cmp.2010.02.02
ed.2010.02.13.03
Organization
1. Introduction
2. An Irrational View of God
3. A Better View of God
4. Conclusion
1. Introduction
Philosophers, Atheists and even believers are perplexed by the incessant wondering: "If God is Omnipotent, then why is he forced to endure imperfection". Another form of this dilemma takes shape in the inherrent rational contradictions between the three widely held views towards God: "God is all Powerful", "God is Morally Perfect", "God has Free Will".
No matter how you spin this triangle of attributes, you will always arrive at a logical contradiction. So, because it is evident that the God of Scripture has presented himself as highly rational, and that we were commanded to pursue understanding and wisdom, then I am persuaded there must be a rational resolution.
And the answer is simply this: "What in the world were people thinking when they ascribed these attributes to God when God never ascribed all three of those attributes to himself?"
So, here is the explanation that I often give, and I would really appreciate any corrections and comments about the general validity of the response.
2. An Irrational View of God
The irrational contradictions that these three attributes imply have been wrestled with for a long time. These arguments are intended to provide a logically sound proof that these attributes could not describe any being, omnipotent or otherwise. Again, these attributes are: "Moral Perfection", "Free Will", and "Omnipotence".
Contradiction: "God vs. Rock" or "Free Will vs. Omnipotence"
1. God can do anything.
2. So, God must be able to create anything.
3. So, God must be able to create a rock he cannot lift.
4. If God cannot lift the rock, then there is something God cannot do.
Contradiction: "God's Omnipotence vs. God's Free Will
1. God can do anything.
2. God has free will.
3. Where there is free will, there is a choice.
4. Since God can do anything, then God can promise to make a never ending covenant.
5. If God cannot choose to break this covenant, then God has no free will.
Contradiction: "God's Free Will vs. God's Moral Perfection
1. God can do anything.
2. God is morally perfect.
3. If God is morally perfect, then everything he does must be perfect.
4. If God must do anything, then God does not have a choice in that situation.
5. If God does not have a choice, then God does not have free will.
3. A Better View of God
If there are "three" attributes of God that are explicitly stated in Jewish and Christian Scripture, they are: "God is Faithful", (Deut. 7:9) "God is Just", (Neh. 9:33), and "The Word of God is Truth", (Ps. 119:160). If these three attributes could be shown to be mutally exclusive, then there would certainly be a problem, because they are found in Scripture.
But as for the other the other "three", it is clear from Scripture that God is not always omnipotent, nor does God always have free will:
1. In order for any "X" to be restrained or restricted there must be some force equal to or greater than "X" to restrain it.
2. In order for God to be restrained there must be some force equal to or greater than God to stop him.
3. It is consistent to assert that there is none greater than the "Most High", God.
4. So, no greater force can restrain God.
5. But what if there is there some force equal to God?
6. Again, it is logically consistent to assert that there are none beside God if there is a "Most High", ("most" implies a single being above the rest).
7. So, if there is nothing greater than X, and nothing equal X, then what other possibility remains to constrain the free will of God, or his power?
8. X = X. God = God.
9. God is not greater than himself, but God is equal to himself.
10. Since God is equal to himself, then it is logically consistent to assert that God can restrain himself.
11. If God creates a rock, then promises to not lift it, then God cannot lift it, until the force that restrains him is removed, (the force of God, himself).
4. Conclusion
In Scripture, if "The Word of God is Truth", (of if the word of God is, or becomes, reality), then everything that God says "must be". And if so, then Scripture is full of examples of God saying things that impose on his own power and free will, (though, God uses his own power and free will to limit his own power and free will). And these promises constrain God in a way that require Him to patiently endure evil as well as to perfect the imperfect, for a time anyway.
What is a far more problematic dilemma would be a God who couldn't restrain himself, or submit himself to his own word, a God who could choose not to be faithful.
The idea that God is "all" knowing is not "traditional theology". Even though there are instances where David, or someone else in an intimate relationship with God declare that God knows everything about them, specifically, Scripture does not explicitly make these statements in generalities.
But on the otherhand, there are MANY instances in Scripture where God chooses to know, or not to know people, (God is therefore not omniscient in the way we think). There are also many instances where God chooses to be or not be different places, (therefore, God is not omnipresent as we think). And, there are many places in Scripture where God constrains himself, (and since he is not mighty enough to overcome himself, he is not omnipotent in the way we think).
So, by modern theologians creating intellectual, unbiblical arguments, they maintain unsustainable and contradictory positions. However, if they would just go with what is written, there isn't a contradicton regarding if God has free will; but rather, in both Jewish and Christian Scripture, there are many examples where God limits his own free will though his own word:
God constrains his own free will:
Gen. 22:16 "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son ..."
Hebrews 6:13
For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself ...
God vs. Rock
Subject
Philosophy,
Theology
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
This entire post completely boggled my mind and got me thinking...
What if God cannot create a rock He cannot lift? I didn't see this in there but maybe I'm crazy...
I would have to agree...I don't think God can create something more powerful than himself and why would He want to anyways. :)
Hey Elika,
I like the question "why should God endure imperfection". It (or very similar) is certainly one that I have thought myself.
Speaking personally (I am not a philosopher! :o)
I found something of an answer in the New Testament. Maybe this is of interest to you?
2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
I think it's a beautiful piece of text, describing the kind way in which God patiently suffers for the sake of his creation. Or at least, to me that's what the text looks like it's saying.
Shalom,
Joel
He suffers that another may escape suffering. It is love substituting itself for another.
The fact that He gave himself voluntarily, takes away the question of injustice. The love was the essence of the sacrifice and that it was a substitution for us, and for our supreme good I can't help but love this passage:
Galatians 2:20
Joel- great verses.
Mind boggling the restraint God puts on himself because he is longsuffering because he loves.
Kohen- your argument appears sound. Why these verses though? to show God makes promises??
better choices perhaps? These promise blessing due of obedience. NOT promise of restraint of wrath because of his patience. Are there examples in Bible where God promises not blessing, but delayed judgment?
Anonymous Said:
----------------------
...
Kohen- your argument appears sound. Why these verses though? to show God makes promises??
...
Are there examples in Bible where God promises not blessing, but delayed judgment?
e.s. Response:
----------------------
Thank you for your comment. I hadn't realized I didn't explain the purpose of those verses until you commented! :o Kinda dumb of me. The purpose of those verses was to prove that Scripture explicitly states that God actually constrains himself.
As to whether there are examples of God delaying justice, I really didn't want to go this far because the point of this article was simply to prove that it is an untenable and irrational position for a "believer" to take to believe that God is unrestrained, and/or has complete free will.
So, I updated all of that, and tried to make it a LOT clearer.
But to answer your question, (cuz I love to do that), Scripture is explicit that God is "Just". For people to accuse of God of being unjust for excercising "due dilegence",is a little hypocritical since we delay justice ourselves. For example, the way the U.S. is trying terrorists, or the effort to go through the trial process in general. "Innocent until proven guilty".
In short, when executing justice, God must act justly, and above reproach; and that means He must also act according to his other promises, such as being merciful, etc.
"delayed" - couldn't think of a more appropriate word. But thank you for elaborating. I agree.
How do you define "free will"? Is it having the liberty to choose without any restraint whatsoever?
Looking at "God's Omnipotence vs. God's Free Will" ... isn't it possible to view it this way: God choosing to honor his covenant, not him being unable to break it?
Then "Contradiction: "God's Free Will vs. God's Moral Perfection" is it possible to say God is morally perfect, because he will never choose anything other than good? So he still makes a decision.
Thena
Thena Said:
-----------------
How do you define "free will"? Is it having the liberty to choose without any restraint whatsoever?
e.s. Response:
-----------------
When I was little, people used to talk about free will. And I was like, "But isn't there always a consequence to any decision we make? Always some price?"
So, it took me a little while to come up with a more consistent definition. :) Kinda easy to get confused at that age. Anyhoo.
Perhaps "Free Will" is the ability to choose--but all choices imply possibility. If there is no possiblity to go two directions, then you cannot choose between one of two directions..
Then we get into that notion of "causality." How do we know that we aren't always predisposed to take certain paths like everything else in nature. Things /must/ react a certain way, (okay this gets a little confusing in quantum mechanics).
So, if we know for sure that we do have free will, then there must be something in us that transcends the universe, because everything in the universe is constrained by some sort of causality, (cause effect).
Thena Said:
-----------------
Looking at "God's Omnipotence vs. God's Free Will" ... isn't it possible to view it this way: God choosing to honor his covenant, not him being unable to break it?
e.s Response:
-----------------
If God is "Morally Perfect", this means that God is without "Moral Flaw".
If God can "choose" to honor a covenant, then there has to be the possibility that he can choose to not keep it. But if God is Morally Perfect, then it is not possible, because the moment it happened, God would no longer be God as we think of God.
So, in order for this train of thought to be consistent, God's excercise of free will has to come before there is even a possibility of God choosing to do something immoral.
Specifically, God choosing that his "Word" will be truth, and binding himself by his own word. Then, after the Word is spoken, God no longer has a choice, because he bound himself according to his own word.
Thena Said:
-----------------
Then "Contradiction: "God's Free Will vs. God's Moral Perfection" is it possible to say God is morally perfect, because he will never choose anything other than good? So he still makes a decision.
e.s. Response:
-----------------
What my article is saying in essence is that God is morally perfect, not because he refuses to be immoral, but because he completely took the possibility for him to be immoral out of the picture. In this way, God always "IS". There is no doubt with God, no double mindedness, no arbitrariness. There is no fear that one day God could "choose" to do something immoral, because God made it impossible.
But again, if God constraining himself by his own Word is true, this would imply that the origin of Morality is with God's Word ... This implies that the essence of any definition of "Morality" inherently consists of "explicit" and "implicit" covenants. The way to view if any action is moral, is to view it in terms of "covenant", (okay, that is a totally different topic. I need to write about this somewhere else! Sorry!).
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. Wasn't expecting such a lengthy response. Wasn't expecting a response to begin with.
With these annotations, this stream of thought(s) is becoming clearer. It's more complex than I originally thought. Or maybe reality is, it is far simpler than we make it to be, but we've accustomed ourselves to making it needlessly complex.
I see the validity in what you're arguing though, and perhaps God isn't precisely the way we think he is. That's what you're saying, I believe, when you point out the logical implications of these labels.
Cause and effect. So, if there is nothing higher than God, then it appears he becomes his own cause and effect?
Sometime ago (years), I invested quite a lot studying covenants. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say if you ever write a post on it.
Thena.
Thena Said:
--------------
Cause and effect. So, if there is nothing higher than God, then it appears he becomes his own cause and effect?
e.s. Response:
--------------
I am not really ready to go as far as to say that God is his own cause and effect yet. I am still of the opinion that God probably created the whole idea of "Cause and Effect". Then again, if God constrained himself, (cause), the the result, (effect), would be for him to act in a particular way.
Either way, this "Cause and Effect" was preceeded by his "Word".
Thena Said:
--------------
Sometime ago (years), I invested quite a lot studying covenants. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say if you ever write a post on it.
e.s. Response:
--------------
I am actually in the process of writing something. Actually, its more along the lines of what morality is, and isn't. The idea being that "covenant" is at the heart of anything we consider to be moral. A sense of duty, responsibility, or obligation inherent in all moral acts.
Probably not where you wanted to go with that. What were you thinking? I actually have a "Questions" post, (look on the left menu under topics), for people to post ideas and questions. Except, noone has. Its very sad. :(
Thank you again!
The thoughts you're in the process of regurgitating are more appealing than mine. I'm a jack(ie) of all trades master on none. it was esp true whenI was doing this study. I didn't retain much at all.
Besides, it was nowhere near being philsophical. It was historical and rudimentary.
So, no, not what I was thinking, but am still interested in reading.
I'll keep your questions post in mind and will comment there when I think of something.
Athena
Post a Comment