The question on the poll to the right- 'is God omnipotent?' was meant to address the seeming paradox that God could be so powerful that His actions and past could both fulfill scripture AND match science as we currently understand it (or will, in the future). In other words, if God is so powerful as to be beyond human understanding, then it might be possible that science doesn't contradict Him, but, in fact, is consistent with even scripture- but obviously in ways we don't yet (and maybe never will) understand.
If that is a possibility, then perhaps many of the doctrinal things Christians argue about or debate with secularists is trivial. Take, for instance, whether God made the Earth in 6 days or 6 billion. Does it really matter? And, if it does matter, then is it safe to say that God, being all-powerful, could have both created the world according to scripture AND consistent with how scientists believe it happened? And if that is a possibility then we might have a little more in common with atheists than we might care to admit.
Welcome to The Red Cell!
If this is your first visit here, please take a moment to peruse the posts and comments. Try to see things from the vantage point of someone who does not know God.
The "Red Cell Thoughts" are not to be taken as a position of this blog- they are meant to stir thought. Please feel free to post other thoughts, questions, and possible answers. All posts are anonymous, but feel free to provide your name if you so desire. The Red Cell facilitators reserve the right to edit comments that are rude or offensive. Having said that, a little bit of offensiveness may be allowed- because if we offend no-one, then we might not be working hard enough! Remember, the Christian religion was founded on questioning the prevailing wisdom of the day and the Protestant Reformation continued that tradition. Don't be afraid to question all your assumptions.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Is God omnipotent?
Labels:
athiests,
Church doctrine,
Earth,
God,
omnipotence,
omnipotent,
securalists
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
RC,
ReplyDeleteI'll concede that Christians often argue trivial doctrinal matters. But it is more likely that atheists have more in common with Christian viewpoints than they would care to admit. The "High-Church" atheists prefer to fight against a God that they refuse to acknowledge in the first place.
I've been married to my wife for 15 years and cannot even come close to thinking that I know everything there is to know about her, despite being so similar to her and spending so much time with her. Even as a Type A male who would love to think that he as some "control" of his world, I have no doubt that it is futile to believe that we can ever understand the omnipotence of the Creator of the universe... and I'm OK with that. Over the past 9+ years, I have developed a relationship with God that just makes it OK because I trust Him - I don't trust the government or the stock market or most other things, but I trust Him implicitly, even when it hurts. I see a grain of sand - He sees the beach. It is impossible to "win" an argument with a hard-hearted atheist because he has no belief in a "faith button" (that button a believer can push when something just doesn't quite work in their little mind). This comes from a guy who's wasted too much time in discourse over "6 days or 6 billion years"... There is no "logical" way to win over an atheist because God ain't about human logic - he's about human love, he's about human "letting go". I think it's great that he gave us the tools to learn more about our world and we should use them, but it's folly to ever believe we could get anywhere near His omnipotence...
ReplyDeleteI admit, I looked up the definition of omnipotent. Not that I didn't know what the word meant, but I wanted to make sure there was not an additional meaning that I have left out. In your opening statement about God's power filling scripture and science seemed funny to me. I think of science as the study of the world that God created. Truth in science is truth in God's creation. Of course, truth in science is not always easy to tell. For example, is milk good for you? Anyone that listens to the teachings of that statement in the last 20 years probably has 6 different answers.
ReplyDeleteNow, if you are referring to using the historical context of what the bible says about who/ what God is and what was happening billions of years ago before man...I might question your science.
However, I would be interested to get anyone's opinion about the role God plays in the world's evolution. Sometimes I think God just got the ball rolling and it went on its own from there. Or, does God actively influence the development of species, move the tectonic plates, or develop plastic.
RC- that's a good point: we all would be closer in some of our beliefs than we'd admit to in a debate. Good catch.
ReplyDeleteanom- I like your comment on human logic. That's a good point. Makes me wonder whether God is more akin to some kind of "Design team"- to use complexity theory vernacular- that consistently sees the logic of the whole system, versus us who are incapable of such perception...
Sun- wikipedia has some interesting posts on omnipotent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_Paradox and the talk of paradoxes that follow from arguments like: can God create a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it? Interesting the arguments against that:
- that it is an illogical question, and thus does not require a logical solution (CS Lewis answer)
- that from the vantage point of an omnipotent entity that the entity could both create the rock and then lift it (as soon as He created a rock that heavy, He would "become" strong enough to lift it)
- an omnnipotent entity would only be logically omnipotent (bound by logic)
- our logic isn't the same- and therefore for us that problem seems paradoxical, to God it wouldn't be (echoes anom's comment)
My opinion on the role that God plays in the world's "evolution" is a tough one- as I think the answer to that has to come from whatever one assumes about our Purpose here. For instance, if our Purpose here is to only see if we can live like Christ and accept Him as savior, if that was it- and eternity in "Heaven" is the endstate, then God may have an active role in evolution- or maybe it wouldn't make any difference.
If, however, we are here for a purpose that leads to something other than an eternal rest, then that might affect which conclusion we have on God having very little to do with the evolution (or even initial conditions), or having a lot to do with them.
For instance, I am reading of late about "emergence" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/emergence.htm is the book and here is the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence). This book has gotten me thinking about the purpose of systems: ants, human bodies, etc- and comparing that to our "Purpose". One quote I had to laugh at was the description the author gives at one point for complex adaptive systems: "...[they] solve problems by drawing on masses of relatively stupid elements, rather than a single, intelligent "executive branch."
That really got me to thinking- since I have been contemplating the ultimate purpose for life- not in the spiritual, biblical sense, but in a practical, logical sense. The only conclusion I have come to is that we are here to find something out. A science experiment, if you will.
My initial thought was something to do with our souls- 'giving certain characteristics to souls and seeing how those souls either used those characteristics or wasted them'- was my initial thought (helps explain inequality)- and that led me to think that works have to matter more than Presbyterians like to talk about (but that Grace could still be massively important- but more tied in with the concept of Grace (humility) as opposed to the act itself).
With the Emergence book I have started thinking that maybe we are here to solve some complex problem(s). Our souls could still play a part in this, as would Grace, works, etc.- but maybe not in the way we understand it. The secret could be in the Bible- but could be uncovered much easier with supplements from other God-given gifts: science, logic, philosophy, etc. That fit with the seemingly constant theme Jesus had with the religious leaders of the day: 'you do not know God'. I keep having this suspicion that we ignore science for religious purposes only "because we do not know God"- and we do so at our own peril (Afterlife).
The "stupidity" that we have might be our lack of comprehension of complex subjects- the separation we have with God. We look at ants as stupid, but together they solve complex problems of logistics and population survival that computers arguably couldn't solve in a shorter time period (15 years). Is that our "Purpose"? Are we here as a cog in a machine to solve an "uber"-complex problem? Is it linked to our souls- so that terms like "Grace" actually DO take on meaning for the "Afterlife"- but maybe not in ways we understand?
If that is close- then I'd argue that God doesn't have anything to do with the daily machinations of life as we know it (if we view Him as a separate entity with no sharing of the universe or entities within). If, however, you view God as connected somehow to us, then maybe He does have effects on daily happenings- He affects and is affected in turn. But that gets into the conceptualization of God- another subject that is probably harder to fathom than "only" what role He plays in evolution. ;)
I'm curious- do athiests think there is a purpose to life?
And does anyone else have any ideas to what the purpose of all this is? (other than eternity in Heaven) Or, what does "eternity" in Heaven mean to you?