No, God Can Not Lie, as He Is Truth Itself

[buffalo]

Eh? A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception.

It is not defined as “allow one to wander.”

So god is deceiving them, he is lying. It is clear.

From the Haydock Bible Commentary - 1859 edition

Ver. 10. God shall send them the operation of error.[9] That is, says St. Chrysostom and St. Cyril, he will permit them to be led away with illusions, by signs, and lying prodigies, which the devil shall work by antichrist, &c. (Witham) — God shall suffer them to be deceived by lying wonders, and false miracles, in punishment of their not entertaining the love of truth. (Challoner) — The end God proposes is the judgment and condemnation of such as reject the proffered light. This is the march of sin, according to St. Thomas Aquinas on this place. In the first place a man, in consequence of his first sin, is deprived of grace, he then falls into further sins, and ends with being eternally punished. Hence it happens that his new sins are a punishment of his former transgressions; because God will permit the devil to do these things. Deus mittet, quia Deus Diabolum facere ista permittet. (St. Augustine, lib. xx. de Civ. Dei. chap. 19.)

 

[buffalo]

Awesome! I can tell a lie but god can’t! God is not omnipotent.

uh oh!

Lieing is a contradiction in logic?

God is unable to tell a lie, this is something impossible for god according to you.

You do not have the correct understanding of omnipotent.

Catholics know God as almighty, He does what He sets out to do.

 

[TheWhim]

There are lots of things that we can do that God cannot.

You start with a wrong definition of God right from the beginning. You start with assuming that God is an imperfect being like us. But he is not. He is, by definition, shere perfection. If he cannot do some things - as you say - the reason is simply this: he can do much greater things than that. If he cannot do imperfect things - as you say - the reason is this: he is by defintion utmost perfection.

Let’s take a short look at your examples:

God is omniscient, so God can never learn anything new - He already knew it.

This in no way weakens the notion of God’s omnipotence. Instead, it strengthens it. God would not be utmost perfection if he would still suffer from our own imperfection: that we must always learn more, that we forget, that our minds finally dissolve. If there were still things for God to learn afresh, he would fall short of the perfection ascribed to him by definition. In short: God doesn’t become greater if he still has to learn something; rather, he becomes far less. In truth, you just argued in favour of God’s omnipotence and not against it. And you do so likewise with the following sentence:

God is omnipresent so He can never move - He can never leave the starting point and He is already present at the destination

It would be equally strange to say:
*God is not omnipotent because there aren’t some things that he cannot do. *
Your whole argument can be reduced to this summarily sentence. And as this sentence is a contradiction in terms your argument fails as well.

 

[JDaniel]

This guy I know doesn’t believe in God because he doesn’t believe that God’s all-powerful. He gave the example that God can’t make a 4 sided triangle, so there’s some things He can’t do. Any help?

A triangle is name for a three sided figure or shape. It is three-sided by definition. If the guy you know wants of know if God can make a square, tell him of course he can. Anybody can.

The guy’s elevator is not going all the way to the top!

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Awesome! I can tell a lie but god can’t! God is not omnipotent.

uh oh!

Lieing is a contradiction in logic?

God is unable to tell a lie, this is something impossible for god according to you.

Do you have a purpose here, I mean other than to disparage God? It’s as though you are rushing headlong at God every moment, just to take a bite out of Him.

We will pray for you.

jd

 

[morgantj]

Do you have a purpose here, I mean other than to disparage God? It’s as though you are rushing headlong at God every moment, just to take a bite out of Him.

We will pray for you.

jd

I’m merely pointing out contradictions.

 

[morgantj]

Catholics know God as almighty, He does what He sets out to do.

So when the almighty sets out to decieve, he does so. Why are you fighting this?

And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet. - Ezekiel 14:9

For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. - 2 Thessalonians 2:11

Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people. - Jeremiah 4:10

 

[buffalo]

So when the almighty sets out to decieve, he does so. Why are you fighting this?

And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet. - Ezekiel 14:9

For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. - 2 Thessalonians 2:11

Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people. - Jeremiah 4:10

It is not in His nature to deceive. All of these verses properly understood basically say God has allowed deception. You need to look at the understanding of these passages. Read the commentaries.

 

[rossum]

This in no way weakens the notion of God’s omnipotence.

I am not arguing against God’s omnipotence. I am merely pointing out that anyone who describes God as “omniscient” is ipso facto limiting God. Any description of God must limit God.

*God is not omnipotent because there aren’t some things that he cannot do. *

My argument is not about God at all; it deals with the inadequacy of human languages to describe God. Any description of God must limit God, not because of anything inherent in God, but because of the limitations inherent in language. All descriptions of God are false.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

I am not arguing against God’s omnipotence. I am merely pointing out that anyone who describes God as “omniscient” is ipso facto limiting God. Any description of God must limit God.

My argument is not about God at all; it deals with the inadequacy of human languages to describe God. Any description of God must limit God, not because of anything inherent in God, but because of the limitations inherent in language. All descriptions of God are false.

rossum

Which one of these is false?

1. 
   *] God is absolutely perfect. (De fide.)
   *] God is actually infinite in every perfection. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolutely simple. (De fide.)
   *] There is only One God. (De fide.)
   *] The One God is, in the ontological sense, The True God. (De fide.)
   *] God possesses an infinite power of cognition. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute Veracity. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolutely faithful. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness. (De fide.) D 1782.
   *] God is absolute Benignity. (De fide.) D1782.
   *] God is absolute Beauty. D1782.
   *] God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)
   *] God is eternal. (De fide.)
   *] God is immense or absolutely immeasurable. (De fide.)
   *] God is everywhere present in created space. (De fide.)

 

[morgantj]

It is not in His nature to deceive. All of these verses properly understood basically say God has allowed deception. You need to look at the understanding of these passages. Read the commentaries.

Negative. For example, read this line, “I the Lord have deceived that prophet.”

Deceived is this is a verb, he has taken the action of deceiving. He admits to it.

It doesn’t not say he simply allowed somebody to be deceived by some deception in which he did not deliver, he actaully admits to doing the deceiving himself. Clear as day. You are showing confirmation bias.

 

[buffalo]

Negative. For example, read this line, “I the Lord have deceived that prophet.”

Deceived is this is a verb, he has taken the action of deceiving. He admits to it.

It doesn’t not say he simply allowed somebody to be deceived by some deception in which he did not deliver, he actaully admits to doing the deceiving himself. Clear as day. You are showing confirmation bias.

Ver. 9. Err. He speaks of false prophets, answering out of their own heads, and according to their own corrupt inclinations. — Deceived, &c. God Almighty deceives false prophets, partly by withdrawing his light from them; and abandoning them to their own corrupt inclinations, which push them on to prophesy such things as are agreeable to those that consult them: and partly by disappointing them, and causing all things to happen contrary to what they have said. (Challoner) — God permits the deception, to punish both the impostor and his hearers. (Worthington) — Thus was Balaam treated, (Calmet) Numbers xxii. (Haydock) — He could do nothing of himself, (St. Jerome) 2 Kings xxii. 22. (Calmet) — Here also an interrogation might be used (Haydock) in Hebrew, “have I?” &c. (Feiffer dub. cent. 4. b. lviii.) — I have manifested the deceit, chap. xiii. 18.

 

[TheWhim]

I am not arguing against God’s omnipotence. I am merely pointing out that anyone who describes God as “omniscient” is ipso facto limiting God. Any description of God must limit God.

How so? I haven’t catched up with your line of thinking yet. Please explain your thought more fully. Besides, I don’t think that you have addressed my objection as yet.

I don’t understand how anyone should limit the concept of God when attributing omniscience to it. Instead, he broadens the concept to its utmost. To say that omniscience means a limiting of God because it implies that there is one thing God won’t do, namely learning, is to turn the matter upside-down. You are the one who limits God. It is you who claims that there is an imperfection in God - that he doesn’t know everything yet. How could such imperfections add anything to God’s perfection of omnipotence? They couldn’t add anything, they would only limit. In my view it is you who does the limiting here.

Please keep in mind that learning is an imperfection when compared to already-knowing. This is plainly obvious. For example, say you’ve just started learning a foreign language and you encounter someone who has been acquainted with this tongue for years and has the tiniest details about its specialities ever present in his mind - who of you two, you believe, is ahead? Who is superior?

As I already said, your argument can be summarized in the following paradoxical sentence:
God isn’t omnipotent because there aren’t some things that he cannot do. Which is the same as: God is not omnipotent because he can’t do actions that would only emanate from a being that is not omnipotent.
Of course, this may be a nice paradox(personally I do not think so) but it has no value at all as a statement upon which conclusions shall be build.
God is by defintion the most perfect being imaginable. There is no limiting here; because this definiton implies that there are no limits a)to God’s knowledge(because he does not need learning), b) to God’s presence(because he is everywhere), c) etc…
And again, it would mean to turn the tables upside down to say that because God lacks in imperfections he is imperfect(that’s your very reasoning). The very reverse is true: because God lacks in imperfections he is perfect.

 

[morgantj]

God Almighty deceives false prophets, partly by withdrawing his light from them; and abandoning them to their own corrupt inclinations, which push them on to prophesy such things as are agreeable to those that consult them: and partly by disappointing them, **and causing all things to happen contrary to what they have said. **

Oh! It is even worse than I thought. He even causes things to happen contrary to what one has said just to make them look like a liar. Tricky tricky. Thanks for that.

 

[buffalo]

Oh! It is even worse than I thought. He even causes things to happen contrary to what one has said just to make them look like a liar. Tricky tricky. Thanks for that.

Any other questions?

 

[JDaniel]

I am not arguing against God’s omnipotence. I am merely pointing out that anyone who describes God as “omniscient” is ipso facto limiting God. Any description of God must limit God.

In the widest sense of limiting, you are correct. The difference is that His is a self-limiting, as best as we can try to understand it, such that He wills not to contradict certain exigencies that He has created. For example, He wills not to permit contradiction in mathematics and logic. The use of the word, “omniscient”, does not inaccurately describe Him unless we put our own blinders on our own intellects. (Actually, you might be referring to “omnipotence” rather than “omniscience” here.)

My argument is not about God at all; it deals with the inadequacy of human languages to describe God.

Seems like there’s a presupposition here somewhere!

Any description of God must limit God, not because of anything inherent in God, but because of the limitations inherent in language. All descriptions of God are false.

Even those descriptions of Him (and His determinants) found in the Bible - His revelation of Himself to us? We both seem to be on the same side. I’d rather not see someone from our side cave in on insignificant semantical issues. God left traces of himself, in so many different places and so many different ways, it is as though we are involved in a giant Easter egg hunt. Each egg found results in a convert.

Further, to some extent I would agree with you, except that I would change the focus of your conundrum from “words/language” to “human reason”. All descriptions of God are not false; most simply defy reason’s ability to grasp them. To some extent, this problem may be due to language limitations, but, it may just as well have to do with our inabilities to understand the special and unique relationships that any description of God must entail.

jd

 

[Leela]

So when the almighty sets out to decieve, he does so. Why are you fighting this?

And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet. - Ezekiel 14:9

For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. - 2 Thessalonians 2:11

Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people. - Jeremiah 4:10

Makes sense to me, Morgantj. If God is all-powerful, it is hard to believe that he would not be successful when he tries to deceive. I suspect that you already know that believers are willing to allow themselves all sorts of twists of meaning when the words of the Bible are not consistent with what they already believe.

It goes to show you that it is human beings who decide what is good in the good book, and that one who does not already believe that lieing is wrong would not learn it by reading the Bible. One has to approach the book already knowing that lieing is wrong to come up with such “interpretations” of the quotes you posted.

Best,
Leela

 

[davidv]

Makes sense to me, Morgantj. If God is all-powerful, it is hard to believe that he would not be successful when he tries to deceive. I suspect that you already know that believers are willing to allow themselves all sorts of twists of meaning when the words of the Bible are not consistent with what they already believe.

It goes to show you that it is human beings who decide what is good in the good book, and that one who does not already believe that lieing is wrong would not learn it by reading the Bible. One has to approach the book already knowing that lieing is wrong to come up with such “interpretations” of the quotes you posted.

Best,
Leela

I am glad I don’t believe in the caricature of god that you propose in this post.

 

[rossum]

Which one of these is false?

All of them. They all attempt to describe the unlimited in a limited human language. Inevitably all such attempts fail. To say that we can describd God is a limited human language is tantamount to saying that a human can understand God. All human understandings of God are faulty and hence all human descriptions of God are faulty.

rossum

 

[davidv]

All of them. They all attempt to describe the unlimited in a limited human language. Inevitably all such attempts fail. To say that we can describd God is a limited human language is tantamount to saying that a human can understand God. All human understandings of God are faulty and hence all human descriptions of God are faulty.

rossum

Incompleteness of a description does not make the description false.

If I tell you that I am wearing a sweater, have I made a false statement because I cannot tell you what color it is? (Assuming I am completely color blind)