Is there anything God can't do?

[goout]

goout:

So if a passage seems to reveal a God inconsistent with Christ, you must find a different sense of it than the isolated literalist sense.

“Must?” Why?

Because Christianity is Christ.
And a Christian is united with Christ. “Must” means an imperative and necessary goal of having faith. Unity with Christ is the whole point of being a Christian, and that includes giving meaning to the scriptures.

 

[rossum]

The Buddha is a man, not God.

Correct. He was a man, and where he went we can follow along the path he showed us. He was a man and did what any man can do.

 

[rossum]

He knew not to kill; God appears not to know that, or if He does then He does not act on that knowledge.

 

[goout]

He knew not to kill; God appears not to know that, or if He does then He does not act on that knowledge.

Why do you say that God is a killer? Because the Old Testament portrays God that way?
Again, another forum might give you a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture. Catholics are not fundamentalists.

 

[rossum]

Why do you say that God is a killer? Because the Old Testament portrays God that way?

Yes. Are you telling me that your God is not the God described in the Bible?

And getting back to the topic of this thread, one more thing the God cannot do. Since God is immortal, He cannot die.

 

[Lion_IRC]

No. Read through the thread.

Such intellectual sloppiness is not becoming of Catholics.

LOL
I’ve been agreeing with you.
Whose intellectual sloppiness are you talking about?

 

[goout]

goout:

Why do you say that God is a killer? Because the Old Testament portrays God that way?

Yes. Are you telling me that your God is not the God described in the Bible?

No I’m not telling you that. The bible reveals God in human words and understanding. Unless you want to make gods out of the human writers of scripture, the understanding of those peoples is imperfect.

And getting back to the topic of this thread, one more thing the God cannot do. Since God is immortal, He cannot die.

That’s correct.

 

[Lion_IRC]

God doesn’t seem to be able to grow back a person’s limb when they pray for that.
Or restore a person’s spinal cord who has been paralyzed.

I thought the thread topic was about God’s theoretical omnipotence.
You’re turning it into a theodicy counter-apologetic???

To prove His omnipotence, not only does God need to heal amputees,
but He also has to do so on demand.

(Lest someone come along and try to 'splain to me how healing amputees is “logically impossible”.) God - or should I say the bible - assures us that God can and does heal amputees.

 

[Sbee0]

Very good answers by IP

God’s knowledge of future events does not preclude free will. That’s a modal logical fallacy.

Also if fatalism was true then we are ultimately not responsible for anything that we do that’s evil, nor worthy of credit for anything we do that’s good.

 

[Lion_IRC]

goout:

Why do you say that God is a killer? Because the Old Testament portrays God that way?

And getting back to the topic of this thread, one more thing the God cannot do. Since God is immortal, He cannot die.

God’s immortality is a function of the absence of any superior external force
great enough to destroy Him.

Humans don’t die of old age. We die as a result of external, insurmountable forces (disease.)
There are no such insurmountable forces capable of ‘killing’ God.

But…
Take a deep breath everybody!
As far as I can tell, God’s immortality is not metaphysically/theologically compulsory.

 

[goout]

As far as I can tell, God’s immortality is not metaphysically/theologically compulsory.

So when God identifies as “I Am Who Am” his own self identification is not sufficient to compel you to acknowledge his nature?
God not only exists eternally, but is the very ground of “to be”, and there is no imperative to acknowledge God’s groundedness in life and existence itself? Or to acknowledge that God is outside of time?

 

[ioannes_pius]

How were you agreeing with me? We’re you being sarcastic?

 

[Sbee0]

God doesn’t seem to be able to grow back a person’s limb when they pray for that.
Or restore a person’s spinal cord who has been paralyzed.

“Why doesn’t God cure amputees” is a very common atheist challenge but it’s as flawed as the rest of them. First how do you know with certainty that God doesn’t? And even if the atheist saw an amputee miraculously heal would they credit God for it? Would it matter to them? I think we know the answer to that. How arrogant and misinformed does one have to be to treat God as an entity that must prove Himself on demand and be at our beckon call?

 

[Gigas97]

Yes, that’s what he is explaining in the vids. His channel is very educational for both Theists and Atheists.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion_IRC:

As far as I can tell, God’s immortality is not metaphysically/theologically compulsory.

So when God identifies as “I Am Who Am” his own self identification is not sufficient to compel you to acknowledge his nature?

What I am compelled to do is not the topic of the thread.
The question is whether God is compelled to say or do anything involuntarily.

God not only exists eternally, but is the very ground of “to be”, and there is no imperative to acknowledge God’s groundedness in life and existence itself?

Imperatives which I must acknowledge are beside the point.
The way thing are does not necessarily imply that God is compelled to keep them that way.

Or to acknowledge that God is outside of time?

[/quote]

Once again, everything I acknowledge about God’s nature does not compel God to adhere to my understanding.

God doesn’t do foolish, illogical, self-contradictory, inconsistent, dishonest things because some human might call Him out. He eternally adheres to His true (consistent, honest, logical) nature because He wants to - He likes it that way. He is smart.

 

[tafan2]

As far as I can tell, God’s immortality is not metaphysically/theologically compulsory

Take a deep breath: God’s exists in eternity, He is, his essence is being. The word immortality does not seem to apply to God (as far as I can tell).

 

[Lion_IRC]

As far as I can tell, God’s immortality is not metaphysically/theologically compulsory.

So when God identifies as “I Am Who Am” his own self identification is not sufficient to compel you to acknowledge his nature?

What I am compelled to do is not the topic of the thread.

The question is whether God is compelled to say or do anything involuntarily.

God not only exists eternally, but is the very ground of “to be”, and there is no imperative to acknowledge God’s groundedness in life and existence itself?

Imperatives which I must acknowledge are beside the point.

The way thing are does not necessarily imply that God is compelled to keep them that way.

Or to acknowledge that God is outside of time?

Once again, everything I acknowledge about God’s nature does not compel God to adhere to my understanding.

God doesn’t do foolish, illogical, self-contradictory, inconsistent, dishonest things because some human might call Him out. He eternally adheres to His true (consistent, honest, logical) nature because He wants to - He likes it that way. He is smart.

 

[anna]

No…just no.

 

[goout]

I’m not even sure what we are disagreeing on.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Affirmative or negative (or undetected) responses to prayer requests aren’t necessary or sufficient to establish omnipotence.

An omnipotent Being doesn’t have to demonstrate the extent of their omnipotence as proof of same. In fact, for an infinitely powerful Being, there is technically no end to the list of things God could be asked to do by way of providing such proof.