and power. 
 
One problem here is that your imagining eternity as a line, with one dimension: time. Eternity is more like a box, with more than one dimension. Except, more so than a box, because a box has only three dimensions, whereas eternity as no end. It wouldn't make sense if eternity merely describes a length of time. Why? Because time is just one dimension whereas eternity is more than that. 
 
I might be wrong about eternity being more of an object. But it's easier to think of it that way.
Back to the box. If we tear a side off the box, it isn' a box anymore. Six sides put together in a certain way becomes a box. If we tear apart omniscience from omnipotence, will it be eternity? Is time alone eternity? No! Because in that quality, it isn't eternal (eternal qualities). I hope that makes sense to you. I'll keep trying if it doesn't.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Aug. 25, 2012 at 6:13 pm

I think I might have come up with a soulution...
 
Let me put it this way. Since God is already all-powerful, He can't get any better. If He makes such a rock, then there is one thing that is exactly as powerful as HIm, and that would be the Him, in the past, who made that rock. In the same way that infinity-infinity=0, God in the past is just enough to stop God now. 
 
I'll phrase it a different way; what can defeat an omnipotent being? Another omnipotent being. Neither of them are imperfect, but they are exact matches for each other. So, what can beat God? God, acting in the past. 
 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6 replied...
Aug. 25, 2012 at 7:09 pm

Contemplator:
 
I don't think the term "eternity" covers the entity you are trying to describe to be honest.  
 
I think what you're trying to say is that anything that exists without a beginning or end has qualities of knowledge, power, space and time (which are arguably the same thing).  
 
My question, why?  I don't remember the Bible saying "Being timeless means that someone has all knowledge and power"
 
Why assosciate knowledge, power, and control over space with eachother?  Why does an entity that lasts forever and has no beginning have to have all those other qualities.
 
You're merely saying that eternity means that someone has those qualities, you're not saying why though.  
 
I simply have no reason to believe that eternity actually constitutes all of those attributes, it just seems like speculation.
 
Thanks about not being offended, I just seem ticked off when I read my own responses myself for some reason.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback