Can God do all things?

[Guest]

Hi Perry,

Nevermind. We might as well discuss the trinity.

Correct my mistake in the following.
1). God is immortal, by scriptural assertion.
2). What is immortal, by definition, cannot die.
3). The Word is God, by scriptural assertion.
4). Jesus is the Word, by scriptural assertion.
5). (From 3 & 4) Jesus is (and always has been) God.
6). (From 1 & 5) Jesus is immortal.
Have I made any mistakes yet?

Ok. I've been giving this some thought.

First of all, let me correct my statement about death. Though it may be unorthodox, I am not comfortable with saying that only "the human side" of Jesus died on the cross. I think that Jesus was a whole person and cannot be separated into two halves. (I am pretty sure that the writers would have seen death the way you do as well). He is the unique God-man. A single individual.

Ok. Onto the question. I don't think that this is too off topic. Let me explain.

Since I am stateing that God cannot break the rules of logic, it seems you are saying that I need to relinquish my belief that He can't do this, because I believe in the doctrine of the trinity, which you assert is illogical.

You have conceded that the statement "One God in Three Persons" is not itself illogical, but that it leads to contradictory beliefs. These are what I am looking to discuss.

I think that your reasoning above is almost correct. But you are leaving out some very important things. I am assuming you are heading in the direction of showing that I believe "God can be alive and not alive at the same time", so I'll reason from there.

1). God is immortal, by scriptural assertion.

Agreed.

2). What is immortal, by definition, cannot die.

Agreed.

3). The Word is God, by scriptural assertion.

Agreed.

4). Jesus is the Word, by scriptural assertion.

Agreed.

5). (From 3 & 4) Jesus is (and always has been) God.

Agreed.

6). (From 1 & 5) Jesus is immortal.

Disagree. It would follow from 1 & 5 alone. But you are leaving out some important information. Namely, that Jesus is a man (since the Word became flesh), and always will be fully man.

Though He became a man, He never ceased being God. However, He:

Phi 2:7 ...emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Phi 2:8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Jesus emptied Himself of His divine attributes, including immortality (IMO).

So I do not believe that God, (meaning the Godhead) was "alive and dead at the same time". I do believe that a member of the Godhead died while the others were alive. This is made possible by the incarnation.

I even believe that Jesus, though He is God, was able to be "separated from the Father", by dying a real death (by whatever definition you want).

This is indeed a mysterious thing. But is it illogical in light of the trinity and the incarnation? I don't see how.

You cannot simply say "God cannot die. Jesus died. Therefore He is not God" (or in your case the trinity is illogical). It does not take into account the trinity, and incarnation/kenosis doctrines. Remeber, trinitarians don't think that any one member of the trinity makes up the totality of God, but all three do. In order for God to be "alive and dead at the same time" the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would all have to be "alive and dead at the same time", which is of course impossible.

If (and I realize that it may be a big if in your case), the trinity is correct, then my position is not breaking any rule of logic that I can see.

Though I am not articulating it as well as I should, I think that after a bit of discussion, I can hash out more clearly why it's not illogical. Again, it is possible that it's unbiblical. But not illogical (which is what we're discussing).

God bless,

[Guest]

I think we're at a stale mate. You give preimmenance to logic, and I give preimmenance to God. I feel like I have the moral high ground here.

If you still think this, then I am simply not getting my point across (or you are not carefully reading my posts).

So be it.

I'm curious as to why you object to the idea that God's is causal. Is it because you think it is illogical? Wasn't it God's word that created the universe? What happened to reality when God said, "Let there be light"? Did reality stay the same, or did it conform to His word?

I don't object to that idea. Of course it's causal. In fact, I spoke of these thngs verbatim in a couple of posts back (did you not read it?). This doesn't mean that God can make square circles and married bachalors though. You may say that these are "non-questions", but again, you have no choice but to accept them as possibilities without refuting yourself.

God would be infringing on His own nature by doing these things. He's perfect remember? But perhaps He's not, and He only says He is, thus making it true?


God bless.

[Guest]

Hi Derek,

One item to clear the air about…
You keep accusing me of not carefully reading your posts. Please don’t believe this, because it’s just not true.

I’d rather you just think I’m thick. Please at least do me the charity of assuming I’m doing my best to understand you. If I didn’t value your insight, I wouldn’t be putting so much effort into this dialog.

I think it’s almost certain that I’m missing your point, and I think it’s probable that the fault is on my side… but it’s not because I’m not doing my best to understand your posts.

The only place I see you verbatim saying that God’s word is causal, is to quote me saying it so that you can then go on to posit logical contradictions. Well up until that last post, anyway. Please repeat yourself so that I can get it.

Of course it's causal…. This doesn't mean that God can make square circles and married bachalors though. You may say that these are "non-questions", but again, you have no choice but to accept them as possibilities without refuting yourself.

How does saying that God’s word is causal (which you’ve just admitted to) imply square circles? There’s a leap here that I just don’t see, and you took that leap the first time I stated that God’s word is causal.

Perry:While I agree with this sentiment, I would go so far as to take it another step. It's impossible for God to lie because whatever He says is true by definition. In other words, it's not so much that God's words conform to reality, but rather, that reality conforms to whatever God says. If God says, "Let there be light"... well then, there it is.

Derek:I disagree with this. Think about this; If God says "I exist and I do not exist at the same time" could it be "true"?

Perhaps I am thick.

[Guest]

Hello again Derek,

I Disagree. It would follow from 1 & 5 alone. But you are leaving out some important information.

I am not formally trained in logic, so I could be off base here, but I don’t think from a logical standpoint that you can agree that points 1-5 are axiomatic and disagree with point 6. It follows logically.

It seems to me from a logical standpoint that what you’ve challenged here is point 1. If I understand you, by careful reading of your post, what you’re suggesting is that point 1 should more properly be stated as follows:

1. God is immortal, except when He chooses not to be.

Is that fair? Making this adjustment means that point 6 as I originally stated it, does not logically follow.

First of all, let me correct my statement about death. Though it may be unorthodox, I am not comfortable with saying that only "the human side" of Jesus died on the cross. I think that Jesus was a whole person and cannot be separated into two halves. (I am pretty sure that the writers would have seen death the way you do as well). He is the unique God-man. A single individual.

I want to be sure I’m clear here. I take you to be saying in the above paragraph that it is not possible to separate the Jesus from His “Godness”. Is that correct? I see this as a strong affirmation of point 5. This important so make sure you don’t commit to something you’re not comfortable with here.

Also, I would like to state formally, and explicitly what we’re debating. I will introduce it as the zeroth axiom.

0). God is a trinity, by trinitarian assertion.

This leaves us with the following:

0). God is a trinity, by trinitarian assertion.
1). God is immortal, except when He chooses not to be, by scriptural assertion.
2). What is immortal, by definition, cannot die.
3). The Word is God, by scriptural assertion.
4). Jesus is the Word, by scriptural assertion.
5). (From 3 & 4) Jesus is (and always has been) God.
6). (From 1 & 5) Jesus is immortal, but retains the option to choose not to be.

How are we now?

Take care,
Perry

[Guest]

The titular question of the thread was "Can God do all things?"

... and the answer is:

"God can do all things which are logically possible."

I fully agree with Derek's understanding of logic. To say that God can rise above logic and do the illogical is not a meaningful statement.

There have been some concerns about getting off topic. This is almost impossible to avoid because of the nature of the thread. The question comes up whether we are taking certain positions which are themselves self-contradictory. For example, Derek claims that "The Trinity" is a logical concept. I am not sure about that. As I understand the historic definition it seems to be illogical.

Anyway, I'd like to take a crack at this one:

Correct my mistake in the following.
1). God is immortal, by scriptural assertion.
2). What is immortal, by definition, cannot die.
3). The Word is God, by scriptural assertion.
4). Jesus is the Word, by scriptural assertion.
5). (From 3 & 4) Jesus is (and always has been) God.
6). (From 1 & 5) Jesus is immortal.
Have I made any mistakes yet?

First I'd like to affirm that the conclusion would follow from the premises, if the constituent terms were univocal.

But what if the word "God" does not have the same connotation in all of the premises?

Strange things can happen to a logical argument if a word is used in two different senses. For example, consider the following argument:

1. "Gay" by dictionarial definition means "cheerful, light-hearted, and merry".

2. John is "cheerful, light-hearted, and merry".

3. Therefore John is gay.

4. But "gay" also, by definition means "homosexual".

5. Therefore John is homosexual.

The argument falls apart due to using the word "gay" in two different senses.

Now examining the premises of Perry's logical argument:

1. God is immortal, by scriptural assertion.
True.

2. What is immortal, by definition, cannot die.
True.

3. The Word is God, by scriptural assertion.
Here is where the word "God" is used in a different sense than it was used in 1. In 1, it is used in reference to the Father alone, for the scriptural assertion refers to the Father. "The Father alone has immortality."
But the statement is John 1:1 does not assert that the Word was God the Father. If that had been the case, then the definite article "ho" would occur before "theos" (God). John 1:1 does assert that the Word was with "the God" (God the Father). Also John 1:1 does not mean "The Word was a god" as in the New World Translation of the JWs. In that case the word "theos" would not occur before the verb. Rather, by putting the subjective completion FIRST, and without the article, John is stating the kind of thing the Word is. He is saying that the Word is divine, or deity. We are humanity. The Word is deity. It's a different order of being.

Thus "God" is used in a different sense in 3 from the sense in which it is used in 1.

Thus the argument falls apart.

[Guest]

Hello Paidion,

Thanks for your input. I suspect that it's just such a subtle shift in meaning that is at the heart of the causality vs logic problem, but I can't quite put my finger on where it is.

Regarding the trinty, I don't believe that trinitarian orthodoxy recognizes a shift in definitions in point 3. I could be mistaken about this. If I'm not mistaken then you are starting with a different premis than Derek. I'm doing my best to make sure that Derek and I begin with the same premis and explore where it leads us logically. In doing so, I'm accepting a premis that I'm unsure is true for the sake of the exploration. (i.e. the Zeroth axiom).

I'm fairly certain that you and I would begin such an exploration with different premises.

I'm confident Derek will clarify if necessary.

In any event, your point about being wary of subtle shifts in defitions as we progress is a very good one. I hope you'll continue to monitor the discussion and let me know if I slip into that mistake.

Perry

[Guest]

Regarding the trinty, I don't believe that trinitarian orthodoxy recognizes a shift in definitions in point 3.

If you are correct, Perry, then Trinitarianism is illogical.

For if both occurences of "God" in John 1:1, is used in the same sense , then John 1:1 is an illogical statement. For how can the Word be with God and also be God. Does the statement "God was with Himself" have any coherent meaning?

[Guest]

I'm fairly certain that you and I would begin such an exploration with different premises.

That was very poorly worded. It literally means something different than what I meant to say. What I meant to say was...

I'm fairly certain that if you and I were to begin such an exploration, we would first establish a different set of agreed upon premises.

One thing's for certain, I'm learning to be more critical of my own language.

Perry

[Guest]

That was very poorly worded. It literally means something different than what I meant to say. What I meant to say was...

Actually, Perry, I understood the original form of your statement as you intended it. Indeed, it was not until after you explained it, that I realized the other way that it could be taken. Thanks.

[Guest]

One item to clear the air about…
You keep accusing me of not carefully reading your posts. Please don’t believe this, because it’s just not true.

I apologize. I sometimes read through posts too quickly. When dealing with logical problems, this would be a major problem, as the points often stand or fall on subtlties. Also, I was editing my post, while you were posting yesterday, and some things may have been passed over as a result.

Let's forget about the "causal" thing for a moment. That's not in and of itself, really where my problem is.

Let me see if I can come at the idea that God can/cannot break the rules of logic, from another angle.

You said:

It's impossible for God to lie because whatever He says is true by definition. In other words, it's not so much that God's words conform to reality, but rather, that reality conforms to whatever God says. If God says, "Let there be light"... well then, there it is.

This seems problematic to me. Check it out.

1. Reality conforms to whatever God says no matter what
2. Something is impossible for God

How can these two statements both be true at the same time?

It's also interesting that even here you are holding God to logic. When you say He "cannot" do something, you are appealing to the law of non-contradiction. You are saying that the statements "It is impossible for God to lie" and "It is possible for God to lie" (which would be its negation) "cannot" both be true at the same time!

If you say "I didn't say that they can't both be true" then you are saying that God can lie (which refutes your idea that it's impossible-on top of being blatently contradictory).

If you say, "Enough already, you are right, those two statements cannot both be true" then your position that God can break the rules of logic is refuted.

Of the two, I would pick the latter, for obvious reasons.

If you pick the latter, you could still stick with your original idea, only realizing that this does not mean that God can do what is illogical (that's all you need to fess up to, the rest can wait lol)

By saying "He cannot do x" (it doesn't matter what x is), you are saying that He cannot break the rules of logic anyway. So you are agreeing with me whether you want to or not! Otherwise you have to say "he can do x" which makes the position self refuting.

That's the best I got man. I give.

God bless you!!

P.S. I need a break from the forum. I'll respond to the trinity stuff later.