Instigator / Pro
49
1435
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Topic
#1215
The Omnipotence Paradox is a flawed argument for the Atheist trying to "disprove" God or the unreasonableness of faith
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
21
6
Better sources
14
10
Better legibility
7
5
Better conduct
7
1
After 7 votes and with 27 points ahead, the winner is...
GuitarSlinger
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
22
1378
rating
36
debates
38.89%
won
Description
The argument goes something like this:
To be omnipotent is to be able to do anything. If God can do anything, he ought to be able to create a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it. However, this creates a paradox: if God cannot lift the stone, he is not almighty; if God cannot make the stone, he is not almighty. From this, it becomes clear the God cannot be omnipotent, since omnipotence is logically impossible given the paradox. Therefore, God does not exist.
My contention is that this argument is flawed, illogical, and does not disprove God's existence, nor does it disprove His omnipotence, but rather it does nothing but highlight the arguer's misunderstanding of what it means to be "omnipotent" from a Theological/Christian perspective.
Round 1
Pro
#1
The paradox is often used by the “Arguer” as a way to “disprove”
God. “God should be able to do
absolutely anything, if he is Omnipotent. If there is something He can’t do, then it means it’s “not God”. But this argument operates on the notion that
an “Omnipotent” should be able to create or do absolutely ANYTHING, even things
that are “logically absurd”, such as creating “married bachelors”, “Square
circles”, “one-ended sticks”, “triangles with 2 sides”, and yes, even “creating
a rock so heaven even He can’t lift it.”
These things (one-ended sticks, square circles, and yes, an Omnipotent Being creating a rock so heavy even He can’t lift it) are not possible not because the Omnipotent Being doesn’t have sufficient power to make it be, but rather because they are logical contradictions. A triangle, by definition, has 3 sides and 3 angles, so having a “2-sided triangle” is a logical contradiction. That’s like asking “Can an Infinite Being, a being without limits, impose limits on Himself?” The very definition of an infinite being eliminates that possibility. Or put another way—can an All-Powerful being do something that limits His power. The very idea of an All-Power being with power that is limited is illogical- Beign All-Powerful rules out the possibility of being limited. Or put another way, there are some things an Omnipotent can’t do precisely because he is Omnipotent. You’re basically asking if a Being of unlimited power can produce something to limit Him. But His unlimited power, by definition, rules out that possibility. An unlimited being cannot create limits for Himself.
The Christian understanding of Omnipotence is not that an Omnipotent Being should be able to do absolutely anything, but rather those things that are logically possible. It’s worth noting that “Defying logic” and “Defying physics” are two different things. One might argue “You Christians think God can walk on water- that defies logic!” To that I would argue, no, it defies physics, not logic. Making a square circle defies logic. As a Christian, when we say “God can do the impossible”, we don’t mean that God can do the “logically impossible” (i.e. make married bachelors, square circles, etc).
A rock (stone) by definition is made of matter and is of a finite size. An Infinite Being, by definition, is not finite. So in order for a rock to be too Heavy for an infinite Being, it would need to be of infinite size (and weight for that matter). But, by definition, this is not a rock.
In short, the “Stone Too Heavy to Lift” Paradox does not “prove” Omnipotence is not possible, and thus God is not possible, but rather simply illustrates that the Christian’s idea of God doesn’t meet the Arguer’s idea/concept of what it means to be Omnipotent (God).
These things (one-ended sticks, square circles, and yes, an Omnipotent Being creating a rock so heavy even He can’t lift it) are not possible not because the Omnipotent Being doesn’t have sufficient power to make it be, but rather because they are logical contradictions. A triangle, by definition, has 3 sides and 3 angles, so having a “2-sided triangle” is a logical contradiction. That’s like asking “Can an Infinite Being, a being without limits, impose limits on Himself?” The very definition of an infinite being eliminates that possibility. Or put another way—can an All-Powerful being do something that limits His power. The very idea of an All-Power being with power that is limited is illogical- Beign All-Powerful rules out the possibility of being limited. Or put another way, there are some things an Omnipotent can’t do precisely because he is Omnipotent. You’re basically asking if a Being of unlimited power can produce something to limit Him. But His unlimited power, by definition, rules out that possibility. An unlimited being cannot create limits for Himself.
The Christian understanding of Omnipotence is not that an Omnipotent Being should be able to do absolutely anything, but rather those things that are logically possible. It’s worth noting that “Defying logic” and “Defying physics” are two different things. One might argue “You Christians think God can walk on water- that defies logic!” To that I would argue, no, it defies physics, not logic. Making a square circle defies logic. As a Christian, when we say “God can do the impossible”, we don’t mean that God can do the “logically impossible” (i.e. make married bachelors, square circles, etc).
A rock (stone) by definition is made of matter and is of a finite size. An Infinite Being, by definition, is not finite. So in order for a rock to be too Heavy for an infinite Being, it would need to be of infinite size (and weight for that matter). But, by definition, this is not a rock.
In short, the “Stone Too Heavy to Lift” Paradox does not “prove” Omnipotence is not possible, and thus God is not possible, but rather simply illustrates that the Christian’s idea of God doesn’t meet the Arguer’s idea/concept of what it means to be Omnipotent (God).
Con
#2
My opponent's argument is that God can only do logically possible things, and so the Omnipotence Paradox doesn't apply to him. However, both of these statements are false. The God described in the Bible is truly omnipotent, and there are many verses that prove that. Here are some of those verses below:
But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. | Matthew 19:26 KJV
For with God nothing shall be impossible. | Luke 1:37 KJV
Behold, I [am] the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me? | Jeremiah 32:37 KJV
And since the Bible is the word of God, that means God is telling us that everything is possible with him. God is telling us that nothing is too hard for him. Therefore, my opponent is denying his own religion and commiting blasphemy by challenging God's own definition of himself. Blasphemy is a serious crime and according to his own beliefs, my blasphemous opponent is going to Hell for eternity. Checkmate, Christians.
But on a serious note, you cannot just change your religion's definition of God to win an debate. The Christian God is defined as an omnipotent being with absolutely unlimited powers. There is not a single Bible verse that states God can only do things that are logically possible. If these Bible verses existed, my opponent would have cited them in his R1 argument. But he did not, because those verses do not exist and never have.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Eh, Checkmate? Not so
fast, Comrade. You’ve barely moved a pawn.
I agree, the God described in the Bible is truly “omnipotent.” Where we disagree is you believe “omnipotent” means being able to do absolutely everything, including those things which are logically impossible (can God make a married bachelor? No, then not God!), contradictory (can God make 2 + 2 equal 4 and not equal to 4 at the same time? No? Then not God!), or which go against His Nature. I, on the other hand, believe that “omnipotent” doesn’t necessarily mean being able to do absolutely everything. I believe, and which is the subject of the debate, is that the atheist, who, in this instance happens to actually go by the name “TheAtheist”, has a misunderstanding of what it means to be “omnipotent” from a Christian perspective. Most reputable Theologians adhere to the notion that at there are indeed some things God can’t do (they would against His nature, which warrants a much deeper discussion). Certainly within the Catholic faith, doctrine and Church teaching uphold that there are indeed some things which God cannot do.
My opponents cites passages from the Bible, and uses this same Bible to lay the foundation for his claim that the Christian believes God is an omnipotent being, one that has absolutely unlimited powers. This is the heart of the Paradox. The arguer believes that if “omnipotent” means “unlimited powers”, God is believe to be “unlimited”. If the arguer could somehow cleverly devise a scenario that would appear to “limit” God, this “proves” God is not omnipotent, and therefore proves God doesn’t exist. To which I respond, “No, no no.” The Christian faith (mine in particular) believes there are some things God can not due by virtue of the fact that he IS omnipotent.
The Bible, as with all texts written by a human hand (the Bible was inspired by God, but written by humans) must be taken into context. I truly believe that the Bible is the Word of God—written by humans over the course of time and inspired by God. At the same time, I believe that the Bible passages must be taken into context (who wrote them, when did they write them, who was the targeted audience at the time of writing, etc) in order to be properly understoof.
The early Biblical writers employed, as do writers of our own age, literary techniques in their writings. How can you be sure that when the writers of the Bible say (imply) that “God is Omnipotent,” they mean (imply) that He can truly do EVERYTHING, even those things which are contradictory? How can you be so sure that when you read a text from the Bible, your understanding of it is the exact same understanding of the writer who wrote it (or God who inspired it, for that matter)? This argument is based on an assumption that YOU interpret something (a text) exactly the way it was intended. My challenge to you is this—how are you so sure YOUR understanding of texts that describe God as having, as you put it, “Absolutely unlimited powers” is the correct understanding? Keep in mind, I’m asking you this because you (not me) were the one that brought the Bible into the discussion as a basis for your position. I did not (at least not yet anyway).
Just to give you an example of what I’m talking about—and these are examples, not “Strawmen”—I’m using these as examples to illustrate my point. Writers in the 80’s and 90’s would often describe Michael Jordan (and sports stars today) as being “impossible to stop” and “he could do no wrong during the game.” Now, does that truly mean he could not be stopped—AT ALL? No. Certainly some men stopped him and kept him from scoring, but they employed a literary technique to underscore how great he played. Biblical writers did the same thing. How can you be so sure when they say “For with God nothing shall be impossible” that they also mean God can do that which is contradictory or logically impossible?
You say that God tells us everything is possible with him. Yep, he does. Where we differ is you believe this means ABSOLUTELY everything, even those things that are logically impossible or contradictory (e.g make triangles with just 2 sides and angles, etc) whereas I say God can only do the logically possible. God also tells us, in that same Bible, that there are indeed things He cannot do (see below).
You say the Christian God is defined as having absolutely unlimited powers. WRONG. The Bible does in fact put limits on what God can’t do. Interesting—you seem to presume the reason I didn’t put these in R1 was because these passages didn’t exist. There are passages in the Bible that state there are indeed certain things God cannot do:
a. Impossible for God to lie
Hebrews 6:17-18 “So when God wanted to give the heirs of his promise an even clearer demonstration of the immutability of his purpose, he intervened with an oath, so that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge might be strongly encouraged to hold fast to the hope that lies before us.”
Romans 3:4 “God must be true…”
b. He can not deny himself
2 Timothy 2:13 – “he can not deny Himself.”
This refutes your statements that Bible says (unequivocally) that the God is omnipotent by your definition/understanding of “omnipotent”. I say, no—the Bible does indeed place limits on what God can do (he can’t lie, he can’t “not be true” , he can’t deny himself).
I agree -- the Bible doesn’t say outright that God can only do the things that are logically possible. However, the Bible is silent about a myriad of things. The Bible is curiously silent about putting your neighbor’s arm in a meat grinder. However, we can use other passages, teachings, and context to infer that the Bible would not condone the putting of your neighbor’s arm in a meat grinder. Likewise, one can infer (from other passages, teachings, context) that there are some things God cannot do. So, the fact that the Bible doesn’t say X, doesn’t mean X is not true.
Finally, just as you state that the Bible states nowhere that God can only do the logically possible, I can likewise state that neither does the Bible state that God has absolutely unlimited powers and is able to do the logically impossible. You cite a few passages that you believe “prove” that the Christian God should be able to do EVERYTHING, including the logically impossible. However, I just showed you some passages where the Bible does indeed put limits on what God can do (he can’t lie, deny himself, etc), underscoring the notion that the Christian idea of omnipotence does not include being able to do the logically impossible, the contradictory, or the absurd.
Because I have characters, let’s recap. The crux/formula of the “Stone Paradox” essentially goes like this.
A. The arguer defines “Omnipotence” as being able to do absolutely everything, without having any limits. The arguer may not outright define it as such, but it becomes evident as the Paradox plays on that this what they believe. The arguer immediately assumes that his definition of Omnipotence is in 100% alignment with how the Christian defines “omnipotence”.
B. The arguer then devises (or borrows) a contradictory scenario, which is illogical, in the form of “If God is Omnipotent, can He create a stone so heavy that not even He can lift it?”. Other similar, often funny, scenarios might take the shape of “Can God create a Square that has 5 sides?”, “Can God beat Himself up in a fist-fight?” “Can God devise a problem that not even He can solve?”, etc.
C. When the Christian answers “No”, the arguer then counters “See! There IS something God can’t do (be it create a stone so heavy, make 2 sided triangle, etc). You’ve just put a limit on God. God is not omnipotent, therefore, God doesn’t exist!”. The arguer then claims victory, often punctuating the exchange with a clever statement, such as “Checkmate.”
However, the problem is with the initial understanding of “Omnipotence”.
I agree, the God described in the Bible is truly “omnipotent.” Where we disagree is you believe “omnipotent” means being able to do absolutely everything, including those things which are logically impossible (can God make a married bachelor? No, then not God!), contradictory (can God make 2 + 2 equal 4 and not equal to 4 at the same time? No? Then not God!), or which go against His Nature. I, on the other hand, believe that “omnipotent” doesn’t necessarily mean being able to do absolutely everything. I believe, and which is the subject of the debate, is that the atheist, who, in this instance happens to actually go by the name “TheAtheist”, has a misunderstanding of what it means to be “omnipotent” from a Christian perspective. Most reputable Theologians adhere to the notion that at there are indeed some things God can’t do (they would against His nature, which warrants a much deeper discussion). Certainly within the Catholic faith, doctrine and Church teaching uphold that there are indeed some things which God cannot do.
My opponents cites passages from the Bible, and uses this same Bible to lay the foundation for his claim that the Christian believes God is an omnipotent being, one that has absolutely unlimited powers. This is the heart of the Paradox. The arguer believes that if “omnipotent” means “unlimited powers”, God is believe to be “unlimited”. If the arguer could somehow cleverly devise a scenario that would appear to “limit” God, this “proves” God is not omnipotent, and therefore proves God doesn’t exist. To which I respond, “No, no no.” The Christian faith (mine in particular) believes there are some things God can not due by virtue of the fact that he IS omnipotent.
The Bible, as with all texts written by a human hand (the Bible was inspired by God, but written by humans) must be taken into context. I truly believe that the Bible is the Word of God—written by humans over the course of time and inspired by God. At the same time, I believe that the Bible passages must be taken into context (who wrote them, when did they write them, who was the targeted audience at the time of writing, etc) in order to be properly understoof.
The early Biblical writers employed, as do writers of our own age, literary techniques in their writings. How can you be sure that when the writers of the Bible say (imply) that “God is Omnipotent,” they mean (imply) that He can truly do EVERYTHING, even those things which are contradictory? How can you be so sure that when you read a text from the Bible, your understanding of it is the exact same understanding of the writer who wrote it (or God who inspired it, for that matter)? This argument is based on an assumption that YOU interpret something (a text) exactly the way it was intended. My challenge to you is this—how are you so sure YOUR understanding of texts that describe God as having, as you put it, “Absolutely unlimited powers” is the correct understanding? Keep in mind, I’m asking you this because you (not me) were the one that brought the Bible into the discussion as a basis for your position. I did not (at least not yet anyway).
Just to give you an example of what I’m talking about—and these are examples, not “Strawmen”—I’m using these as examples to illustrate my point. Writers in the 80’s and 90’s would often describe Michael Jordan (and sports stars today) as being “impossible to stop” and “he could do no wrong during the game.” Now, does that truly mean he could not be stopped—AT ALL? No. Certainly some men stopped him and kept him from scoring, but they employed a literary technique to underscore how great he played. Biblical writers did the same thing. How can you be so sure when they say “For with God nothing shall be impossible” that they also mean God can do that which is contradictory or logically impossible?
You say that God tells us everything is possible with him. Yep, he does. Where we differ is you believe this means ABSOLUTELY everything, even those things that are logically impossible or contradictory (e.g make triangles with just 2 sides and angles, etc) whereas I say God can only do the logically possible. God also tells us, in that same Bible, that there are indeed things He cannot do (see below).
You say the Christian God is defined as having absolutely unlimited powers. WRONG. The Bible does in fact put limits on what God can’t do. Interesting—you seem to presume the reason I didn’t put these in R1 was because these passages didn’t exist. There are passages in the Bible that state there are indeed certain things God cannot do:
a. Impossible for God to lie
Hebrews 6:17-18 “So when God wanted to give the heirs of his promise an even clearer demonstration of the immutability of his purpose, he intervened with an oath, so that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge might be strongly encouraged to hold fast to the hope that lies before us.”
Romans 3:4 “God must be true…”
b. He can not deny himself
2 Timothy 2:13 – “he can not deny Himself.”
This refutes your statements that Bible says (unequivocally) that the God is omnipotent by your definition/understanding of “omnipotent”. I say, no—the Bible does indeed place limits on what God can do (he can’t lie, he can’t “not be true” , he can’t deny himself).
I agree -- the Bible doesn’t say outright that God can only do the things that are logically possible. However, the Bible is silent about a myriad of things. The Bible is curiously silent about putting your neighbor’s arm in a meat grinder. However, we can use other passages, teachings, and context to infer that the Bible would not condone the putting of your neighbor’s arm in a meat grinder. Likewise, one can infer (from other passages, teachings, context) that there are some things God cannot do. So, the fact that the Bible doesn’t say X, doesn’t mean X is not true.
Finally, just as you state that the Bible states nowhere that God can only do the logically possible, I can likewise state that neither does the Bible state that God has absolutely unlimited powers and is able to do the logically impossible. You cite a few passages that you believe “prove” that the Christian God should be able to do EVERYTHING, including the logically impossible. However, I just showed you some passages where the Bible does indeed put limits on what God can do (he can’t lie, deny himself, etc), underscoring the notion that the Christian idea of omnipotence does not include being able to do the logically impossible, the contradictory, or the absurd.
Because I have characters, let’s recap. The crux/formula of the “Stone Paradox” essentially goes like this.
A. The arguer defines “Omnipotence” as being able to do absolutely everything, without having any limits. The arguer may not outright define it as such, but it becomes evident as the Paradox plays on that this what they believe. The arguer immediately assumes that his definition of Omnipotence is in 100% alignment with how the Christian defines “omnipotence”.
B. The arguer then devises (or borrows) a contradictory scenario, which is illogical, in the form of “If God is Omnipotent, can He create a stone so heavy that not even He can lift it?”. Other similar, often funny, scenarios might take the shape of “Can God create a Square that has 5 sides?”, “Can God beat Himself up in a fist-fight?” “Can God devise a problem that not even He can solve?”, etc.
C. When the Christian answers “No”, the arguer then counters “See! There IS something God can’t do (be it create a stone so heavy, make 2 sided triangle, etc). You’ve just put a limit on God. God is not omnipotent, therefore, God doesn’t exist!”. The arguer then claims victory, often punctuating the exchange with a clever statement, such as “Checkmate.”
However, the problem is with the initial understanding of “Omnipotence”.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Forfeiting this round so TheAtheist can publish his argument originally intended for R2.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con FF the majority of the debate, that's poor conduct!
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Full forfeit
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
FF because R1 with forfeits means FF in the CoC.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Convincing arguments goes to pro because con failed to respond to any of pro's rebuttals effectively conceding the debate.
Conduct goes to pro because Con forfeited most rounds.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Forfeit from Con, although Con had some interesting points if he wanted to continue. Unfortunately, he never took the time to attempt to defend them from Pro. Pro was more convincing for me, kudos to him; albeit, he had little competition unfortunately.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
67% Forfeiture.
I would have been tempted to award conduct for the R1 insults of blasphemy for initiating this debate... It could have been a somewhat valid claim later by lowering God to the standard of Michael Jordan,
This was a disagreement over if Christians define God as omnipotent anyways, and maybe should have just been a debate on if Christians define God as omnipotent or not, since pro clearly does not (well at least not without a healthy dose of moving the goalpost).
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
2/3 forfeit, neither side convinced me
No worries. What do you mean extend to round 3-- do you mean, I forfeit Round 3 and let you post your R2 argument in R3? I have no problem with that. I'll go ahead and forfeit this R. sorry-- I thought I had put the maximum number of days for an argument, but guess not.
I'm really sorry, I was busy and I missed my argument. Perhaps you could extend your argument to round 3? And maybe next time, have more than two days for each argument. Again, I'm very sorry!
This debate is I think going to revolve around the definition of omnipotence since GuitarSlinger didn't bother to give one. With this the instigator can use his own definition and the contender can use his own. Not eventful but if this wasn't a problem I still think it would demonstrate what was already the case before. People who already with a side will still agree with that side given the really unlikely scenario that either of them will provide a new or tailored argument to a reader.
Bare in mind the debate is about a relational attribute of a God, not the concept of God as a whole.
Some versions of the bible will say that God told Adam he would die that day if he ate from the tree; other versions will simply say that God told Adam he would "surely die" when he ate it, without including "that day". Regardless which one is semantically correct, God still told Adam that something would happen when it didn't.
You also keep bringing up how "The Christian believes that God is not imperfect, but on the contrary God is All-Perfect." Again, that isn't how debating works. You win debates based on the facts that you present and how you counter the opposing side's arguments with facts and logic, not based on what your own personal religious cult/gang determines. I'm sure many other groups believe in Allah, Zeus the god of thunder, norse Gods, Athena the wisdom goddess, the flying spaghetti monster, bigfoot, and more.
According to you, "When reading a work from an author, if you want to know what it means, what was actually intended you go to the source". Fine then. Since the bible is the word of God, why don't you go ask God himself what he meant and then report back to us instead of just saying "oh but God meant this and/or that instead"? After all, he is 'the only one with the true "Authority" to explain what is meant in the words' right?
Lastly, I'm gonna need to you explain what "God's nature" is all about, because God has killed many, is jealous of many people, and does some other insane stuff in the bible, all of which would likely be "against His nature" too. https://io9.gizmodo.com/gods-12-biggest-dick-moves-in-the-old-testament-1522970429
Now, you may scoff and not agree with what I say about interpreting a text, but this is verifiable and demonstrated very easily using this Debate forum as an example.
Christen, let's say you post a comment on some debate. I read your comment and then start proclaiming to others my interpretation of what you wrote. But, it turns out, what I"m saying is actually not what you intended. What would you do-- you'd probably start telling others "no no no, that is not what I meant when I wrote that!" And you may actually have some choice words for me.
Or perhaps I read your comment and don't understand what you wrote. It's very confusing. What would be the right thing for me to do? WOuld it be smart for me to ask my neighbor down the street what you meant? Would it be smart for me to ask the guy working the cash register at the store? Would it be smart for me to ask SemporFortis what you mean in the things you wrote? No. If I truly, REALLY, wanted to know what you meant when you wrote what you wrote, the truly smart and wise thing would be to ask YOU-- the author. You are the only one with the true "Authority" to explain what is meant in the words you wrote. And if I can't ask you, the next best thing would be to ask those who know you-- your friends, your family, coworkers, etc. They are the ones that know you and could provide insight to your thoughts, beliefs, etc that shape you and would give me insight into the text. But the further we get away from the source, the author, the less likely we are interpreting the text (your comment, MLK's letter, the Bible) as the author intended.
When reading a work from an author, if you want to know what it means, what was actually intended you go to the source-- the Author. The author is the only with the authority to interpret it (notice the root of the word "authority"). All other interpretations simply becomes one person's "opinion"-- the person is not an authority-- they are not "the authority"). If the author is not available, then you do the next best thing-- you talk with the people who knew the author the best-- the friends, family etc. The are the ones that could probably give you the best insight into the author's beliefs, etc to guide your interpretation, etc.
You may ask "Well, what makes YOU an authority on the Bible then.". I would answer "Me? I never said I"m an authority on the Bible." My faith believes that the Church and the teaching body of the Church is both human and Divine. The Church is the Body of Christ and the Church has the Authority to teach and interpret the Bible. I can interpret the Bible any old way I want, but this may be only my opinion or interpretation and may not be how God intends the passage/story/Book to be understood. The true source of the interpretation would be God, the Author, and my faith believes the Church speaks for God (Christ).
I agree part of the problem is that when people interpret it a text, be it a work from George Orwell, JK Rowling, JRR TOlkien, Martin Luther King Jr, Hemingway, Biblical Scholars, it is simply their own interpretation of it. This interpretation may or not be what the author intended or actually meant.
One can read MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" and interpret this in a multitude of ways, none of which may be what MLK intended. One can read and proclaim "This is satire! He's not really serious about all this injustice!". Or one could actually pick and choose pieces from his letter and say something like "MLK was a supporter of Hitler. See, right here in his letter he says everything Hitler did was legal!" But that would be a wrong interpretation of a passage taken out of context (I encourage you to find the letter and read what he actually says to learn more ;-) ).
(more to follow)....
Regarding your Genesis comment, God did not lie in that story. Here's why:
As you relate the story of Adam, you state that God told Adam and Eve that "they would die THAT DAY" (emphasis is mine). I believe you added a few words ("that day") that are not actually in the Biblical text. I would agree that if God did indeed say they would die THAT DAY, one could view this as lying-- Adam and Eve did not die that day......But that is not what God told them-- he said they would die, he didn't specify that they would die THAT DAY.
I'd be curious as to which translation you are using that adds the words "that day" to the Genesis passage....
Nope you have not refuted me. Here is why:
You and I have the capability to lie. It is possible for you and I. Why? Because we are human-- it is part of our nature to have this propensity to fall short, to fail...and yes, to lie. In short, the reason you and I are capable of lying is because we are imperfect beings. So yes, it is indeed possible for you and me to lie.
But the Christian (and I can point you to centuries worth of Theological writings and Church documents if you like) believes that it is NOT possible for God to lie. Why? Because it is NOT in God's nature. The Christian believes that God is not imperfect, but on the contrary God is All-Perfect. The reason God can't lie is because it's inconsistent (Contradictory) with his All-Perfect nature.
So no, you didn't refute me. I will address your comments on Genesis in the next comment, as I fear I will be running of out of characters lol
My problem isn't when someone interprets the bible as whatever they want. My problem is when they are inconsistent with what they say, and that when they are refuted, they change the meaning of things so that it still looks like they are correct, even though they have been refuted.
Okay. So, according to you, "God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent."
So in that case, God is not omnipotent, because:
To be omnipotent means to be able to do all things that are possible.
You yourself said, and I quote, "God can not lie".
Lying is "logically possible". I can lie and say that 1+1=3, even though it isn't.
Therefore, because "God can not lie," God cannot "do all things that are possible". Therefore, God is not omnipotent.
Keep in mind that this is based on your definition of omnipotence, not mine, and even then, I have refuted you.
You then go on and say that "God is Omnipotent, with omni-potent including those things which are logically possible or do not go against God's nature." which is also very easy to refute. What exactly are the things that "go against God's nature" anyways? Lying? Well in Genesis 2:17 God told Adam not to eat from the tree of life or else they would die that day, and when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, Adam did not die that day. So either God HAS in fact lied (which proves that he can and does lie) or that God simply didn't know that Adam would disobey him (which would, in that case, prove that God isn't smart and is thus not omnipotent).
Which one was it?
The Bible is certainly up for interpretation which would allow a Christian to interpret it as anything logically possible. There are many other arguments with more efficacy; many philosophers believe the paradox hasn't stood up to much scrutiny.
Aquinas puts it this way:
All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, 'God can do all things,' is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent.
eh, no. Go back and re-read what I wrote. I'm saying that what christopher_best suggests is actually another argument to make, and I elaborated on it. At no point did I say that was an argument I would make. In fact, I specifically state I'm not a fan of that argument. That is not my argument, which is why I didn't use that argument in the debate.
I explained why it's a flawed argument. His definition of "omnipotence", which includes being able to do what I call the logically impossible, is not what my faith/religion believes when it comes to omnipotence. I'm not changing my religion's definition of God's omnipotence, he is.
I do not contradict my own statements. In fact, I believe God is Omnipotent, with omni-potent including those things which are logically possible or do not go against God's nature. Aquinas agrees with me ;-) . GOd can not sin. He says To sin,is to be capable of failure in one's actions, which is incompatible with omnipotence" (Summa, I, Q, xxv, a. 3).
Again, you say God is not omnipotent (based on my statements), but I would argue that God doesn't fit YOUR idea of omnipotence. Which is not my faith's understanding of omnipotence. True, God can not lie, can not sin, etc. But this does not take away from God's omnipotence.
Fair points. I like it, this has been an interesting read thus far. I will probably vote.
Your argument is: "These may seem illogical to us, but we, as humans, with our small minds, have a hard time understanding and comprehending how this could be. I've hard the Paradox answer this way: God can make anything He wants, and He can lift anything he wants. Far it being from me to be able to explain how he is able to do it-- he's omnipotent, i'm not."
Dude, this isn't how debating works. You need to explain how "The Omnipotence Paradox is a flawed argument" based on facts, not based on "what the Christian believes" and not based on "literary techniques in their writings." How do you know that the inspired humans who wrote the bible were using literary techniques and not just making direct statements?
Remember what your opponent said; "you cannot just change your religion's definition of God to win an debate."
Also, you contradict your own statement by saying this: The Bible does in fact put limits on what God can’t do.
So this would mean that God is not omnipotent. Period. Debate over.
Yes, that is actually another position to take-- that, like not being bound by the laws of physics, God is not bound by the laws of "logic". He could very well have the power to make "married bachelors", "square circles", and "one-ended sticks". These may seem illogical to us, but we, as humans, with our small minds, have a hard time understanding and comprehending how this could be. I've hard the Paradox answer this way: God can make anything He wants, and He can lift anything he wants. Far it being from me to be able to explain how he is able to do it-- he's omnipotent, i'm not.
But I don't necessarily like that argument. I think saying God does the logically impossible or contradictory is in effect saying God goes against His nature, if he is All-Good (subject for another debate). I think the bottom line is, the atheist (in this case, The_Atheist) has a definition of "omnipotent" which doesn't align with the Christian idea of Omnipotence. The Christian does not believe God can lie, commit evil, etc. I still think the heart of the paradox is this:
1. The arguer sets up a definition (in this case, for "omnipotent") and assumes his definition is what the Christian believes
2. The arguer then sets up a scenario in which God doesn't meet his definition and then proclaims God is not omnipotent and thus non-existence.
My point is, the Christian, at least my faith/religion, doesn't subscribe to this definition of Omnipotence.
I like your definition of omnipotence. Although, I wonder if logic originates from God? And thus, God could redefine what is logical in order to accomplish truly anything.
Well, good luck to you!
I'm willing to go out on a limb and state that when an arguer (an atheist, devil's advocate, etc) uses the 4 O's (Omniscient, Omni-present, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent) to counter the existence of God, it's usually from a flawed understanding of those terms from a Christian perspective. Often, when debating/arguing the existence of God or rationality of faith, this is often lobbed as an argument against God, faith, the Bible, etc. When trying to counter, it becomes daunting because each of these of those Big O items in and of itself is worthy as a stand-alone debate, which is what I'm attempting to do with this debate (omnipotent).
I'd like to debate the other 3 individually at some point.....
What chris said
I'm interested to hear your take on this. I will be following this debate