Can God Defy Logic?

[shunyadragon]

God could have used some form of evolution where lower life is concerned but Not where human Adam is concerned.
God formed or fashioned Adam from the already existing dust of the ground - Genesis 2:7
God opposes wickedness in all senses not just in a relative sense.
Adam started out with human perfection with leanings towards righteousness.
Only a deliberate act would deviate from righteousness - James 1:13-15
So, from the beginning of Adam's downfall is why the faults of humanity exist.
Same with Satan, he started out with angelic perfection but decided he wanted humans to worship him.
So, from the beginning of Satan's downfall is how sin got introduced into our world.
Jesus came to lift up mankind to the human perfection that Adam lost for us.
Jesus gives us hope. Hope for mankind to rediscover God's purpose for Earth that humble meek people will inherit the Earth. - Psalm 37
That righteous humanity will always exist as Jesus promised everlasting life on Earth. A beautiful paradisical Earth as Eden originally was.

This still reflects an ancient tribal scripture without provenance. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support your assertions on life and evolution. Citing ancient scripture does not help when it comes to the objectively verified science of evolution over more than 3 billions years on earth and our universe over 13 billion years old

 

[Copernicus]

No. ( did you actually mean to phrase it that way? )

I did. It's my opinion that it's literally true. Gods are modeled after human authorities and people interact with them as they would with human beings--getting on their knees and begging for favors in supplicating postures. They stroke God's ego with praise, and they offer loyalty in exchange for God's protection and love.

Abraham had a legal covenant with his god Yahweh--a common practice back in those times. Yahweh offered protection and land to Abraham and his descendants as long as they followed the path set by Yahweh. People made deals with their personal gods, and attributed their good fortune to their piety. Job was tested, and he actually made out well in the end. Too bad about his family, however.

 

[dybmh]

I did. It's my opinion that it's literally true. Gods are modeled after human authorities and people interact with them as they would with human beings--getting on their knees and begging for favors in supplicating postures. They stroke God's ego with praise, and they offer loyalty in exchange for God's protection and love.

Abraham had a legal covenant with his god Yahweh--a common practice back in those times. Yahweh offered protection and land to Abraham and his descendants as long as they followed the path set by Yahweh. People made deals with their personal gods, and attributed their good fortune to their piety. Job was tested, and he actually made out well in the end. Too bad about his family, however.

Ok.

My statement was something like: "being omnipotent would permit doing things a human can do, but would not be limited to only doing things a human can do."

First question, did I say something there that somehow contradicted the concept of an omnipotent god?

Second, not that you're wrong at all. I want to say that up front. Doesn't what I said about omnipotence also explain what you're observing? The omnipotent god is doing things that humans do? Making covenants, appreciating/rewarding supplication and obedience, loving ( or at least appearing to love ), testing, punishing, judging, etc? But in other places in the story, it's not limited to these human capabilities?

And if this omnipotent god indeed shares human capability ( while not limited by it ), and reveals itself in ways that are relatable by a primitive human, it would be natural for the primitive human to establish human-ish relationships with this god?

On the other hand, I completely agree that it makes sense for people to build/create a god in their image for multiple reasons.

 

[Nakosis]

No, a sin requires a law, a law is a restriction, a restriction is a limitation.

A god that can sin is limited in power by the law applied to it.
A god that cannot sin is unlmited in power, there are no laws applied to it.

Omnipotent = god cannot sin

Impotent = god can sin

Seems there are a number of things your omnipotent God can't do.

 

[Copernicus]

Ok.

My statement was something like: "being omnipotent would permit doing things a human can do, but would not be limited to only doing things a human can do."

First question, did I say something there that somehow contradicted the concept of an omnipotent god?

No. God is portrayed in very human terms, and he wouldn't be of much use to worshippers if he were not. He's even got a gender--like any other family patriarch. Pantheons were usually structured around family relationships between gods, so he kept the gender when the divine patriarchy was collapsed into henotheism and later monotheism, which was a growing regional phenomenon in the 6th century BCE. Even Marduk got to be God. So he never stopped being able to do things humans can do.

Second, not that you're wrong at all. I want to say that up front. Doesn't what I said about omnipotence also explain what you're observing? The omnipotent god is doing things that humans do? Making covenants, appreciating/rewarding supplication and obedience, loving ( or at least appearing to love ), testing, punishing, judging, etc? But in other places in the story, it's not limited to these human capabilities?

Well, the story had multiple authors, so one wouldn't expect a totally consistent picture to emerge. I just see the human characteristics as very natural from the perspective of human cognition, which is grounded in the way human bodies interact with their environment. Gods are inherently anthropomorphic, but humans tend to see themselves reflected in everything. Omnipotence allows God to manipulate reality in the same way our minds manipulate our bodies. That's pure mind over matter. God's spirit controls everything, whereas human spirit controls just the body and anything else it can turn into an extension of the body.

And if this omnipotent god indeed shares human capability ( while not limited by it ), and reveals itself in ways that are relatable by a primitive human, it would be natural for the primitive human to establish human-ish relationships with this god?

Absolutely. It would be natural to imagine a more powerful spiritual agency whose will would control reality as if it were the agency's body. So the imagined spirits would have very human characteristics.

On the other hand, I completely agree that it makes sense for people to build/create a god in their image for multiple reasons.

Agreed.

 

[1213]

Sure, unlimited authority.
Then you'd have the authority to limit your authority at that point no longer having unlimited authority.
IOW, you can't limit your authority and have unlimited authority at the same time.

Ok, I can accept that, if God would limit Himself His authority, then He would not have all authority, and I don't think there is any good reason to claim God should have all authority even after He has given up it.

 

[dybmh]

Seems there are a number of things your omnipotent God can't do.

No, you haven't mentioned anything that God cannot do.

When you asked if god can sin, saying 'no' is not a limitation of capability. It's not a limit on god's unlimited power. God can still do everything and anything. The action that God is doing is simply not labeled, or considered a sin. But God can still do it.

 

[Nakosis]

No, you haven't mentioned anything that God cannot do.

Don't have to as you keep doing that for me.

 

[dybmh]

No. God is portrayed in very human terms, and he wouldn't be of much use to worshippers if he were not. He's even got a gender--like any other family patriarch. Pantheons were usually structured around family relationships between gods, so he kept the gender when the divine patriarchy was collapsed into henotheism and later monotheism, which was a growing regional phenomenon in the 6th century BCE. Even Marduk got to be God. So he never stopped being able to do things humans can do.




Well, the story had multiple authors, so one wouldn't expect a totally consistent picture to emerge. I just see the human characteristics as very natural from the perspective of human cognition, which is grounded in the way human bodies interact with their environment. Gods are inherently anthropomorphic, but humans tend to see themselves reflected in everything. Omnipotence allows God to manipulate reality in the same way our minds manipulate our bodies. That's pure mind over matter. God's spirit controls everything, whereas human spirit controls just the body and anything else it can turn into an extension of the body.




Absolutely. It would be natural to imagine a more powerful spiritual agency whose will would control reality as if it were the agency's body. So the imagined spirits would have very human characteristics.



Agreed.

Thank you for the reply. I don't agree with everything you wrote. But, the topic of the thread is god-defying-logic, so I'll reserve those comments for another thread.

 

[dybmh]

Don't have to as you keep doing that for me.

Name one.

 

[Nakosis]

Name one.

Why? Unless you've deleted them, anyone can read through this thread and see your posts for themselves.
As I prefer to allow folks to see things for themselves, far be it from me to point out the obvious.

 

[dybmh]

Why? Unless you've deleted them, anyone can read through this thread and see your posts for themselves.
As I prefer to allow folks to see things for themselves, far be it from me to point out the obvious.

Why? Because I haven't said there's anything an omnipotent god can't do.

God can't create a rock that God can't lift = God can ALWAYS create a rock that God can ALWAYS lift. = Unlimited power = omnipotence

God can ALWAYS create a rock that God can ALWAYS lift. Phrasing it as a double-negative might sound like a "God-can't", but it MEANS "God ALWAYS can"

A god that cannot sin is unlmited in power, there are no laws applied to it.

Saying "God cannot sin" might sound like a "God-can't", but it means "God is not limited by any laws"

Omnipotence should permit being like a man, but also not limited to the things a man can do.

This is obviously not a "God-can't" statement.

Creating an unsolveable problem describes a lack of power, limited power, so... no. That describes impotence.

Here's another one:

God can't create and unsolveable problem = God can ALWAYS solve any problem = omnipotence.

It's still a double negation. It's not as obvious as the "... can't create ... can't lift." double negation. But it's still the same. The statement MEANS omnipotence.

God can ALWAYS solve any problem.

Logically an omnipotent God cannot exist.

Sure it can. You're not disproving an omnipotent God by these sorts of examples. You're disproving a simultaneous omnipotent+impotent god.

I'm not sure anyone would disagree that this god cannot logically exist.

So, that's the problem as I see it with your claim in the OP. You're not talking about an omnipotent god. You're talking about something else.

 

[soulsurvivor]

View attachment 78560​

An easy example would be an omnipotent God.
Logically an omnipotent God cannot exist.

Does this mean the existence of a God cannot be logically explained?

Gods definitely cannot defy logic, but that does not mean Gods don't exist.

There are no omnipotent or omniscient Gods. But there are Gods who are more or less omnipotent and omniscient within their own sphere of influence. For instance, the Earth God can do anything he wants on Earth (except defy logic). That there exists a single, universal omnipotent God is just Judeo-Christian imagination.

 

[Nakosis]

Gods definitely cannot defy logic, but that does not mean Gods don't exist.

There are no omnipotent or omniscient Gods. But there are Gods who are more or less omnipotent and omniscient within their own sphere of influence. For instance, the Earth God can do anything he wants on Earth (except defy logic). That there exists a single, universal omnipotent God is just Judeo-Christian imagination.

Ok, not really discussing the existence or non-existence of God in this thread.

 

[Nakosis]

Why? Because I haven't said there's anything an omnipotent god can't do.



God can ALWAYS create a rock that God can ALWAYS lift. Phrasing it as a double-negative might sound like a "God-can't", but it MEANS "God ALWAYS can"



Saying "God cannot sin" might sound like a "God-can't", but it means "God is not limited by any laws"



This is obviously not a "God-can't" statement.



Here's another one:

God can't create and unsolveable problem = God can ALWAYS solve any problem = omnipotence.

It's still a double negation. It's not as obvious as the "... can't create ... can't lift." double negation. But it's still the same. The statement MEANS omnipotence.

God can ALWAYS solve any problem.



Sure it can. You're not disproving an omnipotent God by these sorts of examples. You're disproving a simultaneous omnipotent+impotent god.

I'm not sure anyone would disagree that this god cannot logically exist.

So, that's the problem as I see it with your claim in the OP. You're not talking about an omnipotent god. You're talking about something else.

Perhaps this video will help you.

 

[dybmh]

Perhaps this video will help you.

27 minutes. Does any of it actually address the points I made about double negation and statements that appear to be limitations but are actually statements of omnipotence?

 

[Nakosis]

27 minutes. Does any of it actually address the points I made about double negation and statements that appear to be limitations but are actually statements of omnipotence?

Yes.

 

[dybmh]

Yes.

Awesome. Then I really appreciate it. And I'll watch it today, and report back with my thoughts.

 

[dybmh]

Perhaps this video will help you.

It doesn't even come close to addressing the double negation which is:

If god cannot create a rock that god cannot lift = god can always create a rock that god can always lift = omnipotence

The statemate appears to be communicating a lack of power, but it actually means unlimited power.

Besides that it spends a lot of time insulting people, and asking the question can god tell a lie.

The simple answer, which it admits, is YES! Of course god can tell a lie. The Christian bible, and Christians deny it. But what they mean by this denial, or even if it's an accurate translation, is irrelevant. The contradiction is not with the concept of an absolutely omnipotent-god. The contradiction is either in the Christian bible, or in the Christian's understanding of it.

I posted this yesterday:

Omni-benevolent is also a choice. Not a limitation. The omnipotent could choose to do evil, but it doesn't.

Not telling a lie, is not a limitation on god's omnipotence. it is a choice to be omni-benevolent.

It also speaks briefly about mutual exclusive properties: creating square-circles, married-bachelors, etc.. Those are easily resolved as well. Of course an omnipotent being can create these things. Changing the language, changing the defintions, works. Which is they way is answered this yesterday. But also, these things have *already* been created. They exist as concepts, as contradictions. That's what they are. They HAVE been created.

Anyway, there have been NO logical challenges presented to absolute omnipotence-god-concept. Double-negation and misinterpretation of the so-called contradictions is the root of most these challenges. Proper comprehension of the meaning of these statements renders them into limitations which naturally are not consistent with omnipotence. The concept of god lying, is a limitation Christians are putting on their version of god, but I am not. And they might not be either. And mutually-exclusive proporties aren't a problem either.

Most important:

you are not only trying to redefine omnipotence but logic as well.

No! I'm not. I am describing an absolutely omnipotent god.

If you want to redefine omnipotence to mean power over everything except the ability to limit their own power

No! I'm not redefining anything.

Unlimited power was your definition. That's what I'm using. Absolutely unlimited. If you want to include "creating a rock that can't be lifted" in the definition, that IS redefining omnipotence into an omnipotent+impotent hybrid.

And can god lie? Yes! But god chooses not to.

If you want to debate and discuss, please address my primary argument:

God can't create a rock that God can't lift = omnipotence.

 

[Copernicus]

If you are wondering what happened to all of your recent posts in this thread, see When the site goes down . . ..