What the Bible God Cannot Do

[Jagella]

No doubt a list detailing the limitations of the Bible god would be very long, but for the purposes of this OP allow me to offer the following:

• *He cannot restore amputated limbs.
  *He cannot heal injured spinal-cords.
  *He cannot author a book that his followers can agree on.
  *He cannot convince most people that he even exists.
  *He cannot convince most of his "chosen people" that Jesus is his son and the Messiah.
  *He cannot get most of his followers to love their enemies.
  *He could not get his own son to love his enemies.
  *He cannot get his word out without "middlemen."
  *He cannot control his wrath.
  *He cannot forgive those who he believes have harmed him without demanding the bloody death of his own son.
  *He cannot stop Jagella from detailing what he can't do.

Question For Debate: Do you deny any of these limitations of the Bible god?

[bjs]

Question For Debate: Do you deny any of these limitations of the Bible god?

Pretty much all of them, but let’s play with the last one for a moment.

“He cannot stop Jagella from detailing what he can't do.�

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Are you conflating “is not currently� with “cannot�? If you think that God cannot prevent Jagella from making up a list of things God cannot do because he has not done so, then by that logic we would also have to conclude that anything Jagella has not done are things Jagella cannot do.

For instance:
Jagella cannot sing the song The Devil Went Down to George 100 times in a row.
Jagella cannot spin in a circle five times while standing in the elevator at the Empire State Building.
Jagella cannot dance a jig in Zimbabwe.

The list could go on endlessly. Arguing that God cannot do something because he is not currently doing it makes as much sense as saying that Jagella cannot do something because he is not currently doing it.

[KingandPriest]

No doubt a list detailing the limitations of the Bible god would be very long, but for the purposes of this OP allow me to offer the following:

• *He cannot restore amputated limbs.
  *He cannot heal injured spinal-cords.
  *He cannot author a book that his followers can agree on.
  *He cannot convince most people that he even exists.
  *He cannot convince most of his "chosen people" that Jesus is his son and the Messiah.
  *He cannot get most of his followers to love their enemies.
  *He could not get his own son to love his enemies.
  *He cannot get his word out without "middlemen."
  *He cannot control his wrath.
  *He cannot forgive those who he believes have harmed him without demanding the bloody death of his own son.
  *He cannot stop Jagella from detailing what he can't do.

Question For Debate: Do you deny any of these limitations of the Bible god?

To answer the OP, I deny all of these limitations of God as described in the bible. I think you pointed out a list of things you have not seen or think to be true, and have not proven any of them true.

There are things which God has himself he cannot do. One, for example, is lying. Due to His nature (which is perfectly righteous and just) he cannot lie. Some think it is because of his creative power that if he declared something that was contrary to its current state, that thing would have to change to align with his will. Others conclude it is because of his holiness.

It is similar to the question often thrown out by some which ask whether God has the power to make a stone that is too heavy for him to lift. If you understand the principle behind God's righteousness, then you will understand exactly how this can be done. By virtue of not being able to lie or go against his own word, God can make a mere pebble so heavy that He could not lift it. All he would have to do is declare that the He will never pick up the pebble. That declaration would then become a binding statement which would prevent Him from picking it up. The power of his words was strong enough to make a stone unliftable for Him, due to his character. His character is not like ours. His ways are not our ways, his thoughts are not our thoughts.

So, when God institutes a way of salvation for mankind, that path or declaration is binding. A part of a kings reputation comes from there adherence to their own word. As the King above all kings, God demonstrates perfection in his righteousness to not deviate from his word.

[Divine Insight]

How about addressing what he CAN DO?

Apparently he can convince a bunch of otherwise intelligent people that the only solution to any problem is to punish someone. Even if it means punishing an innocent person as a penal substitute in place of the person who had actually did something bad.

He apparently can convince a bunch of otherwise intelligent people that that these ancient ignorant and barbaric means of trying to solve problems is the only way to approach these problems. Even though he never had a positive or constructive solution for any of the problems he ever dealt with in this way.

He apparently can convince a bunch of otherwise intelligent people that it makes sense to believe that he is an infallible perfect creator God even though by his own admission and decree he will end up condemning the vast majority of humans he creates into a state of eternal condemnation.

He apparently can convince a bunch of otherwise intelligent people that it makes sense that at one time he so hated the world that he drowned out humans from the face of the planet and wished he had never created them. But then later he decides that he so loves the world that he'll give his only begotten Son to be punished as a penal substitute for any undeserving human who has done bad things but who would like to have free amnesty from any punishment of their own.

He apparently can convince a bunch of otherwise intelligent people that even though no one has ever seen or heard from this God in over 2000 years, it still makes sense to believe that he's real.

He apparently can convince a bunch of otherwise intelligent people that even though Jesus' own disciples were not convinced that Jesus was the Son of God until after they had seen him raised from the dead, and heard God speak from the clouds, that it still makes sense that people living 2000 years after these hearsay rumored events must believe on faith that these things are true, lest this "loving God" will condemn them to eternal damnation for their refusal to believe in hearsay rumors.

He apparently can convince a bunch of otherwise intelligent people that this He represents absolute unconditional love, even though he places extreme conditions on what is required to obtain his love, and if we fail to meet those rigid conditions he will unleash his hateful wrath to an extent of horror that we aren't even capable of imagining.

Yep, I'd say that this God is pretty darn close to at least having near omnipotence when it comes to convincing otherwise intelligent people to believe utterly absurd things.

[Jagella]

Pretty much all of them, but let’s play with the last one for a moment.

“He cannot stop Jagella from detailing what he can't do.�

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Are you conflating “is not currently� with “cannot�?

In this case absence of evidence constitutes evidence of absence. After more than two thousand years any reasonable person should conclude the Bible god is pretty darned impotent living as if he doesn't even exist. To argue that he is not bothering to do what he can do gets you into more theological hot water than just accepting his impotence. For instance, do you really think he didn't bother to teach his son to love his enemies while he could have taught him to do so?

[1213]

• *He cannot restore amputated limbs.
  *He cannot heal injured spinal-cords.
  *He cannot author a book that his followers can agree on.
  *He cannot convince most people that he even exists.
  *He cannot convince most of his "chosen people" that Jesus is his son and the Messiah.
  *He cannot get most of his followers to love their enemies.
  *He could not get his own son to love his enemies.
  *He cannot get his word out without "middlemen."
  *He cannot control his wrath.
  *He cannot forgive those who he believes have harmed him without demanding the bloody death of his own son.
  *He cannot stop Jagella from detailing what he can't do.

Question For Debate: Do you deny any of these limitations of the Bible god?

I think there is no reason to think God has those limitations.

[Jagella]

To answer the OP, I deny all of these limitations of God as described in the bible. I think you pointed out a list of things you have not seen or think to be true, and have not proven any of them true.

When somebody doesn't bother to do something she reasonably would do if she could, then it is reasonable to conclude that she cannot. For instance, it makes good sense that the Bible god would convince the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah if he could convince them. Since most Jews don't believe Jesus is the Messiah, then the logical conclusion is that he cannot convince them. Otherwise, you must conclude that the Bible god doesn't bother to convince them Jesus is the Messiah.

So, do you really want to go with that?

There are things which God has himself he cannot do. One, for example, is lying.

Let's cite our sources. You are citing Hebrews 6:18:

...so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie

We should also cite Luke 1:37:

For nothing will be impossible with God.�

Do you see the contradiction? If nothing is impossible with god, then he can lie.

Anyway, it is common in Christian apologetics to list things the all-mighty God cannot do in order to reconcile him with some other belief. For example, William Lane Craig argues that the Bible god cannot at least for now put an end to suffering, and that's why there is suffering. Craig is contradicting Luke 1:37 when he argues this way. These kinds of contradictions are common in Christian apologetics.

[William]

[Replying to post 7 by Jagella]

When somebody doesn't bother to do something she reasonably would do if she could, then it is reasonable to conclude that she cannot.

I could conclude that, but I could also conclude that she will not, even if she could if she wanted to.

The problematic thing here is that it would be I who chooses to assume what is reasonable for her to do, and my conclusions will be based upon that - insufficient -knowledge alone.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 7 by Jagella]

When somebody doesn't bother to do something she reasonably would do if she could, then it is reasonable to conclude that she cannot.

I could conclude that, but I could also conclude that she will not, even if she could if she wanted to.

The problematic thing here is that it would be I who chooses to assume what is reasonable for her to do, and my conclusions will be based upon that - insufficient -knowledge alone.

The problem is that these kinds of excuses are utterly absurd in Christian theology.

The reason should be obvious.

This God was clearly bending over backwards trying to PROVE that he was indeed God in the flesh.

He performed all manner of minor miracle tricks. Including supposedly raising someone from death. But would not heal an amputee?

Sound like the work of a scam artist to be sure.

This God then supposedly raises himself from the grave after having been dead for three days, and then has his own voice magically speaking from the clouds proclaiming that he truly is his own Son?

Clearly this God was not about to hold back on attempting to PROVE that he was God.

So these excuses that he would have reasons that we simply can't know about for why he didn't do anything that would have genuinely left people standing in awe simply makes no sense.

Also for a God who was so desperate to prove himself to people he clearly failed. God isn't supposed to fail at what he sets out to do. The vast majority of Jews never even bought into these minor miracles and hearsay rumors about what this God had supposedly done. Apparently neither did they hear this God speaking from the Clouds proclaiming that he was indeed his own Son.

Moreover, after all this PROOF, that supposedly occurred in these fables, we today have absolutely nothing. There is absolutely no sane reason why any intelligent modern day person should believe any of this nonsense. It's all hearsay rumors that are totally unverifiable.

Yet supposedly this God will condemn us to hell for not believing in these silly ancient fables?

It simply doesn't add up William.

If this God wants to prove himself to humans he could easily do it. And the fact is that he hasn't done this.

Even Paul's claim that people who don't believe in this God are "without excuse" fails miserably. Because all Paul is claiming is that we should simply conclude that there must be a God based on looking around and seeing that the world is so complex that we can only imagine that someone must have designed it.

But even if Paul was correct, this still wouldn't point to the fables of Yahweh and Jesus as being true. Even if we assume that there must be a "Designer God" this still leaves open the possibility that any of the religions in the world might be true.

So Paul's claim that we are "without excuse" for not believing in his favorite demigod myth is absolutely false. To the contrary, we actually have no sane reason to believe in such utter nonsense.

The God described in the Bible would need to be an extremely ignorant barbaric entity that isn't anymore intelligent that the people who were living at the time these ignorant fables were written.

The very idea that some God would need to have human brutally crucify his only begotten demigod Son (or himself as most Christians actually hold to be the case), is utterly absurd.

Having someone else crucified to pay for our sins wouldn't be justice anyway. To the contrary it would be giving us free undeserved amnesty for getting OUT of this God's sense of justice.

Not only that but punishing people for having done bad things doesn't amount to justice anyway. All it amounts to is vengeance. An ignorant barbaric emotional self-indulgence of the person taking out their emotional wrath on someone else.

That hardly amounts to "justice".

Paul is actually the one who is "without excuse" for thinking that any of this makes any sense.

There simply is no excuse for a supposedly intelligent God to act like an idiot William.

The idea that he simply knows more than we do is a seriously failed apology.

Not only this, but this most certainly wouldn't be an apology for the Biblical theology. All this amounts to is an attempt to apologize for an invisible God that is supposedly behind the theology. A theology which itself cannot even be defended.

[William]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

Indeed, DI - but the facts remain that this idea of GOD appears to be able to do lots of things (as you point out re the biblical stories) so in not doing these things, this does not have to mean the GOD cannot do these things, but could just as easily mean the GOD will not do these things, which is all I was pointing to.


One has to remember that this idea of GOD might not be the actual GOD, but - as the Gnostic's believed, is a false idea of GOD.

As you know, I think that the Earth Entity is the source behind all these human ideas of GOD, so in that it may well be a case of both 'cannot' and 'will not' but which applies to which circumstance?

As an example, we know that cancer kills. We also know that there are stories where cancer has healed through individuals praying to their idea of GOD. We also know that these are not common enough for scientists to get a bead on in relation to finding the facts out regarding such claims. We know that death by cancer inspires humans to look for cures and people will even consider the 'snake-oil salesmen' if they are desperate enough while science continues to find no cures, but has had some success - if not to cure, then to at least to contain or set it in remission in expensive products created by scientists working for corporations who sell their products to governments. Then there are those who wonder why scientists can send a rover to Mars but still haven't come up with an actual cure for cancer.

All these things and more compel individuals in whatever ways that they do.

For me, yes - I can see how when somebody doesn't bother to do something she reasonably would do if she could, then it is reasonable to conclude that she cannot, or will not, or a bit of both depending on her capabilities, and her capabilities are generally expressed through the human being, so the 'cannot' might very well have to do with the human being deciding they will not, and her ability to say *shrug* "Okay, have it your own ways."

You see don't you DI? Humans are NOT doing what they could be doing NOT because they cannot, but because they WILL not.

Seems to me that the biblical idea of GOD is acceptable by people who will not do what they can do, and rejected by people who will not do what they can do. Both positions appear to be excuses for not doing what can be done.

Generally I am one who doesn't care a great deal for complaints about problems, but finding solutions to problems - understanding as I do, that this is going on but not in a way which is currently that noticeable. I have the understanding that for every bit of bad news the media feeds the masses, there is good news - perhaps even more so - which never reaches the screen.

Call me an 'optimist' for that, but whatever...it is unimportant to me whether the Earth Entity 'cannot' or 'will not' depending on whatever the situation might be, (for truly I am not in a position to make that call) but that I can and I will do what I can and I will do, and in that my understanding is centered around my belief that She is GOOD, and I am not here to be a victim of circumstance bemoaning my lot in life or GODs inability or unwillingness to make things the way I might personally want them to be...I see the potential of humanity to get its stuff together and do the right thing. People are still arguing as to what 'the right thing is' as if they truly are unable or unwilling to know or care.