The Limits of God's Power


Snow
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've seen some argue, wrongly, that omnipotence means that God can do absolutely anything. For example, God cannot create a 4 sided triangle... not because God is not powerful, but because the concept is meaningless. A triangle has three sides. If you create something with 4 sides then it is not 3 sided. In that sense, God is not limited - it's just a nonsensical question.

In what legitimate ways is God limited?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God cannot lie. How do we know this?...Because God said he couldn't...But what if he lied about not being able to lie? :P

I think that God CAN do anything, INCLUDING making laws that cannot be broken. If God has the power to create laws like that, then wouldn't HE be bound to them as well? As Homer Simpson put it, "Could God microwave a burrito so hot, that not even He could eat it?"

^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speculation of course but I'd say that God is only "limited" by how own nature and therefore "Cannot do anything outside what and who He is." There are many things God cannot do, not because of a limitation but because it's outside His nature. Like being evil, unjust, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen some argue, wrongly, that omnipotence means that God can do absolutely anything. For example, God cannot create a 4 sided triangle... not because God is not powerful, but because the concept is meaningless. A triangle has three sides. If you create something with 4 sides then it is not 3 sided. In that sense, God is not limited - it's just a nonsensical question.

My favorite one is: Can God do the impossible?

That's a fun one, by definition the impossible is not possible, omnipotence does not change that. Now obviously we can have a flawed understanding of what is impossible, but if something is truly impossible it cannot be done, even by an omnipotent being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God cannot realize something is done until it is actually done. I can barely wrap my head around the concept of God not restricted by time. But it seems in the scriptures that there is a value to actually bringing something to pass as opposed to God saying this will happen, or I have seen the future and it will happen. In other words, I don't think God can take the full credit for something (i.e. gain glory) for potential projects or future projects. I think this is evidenced by Gods work being to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. And I think its evidenced by there being no end to Gods work because the glory is in the actual doing the thing not just planning it.

The other thing God would be limited by (but since He participates in this He is not limited) is the lack of relationships with other beings. In other words, if God was a loner, He would not be God. He requires relationships with others and in fact the more relationships the better. If He was by himself, He would not be God, just some powerful dude hanging out. This is why the true doctrine has to incorporate a belief that God was never by himself. There were always other beings around and related to God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God could clearly make a 4 sided triangle. The only limitation is not God's power, it is our understanding of his power. If you can not imagine him being able to create a 4 sided triangle, then, you do not truly understand his greatness and your own limitations.

Here's the test: Describe how God can make 4 sides on a 3 sided geometric shape.

Do you think we will have to wait long for an explanation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple, I can not, for I do not have God's understanding of things. I am limited by man's faulty and irrational understanding of things. I do not have God's definitions of geometric features. I am limited by man's limited ability. However, I do believe that Heavenly Father is not so limited. I understand that our definitions limit us. Since I believe Heavenly Father is not thusly limited, I believe it is perfectly possible that a 4 sided geometric figure, in God's understanding, could be a triangle and we are wrong.

I do not place man's limitations on my understanding of God. It is why I can believe that he can make a man walk on water, a donkey talk, a bush burn without damage and his voice be present, and a flood occur that may not have left evidence. Man's weakness leads us to need to define things in terms we understand. When we can't understand something in our own ways, we have 2 choices. Excercise faith or deny it. My faith allows me to believe that, even if I am not able to explain it, Heavenly Father can do it.

Now, can you explain to me why a Heavenly Father who created the Heavens and Earth, created man in his own likeness, and all the other things the LDS faith teaches us he did, is limited by our own understanding of the world?

Here's the test: Describe how God can make 4 sides on a 3 sided geometric shape.

Do you think we will have to wait long for an explanation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically God can do it through using a definition different than is generally understood? That doesn't require omnipotence. Heck, I can redefine murder as helping the poor thus making murder a good thing and I'm far from omnipotent, redefining the word meaning a three sided geometric shape to mean something else is child's play.

Edit: Of course getting other people to accept it is another story.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple, I can not, for I do not have God's understanding of things. I am limited by man's faulty and irrational understanding of things. I do not have God's definitions of geometric features. I am limited by man's limited ability. However, I do believe that Heavenly Father is not so limited. I understand that our definitions limit us. Since I believe Heavenly Father is not thusly limited, I believe it is perfectly possible that a 4 sided geometric figure, in God's understanding, could be a triangle and we are wrong.

I do not place man's limitations on my understanding of God. It is why I can believe that he can make a man walk on water, a donkey talk, a bush burn without damage and his voice be present, and a flood occur that may not have left evidence. Man's weakness leads us to need to define things in terms we understand. When we can't understand something in our own ways, we have 2 choices. Excercise faith or deny it. My faith allows me to believe that, even if I am not able to explain it, Heavenly Father can do it.

... and that's why your answer is irrelevant and completely uninteresting. Posing a nonsense question - a question that means nothing - and saying that, yes, God can do it by explaining its a big ol giant mystery is as meaningless as the nonsense question.

Now, can you explain to me why a Heavenly Father who created the Heavens and Earth, created man in his own likeness, and all the other things the LDS faith teaches us he did, is limited by our own understanding of the world?

Open up a thread on it and if it's interesting, I'll participate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God could clearly make a 4 sided triangle. The only limitation is not God's power, it is our understanding of his power. If you can not imagine him being able to create a 4 sided triangle, then, you do not truly understand his greatness and your own limitations.

Gatorman no disrespect. Are you arguing this for arguments sake because it's Snow that posed the question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Setting aside the nonsense questions (can God eat ribeye steaks that don't exist)...

1. God is limited in his moral agency...

We know that “God cannot lie” (Enos 1:4). He is thus limited to not lying, (for the time being let’s ignore the scriptures that say that good can and does lie/deceive). Alma (11:34) tells us that “[God] cannot save [persons] in their sins; for he cannot deny his word;... it is impossible for him to deny his word” So we know that God cannot deny his word and God cannot save people in their sins. The implication is clear - God is good and it is impossible for God to genuinely bring about evil.

Now some have suggested that when the scriptures say that God "cannot," what they really mean is "will not." First, the Book of Mormon was translated by inspiration into English. Both God and Joseph Smith were familiar with the word "cannot" but they instead used the words "will not." Second, Even if God could lie, which the Book of Mormon clearly says that he cannot, then we are informed what would happen if God did behave immorally: "Now the works of justice cannot be destroyed, if so, God would cease to be God" Alma 42:13. Ergo, if God were to act unjustly or immoral, then God would no longer be God. Note that the scripture says that He would cease to be God, not that he would cease to exist... the implication that He would lose his titular station in the Godhood.

Another way to look at it is that God's essential nature is moral, good, just... perfectly so and God cannot act in a way that contradicts his essential nature... at least not and remain God.... and that's something that people who think God kills and orders the killing of innocent life (and stealing and rape and slavery and kidnapping, etc) should think about.

2. The second way that God is limited is shown in the Alma scripture above... God cannot save people in their sins; not that he will not, rather that he cannot. Thus the atonement or some other process or event with similar consequences was necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The limitations of God's power is beyond me. I'm still back trying to better understand the nature of God. I know that God is good, but trying to put that into a full context in my understanding and to enact that understanding in my life is such a task.

When Snow writes, "Another way to look at it is that God's essential nature is moral, good, just..." it rings true. When he speaks of God being internally consistant with goodness as part of his essential nature, that rings true as well. I think he is onto something.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pam - No more argumentative than Snow's original post. :) No, I am not posting this simply to argue with Snow.

That being said, back on topic. This statement will seem harsh, but it is what I believe and it is NOT meant as an attack on anyone. I believe that ANYONE trying to limit Heavenly Father to a set of definitions limited on our understanding of science, morality, the world, history, or anything, does not understand the nature of Heavenly Father.

Our understanding of morality is limited. Snow hypothesizes that Heavenly Father would not have killed the children of Egypt, because he is 'good'. I look at that occurence and say, 'What a miracle. Heavenly Father kept his promise to look out for the people of Israel. He performed an act that should have made clear his existence to the Egyptians. And, he kept his word to Pharoah. He said that he would do unto Pharoah whatever Pharoah chose to do next. Pharoah chose the punishment. I love my children and sometimes they require punishments that are 'mean' to them. And, often, they don't understand what is going on or why I can be so 'mean'. They only understand it based on their knowledge and learning so far. But, since I have grown up, I have learned that my parents were not mean. They did what seemed mean to my limited knowledge at the time, but, which I understand completely differently based on my further light and knowledge.

To me, the idea of Heavenly Father's power being limited just grates. It is again based on our understanding of the world. Guess what? We are flawed, simple, stupid, animals, compared to Heavenly Father. Our understanding of the world is so flawed and wrong, that, in the hereafter, we will see how silly we were. The idea of a 4 sided triangle is not a matter of definition to me. It is a matter that I believe that Heavenly Father is omnipotent. He could do whatever he wanted, if he so chose to. Of course, if in the end I am wrong, it will not limit my faith in him I just refuse to try to constrain Heavely Father and make him less than he is or can be. I choose to excercise my faith in him greater than my faith in myself and my own knowledge.

Now, ideas that Heavenly Father is constrained, that he can not or has not performed the miracles the scriptures teach us about because it does not line up with science, etc, smacks of a greater faith in science and in man than in Heavenly Father. I have never suggested science is bad or that it should be ignored. But, you will also NEVER find me suggesting that science should disprove scripture, disprove the nature of Heavenly Father, or disprove faith. And, to put it bluntly, these topics SUGGEST exactly that. If it is not the intent of posters who post these types of statements, then, they may desire to look at what they are accomplishing, rather than their intent. Because it may be based on ignorance, I post the following to help, not attack. Snow, these posts suggest to myself and others that you place science and your own understanding as higher and superior to Heavenly Father. Your posts suggest that Heavenly Father is not the great Heavenly Father we are taught he is and that we should attempt to constrain his ability and power to our own understanding of him. If I were to go by your posts of this nature alone, I would be stuck assuming that you were not only a non believer, but, that your mission in life was to try to destroy the faith of other people, to try to make them look foolish and stupid, and to cast their beliefs into doubt. I believe the scriptures warns us to be careful that our actions NEVER do that, even when it is not our intent. I am not saying that this is your intent. I am simply stating that it is an unintending consequence. So far, my faith has protected me from that unintended consequence, which I am grateful for. I say this, not simply because it is what I feel, but because I have spoken with others who have stated it just as plainly as I do. And, I also read posts by some people and see the same thing. Now, I know that this is likely not what your intent is, because the moderators would have long ago stopped someone who was truly trying to do this. It is why I do comment on your posts and get as serious about them as I do. I can not let stand your suppositions without stating my position, so others, who might have their faith shaken, can understand that, as intelligent as you post and as knowledgeable as you appaer to be, there are other ways to look at things which may be right. Your posts come off as if you are sure in your perfect knowledge of the world, as if you are a scholar and a scriptorian. But, at the same time, based on the posts alone, it appears as if for all your knowledge, you don't have a true faith in our Heavenly Father. I choose to believe that is because of the limitations of forum posting which removes some of our normal, human communication queues.

I had not meant this to be this long. I do not mean this as an attack. I simple am trying to share how your posts come across to many, so you may choose your course. In the end, it is your course. And, I am sure I come across as a simpleton and a fool to you. I probably seem like I refuse to look critically at the scriptures and to question. And, it is for this reason that I choose to believe it is simply how you come across on the forum, and not because you are the type of person your posts suggest. Because, Snow, I am not as simple, foolish, or dogmatic as you would probably believe. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read through this thread, and maybe I don't fully understand what the posters are saying, but i'll give the gist of my understanding. It has been stated that God is omnipotent, and as such he can do crazy things like make 4 sided triangles. I firmly believe that God is omnipotent, but he is in fact constrained by natural laws that either have always existed, or he created. God himself clearly states there are things he cannot do or he would cease to be God. For example, can God defy gravity? I think the answer is no. Take that as you will, but fill in any other natural law and ask yourself if God can change them. I believe he cannot. However, God does know how to work within the constraints of natural laws to accomplish the things he would have done, just as man has learned to do. We can fly, does any one doubt that God can fly? We have learned to work with the laws of gravity, and overcome the constraints presented to us in order to accomplish flight. Why can't God do the same thing, and still have to obey the laws of nature? Saying that God can and does have a better understanding of the laws of nature, and knows how to overcome their constraints is not saying God is not Omnipotent. It is saying he has greater understanding of those things. We do not need to have a perfect knowledge of how he does everything in order to believe he is Omnipotent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The limitations of God's power is beyond me. I'm still back trying to better understand the nature of God. I know that God is good, but trying to put that into a full context in my understanding and to enact that understanding in my life is such a task.

When Snow writes, "Another way to look at it is that God's essential nature is moral, good, just..." it rings true. When he speaks of God being internally consistant with goodness as part of his essential nature, that rings true as well. I think he is onto something.

:)

To an extent this is correct. However, we have to distinguish between what we mortals consider as good, and what God considers as good.

Many parents lavish wonderful things upon their children, thinking they are doing good for and by those kids. Some parents are extremely protective of their kids, trying to prevent them from experiencing pain and suffering. Other parents see the need for kids to suffer from their poor choices, so they can grow up to be responsible and capable.

Which way is good?

Is God's "essential nature" such that he is completely blissful? If so, then how can he also weep over our sins? God cannot be totally at bliss and compassionate at the same time. Instead, his "essential nature" is to maximize whatever decision or emotion to the divine goals of his work and glory: the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39).

At times, God reaches his goals by lavishing gifts upon his children. Other times, he must destroy and punish. All of this is done in order to achieve his overall goal of saving his children. In this, he must give up some personal bliss, in order to show compassion. He must also give up always lavishing only good gifts on his children, in order to refine them and save them. A loving father chastises his children.

Snow cannot fully grasp this, which is why he refuses to believe that a good God can destroy a nation, or a person. Or have Moses and Joshua and Nephi do it.

Yet all of this is aimed at saving souls in the long run. A child that grows up in war-torn Somalia, or in the famines of Ethiopia, may seem like evidence that God is not good nor just. After all, why let some children starve or be raped and enslaved, etc., while Bill Gates' children will never go without? Yet, if we look at God's eternal plan, then all tears are wiped off, and all suffering will be replaced with joy a hundred-fold over. THEN we see God's true goodness, justice and love. These sufferings are but a moment, the Lord told Joseph Smith, and then comes the rewards and blessings. Only after such trials can we truly appreciate the release from all struggle and bondage that Christ's atonement gives us. We see the need to embrace the atonement, not just to repent of our own sins, but to be healed of all the evils imposed upon us by this world.

In this, God is good, just, compassionate. And in this is his eternal power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share