"If God is omniscient, he must already know how is he going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent."
Richard Dawkins
2007-02-21 14:10:10 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
god can't violate the laws of nature? Isn't he god, couldn't he do anything? If he can't then he is not god.
2007-02-21 14:20:46 · update #1
small but fierce,
who are you to redefine the word "omnipotent"? "omnipotent" very simply means "to do ANYTHING", not "to do anything within one's nature". when you think about, by that definition, the everything is omnipotent, because everything does what's in its nature.
you gave the example that it is within your nature to run, but not to outrun a lion. so then, does that mean that an omnipotent human should be expected to run, but not expected to outrun a lion??? that's absurd!! by that definition, we're all omnipotent.
2007-02-21 14:30:11 · answer #1 · answered by tobykeogh 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course, if God exists outside Time; he would not be constrained to ONE course of history and this omniscience/omnipotence would equate to his control and knowledge of every possible outcome. The paradox of "course of history" only occurs if one believes there is but one reality and that time is integral in God's world as well as our own. If all things are possible and all possibilities occur, then there is no "might have been" borne of God's changing mind because all possible outcomes DO occur. I think Dawkins' statement is reliant on a view of the universe that we cannot automatically apply to a posited God just because it is how we as Man understand things.
2007-02-21 22:33:43 · answer #2 · answered by Black Dog 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is this logical? No. The problem is that the argument omits some crucial information and draws an inaccurate conclusion.
What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of his nature. It is part of his nature. God has a nature and his attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.
For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to his nature since being omnipotent is part of what he is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what he is and not with what he is not since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with his nature. he cannot lie because it is against his nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean he is not God or that he is not all powerful. Also, he cannot cease to be God. Since he is in all places at all times, if he stopped existing then he wouldn't be in all places at all time. Therefore, he cannot cease to exist without violating his own nature.
The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, he cannot make a rock so big he can't pick up, or make something bigger than himself, or change his mind about his intervention, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean he is not God nor that he is not omnipotent.
Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with his nature and consistent with his desire within the realm of his unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. This does not mean he can violate His own nature. If he did something inconsistent with his nature, then he would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, he would not be true. Likewise, if he did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big he can't pick it up, he would also not be true since that would be a self contradiction. Since truth is not self contradictory, and neither is God, if he were not true, then he would not be God. But God is true and not self contradictory, therefore, God cannot do something that violates his own nature.
2007-02-21 22:16:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Richie forgot one very important fact:
God is not only omnipotent and omniscient (oh, yeah, and omnipresent)...he is also PERFECT.
Since Richie is NOT perfect, he assumes that if he had God's power, he'd "fix everything"...yeah, sure.
But then, he doesn't have God's knowledge, does he?
Me, I think I'll trust God to know what He's doing, rather than ol' Rick Dawkins, who, after all, is only a human being, same as I am....
2007-02-21 22:16:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
"...going to intervene..." implies time. There is no time as we think of it. There is only this eternal now. God knows there is nothing in which to intervene.
"God" is not a static, separate being, but is perfect energy, (love) in and through and as everything that exists.
Nature is nature. It is what is, and cannot be changed. God cannot change God. The concept of change is ours, as we dream of being separate from God.
"God can do anything" is ego's way of keeping your focus on physicality, thus keeping you "apart" from God. But you are one with God...God is life, God is everything real, and nothing that is unreal.
2007-02-22 08:47:29 · answer #5 · answered by Sky in the Grass 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hee hee, I just asked this same question but I didn't have the energy to search through The God Delusion to find the quote.
It's just one of the many silly's about God.
But you can trust the Christians to find some way around. Some sort of loop-hole or interpretation.
If not, there is always the "God is perfect and we should not question Him" argument, if you can call it that.
2007-02-22 00:09:06 · answer #6 · answered by God Fears Me 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the limited, attempting to explain The Unlimited.
Can an insect explain a human?
2007-02-21 22:17:05 · answer #7 · answered by Shinigami 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
that means nothing, it isn't that he CAN'T change His mind, it is that He CHOOSES not too, would you want people you love to follow you like robots, no, so He gave us free will so that we would choose to Love Him.
2007-02-21 22:21:32 · answer #8 · answered by malsvb6 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Don't forget omnipresent, that trumps it.
2007-02-21 22:15:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋