Are there some things that are impossible for God to bring about?

Question

Jesus said: "for God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26). But it seems that certain states of affairs are metaphysically impossible. Can God make 2 + 2 =5? Can God bring it about that square circles exist? Can God undo the past and make what has happened, not happen? Can God bring about a contradictory state of affairs such that both P and ~P are true at the same time and in the same sense?

Laura and Haz,

So you believe that God can bring about contradictory states of affairs? That is an interesting viewpoint. Therefore, I guess that God is not bound to do that which is logically necessary. Let us say that you are correct. There are surely some things that God cannot do in view of his nature. For instance, surely God could not make people malignantly evil without infringing on his nature.

jbare,

it is a fallacy to believe that something does not exist just because one can neither see nor hear the entity in question. Your comments assume that materialism is true. But materialism is not a fact, but a theoretical stance. If God does exist, then I would expect that we would not or could not see him directly. Moreover, many people have said that they heard the voice of God. Maybe it was in a vision or through another medium such as a prophet. But Christians and Jews would contend that God does speak.

Dear answer,

squares and circles are ideas or abstract objects. We cannot grasp them with our senses but only with our minds. They are noetic. By definition, square circles are impossible. A square is "a plane rectangle with four equal sides and four right angles." A circle, however, is "a closed plane curve every point of which is equidistant from a fixed point within the curve" (Merriam-Webster's). Therefore, square circles are logically impossible. They are ruled out by virtue of analytical reasons, to wit, the way in which one defines the concepts of squareness or circularity.

Woodman,

I think you are correct. The problem is not that what Jesus said is erroneous. Maybe the problem is how we interpret what he said. It is a good point that you make about "things." Jesus also was not a metaphysician. He did not have the same set of concerns that philosophers have.

One ancient church writer wrote that God could make humans with wings, but God would not do that. There is a difference between the divine "could" and the divine "would." Nevertheless, I have difficulty believing that God would do that which violates the law of contradiction. If God did violate the law of contradiction, then there would be no problem with an immortal God killing himself. But that is absurd, according to the canons of rational theology, which I espouse for the most part.

Da mick,

I actually said that Jesus did not speak erroneously. But our interpretation of what Christ said might be wrong-headed. I agree that there are many things we do not understand. I just try to avoid violating the law of contradiction (that a thing cannot be P and ~P in the same time or in the same sense) whenever possible. Thx!

Answer 1

First I'd like to say that God is not "all powerful." He cannot do something that is in his nature not to do. For example he cannot be unloving for God is Love. The other side of that is that god cannot be unjust because He is also just. So as far as the Matthew 19:26 you'd have to look at the context of what God says there to find out what "all" God, through Jesus is talking adout. As far as 2+2=5 and other things like it they are just terms and representations of true values. Therefore the truth of 2+2=4 is a truth lying outside humanity and for that matter theology. The only way you can get it to work is if you redefine one or more of the terms.

Answer 2

Can there really be a unified theory of everything? Or are we just chasing a mirage? There seem to be three possibilities:

• There really is a complete unified theory, which we will someday discover if we are smart enough.

• There is no ultimate theory of the universe, just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately.

• There is no theory of the universe. Events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in a random and arbitrary manner.

Some would argue for the third possibility on the grounds that if there were complete set of laws, that would infringe on God’s freedom to change His mind and to intervene in the world. It’s a bit like the old paradox: Can God make a stone so heavy that He can’t lift it? But the idea that God might want to change His example of the fallacy, pointed out by St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, He knew what He intended when He set it up. With the advent of quantum mechanics, we have come to realize that events cannot be predicted with complete accuracy but that there is always a degree of uncertainty. If one liked, one could ascribe this randomness to the intervention of God. But it would be a very strange kind of intervention. There is no evidence that it is directed toward any purpose. Indeed, if it were, it wouldn’t be random. In modern times, we have effectively removed the third possibility by redefining the goal of science. Our aim is to formulate a set of laws that will enable us to predict events up to the limit set by the uncertainty principle.
The second possibility, that there is an infinite sequence of more and more refined theories, is in agreement with all our experience so far. On many occasions, we have increased the sensitivity of our measurements or made a new class of observations only to discover new phenomena that were not predicted by the existing theory. To account for these, we have had to develop a more advanced theory. It would therefore not be very surprising if we find that our present grand unified theories break down when we test them on bigger and more powerful particle accelerators. Indeed, if we didn’t expect them to break down, there wouldn’t be much point in spending all that money on building more powerful machines.
However, it seems that gravity may provide a limit to this sequence of “boxes within boxes.” If one had a particle with an energy above what is called the Planck energy, 1019 GeV, its mass would be so concentrated that it would cut itself off from the rest of the universe and form a little black hole. Thus, it does seem that the sequence of more and more refined theories should have some limit as we go to higher and higher energies. There should be some ultimate theory of the universe. Of course, the Planck energy is a very long way from the energies of around a GeV, which are the most that we can produce in the laboratory at the present time. To bridge that gap would require a particle accelerator that was bigger than the solar system. Such an accelerator would be unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate.
However, the very early stages of the universe are an arena where such energies must have occurred. I think that there is a good chance that the study of the early universe and the requirements of mathematical consistency will lead us to a complete unified theory by the end of the century—always presuming we don’t blow ourselves up first. What would it mean if we actually did discover the ultimate theory of the universe? It would bring to an end a long and glorious chapter in the history of our struggle to understand the universe. But it would also revolutionize the ordinary person’s understanding of the laws that govern the universe. In Newton’s time it was possible for an educated person to have a grasp of the whole of human knowledge, at least in outline. But ever since then, the pace of development of science has made this impossible. Theories were always being changed to account for new observations. They were never properly digested or simplified so that ordinary people could understand them. You had to be a specialist, and even then you could only hope to have a proper grasp of a small proportional of the scientific theories.

Answer 3

well sokrates (lol, Bill and Ted?), I think that impossibility is in the mind of the beholder, God has nothing to do with it. Maybe there is someone out there that *believes* 2+2 = 5, and that a physical picture of a circle is referred to as a "square", and also this person choses NOT to believe what has happened in the past, but choses to forget it (repressive memory). Maybe you think the sky is blue, but I think it is green. Tell me why I'm wrong...remember, it was once thought that the earth was flat.

Therefore, IMO, the idealogies of God and existence are an individual experience, and no one person is either right or wrong.

EDIT: You say squares and circles are abstract concepts. Is God not also an abstract concept?

Answer 4

The limitations and contradictions in logic that we see in our material world are aspects of the duality that were present in the formation of the material world and are not limitations that have any relevance to God. God does not care if mankind chooses to make 2+2=5 or chooses to make square circles. At the point of creation matter was changed from being the size of a pin point to being +/- 13 billion light years across in one trillionth of a second. The mechanics of this is that positive matter and negative matter were generated in equal quantities simultaneously. Further, the universe can collapse back to the size of a pin point in the next trillionth of a second. Also continuing with this in the material world everything has its opposite (light/dark, love/hate, good/evil, joy/pain and anything else you care to think of. Man's critical contribution to all of creation is that God then provided unrestrained "free will" so that we could choose the light, the love, the good, the joy. Choosing the positive and turning away from the negative creates in ourselves and in the world positive vibrations that free men from the "duality" and provide a positive contribution to the creative force that creates and sustains all things. The path lighted by God is that we should not be deceived by irrelevant logical contradictions and that we pursue higher creative vibrations transforming ourselves into the "image and likeness of God." As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 2:16, "We have the mind of Christ." This is a mind that is free of logical contradictions.

Answer 5

Good question!
I've alway believed that the nature of God is lawful or "law and order". If we were to believe God operated in a haphazard way, oontradicting a lawful or principled manner, how would we ever know what was the right thing to do.

While I believe the Bible has much wisdom in it, I also believe interpretations have altered the original meaning in some cases. Perhaps the key word in that intepretation about "all things are possible" is the word "things". Would you agree that "things" that are impossible are not really things. The statement does not say all impossible things are possible with God.

Answer 6

I won't defend God...for He doesn't need my help. He stands alone and perseveres through eternity. God made 2+2=5...by putting those inquisitional thoughts into someones mind. I believe that God has bigger challenges with us humans than worrying about square circles existing. But, here's the one way you can find out all about God and His Wisdom instead of taking our word for what and who God is...Why don't you read the Bible and do your own research? I have gone to bat for God and my beliefs on here so many times that inciting Christians seems like a Yahoo game to some. No more! Read the Bible yourself and is it fair to continually question our Christian beliefs? Why should I scour through the pages (because maybe that page isn't floating in my head) to answer your question. YOU READ IT! You may mature greatly!!! Good Luck!

Answer 7

You asked "Can God bring it about that square circles exist."

Now say you were raised to believe that a circle is really called a square, or that black is really called white. I do not believe that this is God creating these titles. I believe that God only placed these things in our life and left the rest up to us. P and -P are only this way because we needed a way to identify.
My name is Kim. This is so you can identify me. If there were no words how would we comunicate?

We would probably act as dogs. I'm sure you are smart enough to know that analogy.

So God gave us the world, and satan gave us "the gift" of knowledge. Questioning questioning and questioning some more.

Answer 8

Tough call. This is the same situation Socractes found himself in. If God CAN change the laws of nature at his whim like square circles, and 2+2=5 then the laws are meaning less and can be randomly changed by God at anytime. However if God himself is SUBJECT to those laws then it is the laws that are important not the messenger. I hold that its the laws not God that are important.

Answer 9

I like how you do your questions. (I do it the same way! LoL Copycat!!!)
Now I don't know if this helps any but, you mentioned what J.C. said was "error." Why does it sound impossible from the human minds point of view, (I'll go as far as "scientific" in this case) that God cannot do this things you mentioned? We see UFO'S (Not me) But yet we do not understand the nature of why they to not make contact. We look at the sun, and (Again) we can only make assumptions of how this great ball of fire continues to burn and keep us alive.(The sun has been there forever. And it's even something that could be considered "Eternal.") So what we deem impossible from the eyes of man is not impossible in the eyes of God.

Answer 10

Just take God out of the equation and it then makes sense.

Oh and by the way 2+2 = 1 read Wittgenstein, the blue and brown