Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
(10) - (12), (6), (13) : What you're missing in this whole thing is the difference between "can" - have power to; and "can" - to be likely to (both defs are in Webster's dictionary).

Otherwise described as "can" and "will". I assure you I am aware of the difference.

More:
God is physically able to lie, of course;

I must take issue with this statement. Are you examining God temporarily without attributes? If so, what is the usefulness of such an examination, and why is anything obvious?

If not, it seems that you are examining God without a complete definition (which can be useful at times), but the fact that it is the "holy character" or perhaps "moral" part of God's nature that you specify as the reason for God's lack of lying (i.e. absolute unlikelihood of a state of affairs in which God lies, not inability to lie) leads me to investigate this further.

J.A. Mchugh, contributor to the Catholic Encyclopedia, quotes Aquinas who asserts it is omnipotence itself that is incompatible with sinning.

Catholic Encyclopedia: Omnipotence

(a) It is impossible for God to sin

Man's power of preferring evil to good is a sign not of strength, but of infirmity, since it involves the liability to be overcome by unworthy motives; not the exercise but the restraint of that power adds to the freedom and vigour of the will. "To sin," says St. Thomas, "is to be capable of failure in one's actions, which is incompatible with omnipotence" (Summa, I, Q, xxv, a. 3).

Aquinas, in The Summa Theologica:

Catholic Encyclopedia: Whether God is omnipotent?

Objection 2. Further, sin is an act of some kind. But God cannot sin, nor "deny Himself" as it is said in 2 Tim. 2:13. Therefore He is not omnipotent.

*snip*

Reply to Objection 2. To sin is to fall short of a perfect action; hence to be able to sin is to be able to fall short in action, which is repugnant to omnipotence. Therefore it is that God cannot sin, because of His omnipotence.

I've addressed the one issue, but there is another.

More:
however, because of his holy character, He CANNOT lie (i.e., He is absolutely not likely to).

You have committed the fallacy of equivocation by attributing one meaning to the word "can" (can) in one statement, and in the next "can" takes on the meaning of "will".

It is, in my opinion, more correct to say that God can lie, but he will not.

I have read time and again that God is unchanging in his nature. Would you agree that God's "holy character" is part of his nature? If you do, then it is actually impossible for God to lie, if he is immutable. If God is unchanging in his "holy character", then there will never be an opportunity for God to lie. Put another way, if God's "holy character" has always been the same, and always will be the same, then the necessary requirements for a state of affairs in which God can lie can never be met, thus God can never lie.

On the other hand, if you don't think that God is immutable in this regard, then you have no good reason to think that God is "absolutely not likely to" (or "absolutely will not") lie, since this depends on the assumption that his "holy character" absolutely is not likely to, or absolutely will not (i.e. will never), change.

More:
There is NO incompatibility in these statements; therefore, your (12) is not a valid conclusion.

Actually, it is contradictory to propose both that God can and cannot lie. Had you not equivocated, then your statements would be contradictory. You did equivocate, however, so the Law of Non-contradiction is irrelevant in this case.

More:
Let me give a real-life example. I don't know if you have a sister or not in real life. Let's pretend that you do, if you don't, and what's more, that you love her more than anyone else in the entire world. Can you torture, rape and murder her? Yes, you are physically able to (unless you are paralyzed or stopped by some physical disability, which I assume you're not). BUT - can (in the other since(sic) of 'are you likely to') you torture, rape and murder her? Of course not - it is COMPLETELY against your character and desire! It is absolutely NO diminution of God's omnipotence to say that He CANNOT do something against His character!

More equivocation. Why not use "will"? It fits -- look:

Can I rape my hypothetical sister? Yes.
Will I rape my hypothetical sister? No.

I see no reason for you to use "can" in place of "will", in the sense of "am I likely to".