Is Anything *Impossible* for God?

[GenemZ]

The first question asked in Philosophy is inevitably "Can God make a rock so big that God can't pick it up?" Usually the answer is smoke screened with some business about "God's power cannot contradict God's wisdom." What do you think?

God has created a rock too big for him to lift.......

Man's volition...




1 Timothy 2:3-5 niv
"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."



Yes... God has created a rock to heavy for himself to pick up.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[depthdeception]

The way you have presented it does not present a logical contradiction because you have spoken of 'existence' in two different senses. I said that a logical contradiction would exist if God did exist and did not exist at the same time and in the same sense.

I agree, but to speak of God existing and not existing at the same time and in the same sense is to speak of an existence or non-existence in which God has no part.

The example is not important only the principle. Try a person then. Can a person exist and not exist at the same time in the exact same sense?

No. But God is not a contigent being that can be defined by existence or non-existence.

Faith does not provide a framework for thinking.

This is only true if "thinking" is relegated to that which can be objectively determined. However, if this is criterion, thinking is irrelevant as objectivity is impossible for contingent beings.

It sounds like I would disagree with the way you define faith, but even if I were to agree, faith would only provide a means of accepting statements as true.

But again, as objectivity is impossible, to affirm the "truth" of something, as well as the establishment of the same "truth" is ultimately going to beyond the scope of the kind of "thinking" which you are advocating.

Here's an example:

(1) All people have spirits.
(2) I am a person.
(3) Therefore, I have a spirit.

Assuming that God has told us the first 2 statements, but not the 3rd, on faith, we would know that the first 2 are true, but not the 3rd because logic is what we use to draw such a conclusion.

Statement 3 is not qualitatively different from statement one, for statement 2 is actually contingent upon the establishment of the veracity of point 1. After all, statement proposes that personhood is defined by being spirited. Therefore, statement 2 is not a separate thought, but is rather dependent upon the definition of the first. And to make the 3rd statement is not a logical conclusion of 1 & 2, but rather completes the circularity of the claim which you have made.

I don't mean to say that logic provides truth. We can only know truth through God's revelation. What I mean is that the existence of the laws of logic draw a line between true and false. Logic doesn't tell us if God exists or does not exist. Logic only says that these statements cannot both be true. It would be up to God to reveal the truth of His existence.

Yes, and logic also tells us that the these statements are not properly applicable to God in the first place.

 

[Fellowship]

Remember this: "I'd like to point out that in making these comments about God's 'limited' nature you are guilty of the 1st Commandment in putting "other gods before Him."

Yes I do, and I stand by it. Even if the implications of stating this carry further than I thought they would.

I think a bigger question is, 'do you remember this quote?', and 'why do you choose to ignore it if you do?'.

Lu 1:37 - For with God nothing shall be impossible.That settles it for me!

If you're recalling this quote for the first time, maybe you should reconsider your arguement. Unless you enjoy playing Devil's Advocate.

If you choose to continue...

-----------------------------------------------

And in the end, it comes down to the fact that it would not be impossible for Jesus to lift a mountain, and so one still hasn't shown that God can create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it.

What is the quote about human beings being able to move mountains?

I can't recall right off, but I believe scripture says something about putting faith in God, and you'll be able to do all things. We don't do it alone. Niether does our heavenly Brother.

Relying on the infinite power and wisdom of another or another of your own personas [maybe God has a mental disorder ], doesn't seem limiting to me.

So, when you want to make something that's illogical logical, you just ignore the question and answer one you make yourself. Notice how I was specific about who creates the rock.

I'm not sure I follow, what you're saying. I believe you said that "no Member" could lift.

What stops Them from lifting it together?

 

[Jipsah]

The first question asked in Philosophy is inevitably "Can God make a rock so big that God can't pick it up?" Usually the answer is smoke screened with some business about "God's power cannot contradict God's wisdom." What do you think?

Can God make a four-sided triangle? Can God exist everywhere and nowhere at the same time? Can He make A=!A? Can He create a Philosphy 101 student who knows enough not to think he's discovered something profound in the fact that it's possible for human beings to say things that don't make sense?

Please.

 

[depthdeception]

Can God make a four-sided triangle?

Yes. It is called a rectangle... A "four-sided" triangle is only impossible semantically, not actually.

Can God exist everywhere and nowhere at the same time?

Of course. God's existence is not quantified by existing "within" or "outside" someplace.

Can God create a Philosphy 101 student who knows enough not to think he's discovered something profound in the fact that it's possible for human beings to say things that don't make sense?

No. LoL!

 

[Jipsah]

Who is it that's determining the definition?

We are, in that the paradox is purely verbal. There is no philosophical question there at all, but only a linguistic one. Logical contradictions don't exist (unless you want to get all po-mo and claim that logic itself doesn't exist, in which case I'm right and you're wrong because I say so), but that doesn't prevent us from stringing words together in such a way to to sound as though such contradictions exist. You and I didn't really do to different schools together, the number of flies on the flywheel doesn't actually vary with the number of cigar butts per cubic acre, and while I'm on the subject of flies remember that though time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.

God does lots of things that are logically contradictory, like, say, the Incarnation.

What's the contradiction that you perceive in the Incarnation?

Christian faith affirms that it indeed did happen.

That it does.

 

[Jipsah]

God can't "save" anyone who doesn't "invite" Jesus into their heart. So say some <G>

They're wrong, of course.

 

[depthdeception]

What's the contradiction that you perceive in the Incarnation?

God being eternal and mortal at the same time. However, I said it was logically contradictory, not actually..

 

[jasperbound]

Yes I do, and I stand by it. Even if the implications of stating this carry further than I thought they would.

If you remember, then don't pretend you didn't say anything about idolatry. It's irritating when people lie.

I think a bigger question is, 'do you remember this quote?', and 'why do you choose to ignore it if you do?'.

If you're recalling this quote for the first time, maybe you should reconsider your arguement. Unless you enjoy playing Devil's Advocate.

It's great to take verses out of context. Was the angel talking to Mary about the logically impossible, such as being able to create a rock so heavy that God could not lift it?

Besides, there is a verse that says that there is something God cannot do.

[bible]2 Timothy 2:13[/bible]

If God can't disown Himself, then that means He can't do something. Notice how the verse says "can't." Are you simply ignoring this verse?

What is the quote about human beings being able to move mountains?

Humans also can't walk on water, but Jesus did. Jesus is also God. If you want to confine him to being merely human though, then you haven't proven that God could create a boulder so heavy that he could not lift it.

I can't recall right off, but I believe scripture says something about putting faith in God, and you'll be able to do all things. We don't do it alone. Niether does our heavenly Brother.

So, this verse means that with faith in God, I'll be able to make myself God exclusively. After all, it says all and we're to take all and nothing to mean their most extreme terms, right?

I'm not sure I follow, what you're saying. I believe you said that "no Member" could lift.

What stops Them from lifting it together?

I specified that it would be the Father who created the boulder. I was pretty clear about that. And I notice you're still avoiding the question as I phrased it.

 

[jasperbound]

Yes. It is called a rectangle... A "four-sided" triangle is only impossible semantically, not actually.

Nothing is impossible semantically to God, right?

Besides, a triangle is a specifically "a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles" so there is no way it could ever be four-sided, unless you change the definition of triangle to make sense out of nonsense. We shouldn't discount language. God made it for a purpose, after all.

I guess 2+2=5 if we change the definition of 5 to mean what 4 means! Men give birth to children (men refers to women in this case)!

 

[Fellowship]

If you remember, then don't pretend you didn't say anything about idolatry. It's irritating when people lie.

Putting 'gods' before him doesn't necessarily make these gods idols. You accuse me of saying stuff out of context, yet at the first second you get you slander me for something I didn't say. If you think I'm implying that you worship idols that's your progitive, not mine. Also if you recall the quote in question, I wasn't even talking directly to you. The fact that you have responded by trying to defend yourself, would however make someone wonder.

It's great to take verses out of context. Was the angel talking to Mary about the logically impossible, such as being able to create a rock so heavy that God could not lift it?

You have no point, the quote is specific...

Luke 1:37 "For there is nothing that God cannot do.

Besides, there is a verse that says that there is something God cannot do.

2 Timothy 2:13If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

If God can't disown Himself, then that means He can't do something. Notice how the verse says "can't." Are you simply ignoring this verse?

Funny, I don't remember that quote EVER being brought up in this thread. I'm also wondering how I could have ignored this quote seeing as how I've never read 2 Timothy.

Listen Jasper, you assume a lot and apparently you also don't mind resorting to slander. If this is how you want to prove yourself right, you win ok.

Humans also can't walk on water, but Jesus did. Jesus is also God. If you want to confine him to being merely human though, then you haven't proven that God could create a boulder so heavy that he could not lift it.

Bullsh*t!!! Peter walked on water! Maybe you should have actually have read up on that Miracle, in say the Gospels, before you made that claim.

Talk about taking things out of context! You really need to take a long look at yourself, before you start throwing stones at me for being a hypocrite.

So, this verse means that with faith in God, I'll be able to make myself God exclusively. After all, it says all and we're to take all and nothing to mean their most extreme terms, right?

If you want to believe you can become a god go ahead, some Christians already have that belief as doctine if you didn't know that. Why not try asking questions in the Unothodox Theology?

I specified that it would be the Father who created the boulder. I was pretty clear about that. And I notice you're still avoiding the question as I phrased it.

I guess I'm "avoiding" it because I don't understand the contradiction and am asking legit questions as to why you didn't accept my answer.

What does the Father creating the boulder have to do with the ability of the God Trinity to left it?

I was seriously wondering why you didn't take the question one step further to include the Trinity as a whole, but hey it was your response not mine.

 

[depthdeception]

Nothing is impossible semantically to God, right?

LoL.

Besides, a triangle is a specifically "a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles" so there is no way it could ever be four-sided, unless you change the definition of triangle to make sense out of nonsense.

Yes, a triangle is exactly that, and its definition is bound to that specific object. Changing the definition of the thing is to also change what it is. It is not nonsense, it is a different reality altogether.

We shouldn't discount language. God made it for a purpose, after all.

??

I guess 2+2=5 if we change the definition of 5 to mean what 4 means!

Exactly. "2+2=4" only means something when "2" "2" and "4" are defined. For example, what are the "2" and "2"? Let's say they are apples and oranges. Therfore, do 2 apples and 2 oranges equal "4"? Only if "4" correlates to a definition that is amenable to the quantification of "apples" and "oranges." For example, if "4" equals rice pellets, it is not exactly necessary that the equation is correct. And even if one were to say that "2" apples + "2" apples = "4" apples, even this equation is suspect linguistically, for we don't precisely know what "4" apples means. Are the four apples the same weight? size? have the same atomic structure? etc...

So you see that the semantics are entirely important and that claims of impossibility which may seem actually impossible are not impervious to being rendered nonsensical by a stout deconstructionistic approach.

Men give birth to children (men refers to women in this case)!

Again, exactly. If "men" refers to humanity in general, it is entirely possible that the claim is correct. If "men" refers to creatures who do not have ovaries, if would seem that this claim is incorrect. However, what do you mean by "give birth?" Does that simply mean "to produce children?" Again, the question is vague and by no means creates an impossibility of meaning until more closely defined.

 

[jasperbound]

Funny, I don't remember that quote EVER being brought up in this thread. I'm also wondering how I could have ignored this quote seeing as how I've never read 2 Timothy.

Listen Jasper, you assume a lot and apparently you also don't mind resorting to slander. If this is how you want to prove yourself right, you win ok.

Did I ever say you brought that quote up? No. I posted it to show you that there is at least one thing God cannot do. I guess that Luke was an idolater!

In fact, rather than an elaborate post, I think I'll simply close my case on that one verse, for it clearly says that God cannot do something, and although there are other verses that state that God cannot do certain things, on this verse, each translation I've seen uses the word cannot. Notice how it is cannot and "does not." I want to emphasize that. Cannot.

 

[jasperbound]

LoL.



Yes, a triangle is exactly that, and its definition is bound to that specific object. Changing the definition of the thing is to also change what it is. It is not nonsense, it is a different reality altogether.



??



Exactly. "2+2=4" only means something when "2" "2" and "4" are defined. For example, what are the "2" and "2"? Let's say they are apples and oranges. Therfore, do 2 apples and 2 oranges equal "4"? Only if "4" correlates to a definition that is amenable to the quantification of "apples" and "oranges." For example, if "4" equals rice pellets, it is not exactly necessary that the equation is correct. And even if one were to say that "2" apples + "2" apples = "4" apples, even this equation is suspect linguistically, for we don't precisely know what "4" apples means. Are the four apples the same weight? size? have the same atomic structure? etc...

So you see that the semantics are entirely important and that claims of impossibility which may seem actually impossible are not impervious to being rendered nonsensical by a stout deconstructionistic approach.

Then I guess I do agree with you. God can do the logically impossible, if one will simply change the definition of a word to make it possible. God can create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it, if by cannot we mean can.

Again, exactly. If "men" refers to humanity in general, it is entirely possible that the claim is correct. If "men" refers to creatures who do not have ovaries, if would seem that this claim is incorrect. However, what do you mean by "give birth?" Does that simply mean "to produce children?" Again, the question is vague and by no means creates an impossibility of meaning until more closely defined.

The hypothetical four-sided triangle was quite specific, and yet, by completely disregarding the definition of triangle, you were able to show that it was not a contradiction.

However, officially, I'm going with 2 Timothy with the argument against the idea that there are things God cannot do.

 

[coolstylinstud]

not to sound insane, but:

God is bound by his own logic, which is infinite, therefore He is bound only in His increasing and infinite logic, which is to say that He is bound by infinity, which is to say that he is not bound

Hey i actually understood that awesome post

 

[Fellowship]

Did I ever say you brought that quote up? No. I posted it to show you that there is at least one thing God cannot do. I guess that Luke was an idolater!

You did ask if I ignored this passage from 2nd Timothy. This implies that it had been brought up at some time (not necessarily by you or me) or that I had foreknowledge of this quote. I would really like to know where it was brought up at, if at all, or how you thought I had just ignored a single obscure line from 2nd Timothy that you supposed I'd know off the top of my head.

In fact, rather than an elaborate post, I think I'll simply close my case on that one verse, for it clearly says that God cannot do something, and although there are other verses that state that God cannot do certain things, on this verse, each translation I've seen uses the word cannot. Notice how it is cannot and "does not." I want to emphasize that. Cannot.

I respect the verse, I'm not really so sure what to think about you, though.

You were clearly out of line with a lot of what you said, and I'm glad that you wouldn't elaborate any further, if that's what you call what you did in your previous posts.

Really dude, that was uncool.

 

[Desolate Owl]

Just to clarify, the original point I was trying to make is:

God cannot do things which are logically contradictory.

I agree, but to speak of God existing and not existing at the same time and in the same sense is to speak of an existence or non-existence in which God has no part.

I'm not trying to discuss whether God has a part in such an existence, but whether He can have a part in such an existence. Is such an existence possible, even for God?

No. But God is not a contigent being that can be defined by existence or non-existence.

So would you agree that even God cannot make a person exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense?

 

[depthdeception]

I'm not trying to discuss whether God has a part in such an existence, but whether He can have a part in such an existence. Is such an existence possible, even for God?

Okay, I see your intention. Let me think about it.

So would you agree that even God cannot make a person exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense?

No, I think it is entirely possible for God to do this, and I think that the doctrine of the resurrection, moreover, depends upon exactly this issue.

 

[Outrider]

The Holy Spirit guides all humans into contact with the revelation of God in Christ, through a variety of means.

Sounds good, but how do you make it practical? My question, you'll recall was: " Sounds fancy. Now explain how the knowledge of God gets into the head and heart of a person from what you have said above. Take a person who knows nothing about God and show me how revelation works to bring that person the knowledge of God, Christ and salvation. Step by step." This in response to your

I can make this case easily enough. Christ is the Logos of God. As the Word of God, the very Truth of God, Christ has become Incarnate in the history of salvation. Through this Incarnation, Christ, as the Logos of God, is the very revelation of God. Nowhere along the line is Scripture the means of this revelation. Rather, it is clear that the Scriptures are a testimony to the Truth of Christ--a reaction to the self-revelation of God in history. To make Scripture the ultimate source of revelation is to make Christ subservient to them. In other words, such an approach makes Scripture the determiner of God's self-revelation, rather than being informed in their content by this self-revelation.

In order for Christ alone to be the sole Revelation of God, it seems to me he must be personally perceived by everyone who ever comes to believe in what it is he is revealing about God. Testimonies are good in courts of law for settling judicatory disputes, but where does the revelation become evident to those to whom it is revealed. To be a revelation, it must, at some level, be exposed to the perception of the the receiver. Where today is Christ the Logos being exposed to human perception?

 

[immortalavefenix]

Where today is Christ the Logos being exposed to human perception?

Good question.