Omnipotence and that which is impossible

[Wilson Deaton]

Can God do the impossible? Yes, figuratively speaking.

It seems to me that the vast majority of the time, we use the word "impossible" in a figurative sense to describe that which is extremely improbable or that which is impossible for us given our abiliities and resources, etc. In other words, we often label things "impossible" when in reality they are just extraordinarily hard or extraordinarily unlikely. (Example: "It would be impossible for me to have a billion dollars by tomorrow." That isn't actually impossible because under the right circumstances, it could happen.)

On the other hand, there is a category of things that can be said to be literally, actually impossible. A prime illustration of this would be something which is self-contradictory. For example, it is literally impossible for an irresistable force and an immovable object to both exist at the same time. (This is actually impossible because there are no circumstances in which it could happen.)

Thus, when we say that God is omnipotent, we must remember that we are actually claiming that he has unlimited power and can do anything that can possibly be done (no matter how hard or unlikely). But we aren't saying that he can literally do the impossible (in the precise, technical, literal sense of the word) such as creating that proverbial rock that is so big he can't move it.

My question is this: Is there anybody here who disagrees with what I've written to the extent that you believe that God's omnipotence is such that he can even do that which is self-contradictory? Anybody here believe that God could create, at the same time, both an irresistable force and an immovable object?

Wilson

[Paul DeBaufer]

On the other hand, there is a category of things that can be said to be literally, actually impossible. A prime illustration of this would be something which is self-contradictory. For example, it is literally impossible for an irresistable force and an immovable object to both exist at the same time. (This is actually impossible because there are no circumstances in which it could happen.)

Thus, when we say that God is omnipotent, we must remember that we are actually claiming that he has unlimited power and can do anything that can possibly be done (no matter how hard or unlikely). But we aren't saying that he can literally do the impossible (in the precise, technical, literal sense of the word) such as creating that proverbial rock that is so big he can't move it.

My question is this: Is there anybody here who disagrees with what I've written to the extent that you believe that God's omnipotence is such that he can even do that which is self-contradictory? Anybody here believe that God could create, at the same time, both an irresistable force and an immovable object?

Wilson

I agree that God knows all that is knowable and can do all that is doable. That leads to I believe that there are things unknowable and undoable even by God.

Self-contradiction would be one of those things. Also, because the Bible teaches God is love and God is truth He cannot violate His own nature-I believe this a form of self-contradiction (God violating His nature that is).

Your irresistible force and immovable force example would only be impossible if they were to meet (yes I can envision a real scenario where the condition where these two never meet could occur but I am a weirdo.) The Pauli exclusion principle, two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time seems to hold as something that cannot happen.

[David Graham]

Wilson, I not so sure that it's as clear cut as that; e.g that what is possible or impossible for God lies between two contradictory alternatives. (e.g. creating a load so big God can't lift it) For God looks at things differently to humanity. We think in terms of what might or might not be possible in the physical realm, and yet, in the spiritual realm, would these same impossibilities still apply?? I don't know!

In the scriptures we often come accross paradoxes which appear to be contradictory. e.g. The idea of "election" or God's choice on one hand as opposed to "Free Will" on the other. We find it difficult to reconcile these two apparently contradictory concepts, but they are both found in scripture and are thus "endorsed" by the same God. So what seems to be impossible for us seems to be possible for God. The cross itself is the greatest paradox of all, for here we see the holy God in Christ bearing human sin; the author and giver of life receiving death; the high priest becoming the sacrifice and so on.....

This is something which is difficult to understand because we are trying to comprehend the "Infinite", and therefore I'm not sure that we'll come up with a comprehensive answer.

Blessings,
Dave

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

My question is this: Is there anybody here who disagrees with what I've written to the extent that you believe that God's omnipotence is such that he can even do that which is self-contradictory? Anybody here believe that God could create, at the same time, both an irresistable force and an immovable object?

Wilson

Just for the sake of discussion here...

If God is in absolute authority and has all power then why can't he, if he desires to suspend the rules of Creation and do the thing that is literally impossible?

Or, how is it even possible for a finite being to know what is or is not impossible or what an infinite Being can do or not do with the impossible?

[Todd Erickson]

Is the question whether God can do things that are impossible in our reality, or in His?

[Randy Wise]

Can God do the impossible? Yes, figuratively speaking.

It seems to me that the vast majority of the time, we use the word "impossible" in a figurative sense to describe that which is extremely improbable or that which is impossible for us given our abiliities and resources, etc. In other words, we often label things "impossible" when in reality they are just extraordinarily hard or extraordinarily unlikely. (Example: "It would be impossible for me to have a billion dollars by tomorrow." That isn't actually impossible because under the right circumstances, it could happen.)

On the other hand, there is a category of things that can be said to be literally, actually impossible. A prime illustration of this would be something which is self-contradictory. For example, it is literally impossible for an irresistable force and an immovable object to both exist at the same time. (This is actually impossible because there are no circumstances in which it could happen.)

Thus, when we say that God is omnipotent, we must remember that we are actually claiming that he has unlimited power and can do anything that can possibly be done (no matter how hard or unlikely). But we aren't saying that he can literally do the impossible (in the precise, technical, literal sense of the word) such as creating that proverbial rock that is so big he can't move it.

My question is this: Is there anybody here who disagrees with what I've written to the extent that you believe that God's omnipotence is such that he can even do that which is self-contradictory? Anybody here believe that God could create, at the same time, both an irresistable force and an immovable object?

Wilson

Well I was just reading about a strong belief by some in a pretrib rapture, (I don't hold to that teaching), and was thinking with so many beliefs its a wonder anyone gets saved. In that context "with God it is possible"

Scripture suggests to me that Jesus could outfox men in any of their trap questions. (not to mean thats what your intent is in your question)

Randy

23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"

26Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

[Billie Goodson]

I tend to side with C.S. Lewis that asking the question "can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it" is nonsensical. I would even go so far as to state that it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the basic principles of the created universe. IF God is the creator being, then it would logically follow that the universe would in some way reflect His being. What this would indicate is that the universe follows the character of God, not God bending to the will of the universe.

I actually think the question of the omnipotence paradox is relevant only in a philosophical sense, not in a physical sense. Based on my experience, I have concluded that there are no naturally occuring heavy objects in the world as we know it. I base this statement upon my having watched astronauts in space studies. They lift what would appear to be phenonmenally heavy objects with apparent ease. Thus, I an resigned to the fact that "weight" is not an absolute. If weight is not an absolute, then it seems odd to ask for an absolute statement of God's abilities based on an non-absolute criteria.

Likewise, we see the same with the question concerning "squared circles". I have yet to see anything in the world that is naturally "square" or a "circle". If we take the "square" term, I will demonstrate what I am talking about. I have observed objects that demonstrated a physical characteristic of having four sides. The sides all even appeared to be of equal length. What I did not see on those objects was anything that inherently called the square. Instead, square is simply a shorthanded way for me to refer to something that has four equal sides. If the universe reflects God, could he have declared an object that has four equal sides to be a circle? Yes, because circle does not indicate something intrinsic in itself, it is instead a relational term.

So, back to my original statement -- science tells us that for phenomena (effects) we observe in our world, there is a cause. This is a fundamental tenet of science today. If everything must have a cause, then the universe as we know it should confirm to that basic tenet. Science also tells us that a phenomena will exhibit characteristics inherited from the creator. Thus, if the universe must have a creator, it likewise must exhibit characteristics of the creator. An effect is not limiting of a cause, instead the cause is reflected in the effect. Thus, God is not subject to a limitation imposed by the creation. Instead, creation is a reflection of the creator God. When we look at something in creation, it must be something that is consistent with something about the creator. To believe that creation limits God is simply not something we have observed in any other area of our world through science and must be dismissed as nonsensical.

[Billie Goodson]

My question is this: Is there anybody here who disagrees with what I've written to the extent that you believe that God's omnipotence is such that he can even do that which is self-contradictory?

Hopefully, covered in my post -- God cannot do something which violates the laws of the universe, because those laws are the expression of His will.


Anybody here believe that God could create, at the same time, both an irresistable force and an immovable object?

Wilson

The expression of His will might in fact be an example of such. With a shout out to my Reformed friends on this one.

[Todd Erickson]

Hopefully, covered in my post -- God cannot do something which violates the laws of the universe, because those laws are the expression of His will.


The essential problem with this statement is that it assumes we know what the laws of this universe are.

[Billie Goodson]

The essential problem with this statement is that it assumes we know what the laws of this universe are.

I am thinking an awareness of reality causes us to be aware of many of these laws. These laws are expressed daily in physics, biology, mathematics, and many other disciplines. Even the simple depressing of an accelerator on an automobile places a trust in these laws. The statement does not rely on knowing the totality of the laws, but reality is never changed by the lack of knowledge of them. Just because the "law of gravity" was never expressed until Newton's formulation, it didn't change the fact that gravity existed and acted upon objects (as Galileo's work indicated previously).

[Benjamin Burch]

Should I even enter this conversation? :confused::smilies0295:

[Benjamin Burch]

The essential problem with this statement is that it assumes we know what the laws of this universe are.

Or that those laws are universally applicable across galaxies. It would seem that the law of gravity varies dependent upon location and proximity to other objects.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Should I even enter this conversation? :confused::smilies0295:

Only God knows.

[Billie Goodson]

Or that those laws are universally applicable across galaxies. It would seem that the law of gravity varies dependent upon location and proximity to other objects.

Which is why I think it is an excellent example. It is a "relational" law, much like the term circle in my first post. There are a lot of current studies that show the "the law of gravity" is not so absolute. Given that, it would still not be wise to jump from a high tower without safety features.

[Billie Goodson]

Only God knows.

Another good example of universal laws. Does He know? What if you ascribe to Open Theism -- you may be of the opinion that He doesn't know. But then again, that is something we don't know. Our lack of knowledge is still independent of God's. :)

[Benjamin Burch]

Another good example of universal laws. Does He know? What if you ascribe to Open Theism -- you may be of the opinion that He doesn't know. But then again, that is something we don't know. Our lack of knowledge is still independent of God's. :)

Or Process Theology.... thus my question!

[Paul DeBaufer]

Or that those laws are universally applicable across galaxies. It would seem that the law of gravity varies dependent upon location and proximity to other objects.

I think gravity holds,it is dependent on the mass of the objects and the distance between the centers of the mass and other objects in proximity to the objects in question, but I think the math holds and is calculable. At least it was when I studied such things 12+ years ago, but the equations had been around a long time before that.

[Billie Goodson]

Just for the sake of discussion here...

If God is in absolute authority and has all power then why can't he, if he desires to suspend the rules of Creation and do the thing that is literally impossible?

These we call miracles! This actually goes to another discussion which brings in the comment by David Hume in "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" where he stated:


A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.


Or, how is it even possible for a finite being to know what is or is not impossible or what an infinite Being can do or not do with the impossible?

I think we presume that knowledge, but we do so with good reason. Where we get into problems is when we believe that God is subject to the same rules. This actually is why the question of "if everything requires a creator, who created God" in invalid. We can only assert that there is a natural law that everything comes from something. God, as creator is not subject to natural law. Since we can't observe God, we can't determine if God is subject to the laws of the universe which He created -- which returns to my argument from before.

[Billie Goodson]

The essential problem with this statement is that it assumes we know what the laws of this universe are.

Could this be a belief that natural phenomena are not "universal"? What about the speed of light? If the speed of light is not constant across the universe this would have a significant effect on estimates of the age of the universe, would it not? If science did not make the assumption that there are universal laws, it would seem to have huge repercussions.


Should I even enter this conversation? :confused::smilies0295:

Obviously a short lived internal debate, followed within one minute by:


Or that those laws are universally applicable across galaxies. It would seem that the law of gravity varies dependent upon location and proximity to other objects.

I think my response to Todd's statement would also be applicable here. Science presumes universal applicability. I guess we will learn over time whether that is appropriate or not. The "Young Earthers" might want to explore this phenomena and adapt it for use.


Or Process Theology.... thus my question!

Process Theology is not so much my thing. I went to the Wiki -- also known as "the source of all half truths" and did some quick reading. I noticed that one theologian listed as at least friendly to the view is some character name Thomas Jay Oord. I am reading his book "Creation Made Free" and am only a few chapters in, but he seems to be holding to believing that the universe is consistent with a creative God. Not sure if he will explore the area of how God's creative will is expressed throughout the universe.

Would be interested in how Process or Open Theologies would view/impact this area of thought.


I think gravity holds

"Punny" -- althought I think sometimes it pushes also. But, I thought this was good!

[Benjamin Burch]

Could this be a belief that natural phenomena are not "universal"? What about the speed of light? If the speed of light is not constant across the universe this would have a significant effect on estimates of the age of the universe, would it not? If science did not make the assumption that there are universal laws, it would seem to have huge repercussions.



Obviously a short lived internal debate, followed within one minute by:



I think my response to Todd's statement would also be applicable here. Science presumes universal applicability. I guess we will learn over time whether that is appropriate or not. The "Young Earthers" might want to explore this phenomena and adapt it for use.



Process Theology is not so much my thing. I went to the Wiki -- also known as "the source of all half truths" and did some quick reading. I noticed that one theologian listed as at least friendly to the view is some character name Thomas Jay Oord. I am reading his book "Creation Made Free" and am only a few chapters in, but he seems to be holding to believing that the universe is consistent with a creative God. Not sure if he will explore the area of how God's creative will is expressed throughout the universe.

Would be interested in how Process or Open Theologies would view/impact this area of thought.



"Punny" -- althought I think sometimes it pushes also. But, I thought this was good!

I'm sure when Tom joins again he'll be able to tell ya.

[Billie Goodson]

I'm sure when Tom joins again he'll be able to tell ya.

I completed my blog post that was on this topic. I tagged Tom in the Facebook note that pulls from my blog. Would be interested in his thought on this topic.

If we go back to Wilson's original post -- I don't think anyone has offered any direct contradiction of this hypothesis. Anyone game on that one?

[Dale Cozby]

God can do all that can be done.....but He cannot by His own nature do that which He cannot do. "I can't stop loving you."
God knows all that can be known....but He cannot know that which HE has made unknowable. "Now where did I put your forgiven sins?"
God is everywhere that He can be....what is there beyond God? beyond infinity? but what if there is an end? "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the END."

[Steven Burton]

So how does quantum physics play into this? I seem to understand that scientist seem to at a loss on how things work on a subatomic level.

[Todd Erickson]

"By definition, God cannot be that which is beyond which we can conceive, because we can conceive of something beyond which we can conceive." - peter rollins

[Steven Burton]

And? So know we have A defined. http://xkcd.com/703/ this sums up how I see that quote.

[Todd Erickson]

And? So know we have A defined. http://xkcd.com/703/ this sums up how I see that quote.

Except that I'm not making a tautology.

Any time we say that God IS something that we can conceive of, we have defined God. Any time we are not willing to let go of that definition, we have created an idol.

[Steven Burton]

See now your definition would have been much better than his by far, its simple and to the point. His on the other hand can throw a loop around someone who doesn't look at it through those set of eyes.

[John Kennedy]

I'm glad people are still struggling with this question. When I was a student at Bethany we were arguing about whether God could make a rock so big he couldn't move it. I,and others who wrestled so diligently with that question, would hate to see a bunch of young whippersnappers come along a few years later with some pat answer.

[Hans Deventer]

"By definition, God cannot be that which is beyond which we can conceive, because we can conceive of something beyond which we can conceive." - peter rollins

Because we "cannot", or because we "can"?

[Todd Erickson]

I think his point runs like this:

For a lot of folks, God falls into that "ultimate form" Platonism. He's the highest thing we can conceive.

But if we can conceive Him, it's not really infinite at that point, we've just stretched our minds another step, and if we're not careful, we've made an idol out of a mental image of God. So God then has to be the next step beyond that, whatever it is.

[Charles W Christian]

Here aer some age-old philosophical spins on that:
Can God make a rock too big for God to lift?
Can God create a circular rectangle?
When God sneezes, what do people say in response??? :)

OK, that third one was mine....

Anyway, I will continue to watch the ongoing discussion now.

CWC

[Bill Morrison]

Wilson, I would love to give an intelligent response to your fascinating question, but this stuff makes my head spin. :smile::smilies1722::smile:

BILL

[Steven Burton]

Dr. Timothy Crutcher, gave this idea in our Christian thought class that I thought was interesting. Also it was used in one of the videos mentioned in an earlier thread. What kind of object can be circular but cast a square shadow. Not going to put quotes around it cause I an not for the life of me remember his exact words.

[John Kennedy]

Here aer some age-old philosophical spins on that:
Can God make a rock too big for God to lift?
Can God create a circular rectangle?
When God sneezes, what do people say in response??? :)

OK, that third one was mine....

Anyway, I will continue to watch the ongoing discussion now.

CWC

Well, if God can't make a 'circular rectangle', probably real estate developers can. In Costa Mesa, CA there's a large strip mall called Triangle Square. It's a rectangular building complex bounded by three streets.
This is, you understand, in California. We do stuff like that here. Hearst Castle, up the coast a couple of hundred miles was once described as something God would've done if he'd had the money.

[Todd Erickson]

Get yourself a felt tip pen, like you use for writing on a whiteboard with.

Seen from one end, it's a circle. Hold it the other way, it's a rectangle.

[Steven Burton]

Shine I light on it standing up it caste a shadow of itself and can be rectangular, and maybe we only see shadows of the whole.