Christians: God is Not Omnipotent

[Comprehend]

If God were omnipotent, I would have a very difficult time understanding how He could require Jesus to go through what He did during the Atonement.

The Atonement would be an unnecessary and disgusting cruelty.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Okay, but what about natural "evils?" Specifically, what about pain and disease? I believe these things are there to teach us powerful spiritual lessons...but then if God was literally omnipotent, He'd teach us that without forcing us to go through it. I believe He can't, because he's limited by laws of the universe. Learning, I believe, cannot be imposed or infused, not even by God.

Good question. I suppose it has something to do with love. Not the emotion, but rather the act of love. If we did not hunger or feel discomfort and pain, then acts of love would have no place or meaning.

When did I say this? I believe God is powerful enough to counter evil.

Sorry for misunderstanding you. I was just making some bad assumptions from the riddle of Epicurus.

What I don't believe is that God can create good without evil, light without dark, etc. Nor do I believe that He can abolish evil without the inhabitants of the Earth losing something vital along with it--learning, perhaps. If He were literally omnipotent, it stands to reason He could to both of these.

You might ask why we can't have love without the suffering, but I think they are integrally part of the same thing. Without suffering, love would not be love--it would be something completely different and not nearly as meaningful.

Good has meaning because of evil; light has meaning because of darkness. They are part of an integrated system. To have one without the other it ceases to be what it is and becomes something different, regardless of what word we use to describe it.

 

[DeepShadow]

Good question. I suppose it has something to do with love. Not the emotion, but rather the act of love. If we did not hunger or feel discomfort and pain, then acts of love would have no place or meaning.

I totally agree. A literally omnipotent God, however, could create a love with place and meaning without these things.

You might ask why we can't have love without the suffering, but I think they are integrally part of the same thing. Without suffering, love would not be love--it would be something completely different and not nearly as meaningful.

Again, I agree. A literally omnipotent God, however, could fix this dilemma.

Good has meaning because of evil; light has meaning because of darkness. They are part of an integrated system. To have one without the other it ceases to be what it is and becomes something different, regardless of what word we use to describe it.

Guess what? Again, I agree, with all of this. If this is how God works--and I believe it is--then it stands to reason God can't split such a system, can he? Ergo, God has limits, and thus he's not omnipotent.



A literally omnipotent God could lift any rock AND make a rock so big He couldn't lift it. And make it so that wasn't a contradiction.

A literally omnipotent God could create love without suffering, and if we needed a new term for it, we'd know it right away!

A literally omnipotent God wouldn't have to sacrifice His son to save the world.

This is the terrorism of the "omnis-," that by refusing to see the laws that govern God--including the ones that God put on himself--they get in the way of some deep spiritual learning. After all, if God respects these laws, then they ought to be important, eh?

 

[Super Universe]

Ignorance. Evil. Hatred. Poverty. Murder. War. You all think these things are our great drama. You think that only God can fix it when it would all be gone in a few days if everyone really cared. So rather than attempt to make things better you just blame God when it is you who is to blame. What have you done but complain?

Any wrong committed on the earth has no effect on the universe. Galaxies still turn, suns still shine, and trillions of other lifeforms still grow and evolve. It matters not that humans aren't happy because that is not the goal of the universe and that is not the goal of God but you're too selfish to understand it.

You all think this is the best darn thing in the universe because you don't remember who you really are.

 

[Super Universe]

Super Universe, I agree with your analogy, but only because it compares God to a finite being!

[/size]

No, because I am not literally omnipotent. A literally omnipotent parent could teach His child to ride a bike without any risks at all, or even without practice. For a creature of absolutely unlimited power to allow evil to flourish is malevolent.



Maybe it's not supposed to.



Then a totally and completely omnipotent being would fix that, wouldn't he?

You think being human is soooo special. You think this is it, this is as good as it gets.
You want to be a rich and famous human while the rest of the universe sits astonished at how misguided you've let yourself become. Each human is like a billionaire fighting with a dog for scraps. You think expensive material items are what's important. But why would you want things that are temporary?

You want to live forever. And if you don't get it you're going to cry like a baby and blame God. That just keeps you in the crib, one you built for yourself and willingly climbed inside of.

God could easily awaken you and instantly endow you will all the knowledge of the universe. What you don't realize is that it's readily waiting for you, like a universal library that you have free access to no matter where you are in the universe. In order to learn something new all the required previous work must be complete and you must understand it, then it will flow to you freely.

 

[joeboonda]

God is Omnipotent​

Definition:

The attribute of God which describes his ability to do whatever He wills. God's will is limited by His nature, and He therefore cannot do anything contrary to His nature as God, such as to ignore sin, to sin, or to do something absurd or self-contradictory. God is not controlled by His power, but has complete control over it; otherwise He would not be a free being. To a certain extent, He has voluntarily limited Himself by the free will of His rational creatures.​

Meaning:

This means that if God says something will happe. He has the power to make sure that it will happen. Therefore, when He promises eternal life to those who believe in Christ, He has the power to grant it. Just as He cannont sin, He has the power to forgive those who do.​

Scripture Support:

Matthew 19:26​

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.​

Genesis 17:1​

And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. ​

Job 42:2​

I know that thou canst do everything, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.​

Jeremiah 32:17,27​

Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:​

Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?​

Luke 1:37​

For with God nothing shall be impossible.​

Revelation 19:6​

And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.​

Conclusion:

There is nothing that God cannot do except that which goes against His nature. God alone has the power to conquer sin and death. He even created Satan who disobeyed and fell, therefore, He has power over him. He promised to give us the power to overcome he that is in the world.​

Application:

I will rely on God's power when Satan tries to tempt me. I will call upon the name of Jesus to provide me with the protection and the peace He promises to those who call upon Him, because He is powerful enough to keep that promise.​

​

 

[Comprehend]

This:

God is Omnipotent​

Is contradicted by this:

The attribute of God which describes his ability to do whatever He wills. God's will is limited by His nature, and He therefore cannot do anything contrary to His nature as God...​

​

and this:

Conclusion:

There is nothing that God cannot do except that which goes against His nature. ​

​

If God is omnipotent, why was the Atonement necessary? If it was just an object lesson, why all the pain and suffering?

 

[SoyLeche]

My personal take is that God can do anything that can be done - or something like that

 

[Colabomb]

God is only limited by how he limits himself.

He created nature, in such a way that an immovable post and an unstoppable canon ball cannot coexist. However, He could have easily made it otherwise.

He could lie if He chose, but He limits himself to the Truth.

He could have easily been a monster. But He chooses to be Good.

At least that's my opinion, if I am wrong, what's new?

 

[Vassal]

How, then do you address the Riddle of Epicurus, from my first post?

The definition of omnipotent is ‘infinite power’, and the definition of power is ‘ability to accomplish something’. God has the power to accomplish anything he wants, but this doesn’t mean he will do everything. God has reasons for the things he does and does not do, such as why he allows evil to exist. Evil is the result of sin and is necessary because God wants everyone to make the choice of accepting him as their god. If God created a world where we could not sin, and as a result no evil, then there would be no choice for anyone to make. It would not be satisfying for him or for us to have a relationship with us if he forced us to, which is what he would be doing if we had no other choices, so freewill, and as a result sin and evil, are necessary for this world, but there will be no evil in the new world after judgement.

If God were omnipotent, I would have a very difficult time understanding how He could require Jesus to go through what He did during the Atonement.

The Atonement would be an unnecessary and disgusting cruelty.

The first thing to understand is that Jesus is God (John 1:1, hence the name Christianity), and that he came voluntarily because of his love for us (John 10:18). God is perfectly just and fair (Deuteronomy 32:4), so all sins will be punished, but because he knew we could never be sinless he took the punishment upon himself in our place by living a sinless life as Jesus (Philippians 2:6-8). By tanking the punishment upon himself he remains completely just, because all sins are punished, and completely loving, because everyone has the offer of salvation.

Okay, but what about natural "evils?" Specifically, what about pain and disease? I believe these things are there to teach us powerful spiritual lessons...but then if God was literally omnipotent, He'd teach us that without forcing us to go through it. I believe He can't, because he's limited by laws of the universe. Learning, I believe, cannot be imposed or infused, not even by God.

There are many reasons, some which we won’t understand in this life, but the most obvious reason for sickness and disaster is symbolism. Jesus came to give sight to the blind (John 9:39), God is the fountain of living water (Jeremiah 17:13), Jesus is the light of the world (8:12). Metaphors and similes help us understand spiritual things by comparing them to physical things. There are also many examples of natural disasters and sickness, such as the plagues in Egypt, that are used by God to punish people. Natural “evils” may seem bad, but in the grand scheme of things life on Earth is meaningless beyond each person’s decision to accept Christ. Even the “best” life on Earth will not be worth remembering once you get to Heaven (John 6:27).

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I totally agree. A literally omnipotent God, however, could create a love with place and meaning without these things.

To me that is nonsensical. How can it still be love, if it is something different? It is like you are asking for planets and stars, but no Universe. It doesn't make sense.

Again, I agree. A literally omnipotent God, however, could fix this dilemma.

Guess what? Again, I agree, with all of this. If this is how God works--and I believe it is--then it stands to reason God can't split such a system, can he? Ergo, God has limits, and thus he's not omnipotent.

A literally omnipotent God could lift any rock AND make a rock so big He couldn't lift it. And make it so that wasn't a contradiction.

I think where we disagree is that "omnipotent" does not mean that God can do things that don't make sense. It is worthless to ask whether God can do nonsensical things, because it becomes a nonsensical question. It loses any binding to reason and logic, and if a statement does not have reason and logic, why should we consider it meaningful?

If anything, you are not testing the limits of God's power, but rather, you are testing the limits of our reason and language. Remember, God gave us reason so that we could understand what we He felt it was important for us to understand. He did not give us reason so that we could reverse engineer His being.

A literally omnipotent God could create love without suffering, and if we needed a new term for it, we'd know it right away!

You are missing the point. Regardless of what we call it, if it is something different, then it is something different. Love that does not depend on suffering is not the same thing as love that does depend on suffering.

It really goes back to Aristotle. "A is A". "A is not B". If you say that God ought to be able to have "A is B", then all you are doing is ruining our foundations in logic, but it says nothing about what God's limits are. You are just making a nonsensical statement.

A literally omnipotent God wouldn't have to sacrifice His son to save the world.

Perhaps it was His choice to do it that way...

This is the terrorism of the "omnis-," that by refusing to see the laws that govern God--including the ones that God put on himself--they get in the way of some deep spiritual learning. After all, if God respects these laws, then they ought to be important, eh?

I did not realize that God put laws on Himself. He has no laws that govern Him... He is the law giver.

 

[Baerly]

This came up a long time ago, and at the request of my wife I'm making it the topic of this latest de-lurking.

I believe that one of the greatest obstacles to many people's understanding of God is the prefix "omni-". Not only is non-scriptural, but it's a logical construct that carries its own contradictions with it! Come on, we've all heard them, about God making a rock so big He can't lift it, or making a being that can armwrestle Him, or making an immoveable post AND an unstoppable cannonball at the same time, or making a tree so thick He can't cut it, or floating a loan He can't repay. We blow these off because they are juvenile pseudo-intellectualism--and they are--but they contain at their heart a genuine contradiction that crops up in questions that are much more worthy. Chief among these IMO is the riddle of Epicurus:



Much as we may hate it or be tired of hearing it--I've saving my rebuttal of line 2 for another thread--I believe this riddle contains questions worth asking. Many answers I've heard deal with this in one way or another, but in the end most boil down to a backpedal: "God is not omnipotent." I'm quite fond of the lines from George Burns' "Oh God!" movies, where the little girl asks why He made bad things, and He replies, "Have you ever seen a front without a back? A top without a bottom?" She says she hasn't, and He explains that He can't make things without making their opposites. Cute, certainly; profound, maybe, but it amounts to saying that God isn't omnipotent, because there's something He can't do. Admitting that from the outset might eliminate a lot of confusion.

Not only is the term "omnipotent" logically baseless, it's scripturally baseless. The Bible actually states things that God cannot do, such as lie (Titus 1:2). Can God die? I know few Christians who interpret the term this way, but this only begs the question as to why we use this term at all.

Is God all powerful? - He is if he made man from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7)
How about when God limited satan as to what he could do to Job? Satan is said to be the prince of this world, yet God is limiting satan as to what he can do to Job. That sounds like an all, powerful God to me. Especially when we read what Satan is able to accomplish with his power. Even Satan noticed that God had a hedge about Job (Job 1:10). Notice also that God did not deny that he had a hedge about Job.

How about the miracles that are recorded? The miracles were recorded in the bible to make people believe (John 20:30,31). They were powerful notable miracles which could not be denied (Acts 4:16). The miracles were to confirm the word (or message)was sent from God and the person was sent from God. The lame healed (Acts 3). The blind healed (John 9). Walking on the water (Mark 6:48). Even the wind and the sea obeyed Him (Mark 4:37-41). This is powerful testimony.

The terrible things that happen to people are trials we all must go through. They are test for each of us to weather according to (James 1).

Here is a good lesson:

http://www.gospelpreceptor.com/BreweJ13.htm

Baerly

 

[lilithu]

Is God all powerful? - He is if he made man from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7)

That doesn't prove that God is all powerful. It only "proves" that God is capable of creating men out of dirt.

The same with your other examples.

 

[Prometheus]

God can't even beat an army of people on iron chariots, so He's probably less powerful than us by now.

Also, it would be interesting to see Jesus descend from the Heavens only for Him to be seen as a UFO and shot down by fighter pilots.

 

[sojourner]

God can't even beat an army of people on iron chariots, so He's probably less powerful than us by now.

Also, it would be interesting to see Jesus descend from the Heavens only for Him to be seen as a UFO and shot down by fighter pilots.

Almost as interesting as seeing Jesus teach and heal only to be killed in an act of terrorism by people with an overblown sense of entitlement.

 

[doppelganger]

Almost as interesting as seeing Jesus teach and heal only to be killed in an act of terrorism by people with an overblown sense of entitlement.

Then you'll probably enjoy this: http://www.amazon.com/Messiah-Morris-Avenue-Novel/dp/0805079645

 

[reformed christian]

God is all powerful. As it says in Jer 32:17 "Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you.

Then again in Matt 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

 

[Rolling_Stone]

This came up a long time ago, and at the request of my wife I'm making it the topic of this latest de-lurking.

I believe that one of the greatest obstacles to many people's understanding of God is the prefix "omni-". Not only is non-scriptural, but it's a logical construct that carries its own contradictions with it! Come on, we've all heard them, about God making a rock so big He can't lift it, or making a being that can armwrestle Him, or making an immoveable post AND an unstoppable cannonball at the same time, or making a tree so thick He can't cut it, or floating a loan He can't repay. We blow these off because they are juvenile pseudo-intellectualism--and they are--but they contain at their heart a genuine contradiction that crops up in questions that are much more worthy. Chief among these IMO is the riddle of Epicurus:

Much as we may hate it or be tired of hearing it--I've saving my rebuttal of line 2 for another thread--I believe this riddle contains questions worth asking. Many answers I've heard deal with this in one way or another, but in the end most boil down to a backpedal: "God is not omnipotent." I'm quite fond of the lines from George Burns' "Oh God!" movies, where the little girl asks why He made bad things, and He replies, "Have you ever seen a front without a back? A top without a bottom?" She says she hasn't, and He explains that He can't make things without making their opposites. Cute, certainly; profound, maybe, but it amounts to saying that God isn't omnipotent, because there's something He can't do. Admitting that from the outset might eliminate a lot of confusion.

Not only is the term "omnipotent" logically baseless, it's scripturally baseless. The Bible actually states things that God cannot do, such as lie (Titus 1:2). Can God die? I know few Christians who interpret the term this way, but this only begs the question as to why we use this term at all.

This is one of the reasons I left the LDS church--the inability to contemplate infinity and eternity. I mean, come on! Can God make a rock so large he can't lift it? How juvinile! That like saying "this statement is a lie" is reasonable. The question is self-referential. That is, it's nonsense. It's no less juvinie to think "omnipotence" includes the ability to do the undoable.

The Epicurus riddle works if you believe God has being like a flying pink unicorn, but once you discern the difference between something that has being and being itself, the problem disappears. "God's primal perfection consists not in an assumed righteousness but rather in the inherent perfection of the goodness of his divine [and infinite] nature." If God is infinite, goodness is not something he possesses or something he is subject to: God is goodness itself and "evil" has no basis in reality. If God were to recognize its existence, he would be confirming something that is not within himself.

 

[Somkid]

Omnipotence is not possible because it is paradoxic and a contradiction to everything known if you argue this point it means God can not be known so why is everyone worshiping something they say is known but can not be known, so, someone is full of it. In any case I think the "God can not create a stone so heavy that he can not lift it or if he can than he can not be omnipotent" argument.

 

[tomspug]

To define ANYTHING as omni- is to define something as infinite, which is, by definition, beyond comprehension. So how is it that we feel we can use limited logic to debunk it. I once wrote an article about defining the concept of infinite. Maybe I'll post that sometime when I get ahold of it.

"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heavens of heaven cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built" (I Kings 8:27).

Do you want to know how many times the words 'God' and 'Almighty' go together in the Bible? What do you think the definition of 'almighty' is?