Can God do all things?

[Guest]

Okay, I agree that I have been using the word logic incorrectly in the strictist sense.

So is it correct to say, quite literally, that you guys deify logic?

Perry

[_Derek]

So is it correct to say, quite literally, that you guys deify logic?

No. It's just that if something's illogical, it's simply not possible. God can do all that can be done.

Again, I'll ask, because I think it makes the point clear. Take them one at a time.

1. Can God create another being such as Himself (i.e. one who's existed eternally, is omnipotent, etc..)?

Right away it should be clear that He couldn't create something that's "eternal". If this being were eternal it couldn't be created! It's just impossible because it's illogical. It's non-sense. A created, eternal being, is one that could not exist. It's like a married bachalor. It's impossible.

2. Can God exist and not exist at the same time? The answer is self evident.

When I say that God cannot do what is illogical, I am speaking of propositions like these. They are impossible, even for God.

You seem to think that I'm placing God under the power of logic. But that's not the case. Logic exists because God has created the world in a certain ordered way. It reflects His own nature and being (which He cannot act against).

God bless,

[Guest]

2. Can God exist and not exist at the same time? The answer is self evident.

3. Can God be alive an dead at the same time?

I'm not trying to be cute.

As I understand it, Trinitarian doctrin teaches exactly this. If I'm not mistaken you would answer by calling this a paradox rather than a logical inconsistancy.

These, it seems to me, are our choices:

1. My statement (3.) is not a proper reflection of trinitarian doctrin.

2. There is some subtle difference between your statement (2) and my statement(3) that I am not seeing.

There is a certain irony in the fact, that I'm willing to allow God to trump logic (however strictly you define it) in a way that you are not, and yet, it is you who adhere to the seemingly illogical doctrin of the trinity.

(I realize that you would answer by asserting that the trinity doctrin is not illogical, but is simply paradoxical. In doing so, I would say you're letting your logic off the hook a bit too easily. Logical inconsistencies = no no; paradoxes = fine-by-me.)

Perry

[_Derek]

Hi Perry,

3. Can God be alive an dead at the same time?

Two explanations that I'm fine wth:

No, it's not possible. That Jesus as a man, died, does not mean that the person Jesus died, any more than our persons, (our spirits) die.

When Jesus died, He was in paradise, as He said He would be "today" (as opposed to three days later). Lk 23:43.

Another way to look at it, is with the presupposition of the trinity. While it's not possible for God, (meaning the trinity) to be dead and alive at the same time (which would be a logical contradiction), it is possible for one person in the trinity to die, (and the others be alive), if that one person divested Himself of His divine attributes and became a man, in order to die as a man.

So a better way to phrase the question is, "Can any one person in the trinity, if He took on the human nature, die as a man, while the others are alive?" The answer is yes.

There is nothing illogical in either resolution to the problem that you posited. When understood in light of the trinity, (or even binity), the question is easily answered.

Mine were very different questions.

Are you suggesting that God can exist and not exist at the same time? That He can create an eternal being, or a married bachalor? Can He make a rock so big that He can't pick it up?

Yes or no, with or without explanation will be fine.

There is a certain irony in the fact, that I'm willing to allow God to trump logic (however strictly you define it) in a way that you are not, and yet, it is you who adhere to the seemingly illogical doctrin of the trinity.

By "allowing God to trump logic" do you mean that He can create another God such as Himself? To do so, (besides being on the face of it, non-sense), would be for God to act against His own nature and reality as He's designed it. It's not that He is powerless to do so, but that to do so is impossible.

What law of logic does the trinity break? Again, I think you are using 'illogical" to mean "doesn't seem reasonable". It's not fair to call it illogical if you can't tell me what law of logic it breaks. For instance, if you anwered "yes" to my above questions, you are stating that it's possible to break the law of non-contradiction.

You are saying that these are possibilities simultaneously for the same individual:

married-bachalor

created-eternal being

exist-not exist

All of these are contradictory. It is impossible for both to be true of the same being at the same time.

Also, it would be interesting to see an example of God being illogical from the scriptures.

I realize that you would answer by asserting that the trinity doctrin is not illogical, but is simply paradoxical. In doing so, I would say you're letting your logic off the hook a bit too easily. Logical inconsistencies = no no; paradoxes = fine-by-me

Logical inconsistencies= impossible

Paradox= seemingly impossible, yet not illogical

Websters definitions:
Paradox- A tenet or proposition contrary to received opinion, or seemingly absurd, yet true in fact. [emphasis mine]

Illogical- 1. Contrary to the rules of logic or sound reasoning; as an illogical inference.

To say that "God is three persons and one God", is to make a statement that I don't understand how it could be possible. But it is not contradictory, as would be the statement, "God is three persons and not three persons", or "God is one God and not one God".

I don't know how it's possible, but the fact is, that the bible says:

The father is called God:

1Co 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Son is called God:

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Tit 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus (also John 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; etc.)

The Holy Spirit is called God:

Act 5:3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land?
Act 5:4 "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."

Yet, there is only one God:

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

Now there are other interpretations of these passages. We would be derailing the thread if we debated them. This is how I see them.

If you want to say that this is illogical (one God, three Persons), that's fine. But you will need to demonstrate how it's illogical. Since I know it's not illogical, 8) I consider it a paradox.

God bless bro,

[Guest]

Hiya Derek,
I haven’t forgotten about our private exchange (which I’m the one who instigated), and will get back to it as time permits.

No, it's not possible. That Jesus as a man, died, does not mean that the person Jesus died, any more than our persons, (our spirits) die.

When Jesus died, He was in paradise, as He said He would be "today" (as opposed to three days later). Lk 23:43.

I think you’re removing the sting of death a bit prematurely. If death doesn’t really mean a to cease living, but rather, means to change the form of your living from one kind to another, then what does it mean to be “dead to sin”? I certainly don’t think it means some other form of sinning. Answering this by saying that dead doesn’t really mean “dead”, is, to my mind, not a satisfying answer.

Another way to look at it, is with the presupposition of the trinity. While it's not possible for God, (meaning the trinity) to be dead and alive at the same time (which would be a logical contradiction), it is possible for one person in the trinity to die, (and the others be alive), if that one person divested Himself of His divine attributes and became a man, in order to die as a man.

If the persons of the trinity are so different that one of them can die, while the others survive, then I would suggest that the “oneness” aspect of the trinity doctrine really doesn’t have much teeth to it. It seems to me that the weight of biblical evidence is on side of differences in the “persons”. (Let the cries of polytheism begin.)

Can He make a rock so big that He can't pick it up? Yes or no, with or without explanation will be fine.

My answer would be “no”. But I think it’s important to say that’s just my answer.
Can an immortal God die? Yes or no, with or without explanation will be fine. You can try to skirt around this by redefining “immortal” or “die” if you like, but I that seems to be a bit dodgey to me.

By "allowing God to trump logic" do you mean that He can create another God such as Himself?

You keep putting words in my mouth, and I don’t really understand why. You’re setting up your own argument to refute here, not mine.

would be for God to act against His own nature and reality as He's designed it.

I think this is the crux of our difference. You seem to think that the nature of God and reality as He’s designed it is defined by what you call “logic”. I’m willing to admit that there may be aspects to His nature and reality as He’s designed it that I don’t know about yet, and that may, in fact, be contrary to logic (even the strictest definition of logic).

You are saying that these are possibilities simultaneously for the same individual:

married-bachalor

created-eternal being

exist-not exist

No, you are saying that I’m saying that. I’ve never said those things. I’m not defending illogic, and I can present no cases of God being illogical.
What I’m saying is that I don’t think God is bound by the same rules of logic that you and I are.
Here, though, are some things that you have suggested.
Dead is not dead.
One of three is dead, but still one with the one’s (two?) that are not dead.
My understanding of the trinity doctrine, in its rawest form, says this:

1=3.

Is that logical?

Either there are differences, and those differences are meaningful enough to call attention to them by making distinctions and contrasts (which is what, to me, the scripture seems to be doing), or 1=3, which is illogical.

To say that "God is three persons and one God", is to make a statement that I don't understand how it could be possible. But it is not contradictory, as would be the statement, "God is three persons and not three persons", or "God is one God and not one God".

I think that’s a clever little play on words and doesn’t really say anything meaningful. Again, if the persons are so different that one of them can die (and by die I don’ t mean “stay alive in some other form”) and the other two not die, then they are different enough to think of them as having meaningful differences. The trinity, it seems to me, almost teaches four beings, or persons, or somethings. There’s the three that they are when you think of them separately, and the one that they are when you think of them all glopped together.

This language may sound irreverent to some, that’s not my intent.

It may be that the trinity doctrine the most correct way synthesizing all of the biblical data. But if it is, it is illogical.

But you will need to demonstrate how it's illogical. Since I know it's not illogical, I consider it a paradox.

I’ve done my best.

I’m not convinced that the Trinity doctrine is the best synthesis of the biblical data. I freely admit that it might be, and that I may yet come to accept it. I don’t think that I will ever see it as logical.

Who was it that said, “The one who claims to understand the trinity has lost his mind, the one who denies it has lost his soul”?

Also, it would be interesting to see an example of God being illogical from the scriptures.

Bear in mind, we entered this, not as a discussion of the trinity but as a discussion of whether God has the pergoritive to be illogical. I claim that he does, though I know of no examples of Him having done so.

Can you give any real-life examples of paradoxes apart from the trinity doctrine? I’m not talking about thought experiments like going back in time and killing your own grandpa. Nor am I talking about linguistic paradoxes like: This statement is false. I’m talking about real-life paradoxes that are modeled in what we call reality. Are there any examples besides the trinity?

God bless,
Perry

[_Derek]

Quote:
No, it's not possible. That Jesus as a man, died, does not mean that the person Jesus died, any more than our persons, (our spirits) die.

When Jesus died, He was in paradise, as He said He would be "today" (as opposed to three days later). Lk 23:43.

I think you’re removing the sting of death a bit prematurely. If death doesn’t really mean a to cease living, but rather, means to change the form of your living from one kind to another, then what does it mean to be “dead to sin”? I certainly don’t think it means some other form of sinning. Answering this by saying that dead doesn’t really mean “dead”, is, to my mind, not a satisfying answer.

Are you saying that Jesus ceased to exist altogether when He died? I am quite sure that you're not. If He did not cease to exist, then what did He do?

When I die, my physical body will cease functioning while I go on to be with the Lord. The same thing happened for Jesus before His ressurection.

We most certainly do go on to "another kind of living" after we physically die (as did Jesus). That is why it's called "eternal life".

Therefore, God did not "die" as in "cease to be", but a member of the trinity, who was and is quite different from the others in that He has the human nature, physically died. This does not negate the fact that He still has the divine nature (biblically or philisophically).

Quote:
Another way to look at it, is with the presupposition of the trinity. While it's not possible for God, (meaning the trinity) to be dead and alive at the same time (which would be a logical contradiction), it is possible for one person in the trinity to die, (and the others be alive), if that one person divested Himself of His divine attributes and became a man, in order to die as a man.

If the persons of the trinity are so different that one of them can die, while the others survive, then I would suggest that the “oneness” aspect of the trinity doctrine really doesn’t have much teeth to it. It seems to me that the weight of biblical evidence is on side of differences in the “persons”. (Let the cries of polytheism begin.)

I have said that as far as Jesus is human, He is in fact "different" from the other persons in the Godhead. This does not make Him any less divine though.

Perhaps you are right, and the "oneness aspect of the trinity doesn't have much teeth to it", but that is something that must be demonstrated biblically. There is nothing illogical about it (to get back on topic).

Again, there is nothing illogical, (or obviously unbiblical), about either of my answers.

uote:
Can He make a rock so big that He can't pick it up? Yes or no, with or without explanation will be fine.

My answer would be “no”. But I think it’s important to say that’s just my answer.
Can an immortal God die? Yes or no, with or without explanation will be fine. You can try to skirt around this by redefining “immortal” or “die” if you like, but I that seems to be a bit dodgey to me.

It's the only possible answer.

No. The immortal God cannot die. If a person in the Godhead takes on the human nature, that person can physically die though.

By "allowing God to trump logic" do you mean that He can create another God such as Himself?

You keep putting words in my mouth, and I don’t really understand why. You’re setting up your own argument to refute here, not mine.

If God can "trump logic" then this is a possibility. I'm not putting words in your mouth (that's why it's in the form a question). However, it should be noted, that if He cannot do this, then He cannot "trump logic" and your position is refuted!

Quote:
would be for God to act against His own nature and reality as He's designed it.

I think this is the crux of our difference. You seem to think that the nature of God and reality as He’s designed it is defined by what you call “logic”. I’m willing to admit that there may be aspects to His nature and reality as He’s designed it that I don’t know about yet, and that may, in fact, be contrary to logic (even the strictest definition of logic).

It's not "defined by logic". Logic is simply a part of it. A part that couldn't be any other way.

Quote:
You are saying that these are possibilities simultaneously for the same individual:

married-bachalor

created-eternal being

exist-not exist

No, you are saying that I’m saying that. I’ve never said those things. I’m not defending illogic, and I can present no cases of God being illogical.
What I’m saying is that I don’t think God is bound by the same rules of logic that you and I are.

No, I'm not "saying that you said that". You need to read my post a bit more carefully. I qualified this statement by saying "if you anwered "yes" to my above questions, you are stating that it's possible to break the law of non-contradiction". Then, I made the above statement, showing examples which break said rule.

If God can break the law of non-contradiction, then by logical extension you have no choice but to say that He can do these things (otherwise you are refuting yourself!). I don't see a way around it. Perhaps you could show me how?

Think about it. If you say "God can trump logic, but He cannot make a married bachalor", then essentially you are saying, "God can trump logic, but He cannot trump logic". An obviously contradictory, and thus illogical statement!

To say that "God is three persons and one God", is to make a statement that I don't understand how it could be possible. But it is not contradictory, as would be the statement, "God is three persons and not three persons", or "God is one God and not one God".

I think that’s a clever little play on words and doesn’t really say anything meaningful. Again, if the persons are so different that one of them can die (and by die I don’ t mean “stay alive in some other form”) and the other two not die, then they are different enough to think of them as having meaningful differences. The trinity, it seems to me, almost teaches four beings, or persons, or somethings. There’s the three that they are when you think of them separately, and the one that they are when you think of them all glopped together.

"Clever little play on words" or not, it's not illogical. Again, I didn't say that I understood the trinity. I just said that it's not illogical.

It may be that the trinity doctrine the most correct way synthesizing all of the biblical data. But if it is, it is illogical.

What rule of logic does it break?

Can you give any real-life examples of paradoxes apart from the trinity doctrine? I’m not talking about thought experiments like going back in time and killing your own grandpa. Nor am I talking about linguistic paradoxes like: This statement is false. I’m talking about real-life paradoxes that are modeled in what we call reality. Are there any examples besides the trinity?

Not off the top of my head. I can't. I have only touched on the tip top of the iceburg as far as studying philosophy. But I know that the trinity breaks no rule of logic, and fits the definition of paradox. I fail to see what difference that makes though.

To say that there is "one God in three persons" is not a pair of statements that cannot both be true.

If I said "God is one person in three persons" That would be a contradiction, and hence illogical, because the term "person" has the same sense in both halves of the sentence.

In my finite knowledge, I cannot hope to fully know the nature of divinity (God). Since I see that the scriptures teach this doctrine (or at least something very similar), and it is not illogical, I am forced to accept it as paradox.

Bear in mind, we entered this, not as a discussion of the trinity but as a discussion of whether God has the pergoritive to be illogical. I claim that he does, though I know of no examples of Him having done so.

I would rather not even discuss the trinity. You brought it up!

Perhaps you don't think the trinity is taught in the scriptures. That's fine (although wrong imo). But that is diffent than saying that the belief that there is "one God in three Persons" is illogical. Whatever it's secondary implications may be, (about death and the like), that is the trinity doctrine in a nutshell, and that statement is not illogical.

Quote:
But you will need to demonstrate how it's illogical. Since I know it's not illogical, I consider it a paradox.

I’ve done my best.

In my opinion, you have not demonstrated how "one God in three persons" is illogical.

The only way for it to be illogical, is for "God" to mean the same thing as "person". It does not. Therefore it is not contradictory and is not illogical.

The only way to make a case against that statement is biblically. You may very well be able to do that, and I would love to on another thread. But it is philosophically sound.

I'm going to rest my case on the trinity here. I've made my point as clear as I can.


God bless brother!!

[Guest]

I think that "The Trinity" as defined in the fourth century, perhaps is not illogical, but it is ludicrous. For, the classical Trinitarian understanding of one God consisting of Three Persons would be analgous, in the case of humanity, of billions of people joined together in one big body.

Many people who think they are Trinitarians are not Trinitarians at all.
Some of them are actually modalists. They believe that God is a single divine Person who expresses Himself as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I recall that as a teenager, the wife of my Baptist pastor held this view. I asked her, "How then could Jesus talk to His Father as if to another Person?" She replied, "Have you never talked to yourself?"

Others who think they are Trinitarians, believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Divine Beings who are somehow united in purpose in such a way that each of them can be called "God". This position seems to be closer to Tri-theism than it is to Trinitarianism.

Although I cannot give a convincing proof, I suspect that classical Trinitarianism is, in fact, illogical. That may be the reason that no one seems to be able to truly understand it, and who relegate it to the status of "mystery". It may be that it cannot be understood, not because it is beyond human reasoning, but because it is impossible to understand and to accept because there is an attempt to believe both that "God is one" and "God is three".

[_Derek]

I think that "The Trinity" as defined in the fourth century, perhaps is not illogical, but it is ludicrous. For, the classical Trinitarian understanding of one God consisting of Three Persons would be analgous, in the case of humanity, of billions of people joined together in one big body.

Could it not be analagous to the body of Christ? It is one body. But many individuals who share in the "divine nature" (by adoption). Each individual is distinct from the other, and no one person makes up the whole body, yet together they are all the one body of Christ. Not millions of bodies of Christ.

Matt Slick at CARM talks of trinities in nature.

"The doctrine of the Trinity is that there is one God who exists in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each person is not the same as the other person; that is, the Father is not the same person as the Son who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit. Each is fully God in nature. Each person is not a god in itself. Instead, the totality of all three persons comprises the one God. There are not three gods, but one. We believe there are no partners with God because we believe there is only one God in all existence...

As the Trinitarian doctrine maintains, each of the persons of the Godhead is distinct, yet they are all each, by nature, God. The same idea can be presented in the above examples [of trinities in nature]. With time, for example, the past is not the same as the present, which is not the same as the future. Each is simultaneous (according to some time theoriests). Yet, they are not three 'times,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: time.

With space, height is distinct from width, which is not the same as depth, which is is not the same as height. Yet, they are not three 'spaces,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: space.

With matter, solid is not the same as liquid, which is not the same as gas, which is not the same as solid. Yet, they are not three 'matters,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: matter..."

Although I cannot give a convincing proof, I suspect that classical Trinitarianism is, in fact, illogical.

That is why I call this doctrine paradoxical rather than illogical.

It may not make sense to our human minds, so we may "suspect" that it's illogical, but it is not demonstratively contradictory.

I am of the opinion that the trinity cannot be disproven philosophically. It must be done biblically.

[Steve, I don't think that this breaks the "no large copy/paste" rule. If so, feel free to delete it, and I will rewrite it in my own words or post a link-I didn't want to make folks read the whole thing, since I only needed a portion of it.]

God bless,

[Guest]

Derek, in order to "disprove the Trinity philosophically", it would be necessary to understand just what one would be trying to disprove.

Would you please explain what "the Trinity" means to you, in as detailed a way as possible?

[_Derek]

Derek, in order to "disprove the Trinity philosophically", it would be necessary to understand just what one would be trying to disprove.

Would you please explain what "the Trinity" means to you, in as detailed a way as possible?

See above. I guess I was editing while you were posting. Matt Slick's definition as quoted represents what I think.

We are derailing the thread a bit it seems though.