To act on nothing is to do something?

[Nihilist Virus]

Christians agree that God is omnipotent, but disagree on what that means. Some believe that God can do anything, including logically impossible tasks, while others believe that God can do "anything that is logically possible" (we can tentatively assume that this is well defined). This is not a true dichotomy and there might be other interpretations out there, but most Christians accept one of these two definitions and so that is what I will address.

Suppose that God can only perform tasks that are logically possible.

On the list of impossible tasks, right before "make a square circle" and right after "make a one-ended stick," is the task of "do something by acting on nothing."

In the absence of creation, nothing existed except for God. Even given unlimited power, how does one do something by acting on nothing? Creation is a process of causality, and causality requires an input and an output. That's how it works. The Christian assertion is that God used causality to generate an input without an output, which is logically impossible.

Suppose instead that God can perform any task, even if it is logically impossible.

Why, then, did Jesus die on the cross? What is the point of that if God is able to forgive us as an act of will? I don't need to cut off my hand to feed my dog - he will love me just the same if I give him dog food. So I don't see why Jesus would need to pointlessly suffer to show his love for us when he could just do that by giving us eternal life.



So please tell me which horn of this false dilemma you want to defend, or feel free to defend a third horn by redefining omnipotence. Or perhaps explain how it is that acting on nothing is actually doing something. Thanks.

 

[Sam91]

Isaiah 55:8-9

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Isaiah 55:8-9

Got anything besides a copy/paste answer, like perhaps a genuine explanation?

 

[LaSorcia]

Christians agree that God is omnipotent

No, they don't actually.

 

[Sam91]

Got anything besides a copy/paste answer, like perhaps a genuine explanation?

I typed that.

I found the question flawed. The bible verse I gave you is a good place to start.

I believe that God created the universe and set it according to the laws of physics. He created Physics. Therefore they do not apply to Him. We can only understand things through our frame of reference and it is limited as it is. How can you understand God with a human mind?

Your question completely underplays God's onmipotence and omniscience. To understand Him better you would do well to acknowledge Him and ask. He promises that those who genuinely seek shall find. His Spirit testifies of Him to our hearts. We can not fully understand Him and the full extent of His glory while on Earth but I know a little of Him.

I know that He answers prayer. I have known physical healing, twice. I have seen Him provide for and bless me constantly. It is statistically impossible for it to be coincidental.

I do not understand what apologetics is, for that I apologise. I do not know whether it is people seeking Truth or people battling for the upper hand and I dislike the idea of the latter. Hence why I gave a Bible verse in case the question is genuine.

Good night. (It's midnight here).

 

[LaSorcia]

Some believe that God can do anything, including logically impossible tasks, while others believe that God can do "anything that is logically possible" (we can tentatively assume that this is well defined). This is not a true dichotomy and there might be other interpretations out there, but most Christians accept one of these two definitions and so that is what I will address.

God's abilities and actions are not defined or limited by what Christians or non-Christians believe.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, they don't actually.

Ok, so what do these Christians believe that God cannot do? Tell a lie or something?

God's abilities and actions are not defined or limited by what Christians or non-Christians believe.

Of course not. I'm not suggesting you can define reality to be what it is. But I do ask that you define your terms. What do you take on omnipotence to mean?


Also... reducing God's power doesn't better help answer how God acted on nothing to produce something.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I typed that.

Still quite a generic response.

I found the question flawed. The bible verse I gave you is a good place to start.

Can God create a square circle or not? That's where this thread is starting. I gave you the option to define omnipotence to your own liking, and it doesn't even have to be well defined. Another person here is even exploring the idea of God not being omnipotent. Those are your options. I'm not interested in tap dancing.

And no, your verse is not a good place to start.

I believe that God created the universe and set it according to the laws of physics. He created Physics. Therefore they do not apply to Him.

I'm already assuming that here. That's not a point in question on this thread.

We can only understand things through our frame of reference and it is limited as it is. How can you understand God with a human mind?

If you're not interested in theology then you're wasting my time derailing my theological question.

Your question completely underplays God's onmipotence and omniscience. To understand Him better you would do well to acknowledge Him and ask. He promises that those who genuinely seek shall find. His Spirit testifies of Him to our hearts. We can not fully understand Him and the full extent of His glory while on Earth but I know a little of Him.

I know that He answers prayer. I have known physical healing, twice. I have seen Him provide for and bless me constantly. It is statistically impossible for it to be coincidental.

I do not understand what apologetics is, for that I apologise. I do not know whether it is people seeking Truth or people battling for the upper hand and I dislike the idea of the latter. Hence why I gave a Bible verse in case the question is genuine.

Good night. (It's midnight here).

I stopped reading the moment you started preaching. Please answer the question directly or else don't bother. Thanks!

 

[LaSorcia]

Ok, so what do these Christians believe that God cannot do? Tell a lie or something?

While it's true that most Christians believe that God cannot do any evil, including lying, I was talking about understanding God's powers within reality as experienced by humans. Rabbi Harold Kushner wrote a book called When Bad Things Happen to Good People. Though he was Jewish, I've encountered his ideas in many Protestant ideologies, especially PCUSA circles.

Of course not. I'm not suggesting you can define reality to be what it is.

Actually, faith, based in love can impact the reality we experience. But it really has to be based on love and God's will, not selfish interest.

But I do ask that you define your terms. What do you take on omnipotence to mean?

It's not my term- you started the thread and defined it.

Why, then, did Jesus die on the cross? What is the point of that if God is able to forgive us as an act of will? I don't need to cut off my hand to feed my dog - he will love me just the same if I give him dog food. So I don't see why Jesus would need to pointlessly suffer to show his love for us when he could just do that by giving us eternal life.

God could just give us eternal life to show His love. But how would we know if He didn't communicate it to us somehow while we're living on this earth? Also, perhaps it's important to God that we begin to be saved from the effects of evil while we are still in this body, before we go to the afterlife? Maybe God loves us like we love our own children. We want every moment of their lives to be good and peaceful, not just after they pass on.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

God can do "anything that is logically possible" (we can tentatively assume that this is well defined).

Suppose that God can only perform tasks that are logically possible.

On the list of impossible tasks, right before "make a square circle" and right after "make a one-ended stick," is the task of "do something by acting on nothing."

In the absence of creation, nothing existed except for God. Even given unlimited power, how does one do something by acting on nothing? Creation is a process of causality, and causality requires an input and an output. That's how it works. The Christian assertion is that God used causality to generate an input without an output, which is logically impossible.

I fall into the camp that believes that God can do anything possible. The only exceptions are things that are contradictory to His nature (lie, sin, steal, deny himself, ect.) or things that are contradictory (square circle, married bachelor, mountain so heavy he cannot lift, ect.) In regards to the things that are contradictory to His nature, they are not necessarily impossible for God because it is impossible for Him to do them, rather, doing them would require stripping away one or more attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, Omni benevolence, Omni sovereign, ect.) that makes God "GOD".

In regards to causality, you are correct in your statement that an input and output are required. The input is the cause and the output is the effect from that cause. However, in regards to creation, God's word would be the cause and the creation would be the effect. Naturally, God would be the medium at which His word is the 'cause' for the 'effect' of the universe's existence. Could you please explain as to why this would be logically impossible?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Ok, so what do these Christians believe that God cannot do? Tell a lie or something?

There are some Christian camps who believe in "Open Theism" and "finitism" of God's power.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

 

[zippy2006]

In the absence of creation, nothing existed except for God. Even given unlimited power, how does one do something by acting on nothing? Creation is a process of causality, and causality requires an input and an output. That's how it works. The Christian assertion is that God used causality to generate an input without an output, which is logically impossible.

According to Christian tradition the act of creation is sui generis, different from all other kinds of causal acts. Aquinas treats this in ST Ia, Q. 45 - "The mode of emanation of things from the first principle," and more thoroughly in De Potentia Dei Q. 3 - "Creation." Francisco Suarez also provides a central study of the topic in his 20th Metaphysical Disputation (which follows the metaphysical disputations on efficient causality - 17, 18, and 19).

 

[zippy2006]

Why, then, did Jesus die on the cross? What is the point of that if God is able to forgive us as an act of will? I don't need to cut off my hand to feed my dog - he will love me just the same if I give him dog food. So I don't see why Jesus would need to pointlessly suffer to show his love for us when he could just do that by giving us eternal life.

To speak technically, Christ's passion and death were fitting, not necessary, for deliverance (ST III, Q. 50, A. 1; ST III, Q. 46, A. 1; ST III, Q. 46, A. 2).

 

[Chriliman]

I fall into the camp that believes that God can do anything possible. The only exceptions are things that are contradictory to His nature (lie, sin, steal, deny himself, ect.) or things that are illogical (square circle, married bachelor, mountain so heavy he cannot lift, ect.) In regards to the things that are contradictory to His nature, they are not necessarily impossible for God because it is impossible for Him to do them, rather, doing them would require stripping away one or more attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, Omni benevolence, Omni sovereign, ect.) that makes God "GOD".

In regards to causality, you are correct in your statement that an input and output are required. The input is the cause and the output is the effect from that cause. However, in regards to creation, God word would be the cause and the creation would be the effect. Naturally, God would be the medium at which His word is the 'cause' for the 'effect' of the universe's existence. Could you please explain as to why this would be logically impossible?

Yea, wouldn’t you say the universe came from God, not from nothing? IOW, God didn’t make the universe out of nothing, he made it out of Himself i.e. his word. Right?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Yea, wouldn’t you say the universe came from God, not from nothing? IOW, God didn’t make the universe out of nothing, he made it out of Himself i.e. his word. Right?

I guess you could say that.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

While it's true that most Christians believe that God cannot do any evil, including lying,

Jesus was tempted to do evil and resisted, therefore he was capable of doing it. Jesus is God. Therefore, God is capable of doing evil, but chooses not to.

But you can't tempt me with a reward on condition that I perform an impossible task. I won't transform into a unicorn for any amount of money because I'm not able to do so. So it's apparent that when Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, he was capable of bowing down before Satan, but chose not to.

I was talking about understanding God's powers within reality as experienced by humans. Rabbi Harold Kushner wrote a book called When Bad Things Happen to Good People. Though he was Jewish, I've encountered his ideas in many Protestant ideologies, especially PCUSA circles.

I don't see the relevance of this. I'm talking about the capabilities of God.

Actually, faith, based in love can impact the reality we experience. But it really has to be based on love and God's will, not selfish interest.

Can amputees be healed?

It's not my term- you started the thread and defined it.

You are objectively wrong. I proposed two definitions, followed those definitions up with their logical implications, and then asked for alternative definitions. If there's one thing I did not do in this thread, it's defining omnipotence. Everything about omnipotence here is conditional. The same word cannot have multiple definitions in the same context. In short, I'm asking which definition is used, not defining it.

God could just give us eternal life to show His love. But how would we know if He didn't communicate it to us somehow while we're living on this earth?

Not only is this quite silly, seeing as how God, omnipotent or not, surely has the power to part the clouds over all the continents and proclaim his existence in all languages, but there's also a darker implication in what you're saying.

Suppose I were to give you two choices:

(1) Nearly every living thing with a nervous system dies in terror and agony, but you're world famous.
(2) All living creatures are in paradise, but you're anonymous.

And God would apparently take choice (1) according to you. Yikes.

Also, this cuts against one of the major themes in the gospels: do your good works in secret. Why is God so much different from Jesus?

Also, perhaps it's important to God that we begin to be saved from the effects of evil while we are still in this body, before we go to the afterlife? Maybe God loves us like we love our own children. We want every moment of their lives to be good and peaceful, not just after they pass on.

Every couple of seconds a child starves to death. Is that what you would want for your children?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yea, wouldn’t you say the universe came from God, not from nothing? IOW, God didn’t make the universe out of nothing, he made it out of Himself i.e. his word. Right?

I believe that is blasphemous. You're implying that everything is God, including, among other things, the contents of a toilet. Is that your position?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I believe that is blasphemous. You're implying that everything is God, including, among other things, the contents of a toilet. Is that your position?

To some extent this was the position I adopted toward the time of the end of my Christianity. The world was create Ex Deo: that is to say, out of God. I also accepted the idea that the universe is 13.8 billion years old and that evolution was the way that that god intended.

As such, yes, the contents of a toilet had its origin in God. Feces has its function in the universe that contains evolving species. This is not blasphemous. That we, as humans, find feces disgusting is only a result of a natural evolved position that protects us from disease, etc.

Ultimately, I found cognitive dissonance in this position with the idea that there should be disease at all. Why should there be waste at all? Etc.

There were other advantages to this position and it does solve the ridiculousness of something from nothing.

(I should note that no matter what constructs I could invent there were always more problems and, too, no matter what construct one posits, one cannot demonstrate any of it.)

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I fall into the camp that believes that God can do anything possible. The only exceptions are things that are contradictory to His nature (lie, sin, steal, deny himself, ect.) or things that are illogical (square circle, married bachelor, mountain so heavy he cannot lift, ect.) In regards to the things that are contradictory to His nature, they are not necessarily impossible for God because it is impossible for Him to do them, rather, doing them would require stripping away one or more attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, Omni benevolence, Omni sovereign, ect.) that makes God "GOD".

In regards to causality, you are correct in your statement that an input and output are required. The input is the cause and the output is the effect from that cause. However, in regards to creation, God's word would be the cause and the creation would be the effect. Naturally, God would be the medium at which His word is the 'cause' for the 'effect' of the universe's existence. Could you please explain as to why this would be logically impossible?

I'm asking what God acted on. Some people think they're answering the question by saying that he spoke the universe into existence. You're saying he did so through his word. But this is the ACT. I'm asking what he acted ON.

Or you can square this circle and explain how to do something without acting on anything, although you already indicated that you agree this is impossible.