After noon, local time. You awoke early and
the first thing to come to mind was that yesterday you had written “John
Milton’s Paradise Lost (John Ciardi translation)” and meant to write “Dante’s Inferno”. – Amorella
1218 hours. It was a stupid mistake. The best use of “Divine
Justice” as seen in literature, in my opinion, is Satan’s persona in Milton’s Paradise
Lost. Actually, there are great and wonderful lines in PL; it is my favorite
piece of literature with Hamlet coming in second. And, obviously, I have
no real knowledge of what Divine Justice is or if it even exists – these are
human terms.
Are you not human, boy? – Amorella
1342 hours. I have a problem with defining the word “omnipotence”.
**
**
Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power. Monotheistic
religions generally attribute omnipotence to only the diety of their faith. In
the monotheistic philosophies of Abrahamic religions, omnipotence is often
listed as one of a deity's characteristics among many, including omniscience,
omnipresence, and omnibenevolence. The presence of all these properties in a
single entity has given rise to considerable theological debate, prominently
including the problem of theodicy, the question of why such a deity would
permit the manifestation of evil.
Meanings
The term
omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These
positions include, but are not limited to, the following:
A deity is able to do anything
that it chooses to do.
A deity is able to do anything
that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical
consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not
able to lie).
Hold that it is part of a deity's
nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go
against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.
A deity can bring about any state
of affairs, which is logically possible for anyone to bring about in that
situation.
A deity is able to do anything
that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its world plan.
Every action performed in the
world is 'actually' being performed by the deity, either due to omni-immanence,
or because all actions must be 'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity.
Under
many philosophical definitions of the term "deity", senses 2, 3 and 4
can be shown to be equivalent. However, on all understandings of omnipotence,
it is generally held that a deity is able to intervene in the world by
superseding the laws of physics, since they are not part of its nature, but the
principles on which it has created the physical world. However many modern
scholars (such as John Polkinghorme) hold that it is part of a deity's nature
to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for a deity to go against
its own laws unless there were an overwhelming reason to do so.
The word
"Omnipotence" derives from the Latin term "Omni Potens",
meaning "All-Powerful" instead of "Infinite Power" implied
by its English counterpart. The term could be applied to both deities and Roman
Emperors. Being the one with "All the power", it was not uncommon for
nobles to attempt to prove their Emperor's "Omni Potens" to
the people, by demonstrating his effectiveness at leading the Empire.
Scholastic definition
St.
Thomas Aquinas, OP acknowledged difficulty in comprehending the Deity's power:
"All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in
what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the
precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If,
however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to
possible things, this phrase, 'God can do all things,' is rightly understood to
mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is
said to be omnipotent." In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is
generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations or restrictions.
A proposition that is necessarily true is one whose negation is
self-contradictory.
"It
is sometimes objected that this aspect of omnipotence involves the
contradiction that God cannot do all that He can do; but the argument is
sophistical; it is no contradiction to assert that God can realize whatever is
possible, but that no number of actualized possibilities exhausts His power.
Omnipotence is perfect power, free from all mere potentiality. Hence, although
God does not bring into external being all that He is able to accomplish, His
power must not be understood as passing through successive stages before its
effect is accomplished. The activity of God is simple and eternal, without
evolution or change. The transition from possibility to actuality or from act
to potentiality, occurs only in creatures. When it is said that God can or
could do a thing, the terms are not to be understood in the sense in which they
are applied to created causes, but as conveying the idea of a Being possessed
of infinite unchangeable power, the range of Whose activity is limited only by
His sovereign Will".
St.
Thomas explains that:
"Power
is predicated of God not as something really distinct from His knowledge and
will, but as differing from them logically; inasmuch as power implies a notion
of a principle putting into execution what the will commands, and what
knowledge directs, which three things in God are identified. Or we may say,
that the knowledge or will of God, according as it is the effective principle,
has the notion of power contained in it. Hence the consideration of the
knowledge and will of God precedes the consideration of His power, as the cause
precedes the operation and effect.”
Omnipotence
is all-sufficient power. The adaptation of means to ends in the universe does
not argue, as J. S. Mill would have it, that the power of the designer is
limited, but only that God has willed to manifest His glory by a world so
constituted rather than by another. Indeed the production of secondary causes,
capable of accomplishing certain effects, requires greater power than the
direct accomplishment of these same effects. On the other hand even though no
creature existed, God's power would not be barren, for "creatures are not
an end to God.”] Regarding the Deity's power, medieval theologians contended
that there are certain things that even an omnipotent deity cannot do. The
statement "a deity can do anything" is only sensible with an assumed
suppressed clause, "that implies the perfection of true power". This
standard scholastic answer allows that acts of creatures such as walking can be
performed by humans but not by a deity. Rather than an advantage in power,
human acts such as walking, sitting, or giving birth were possible only because
of a defect in human power. The capacity to sin, for example, is not a
power but a defect or infirmity. In response to questions of a deity performing
impossibilities, e.g. making square circles, St. Thomas says that
"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."
In
recent times, C. S. Lewis has adopted a scholastic position in the course of
his work The Problem of Pain. Lewis follows Aquinas' view on contradiction:
_____
His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically
possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to
him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God
can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,'
you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless
combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix
to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than
for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive
alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense
remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.
— Lewis, 18
_____
Rejection or limitation
Some
monotheists reject the view that a deity is or could be omnipotent, or take the
view that, by choosing to create creatures with freewill, a deity has chosen to
limit divine omnipotence. In Conservative and Reform Judaism, and some
movements within Protestant Christianity, including open theism, deities are
said to act in the world through persuasion, and not by coercion (this is a
matter of choice—a deity could act miraculously, and perhaps on occasion does
so—while for process theism it is a matter of necessity—creatures have inherent
powers that a deity cannot, even in principle, override). Deities are
manifested in the world through inspiration and the creation of possibility,
not necessarily by miracles or violations of the laws of nature.
The
rejection of omnipotence often follows from either philosophical or scriptural
considerations, discussed below.
Philosophical grounds
Process
theology rejects unlimited omnipotence on a philosophical basis, arguing that
omnipotence as classically understood would be less than perfect, and is
therefore incompatible with the idea of a perfect deity. The idea is grounded
in Plato's oft-overlooked statement that "being is power."
_____
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
_____
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.
For
example, though someone might control a lump of jelly-pudding almost
completely, the inability of that pudding to stage any resistance renders that
person's power rather unimpressive. Power can only be said to be great if it is
over something that has defenses and its own agenda. If a deity's power is to
be great, it must therefore be over beings that have at least some of their own
defenses and agenda. Thus, if a deity does not have absolute power, it must therefore
embody some of the characteristics of power, and some of the characteristics of
persuasion. This view is known as dipolar theism.
The most
popular works espousing this point are from Harold Kushner (in Judaism). The
need for a modified view of omnipotence was also articulated by Alfred North
Whitehead in the early 20th century and expanded upon by the aforementioned
philosopher Charles Hartshorne. Hartshorne proceeded within the context of the
theological system known as process theology.
Scriptural grounds
In the
Authorized King James Version of the Bible, as well as several other versions,
in Revelation 19:6 it is stated "...the Lord God omnipotent reigneth"
(the original Greek word is παντοκράτωρ, "all-mighty"). Although much
of the narrative of the Old Testament describes the Judeo-Christian God as
interacting with creation primarily through persuasion, and only occasionally
through force. However, it could further be argued that the ability to conflict
with truth is not an appropriate representation of accepted definitions of
power, which negates the assertion that a deity does not have infinite powers.
Many other
verses in the Christian Bible do assert omnipotence of its deity without
actually using the word itself. There are several mentions of the Christian
deity being referred to as simply "Almighty", showing that the
Christian Bible supports the belief of an omnipotent deity. Some such verses
are listed below:
Psalms
33:8-9: Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world
stand in awe of him. For he spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood
fast.
Genesis
17:1: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram,
and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
(The Hebrew word used here is "shadday")
Jeremiah
32:27: Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard
for me?
At his
command a storm arose and covered the sea. (Psalm 107:25)
Several
parts of the New Testament claim Jesus to be one with the Father, who is
omnipotent, and others show Jesus to have some separation from the Father and
even self-imposed limitations on his power. (Gospel of John)
Paradoxes
A
classical example goes as follows:
"Can
a deity create a rock so heavy that even the deity itself cannot lift it? If
so, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting the deity's power. But if not,
then the deity is still not omnipotent because it cannot create that rock.”
Augustine,
in his City of God, argued, instead, that God could not do anything that would
make God non-omnipotent:
For He
is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of
His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no
means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason
that He is omnipotent.
Uncertainty and other views
All the
above stated claims of power are each based on scriptual grounds and upon
empirical human perception. This perception is limited to our senses. The power
of a deity is related to its existence. There are however other ways of
perception like: reason, intuition, revelation, divine inspiration, religious
experience, mystical states, and historical testimony.
According
to the Hindu philosophy the essence of God or Brahman can never be understood
or known since Brahman is beyond both existence and non-existence, transcending
and including time, causation and space, and thus can never be known in the
same material sense as one traditionally 'understands' a given concept or
object.
So
presuming there is a god-like entity ‘omnisciently’ taking actions, we cannot
comprehend the limits of a deity's powers.
Since
the current laws of physics are only known to be valid in this universe, it is
possible that the laws of physics are different in parallel universes, giving a
God-like entity more power. If the number of universes is unlimited, then the
power of a certain God-like entity is also unlimited, since the laws of physics
may be different in other universes, and accordingly making this entity
omnipotent. Unfortunately concerning a multiverse there is a lack of empirical
correlation. To the extreme there are theories about realms beyond this
multiverse (Nirvana, Chaos, Nothingness).
Also
trying to develop a theory to explain, assign or reject omnipotence on grounds
of logic has little merit, since being omnipotent, in a Cartesian sense, would
mean the omnipotent being is above logic. A view supported by Rene Descartes. He
issues this idea in his Meditations on First Philosophy. This view is called
universal possibilism.
Allowing
assumption that a deity exists, further debate may be provoked that said deity
is consciously taking actions. It could be concluded from an emanationism point
of view, that all actions and creations by a deity are simply flows of divine
energy (the flowing Tao in conjunction with qi is often seen as a river; Dharma
(Buddhism) the law of nature discovered by Buddha has no beginning or end.)
Pantheism
and pandeism see the universe/multiverse itself as God (or, at least, the
current state of God), while panentheism sees the universe/multiverse as 'the
body of God', making 'God' everybody and everything. So if one does something,
actually 'God' is doing it. We are 'God's' means according to this view.
In the
Taoist religious or philosophical tradition, the Tao is in some ways equivalent
to a deity or the logos. The Tao is understood to have inexhaustible power, yet
that power is simply another aspect of its weakness.
Selected
and edited from Wikipedia -- omnipotence
**
**
1615
hours. While reading this I kept seeing the word “power” in connection with a
deity. However, in my apparent long ago mystical state I immediately and intuitively
felt an absolute absence of ‘power’ from what I perceived as an Angel of G---D.
In a state of ‘being and not-being’ at the same time I felt a complete
emancipation from the confines of time and space. I assume this was an illusion
because my new ‘setting’ was a contradiction or a paradox. I need clarification
here.
**
**
contradiction
– noun
a
combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed
to one another: the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal
contradictions.
•
a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present:
the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction.
•
the statement of a position opposite to one already made: the second
sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first | the
experiment provides a contradiction of the hypothesis.
OR A
paradox –
noun
a
statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning
from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically
unacceptable, or self-contradictory: a potentially serious conflict between
quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity known as the information
paradox.
•
a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when
investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true: in a paradox,
he has discovered that stepping back from his job has increased the rewards he
gleans from it.
•
a situation, person, or thing that combines contradictory features or
qualities: the mingling of deciduous trees with elements of desert flora
forms a fascinating ecological paradox.
Selected
and edited from Oxford/American software
**
**
1633
hours. I cannot decide which is the better word. Being within a mystical
experience, or rather, being a mystical experience demands a vocabulary I do
not have at my command.
Your point is that what you experienced being
within the ‘curtain’ as it were, of an Angel of G---D allowed you to feel spiritually
alive and free as you had never been before or since in life. – Amorella
1640 hours. Yes, at least as far as I can recollect at the
moment. Because of this, I personally do not feel G---D (as-Being-a-Power, being
neither a noun or anything other than a state of being verb; I am that I am).
Post. – Amorella
1646 hours. I have not resolved this conflict for myself.
Later, you are at Pine Hill Lakes Park
in the lot next to the earth dam, in the shade facing east waiting on Carol to
complete her walk. – Amorella
1712 hours. The concept of G---D as being all-powerful
(omnipotent) is certainly not new. I have believed it most all my life, that is
in accepting the possibility of G---D existing, my doubts also exist so little
to none of what I have to say about G---D is a belief.
**
**
belief –
noun
1
an acceptance that a
statement is true or that something exists: his belief in the value
of hard work | a belief that solitude nourishes creativity.
•
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction:
contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language | we're
prepared to fight for our beliefs.
•
a religious conviction: Christian beliefs | I'm afraid to say belief
has gone | local beliefs and customs.
2
(belief in)
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something: a belief in democratic
politics | I've still got belief in myself.
Selected
and edited by Oxford/American software
**
**
1718
hours. It is no wonder that I have trouble communicating with people (how odd
and possibly ironic in that I loved the classroom and teaching so much) when I
have such trouble communicating with myself. Writing down my thoughts certainly
helps; it helps tremendously as does the use of Wikipedia for memory and for
self-clarity. I do not have the memory to keep such things in my head for any
length of time. For me, thought can be an existential moment. And since I once
experienced ‘being and non-being’ in a mystical moment or two, time and space
are existential moments also when put up against a mystical ‘self-reality of
being and non-being’.
The blog, as presented, would be an
impossibility for you without the Internet and Wikipedia in particular. –
Amorella
1728 hours. Indeed, it is as a miracle that I have such a
board for presentation. I am ever grateful to live in such I time that I can
put both to such personal practical use.
You are home. Carol is taking a shower and
washing her hair for tomorrow morning’s breakfast with the Blue Ash Retirees. You
are having Papa John’s pizza for supper later. – Amorella
1805 hours. I am not yet done with your selection of
Dante’s famous words:
**
**
SACRED JUSTICE MOVED MY ARCHITECT.
I WAS RAISED HERE BY DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE,
PRIMORDIAL LOVE AND ULTIMATE INTELLECT
ONLY THOSE ELEMENTS TIME CANNOT WEAR
WERE MADE BEFORE ME, AND BEYOND TIME I STAND.
**
**
What
I like is that this gives me a hint to a soul’s character. I see this as a
reflection of a ‘truth’ though in cultural fiction and out of context at that. The
last two lines in particular are stated (intuitively) as a fact. What are the
other ‘elements’ time cannot wear, I wonder?
‘‘Sacred
Justice’ is First Cause – the Creator of All Things and Beyond? This persona,
Sacred Justice, moved/created the [soul’s] design’ is also a statement. The
human soul is raised by Divine Omnipotence.
**
**
divine – adjective [synonyms]
1
a divine
being: godly,
angelic, seraphic,
saintly, beatific; heavenly, celestial, supernal, holy.
Selected
and edited from Oxford/American software
**
**
1832
hours. “I [a human soul] was
raised here” . . . let’s say by a seraphic being. The next part of the
sentence:
PRIMORDIAL LOVE AND ULTIMATE
INTELLECT
**
**
primordial –
adjective
existing
at or from the beginning of time; primeval: the primordial oceans.
•
(especially of a state or quality) basic and fundamental: the primordial
needs of the masses.
•
Biology (of a cell, part, or tissue) in the earliest
stage of development.
Selected and
edited from Oxford/American software
**
**
1840
hours. “Existing at or from the beginning time” – this is an example of how I
become confused when I read. It does not say ‘before’ the beginning of time and
as such, in context with Ciardi’s translation this is not clear. Plus, I do not
know how the beginning of Love can be defined as separate from ‘[Divine] Love’
itself. [It is no wonder I cannot write. I cannot easily read either.
This indeed is an example of how your mind
works. It is not how your heart and soul work however, at least not in these
blog postings. Enough for tonight, boy. Post. - Amorella
No comments:
Post a Comment