God Can't Do Everything

[Dr T]

Sorry for the wrong word. I meant omnipotence not omniscience. I know the difference I must have been typing too fast. It is an absurdity therefore no need to "explain" it like you are asking. The two premises are talking about limits on either end that cannot be reached therefore they become useless conversation.

Dr. T

[Serg]

If they were useless for conversation, because they propose limitations to God's power, then this very therad is just as useless for its very tittle reads a question that must be found ABSURD , if in fact it could not be contended(as it has benn) that it is not totally true, hence, it is you who ASSUME put of nothing that God CAN do anything, and, as such is obviously true, it is useless to contend in respect of it(in any sense, and at any cost).

You see Dr.T, you cant consider your thomistic views a universal 'obvious truth"(for they indeed, are not), nor can you just say that all these personalities(far more brilliant that you and me,)wasted their time, in what you in all your wisdom consider an 'absurdity". An "absurdity" was to the Pope that the Earth was not the center of this universe, until it was TESTED such a belief, and founded gulty of the most ridiculous faults. Just the same has happened to this absolutist belief of God's soverignity, it has been contested for the past 4 hundred years(specially the las 150) and found gulty of contradiction, not only LOGICAL contradiction(as in NO religious frame of refference), but irreconciliable to Jewish tradiction(Scripture) and cbiblical conceptions of God.

Now, if you want(as i wish) to contend this, my response, dont do it in a simple post of two lines saying its absurd, test it, and show me rationally the "way" as I am being kind to do with you.

[Dr T]

If they were useless for conversation, because they propose limitations to God's power, then this very therad is just as useless for its very tittle reads a question that must be found ABSURD , if in fact it could not be contended(as it has benn) that it is not totally true, hence, it is you who ASSUME put of nothing that God CAN do anything, and, as such is obviously true, it is useless to contend in respect of it(in any sense, and at any cost).

What?

You see Dr.T, you cant consider your thomistic views a universal 'obvious truth"(for they indeed, are not), nor can you just say that all these personalities(far more brilliant that you and me,)wasted their time, in what you in all your wisdom consider an 'absurdity". An "absurdity" was to the Pope that the Earth was not the center of this universe, until it was TESTED such a belief, and founded gulty of the most ridiculous faults. Just the same has happened to this absolutist belief of God's soverignity, it has been contested for the past 4 hundred years(specially the las 150) and found gulty of contradiction, not only LOGICAL contradiction(as in NO religious frame of refference), but irreconciliable to Jewish tradiction(Scripture) and cbiblical conceptions of God.

Again, what? Logic is universal, sir. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Now, if you want(as i wish) to contend this, my response, dont do it in a simple post of two lines saying its absurd, test it, and show me rationally the "way" as I am being kind to do with you.

Do you understand what an absurdity is, sir?

Dr. T

[Snow]

Hey Snow,

The easy answer; me. My guess is you say so too. Why would you hold otherwise? Do you contend that God, begin eternal, can cease to exist? Contradiction. Can you really argue that God can be Satan? He would then be evil. If God is not evil-that could not follow. Please expalin.

Thanks,

Dr. T

If God is all-powerful, certainly he has power to control his own destiny; otherwise he is the servant of a power greater than himself. If he is sovereign then he chooses his destiny and chooses to be God and to be eternal.

Likewise, if God is all powerful, his nature is of his own choosing. Otherwise his nature would be the choice of someone or something else. Is he good because it is compelled (without his active volition) to be good? If so, then he is not sovereign.

Sure - we understand God to be God but so what. What couldn't God choose to be evil? Just because we don't like the idea? I don't think so.

<div class='quotemain'>

You may be right but that is contrary to orthodoxically understood LDS doctrine - is it not?

I can only answer that based on the LDS members I know, and my acquaintances don't believe God can make a rock so big He can't lift it, for example.

No - that's not it. No one expects God to do contradictory absurdities in order to prove he is all-powerful, ie create a t-bone steak so large that he could not eat it.

Rather, you said that God is strong enough to provide for our salvation but cannot abrogate eternal laws of nature/justice whatever. Maybe you are right but that makes God subject to powers greater than himself and that's not an orthodox position - that he is not sovereign.

[Dr T]

Thanks for your thoughts Snow.

Likewise, if God is all powerful, his nature is of his own choosing.

How do you come to that conclusion? Nature is like talking of essence. Oh. I think I just understood what you are saying. You believe God was created. If He was created, He developed/progressed and therefore is the culmination of His work and therefore chose who/what He became. My problem with that would be a different perspective of God. God, in my understanding has always been God. He was not created, does not develop, etc. That is probably where I was missing your point.

Thanks,

Dr. T

[Snow]

Thanks for your thoughts Snow.

Likewise, if God is all powerful, his nature is of his own choosing.

How do you come to that conclusion? Nature is like talking of essence. Oh. I think I just understood what you are saying. You believe God was created. If He was created, He developed/progressed and therefore is the culmination of His work and therefore chose who/what He became. My problem with that would be a different perspective of God. God, in my understanding has always been God. He was not created, does not develop, etc. That is probably where I was missing your point.

Thanks,

Dr. T

I come to that conclusion because I choose to believe that God is all-powerful. Being all-powerful, he has power over his nature. Were it not so, he wouldn't be all-powerful. It's a simple math/logic question.

I wouldn't have any idea if God is created or uncreated. It is irrelevant to the question of his status of omnipotence.

[Serg]

Dr.T

I am sorry you dont get my point. I cant make it any clear(it's philosophy not a doctrinal class), sorry.

[Dr T]

Thanks Snow. My point is that being Omnipotent is based on all things that can possibly be done not the ability to do things that are impossible . Going against one's nature is an imposibiity and therefore ought not be held up as the standard of omnipotence.

===

Serg,

It's not the philosophy-it's your choice of words to express what you are trying to say. You're missing some building blockings in your argument. Definition of terms for example. Attribution of "moral" to an inanimate object, etc.

Thanks,

Dr. T

[Traveler]

One of the problems in this thread is that most seem to be thinking inside a 3 dimensional universe (which we may agree was created by G-d - what-ever the meaning of creation is). What we think we have been able to come up with as logical contradictions of our universe may not be so difficult for someone in 4 (or more) dimensions.

In addition, I also find it interesting that many people think of laws as limitations rather than a means of power and freedom. Perhaps we are approaching this all wrong. Jesus said that a knowledge of the truth is the means of freedom. It would seem to me that the power of G-d we think we are trying to understand may not be what we are trying to define in this thread. True omnipotence may be nothing more than knowledge and self-control. In essence this seems to me what G-d is trying to get us to understand and experience.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Thanks Traveler. Maybe we should begin by defining what we believe to be the attributes of God as defined in scripture.

Thanks again

[Traveler]

Thanks Traveler. Maybe we should begin by defining what we believe to be the attributes of God as defined in scripture.

Thanks again

I would say the first defining attribute of an Omnipotent G-d is sacrifice. It appears to me that the creation was a great act of divine sacrifice for un-deserving and perhaps unthankful man.

I am not sure we understand such sacrifice. For every sacrifice we make, there is the impression that G-d blesses us so we get a greater reward; therefore there is no true sacrifice. Look at the arguments concerning salvation (faith or works). Lost in such arguments is the understanding that sacrifice does something for someone else but I see the focus of arguments concerning salvation - as get it for me, me, me and what blessings I can get for me by my faith or my works.

Few seem to understand the sacrifice of Jesus was so that others may benefit - not him. I think salvation is really understood when our faith and works benefit others in a manner like that of Jesus without the focus on ourselves. Until we arrive at that point I think we kid ourselves about the me, me, me attitude concerning salvation. Until we understand that it is more about sacrifice (giving) than getting - salvation will be nothing more than an illusion.

The Traveler

[Snow]

Thanks Snow. My point is that being Omnipotent is based on all things that can possibly be done not the ability to do things that are impossible . Going against one's nature is an imposibiity and therefore ought not be held up as the standard of omnipotence.

Says you. Besides you, who says that one can't go against their nature? What law would that violate?

Can a good man not do evil, and an evil one good?

[Dr T]

Hi Snow,

No, an "all good" being cannot do evil. An all knowing being cannot not know something. See how that works?

Dr. T

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Rather, you said that God is strong enough to provide for our salvation but cannot abrogate eternal laws of nature/justice whatever. Maybe you are right but that makes God subject to powers greater than himself and that's not an orthodox position - that he is not sovereign.

Snow, I suppose I believe it to be an orthodox (or at least official) position that God operates according to laws that He can't abrogate, because I believe it is taught in passages of scripture like D&C 121:41-46 which state that we aren't to maintain power or influence just because we have priesthood authority, but by being righteous. I believe that God is there giving us the pattern for true power, the pattern He Himself follows in maintaining His power. I believe God has power not just because He has the authority to preside as our God, but because He is perfectly good as well. And as verse 46 of the above scripture reference states, those who rule with a scepter of righteousness will have an everlasting dominion flow to them without it being forced or compelled to do so. In other words, the eternal dominion will voluntarily place itself at the command of the one with authority and righteousness.

So in that sense, I think of God being all-powerful because He's perfectly righteous (as per the formula in the above D&C passage). My online dictionary widget (Macs rock) defines righteous as: "(of a person or conduct) morally right or justifiable." It further defines morally as: "in relation to standards of good and bad character or conduct." So a righteous person is one whose character or conduct aligns with standards of goodness. In my mind, if God created the eternal standards of good and bad, it wouldn't be very impressive that He can conform to His own rules and expect respect because of that. However, if there are self-existent, eternal standards of good and bad, and God conforms to those, and we know that, and we trust and love Him because of that, then those facts fit in perfectly with D&C 121:41-46. Also, D&C 29:36 equates power with honor, or respect, which also fits in with D&C 121.

Then again, perhaps we're defining "sovereign" differently. My widget defines it as: "A supreme ruler, esp. a monarch," and as an adjective: "possessing supreme or ultimate power." My trusty widget had a definition for ultimate too: "the best achievable or imaginable of its kind." Well, I believe God is our supreme ruler, our Heavenly King, with ultimate or the best achievable power a being can possess. In that regard, I view God as sovereign while conforming to standards of good at the same time. I don't see a contradiction. Again, I suspect we're defining sovereign differently. How do you view it?

[Dr T]

Hi AK,

Are you saying that "good" is external an preexistent to God? Do you not hold that the good is defined BY God?

Thanks

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

Thanks Traveler. Maybe we should begin by defining what we believe to be the attributes of God as defined in scripture.

Thanks again

I would say the first defining attribute of an Omnipotent G-d is sacrifice. It appears to me that the creation was a great act of divine sacrifice for un-deserving and perhaps unthankful man.

I am not sure we understand such sacrifice. For every sacrifice we make, there is the impression that G-d blesses us so we get a greater reward; therefore there is no true sacrifice. Look at the arguments concerning salvation (faith or works). Lost in such arguments is the understanding that sacrifice does something for someone else but I see the focus of arguments concerning salvation - as get it for me, me, me and what blessings I can get for me by my faith or my works.

Few seem to understand the sacrifice of Jesus was so that others may benefit - not him. I think salvation is really understood when our faith and works benefit others in a manner like that of Jesus without the focus on ourselves. Until we arrive at that point I think we kid ourselves about the me, me, me attitude concerning salvation. Until we understand that it is more about sacrifice (giving) than getting - salvation will be nothing more than an illusion.

The Traveler

I think I disagree with some of what you are trying to say, Traveler.

I do understand that it was a sacrifice for our Lord to do what He did, but I don't agree that He got nothing at all out of it.

He grew by being willing to... and actually offer... His life. He wanted to be just like our Father.

If He had chosen not to do that He wouldn't have been... He would not have remained like our Father.

So He got what He wanted, and we'll get what we want. That's what He did, and what He made possible.

And He will always be glorified for making that possible. I will NEVER stop praising my Lord!

[Traveler]

I think I disagree with some of what you are trying to say, Traveler.

I do understand that it was a sacrifice for our Lord to do what He did, but I don't agree that He got nothing at all out of it.

He grew by being willing to... and actually offer... His life. He wanted to be just like our Father.

If He had chosen not to do that He wouldn't have been... He would not have remained like our Father.

So He got what He wanted, and we'll get what we want. That's what He did, and what He made possible.

And He will always be glorified for making that possible. I will NEVER stop praising my Lord!

In regards to Jesus you almost have the point. What you do not seem to understand is that he sacrificed what he wanted for his Father's will. It was not about him and what he would get, grow into or be glorified with. Despite your opinion, I really do not think he was ever into it for the glory or any personal benefit. I also do not think his sacrifice was for your praise. I do believe your sacrifice would be meaningful. Not only would you obtain tremendous insight into the omnipotence of G-d but you would (like Jesus) be like our Father.

The Traveler

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

I think I disagree with some of what you are trying to say, Traveler.

I do understand that it was a sacrifice for our Lord to do what He did, but I don't agree that He got nothing at all out of it.

He grew by being willing to... and actually offer... His life. He wanted to be just like our Father.

If He had chosen not to do that He wouldn't have been... He would not have remained like our Father.

So He got what He wanted, and we'll get what we want. That's what He did, and what He made possible.

And He will always be glorified for making that possible. I will NEVER stop praising my Lord!

In regards to Jesus you almost have the point. What you do not seem to understand is that he sacrificed what he wanted for his Father's will. It was not about him and what he would get, grow into or be glorified with. Despite your opinion, I really do not think he was ever into it for the glory or any personal benefit. I also do not think his sacrifice was for your praise. I do believe your sacrifice would be meaningful. Not only would you obtain tremendous insight into the omnipotence of G-d but you would (like Jesus) be like our Father.

The Traveler

Okay, one more comment, and I'll try to use most of your words...

In regards to what I was saying you almost have my point. What you do not seem to understand is that he (our Lord) sacrificed anything else he might have wanted so that he could accomplish our Father's will. It was really and truly our Lord's will to do the will of our Father, and in that he was completely successful. It was not about only him and what only he would get, he did what he did for our Father, and it was always our Lord's will to do the will of our Father... our Lord wanted that above all. He did have the choice to not do our Father's will, but he did what he did becaause he wanted to... for the glory of our Father and the glory that was given to Him... if you'll read our Lord's prayer again you will see that he asked to have the glory he once had with our Father... and he wouldn't have had that... he would have lost all he had, if he had only done what was only his will.

Despite your opinion... that is what I believe... and I do have my reasons for believing.

I know our Lord did what our Father truly wanted, but he did that because he wanted to do that.

And that's all we ever do. We only do what we want to. And if we want to we can follow our Father.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Are you saying that "good" is external an preexistent to God?

Yes. I don't believe anyone "created" the inherent standards of good and bad in the universe. I believe they are self-existent and knowable.

Do you not hold that the good is defined BY God?

I don't think God "legislated" what is good and bad, if that's what you mean. I believe He knows and operates within eternal standards of goodness, and this is what makes Him perfectly righteous, honored, and powerful.

[Dr T]

Thanks for your thoughts on that A.K. I've never thought about that. I would really like to look into the idea of "goodness." Thanks again for that. :)

Dr. T

[Guest ApostleKnight]

My pleasure, Dr. T.

[Traveler]

Despite your opinion... that is what I believe... and I do have my reasons for believing.

I know our Lord did what our Father truly wanted, but he did that because he wanted to do that.

And that's all we ever do. We only do what we want to. And if we want to we can follow our Father.

I think that Jesus said quite clearly that he would perfer not to partake of the "bitter cup" indicating that it was not his will to do so but that he would submit to the will of the Father. I think this defines the essence of a sacrifice. I do not define "doing what you want" as a sacrifice.

The Traveler

I don't think God "legislated" what is good and bad, if that's what you mean. I believe He knows and operates within eternal standards of goodness, and this is what makes Him perfectly righteous, honored, and powerful.

I think this is a very powerful statement. Understanding this give great insight in one of the most important aspects of G-d and his efforts to enlighten man with full knowledge of good and evil and then allowing man to choose.

The Traveler

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

Despite your opinion... that is what I believe... and I do have my reasons for believing.

I know our Lord did what our Father truly wanted, but he did that because he wanted to do that.

And that's all we ever do. We only do what we want to. And if we want to we can follow our Father.

I think that Jesus said quite clearly that he would perfer not to partake of the "bitter cup" indicating that it was not his will to do so but that he would submit to the will of the Father. I think this defines the essence of a sacrifice. I do not define "doing what you want" as a sacrifice.

The Traveler

Just to be clear... that is not what I was saying or trying to say.

I was saying or trying to say, and I'm still trying to say, we always choose to do what we want to do, and if we're doing what we want to then it's not really a sacrifice.

How can doing what you want be a sacrifice?

I think Jesus would not have done what I know he really did if he had not chosen to really want to.

I think the word "sacrifice" refers to losing something, but I'm not losing, I'm just choosing, what I want.

And in the end, for me, it will all be about what I wanted, and what I still want, for me.

Do you know what the word "paradigm" refers to, Traveler?

I think mainly I just see this differently than you do.

[Traveler]

I was saying or trying to say, and I'm still trying to say, we always choose to do what we want to do, and if we're doing what we want to then it's not really a sacrifice.

How can doing what you want be a sacrifice?

I think Jesus would not have done what I know he really did if he had not chosen to really want to.

I think the word "sacrifice" refers to losing something, but I'm not losing, I'm just choosing, what I want.

And in the end, for me, it will all be about what I wanted, and what I still want, for me.

Do you know what the word "paradigm" refers to, Traveler?

I think mainly I just see this differently than you do.

I think we do have a rather different paradigm. Want is a strange idea that can be greatly misused. I have never thought of Jesus or the Father as being caught up in demanding what they want.

As far as paradigm - I believe the first step towards evil is the effort to satisfy personal wants and desires. The first step toward righteousness is the sacrifice of personal wants and desires. I think Satan is one that believes in persuing what he wants - not the Father. I think there is great error in thinking G-d is good because he wants to be. I think that being good is something that must be learned, developed and acomplished with great effort, faith and trust. I do not think that evil individuals started out wanting evil but that they became lazy and took the easy road.

The Traveler