God's Plan & The Flood

Gene Parmesan

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2017
695
547
Earth
✟36,853.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I think your response is largely consistent and is helpful for me to understand your point of view. So thank you for that.
Doesn't God's omnipotence mean He can anything? No, I don't think so. God can do anything that is logically possible for Him to do. And He can do anything that corresponds to His nature as the "Greatest Possible Being" that we see described in the Bible. But Scripture tells us God cannot lie, He cannot be unfaithful to Himself, He cannot tempt Man to evil, and so on; there are things God cannot do. Creating a world where fewer than the very maximum who could freely come to know and love Him actually do, would contravene His good and loving divine nature, which is impossible.
I find this part about the things God cannot do interesting. We often point to the logical and orderly nature of Earth as something that points to a creator. If God is bound by rules that He himself cannot break, is that evidence for something beyond God?
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I find this part about the things God cannot do interesting. We often point to the logical and orderly nature of Earth as something that points to a creator. If God is bound by rules that He himself cannot break, is that evidence for something beyond God?

As a Christian, I believe logic extends from God, it is a manifestation of God's rational nature. Saying, then, that God is constrained by logic is to say He is constrained by Himself.

I'm glad to have been able to offer you a consistent perspective.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Gene Parmesan
Upvote 0

Gene Parmesan

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2017
695
547
Earth
✟36,853.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
As a Christian, I believe logic extends from God, it is a manifestation of God's rational nature. Saying, then, that God is constrained by logic is to say He is constrained by Himself.

I'm glad to have been able to offer you a consistent perspective.
So are there things He is restricted from doing or is it rather He simply chooses not to? Tempting man to do evil, for example.
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
So are there things He is restricted from doing or is it rather He simply chooses not to? Tempting man to do evil, for example.

He is restricted by His own nature from certain things, like a shark is restricted by its nature from riding a bicycle.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Gene Parmesan
Upvote 0

Gene Parmesan

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2017
695
547
Earth
✟36,853.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
He is restricted by His own nature from certain things, like a shark is restricted by its nature from riding a bicycle.
A shark is restricted by the natural laws God created, right? So that makes sense. But if it's like that for God, then by what laws is He restricted from doing anything? His own laws? I might assign to myself a moral code, but I could theoretically break that (sometimes I do). Where do these restrictions on God truly come from, if it's not just His choosing to remain logically consistent?
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
His restrictions are imposed by His own nature. God must be who He is; He cannot be otherwise. In this respect, He is like the shark whose nature prevents it from riding a bicycle. In God's case, though, His nature exists as a necessity of His own being, rather than conferred upon Him by some external power.
 
Upvote 0

Gene Parmesan

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2017
695
547
Earth
✟36,853.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
His restrictions are imposed by His own nature. God must be who He is; He cannot be otherwise. In this respect, He is like the shark whose nature prevents it from riding a bicycle. In God's case, though, His nature exists as a necessity of His own being, rather than conferred upon Him by some external power.
I know sharks don't choose their own nature. They are helpless to receive their nature via an intelligent design, right? Did God design His own nature? Or was He imbued with this nature some other way?

I'll continue to ask so long as you continue to answer in a way that suggests you know the answer, because I genuinely am curious. But you are more than welcome to provide an "I don't know." I sure don't.
 
Upvote 0

Psalm 27

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2020
1,071
512
Uk
✟114,864.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Yes, that is fair. The Lord regretted that He had made humankind and He intervened to correct things. He must have not foreseen what would happen. Or if He did, He lacked the ability or the desire to create humanity in a way where the flood would be unnecessary.
Free will
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Did God design His own nature? Or was He imbued with this nature some other way?

The Christian view of God is that He always existed as a necessity of His own nature. It is necessary to being God that He has always been just as He is: uncaused, changeless, perfect in His existence and qualities, existing necessarily, omnipotent, etc.

Did God at one point choose to be as He is? Christian philosophers generally would say, "No," I think. God, Christians believe, is perfect. If God chose to be perfect, however, "perfection" would be an idea, a quality of being, to which He was attaining at the moment He chose it. Such a circumstance would rule out God as God. By definition, God is perfect, and in a way not dependent merely upon God's choosing, but essentially, that is, again, necessarily. As well, God, in the Christian conception of Him, is The Locus of all perfection. If He can attain to perfection, however, then we are talking about a being who is not God.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gene Parmesan

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2017
695
547
Earth
✟36,853.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The Christian view of God is that He always existed as a necessity of His own nature. It is necessary to being God that He has always been just as He is: uncaused, changeless, perfect in His existence and qualities, existing necessarily, omnipotent, etc.

Did God at one point choose to be as He is? Christian philosophers generally would say, "No," I think. God, Christians believe, is perfect. If God chose to be perfect, however, "perfection" would be an idea, a quality of being, to which He was attaining at the moment He chose it. Such a circumstance would rule out God as God. By definition, God is perfect, and in a way not dependent merely upon God's choosing, but essentially, that is, again, necessarily. As well, God, in the Christian conception of Him, is The Locus of all perfection. If He can attain to perfection, however, then we are talking about a being who is not God.
Does God have free will?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Yes, but constrained by His nature, which is to say, He can freely choose among the range of possibilities afforded by His own nature. This is indicated in the Bible when it says God does whatever He pleases but also that He cannot lie or be unfaithful to Himself, etc.
 
Upvote 0

Gene Parmesan

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2017
695
547
Earth
✟36,853.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yes, but constrained by His nature, which is to say, He can freely choose among the range of possibilities afforded by His own nature. This is indicated in the Bible when it says God does whatever He pleases but also that He cannot lie or be unfaithful to Himself, etc.
I'm told that the reason we can choose evil or choose God is that we have free will. Free will is the ability to choose between right and wrong, right? It sounds like God doesn't have free will, according to your description of God.
 
Upvote 0

mmarco

Active Member
Aug 7, 2019
232
83
64
Roma
✟54,312.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I'm told that the reason we can choose evil or choose God is that we have free will. Free will is the ability to choose between right and wrong, right? It sounds like God doesn't have free will, according to your description of God.
God does have free will; He is absolutely free and He is the source of all existing freedom.
The meaning of the sentences such as "God cannot lie", "God cannot sin" etc. is that it will never happen that God lies, God sins etc. because God will never want to lie sin etc.
A sentence like "God can sin" is simply nonsensical because the concept of sin incompatible with the concept of God. Therefore, sentences like "God cannot sin" do not express a limitation of God, but they express the logical incoherence of the opposite sentences (i.e. God can sin).
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I'm told that the reason we can choose evil or choose God is that we have free will. Free will is the ability to choose between right and wrong, right? It sounds like God doesn't have free will, according to your description of God.

I don't know that free will is possible only in matters related to morality. Why would you think free will pertains only to moral choices?

No one has perfect free will, as far as I can see. By this I mean, no one has the sort of free will that is utterly unbounded by anything such that all possible choices are always open to the chooser. Like the shark who can't, by virtue of its nature, ride a bicycle (or even think or desire to do so), I can't, by virtue of my finite human nature, choose to be omniscient or omnipresent, as God is. My human nature removes such things as real options of choice for me. Instead, as far as I can tell, human free will is of the soft libertarian sort, where there are some genuinely free and real choices that we can make. However, as we make them, the momentum of our choices over time becomes controlling, moving us in a very particular direction quite apart from conscious, free choice. This is illustrated in the lives of those who become addicted to various things, or develop powerful prejudices, or form strong habits.

I should clarify that what I mean by "free will" is "the ability to have done otherwise." This capacity is at the heart of personal responsibility - particularly in the realm of moral choices. No one would say I am responsible for my natural, in-born eye color, or height. These things could not have been, by virtue of my choosing, other than they are by nature. In contrast, if I reject God, I do so always in tandem with the option to not reject Him. Inasmuch as I could have accepted God, my choice to reject Him is a free one.

This might, though, be getting into the weeds a bit...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The meaning of the sentences such as "God cannot lie", "God cannot sin" etc. is that it will never happen that God lies, God sins etc. because God will never want to lie sin etc.

Why will God never want to sin?

A sentence like "God can sin" is simply nonsensical because the concept of sin incompatible with the concept of God.

But isn't this to say, essentially, that sin is something God cannot do? It sounds like you're making here a distinction without a difference.

Therefore, sentences like "God cannot sin" do not express a limitation of God, but they express the logical incoherence of the opposite sentences (i.e. God can sin).

??? It is one thing to say, "God will not sin"; it is quite another to say, "God cannot sin."

If God does not ever want to sin, like a lion does not ever want to eat a chocolate cake, is this not because of the nature of who He is? The lion does not ever want to eat chocolate cake, only antelope, and zebra, and such like, because, in its essential nature, it is a meat-eater. Likewise, God does not ever want to sin because, in His essential nature, He is perfectly holy, righteous and just. Can you explain how your view concretely and reasonably diverges from this one? As you've stated it so far, I don't see that it does...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mmarco

Active Member
Aug 7, 2019
232
83
64
Roma
✟54,312.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
??? It is one thing to say, "God will not sin"; it is quite another to say, "God cannot sin."

No it isn't; let me give you an analogy; suppose you are talking about a great tennis champion who is about to play a match against a dud; you could say "he cannot lose!".
Saying that, you are not ascribing a limitation of the champion, but, on the contrary, you are praising his skill.

If God does not ever want to sin, like a lion does not ever want to eat a chocolate cake, is this not because of the nature of who He is?
I think that your analogy between God and a lion is nonsensical and misleading.
A lion does not have free will.
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
No it isn't; let me give you an analogy; suppose you are talking about a great tennis champion who is about to play a match against a dud; you could say "he cannot lose!".
Saying that, you are not ascribing a limitation of the champion, but, on the contrary, you are praising his skill.

But this analogy makes a serious category error. While a tennis champion may not lose to a tennis "dud," he has not always possessed his skill as a tennis champion, but has developed it over time, becoming champion through effort and persistence. This is not the case with God. He is not perfect as a result of a process of development. Not in the Christian conception of God, anyway. God is perfect as a necessity of His nature. If God has ever not been perfect, He is not truly God. By definition, God must always have been perfect.

What's more, the tennis champion could suffer a freak twisted ankle, or torn knee tendon, he could trip and fracture his wrist and have to forfeit the game as a result. No such thing could ever happen with God. Being perfect, He has no weaknesses, no susceptibilities to anything at all. As a result, He never needs to "play against" any other power to establish the supremacy of His own.

In any case, what you're proposing is a sort of false dichotomy: Either we are praising God's infinite characteristics or we are limiting Him. But why can't we do both, as it is appropriate to do so? I can praise God's unique and infinite perfections without reservation while acknowledging, as Scripture does, that there are things He cannot - not merely will not - do. The former does not negate the latter, or vice versa, as far as I can see, your tennis analogy notwithstanding.

I think that your analogy between God and a lion is nonsensical and misleading.
A lion does not have free will.

But my point wasn't to the matter of the freedom of the lion's will but to the constraints of its essential nature. In this respect, it is possible to draw a parallel to God, who also exists under the constraints of His own holy, perfect nature.
 
Upvote 0

mmarco

Active Member
Aug 7, 2019
232
83
64
Roma
✟54,312.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
But this analogy makes a serious category error. While a tennis champion may not lose to a tennis "dud," he has not always possessed his skill as a tennis champion, but has developed it over time, becoming champion through effort and persistence.
No it doesn't. In fact I was just pointing out that the sentence "God cannot sin" is not to be interpreted as the declaration of a limitation of God, but as a praise of His greatness.
This was the meaning of my analogy. Your comment about the fact that the tennis player has not always possessed his skill is totally irrilevant.



But my point wasn't to the matter of the freedom of the lion's will but to the constraints of its essential nature. In this respect, it is possible to draw a parallel to God, who also exists under the constraints of His own holy, perfect nature.
What you have just written confirms exactly my previous objection about the nonsensical analogy you made.
God has no constraints and He is absolutely free.
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
No it doesn't. In fact I was just pointing out that the sentence "God cannot sin" is not to be interpreted as the declaration of a limitation of God, but as a praise of His greatness.

I still don't see why these things can't both be the case at the same time. It seems to me that they are. When I say, "God is perfectly holy and cannot sin," I am both extolling one of His virtues and describing an essential (and necessarily limiting) feature of His nature. Acknowledging the latter doesn't seem to me to diminish the former.

This was the meaning of my analogy. Your comment about the fact that the tennis player has not always possessed his skill is totally irrilevant.

It isn't irrelevant in pointing out the problem with drawing parallels between things in entirely different categories. It can be challenging to do so properly, as I illustrated from your analogy.

What you have just written confirms exactly my previous objection about the nonsensical analogy you made.
God has no constraints and He is absolutely free.

The statement, "God is absolutely free," is, to me, an obviously nonsensical assertion. Immediately, I think, can God, then, be imperfect? Is He absolutely free to be imperfect? Such an idea means that God is just as likely to be imperfect as to be the perfect Being that He is. But, if God chose to be imperfect, and became so, how, then, would He be God? By definition, God is perfect. What's more, if He chose to be imperfect and became so, how, from a position of imperfection, could He ever become perfect again? How can imperfection produce perfection? This seems no more possible than for nothing to produce something.

What about, say, God's perfect holiness? If He was absolutely free to choose to be unholy, and did so, would He not in that instant cease to be God who, by definition, is perfectly holy? Ceasing to be God, how would He become again the perfectly holy God He once was? Also, having been unholy, He could no longer claim holy perfection, which necessarily entails having never been unholy.

What would induce God, who is perfect, to choose any other state of being which would, it seems to me, have to be necessarily an imperfect and therefore lesser or inferior state of being? One is either perfect or imperfect; there are no other alternatives. But what would God want or achieve in a state of imperfection?

These are, for me, the sorts of problems the "absolutely free" idea produces, as I think it out. I don't see that my thoughts outlined here are at all nonsensical, but arise quite reasonably from the idea of God being "absolutely free" of all constraints, even of those which fundamentally constitute His God-hood.

And then there is the problem of the Bible's declaration that God changes not, that He is, in His essential attributes, immutable.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mmarco

Active Member
Aug 7, 2019
232
83
64
Roma
✟54,312.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The statement, "God is absolutely free," is, to me, an obviously nonsensical assertion. Immediately, I think, can God, then, be imperfect? Is He absolutely free to be imperfect?
The statement "God can be imperfect" is simply a nonsensical statement since the concept of God implies the concept of perfection. The fact that God has no constraints and that He is absolutely free, does not mean that every nonsensical statement about God must be true. A nonsensical statment does not represent a constraint for God's freedom or omnipotence; it is only the expression of a wrong use of language.
 
Upvote 0