Is there anything God can't do?

[Sbee0]

Lion_IRC:

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.

The OP didn’t specify that they were asking about god’s “theoretical” omnipotence.
And I"m not turning the topic into anything.
I’m simply answering the question with what I’ve witnessed: I have two friends–one who lost a limb and one who is paralyzed from the waist down–who have prayed for decades to the Judeo-Christian god to be healed…and they have not been.
So it seems, so far, that this god is not able to do this from my observance.
Although…there may be other gods who can heal in this way, I don’t know. I assume the poster is speaking of the Judeo-Christian god, yes? I don’t know of anyone who has prayed to other gods to be healed in this way. Perhaps in those cases, it has worked?

“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?

Ah. I didn’t know it’s a common “atheist” challenge.

It is. Heard it many times. No need to quote the word atheist either, as it’s a factual observation.

I do know many theists, too, who have noticed that prayers for these two healings have not been forthcoming.

Which I’ve already addressed. And if they’re not familiar with the story of Job in scripture then they should be.

Your point is of course a non-proof that God can’t do these things.

Not sure if a god needs to prove themself in this way or not.

There’s nothing not to be sure of. God is not a waiter or butler that is there to meet one’s demands.

Just answering the OP’s question…it seems these two things are examples of things the Judeo-Christian god cannot do.
Not that I’m aware of, anyway.
Have others had limbs restored and severed spines rejoined after praying to a god? I haven’t seen any in my research so far, but sure would be great to know if so.

And again- how do you know?

 

[goout]

Ah. I didn’t know it’s a common “atheist” challenge. I do know many theists, too, who have noticed that prayers for these two healings have not been forthcoming.
Not sure if a god needs to prove themself in this way or not.
Just answering the OP’s question…it seems these two things are examples of things the Judeo-Christian god cannot do.
Not that I’m aware of, anyway.
Have others had limbs restored and severed spines rejoined after praying to a god? I haven’t seen any in my research so far, but sure would be great to know if so.

The Christian conception of God is of a God of love.
Love only exists in freedom. Human beings are free.
Therefore human beings are free to reciprocate to a loving God. (or free not to love and demand something “better than” love)

Love is not a set of contractual obligations, whereby God is bound to satisfy human conditions.
Love is a quality of relationship that transcends suffering and binds it up with the whole of existence.
At the end of the day, it is good to exist and have the freedom to love, even to exist in the human condition which is sometimes very difficult.
The point of love is not to reattach the severed arm with materialist power…

 

[Sbee0]

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.

Exactly.

The atheist of course will see some evidence or “proof” and insist that it is no such thing.
Thus is really is pointless and fallacious for them to make demands to God or Christians to prove He exists. That will have to come from within.

 

[Usagi]

Of course He could, but we have no guarantee that He does.

 

[tafan2]

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

Again, immortality is the wrong word for God, it implies a relationship with time. The correct word is eternal. Eternity and time are not the same thing (SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The eternity of God (Prima Pars, Q. 10)). Now God is eternal (SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The eternity of God (Prima Pars, Q. 10)). His essence is being. He is immutable (SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The immutability of God (Prima Pars, Q. 9)). Finally, all things that exist depend on God for their continued existence (SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The existence of God (Prima Pars, Q. 2) the third way). God cannot cease to exist, if He could he would not be immutable.

You are correct that God’s nature does not adhere to your understanding. It appears to be a flawed understanding.

 

[Lion_IRC]

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

"tafan2:

Again, immortality is the wrong word for God,…

I think God is immortal. So does 1 Timothy 6.
But if you think that isn’t correct maybe your argument is with the dictionary rather than me. (Or the bible)
"tafan2:

God cannot cease to exist, if He could he would not be immutable.

God is immutable by external force. I can’t change God. You can’t change God. There is no force or coercion powerful enough to force God to change. That’s what “immutable” means.

Immutable does not mean that God can’t change Himself.

Your position seems to be like the person who says God can’t become incarnate (in time). Or God cant have a Son.

 

[tafan2]

I think God is immortal. So does 1 Timothy 6 .
But if you think that isn’t correct maybe your argument is with the dictionary rather than me. (Or the bible)

Yes, perhaps I am splitting hairs. But I still think there is a key difference between immortal and eternal, the former implying time us involved, the latter excludes time. My dictionary gives the first definition of immortal as “living forever” and the first definition of forever as “for all future time”. So the dictionary seems to agree with me.

Will reply to the rest of your post in a but.

 

[tafan2]

God is immutable by external force. I can’t change God. You can’t change God. There is no force or coercion powerful enough to force God to change. That’s what “immutable” means.

While the issue between us of immortality vs eternal may be chalked up to an “argument with the dictionary”, here you are explicitly wrong. Where do you get this from? In the Summa reference I provided, the Angelic Doctor says clearly “God is all together immutable”. Objection one raises your point, ie that God can move himself, and the Angelic Doctor disagrees.

As to my position being to deny the incarnation, that is not correct at all. God the Son assumed a human nature, this did not change the divine nature at all. Reply to objection 1 here SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The mode of union on the part of the person assuming (Tertia Pars, Q. 3) addresses this point directly.