Genna said:
I understand, but there are some things God cannot do regardless of his omnipotence. The bible says that it is IMPOSSIBLE God to LIE, does this mean that he is not omnipotent?
Hebrews 6:18 - That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
If God, as an omnipotent being, is unbounded by logic then it is very difficult to have a coherent discussion about him. It doesn't matter if the Bible says that God cannot lie since if it also says that he is omnipotent then he must be able to lie. In fact, it must be simultaneously possible and impossible for him to lie. People seem to be able to wrap their heads around square triangles far easier than this.
If we have accepted that God is unbounded by logic then you cannot use logic to bound him. Here you are saying that since the Bible says God cannot lie therefore there is something he cannot do despite his omnipotence. That is using logic to deduce and example of something that God cannot do. But we have already agreed that God is unbounded by logic...
Genna said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but it may not be a matter of God being bound by logic, but rather his immutable attributes as not being able to lie and knowing all things.
Putting aside whether that is the case or not, neither me or you can assert such a thing if we accept that omnipotence implies that God is not bounded by logic because we would have to utilise logic in order to suggest as such thereby breaking our own premise.
However, as I said in my last post, most modern Christians do not interpret the Bible literally. If you check the wikipedia page on omnipotence then you will find 2 seperate definitions. The difference between the two is that first defines God has being able to do anything that is logically possible and the second allows God to do that which is logically impossible as well.
You have to remember that the Bible often uses superlatives without caveats. In fact any sort of work that contains stories does exactly the same thing. A story becomes boring if we replace "Almighty God" with "God who can do pretty much anything except for that which is logically impossible or mutually exclusive with his own character".
The offshoot of this poetic license is that you will find two types of Christian. Those who interpret these descriptions literally and those who do so figuratively. Your arguments assume the literal interpretation and so are avoided by any Christian who is not a literalist. However, your arguments are also not useful against the literalist either since they use logic to limit a God that by definition cannot be limited by logic.
Genna said:
What does "ALMIGHTY GOD" mean to you?
Knowledge is power Leonardo Davinci
Excellent point. I had not considered it like that before. It would indeed be very difficult to have something with limitless power unless that being also had limitless knowledge since without the latter, the former would remain unused thereby rendering a description of "omnipotent" inaccurate.
Becky said:
That doens't mean God is omnisent (or however you spell it), that's just your interpretation of the verse.
Heya Becky,
What are the specific differences between an understanding that is infinite and omniscience?
Becky said:
It means Almighty God, just as it says.
That isn't what it means though. If it was all that it meant then it would mean as much as flooglepuff or any other sequence of letters that had no attributable definition.
Becky said:
Why should you care what Christians think or what God thinks? Maybe think for yourself and decide on what you believe instead of relying on others to make that decision for yourself.
Becky said:
You never answered, why are you so insistent over something that you apparently don't believe.
I cannot answer for Genna but the reason I am so insistent over these sorts of issues is because discovering how different beliefs can be combined together and whether some beliefs cannot be combined together (logically) is of great interest to me. It is one of the few areas of theology that is largely based on deductive reasoning as opposed to inductive reasoning and therefore conclusions are often in sight which I guess gives the entire topic a sort of potential for completeness about it.
I also feel that it is important since I personally have a very difficult time respecting any belief that I cannot comprehend. For example, I was very anti-Catholic for their views on contraceptives before I engaged in discussion about the exact mechanics behind such a belief. When a person encounters something that is very different from their worldview (and for a non-Christian, omnipotence, omniscience etc are very different and difficult concepts to comprehend), antagonism is a very usual reaction. Unjustifiable but usual. Through discussion, the hope is that the antagonism might be relieved and be replaced by mutual tolerance if not also mutual respect.
Netdoc said:
Why would you assume that the Christian God is omniscient? The scriptures don't teach that as a premise.
Heya Netdoc,
Omniscience is one of those terms that is interpreted in many different ways. Together with the fact that scripture can
also be interpreted in many different ways, there are a whole host of combinations that in fact show that scripture does teach God's omniscience.
What needs to be established is which level of strictness of the term "omniscience" is required in order for arguments such as these to hold. For example, if we equate "omniscience" with "infinite understanding" and this shown to be sufficient for these arguments to hold then it would be correct, translation allowing, to say that scripture does teach "omniscience" regardless of whether any of us feel that such a concept deserves to be ascribed such a term.
Kathryn said:
So infinite = omniscient? Okay, well now that that's settled...
Heya Kathryn,
As I said to Netdoc, these terms
are thrown around perhaps more than they should. It is one of the reasons that when I engage in these sorts of discussions, I prefer to approach a non-denominational demiurge rather than, say, the biblical God.
However, as long as we are defining omniscience to be "infinite understanding" and not bringing along any baggage that the word might have gained from prior or accepted definitions then semantic discrepancies cannot avoid the argument. I am uncertain whether that has happened in this case.
If anybody here has an exhaustive list of everything that scripture has to say about the extent of God's knowledge/intelligence/wisdom etc then it would probably not only be useful but absolutely necessary for any sort of debate on the subject to remain meaningful.