God’s Level of Effort

[Willum]

Please read entire post before answering. There is a larger context, and I don’t wish to discuss the obvious or banal.

Many claims are made about what God does and does not do.
God allows freewill, for example.
God will not force people.
God will forgive the repentant, no matter the sin.
God gave Samson strength.
God can do anything.

It is the last that this topic is concerned with. The level of effort.
With the assumption that God is all powerful, than anything it can or cannot do poses the same level of effort for it (does it?). So blackening a star would be as difficult or possible as swatting a fly (right?).

So what determines significance or what God will or won’t do?
Why does freewill rate among the billions of other things that could allow?
Why does physically stopping a rape not rate or other evils not rate?
Or stopping the Apple from being bit?

From the perspective of “God can do anything,” why does God do things like the flood, but not prevent evils?
If all powerful, then aren’t any actions or inactions.by it arbitrary? Even meaningless?
Why /why not?

[Willum]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #7]

Logic is feeble and ineffective on something able to manipulate matter and perception.

A stone so big he couldn’t lift, is simply one he CHOOSES never to lift.
A married bachelor is one who is married according to human conventions one place but not another.

Logic is feeble by comparison.

[bjs1]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #7]

Logic is feeble and ineffective on something able to manipulate matter and perception.

A stone so big he couldn’t lift, is simply one he CHOOSES never to lift.
A married bachelor is one who is married according to human conventions one place but not another.

Logic is feeble by comparison.

Very well. Let us apply your own words to your argument.

Logic is feeble and ineffective on God.

"So what determines significance or what God will or won’t do?"

They only way to approach that question would be by logic. But logic is feeble and ineffective on God, so the question itself is meaningless. The act of asking the question is inconsistent with your stated understanding of God.

This is not a failing on God’s part, but our own. We are bound by logic. We have no other way to approach reality. If (as you say) logic is ineffective on God then anyone who attempts to ask logical questions of God only reveals their ignorance.

To suggest, or even ask, if God’s actions are meaningless or arbitrary contradicts the premise that logic is ineffective on God. Ideas like “meaningless” or “arbitrary” are built on the effectiveness of logic. A person who asks if God’s actions are arbitrary has either A) revealed that they don’t really think that logic is ineffective on God or B) contradicted themselves.

You have defined God as a Being beyond logic, and then tried to apply logic to that Being. God’s existence and nature remain unblemished. Anyone who attempts to ask logical questions about God while at the same time claiming that logic is ineffective on God has revealed the inconsistency and incoherence of their own thinking.

[DavidLeon]

Jehovah God can do anything he wants to do according to his own will and purpose.

This subject is a somewhat difficult one in that the words omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent are typically used in a sort of religious rather than practical fashion. I prefer not to use the terms omnipotent and omniscient for this reason. Their implications can be vague and deceptive. The Bible disagrees with the idea that God is omnipresent and unless you are careful in the application of the other two they are contrary as well. This is why there may be some confusion as far as skepticism goes regarding the question of can God do anything?

Omni comes from the Latin omnis meaning all and when using the terms omnipotent and omniscient the terms are typically applied in a strictly literal sense where other words outside of a religious context are not. For example omnivorous doesn't mean eating rocks, metal, glass, plastics; it simply means eating both animal and vegetable. Omnibus doesn't mean dealing with all things, but with many things at once.

Omniscient is always used to imply that God knows all things at once which isn't scriptural. (Genesis 3:8-13; 18:20-21) God is omniscient only in that nothing can be hidden from him. Omnipresent is always used to imply that God is everywhere at once, which isn't scriptural. (1 Kings 8:39; 2 Chronicles 6:39) God isn't omnipresent or he wouldn't have a fixed place of habitation, namely, heaven. So it isn't so much the idea of God being omnipotent and omniscient that I disagree with as much as it is how God being omnipotent and omniscient are typically misapplied.

Having said that I want to look at each of the examples that conclude that God can or can't do everything. Keep in mind that context is important here. For example, if one teaches their children from a young age that they can do anything they want in life it doesn't necessarily mean that they can fly to the moon without mechanical assistance or travel through time.

God can do anything

Genesis 18:14 - This is a question, but what is interesting about it is that if you compare translations some ask is anything too hard or too wonderful (Amplified) too wonderful (YLT, Darby) extraordinary (NWT) Also notice that later Sarah did give birth to a child. (Genesis 21:1-2)

Job 42:1-2 - Job was speaking of God from a human perspective. What he was implying is that God can do anything he wishes to accomplish within his will and purpose, but notice what Job 34:10 says. Unlike men, God can do anything he wills, and yet unlike men he can't do what is wicked or unjust in his own eyes.

Jeremiah 32:17, 27 - Like Genesis 18:14 above, the term "too wonderful" in some translations appears instead of "too hard." The second scripture is a question. The New World Translation is, as usual, far more accurate than the KJV. It reads: "Alas, O Sovereign Lord Jehovah! Here you yourself have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm. The whole matter is not too wonderful for you yourself,"

Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 18:27 all convey the idea that salvation was impossible for men to earn, that it was Jehovah God's undeserved kindness that decides. For the rich who are proud of their wealth and position this can be particularly difficult. (1 Timothy 6:17) In Matthew 19:24 Jesus had said that it would be simpler for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God, which of course isn't literal but rather an expression. Later when he said that all things are possible for God it was, in context, regarding the salvation of man. Allowing them to enter into the Kingdom of God was up to God and he might decide in a way that man wouldn't understand. Especially since at the time that Jesus spoke to his disciples the ruling class and Jewish religious leaders were wealthy.

Revelation 19:6 (KJV) reads "omnipotent," NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, ASV, YLT, Darby; read "Almighty" CEV: reads "All-Powerful." These are all far more accurate translations than the KJV's "omnipotent" because "Almighty" or "All-Powerful" conveys the idea that it is within God's power to do as he wills. His purpose is assured. This is without religious implications associated with "omnipotent." God can't lie, for example, because it isn't in accordance with his will and with his supreme justice. Very often skeptics will say that if a God is not "omnipotent" then he is not worthy of their worship when in fact the exact opposite is true for this reason. Anyone can lie but God can't because he is righteous. This is what he wants of us, to be righteous. In sin we can't do this. Through Jehovah God's undeserved kindness we can, with the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus.

There are some things that God cannot do

Judges 1:19 - When considering this verse it is important to consider two things. First, that Jehovah had told the people not to be afraid when doing battle in situations like this (Deuteronomy 20:1) and in this they failed at first for fear and lack of faith. Secondly, eventually they came around and were able to do it. (Judges 4:2-3, 13-16)

When considering the alleged contradiction of God being able to do everything or not, in this case specifically to defend Israel against iron chariots, it is important to be aware of the stipulations that Jehovah God gave Israel for his doing so. At Deuteronomy 20:1 he gave them instruction to have faith in him even when coming up against foes that seemed greater than Israel itself.

If they were disobedient (Deuteronomy 28:15, 25; Joshua 7:1-12) or lacking faith (Judges 1:19) Jehovah wasn't there for them.

So when the skeptic determines whether or not God can stop iron chariots as at Judges 4:13-16 they would be wise to consider the verses contextually with a few verses before; Judges 4:1-4 where Israel's disobedience prevented him from defending them.

Mark 6:5 is similar to Judges 1:19 in that it wasn't entirely up to God. Not that Jesus is God. The people simply didn’t have faith in him and divine power was not to be wasted on the unbelieving skeptics. (Matthew 10:14; Luke 16:29-31)

Hebrews 6:18 is a specific reference to two things in which it is impossible for God to lie. His word of promise and his oath. This can be seen when the verse is considered in context. (Hebrews 6:13-18) Of course, this doesn't mean that the skeptic is wrong, God in fact can not lie as mentioned above. (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2)

[DavidLeon]

I'm not even sure it's based on what people would naturally think a god should do, but somewhere along the line, the hyperbolic praise of the Psalms became understood to be literally true. "You're the only god for us because you're so powerful" became "you're the only god that has ever existed and you're omnipotent."

A god that has to call a meeting with the other gods to brainstorm about how to deal with an arrogant king is not an omniscient, omnipotent being that could prevent evil even if he or she wanted to.

Part of the problem with investigating the God concept is that you have to try and separate what the Bible actually means and religiosity. You can take any truth and set it adrift and within a relatively short time it has become transmogrified into something virtually unrecognizable from the original. If you formulate some independent interpretation you are likely making it up. If you look to the scholars they are most certainly affected by bias and tradition, if you look to religious leaders ... well, you might as well ask the cat.

So, take the end of your statement above. In the case of 1 Kings 22:21-22 it is what the apostle Paul called "operation of error." It is a case of allowing those who prefer to believe in a falsehood to continue to do so. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) Micaiah had foretold disaster but the prophets of king Ahab didn't want to hear the truth, he wanted victory. It should be recognized that Micaiah did foretell the truth, but Ahab chose not to listen.

Okay, so your criticism suggests that an all powerful creator, when dealing with his creation, shouldn't consult with other highly intelligent beings, also of his creation? It isn't a logical complaint in my opinion. For various reasons. Take the 144, 000 for example. Why would Jehovah arrange that there will be 144,000 faithful servants to serve as princes and judges with Jesus? Why would they judge people and even angels? Because Jehovah and Jesus have no personal experience with sin. They don't truly "know" what it's like. Conversely we don't know what it's like to be without it. So when people say something like: "An omnipotent, omniscient deity would never . . . or should, or would . . ." they don't know what they are talking about.

However, many things are nestled within the Bible that sometimes escapes religiosity and skepticism. Like, for example, God's day of rest. When we were created God kept a distance from us. Why did Jesus say Jehovah had forsaken him? Because he had to forsake him? He had taken on all of the sin of mankind. So why would you put the responsibility of evil with God? You have to ask yourself first what exactly is evil? It's subjective. Why did God create us? When will his purpose for us be complete according to his will? Who is in charge of the earth?

Why on earth would you expect God to prevent you from dying of some violent act, natural disaster, or horrible disease if all of those things are a product of the environment he warned you against? that doesn't make sense to me.

[Difflugia]

Part of the problem with investigating the God concept is that you have to try and separate what the Bible actually means and religiosity. You can take any truth and set it adrift and within a relatively short time it has become transmogrified into something virtually unrecognizable from the original.

I'm with you so far.

If you formulate some independent interpretation you are likely making it up. If you look to the scholars they are most certainly affected by bias and tradition, if you look to religious leaders ... well, you might as well ask the cat.

If your point is that scholarly opinion is affected by bias and tradition, but still better than an unanchored personal opinion, religious opinion, and a cat's opinion (in roughly that order), then I'll agree with you. I think I have a somewhat higher opinion of scholarship than you do, but not enough to really change the overall sentiment.

So, take the end of your statement above. In the case of 1 Kings 22:21-22 it is what the apostle Paul called "operation of error." It is a case of allowing those who prefer to believe in a falsehood to continue to do so. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) Micaiah had foretold disaster but the prophets of king Ahab didn't want to hear the truth, he wanted victory. It should be recognized that Micaiah did foretell the truth, but Ahab chose not to listen.

Yes. In any case, what you've written here is true and I believe is the intended message of the pericope by the writers and compilers of Kings, as well as the original author, if different.

Okay, so your criticism suggests that an all powerful creator, when dealing with his creation, shouldn't consult with other highly intelligent beings, also of his creation?

The bolded part is a theological interpretation of the scene that is added by you (or someone whose opinion you trust), but not necessarily present in the text. In every other case in the Old Testament, "host of heaven" is something akin to "other gods," sometimes meaning "illegitimate gods" that draw worship away from Yahweh, sometimes stars as (perhaps ironically, but not necessarily so) other gods, but occasionally as a sort of divine council.

My problem, however, isn't with the existence of a divine council, whether created by, ruled by, or co-rulers with Yahweh. My criticism is that an omniscient god wouldn't need to consult with other beings, even if He is the only one that's omniscient. It's definitely presented in the text as a consultation:

And Yahweh said, "Who shall entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?" And one said, "In this way," and another said, "In that way." Then a spirit came forth, stood before Yahweh, and said, "I will entice him." Yahweh said to him, "How?" and [the spirit] said, "I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets." Then [Yahweh] said, "You will entice him and succeed. Go forth and do so."

It isn't a logical complaint in my opinion. For various reasons. Take the 144, 000 for example. Why would Jehovah arrange that there will be 144,000 faithful servants to serve as princes and judges with Jesus? Why would they judge people and even angels? Because Jehovah and Jesus have no personal experience with sin. They don't truly "know" what it's like. Conversely we don't know what it's like to be without it. So when people say something like: "An omnipotent, omniscient deity would never . . . or should, or would . . ." they don't know what they are talking about.

What was that you said about an "independent interpretation?"

[PinSeeker]

My only comment to the original post is, the question of how little or how much "effort" God put forth in accomplishing His purposes totally misses the point and is superfluous at best. The only thing that matters -- or should matter to anyone, anyway -- is, God did it. Besides that, what I'm about to say here is unrelated to what you guys are discussing, but I'm going to throw this in anyway:

Take the 144, 000 for example. Why would Jehovah arrange that there will be 144,000 faithful servants to serve as princes and judges with Jesus? Why would they judge people and even angels?

What I'm going to say here is off the subject of your conversation here, and should be its own thread so as not to hijack this one, but I'm going to offer this:

The number twelve in the Bible -- Revelation included -- symbolizes completion. In the Old Testament, Israel was not a complete nation until there were twelve tribes, and in the New Testament, twelve was the complete number of the apostles who served Christ’s earthly ministry. The same is true regarding the number 1000. So as we see in Revelation 7:1-8, the Lord’s true people will all be sealed (that is, distinguished) from those who falsely profess faith only when their number is “completely complete” (twelve times twelve thousand). So the 144,000 should be identified with the innumerable multitude of Revelation 7:9–17. Aside from proving that twelve is not a literal number, this correspondence means that the real sons of Jacob include Jews and Gentiles who trust Christ. Every tribe and tongue is represented in the company of saints.

Okay, carry on. Grace and peace to you.

[DavidLeon]

If your point is that scholarly opinion is affected by bias and tradition, but still better than an unanchored personal opinion, religious opinion, and a cat's opinion (in roughly that order), then I'll agree with you. I think I have a somewhat higher opinion of scholarship than you do, but not enough to really change the overall sentiment.

I only see scholarship as a problem when it's presented in a way which is imperious and that isn't necessarily only with Biblical scholars. If someone presents grammar or web design in a similar way I have a similar reaction. I like to think for myself, given the chance. When I go to the doctor I don't second guess him/her or expect him/her to perform miracles with infallibility. So I do some research and discover the political, ideological and financial influence that formulated our current pharmaceutical corporations and the medical profession. The robber barons, especially Rockefeller. The medical schools, the FDA, homeopathic and allopathic. Harry Hoxey and Dr. Fishbein. Of course, the high priest of the medical profession turned out not to be a doctor at all and when he wanted to buy Hoxey's cure for cancer to make a buck he wouldn't forego the price for those who couldn't afford it. You research the soul and find scholars who insist upon the immortal soul. You only have to read a few verses. Grammar is an abstract set of rules usually decided by the elite. Web designers would have you write out pages of code for a center tag that works better than the code they dogmatically insist upon and why? Because they want some illusion of power and authority I guess. Who knows? Whatever reason they give is nonsense.





It isn't a difficult thing to see. People who act like adhering to scholarship raises them above any alternative observation are simply appealing to authority. I tend to go on about that. I don't trust authority. Ever. Anywhere. However, at the same time ...

"Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim)." source

With me personally I've always had a problem with people and the way they operate. Before I became a believer anything having to do with "common sense" a contradiction in terms and an appeal to authority was at least suspect.

Okay, so your criticism suggests that an all powerful creator, when dealing with his creation, shouldn't consult with other highly intelligent beings, also of his creation?

The bolded part is a theological interpretation of the scene that is added by you (or someone whose opinion you trust), but not necessarily present in the text. In every other case in the Old Testament, "host of heaven" is something akin to "other gods," sometimes meaning "illegitimate gods" that draw worship away from Yahweh, sometimes stars as (perhaps ironically, but not necessarily so) other gods, but occasionally as a sort of divine council.

It's just angels. Angels are called gods. Anything and anyone can be a god. It simply means venerated. From a root meaning mighty. Angels are sometimes figuratively referred to as stars but so are other things.

My problem, however, isn't with the existence of a divine council, whether created by, ruled by, or co-rulers with Yahweh. My criticism is that an omniscient god wouldn't need to consult with other beings, even if He is the only one that's omniscient. It's definitely presented in the text as a consultation:

And Yahweh said, "Who shall entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?" And one said, "In this way," and another said, "In that way." Then a spirit came forth, stood before Yahweh, and said, "I will entice him." Yahweh said to him, "How?" and [the spirit] said, "I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets." Then [Yahweh] said, "You will entice him and succeed. Go forth and do so."

But this is a logically flawed conclusion apparently caused by the religious terminology omniscient from an extremely limited human perspective. And to me even then it doesn't make much sense. Does an omniscient being know what a dumb sloth is going to do? Of course you would say yes. What if the being wasn't omniscient as you would define it?

It isn't a logical complaint in my opinion. For various reasons. Take the 144, 000 for example. Why would Jehovah arrange that there will be 144,000 faithful servants to serve as princes and judges with Jesus? Why would they judge people and even angels? Because Jehovah and Jesus have no personal experience with sin. They don't truly "know" what it's like. Conversely we don't know what it's like to be without it. So when people say something like: "An omnipotent, omniscient deity would never . . . or should, or would . . ." they don't know what they are talking about.

What was that you said about an "independent interpretation?"

Oh, hey, whoa, not mine.

Seriously, though ... what's wrong with that interpretation? It wasn't made up by anyone. It's a logical conclusion. Jehovah and Jesus are without sin. A specific group of people will go to heaven rather than like everyone else, paradise earth. To judge. There isn't anything about that that isn't supported by scripture.

[Willum]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #12]

At last! You understand the topic.
You would have saved a great deal of time by reading it all the way through, as requested.

Except you used your specious criticism as a springboard to go onto an irrational conclusion.
Focus on God's level of effort being equivalent no matter the task, thus "Freewill" is a taxing to it as stopping the world in its tracks.

Try again, thanks.

[Willum]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #16]

My only comment to the original post is, the question of how little or how much "effort" God put forth in accomplishing His purposes totally misses the point and is superfluous at best. The only thing that matters -- or should matter to anyone, anyway -- is, God did it. Besides that, what I'm about to say here is unrelated to what you guys are discussing, but I'm going to throw this in anyway:

Your perspective is simply human. One of a creature to whom climbing a mountain is different than stepping on a stool.
The only thing that matters to the post s that one challenge, in one example allowing freewill, is the same as stepping on a stool.

I did ask you to read the post all the way through.

[bjs1]

Except you used your specious criticism as a springboard to go onto an irrational conclusion.
Focus on God's level of effort being equivalent no matter the task, thus "Freewill" is a taxing to it as stopping the world in its tracks.

"Focus on God's level of effort being equivalent no matter the task"?

That would be a statement built on logic. You said “Logic is feeble and ineffective on [God].”

You are contradicting your own claims in this thread.