I have argued that this is the only limit on God's power. why should he be limited? If God were limited in some wired way do you think we would understand it? Logical necessity I can understand, God can't do something that is not logically doable, like smelling next Thursday.mdsimpson92 wrote:Thanks for that Meta. So the question is now is what is the limits of God's power aside from logical possibility.
Different concepts of omnipotence.
Moderator:Metacrock
Forum rules
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
- mdsimpson92
- Posts:2187
- Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
- Location:Tianjin, China
Re: Different concepts of omnipotence.
Then what about the Process theists arguments on this. for Example:Metacrock wrote:I have argued that this is the only limit on God's power. why should he be limited? If God were limited in some wired way do you think we would understand it? Logical necessity I can understand, God can't do something that is not logically doable, like smelling next Thursday.mdsimpson92 wrote:Thanks for that Meta. So the question is now is what is the limits of God's power aside from logical possibility.
mdsimpson92 wrote: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.]
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...
Re: Different concepts of omnipotence.
I have problems with process. for them god is not a single stable mind that sees itself as itself but is a combination of "occasions." i wonder if it really something we can call God.mdsimpson92 wrote:Then what about the Process theists arguments on this. for Example:Metacrock wrote:I have argued that this is the only limit on God's power. why should he be limited? If God were limited in some wired way do you think we would understand it? Logical necessity I can understand, God can't do something that is not logically doable, like smelling next Thursday.mdsimpson92 wrote:Thanks for that Meta. So the question is now is what is the limits of God's power aside from logical possibility.
mdsimpson92 wrote: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.]
they do limit God I don't like the idea of limiting God. I can see God being limited by illogical necessity it seems to limit God in other ways. I think that's what was meant when it says Jesus couldn't do many mighty deeds because of their unbelief. not that the didn't have the power to but that what's the point? miracles have to have a relationship to the spiritual growth of the person and if they are just going to deny it every time what's the point?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
- mdsimpson92
- Posts:2187
- Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
- Location:Tianjin, China
Re: Different concepts of omnipotence.
Let's be frank our concept of God has gotten that kind of flak before as well. Not to mention their view of reality is that of ocassions and process.Metacrock wrote: I have problems with process. for them god is not a single stable mind that sees itself as itself but is a combination of "occasions." i wonder if it really something we can call God.
Why don't we actually try and find their articles on these relationships. I think they do have a point if one takes the platonic view they have that keeps God from having "absolute" omnipotence, and I find the idea of persuasion to be aescetically pleasing, but you're right in that is kind of leaves the question of how God could directly influence us.Metacrock wrote: they do limit God I don't like the idea of limiting God. I can see God being limited by illogical necessity it seems to limit God in other ways. I think that's what was meant when it says Jesus couldn't do many mighty deeds because of their unbelief. not that the didn't have the power to but that what's the point? miracles have to have a relationship to the spiritual growth of the person and if they are just going to deny it every time what's the point?
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...
Re: Different concepts of omnipotence.
I think there's a difference in making a general criticism of some view one doesn't undersatnd in saying "that's not God, God is a big man on a thorn with a white beard" and saying that God is a series of series of things not related to will or volition.mdsimpson92 wrote:Let's be frank our concept of God has gotten that kind of flak before as well. Not to mention their view of reality is that of ocassions and process.Metacrock wrote: I have problems with process. for them god is not a single stable mind that sees itself as itself but is a combination of "occasions." i wonder if it really something we can call God.
Why don't we actually try and find their articles on these relationships. I think they do have a point if one takes the platonic view they have that keeps God from having "absolute" omnipotence, and I find the idea of persuasion to be aescetically pleasing, but you're right in that is kind of leaves the question of how God could directly influence us.Metacrock wrote: they do limit God I don't like the idea of limiting God. I can see God being limited by illogical necessity it seems to limit God in other ways. I think that's what was meant when it says Jesus couldn't do many mighty deeds because of their unbelief. not that the didn't have the power to but that what's the point? miracles have to have a relationship to the spiritual growth of the person and if they are just going to deny it every time what's the point?
then saying but they have a view of process anyway is just syaing "but that's their view." Yes it is, they don't have to hold it.
I am trying to think what Process texts I've read. Well of Course De Chardin but no one will believe me that he counts as process. He's not reallyk known for it becuase he's the no 3 step child of process, the third way no one knows about after Whitehead and Hartshorne.
I've read some Hartshorne but not process per se. I've heard lectures on his views. I took classes with Ogen and heard him lecture and talked to him about it, but that doesn't count like reading the text. So I'm not that expert on it.
I've talked to Urbie about it a lot (Urblid, who is an expert--studied with Hartshorne).
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
- mdsimpson92
- Posts:2187
- Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
- Location:Tianjin, China
Re: Different concepts of omnipotence.
It would probably be good to get his opinion on the subject if possible. I also remember Hartshorne wrote a work called "Omnipotence and other theological mistakes."Metacrock wrote: I am trying to think what Process texts I've read. Well of Course De Chardin but no one will believe me that he counts as process. He's not reallyk known for it becuase he's the no 3 step child of process, the third way no one knows about after Whitehead and Hartshorne.
I've read some Hartshorne but not process per se. I've heard lectures on his views. I took classes with Ogen and heard him lecture and talked to him about it, but that doesn't count like reading the text. So I'm not that expert on it.
I've talked to Urbie about it a lot (Urblid, who is an expert--studied with Hartshorne).
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...
Re: Different concepts of omnipotence.
yes it's time to get Urbie back here. He need is sardonic wit. I need his fun loving sense of sarcasim to keep me from taking myself too seriously.mdsimpson92 wrote:It would probably be good to get his opinion on the subject if possible. I also remember Hartshorne wrote a work called "Omnipotence and other theological mistakes."Metacrock wrote: I am trying to think what Process texts I've read. Well of Course De Chardin but no one will believe me that he counts as process. He's not reallyk known for it becuase he's the no 3 step child of process, the third way no one knows about after Whitehead and Hartshorne.
I've read some Hartshorne but not process per se. I've heard lectures on his views. I took classes with Ogen and heard him lecture and talked to him about it, but that doesn't count like reading the text. So I'm not that expert on it.
I've talked to Urbie about it a lot (Urblid, who is an expert--studied with Hartshorne).
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief