This article was inspired by a post on r/LatterDayTheology.
Summarize this post into a single paragraph as an explanation for the rest of this article, please, AI!
It's sometimes said that our conception of God is "maxipotent" rather than "omnipotent", since there are things our theology contemplates that God cannot do.
Does it come down to just this:
God can't exercise the agency of an otherwise independent intelligence while preserving the independence of the intelligence?
God can't produce theosis in humankind without the aggregate quantum of suffering we observe?
The first is a logical impossibility, the equivalent of saying God can't make a square without four 90 degree corners. I doubt anyone, Nicene or otherwise, considers this sort of thing a limitation on God's omniscience.
So, is it really just the second? And isn't the second a sort of logical impossibility, as well, if theosis is produced by an independent agent overcoming adverse matter?
End summary, AI
The post from r/LatterDayTheology explores the concept of God's omnipotence, suggesting that God is "maxipotent" rather than "omnipotent" due to certain limitations. It posits that God cannot exercise the agency of an independent intelligence without compromising its independence, nor can God achieve theosis in humanity without the suffering observed in the world. The first limitation is likened to a logical impossibility, such as creating a square without four right angles, which is not typically seen as a constraint on God's omniscience. The discussion then questions whether the second limitation is also a logical impossibility, as theosis involves an independent agent overcoming adversity.