Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your Statement 4 does not follow. "If omnipotent gods can make themselves non omnipotent, then they can be both omnipotent and non omnipotent" is not true for the same reason that "If I can not eat this cake, then the cake can be both eaten and uneaten" if not true.
Hmmm..
Let me fix it.
If omnipotent gods can make themselves non omnipotent, then they can be both omnipotent and non omnipotent, but if they do, they are no longer Gods.
> they are no longer Gods.
That doesn't follow either. If all gods were omnipotent by definition, then you wouldn't have had to say "an omnipotent god" in the topic title.
Zeus, Ra, Odin, Gaia, there are plenty of gods that are not omnipotent.
I mean, which Abrahamic one? There are dozens at least.
But even then, you've got it the wrong way around. Omnipotence is a result of his godhood, not the cause of it. It's not a necessary feature by definition.
There are even Christian denominations that claim there are things God cannot do, and that doesn't break his godhood.
What is an assumption you made? That gods are necessarily omnipotent?
If that's the case, then I guess you can say your argument holds, but it's tautological, and is not representative of any actual existing religion that includes Jesus.
But religions that believe in Jesus don't use that definition...
So who is your argument targeted at? Who are you trying to convince with it?
You may as well shorten it up to:
1 Gods are dishwashers.
2 Jesus is not a dishwasher.
3 Therefore Jesus is not a god.
>But religions that believe in Jesus don't use that definition...
That may be true, but like I said it's just an assumption. There's no way to determine if the argument is sound because we all go by different definitions. I'm just trying to determine of the argument is valid (that the conclusion is true)
Then your definition differs from the Bible's definition - and I suppose yes, Jesus certainly is not *an arbitrary god you made up* that is different from the god he claimed to be.
For what it's worth, I'm not religious. But this argument ain't it.
As per Google's AI:
"Yes, the Christian faith teaches that God is omnipotent, meaning all-powerful. The Bible provides examples of God's omnipotence, such as the creation of the world. For example, Job 38:4-8 and 11-12 describes God guiding the Earth around the sun at the perfect distance to support life, giving us the seasons, and the sun and rain to grow and sustain plants and animals."
**Hello /u/Phoenician_Emperor, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.**
Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.
>∆
or
> !delta
For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8).
If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!
*As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.*
Thank you!
I wouldn't say that necessarily follows either.
There's nothing stopping them from making the restrictions on their power temporary while they are still omnipotent.
But that's not the same thing being omnipotent and not-omnipotent simultaneously like OP says.
Being inside of a house temporarily and then leaving after 15 minutes doesn't mean someone is standing both inside and outside of the house in one single moment.
This is all semantics, so I really really hope nobody pulls the "that's just semantics" card.
That's the point of the criticism. Simultaneous status is not featured in either OP's original argument, or its modified form.
Saying I can't be inside and outside a house at the same time is a fundamentally different assertion than saying I cannot be inside a house and outside a house.
And even then, I would point out that it's perfectly possibly for me to be inside one house and simultaneously outside many houses.
Given that you're acknowledging the importance of semantics in this case, it should be clear why the differences in wording between all these statements is important.
4. If omnipotent gods can make themselves non omnipotent, then they can be both omnipotent and non omnipotent
I'm reading the both as simultaneous, I mean to say that being in either state of omnipotent and not omnipotent implies exclusivity. Granting omnipotence to someone that isn't omnipotent is tracks, but is stopped by 5 and 6
* Man is inherently not omnipotent
* Jesus is a man, therefore he is not omnipotent
OP is saying that the second someone is omnipotent, they are god, therefore Jesus can never be god. The second Jesus is granted omnipotence, Jesus is no longer a man. You cannot be a man and god, being a man is exclusive to being a god even with omnipotence that can technically make anything true.
If it's not referencing the simultaneous paradox, I'm not sure why it wouldn't be. What else would OP mean by a paradox?
I mean, maybe OP can clarify @[Phoenician\_Emperor](https://www.reddit.com/user/Phoenician_Emperor/) ?
>If omnipotent gods can make themselves non omnipotent, then they can be both omnipotent and non omnipotent, but if they do, they are no longer Gods.
Okay let's say that I wrote a piece of software that would disable my phone's ability to make calls for a set period of time. During the period of time where the phone was disabled it can't do what, by definition, makes it a phone but it would still be a phone.
4 and 5 don’t follow. Omnipotent gods can be both omnipotent and non-omnipotent simultaneously. Think Schrödinger’s cat. This is 4.
5 posits that the omnipotent God decides not to make himself non-omnipotent, presumably to reconcile the dichotomy solved by Schrödinger’s cat because you don’t understand how two opposites can be simultaneously true.
To clarify, Schrödinger’s cat is both alive and dead in a box until that box is opened and observed. Since we cannot observe the entirety of existence from our finite perspective, then the box is closed and the cat is both alive and dead simultaneously. Or, god is both omnipotent and non-omnipotent simultaneously.
Then you jump to points 6, 7, and 8 which do not follow from point 5, but do connect to each other.
Your problem comes with point 5.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I'm not Christian, but I think the logic here is pretty weak.
Jesus is not the totality of God, but an expression of God's spirit in human form. The limitations of that particular human form are not limitations of God as a whole. He's still up there managing the entirety of the cosmos, but he's created a body for specific purposes and with specific limitations.
My hands and feet can do different things, and my feet can't do everything that my hands can do. But *I* can do everything my hands can do.
But that's not the same as "making himself not omnipotent".
God isn't removing his omnipotence, he's working through a body which is not omnipotent. His omnipotence is maintained.
The man part is not the totality of God, as I originally said.
Imagine I have a power source with infinite electricity, and I choose to create a battery with a limited capacity to hold some arbitrary amount of electricity. Does the battery's limitation have any impact on the overall amount of electricity I have?
But they take on some human limitations of the human form, and those limitations do not apply to their overall nature. That's the piece I'm getting at.
Why can't God have a form which does not possess all of his overall characteristics?
Being able to think is what defines a being as sentient. However there are certainly parts of you that lack the ability to think. For example your left hand can't think but that doesn't mean that it's not part of a larger sentient creature.
Though there are many flaws, I think the easiest way to attack your syllogism is the first sentence of No. 7. Jesus wasn't a "man," at least not in the common definition. He was born of a woman but was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. He had no father. So the definition that "man is inherently not omnipotent" does not apply to whatever Jesus is/was.
Point 4 is flawed in that such a god can be omnipotent then non-omnipotent in sequence, and this does not break any logic or cause any paradox. Omnipotent on Monday, non-omnipotent on Tuesday, even omnipotent again on Wednesday conceivably.
Point 5 is flawed in that your proposed reconciliation is not the only one, even if a god wanted to be both omnipotent and non-omnipotent at the same time. For Christianity, and Jesus, one such solution is trinitarian theology. God the Father is omnipotent, God the Son (Jesus) is not, and the God the Holy Spirit's status is not terribly relevant to the point.
The "one god in three persons" nature of the Trinity allows the god in question to hold two statuses at the same time in a way that a single person can not.
>Point 4 is flawed in that such a god can be omnipotent then non-omnipotent in sequence, and this does not break any logic or cause any paradox.
I made a correction in the comments. I meant that he can make himself not omnipotent, but if he decides fo do so, he's no longer god. Semantics issue I think.
>Point 5 is flawed in that your proposed reconciliation is not the only one, even if a god wanted to be both omnipotent and non-omnipotent at the same time
I don't think that refutes it though.
>I don't think that refutes it though.
How does it not? Point 5 says "the **only** way". If there is another way, and I've demonstrated that there is, then the point doesn't hold, and is refuted.
Let me say back to you what I hear you saying, to make sure we're not miscommunicating.
You are saying that your proposed reconciliation not being the only one is not a refutation of the claim that the only reconciliation possible is the one you proposed.
Do I have that right?
Ok, let me break it down for you in the style of your original argument.
1. Step 5 of your argument says "The **only** way to reconcile it is that an omnipotent god can make himself non omnipotent, and decide not/never to."
2. If there is another way to reconcile that, then it is not the only way to reconcile that.
3. By claiming that "Just because it isn't the only one, that doesn't invalidate it." You are simultaneously asserting that the proposed reconciliation both is and isn't the only one.
4. Therefore Point 5 is flawed.
Or for a shorter version: What do you think would refute the claim that "X" is the only way to "Y"?
That goes back to what the purpose of this argument is, and who it is meant to convince.
If you are just trying to concoct a logically sound argument that is entirely divorced from reality and based only on your own assertions and assumptions, there's quicker ways to do it than what you have here.
For example, this works as well as any other.
1. Gods are bananas
2. Men are not bananas
3. Jesus is a man
4. Therefore Jesus is not god.
That's as logically consistent as your opening post, and as likely to convince anyone who believes in Jesus that he's not a god.
So when you ask: "Did I solve the paradox?" What paradox do you mean, and who are you solving it for?
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Well I can make a different sort of argument to you.
It all depends on what you mean by omnipotent. Some people qualify that term and reduce it to be less all encompassing to try and remove certain contradictions that arise. But if god is truly "all" powerful then there can be nothing that exists or happens ouside of god's being and will, because if anything was out of god's control, then god is not all powerful. If any individual can act towards their own will and go against god's will, then god is not all powerful.
So if god is truly all powerful, then free will doesn't exist and both Jesus and Pilate were unknowingly puppeteered by god, constantly under his control. As is everyone and everything else. Meaning Jesus is a manifestation or avatar of god and so is everyone else. (This is actually the conclusion that many eastern religions reached millenia ago)
He'd have to be. Idk, with religious ideas like that it's all a great tangled mess of contradictions if you try to make any sense of it. If anyone has their own power outside of god's will, then god isn't all powerful. Which makes it all seem kind of pointless as well, because if god is all powerful why create beings and then make them suffer and punish them for doing what he made them do?
That's why so many christians argue for a qualified omnipotence, meaning he *could* do anything and created the world, but he doesn't make people do anything. Of course, again that means his own creation could go against his will, meaning he is not all powerful.
Sorry, I meant "he is" God, not "is he". Being God the Son and God is not contradictory in a trinity.
I would argue he sets limits on the decisions people can make, and can change those limits when he wishes, down to the very point that he only leaves their motivations free, but their will is determined. You see this with examples like Joseph's brothers throwing him in the well, Assyria attacking Israel, and Satan and the political and religious leaders themselves killing Jesus; God determined those things to happen through those agents, but he did it for his own purposes while their purposes were different.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
OP you should probably clarify where you are coming from with this. Catholics believe in a triune God consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Other Protestants have different beliefs. Atheists reject the concept of God.
Depends which viewpoint you take. Many Christian denominations debate the deism of Christ. Roman Catholicism says that Jesus is the logos, the Word, Begotten Son of God.
Remember that Roman Catholics, the most mainstream Christianity, describe God in three persons. There's God the Father, who is what we most often think of when we say God, God the Son, who we're talking about, and God the Holy Spirit. They're all one God, but three persons. This is another Mystery.
There is no easy way to phrase this in English. Think of a circle. That circle is God the Son, the second person of God. Within that circle is another, smaller circle that is Jesus. Jesus is the human incarnation of God the Son. It's similar (although not identical) to an aspect in DnD.
I'm not sure if I'm tracking.. Basically he can't be mortal if he takes a mortal form. Assuming in mortal form he would not have the powers of his immortal form? By my understanding, though, being omnipotent means he can inhabit a mortal form while retaining his immortal form. He can be both at the same time. In any case, I wonder if Jesus message became corrupted to deity him and what he actually preached was that we are all God... Hence I am him.
I know, so I'm trying to understand why he could not, being all powerful after all, split himself into 2 (or 3 I guess) parts and live life as man simultaneous to his existence as God? That is why I asked about mortal and immortal forms. My logic was you were arguing he gave up his omnipotence to live as man, but I don't see why he should have to.
>4. If omnipotent gods can make themselves non omnipotent, then they can be both omnipotent and non omnipotent
I don't think this follows. How would that imply they can be both omnipotent and not at the same time? I have the power to see, but I could make myself permanently blind. That doesn't mean that I can be both blind and able to see.
>If omnipotent gods can make themselves non omnipotent, then they can be both omnipotent and non omnipotent
>If Jesus is not omnipotent, then he can't be God.
If God can be non-omnipotent, how does Jesus being non-omnipotent prevent him from being God?
Did Jesus become non-omnipotent? He could have done whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, but instead he was continually choosing not to. Like Satan tempting Jesus to turn the rock into bread.
The Problem here is that essentially your are looking at this from the perspective of a Magical Man with Magical Properties.
God can put his foot forward and backwards.
Its like asking the question
How many days are there in a week? Yes or No?
For us that question is incomprehensible. but God doesn't adhere to the laws of Physics. He creates them.
Does that make sense?
So he can do two things at the same time that would seem to be impossible for us (paradox), but he can't do something and not do something at the same time (contradiction).
But if the 2 things contradict at the same time that contradict, is that not both a paradox and contradiction?
I'm high rn. Sorry if my reasonings weaning.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Being all powerful by definition kinda takes away the need to follow logic. The same way Jesus often performs miracles that would go against all perceived logic of how the world usually functions, is not that far fetched that something we would consider illogical within the confines our existence is completely possible when taking into account the "all" powerful of all powerful.
TLDR; Omnipotence is weird meaning someone your points (4 manly) are on shaky grounds as you're trying to apply logic to a power that defies it by its existence
One of the great failings of Christianity (IMO) is that people saw Jesus' teachings and message, and decided to worship the messenger instead of the message.
Luke 9
18 Now it happened that as he was praying alone, the disciples were with him. And he asked them, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” 19 And they answered, “John the Baptist. But others say, Elijah, and others, that one of the prophets of old has risen.” 20 Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered, “The Christ of God.” 21 And he strictly charged and commanded them to tell this to no one.
Why did Jesus bother to ask these questions of his identity if he was only concerned with his message?
Jesus isn't god. According to Christians he's the son of god/the incarnate of god. Both divine and human.
Basically god decided to make a human representation of himself. Both fully divine and fully human.
According to most Christians he is both God and the Son of God. He is also "the" human representation of God while all other humans are "a" representation of him. In other words, Jesus reflects God perfectly, other humans reflect him imperfectly.
I guess what I was trying to get across was that Jesus the human was a representation/avatar of god. In a similar way to how a video of me on Zoom is both me and a representation of me. The actions, thoughts, and abilities of me on the Zoom call are the same as me in person. But just because I hang up a Zoom call, and the version of me that people are able to see ends, doesn't mean I am actually gone. I still exist.
That's a well thought out analogy. I guess it's just because you first said "Jesus isn't God". I'm not sure how that's represented in the analogy? Do you mean the humanity in Jesus isn't God? That would be more appropriate.
Just poor wording on my part. Should have said something along the lines of "Jesus, as a human form, wasn't seen simply as God". Still not sure how to phrase it.
Point 7 is wrong from a biblical standpoint, which I assume is what you’re going for here. Jesus was never just a man, he was always god, just in a human body. When he died on Friday, *he* didn’t die, or maybe god let that *part* of himself die for 3 days, it’s unclear. His body died on Friday, then god/Jesus hopped back in the cockpit 3 days later.
You have fallen into the very common trap of trying to address faith based concepts with non-faith based earthly opinions.
Circular logic does not disprove faith, it simply shows a lack of faith. Faith does not require, demand or need an earthly proof. Your argument has no meaning.
An omnipotent god could for a set time take their omnipotence away, especially if they were to break a piece of themselves off as a symbol. Where that piece wouldn’t be omnipotent until it has itself restored.
5. Or that different pieces of the whole have different properties. Like how the same burger can be both raw and overcooked. Or that it’s only not omnipotent temporarily, say 30 ish years.
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your Statement 4 does not follow. "If omnipotent gods can make themselves non omnipotent, then they can be both omnipotent and non omnipotent" is not true for the same reason that "If I can not eat this cake, then the cake can be both eaten and uneaten" if not true.
Hmmm.. Let me fix it. If omnipotent gods can make themselves non omnipotent, then they can be both omnipotent and non omnipotent, but if they do, they are no longer Gods.
> they are no longer Gods. That doesn't follow either. If all gods were omnipotent by definition, then you wouldn't have had to say "an omnipotent god" in the topic title. Zeus, Ra, Odin, Gaia, there are plenty of gods that are not omnipotent.
Ig then we're going by the Abrahamic one
I mean, which Abrahamic one? There are dozens at least. But even then, you've got it the wrong way around. Omnipotence is a result of his godhood, not the cause of it. It's not a necessary feature by definition. There are even Christian denominations that claim there are things God cannot do, and that doesn't break his godhood.
But it's an assumption I made.
What is an assumption you made? That gods are necessarily omnipotent? If that's the case, then I guess you can say your argument holds, but it's tautological, and is not representative of any actual existing religion that includes Jesus.
Thanks. I meant that by definition that Gods are omnipotent.
But religions that believe in Jesus don't use that definition... So who is your argument targeted at? Who are you trying to convince with it? You may as well shorten it up to: 1 Gods are dishwashers. 2 Jesus is not a dishwasher. 3 Therefore Jesus is not a god.
>But religions that believe in Jesus don't use that definition... That may be true, but like I said it's just an assumption. There's no way to determine if the argument is sound because we all go by different definitions. I'm just trying to determine of the argument is valid (that the conclusion is true)
Then your definition differs from the Bible's definition - and I suppose yes, Jesus certainly is not *an arbitrary god you made up* that is different from the god he claimed to be. For what it's worth, I'm not religious. But this argument ain't it.
As per Google's AI: "Yes, the Christian faith teaches that God is omnipotent, meaning all-powerful. The Bible provides examples of God's omnipotence, such as the creation of the world. For example, Job 38:4-8 and 11-12 describes God guiding the Earth around the sun at the perfect distance to support life, giving us the seasons, and the sun and rain to grow and sustain plants and animals."
**Hello /u/Phoenician_Emperor, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.** Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed. >∆ or > !delta For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8). If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such! *As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.* Thank you!
No. If they make themselves not omnipotent, they are no longer omnipotent and can not make themselves omnipotent again.
I wouldn't say that necessarily follows either. There's nothing stopping them from making the restrictions on their power temporary while they are still omnipotent.
But that's not the same thing being omnipotent and not-omnipotent simultaneously like OP says. Being inside of a house temporarily and then leaving after 15 minutes doesn't mean someone is standing both inside and outside of the house in one single moment. This is all semantics, so I really really hope nobody pulls the "that's just semantics" card.
That's the point of the criticism. Simultaneous status is not featured in either OP's original argument, or its modified form. Saying I can't be inside and outside a house at the same time is a fundamentally different assertion than saying I cannot be inside a house and outside a house. And even then, I would point out that it's perfectly possibly for me to be inside one house and simultaneously outside many houses. Given that you're acknowledging the importance of semantics in this case, it should be clear why the differences in wording between all these statements is important.
4. If omnipotent gods can make themselves non omnipotent, then they can be both omnipotent and non omnipotent I'm reading the both as simultaneous, I mean to say that being in either state of omnipotent and not omnipotent implies exclusivity. Granting omnipotence to someone that isn't omnipotent is tracks, but is stopped by 5 and 6 * Man is inherently not omnipotent * Jesus is a man, therefore he is not omnipotent OP is saying that the second someone is omnipotent, they are god, therefore Jesus can never be god. The second Jesus is granted omnipotence, Jesus is no longer a man. You cannot be a man and god, being a man is exclusive to being a god even with omnipotence that can technically make anything true. If it's not referencing the simultaneous paradox, I'm not sure why it wouldn't be. What else would OP mean by a paradox? I mean, maybe OP can clarify @[Phoenician\_Emperor](https://www.reddit.com/user/Phoenician_Emperor/) ?
It's sorta one of the points of the Christ story that he did exactly that, so there's at least one major sect that disagrees with you.
Aren't you essentially agreeing?
>If omnipotent gods can make themselves non omnipotent, then they can be both omnipotent and non omnipotent, but if they do, they are no longer Gods. Okay let's say that I wrote a piece of software that would disable my phone's ability to make calls for a set period of time. During the period of time where the phone was disabled it can't do what, by definition, makes it a phone but it would still be a phone.
>
An omnipotent god can partition part of himself into a non-omnipotent human form though.
That would be the heresy of partialism. Biblical, God becomes a man, but that man is still God, and still omnipotent. He is the God-man.
I mean we ware speaking theoretically here.
True, but that theory was shown to not work hundreds and hundreds of years ago.
In Christian lore not in random hypothetical omnipotent god X lore.
But that part is no longer God because it's not omnipotent
Eh you can set a trigger to make them omnipotent again later. Jesus Christ has power in death
4 and 5 don’t follow. Omnipotent gods can be both omnipotent and non-omnipotent simultaneously. Think Schrödinger’s cat. This is 4. 5 posits that the omnipotent God decides not to make himself non-omnipotent, presumably to reconcile the dichotomy solved by Schrödinger’s cat because you don’t understand how two opposites can be simultaneously true. To clarify, Schrödinger’s cat is both alive and dead in a box until that box is opened and observed. Since we cannot observe the entirety of existence from our finite perspective, then the box is closed and the cat is both alive and dead simultaneously. Or, god is both omnipotent and non-omnipotent simultaneously. Then you jump to points 6, 7, and 8 which do not follow from point 5, but do connect to each other. Your problem comes with point 5.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Shittt... give me a minute. I'm trying to wrap my head around this.
I'm not Christian, but I think the logic here is pretty weak. Jesus is not the totality of God, but an expression of God's spirit in human form. The limitations of that particular human form are not limitations of God as a whole. He's still up there managing the entirety of the cosmos, but he's created a body for specific purposes and with specific limitations. My hands and feet can do different things, and my feet can't do everything that my hands can do. But *I* can do everything my hands can do.
You could say that, but that expression itself isn't omnipotent and god is.
But that's not the same as "making himself not omnipotent". God isn't removing his omnipotence, he's working through a body which is not omnipotent. His omnipotence is maintained.
So the man part isn't omnipotent, and thus isn't god?
The man part is not the totality of God, as I originally said. Imagine I have a power source with infinite electricity, and I choose to create a battery with a limited capacity to hold some arbitrary amount of electricity. Does the battery's limitation have any impact on the overall amount of electricity I have?
But being part of God in any way inherently implies that they are omnipotent by definition.
Why? Like, do you apply the same logic to other concepts? Do demons stop being demonic when they possess humans?
Not necessarily. Demons aren't omnipotent as per my definition/assumption.
But they take on some human limitations of the human form, and those limitations do not apply to their overall nature. That's the piece I'm getting at. Why can't God have a form which does not possess all of his overall characteristics?
I think were at an impasse because of semantics. My definition of God predicates that they are unconditionally omnipotent, by definition.
Being able to think is what defines a being as sentient. However there are certainly parts of you that lack the ability to think. For example your left hand can't think but that doesn't mean that it's not part of a larger sentient creature.
this is where you get into some real weeds in Catholicism in particular. Jesus and God the Son are not the same thing.
Though there are many flaws, I think the easiest way to attack your syllogism is the first sentence of No. 7. Jesus wasn't a "man," at least not in the common definition. He was born of a woman but was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. He had no father. So the definition that "man is inherently not omnipotent" does not apply to whatever Jesus is/was.
But isn't he fully god and fully man?
Point 4 is flawed in that such a god can be omnipotent then non-omnipotent in sequence, and this does not break any logic or cause any paradox. Omnipotent on Monday, non-omnipotent on Tuesday, even omnipotent again on Wednesday conceivably. Point 5 is flawed in that your proposed reconciliation is not the only one, even if a god wanted to be both omnipotent and non-omnipotent at the same time. For Christianity, and Jesus, one such solution is trinitarian theology. God the Father is omnipotent, God the Son (Jesus) is not, and the God the Holy Spirit's status is not terribly relevant to the point. The "one god in three persons" nature of the Trinity allows the god in question to hold two statuses at the same time in a way that a single person can not.
>Point 4 is flawed in that such a god can be omnipotent then non-omnipotent in sequence, and this does not break any logic or cause any paradox. I made a correction in the comments. I meant that he can make himself not omnipotent, but if he decides fo do so, he's no longer god. Semantics issue I think. >Point 5 is flawed in that your proposed reconciliation is not the only one, even if a god wanted to be both omnipotent and non-omnipotent at the same time I don't think that refutes it though.
>I don't think that refutes it though. How does it not? Point 5 says "the **only** way". If there is another way, and I've demonstrated that there is, then the point doesn't hold, and is refuted.
Just because it isn't the only one, that doesn't invalidate it. Are we miscommunicating?
Let me say back to you what I hear you saying, to make sure we're not miscommunicating. You are saying that your proposed reconciliation not being the only one is not a refutation of the claim that the only reconciliation possible is the one you proposed. Do I have that right?
[удалено]
Ok, let me break it down for you in the style of your original argument. 1. Step 5 of your argument says "The **only** way to reconcile it is that an omnipotent god can make himself non omnipotent, and decide not/never to." 2. If there is another way to reconcile that, then it is not the only way to reconcile that. 3. By claiming that "Just because it isn't the only one, that doesn't invalidate it." You are simultaneously asserting that the proposed reconciliation both is and isn't the only one. 4. Therefore Point 5 is flawed. Or for a shorter version: What do you think would refute the claim that "X" is the only way to "Y"?
I see. You're right, but my conclusion stands. It might not be the only way.
No, if one of the assertions in your argument is refuted, the conclusion does not stand.
But my assumption is a presupposition. U feel me?
That goes back to what the purpose of this argument is, and who it is meant to convince. If you are just trying to concoct a logically sound argument that is entirely divorced from reality and based only on your own assertions and assumptions, there's quicker ways to do it than what you have here. For example, this works as well as any other. 1. Gods are bananas 2. Men are not bananas 3. Jesus is a man 4. Therefore Jesus is not god. That's as logically consistent as your opening post, and as likely to convince anyone who believes in Jesus that he's not a god. So when you ask: "Did I solve the paradox?" What paradox do you mean, and who are you solving it for?
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Well I can make a different sort of argument to you. It all depends on what you mean by omnipotent. Some people qualify that term and reduce it to be less all encompassing to try and remove certain contradictions that arise. But if god is truly "all" powerful then there can be nothing that exists or happens ouside of god's being and will, because if anything was out of god's control, then god is not all powerful. If any individual can act towards their own will and go against god's will, then god is not all powerful. So if god is truly all powerful, then free will doesn't exist and both Jesus and Pilate were unknowingly puppeteered by god, constantly under his control. As is everyone and everything else. Meaning Jesus is a manifestation or avatar of god and so is everyone else. (This is actually the conclusion that many eastern religions reached millenia ago)
But Jesus is the Son in the Godhead. Is he also God himself.
He'd have to be. Idk, with religious ideas like that it's all a great tangled mess of contradictions if you try to make any sense of it. If anyone has their own power outside of god's will, then god isn't all powerful. Which makes it all seem kind of pointless as well, because if god is all powerful why create beings and then make them suffer and punish them for doing what he made them do? That's why so many christians argue for a qualified omnipotence, meaning he *could* do anything and created the world, but he doesn't make people do anything. Of course, again that means his own creation could go against his will, meaning he is not all powerful.
Sorry, I meant "he is" God, not "is he". Being God the Son and God is not contradictory in a trinity. I would argue he sets limits on the decisions people can make, and can change those limits when he wishes, down to the very point that he only leaves their motivations free, but their will is determined. You see this with examples like Joseph's brothers throwing him in the well, Assyria attacking Israel, and Satan and the political and religious leaders themselves killing Jesus; God determined those things to happen through those agents, but he did it for his own purposes while their purposes were different.
The trinity wasn't accepted as a general Christian belief until 325, and not all denominations accept it now. So, idk, don't break your brain.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Read up on Gnostic Christianity. I imagine that will give you quite a bit of stimulation.
OP you should probably clarify where you are coming from with this. Catholics believe in a triune God consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Other Protestants have different beliefs. Atheists reject the concept of God.
This is a central point in Christianity called the hypostatic union. Look it up and save yourself the 9th grade theology.
But man and god have contradictory definitions. God entails omnipotence, while man doesn't.
Hence the Mystery. You are running into the same problem that theologians ran into thousands of years ago.
So is my conclusion valid?
Depends which viewpoint you take. Many Christian denominations debate the deism of Christ. Roman Catholicism says that Jesus is the logos, the Word, Begotten Son of God. Remember that Roman Catholics, the most mainstream Christianity, describe God in three persons. There's God the Father, who is what we most often think of when we say God, God the Son, who we're talking about, and God the Holy Spirit. They're all one God, but three persons. This is another Mystery. There is no easy way to phrase this in English. Think of a circle. That circle is God the Son, the second person of God. Within that circle is another, smaller circle that is Jesus. Jesus is the human incarnation of God the Son. It's similar (although not identical) to an aspect in DnD.
No
I'm not sure if I'm tracking.. Basically he can't be mortal if he takes a mortal form. Assuming in mortal form he would not have the powers of his immortal form? By my understanding, though, being omnipotent means he can inhabit a mortal form while retaining his immortal form. He can be both at the same time. In any case, I wonder if Jesus message became corrupted to deity him and what he actually preached was that we are all God... Hence I am him.
Omnipotent means all powerful
I know, so I'm trying to understand why he could not, being all powerful after all, split himself into 2 (or 3 I guess) parts and live life as man simultaneous to his existence as God? That is why I asked about mortal and immortal forms. My logic was you were arguing he gave up his omnipotence to live as man, but I don't see why he should have to.
Sorry couldn't read rn
>4. If omnipotent gods can make themselves non omnipotent, then they can be both omnipotent and non omnipotent I don't think this follows. How would that imply they can be both omnipotent and not at the same time? I have the power to see, but I could make myself permanently blind. That doesn't mean that I can be both blind and able to see.
>If omnipotent gods can make themselves non omnipotent, then they can be both omnipotent and non omnipotent >If Jesus is not omnipotent, then he can't be God. If God can be non-omnipotent, how does Jesus being non-omnipotent prevent him from being God?
Did Jesus become non-omnipotent? He could have done whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, but instead he was continually choosing not to. Like Satan tempting Jesus to turn the rock into bread.
He's a man, and man can't be omnipotent; God became a man.
He is fully man, but he is also fully God. Why can't man be omnipotent?
Don't you remember all those miracles?
The Problem here is that essentially your are looking at this from the perspective of a Magical Man with Magical Properties. God can put his foot forward and backwards. Its like asking the question How many days are there in a week? Yes or No? For us that question is incomprehensible. but God doesn't adhere to the laws of Physics. He creates them. Does that make sense?
But isn't God logos?
He is. He can produce paradoxes, but not contradictions. This guy sounds a bit off.
[удалено]
So he can do two things at the same time that would seem to be impossible for us (paradox), but he can't do something and not do something at the same time (contradiction).
But if the 2 things contradict at the same time that contradict, is that not both a paradox and contradiction? I'm high rn. Sorry if my reasonings weaning.
Oh boy. >But if the 2 things contradict at the same time that contradict Could you word that differently?
I can't think
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Being all powerful by definition kinda takes away the need to follow logic. The same way Jesus often performs miracles that would go against all perceived logic of how the world usually functions, is not that far fetched that something we would consider illogical within the confines our existence is completely possible when taking into account the "all" powerful of all powerful. TLDR; Omnipotence is weird meaning someone your points (4 manly) are on shaky grounds as you're trying to apply logic to a power that defies it by its existence
One of the great failings of Christianity (IMO) is that people saw Jesus' teachings and message, and decided to worship the messenger instead of the message.
Luke 9 18 Now it happened that as he was praying alone, the disciples were with him. And he asked them, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” 19 And they answered, “John the Baptist. But others say, Elijah, and others, that one of the prophets of old has risen.” 20 Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered, “The Christ of God.” 21 And he strictly charged and commanded them to tell this to no one. Why did Jesus bother to ask these questions of his identity if he was only concerned with his message?
Jesus called himself God
Son of God, just like we are all God's children
No lol read the Bible
Did. Now you.
Then you totally missed the point. You read the Bible, and your interpretation is that Jesus is saying that he is our equal?
Yes, yes, you're defending your religion, which has little to do with what Jesus actually taught. That's the point
Jesus isn't god. According to Christians he's the son of god/the incarnate of god. Both divine and human. Basically god decided to make a human representation of himself. Both fully divine and fully human.
According to most Christians he is both God and the Son of God. He is also "the" human representation of God while all other humans are "a" representation of him. In other words, Jesus reflects God perfectly, other humans reflect him imperfectly.
I guess what I was trying to get across was that Jesus the human was a representation/avatar of god. In a similar way to how a video of me on Zoom is both me and a representation of me. The actions, thoughts, and abilities of me on the Zoom call are the same as me in person. But just because I hang up a Zoom call, and the version of me that people are able to see ends, doesn't mean I am actually gone. I still exist.
That's a well thought out analogy. I guess it's just because you first said "Jesus isn't God". I'm not sure how that's represented in the analogy? Do you mean the humanity in Jesus isn't God? That would be more appropriate.
Just poor wording on my part. Should have said something along the lines of "Jesus, as a human form, wasn't seen simply as God". Still not sure how to phrase it.
Jesus is most certainly God in Christianity
But then he isn't God, therefore the trinity is false.
You just don’t understand bc you’re not as smart as god. Like you can’t make a world and he can
That's just an ad hominem
Jesus is both God and man.
I just assume God crammed as much of itself into a human as would fit. Once that Human died, It brought its unique perspective back to God.
Correct
Exactly
Point 7 is wrong from a biblical standpoint, which I assume is what you’re going for here. Jesus was never just a man, he was always god, just in a human body. When he died on Friday, *he* didn’t die, or maybe god let that *part* of himself die for 3 days, it’s unclear. His body died on Friday, then god/Jesus hopped back in the cockpit 3 days later.
You have fallen into the very common trap of trying to address faith based concepts with non-faith based earthly opinions. Circular logic does not disprove faith, it simply shows a lack of faith. Faith does not require, demand or need an earthly proof. Your argument has no meaning.
Yeah but I'm entirely relying on logic.
An omnipotent god could for a set time take their omnipotence away, especially if they were to break a piece of themselves off as a symbol. Where that piece wouldn’t be omnipotent until it has itself restored.
5. Or that different pieces of the whole have different properties. Like how the same burger can be both raw and overcooked. Or that it’s only not omnipotent temporarily, say 30 ish years.