Thoughts on God's sovereignty, omniscience and the laws of physics.

[Rescued One]

Did you read the original posts and the early responses? That addresses this same question. I started this thread with a hypothetical wherein a child is killed by a car, and consider if this was God's will. Having someone die without salvation would be a similar situation.
In short, God's "will" has several nuanced aspects to it.

KT

Is God omniscient and all powerful? Does He allow things to happen instead of preventing any sadness? Was Joseph kidnapped and sold into slavery?

Can Satan thwart God's will?

 

[Rescued One]

Yeah, that's it! . . .first mistake I ever made, so glad it's over with!

And back to: Do you see Jesus as harsh in Mk 9:42-48

Jesus is God and NEVER sinned. Your question is off topic. Please stop.

 

[Clare73]

Dodging the question. . .

Do you see Jesus as harsh in Mk 9:42-48?

Jesus is God and NEVER sinned. Your question is off topic. Please stop.

Thanks. . .so that's a "no."

And I submit that if Jesus is not harsh in Mk 9:42-48, my question in post #38 is likewise not harsh.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I hope you realize that this notion implies that God is subject to forces outside himself. The mental picture is that of God coming upon an already existing reality, instead of God being the one that created reality. To me, at least, this amounts to blasphemy. (No I'm not claiming you are blaspheming, but that you haven't thought this through. You present a very capable, but small, god.)

Thanks, Mark. I have thought this through for many years.
The concept of which you speak is called impassibility.

"Impassibility is a theological doctrine that states that God is not affected by pain or pleasure from the actions of other beings. It is often seen as a result of divine aseity, which is the idea that God is independent of any other being."

This is a product of modern theism, which I call "mere theism," which is more theism than Christianity.

The dictionary definition is thus:
1
a : incapable of suffering or of experiencing pain
b : inaccessible to injury
2
: incapable of feeling: impassive

It is right in there with other theistic principles that essentially undo the gospel and revelation of God given to us by Jesus—impassibility, along with things like ultra-sovereignty and hyper-control. These are "mere theist" concepts theologians have placed over Christian concepts. The Mere Theist teaches that everything Jesus and Christianity teaches is subjected to these higher theistic concepts. As a Christian, I see God through the lens of Jesus. Jesus came to show us the Father, and He succeeded! We follow Jesus, not theistic principles.
It is a fascinating study that I would recommend to all — passibility vs Impassibility.

 

[KevinT]

@Mark Quayle made several replies. I'm going to respond to them in one message. Quotes included below are by him unless otherwise specified.

Let me start by saying that the chance that I have successfully arrived at a correct understanding of how God runs His universe is extremely unlikely. So all of this is a bit like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

But I still think there is value in kicking around ideas. If we don't use our God-given brains to try to make sense in the world around us, then we will be like people before the laws of electricity and magnetism were worked out: needlessly confused about why feathers stick to amber.

Notice also, that those of my point-of-view do not deny that man does actually choose, and that his choices are real, with real —even eternal— consequences. We agree completely with those texts that are commonly used to support free will, and do not need to excuse them away, in order to promote God's sovereignty.

I hear you. More on this later.

Once again appealing back to either (both) the definition of GOD and the fact of Omnipotence and Omniscience, one has to logically conclude ...

I see you here starting with a declaration that God is omnipotent and omniscient, and then using this as foundation, deducing what God must or must not be able to do. Neither of these words occur in the Bible, so I will argue that using them will be an opportunity for confusion. A ridiculous example of this is "If God is omnipotent, and He can do anything, then can He make a rock so big that He Himself can not pick it up? If not, why not, since there is no limitation to His power?"

That trap in this question is that omnipotence is a human-made term that is a short-hand for God's great power. But once the term has been created, one might read more into it than can be found in the original Bible texts that were human-summarized into this word.

... one has to logically conclude that indeed every detail is intended to exist and to do what it does. "There is no rogue particle".

I'm going to return to my example of a video game. There are game engines such as Unity, Unreal, Godot and others where I can generate a virtual world that looks increasingly like the real world.

Every particular of the game is subject to the game creator's control. One can change how gravity or light works or even simulate how water behaves.

Everything in this world is 100% deterministic, meaning that there are no "rogue particles." But if I want to, I can introduce random elements into my program. I tell the computer to obtain a random number, and use that to guide the world behavior or physics. And suddenly, unlike the boring repeating image of water above, new waves can appear that I didn't expect and the world seems all the more real.

If I can do this in a world I create, why can't God do that in a world He creates?

But it is illogical to say that God being omniscient could create without causing what he knew was going to fall out. To introduce the notion, then, of randomness, is to attribute substance to a notion that in fact is only "a shortcut to 'I don't know'." If God created, and is omniscient, then there is nothing happening by chance or at random. This has everything to do with the very definition of God. He is the only uncreated creator, and while it is seductive to consider the notion of him creating a principle called 'randomness' or chance because the counter-intuitive does appeal to the soul, it is self-contradictory to say that randomness or chance can produce anything in particular, and everything is particular.

Again, you are starting with God being "omniscient", a term that humans have attributed to God and of which we have no way of independently exploring. I hear you saying that it would be impossible for God to create randomness because it would violate "the very definition of God." I am not familiar with where God has been formally "defined," and I doubt we could understand if He tried to explain it all to us. To go back to my silly example of God and the big rock, I think you are saying that God can NOT make a big rock, and God can likewise NOT create randomness. I think we may have to agree to disagree on this point.

Earlier you said that you agreed that mankind has free will and is able to make choices with eternal consequences, and yet you do not see this conflicting with God's "sovereignty" -- with sovereignty again being a term that I feel has been overloaded with meaning by humans. You might be able to help me see otherwise, but my understanding of the doctrine of "sovereignty" is that every atom and molecule in the universe is following the exact path that God laid out for it, and that every human comprised by those same atoms is likewise following the same exact path God planned out. And thus humans are actually dancing puppets on invisible strings, all manipulated by a predestining God. And thus when Eve ate the fruit in the Garden of Eden, she was doing exactly what God had planned out for her, and every horrible bit of murder and violence that has followed was similarly exactly in accordance to God's will and plans. When God told Eve to not eat the fruit, it was all a sham because she was predestined to eat it. And when God pleaded with Cain to not murder Abel, it was likewise never going to change anything from what He had already foreordained in His sovereignty. It is this logical conclusion from this doctrine that makes me feel it is off base.

For whatever it is worth, those who you term, "'hyper-control' believers", feel the same about those who relegate anything to mere chance.

Mark, I hope my reply has not been offensive. I will state again that I realize that my theory of randomness is likely wrong and that we are both arguing over things over our heads. I am simply trying to find a POSSIBLE solution that releases me from someone who might assert that the ONLY SOLUTION is that everything is predestined.

I hope we can continue as brothers in Christ and agree on other points, even if we disagree on this one.

Best wishes,

Kevin

 

[Clare73]

all of this is a bit like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The only way you can dance on the head is if the point is down. . .???

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
I hope you realize that this notion implies that God is subject to forces outside himself. The mental picture is that of God coming upon an already existing reality, instead of God being the one that created reality. To me, at least, this amounts to blasphemy. (No I'm not claiming you are blaspheming, but that you haven't thought this through. You present a very capable, but small, god.)

Thanks, Mark. I have thought this through for many years.
The concept of which you speak is called impassibility.

"Impassibility is a theological doctrine that states that God is not affected by pain or pleasure from the actions of other beings. It is often seen as a result of divine aseity, which is the idea that God is independent of any other being."

This is a product of modern theism, which I call "mere theism," which is more theism than Christianity.

The dictionary definition is thus:
1
a : incapable of suffering or of experiencing pain
b : inaccessible to injury
2
: incapable of feeling: impassive

It is right in there with other theistic principles that essentially undo the gospel and revelation of God given to us by Jesus—impassibility, along with things like ultra-sovereignty and hyper-control. These are "mere theist" concepts theologians have placed over Christian concepts. The Mere Theist teaches that everything Jesus and Christianity teaches is subjected to these higher theistic concepts. As a Christian, I see God through the lens of Jesus. Jesus came to show us the Father, and He succeeded! We follow Jesus, not theistic principles.
It is a fascinating study that I would recommend to all — passibility vs Impassibility.

Well, no, not quite. What you're talking about and what I'm talking about are both descended logically of his being First of all Causes (the Uncaused Causer) —which is logically the same as Omnipotence (as relates to Creation). Impassibility is suspect in probably most of its renditions, but what I'm talking about is Aseity, plain and simple, to include the fact that he is not subject to anything outside himself, (nor did anything come before him or from outside him, to which he accommodates himself, (though, actually, those (being subject to and accommodating) are one and the same in the end; but I mention it to show how it relates to what we were talking about).)

Impassibility is, I think, usually stated the way it is to give the idea of that part of his nature, perhaps with a modicum of hyperbole —("emphasis for clarity" ). It is, to my mind, anyway, a way to look at his nature that is not of itself quite the truth, but gives a good look at the fact that he is only moved by what he loves or chooses to be moved by. But even that is a very poor way to put it. That he owes nobody anything, and doesn't even owe his creation anything, is probably a better way to put it. He is only influenced by what he put in place to influence him. (Eg, Psalm 106 implies that he [pre]chose Moses for the very purpose of "standing in the gap" between him and the children of Israel, ostensibly for the purpose of talking him out of destroying Israel.)

Anyway, Impassibility, though related, isn't what I was referring to.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The hyper-control theorist says God personally controls the rotation of every electron around every atom in the universe. They say He orchestrates everything. Essentially, the universe is nothing more than the moment-by-moment actualization of the thoughts and mind of God into the spiritual and physical universe. Their theory teaches God is the universe; it is all merely an extension of His will manifested into reality by His omnipotent power.

Do those who believe God absolutely controls absolutely everything fit that description you give of what you call, "Hyper-control theorist"? I don't believe God is the universe. Nobody knows enough about God to come up with, "the universe is nothing more than the moment-by-moment actualization of the thoughts and mind of God into the spiritual and physical universe", not to mention that the statement is a little circular. That statement is of human derivation.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Do those who believe God absolutely controls absolutely everything fit that description you give of what you call, "Hyper-control theorist"? I don't believe God is the universe. Nobody knows enough about God to come up with, "the universe is nothing more than the moment-by-moment actualization of the thoughts and mind of God into the spiritual and physical universe", not to mention that the statement is a little circular. That statement is of human derivation.

Thanks for your response!

 

[KevinT]

Mark Quayle said:
I hope you realize that this notion implies that God is subject to forces outside himself. The mental picture is that of God coming upon an already existing reality, instead of God being the one that created reality. To me, at least, this amounts to blasphemy. (No I'm not claiming you are blaspheming, but that you haven't thought this through. You present a very capable, but small, god.)

No. Think again about the example of the computer game. I, the game creator, make everything. So I am not coming upon an "already existing reality." I then choose to include randomness. Adding randomness does not make me "subject" to an external force, and it would not to God either. And it doesn't limit God in any way. Doesn't make Him one bit "smaller".

DEFINITION OF BLASPHEMY: source
1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God
b : the act of claiming the attributes of a deity
2 irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

Considering if God would be able to install randomness into His creation doesn't fit into the Merriam-Webster definition of "blasphemy."

KT

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Mark Quayle made several replies. I'm going to respond to them in one message. Quotes included below are by him unless otherwise specified.

Let me start by saying that the chance that I have successfully arrived at a correct understanding of how God runs His universe is extremely unlikely. So all of this is a bit like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

But I still think there is value in kicking around ideas. If we don't use our God-given brains to try to make sense in the world around us, then we will be like people before the laws of electricity and magnetism were worked out: needlessly confused about why feathers stick to amber.

There is a lot of value in truth, and even in pointing towards it. Just as an example, my mom asked me once, what is the value in [Reformed Theology] if it doesn't drive a person to obey? Besides the fact that I disagree with the assumption, the truth pointed out to her, that God is the one who enables (not to mention compels) one to obey, is HUGE and points at the unspeakable Grace of God.

I hear you. More on this later.

I see you here starting with a declaration that God is omnipotent and omniscient, and then using this as foundation,
deducing what God must or must not be able to do.

Where did I deduce what God must not be able to do, according to Omnipotence and Omniscience. I don't recall noting such a thing.

Neither of these words occur in the Bible, so I will argue that using them will be an opportunity for confusion. A ridiculous example of this is "If God is omnipotent, and He can do anything, then can He make a rock so big that He Himself can not pick it up? If not, why not, since there is no limitation to His power?"

Is God not Almighty? That is, literally, Omnipotent. Does God not know everything? That is corollary to Almighty. So yeah, he is literally Omniscient.

That trap in this question is that omnipotence is a human-made term that is a short-hand for God's great power.

Well, no. Not "God's great power" —God's TOTAL power. He is not "very strong". He is the Almighty.

But once the term has been created, one might read more into it than can be found in the original Bible texts that were human-summarized into this word.

What one might read into the term is their human mindset. That isn't reason to belittle or skirt around or ignore the fact that he is indeed Omnipotent.

And, just in case you think your example there about a rock to big to move has any relevance to the question of Omnipotence —Since Omnipotence can only be attributed to God, the logically self-contradictory constructions of man's supposed thoughts, words thrown carelessly together, doesn't have any relevance as to what God can and cannot do. That something might appear to mean something to us doesn't mean that it is a valid construct.

I'm going to return to my example of a video game. There are game engines such as Unity, Unreal, Godot and others where I can generate a virtual world that looks increasingly like the real world.

Every particular of the game is subject to the game creator's control. One can change how gravity or light works or even simulate how water behaves.

Everything in this world is 100% deterministic, meaning that there are no "rogue particles." But if I want to, I can introduce random elements into my program.

Well, no, you can't. They only have the appearance of randomness.

I tell the computer to obtain a random number,

Believe it or not, computers cannot do random. That you or I or even another computer may not be able to predict something, doesn't define it to be random.

and use that to guide the world behavior or physics. And suddenly, unlike the boring repeating image of water above, new waves can appear that I didn't expect and the world seems all the more real.

If I can do this in a world I create, why can't God do that in a world He creates?

He can do what you can do, and do it better! See? Already, only 6000 years along and we are attributing caused events to randomness, in our ignorance. But they only look random to us.

But see, this notion of caused randomness is another such logical self-contradiction as produces the ridiculous question whether God can make a rock too big for him to pick up. That has no application to the question of Omnipotence. It is not whether God can do it, but whether the notion of caused randomness is even a valid concept.

To wit: Random, like chance, is a bogus concept. It attributes causality of particular effects to the very thing that is declared to be unable to cause any particular thing. It is self-contradictory. So the notion that God can cause this self-contradictory substitute for, "We don't know", is bogus.

Again, you are starting with God being "omniscient", a term that humans have attributed to God and of which we have no way of independently exploring. I hear you saying that it would be impossible for God to create randomness because it would violate "the very definition of God."

It may be I'm wrong, here, but I don't think I said it would be impossible for God to create randomness. That formulation assumes substance to the concept 'randomness' which I do not, thereby limiting God's ability. Instead, I mean that randomness is self-contradictory nonsense, so whether God can or cannot make it is a nonsense question.

I am not familiar with where God has been formally "defined," and I doubt we could understand if He tried to explain it all to us. To go back to my silly example of God and the big rock, I think you are saying that God can NOT make a big rock, and God can likewise NOT create randomness. I think we may have to agree to disagree on this point.

Earlier you said that you agreed that mankind has free will

Can you cite this? I don't remember saying that to you. What I do agree with is the man has choice. In the past I have said that I believe in free will, but only as a concession to the fact that we choose, and that our choices are real, with real —even eternal— consequences. I will also note that @Clare73 has a valid definition, (which escapes me at the moment), though I don't care much for one or two of the words in it that some will take to imply invalid notions.

and is able to make choices with eternal consequences, and yet you do not see this conflicting with God's "sovereignty" -- with sovereignty again being a term that I feel has been overloaded with meaning by humans. You might be able to help me see otherwise, but my understanding of the doctrine of "sovereignty" is that every atom and molecule in the universe is following the exact path that God laid out for it, and that every human comprised by those same atoms is likewise following the same exact path God planned out. And thus humans are actually dancing puppets on invisible strings, all manipulated by a predestining God. And thus when Eve ate the fruit in the Garden of Eden, she was doing exactly what God had planned out for her, and every horrible bit of murder and violence that has followed was similarly exactly in accordance to God's will and plans. When God told Eve to not eat the fruit, it was all a sham because she was predestined to eat it. And when God pleaded with Cain to not murder Abel, it was likewise never going to change anything from what He had already foreordained in His sovereignty. It is this logical conclusion from this doctrine that makes me feel it is off base.

For whatever it is worth to you, "Sovereignty" is held widely by many denominations as true and valid. I've even heard the poetic but self-contradictory statement by someone who claims to Arminianism but strikes me as more a Pelagian, "There's nothing more sovereign that God can do, than to give up some of his sovereignty [to humanity]!" So the exact meaning or use of the word varies widely.

As to what I think, you are both correct and incorrect. He does have every minutest detail 'in hand' (which might explain why Scientists appeal to randomness in their descriptions of the actions of particles —the fact they can't predict something doesn't mean it is 'randomly' caused). But lately I've started to hear from the Reformed, a certain backing away from the notion that God gives his attention to every detail at once, instead of, (variously), 1. setting some things on their course, and letting them continue more-or-less naturally without his particular attention (thus, his direct intervention is 'miracle'); or 2. there actually being some semblance of randomness or chance that God caused.

Mark, I hope my reply has not been offensive. I will state again that I realize that my theory of randomness is likely wrong and that we are both arguing over things over our heads. I am simply trying to find a POSSIBLE solution that releases me from someone who might assert that the ONLY SOLUTION is that everything is predestined.

It has not been offensive, and thank you for your attitude. It's a breath of fresh air. Even though I am pretty sure as to what is logical and what is not, God can (and will) show me for the fool I am.

I hope we can continue as brothers in Christ and agree on other points, even if we disagree on this one.

Ha! I got four blood brothers and whole passel of brothers in the Lord, and a couple that aren't in the Lord, that I consider brothers, (for whom I pray daily and for whom I would die), and I continue with them whether I mean to or not. Because they are my brothers. But my 'spirit' tells me you are my brother, and I expect you and I will have a great good laugh when we see the Truth for who He is. You don't strike me as someone who takes himself too seriously. I just hope you see I am, well, if not right, exactly, that I've got a good point. But, most of what any human says as though it is the end of truth, is really just "a way to look at things", whether they know it or not.

Best wishes,

Kevin

 

[SavedByGrace3]

After many years of debate, counseling, study, and writing, I concluded that the "General Attributes of God" as defined by theology harms believers and can be counterproductive to the faith and the believer's walk. Almost without exception, when people have problems with their faith and walk, it is because of wrong knowledge about God and His Word. I spoke with many people having issues with God and their walk with God. Many wondered why God was mad at them. Why did He not listen to their prayers? Why did He not talk to them? Why did He not seem real? After many years in their walk, some confessed that they had never really felt God's presence or led by Him. They did not understand why. Why? Almost without exception, I found they were trapped by wrong knowledge about God. They held many of the concepts described by God's general attributes (GAG). Very often, they had a good understanding of God's nature: love, faithfulness, and mercy, but in most cases, when the character and nature of God contradicted one or more of God's general attributes of God... the believer failed. The teaching about the GAG with their intellectual, theological backing would overrule God's nature and His Word. They could not escape from a lifetime of bondage under the "omni-factors."
For example, many believers are trapped by the theistic principles of "control" and "sovereignty." It is interesting to note that neither of these words is found in the KJV of the scriptures.

Note: The word control is found in a couple of versions, but they seem to counter what is commonly taught about "who" is in control:
1 John 5:19
(GW) We know that we are from God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.
(ISV) We know that we are from God and that the whole world lies under the control of the evil one.

But this is not the point of this post. If you are suffering from many doubts, fears, and a general lack of faith, consider that you may be ensnared by some of these false, theological ideas. They are often counterproductive to your faith and your knowledge of God that Jesus gave us. He has shown us the Father. When you see Jesus, you see the Father. If your experience in life does not match up with the experience of those who walked and followed Jesus... consider these thoughts.
Lastly, faith comes by revelation and revelation by the spoken word of Christ. If your belief system is filled with words invented by theologians, consider this the problem. Your faith is directly proportional to the amount of Christ's Word you have built into your spirit. If you are filled with words that are not even in scripture, much less the words of Christ.... then there is an issue there. If these words are the fundamental and controlling words of your faith and walk... what do you expect is going to happen?
I do not argue this issue with believers. As weak as mere theism is and a poor substitute for scriptural faith, for some people, it is all they have. I hesitate to pull this rug out from under them. They are entrenched in this mindset, and thrusting them out of it before they are ready could do more damage than help. It is the kind of thing that takes time. Eventually, life will catch up with them, forcing them to either crumble under the weight of the error or get the courage and strength to question it. They are saved... of course. But their lives are far from what God wants for them. Worse, they are missing the truth about God, who He is, and the sweet fellowship they could have.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If "God is in control of everything," as some suggest, then we must resolve that God scripted out this drama that we call "history" before He laid the first stone of creation. For all time, He has been performing the function of an eternal puppet master. He has written all the scenes, is acting all the parts, controlling all the props, and directing all the acts. Oh yes, do not forget. He is also the janitor who has to clean up the messes, which, by the way, He must have also made. In the final act, He plunges the antagonists (boo, hiss) to their eternal demise, drags the chosen into heaven, writes Himself in as the hero (bravo!), and ultimately applauds His performance and production. (Angels praise and worship on cue! )

Cute. But the sarcasm is a bit misplaced. I don't want to jump logical steps, but I find myself needing to ask, "Puppetry vs libertarian free will"??? Is that really all there is to this question? Write your scenario, make it sound how you like, but in the end, did not God do this? There was nothing but him, in the beginning, so why do we think we add anything to the equation? Our descriptions, in the end, drawn on human conceptions, always fall short.

You, like so many others, seem to think that we can hold God to some standard, as though there was one beyond him.

 

[Clare73]

There is a lot of value in truth, and even in pointing towards it. Just as an example, my mom asked me once, what is the value in [Reformed Theology] if it doesn't drive a person to obey? Besides the fact that I disagree with the assumption, the truth pointed out to her, that God is the one who enables (not to mention compels) one to obey, is HUGE and points at the unspeakable Grace of God.
Where did I deduce what God must not be able to do, according to Omnipotence and Omniscience. I don't recall noting such a thing.
Is God not Almighty? That is, literally, Omnipotent. Does God not know everything? That is corollary to Almighty. So yeah, he is literally Omniscient.

Well, no. Not "God's great power" —God's TOTAL power. He is not "very strong". He is the Almighty.

What one might read into the term is their human mindset. That isn't reason to belittle or skirt around or ignore the fact that he is indeed Omnipotent.

And, just in case you think your example there about a rock to big to move has any relevance to the question of Omnipotence —Since Omnipotence can only be attributed to God, the logically self-contradictory constructions of man's supposed thoughts, words thrown carelessly together, doesn't have any relevance as to what God can and cannot do. That something might appear to mean something to us doesn't mean that it is a valid construct.

Well, no, you can't. They only have the appearance of randomness.

Believe it or not, computers cannot do random. That you or I or even another computer may not be able to predict something, doesn't define it to be random.

He can do what you can do, and do it better! See? Already, only 6000 years along and we are attributing caused events to randomness, in our ignorance. But they only look random to us.

But see, this notion of caused randomness is another such logical self-contradiction as produces the ridiculous question whether God can make a rock too big for him to pick up. That has no application to the question of Omnipotence. It is not whether God can do it, but whether the notion of caused randomness is even a valid concept.

To wit: Random, like chance, is a bogus concept. It attributes causality of particular effects to the very thing that is declared to be unable to cause any particular thing. It is self-contradictory. So the notion that God can cause this self-contradictory substitute for, "We don't know", is bogus.


It may be I'm wrong, here, but I don't think I said it would be impossible for God to create randomness. That formulation assumes substance to the concept 'randomness' which I do not, thereby limiting God's ability. Instead, I mean that randomness is self-contradictory nonsense, so whether God can or cannot make it is a nonsense question.

Can you cite this? I don't remember saying that to you. What I do agree with is the man has choice. In the past I have said that I believe in free will, but only as a concession to the fact that we choose, and that our choices are real, with real —even eternal— consequences. I will also note that @Clare73 has a valid definition, (which escapes me at the moment), though I don't care much for one or two of the words in it that some will take to imply invalid notions.

In regard to fallen man, would that be: Free will is the power to choose, without external force or constraint, what one prefers.

As distinct from Adam who had the power to make all moral choices, including to be sinless, which power we do not have.

Feel free to clean it up for me.

For whatever it is worth to you, "Sovereignty" is held widely by many denominations as true and valid. I've even heard the poetic but self-contradictory statement by someone who claims to Arminianism but strikes me as more a Pelagian, "There's nothing more sovereign that God can do, than to give up some of his sovereignty [to humanity]!" So the exact meaning or use of the word varies widely.

There's a contradiction of terms in there somewhere.

 

[KevinT]

Where did I deduce what God must not be able to do, according to Omnipotence and Omniscience. I don't recall noting such a thing.

Is God not Almighty? That is, literally, Omnipotent.

Yes, God does declare Himself to be the Almighty many times in scriptures. He is declaring that He has absolute power. Here is the dictionary definition for the English word Almighty.

Merriam Webster Dictionary

almighty adjective​

1 often capitalized : having absolute power over all
AlmightyGod

2 a : relatively unlimited in power
an almighty board of directors
b: having or regarded as having great power or importance
the almighty dollar
3 informal : mighty —used as an intensive
an almighty shock

But to take God's claim of having "all the might", all the power, or being "Almighty" should not then be extended mean that He Himself is limited in how He may choose to make His universe. I feel that the word "Omnipotence" adds additional meanings beyond when God declares Himself to be almighty. God can not both give people free will AND have them do everything He wants them to. Jesus Himself found that the Father was not able to fulfill His request to bypass the crucifixion.

Matt 26:39 He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”

Does God not know everything? That is corollary to Almighty. So yeah, he is literally Omniscient.

You appear to have taken God's claim of being Almighty and extended it into something He never said. He said "I have all the power." He didn't say "I have all the knowledge." You may see that the two are the same, but I do not. If one says that God has all the knowledge, then the next question is, well, does He know where a particular atom will be 1 septillion years into the future? And if He does know that, then obviously we live in a mechanistic, deterministic universe wherein the concept of free will is just an illusion. But again, God's said He had all the power, and He didn't say these other corollaries that follow after we declare Him to be "Omniscient"

And, just in case you think your example there about a rock to big to move has any relevance to the question of Omnipotence —Since Omnipotence can only be attributed to God, ...

I'm going to replace "Omnipotence" with "Almighty", since that is something we can agree on.

the logically self-contradictory constructions of man's supposed thoughts, words thrown carelessly together, doesn't have any relevance as to what God can and cannot do. That something might appear to mean something to us doesn't mean that it is a valid construct.

I have read this sentence several times and I don't completely get your point. To break it down:

1. Man's thoughts might not actually be his thoughts. They are just "supposed thoughts."
2. Man's thoughts are logically self-contradictory. This is an assertion on your point, but you don't give evidence of this. If you are referring to my proposed theory, I have yet to be convinced that it is not logically self-consistent.
3. The supposed thoughts of man are carelessly thrown together. This description of "careless" implies an understanding of intent which would need to be justified.
4. And most importantly, I agree with this point, that mankind's opinions on the ability of God has no impact on God's actual ability. I fully agree! If He wants to include randomness into His universe, He can certainly do that!
5. Just because something seems a particular way to mankind, doesn't mean this reflects God's reality. I agree.

Well, no, you can't. They only have the appearance of randomness.

Believe it or not, computers cannot do random. That you or I or even another computer may not be able to predict something, doesn't define it to be random.

I am very familiar with the workings of computers. You are correct that they are deterministic machines that would only appear to have randomness. But notice that I said "obtain a random number" when discussing my use in a virtual computer-generated world. I didn't say what the origin of that random number would be. On my old Commodore 64 back in the 1980's, I could ask for $random() and get back a number. But when graphed on the screen, it quickly became apparent that there was a repeating pattern. It was giving me a pseudorandom number, and poor one at that. Modern computers do better, but it's still not perfect. This has become an important area of research in our modern world of cryptography. To obtain a truly random number, one may pull from the physical universe around us, sometimes with the timing of interactions between the computer and the user, other times using elements of radioactive decay or quantum measurements. [EDIT: adding reference to a source where a better random number can be obtained via the internet here].

One could argue that to God, these "random" elements from the universe are not random to Him, and I could buy that. But my point is that just as I as a computer programmer am able to find a source of randomness from my surrounding universe, God Himself may also be able to find source of randomness. We don't know the all attributes of God the Father -- how He exists, what the nature of His existence is, whether He "lives" in some other realm etc etc. Many feel that He exists outside our space-time continuum, and we have zero understanding of what or how that would work. But it is not a far reach to imagine that the Supreme Being of our universe would have access to a source of randomness. So say that He could NOT have such a source seems a limitation on God's almighty power.

But see, this notion of caused randomness is another such logical self-contradiction as produces the ridiculous question whether God can make a rock too big for him to pick up. That has no application to the question of Omnipotence. It is not whether God can do it, but whether the notion of caused randomness is even a valid concept.

I'm not following you here at all. I don't see how randomness is logically self-contradictory unless I buy into your view that God is Almighty, therefore God knows everything, therefore He can NOT having anything that He does NOT know. So there is a contradiction, but it is between your view and mine, not a matter of being logically internally inconsistent with what I am presenting.

To wit: Random, like chance, is a bogus concept. It attributes causality of particular effects to the very thing that is declared to be unable to cause any particular thing. It is self-contradictory. So the notion that God can cause this self-contradictory substitute for, "We don't know", is bogus.

Again, I am having a hard time unwinding this statement logically. I'll again try to break it down.

1. Randomness is a bogus concept. This is an assertion that you are going to demonstrate proof of.
2. Saying that something is "random" is to describe a cause-and-effect relationship wherein the "causer" is declared to be unable to actually be a causer. ?? I am not following your logic at all in this sentence. Sorry.

It may be I'm wrong, here, but I don't think I said it would be impossible for God to create randomness. That formulation assumes substance to the concept 'randomness' which I do not, thereby limiting God's ability. Instead, I mean that randomness is self-contradictory nonsense, so whether God can or cannot make it is a nonsense question.

Perhaps we are talking past each other. But it seems to me that you ARE, even in this post, saying that it is "impossible for God to create randomness." You are stating that it is logically internally inconsistent, as I replied to above.

KevinT said:
I am not familiar with where God has been formally "defined," and I doubt we could understand if He tried to explain it all to us.

Can you cite this? I don't remember saying that to you.

It was in post #54 of this thread. You said:

To introduce the notion, then, of randomness, is to attribute substance to a notion that in fact is only "a shortcut to 'I don't know'." If God created, and is omniscient, then there is nothing happening by chance or at random. This has everything to do with the very definition of God.

What I do agree with is the man has choice. In the past I have said that I believe in free will, but only as a concession to the fact that we choose, and that our choices are real, with real —even eternal— consequences.

We agree!

I will also note that @Clare73 has a valid definition, (which escapes me at the moment), though I don't care much for one or two of the words in it that some will take to imply invalid notions.

I can't reason or have a reasonable discussion with Clare73 so have taken to ignoring their posts. Sorry.

For whatever it is worth to you, "Sovereignty" is held widely by many denominations as true and valid. I've even heard the poetic but self-contradictory statement by someone who claims to Arminianism but strikes me as more a Pelagian, "There's nothing more sovereign that God can do, than to give up some of his sovereignty [to humanity]!" So the exact meaning or use of the word varies widely.

Well, as long as the majority of Christians believe it, it must be true. By the way, do you honor the authority of Pope Francis? The vast majority of Christians do.

As to what I think, you are both correct and incorrect. He does have every minutest detail 'in hand' (which might explain why Scientists appeal to randomness in their descriptions of the actions of particles —the fact they can't predict something doesn't mean it is 'randomly' caused).

The idea, in the world of quantum mechanics, that the world continues in an orderly fashion regardless of whether we humans know what is going on or not, is the concept of "realism." The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (the most commonly encountered explanation) does NOT include realism. Instead, it teaches that there is a cloud of probability that collapses only upon a measurement. Albert Einstein disagree with this, leading to his asking Bohr, "Do you really believe the moon doesn't exist when you are looking at it?" De Broglie-Bohm theory does allow for a deterministic, albiet nonlocal, particles. But this is interpretation has been sidelined.

But my point is, that God runs this universe by His rules. And these rules are repeatable and predictable. And scientists have gone to great lengths to study them, so there is value in understanding what they have discovered.

But lately I've started to hear from the Reformed, a certain backing away from the notion that God gives his attention to every detail at once, instead of, (variously), 1. setting some things on their course, and letting them continue more-or-less naturally without his particular attention (thus, his direct intervention is 'miracle'); or 2. there actually being some semblance of randomness or chance that God caused.

Maybe we can find common ground here.

You don't strike me as someone who takes himself too seriously. I just hope you see I am, well, if not right, exactly, that I've got a good point. But, most of what any human says as though it is the end of truth, is really just "a way to look at things", whether they know it or not.

I try to keep myself in check and not take myself too seriously. But I can get wound up at times, and I have to pray for God to help me calm down. Ha!

Best wishes,

Kevin

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Useless to discuss this. The differences are deep and fundamental. Much of the discussion is superficial and non-productive. I doubt anyone will change their mind. You should not take a counterfeit dollar from a man unless he has a dollar to replace it. IOWs don't strip away what faith someone has, as weak as it may be, unless they have something to grab hold of when it is gone. People are just not going to have that via an online discussion. I have found that when you want to build a better house, it is better to start from scratch than repair/replace the old one. Sometimes, people must reach the end of their faith rope before they will be willing to let loose of that old defective rope/building. But God is good and will open eyes that are willing to seek. But one has to be honest and open for that to happen. It is excessively difficult for people to admit they were wrong until they have traveled down the wrong road for a long time. Some never do. Pride of life and all.

 

[KevinT]

Lastly, faith comes by revelation and revelation by the spoken word of Christ. If your belief system is filled with words invented by theologians, consider this the problem. Your faith is directly proportional to the amount of Christ's Word you have built into your spirit. If you are filled with words that are not even in scripture, much less the words of Christ.... then there is an issue there. If these words are the fundamental and controlling words of your faith and walk... what do you expect is going to happen?

I like your entire post.

KT

 

[KevinT]

Useless to discuss this. The differences are deep and fundamental. Much of the discussion is superficial and non-productive. I doubt anyone will change their mind. You should not take a counterfeit dollar from a man unless he has a dollar to replace it. IOWs don't strip away what faith someone has, as weak as it may be, unless they have something to grab hold of when it is gone. People are just not going to have that via an online discussion. I have found that when you want to build a better house, it is better to start from scratch than repair/replace the old one. Sometimes, people must reach the end of their faith rope before they will be willing to let loose of that old defective rope/building. But God is good and will open eyes that are willing to seek. But one has to be honest and open for that to happen. It is excessively difficult for people to admit they were wrong until they have traveled down the wrong road for a long time. Some never do. Pride of life and all.

Are you writing this to me or someone else? If to me, can you remind me of the motivation?

KT

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Are you writing this to me or someone else? If to me, can you remind me of the motivation?

KT

Not to you. You seem to be in the right mind on this matter. It is good to find brothers in agreement!
The motivation is, after following a path, sometimes after years, concluding that it is not taking you to where the map says you should be. It is time for an inventory and some seeking. Not doubting or questioning but seeking.
Thanks for the thread. Very good.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No. Think again about the example of the computer game. I, the game creator, make everything. So I am not coming upon an "already existing reality." I then choose to include randomness. Adding randomness does not make me "subject" to an external force, and it would not to God either.

But your parallel path here doesn't work. There IS no such thing as true randomness —you can't add it, and God has no use for such notions. It is only a human notion, from millennia of use of this substitute for mere, "I don't know."

Also, your use of the computer, to include variables you introduce into the programming, are still all according to principles operating quite outside yourself. God is not limited to, nor does he owe any obeisance to, any principles from outside himself.

And it doesn't limit God in any way. Doesn't make Him one bit "smaller".

Considering if God would be able to install randomness into His creation doesn't fit into the Merriam-Webster definition of "blasphemy."

KT

To repeat, I'm not saying you are blaspheming. I'm saying you haven't pursued to the logical end of what you claim to believe here.