Is God really and fully omnipotent?

[jodrey]

I guess that's a good reason the old originals don't exist then. Is there a possibility some may have been written on other than papyrus?

 

[Jedi]

I guess that's a good reason the old originals don't exist then. Is there a possibility some may have been written on other than papyrus?

Possibility, but not a probability. Vellum, as I recall, hadn't even come to that part of the world just yet, and the next best thing (Parchment) still is nowhere near as durable as paper, which was invented by the Chinese much later. Papyrus was the easiest thing to get a hold of, and the most plentiful. So when, say, Paul was writting his letters to the different churches, he probably used good 'ol, cheap, plentiful papyrus to do it. Whatever the case may be, we haven't found anything believed to be the actual autographs themselves just yet.

 

[Tyranthus]

All right all right, I'm back. And from the last few posts, I would say that you have all been sitting here laughing at me. Do not revel in your igorance, I'm trying to bring up valid points here. You all seem to have deeply misunderstood my last two post regarding the laws of physics and the origin of numbers. I said exaclty what I meant. Humanity invented numbers. You see, I understand what you are saying, that numbers behave the same way whether we describe them or not. But this isn't quite true. Granted, there can be numbers of things whether we count them or not. There can be five things laying on the ground even if we don't see them. But the laws of mathamatics do not occur in nature, they merely are systems designed to solve problems we created. Nothing in nature actually square roots itself or calculates its own sine. We created mathamatics so that we could keep track of the numbers that we wanted to describe. None of these descriptions are actually nececcary, that is why lower animals do not use math.

 

[Tyranthus]

The same with physics. I know that the things will still behave that way whether we invented physics or not. But physics is merely the branch of science dedicated to describing accurately how the world works and predict what it will do next. I see what you both are saying, that numbers and Physics exist whether we write them or not, I agree with you totally. But the laws which describe them are purely our invention.

Nice Triforce by the way. I wouldn't expect such an obviously devoutly religious person such as yourself to tout the symbol of a pagan and polytheistic religion though. I don't recognise Jodrey's penguin however.

Because you obviously keep an obsessively close watch on historical and archaeological developments, I'm going to leave that argument to the side until I can actually look through some of the material you are citing.

By the way, the Gorilla argument does not apply because Gorrilas have a physical manifestation. Numbers do not.

 

[Jedi]

I see what you both are saying, that numbers and Physics exist whether we write them or not, I agree with you totally. But the laws which describe them are purely our invention.

The physical sounds (words) and shapes (writing) we use to describe these laws are our invention, but words and writing act only as a reference to a particular truth, that is, the laws they’re talking about. However, numbers are different than physical laws in that they don’t only apply to a single thing. The number “2” could apply to two apples or two people, but “two” stays the same (unlike, say, the law of gravity which applies to one thing only and merely describes how something actually is).

Nice Triforce by the way. I wouldn't expect such an obviously devoutly religious person such as yourself to tout the symbol of a pagan and polytheistic religion though.

Number 1, it’s a game. Number 2, I also think it symbolic of the trinity (how three triangles make up one triangle). Number 3, it’s a game. Number 4, I don’t take purely recognized imagination and fantasy to be the same as perceived factual religion. And number 5, it’s a game. But hey, thanks for the compliment in the first sentence.

By the way, the Gorilla argument does not apply because Gorrilas[sic] have a physical manifestation. Numbers do not.

But this continues to beg the question that anything that does not exist physically cannot exist at all. Numbers are a prime example of this, especially since they don’t describe any one particular thing in reality like the laws of physics do.

 

[Tyranthus]

Don't take my triforce comment so seriously, it was a joke, I love that game.
I'm glad that we cleared up my comment about the numbers though.
I think that this thread is getting a little off topic however, this is supposed to be discussing wheather God is really and fully omnipotent, not the nature of numbers and gorrilas and dough. Summing up: Numbers aren't real, but they represent real things, God is mysterious, dough makes all kinds of things and records are hard to translate and take years to figure out a single sentence.
How can we combine all this into a cohesive argument about the extent of God?

 

[Jedi]

Don't take my triforce comment so seriously, it was a joke, I love that game.

Ah, okay. It’s sometimes hard to tell over the internet, with not being able to see someone’s expression and examine their tone of voice and all. Perhaps a smiley would have gotten the point across? At any rate, glad to meet a fellow Zelda lover.

I think that this thread is getting a little off topic however, this is supposed to be discussing wheather God is really and fully omnipotent, not the nature of numbers and gorrilas and dough.

Agreed.

Summing up: Numbers aren't real, but they represent real things, God is mysterious, dough makes all kinds of things and records are hard to translate and take years to figure out a single sentence.

Summing up: Numbers are real (although they have a different sort of existence than we, as physical beings, do), God is mysterious, dough makes all kinds of things, but never a real person, and most records are not as difficult to translate or figure out as some people think.

How can we combine all this into a cohesive argument about the extent of God?

I think we’d have to get onto another track entirely if we were to really discuss how it is we know God exists, but like you said, I don’t think this is the place to do it. Goodness knows there’s always some sort of topic in the General Apologetics forum dealing with that issue.

 

[Tyranthus]

I think that we can take it as a given that God exists in some form because every culture on Earth since the dawn of time has worshipped at least one god. Ok, given that God exists, we have gotten that debate out of the way.

 

[jodrey]

I don't even know where to pick up from...

Nice Triforce by the way. I wouldn't expect such an obviously devoutly religious person such as yourself to tout the symbol of a pagan and polytheistic religion though. I don't recognise Jodrey's penguin however.

The penguin is a deity known in Antarctica as Sharalom, the ancient god who is known for his love of pancakes; he became angry with the people living at that time and so made their land as it is seen today, destroying all the people. Their ancient texts can be found emedded in old glaciers and under miles of ice.

 

[Jedi]

Ok, given that God exists, we have gotten that debate out of the way

Sounds good.

The penguin is a deity known in Antarctica as Sharalom, the ancient god who is known for his love of pancakes; he became angry with the people living at that time and so made their land as it is seen today, destroying all the people. Their ancient texts can be found emedded in old glaciers and under miles of ice.

I would have never guessed.

 

[Tyranthus]

That's funny . How exactly did you find out about this penguin? And why is he in anime animal style? .
Anyway, I think that from my experience that God is not fully omnipotent because if he was, he would 1: violate our right to free will and 2: wouldn't allow natural disasters and things to kill innocents and good people. Because natural disasters aren't an expression of free will, he is free to meddle with them as much as he wants, but because he doesn't, I don't think that he actually knows that they are happening until too late. (I am assuming that he isn't killing us on purpose). I have more arguments besides, but these seem good enough to start with.

 

[Jedi]

Anyway, I think that from my experience that God is not fully omnipotent because if he was, he would 1: violate our right to free will

That still depends on your definition of omnipotence. Rather than defining it as "able to do anything," I see it much more reasonable to define it as "able to do anything possible." Asking God to do things like make two mountains without a valley in-between is nonsensical, since such a thing is impossible because of the necessary truths involved. It is like saying, "Make two landscapes each surrounded by a valley without a valley in-between the two landscapes." The case of free will and following God is much like this.

2: wouldn't allow natural disasters and things to kill innocents and good people. Because natural disasters aren't an expression of free will, he is free to meddle with them as much as he wants, but because he doesn't, I don't think that he actually knows that they are happening until too late.

First, we must understand that no one is truly "innocent." It is not like we "deserve" to live. It's hard to deserve life when you've done nothing to earn it in the first place, since you cannot earn something when you do not exist. We are here by grace, and really have no reason to complain when the time of such grace runs out.

Also, nature was affected by the free will of man. Biology was altered, and the ground was cursed shortly after the fall. Those are simply two of the changes that took place that were mentioned specifically after the fall of man. We can only presume there were others (i.e. animals having to adapt to the cursed ground in order to survive, etc). It's not so implausible to think that such natural disasters only came about after the fall, and wouldn't happen if the fall didn't occur.

 

[Tyranthus]

I don't know which part of that second statement to complain about first. (I pretty much agree with the first statement). The mere fact that we were brought into life without asking entitles us to fair treatment. We shouldn't be punished for something we haven't done yet, so I think that at least babies are innocent, no matter what their parents did. Second, I know that this was in the Bible, but where's the sence in cursing the Earth? Really, I mean, God worked for three straight days to create that thing, possibly even longer if you belive in the scientist's theories about the formation of the universe. And God is just going to curse it because Adam and Eve mad 1 bad decision, which is another argument against God being omnipotent, why didn't he know Eve was going to eat the apple? Or, why didn't he stop the serpent from tempting them? All of these things just don't add up if God is truly omnipotent.

 

[jodrey]

The mere fact that we were brought into life without asking entitles us to fair treatment.

Where in the Bible does it say that you weren't asked beforehand?

We shouldn't be punished for something we haven't done yet

That's why the atonement was set in place. Through Christ we could overcome the fall. It WOULD have been unfair if God did not provide a way out of it. We only stay cursed if we use our free will for wickedness; if we don't take the method God has prepared for us to return to Him then it's our own fault, not God's. The fall was necessary so that we could be brought into being on this earth; it was a necessity. God knew full well what would happen, and that's why He did it.

I think that at least babies are innocent, no matter what their parents did.

Innocent, yes; unaffected by their parents, not necessarily... Privlege of heredity is something that exists in the Bible and lineage was and is very important. It has to do with the law of justice, but that's more complex and I won't get into it here.

where's the sence in cursing the Earth?

God also blesses the earth for the righteous. We cause our own fate.

Really, I mean, God worked for three straight days to create that thing, possibly even longer if you belive in the scientist's theories about the formation of the universe.

Six days actually, and on the seventh He rested. This seems to be interesting. Did God need to rest? Was He compelled to rest? This may imply that God becomes tired, and would discard that ALL-powerful theory if true. If it wasn't refreshing for Him to do so then why would He do it?

why didn't he stop the serpent from tempting them? All of these things just don't add up if God is truly omnipotent.

Again, free will. When we came here we had made the decision to let God allow Satan to tempt us.

I feel that the right answer has already been proposed. Even God is limited by some sort of law, whether self-constructed or eternal in nature. "Anything possible" implies that there is some structure that must be followed, even by God. Agree? Disagree?

 

[Outspoken]

"I though his full name was I am that I am. "

Yup, its an incomplete phrase just like I said. To complete it is to limit God.

"You cannot just translate a few letters and fill in the blanks, a mistake of only a single letter could change the meaning of the text completely.
"

Oh, just to let ya know, that is why there are more transcripts and fragments of the bible then any other historical work we have to date It pretty much blows every other historical work out of the water.


Jod

"It's not a reliable answer, whether it's true or not."

Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it unreliable. Gravity wasn't understood for quite a long time, but it wasn't unreliable.

"support it is that we can't find any evidence of any other answer."

No, the support is quite easy to find. The problem is you might not be able to grasp it fully. The reason is that God isn't finite like you are.

" I believe He has made that task possible, no matter how complex or frustrating it is."

Then you made the first mistake of theology again, limiting God.

"how can we not know Him? "

There is a BIG difference between knowing him and fullying knowing all of him. The first is possible the second is not.

 

[Jedi]

The mere fact that we were brought into life without asking entitles us to fair treatment.

According to whom? You? Fair is getting what you deserve and not getting what you don't deserve. God taking away life that you didn't deserve is just that.

We shouldn't be punished for something we haven't done yet, so I think that at least babies are innocent, no matter what their parents did.

Sounds good to me.

Second, I know that this was in the Bible, but where's the sence[sic] in cursing the Earth?

It's a punishment/consequence of sin. I thought that would have been self-evident. If man wants to do things his way, then God's turning the reigns over to them. Work for your own food.

...which is another argument against God being omnipotent, why didn't he know Eve was going to eat the apple? Or, why didn't he stop the serpent from tempting them? All of these things just don't add up if God is truly omnipotent.

You really don't read what I type. First of all, scripture never says it was an "apple" in the Genesis account. Fruit, yes; apple, no. Furthermore, there's no reason to think that God didn't know they'd eat the fruit. Secondly, God putting the tree there was to give the humans a choice. Not putting the tree there would be like having an election with only one candidate and saying to the public "choose." There must be two options with two different consequences in order for free will to be exercised, and so God placed the tree there in order to let them have a choice: Either listen to God and do things His way, or not. It is God allowing the practice of free will, and this does not all of a sudden mean He's not omnipotent.

 

[jodrey]

Yup, its an incomplete phrase just like I said. To complete it is to limit God.

Where do you get the idea that this is incomplete?

Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it unreliable. Gravity wasn't understood for quite a long time, but it wasn't unreliable.

What are you talking about? Scientists still don't understand where gravity comes from or how it works. You gave that answer because you can't think of any other. Where does the Bible EVER say, "You're not going to be able to understand God, so don't try"? Your answer in non-biblical, and quite frankly, a copout. Maybe you're right and maybe you're not, but that can't be determined right now, so give it up. In the mean time, let's try to think of other possibilities, shall we?

Then you made the first mistake of theology again, limiting God.

Again, show me in the Bible where it says what you are purporting.

There is a BIG difference between knowing him and fullying knowing all of him. The first is possible the second is not.

Whose doctrine is this? If you're stating an opinion then don't state it as fact. How do you define this difference? According to you, God is unknowable, and that being so, how can you draw a line of knowledge regarding Him? Perhaps you mean knowing Him and knowing OF Him? That distinctness I would agree with, but even then, we are to know Him, not just know OF Him.

Can you provide some references for anything you've stated?

 

[Outspoken]

"Where do you get the idea that this is incomplete?"

The statement, roughly translated, is an incomplete statement..I am..

"You gave that answer because you can't think of any other. "

No, you say that because you, as Mr Nicolson said, you can't handle the truth I didn't just pull a rabbit out of a hat thanks. Anything you want to talk about the background in the question and the years I took answering it then you can PM me. For now I'll just let you go because its apparent that just because you see that an answer is "simple" means its wrong. Go talk to Occam (sp).

"Again, show me in the Bible where it says what you are purporting."

Should I start with a book written by probably the wisest man in history..."my ways are above your ways declares the LORD" pharaphrase. Or the many other statements telling us that God is a mystery you won't figure out. You can read the greats and their atempts to do so if you don't believe me. I just tired to give you a short cut, but feel free to go about it the hard way

"According to you, God is unknowable, and that being so, how can you draw a line of knowledge regarding Him? "

Please do not misquote me. I never said God is unknowable. I said you can never fully know all of God. There is a difference, can you not see that?

"Can you provide some references for anything you've stated?"

Biblical or otherwise? If you want biblical evidience, start with proverbs.

 

[jodrey]

The statement, roughly translated, is an incomplete statement..I am..

Perhaps you missed something. You have already been corrected on this. Jehova translates to "I am that I am."

3068 Y@hovah {yeh-ho-vaw'}
from 1961; TWOT - 484a; n pr dei

AV - LORD 6510, GOD 4, JEHOVAH 4, variant 1; 6519

Jehovah = "the existing One"
1) the proper name of the one true God
1a) unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136

How is this incomplete?

No, you say that because you, as Mr Nicolson said, you can't handle the truth I didn't just pull a rabbit out of a hat thanks. Anything you want to talk about the background in the question and the years I took answering it then you can PM me. For now I'll just let you go because its apparent that just because you see that an answer is "simple" means its wrong. Go talk to Occam (sp).

What the heck? The reason you give this answer is because you can't think of any other. It's not quite pulling a rabbit out of a hat; it's more like looking in the hat, not finding the rabbit, and so saying, "Oh, well the rabbit is there, it's just invisible." I'm not saying that the answer is bad, I'm saying that you can't apply it to anything you can't think of another answer for. Before you decide to make such judgments, it's better to leave all options open so people will seek for answers. "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." No where does the Bible say that people should do what you are saying. No where.

Should I start with a book written by probably the wisest man in history..."my ways are above your ways declares the LORD" pharaphrase. Or the many other statements telling us that God is a mystery you won't figure out. You can read the greats and their atempts to do so if you don't believe me. I just tired to give you a short cut, but feel free to go about it the hard way

Isaiah 55: 8 says, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD." Let's see what is meant by checking the next verse: "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." What is really meant here? Is God not understandable or is He simply much more wise and righteous? He even uses nature to describe how His ways and thoughts are higher than ours. It looks to me like He is far more intelligent and powerful, but not necessarily incomprehensible in His nature. Have you any more irrelevant verses to throw out?

Please do not misquote me. I never said God is unknowable. I said you can never fully know all of God. There is a difference, can you not see that?

Do you believe in the Trinity? If so, you believe God is unknowable. No, I do not see the difference. I see the difference of knowing about God against knowing God personally, but if we're talking about a personal knowledge and repore then I don't see how you can divide that up.

Biblical or otherwise? If you want biblical evidience, start with proverbs.

You're a Christian. Use the Bible.

 

[Outspoken]

"How is this incomplete?"

I just dont' understand how to explain it to you if you're not getting it. God left his description incomplete. If you say, who is outspoken and I say, I am that I am, its not a complete description. Its like defining a word with itself.

"The reason you give this answer is because you can't think of any other."

LOL. whatever you say bro, I guess in your own mind you can think that, though its not true at all, but whatever.

"Is God not understandable or is He simply much more wise and righteous?"

It means we can't understand God much like an ant can't understand us.

"It looks to me like He is far more intelligent and powerful, but not necessarily incomprehensible in His nature."

Problem number 1 yet again, you're inserting YOUR THOUGHTS on the text. Again you're making a mistake in theology, though that's the 2nd most common

"Do you believe in the Trinity? "

Yes, though that has no bearing on the conversation at all. I gave you all the answers, yet you refuse to accept them. Go read Augistine (sp) or thomas A. then come back and say I was correct. Till then you can rant and rave all you want I'm still giving you the correct answer.