The problem: "In fact omnipotence is general makes no sense, because omnipotent beings are powerless to create an insurmountable task." ~ Vagon
The problem as stated makes sense and is a valid concern. However, the Bible declares that all things are possible with God and that all power belongs to Him. These statements (among others) make up the basis for claiming that the God of the Bible is Omnipotent.
However, we must not forget that the Bible also declares that YHWH does not change. Therefore, the philosophical definition of omnipotence (created in the minds of fallible men) does not apply to the Creator of the universe. YHWH is able to do all things that are possible, but there are clearly things that YHWH cannot do.
YHWH cannot change (see Malachi 3:6).
YHWH cannot lie (1 Samuel 15:29).
YHWH cannot cease to exist (Exodus 3:14).
So, the answer to the question, "Can YHWH create a stone so large that He cannot lift it?" is simply, No. YHWH cannot cause Himself to be less than He is, and He is able to do all things. God also cannot make Himself lie or cease to exist ... because doing so would make Him (~God) [not God] and this is impossible. God is a necessary being, all other things are contingent upon Him.
When theists speak of God being Omnipotent, they mean that God is able to do all things within the realm of possibility (this is not limited to human possibility). This definition of Omnipotence is consistent with the revelation of Holy Scripture. To define Omnipotence in a way that is outside of Scripture and then to apply that definition to the Christian worldview is to make a category mistake.
To put it another way, if it can be done, God can do it. He has the power to do all things that are possible while He is still bound by His own nature. The only limits upon God are the limits He has placed upon Himself. He doesn't lie because that is against His nature. He can't cease to exist because He is Existence. He can't fail to be good because He is Good. He can't make Himself ~omnipotent because He is omnipotent.
Happy 4th, Karas!
11 years ago
15 comments:
Thanks for this post, I appreciate the time.
Can we agree that the philosophical definition of omnipotence (created in the minds of fallible men) does not apply to the Creator of the universe. sums up your position?
The problem here is that you have succinctly summed up the limits of God's power in under 2000 words.
If God's word is in the bible, there is no necessity not to outline these limits (as you have done) rather than use the exact same word as that used to describe the "fallible" philosophical concept of omnipotence.
Happy to converse with you on this topic, so know that your time is appreciated as well.
I suppose I would grant that the philosophical definition of omnipotence (created in the minds of fallible men) does not apply to the Creator of the universe does sum up my position. The philosophically defined notion of omnipotence may be contradictory, but the biblically defined notion on an all-powerful deity is not.
And part of the reason that I summed up the limits of God's power in under 2000 words was due to the fact that I wrote this post in 15 minutes because I was pressed for time. I don't think my short post defines the limits of God's power ... I do think it sufficient to show that the philosophical definition and biblical definition of omnipotence are not in agreement, however.
I'm afraid I don't follow your last point: If God's word is in the bible, there is no necessity not to outline these limits (as you have done) rather than use the exact same word as that used to describe the "fallible" philosophical concept of omnipotence.
Could you rephrase it?
Take care.
I think everyone agree with your definition. Basically an omnipotent being is a maximally powerful being can actualize any possible state of affairs.
Actually the philosophical definition of omnipotence is
"S is omnipotent at a time t if and only if S can at t actualize any state of affairs that is not described by counterfactuals about the free acts of others and that is broadly logically possible for someone to actualize, given the same hard past at t and the same true counterfactuals about free acts of others" (William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Page 529.)
Craig would be fully in agreement with your statements here
jrk83 - Let me rephrase. I mean obviously there is the capacity to explain such a limit to omnipotence. For example I readily understood the concept in a short space of time. Instead the bible, or word of God, uses omnipotence rather than say just "Extremely powerful". As it stands omnipotent it is unethical marketing at best and an outright lie at worst.
I prefer to use "maximally powerful"
Vagon,
The understanding I have of Divine Omnipotence is from Scripture ... I'm not sure that your charge is accurate. Many have not tried to understand what Scripture teaches, but simply because the Book is longer than my post doesn't mean that it doesn't contain a lucid explanation.
In fact, the Bible contains much more than just an explanation of God's Power ... much, much more.
In fact, your charge that Instead the bible, or word of God, uses omnipotence rather than say just "Extremely powerful" is, I think, inaccurate. I don't think the word "omnipotent" ever appears in the Bible. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Take care.
Genesis 17:1: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect
Jeremiah 32:27: Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?
Revelation 19:6 Hallelujah! For the (E)Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns.
I believe in Rev 19:6 its used:
"And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth."
(KJV)
MFTs post also shows some synonyms on inferences.
Vagon,
Your reference in Revelation 19:6 is more usually translated "Almighty."
My argument remains that we must consider the terms of the Bible as defined by the Bible when looking at coherence or to see if it is as you say: As it stands omnipotent it is unethical marketing at best and an outright lie at worst.
The biblical use of "Almighty" and "Is there anything too hard for Me?" are consistent with God being "maximally powerful" (as MrFreeThinker suggested), but not with the self-contradictory definition of omnipotence coined and used by philosophers (usually for the purpose of showing Christianity contradictory).
If we define our terms in a contradictory manner prior to evaluating a worldview or belief system that uses them, than we are not actually evaluating that system or view, but are stacking the deck against it.
jrk83 - Suffice to say that I have been taught that KJV is the standard bible to criticise. I consulted Strong's and noted that there were several interpretations for the Greek pantokrator in Rev 19:6. Note that the Latin is no doubt ommipotens.
I will say that, (evidently) while not all bibles use omnipotence to represent god, that religion often disingenuously does. Furthermore the conflicting views of various Christians do not reduce the complications caused by varying translation to god's true word.
In reality the omnipotent god you yourself describe has finite power.
Vagon,
I appreciate the back and forth on this issue.
I understand that certain people have ties to particular translations, and you were right to find the Greek word for a proper analysis to check and see if the translation is proper.
All I am trying to argue is that the term "omnipotent" (which I myself use when describing God) means different things to the philosopher and to the theologian who is faithful to the text. Whether the word is translated "Almighty" or "omnipotent" we still need to see how Christianity and the Bible define that term to see if it is, as you say, disingenuous.
And quite frankly, the views of various Christians (and non-Christians) has no bearing on what Scripture intends to teach. Just because some people have twisted Scripture for their own purpose or due to lack of understanding should not sidetrack us from attempting to see what Scripture says for itself and then evaluate the claims on their own merits.
As I've already argued (and MrFreeThinker seems to second) is that God is the maximally powerful being ... there is nothing that is possible to do that He is not able to do. Therefore, He is the Almighty or One who possesses All Power (omnipotent). Your contention that the definition of omnipotence that is faithful to the biblical definition (at least as I have presented it) is that "In reality the omnipotent god you yourself describe has finite power." But this does not follow.
Just because there are certain things God cannot do (namely, bring about counterfactual situations, like a non-omnipotent omnipotent being, or a non-existent always existing being, etc.) does not mean that this being is not still infinitely powerful. For Him to be infinitely powerful that means He should never reach the end of the things He can do. I'm only finitely powerful, and accordingly there are only a finite number of things I can do. But God is able to perform an infinite number of things ... He can create the universe from nothingness, He could simply create universe after universe to correspond to His infinite knowledge of the limitless possibilities of universe combinations. Just because He can't cease to exist doesn't mean that His power is not infinite. There is no end to His power, even though He has certain limitations based on His own nature (e.g. Aseity).
In fact, the limit that you seem to want to impose upon God is to say that since He can't bring about some particular counterfactual that He therefore is not all powerful. But consider what you are really saying ... the reason God can't make a square circle is because such a thing is nonsensical. A square circle cannot exist because it is impossible by definition. To use the philosophers definition to refute the God of the Bible is simply to play word games by defining the terms to make a contradiction inevitable.
I hope this makes sense ... I'm rather tired as I type this. I look forward to reading your response.
I agree with you that the views of various Christians (and non-Christians) have no bearing on what Scripture intends to teach.. We should look at the message as it was intended.
Unfortunately the reality is we don't and cant know what the original authors intended or what their motivations and sources were.
The problem stems from the fact that our language and morals change where as the bible does not.
Obviously when the KJV was created, omnipotent as a term was fine and yet now we agree its lacking in a literal sense, and there exist several diverse opinions on what it means in a biblical sense.
In the end all you have is various people attempting to manipulate a an impossible concept to suit their agenda, myself included.
Vagon,
I couldn't agree more with your statement that: We should look at the message as it was intended. However, I'm not sure I agree with your next statement: Unfortunately the reality is we don't and cant know what the original authors intended or what their motivations and sources were.
It seems to me that it may be difficult to know the authors intent and motives, it is not impossible if they were telling the truth. If we read the text carefully with the intention, not of superimposing our own ideas and motivations, but to see what the authors meant and intended, then we can get pretty close if not right on (again, as long as they are telling the truth). To say we can't understand their source is to presuppose that the message does not have divine origin, since the book itself seems to claim that it was inspired by God Himself ... if Moses wrote the Pentateuch, for example, he spoke with God on a regular basis according to His own testimony. He wouldn't need another source in addition to this one. Of course, someone who presupposes that God doesn't exist will find this proposition to be incredible and rule it out at the start.
You also ended with a valid point: In the end all you have is various people attempting to manipulate a an impossible concept to suit their agenda, myself included.
Certainly people do manipulate the Bible (re: omnipotence and other things), but do you not agree that some people's agenda is merely to try and understand the meaning of the text as written? I claim this as my motivation, although I am not perfect at it. Certainly, I have ideas that influence how I read the text, but I do try and allow the text to correct my incorrect presuppositions ... like with omnipotence. I have a philosophy degree and became a Christian halfway through earning that degree in college ... certainly it took some time before I could see that my view of omnipotence from my classes was not what the Bible was teaching (since it clearly stated certain things God cannot do).
I agree with much of what you've said and appreciate your willingness to discuss it without resorting to name calling or other such means. I hope you will continue to explore the Bible to see what it says. Surely, some concepts are difficult to grasp, but the major things are easily interpreted.
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him. ~ John 3:36
If the Bible is true, God's wrath remains on all who have broken God's law. Since none of us can say we've never sinned (e.g. lied, stolen, hated, coveted, etc.), we all rightfully have God's wrath upon us. Fortunately, God has made a way to remove His wrath from us by pouring it out on the only sinless One, Jesus Christ. His sacrifice paid the penalty for our sin so we could be reconciled to God. The motive for sending Christ is clear enough ... to save us from our sins.
Take care.
Certainly people do manipulate the Bible (re: omnipotence and other things), but do you not agree that some people's agenda is merely to try and understand the meaning of the text as written? I claim this as my motivation, although I am not perfect at it. Certainly, I have ideas that influence how I read the text, but I do try and allow the text to correct my incorrect presuppositions ... like with omnipotence. I have a philosophy degree and became a Christian halfway through earning that degree in college ... certainly it took some time before I could see that my view of omnipotence from my classes was not what the Bible was teaching (since it clearly stated certain things God cannot do).
I definately agree that some people's agenda is merely to try and understand the meaning of the text as written. I like to think that most people are by nature motivated to be intellectually honest when comes to study (part of why I debate theism at all).
The problem, however, is we are shaped by our society (an excellent book you may have read is Blink by Malcolm Gladwell).
So whereas you presuppose God's word is inherent in the Bible, I presuppose that it has the same value as any religion past or present.
This is where I mean it fits with my agenda. As you studied Philosophy, one of my majors was in Classical Civilisation, so study of the ancient religions is a large part.
I read the works of Homer, Apollodorus and Hesiod to see what they were attempting to do, what motivates them and what lessons I can learn from them, but at no stage am I convinced to believe in their gods.
There is no compelling reason not to apply the same attitude to contemporary religions.
I should point out that I have a fair grounding in the Bible and do agree with the majority of the morals taught in the New Testament. There is always room to learn more though and I am paying more attention to original text these days.
Nevertheless concepts like omnipotence and the parting of the seas are every bit as absurd as throwing lightning bolts.
Vagon,
The Resurrection of Jesus separates Christianity from other religions and their claims. If Jesus was who He said He was (God in the flesh) and He proved it through being raised from the dead, it proves that Christianity is true and all other religions false.
"Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." [Acts 17:30-31]
Post a Comment