DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE

[redick]

Masashi wrote:

Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it? Who can really answer this question authoritatively?

I can answer this question authoritatively, keep reading.

Let us consider the idea of Omnipotence. Omnipotence means 'power to do all, or everything'. (The original meaning in Latin may have been 'power over or in all'.) And we are told in Scripture that 'with God all things are possible'. I find it common enough in argument with unbelievers, to be told that God, if He exists and were good, would do this or that; and then, if I point out that the proposed action is impossible, to be met with the retort 'But I thought God was supposed to be able to do anything'. This raises the whole question of impossibility.

In ordinary usage the work impossible generally implies a suppressed clause beginning with the word unless. Thus it is impossible for me to see the street from where I sit writing at this moment; that is, it is impossible to see the street unless I go up to the top floor where I shall be high enough to overlook the intervening building. If I had broken my leg I should say 'But it is impossible to go up to the top floor' - meaning, however, unless some friends turn up who will carry me.

Now let us advance to a different plane of impossibility, by saying, 'It is impossible for me to see the street so long as I remain where I am and the building remains where it is.' Someone might add 'unless the nature of space, or of vision, were different from what it is.' I do not know what the best philosophers and scientists might say to this, but I would have to reply, 'I don't know whether space and vision could possibly have been of such a nature as you suggest'. Now it is clear here that the words could possibly refer to some kind of absolute possibility or impossibility which is different from the relative possibilities and impossibilities we have been considering. I cannot say whether seeing round corners is, in this new sense, possible or not, because I do not know whether it is self-contradictory or not. But I know very well that if it is self-contradictory it is absolutely impossible. The absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries it's impossibility within itself, instead of borrowing it from other impossibilities which in their turn depend upon others. It has no unless clause attached to it. It is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents.

"All agents" here refer to God Himself. 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 successfully said 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 remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. 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.

Masashi wrote:

Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it? Who can really answer this question authoritatively?

The authoritative answer is No. The question is self-contradictory and carries within itself an intrinsic impossibility, it is non-sense.


Note: My answer is 100% the same as C.S. Lewis' answer in his book The Problem of Pain. I highly recommend Lewis and specifically this book for anyone who struggles with or is faced with answering the question, "If God is Omnipotent and God is Good, why then do bad things happen to good people?"

Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God. ~ THOMAS AQUINAS, SUMM. THEOL., IA Q XXV, ART 4

[Shazam0]

8) well put.

[musashi]

A classic appeal to authority Redick, nicely done. Though I confess I did get a little turned around in the middle, but I do get your point.

Unfortunately you fell into my trap by focusing on the contradiction, rather than the authority. You've lined up five well-reasoned opinions (I'm giving you credit for Shazam and Rabbi Kushner who wrote the book when bad things happen to good people). But by this approach, there would be a group of contrarians as well. And in the end the minds of men could not devise a test to divine the character of God. In fact I claim that in the millisecond that men can measure and understand God, God would become transformed. Through the fruit of knowledge the mystery of what we once thought was Godly becomes the province of men.

One of the better arguments for the question that I've come across is a story...

• The Flower, The Dog and The Man

A dog lays in the sun on a hot summer day sniffing a wilting flower. The Dog says, "its hot I am going to go lay in the shade." The Flower says, "you can't do that moving is impossible". The Dog says "maybe for you, but not for me", and he trots off to the shade.

The afternoon later finds the dog in the company of his master. The Man says, "dog let's go do some hunting!" The excited dog is ready to go on this sunny afternoon. The Man says "well I better check the weather before we go." The dog says, "Weather! it is sunny outside! predicting the weather is impossible." The man says, "maybe for you, but not for me," as he shows the dog the newspaper that predicts afternoon thundershowers.

So if God says, "I'm gonna make a rock so big I can't lift it. Then I'm gonna lift it". As a man I might say things like impossible or contradiction. God would say, "maybe for you, but not for me".

[Sansake^]

In fact I claim that in the millisecond that men can measure and understand God, God would become transformed. Through the fruit of knowledge the mystery of what we once thought was Godly becomes the province of men.

I went with a group of friends to see the movie "I, Robot" a few months back. Upon exiting the theater one of them commented that we weren't too far away from that (meaning actual A.I.) which got me to thinking. I had an epiphany that it would never happen. Not to any usable extent anyway. I believe that as soon as "the province of man' trespasses on God's greatest feats, or (more likely) the scientist realizes that, for no reason science can explain, he can't, Judgement Day will be upon us. When science proves the existence of God, then will God be interested in who among us waited to hear it from them.

[Golda]

The question behind the rock question and the reason people concern themselves about God's level or reach of power is mainly because they are trying to make sense out of pain in this life. Why did a child die of cancer? they ask, or Why did was that village totally destroyed by that hurricane? "If God is good and God is all-powerful, then why didn't he stop it? He could have..."

Yes, He could have, but He has agreed not to intervene (without mankind's direct requests.) When God created Man, in the book of Genesis it tells us that "God gave man dominion over all..." That dominion or authority has not been revoked. God will not go against His Word and take authority over events on Earth even to save millions of innocent lives and untold human suffering. The sole responsibility for mankind's pain and suffering lies at mankind's feet. So in effect, God has willingly created a rock so big He can't lift it --- yet.

[musashi]

• God has been

• God has been the Sun
  God has been fire, and wind, rain and snow
  God has been thunder and lightning
  God has been a broad assortment of animals
  God has been the earth
  God has been beyond the horizon at the edge of the earth
  God has been in the sky
  God has been in the stars
  God has been at the essence of life and the unique character of man

Through time man has pushed God progressively farther from his own reach and experience. At what point does;

• God become a has been?

[musashi]

The scientist in a white coat says, "We have unraveled the mysteries of life itself. We understand the process of RNA formation from discreet inorganic precursors. We understand the mechanisms of the cell, and have full dominion over the...." A crash of thunder and a brilliant flash of light floods the lecture hall.

"Alright" God says, "my beloved creation, human kind, believes that they now have achieved dominion over life itself. Though it is written that God should not be tested in Deuteronomy, in the Christian bible. I shall allow Man to put his knowledge and capacity to the test. We shall see if man can create life, as I have."

The scientist leans over and picks up a handful of dirt and says, "with this hand full of dirt I can.."

God interrupts and says, "That's my dirt, for this contest you have to bring your own dirt."

[musashi]

redundant post

[Sansake^]

Musashi

[Sansake^]

Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God. ~ THOMAS AQUINAS, SUMM. THEOL., IA Q XXV, ART 4

Here even Thomas Aquinas has fallen into the trap of arguing the logic of God. What a conundrum to be a Church educated scientist

He has basically declared that "contradiction" is a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it. I prefer to think that God just couldn't be bothered. 8)

[alaphforce]

Just a thought to consider here:

Most christians, and other religions as well, identify God with the human form and there by neccesitate limitations. If we instead dissasociate God and let the divine essence become part of of one and all of the universe then the question changes drasticly. In this God is everything, all forces all matter all math all laws, and as such each of us is part of that God. Now this does change the idea of agency as seen in creation. The notion of creation implies a priori a creator, or agent of said creation, but if God is an essential part of everything then god is a part of creation and not an agent there of. So can God create a rock he can not lift? In a sence no! But he can be part of the creation of a rock for which no agent in the universe can lift.

Now in this view the rock, the lifter, and the physics creating an impossibility of lifting are all part of God, and thus in a sence God has created a rock and an avatar and that avatar can not lift the Rock.

In my opinion it is a flaw to associate and limit God to a divine human form (an interpritation of made in his image). However the bible and everything in it are divine words interpreted by mortal humans, and we are limited in our scope of acceptance. Try to remember that if God is moved into the realm of everything then we are indeed created AS his image, as well as the rest of the universe and all of its properties.

By taking this veiw of christian, or rather pre-christian thought I have been able to accept and envelope those beliefs with my own Taoist beliefs quite nicley. It also makes much of the stuff that atheists detest more palatable.

Just an opinion though and we know what those are like.......

[kupa]

Masashi wrote:

Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it? Who can really answer this question authoritatively?

I can answer this question authoritatively, keep reading.

Let us consider the idea of Omnipotence. Omnipotence means 'power to do all, or everything'. (The original meaning in Latin may have been 'power over or in all'.) And we are told in Scripture that 'with God all things are possible'. I find it common enough in argument with unbelievers, to be told that God, if He exists and were good, would do this or that; and then, if I point out that the proposed action is impossible, to be met with the retort 'But I thought God was supposed to be able to do anything'. This raises the whole question of impossibility.

In ordinary usage the work impossible generally implies a suppressed clause beginning with the word unless. Thus it is impossible for me to see the street from where I sit writing at this moment; that is, it is impossible to see the street unless I go up to the top floor where I shall be high enough to overlook the intervening building. If I had broken my leg I should say 'But it is impossible to go up to the top floor' - meaning, however, unless some friends turn up who will carry me.

Now let us advance to a different plane of impossibility, by saying, 'It is impossible for me to see the street so long as I remain where I am and the building remains where it is.' Someone might add 'unless the nature of space, or of vision, were different from what it is.' I do not know what the best philosophers and scientists might say to this, but I would have to reply, 'I don't know whether space and vision could possibly have been of such a nature as you suggest'. Now it is clear here that the words could possibly refer to some kind of absolute possibility or impossibility which is different from the relative possibilities and impossibilities we have been considering. I cannot say whether seeing round corners is, in this new sense, possible or not, because I do not know whether it is self-contradictory or not. But I know very well that if it is self-contradictory it is absolutely impossible. The absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries it's impossibility within itself, instead of borrowing it from other impossibilities which in their turn depend upon others. It has no unless clause attached to it. It is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents.

"All agents" here refer to God Himself. 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 successfully said 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 remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. 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.

Masashi wrote:

Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it? Who can really answer this question authoritatively?

The authoritative answer is No. The question is self-contradictory and carries within itself an intrinsic impossibility, it is non-sense.


Note: My answer is 100% the same as C.S. Lewis' answer in his book The Problem of Pain. I highly recommend Lewis and specifically this book for anyone who struggles with or is faced with answering the question, "If God is Omnipotent and God is Good, why then do bad things happen to good people?"

Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God. ~ THOMAS AQUINAS, SUMM. THEOL., IA Q XXV, ART 4

That blow my mind up




___________________________________

[Redslay]

This thread should be re -titled as "Lazarus"

[musashi]

I had to login and respond to the accusation. Nobody calls me Lazarus and lives... errr well maybe they will live to tell about it! TTI!

[Redslay]

I wasn't referring to you.. but the Thread necro that had just happened.