Christians: God is Not Omnipotent (ritual, contradiction, spiritual, bible)

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

I totally agree. A literally omnipotent God, however, could create a love with place and meaning without these things.

To me that is nonsensical. How can it still be love, if it is something different? It is like you are asking for planets and stars, but no Universe. It doesn't make sense.

Again, I agree. A literally omnipotent God, however, could fix this dilemma.

Guess what? Again, I agree, with all of this. If this is how God works--and I believe it is--then it stands to reason God can't split such a system, can he? Ergo, God has limits, and thus he's not omnipotent.

A literally omnipotent God could lift any rock AND make a rock so big He couldn't lift it. And make it so that wasn't a contradiction.

I think where we disagree is that "omnipotent" does not mean that God can do things that don't make sense. It is worthless to ask whether God can do nonsensical things, because it becomes a nonsensical question. It loses any binding to reason and logic, and if a statement does not have reason and logic, why should we consider it meaningful?

If anything, you are not testing the limits of God's power, but rather, you are testing the limits of our reason and language. Remember, God gave us reason so that we could understand what we He felt it was important for us to understand. He did not give us reason so that we could reverse engineer His being.

A literally omnipotent God could create love without suffering, and if we needed a new term for it, we'd know it right away!

You are missing the point. Regardless of what we call it, if it is something different, then it is something different. Love that does not depend on suffering is not the same thing as love that does depend on suffering.

It really goes back to Aristotle. "A is A". "A is not B". If you say that God ought to be able to have "A is B", then all you are doing is ruining our foundations in logic, but it says nothing about what God's limits are. You are just making a nonsensical statement.

A literally omnipotent God wouldn't have to sacrifice His son to save the world.

Perhaps it was His choice to do it that way...

This is the terrorism of the "omnis-," that by refusing to see the laws that govern God--including the ones that God put on himself--they get in the way of some deep spiritual learning. After all, if God respects these laws, then they ought to be important, eh?

I did not realize that God put laws on Himself. He has no laws that govern Him... He is the law giver.

[Baerly]

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

This came up a long time ago, and at the request of my wife I'm making it the topic of this latest de-lurking.

I believe that one of the greatest obstacles to many people's understanding of God is the prefix "omni-". Not only is non-scriptural, but it's a logical construct that carries its own contradictions with it! Come on, we've all heard them, about God making a rock so big He can't lift it, or making a being that can armwrestle Him, or making an immoveable post AND an unstoppable cannonball at the same time, or making a tree so thick He can't cut it, or floating a loan He can't repay. We blow these off because they are juvenile pseudo-intellectualism--and they are--but they contain at their heart a genuine contradiction that crops up in questions that are much more worthy. Chief among these IMO is the riddle of Epicurus:



Much as we may hate it or be tired of hearing it--I've saving my rebuttal of line 2 for another thread--I believe this riddle contains questions worth asking. Many answers I've heard deal with this in one way or another, but in the end most boil down to a backpedal: "God is not omnipotent." I'm quite fond of the lines from George Burns' "Oh God!" movies, where the little girl asks why He made bad things, and He replies, "Have you ever seen a front without a back? A top without a bottom?" She says she hasn't, and He explains that He can't make things without making their opposites. Cute, certainly; profound, maybe, but it amounts to saying that God isn't omnipotent, because there's something He can't do. Admitting that from the outset might eliminate a lot of confusion.

Not only is the term "omnipotent" logically baseless, it's scripturally baseless. The Bible actually states things that God cannot do, such as lie (Titus 1:2). Can God die? I know few Christians who interpret the term this way, but this only begs the question as to why we use this term at all.

Is God all powerful? - He is if he made man from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7)
How about when God limited satan as to what he could do to Job? Satan is said to be the prince of this world, yet God is limiting satan as to what he can do to Job. That sounds like an all, powerful God to me. Especially when we read what Satan is able to accomplish with his power. Even Satan noticed that God had a hedge about Job (Job 1:10). Notice also that God did not deny that he had a hedge about Job.

How about the miracles that are recorded? The miracles were recorded in the bible to make people believe (John 20:30,31). They were powerful notable miracles which could not be denied (Acts 4:16). The miracles were to confirm the word (or message)was sent from God and the person was sent from God. The lame healed (Acts 3). The blind healed (John 9). Walking on the water (Mark 6:48). Even the wind and the sea obeyed Him (Mark 4:37-41). This is powerful testimony.

The terrible things that happen to people are trials we all must go through. They are test for each of us to weather according to (James 1).

Here is a good lesson:

http://www.gospelpreceptor.com/BreweJ13.htm

Baerly

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Baerly

Is God all powerful? - He is if he made man from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7)

That doesn't prove that God is all powerful. It only "proves" that God is capable of creating men out of dirt.

The same with your other examples.

[Prometheus]

God can't even beat an army of people on iron chariots, so He's probably less powerful than us by now.

Also, it would be interesting to see Jesus descend from the Heavens only for Him to be seen as a UFO and shot down by fighter pilots.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

God can't even beat an army of people on iron chariots, so He's probably less powerful than us by now.

Also, it would be interesting to see Jesus descend from the Heavens only for Him to be seen as a UFO and shot down by fighter pilots.

Almost as interesting as seeing Jesus teach and heal only to be killed in an act of terrorism by people with an overblown sense of entitlement.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by sojourner

Almost as interesting as seeing Jesus teach and heal only to be killed in an act of terrorism by people with an overblown sense of entitlement.

Then you'll probably enjoy this: http://www.amazon.com/Messiah-Morris.../dp/0805079645

[reformed christian]

God is all powerful. As it says in Jer 32:17 "Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you.

Then again in Matt 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

This came up a long time ago, and at the request of my wife I'm making it the topic of this latest de-lurking.

I believe that one of the greatest obstacles to many people's understanding of God is the prefix "omni-". Not only is non-scriptural, but it's a logical construct that carries its own contradictions with it! Come on, we've all heard them, about God making a rock so big He can't lift it, or making a being that can armwrestle Him, or making an immoveable post AND an unstoppable cannonball at the same time, or making a tree so thick He can't cut it, or floating a loan He can't repay. We blow these off because they are juvenile pseudo-intellectualism--and they are--but they contain at their heart a genuine contradiction that crops up in questions that are much more worthy. Chief among these IMO is the riddle of Epicurus:

Much as we may hate it or be tired of hearing it--I've saving my rebuttal of line 2 for another thread--I believe this riddle contains questions worth asking. Many answers I've heard deal with this in one way or another, but in the end most boil down to a backpedal: "God is not omnipotent." I'm quite fond of the lines from George Burns' "Oh God!" movies, where the little girl asks why He made bad things, and He replies, "Have you ever seen a front without a back? A top without a bottom?" She says she hasn't, and He explains that He can't make things without making their opposites. Cute, certainly; profound, maybe, but it amounts to saying that God isn't omnipotent, because there's something He can't do. Admitting that from the outset might eliminate a lot of confusion.

Not only is the term "omnipotent" logically baseless, it's scripturally baseless. The Bible actually states things that God cannot do, such as lie (Titus 1:2). Can God die? I know few Christians who interpret the term this way, but this only begs the question as to why we use this term at all.

This is one of the reasons I left the LDS church--the inability to contemplate infinity and eternity. I mean, come on! Can God make a rock so large he can't lift it? How juvinile! That like saying "this statement is a lie" is reasonable. The question is self-referential. That is, it's nonsense. It's no less juvinie to think "omnipotence" includes the ability to do the undoable.

The Epicurus riddle works if you believe God has being like a flying pink unicorn, but once you discern the difference between something that has being and being itself, the problem disappears. "God's primal perfection consists not in an assumed righteousness but rather in the inherent perfection of the goodness of his divine [and infinite] nature." If God is infinite, goodness is not something he possesses or something he is subject to: God is goodness itself and "evil" has no basis in reality. If God were to recognize its existence, he would be confirming something that is not within himself.

[Somkid]

Omnipotence is not possible because it is paradoxic and a contradiction to everything known if you argue this point it means God can not be known so why is everyone worshiping something they say is known but can not be known, so, someone is full of it. In any case I think the "God can not create a stone so heavy that he can not lift it or if he can than he can not be omnipotent" argument.