Apologetics Made Simple

Equipping the Next Generation of Believers

A God Problem-A Response to Peter Atterton

by 1 Comment

Introduction

Peter Atterton is a professor of philosophy at San Diego State University. On March 25th, 2019, he wrote an article that attacks the coherence of God as described in the Bible (or so he thinks). The things of God cannot be understood by the natural man, yet they do sometimes try. I have found that every time a philosopher, professional or not, tries to critique the God of the Bible, they show that they do not know much about the God of the Bible at all. This can be due to a lack of intellectual aptitude, but I believe that many times, this is a spiritual issue that comes from not having their minds renewed to the things of God. Indeed, no matter how learned a man is by worldly standards, he cannot grasp the things of God. An education on secular philosophy from a secular institution is inadequate to comprehend the things of God, and Atterton’s article stands as a testimony to this notion. 

Responding to Atterton

 

Atterton:

If you look up “God” in a dictionary, the first entry you will find will be something along the lines of “a being believed to be the infinitely perfect, wise and powerful creator and ruler of the universe.” Certainly, if applied to non-Western contexts, the definition would be puzzling, but in a Western context this is how philosophers have traditionally understood “God.” In fact, this conception of God is sometimes known as the “God of the Philosophers.”

Response:

Do we have to be bound by what western philosophers think? What does ‘perfection’ mean in this context? The concept of God given in this definition is not sufficient unless the terms that are attributed to God in his definition are defined. This is not necessarily Atterton’s fault because many theistic philosophers fail to define these terms as well. 

So, we will begin by defining ‘God.’ ‘God’ is the deity described in the Bible in the 66 books of what is typically called the Protestant Canon. There are many attributes that describe God as a result of this definition, but the relevant ones are as follows: God’s will always prevails (Proverbs 19:21), God’s ways are complete and wise (Deuteronomy 32:4), and he is powerful (Psalm 147:4-5). For more information on God’s omnipotence, you may read this article.

Atterton:

Let’s first consider the attribute of omnipotence.

You’ve probably heard the paradox of the stone before: Can God create a stone that cannot be lifted? If God can create such a stone, then He is not all powerful, since He Himself cannot lift it. On the other hand, if He cannot create a stone that cannot be lifted, then He is not all powerful, since He cannot create the unliftable stone. Either way, God is not all powerful.

Response:

I have answered the omnipotence paradox here. In my article, ‘omnipotence’ is defined as the ability to carry out one’s will perfectly. Thus, this paradox is inapplicable to the God of the Bible because omnipotence is tied to God’s will (which cannot be frustrated (Job 42:2)). Thus, what is considered logical has nothing to do with the Biblical definition of omnipotence. Since God’s will always comes to pass, God is omnipotent. Our answer to the paradox would not be predicated upon his ability to lift the rock (and of course, he can lift any stone, period), rather, it would be predicated on whether or not God wills to lift the rock. 

Atterton:

…there are other problems to contend with. For example, can God create a world in which evil does not exist? This does appear to be logically possible. Presumably God could have created such a world without contradiction. It evidently would be a world very different from the one we currently inhabit, but a possible world all the same. Indeed, if God is morally perfect, it is difficult to see why he wouldn’t have created such a world. So why didn’t He?

Response:

This problem has been answered in this article. First, I reject the notion that evil and suffering is incompatible with the Bible. The presence of evil and suffering is a very important part of the Bible’s message. Why then, is there evil? It is because God has good intentions for evil in this world. In the Bible, the will is predicated upon intent, not causality, and this is how God’s Will is distinguished from man’s will (Genesis 50:20, Proverbs 19:21, Proverbs 16:9). Though a creation’s intentions are not always good, God is powerful enough to where God can use evil deeds to accomplish great things, for, as previously discussed, his will cannot be frustrated. Thus, God remains all good and there is no contradiction between God’s goodness and the presence of evil. Furthermore, in order to demonstrate that God does not have good intentions for evil, Atterton would have to be omniscient, for how else could consideration of every possible reason for evil be exhausted?

Atterton:

What about God’s infinite knowledge — His omniscience? ….Philosophically, this presents us with no less of a conundrum…There are some things that we know that, if they were also known to God, would automatically make Him a sinner, which of course is in contradiction with the concept of God. As the late American philosopher Michael Martin has already pointed out, if God knows all that is knowable, then God must know things that we do, like lust and envy. But one cannot know lust and envy unless one has experienced them. But to have had feelings of lust and envy is to have sinned, in which case God cannot be morally perfect.

Response:

Let’s define omniscience first. Omniscience is the possession of all truths. God, being eternal, has always been omniscient. This means that God knows the state of affairs of his creation in total. Because he knew these things prior to their happening within the context of temporality, God’s knowledge is a priori (possessed prior to experience). Since God already knows all things, he does not learn anything new. If he does not learn anything new, it follows that none of God’s knowledge is a posteriori (that is, from experience). Since God does not know anything by experience, God’s knowledge of such things as lust are not derived from experience, and therefore, God does not have to engage in those sins to know about lust and other sin. Atteron’s objection assumes a condition of God’s knowledge that is simply not Biblical, and the notion that any knowledge can come from experience (in an empirical sense) has not been demonstrated even since the beginning of the history of philosophy (That is, starting with Thales). If Atterton wishes to claim that knowledge can be derived via sensory experience, he will have to demonstrate his claim. Ironically, given Atteron’s logic, the only way to know if an omnipotent being knows things by experience is to for him to be omnipotent himself, for Atterton claims that things must be known by experience.

Conclusion

Atterton is certainly a learned individual so far as worldly knowledge is concerned, but worldly knowledge is of no profit because worldly knowledge is ignorance. All of his critiques of God rely heavily on Greek philosophy, and the Greeks were pagans; thus, their concept of God is very different from the Hebraic concept of God that is laid out in the Bible. I have been studying philosophy since 2011, and I know from those studies that most of what has transpired in philosophy is nonsense. Secular philosophy has nothing to offer that is of substance, but the knowledge of God has everything to offer.

If I helped you, please considering supporting me on my Patreon page with as little as $1/month.
——————————————————————-
My Book on Apologetics:

 

 

3. Q + A: The Axiom of Revelation and the Biblical Canon

by Leave a Comment

Corey asks:

How do you know we know which books are supposed to be in the biblical canon based on the axiom of revelation?

Jason Answers:

Thank you for your question, Corey. For those who are reading who may not be familiar with what you are asking about, they can check out this short article that I wrote on Hubpages. They can also obtain information at The Gordon Clark Foundation and the Trinity Foundation websites.

The 66 Books of the Bible are Self-Evidently the Word of God

What I am about to say is not to be taken as Gordon Clark’s position, for I am not sure if he would agree with me on what I am about to explain. The axiom of revelation is, ‘The Bible is the Word of God.’ In this axiom, the Bible is defined as the propositional revelation of the 66 books of what is often referred to as the Protestant Canon.[ref] The 66 books of the Bible are identified by definition rather than than by deductive inference; thus, the 66 books of the Bible is a presupposition of the axiom of Revelation.

A presupposition is a belief that is true by definition (or you could say, self-evidently true) given the truth of an axiom. If the Bible is defined as the 66 books of the Protestant Canon in the axiom of revelation, then the 66 books of the Bible are the Word of God. Thus, the 66 books of the Bible being the Word of God is considered a self-evident truth within the confines of the axiom of revelation, for denying the 66 books as the Word of God when the Bible is defined in the axiom as the 66 books of the Protestant Canon would lead to a self-contradictory axiom.

Choosing Axioms

People may then be concerned and ask, “Aren’t you just picking this axiom and your definition of the Bible?” I stand guilty as charged on both counts. Everyone has to start somewhere in their thinking; this starting point is called an axiom (or sometimes it is called a first principle). If we do not start somewhere, we cannot begin. If we cannot begin, then we cannot validly draw conclusions, for conclusions, by definition, have preceding premises. When we enter this world, we soon see that it is a puzzle to be solved. Some may choose to try to solve it and others may choose to live a life without regard for truth. Though axioms are chosen, clearly, some axioms are better than others. Axioms should be weighed by how well they solve the puzzle of this world. If we adopt an axiom, what questions can we satisfactorily answer? I start with the axiom of revelation for two reasons. First, it is because I believe the Bible is God’s Word. God has made me into a new creature, and thus, I am filled with Yeshua’s righteousness and his identity (Colossians 3, Galatians 2), and I cannot bear to think anything other than what God thinks. Second, starting with the Bible appears to me to be the best way to satisfactorily answer the questions of this world. Other things I have tried in my philosophical journey have failed to establish the law of contradiction and the conclusion that knowledge is possible.

Yeshua is Our Shepard and We Will Hear His Voice

Yeshua himself has said that we will know him when he speaks (John 10:14, 10:27). Yeshua, God in the flesh, has promised that we, as his sheep, will know him. Thus, we, as his sheep, can discern his revelation to us without fail, and if anyone comes to us with a different Gospel than what Yeshua has given us, we can test it for its veracity (John 4:1). Many people think that God cannot speak to us anymore, but God speaks just as clearly today as he has ever done before. It is not the method of communication that establishes clarity, rather, it is the Word given by God that establishes clarity. The Bible teaches that God’s words are sufficient for our understanding (2 Timothy 3:16-17), for if it were not, how could the Bible be profitable for correction?

Conclusion

Thus, using the axiom of revelation, we see His Word through the wisdom and power of the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit) and the Messiah who lives in us. Because of this, it is easy for us to discern what constitutes as God’s Word and what doesn’t. And to say we cannot discern God’s Word amounts to a rejection of what God clearly tells us in His Word, and if we are so inclined to reject God’s own claims, we have no reason to believe anything he has said. Thus, in order to avoid skepticism, we must accept all of what God tells us and we should not fall into a state where we try to discern the spiritual in the natural, for the natural and unregenerate man cannot understand the things of God because these things are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14). Just the same, a believer, who is justified by faith, will be limited in his ability to discern spiritual matters because he is not allowing the Spirit of God to fill him and make him into a new creature that only seeks the things of God (Romans 6:1-23; Galatians 4:8-20). In the Bible, God has given us everything we need to know that pertains to life and Godliness. We also see that we can logically support our contention that the 66 books of the Protestant Canon is God’s Word if we start with the axiom of revelation.

 

Footnotes:

1. There is not a rule in logic that allows for us to validly infer a proposition from a non-propositional source. Defining the Bible in the axiom of revelation in this way gives us a way to avoid the charge that we have to start with our senses in order to know what the Bible says. This is one of several reasons why I define the Bible in this way.

My Book on Apologetics:

Debate: Does the Bible Teach Insects Have Four Legs?

by Leave a Comment

 

In a social media group, I saw an atheist post about how the Bible says insects have four legs. On some level, you can see why someone may think the Bible teaches this because some translations, though they make a distinction between the legs that walk on the ground and the hind legs of insects, it can be pretty easy to miss. In this discussion, I am dealing with an atheist that is very hostile toward the faith. I start off by explaining to him that the Bible counted legs differently than modern taxonomy. I then gave an explanation in English for why I believe this. When he still insisted that the Bible says insects had four legs, I went into the Hebrew (I am learning ancient Hebrew at my Messianic Synagogue) and show that the Hebrew text makes it very clear that the Bible classified legs that are used for walking and hind legs separately. I also give additional arguments for why it is silly to think that Moses was incapable of counting the legs of insects. 

—————————————————————————————————————-

Atheist: 

Leviticus 11:20“ ‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. 21There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.

Lol…Someone should tell God how many legs the insects he created have.

Me:

This is a matter of confusion of semantics. The Bible counts what we call “legs” differently than modern taxonomy.

Atheist:

Where exactly did you get this knowledge from other than concluding it must be the case since the Bible author who wrote insects have four legs is mistaken?

Me:

The Bible itself details how the legs were counted when discussing dietary laws.

Atheist:

Please quote those verses.

Me:

“All flying insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.
Yet you may eat from all winged creeping things that go on all fours, which have legs above their feet, with which to hop on the earth. You may eat from any kind of locust, any kind of katydid, any kind of cricket and any kind of grasshopper. But all winged creeping things that have four feet are loathsome to you.”–Leviticus 11:20-23

This passage makes a distinction between walking legs and the hind legs (4+2=6).

It is also worth mentioning that the Hebrews (including Moses) knew how to count because the Hebrew letters also have numerical values, and we knew that Moses made use of these numerical values in Genesis and Exodus (again showing that he knew how to count). So, the Hebrews did know how to count, and this is evidenced by the Hebrew language and its usage in the Bible.

Atheist:

Leviticus 11 “You may eat those that have legs with joints above their feet so they can jump.” It says plain as day that they are legs. No insects have four legs. It makes that mistake over and over with different insects such as ones with wings. If they were counting “hopping legs” as not legs then flying insects and others without them would be said to have six legs. The text would read all creeping things which go on six legs except ones that have joints above two legs.

Me:

Before you continue down this path, Aaron. There are certain rules to the Bible that one must follow when interpreting it (Also bear in mind that I actually am learning Ancient Hebrew). These rules have been used even by the prophets, and they were systematized about a hundred years before Yeshua was born. The context of the passage is not a definitive classification of insects. The purpose of the passage was to inform the Israelites of what was expected of them regarding dietary laws. Another part of proper hermeneutics is to watch for distinctions in passages. When the Bible makes a distinction, it is important to pay attention. This is one such case.

By insisting that the Bible is trying to give definitive classifications to all insects, you are violating hermeneutical principles by losing the plain meaning of the passage (the plain meaning is derived from the intent of the passage). This is not the way the Bible is meant to be interpreted, and if you interpret it outside of this framework, you are misrepresenting the Bible.

I have also made an argument that clearly shows that the Hebrews knew how to count. The notion that Moses didn’t know how to count after making extensive use of numerical values to tell the Israelites how to build the tabernacle is a stretch, to say the least. In fact, it goes beyond mere argument, it goes to prove that Moses knew how to count. You can repeat your position ad nauseum if you wish, but I think you can make better use of your time.

Atheist:

They may have known how to count but they sure weren’t concerned with accurately describing insects. It’s clear the authors weren’t entomologist and mistakenly classified insects as having four legs. There’s no way around this fact. It written plain as day. A grasshoppers hind legs were counted as legs. So they thought a grasshopper had two hind legs and two front legs.

Me:

Because the Bible makes a distinction between the four walking legs and two hind legs in that passage–the legs were meant to be counted separately. If the Israelites read the passage as you did, they never would have eaten locusts because they would have assumed they were not kosher because they had more than four legs.

This is why knowing how the Bible is meant to be interpreted is very important. You must pay very careful attention to distinctions. If you come to the Bible and just try to read it from a western lens, you will make mistakes such as these. This isn’t directed toward you specifically, many Americans make this mistake.

Atheist:

There’s no way around this fact. It written plain as day. A grasshoppers hind legs were counted as legs. So they thought a grasshopper had two hind legs and two front legs.

Me:

It is not if you look at the Hebrew. The two Hebrew words to describe these legs are כָּרָע and רֶגֶל. They both have very distinct definitions. One refers to feet (four feet) and the other refers to legs (two legs). It is very clear that a distinction is being made here. It would not be so obvious in some English translations, but the Hebrew makes it very clear that the two hind legs and the four legs that are meant for walking on the ground are distinct from one another in this passage.

Atheist:

No it doesn’t make a distinction between 4 walking legs and two hopping legs. You made that up. It’s says they have four legs and describes edible insects as ones with legs with joints above their feet.

Me:

I went into the Hebrew, and I can go further. The Hebrew word for four, אַרְבַּע, is only used for the Hebrew word ‘רֶגֶל (which means foot).’ This (אַרְבַּע only modifying רֶגֶל) is how we know that רֶגֶל and כָּרָע are meant to be counted separately. Furthermore, if the two distinct words were meant to be modified by four together, there would have been a conjunction prior to כָּרָע. Otherwise, אַרְבַּע could not modify both words.

When you look at the Hebrew, the meaning of the text is quite clear. I also think the notion that I could travel in time and write the Torah scrolls that contain the dietary guidelines for the Israelites is a bit of a stretch.

If I helped you, please considering supporting me on my Patreon page with as little as $1/month.
——————————————————————-
My Book on Apologetics:

 

Debate: Defending Omniscience

by Leave a Comment

I saw an interesting post in a debate group that I thought was worth addressing. What follows is a transcript that gives a ton of examples of atheists not respecting the definition of terms giving by Bible believers. This is a very common tactic in atheist evangelism. They will try to get you away from definitions of terms that accurately reflect what the Bible teaches and will attempt to get you outside of the Biblical framework in order to attempt to show you that it is not possible for the Bible to be true in the first place.

In my first book, ‘Apologetics Made Simple,’ I stress the importance of both the defining of terms and accurate representation. In this case, the atheist initially claims omniscience is logically impossible and then tries give unbiblical implications to the term, ‘omniscience.’ Atheists cannot argue with us on the basis of Biblical premises and definitions because if they are granted, our position is unassailable. Atheists always try to get the believer to adopt their outrageous assumptions instead. It is the only way atheism can survive a philosophical discussion. Notice that every time these two atheists try to assert that God’s omniscience is impossible by disregarding the definition of omniscience, I bring them back to the definition of omniscience that is compatible with what the Bible teaches.

————————————————————————

Atheist I: Omniscience is logically impossible. One cannot possibly know that one knows everything that can be known.

Me: Your argument assumes that God’s knowledge is the result of a series of inferences, but an omniscient being’s knowledge is a priori. Your objection is inapplicable. All true propositions are already possessed by God, including that he is omniscient.

Atheist I: Circular reasoning is circular.

Me: I hope you are in this group to learn because I find it quite concerning that you cannot tell the difference between two modus ponens arguments and circular reasoning.

Atheist I: Again: How can God know he was not created by a being who instilled in him the belief he is all-knowing? Easy: He can’t. It is logically impossible.

Me: Again? This is the first time you asked that question. God, being omniscient, possesses all truths (this is what it means to be omniscient). If an omniscient being is uncreated, he knows that he is not created. Easy peasy lemon squeezy, as they say.

Atheist I: Let me try help you out. My position is that the very concept of omniscience is illogical.

Me: I have already shown that your position is incorrect.

Atheist I: Surely you can see how just asserting that God is omniscient does not address this.

Me: I didn’t just assert it. I defined what it meant to be omniscient and then I argued its implications. You are trying to argue that it is logically impossible. Since logic has to do with inference, you have to start with the concept of omniscience and then show how it is not possible. I am apparently not the one who needs help in this conversation. Your view of this issue is simplistic, deficient, and primitive.

Atheist I: If I say “A married bachelor cannot exist”, would you reply “Sure he can. If he is married, then he is married by definition”? I hope not.

Me: I would start with the definition of ‘married’ and the definition of ‘bachelor’ and then show that the two are mutually exclusive by definition because that is how philosophy is done well. I took a similar approach in this conversation with omniscience. If you would argue that a bachelor cannot be married by virtue of the definitions of the key terms, you are an intellectual hypocrite for attempting to reject my valid and sound arguments for God’s omniscience. The structure of the argument I gave is the same for what you would give for arguing that a bachelor cannot be married. If we accepted your deficient view of argumentation, you would have to agree arguing that a bachelor is unmarried by definition is circular.

I’m going to give you some unsolicited advice. I recommend you learn something about doing philosophy well before you spend all of this time arguing in Facebook groups. You are wasting your time.

Atheist II: Omniscience assume complete knowledge. It does not assume which theory of knowledge.

Me: With omniscience, all truths are possessed. This makes theories of knowledge irrelevant. God doesn’t need theories of knowledge because he already knew everything from the start. This is a point that is very easy to understand.

Atheist II: If God’s knowledge is reliably produced true belief, then god’s beliefs are all knowledge by his nature.

Me: No beliefs were produced by God as a result of his knowledge. He already knew everything to be true. God doesn’t discover nor infer propositions that were previously unknown to him because he is omniscient. A being that must use inferences to possess new truths is not omniscient by definition. At this point, I’m seeing an ironic parallel between this conversation and the married bachelor example that Faizal used earlier. I assume you think bachelors are married too?

Atheist II: That leads to the problem of the incompleteness theorems if god’s knowledge is recursive, and Russell’s Paradox if it isn’t.

Me: It would only lead to the aforementioned problems if God had to infer in order to come to the possession of truths that were previously unknown to him. Since God possesses all truths, he has no need for inferences when it comes to knowing propositions to be true. Therefore, God’s knowledge is not recursive. God, as an omniscient being, does not rely on an axiom to deduce theorems so that he can know propositions to be true so Russell’s paradox is also not relevant to omniscience either.

Atheist II: Its you that is assuming what theory of knowledge others are assigning to god. Making your objection void.

Me: Anyone who needs a theory of knowledge is not omniscient by definition. Now, I am convinced that you haven’t taken a look at these issues very carefully. I suggest you do some reading and some reflecting before returning to this conversation.

If I helped you, please considering supporting me on my Patreon page with as little as $1/month.
——————————————————————-
My Book on Apologetics:

 

Debate: Defending Omnipotence

by Leave a Comment

 

I am a member of the Gordon Clark Discussion Group on Facebook. Every so often, I participate in discussions in that group. There is one Christian gentleman named Jesse who seems to have disliked me from the very first conversation I had with him. We have been in contentious discussions in the past, and they often result in me asking him to define his terms and him either refusing to do so or calling me ‘annoying.’ In this discussion, we argue about whether or not the philosophical system I espouse can allow me to know that God is omnipotent. My position is that what is said in scripture or what can be deduced from scripture by necessary consequence is knowledge. If a proposition is inferred by a deduction that is not inferred from necessary consequence or if a proposition is inferred from scripture by induction, the conclusion is an opinion because it could be wrong. Therefore, my position is not that you can’t make inductive inferences from the Bible, rather, it is that inferences that are not made by necessary consequence are beliefs that could be wrong. Because those beliefs can be wrong, we should not be willing to die on a hill for those beliefs. What follows is a discussion where Jesse attacks my view of omnipotence. 

Jesse: Which methods of inference are appropriate when doing theology?

Me: We are permitted to make inferences from scripture. If those conclusions are necessarily inferred, it is knowledge. If it is not necessarily inferred, it is an opinion.

Jesse: I see that you’re willing to bite the bullet, Jason. How much theology do you know under such a restriction, and how much do you need to throw out?

I’ve given the example of the age of the earth. I presume that you would be willing to admit that we simply don’t know the age of the earth.

However, let’s take a more important doctrine: God’s omnipotence. Classically, this doctrine is formulated as the claim that God is capable of performing any *logically* possible action (Descartes even thought that God could do the logically impossible!) To support this, one could cite Matthew 19:26, where Jesus says: “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

So far so good, but what sense of ‘possible’ did Jesus have in view here? There are several options in addition to logical possibility. There is physical possibility, for example. This refers to all that is possible given the physical laws of the universe. After creating these laws, God became subject to them (one might think). For example, while God can do all that is possible, He cannot determine the precise location and speed of quantum particles; nor can He accelerate an object with mass beyond the speed of light.

Far fetched? Of course. I would simply invite you to rule this definition of ‘possible’ out with a deductive argument from Scripture.

Let me give you a further way one could interpret passages about omnipotence. This perspective is more realistic in the sense that some (mainly Jewish) theologians believe it. One this rendering of ‘possible’, the intended meaning has certain assumed but unstated qualifications. Proponents of this view point out that when one is offering praise, or exhorting others to worship, it is inappropriate in that context to mention those qualification. To illustrate, suppose you are an employer giving a speech to motivate your employees, and you declare “as a team, there’s nothing we can’t accomplish!” Obviously, this statement contains many unstated qualifications which would be counterproductive to enumerate given what you are trying to accomplish. Something analogous could be going on in the Bible when it exhorts us to worship God, or when God is described in an awe-inspiring way. God is offered praise for his immense power; indeed, for having the power to dominate human affairs. Nevertheless, God’s power falls short of the ability to do all that is logically possible. The Biblical authors don’t mention this not only because it would be irrelevant, but because it would undercut the intended psychological effect of the statement. On this stronger sense of omnipotence then, the God of the Bible lacks it.

Let me preempt your response by acknowledging that there are many objections to this view. It’s not the view itself that I’m interested in. What matters is whether the correct doctrine of omnipotence can be *deduced* from scripture. The mere possibility of alternative definitions for terms such as ‘possible’ make such a straightforward deduction extremely unlikely. What will be decisive in this case are independent philosophical considerations, as well as any textual clues one can find.

Needless to say, this kind of reasoning will never amount to a deductive proof. The upshot of this is that knowledge of God’s omnipotence (insofar as it has a precise definition) is grounded in something besides a necessary inference from Scripture.

If you wish to continue to deny the status of inductive knowledge, you could bite the bullet again and concede that we may not know what kind of omnipotence God has. I don’t expect you to take this option, Jason, but if you do, there is a slippery slope of theological skepticism that I will take you down as punishment.”

Me: Instead of spending time attacking concepts of omnipotence that I do not agree with, you could have asked me how I define ‘omnipotence,’ first. None of your objections are applicable to my position.

Jesse: Did you read the part of my comment where I said “it’s not the view [of omnipotence] itself that I’m interested in”?

Me: Yes, if you think that views of omnipotence are not related to your questions, I suggest that you rethink that position. The questions you asked are not relevant to my definition of omnipotence.

Jesse: The only question I am interested in is whether a given definition of omnipotence can literally be deduced from scripture. Is that the case for your preferred definition?

Me: Oh, I see. Your question actually gave me an idea for an article that I wrote this morning. [Note: The rest of the conversation is about the definition of omnipotence I gave in this article, “Omnipotence is defined as the ability to carry out one’s will perfectly.”] 

Jesse: It seems like you’re going to be attracted to the bullet-biting strategy I warned against. Bad idea. Shame on you. Your definition of omnipotence is completely impoverished, and even so, still cannot be deduced from the Bible; at least not without making interpretive decisions supported by induction and/or abduction.

Me: How so? What is deficient about the definition given in my article?

Since language is just symbols that communicate propositional meaning, it is rather easy to derive a definition for ‘omnipotence’ from scripture since scripture says so much about God’s power. I’ve already shown why I went with this definition on the basis of the Bible in the article I linked. 

You are making a lot of blanket statements, but I am not seeing any substance from you. Every time I dialogue with you, you come off as rude. If you don’t like me, I don’t see why you even bother to engage me. If you really want to engage with me, I suggest you engage directly with what I have written instead of hiding behind ambiguous blanket statements.

Jesse: The definition is impoverished because of the reasons I gave in my last paragraph. All of those are examples of things which are able to perfectly carry out their will, yet they are not omnipotent.

Me: Your “reasons” are insufficient. Basically, your reason for telling me my definition is impoverished is not relevant to the defining of terms.

Since ‘omnipotent’ is not a term that is found in the Bible, I am left to define it myself, but if I am going to use it in reference to the God of the Bible, I have to make sure the definition is in line with what the Bible teaches concerning God’s power. I already explained this in the article, but perhaps you missed the point.

The examples you gave are not consistent with the God that the Bible represents, and are, therefore, irrelevant.

Jesse: Your definition uses induction because of the way that it interprets the biblical evidence. Take Psalm 115:3 as an example, which you cite. “Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.”

It cannot be deduced from this that “God is able to perfectly carry out his will.”

Me: Wrong. If omnipotence is the ability to perfectly carry out one’s will, Psalm 115:3 is a demonstration of the validity of that concept. If God does whatever he pleases, he can do anything he pleases.

Jesse: You are *interpreting* the passage to mean that, but you are not deducing it.

Me: The separation of the interpretation of the text and the meaning of the text is nonsensical. I challenge you to highlight the necessity of such a distinction. If the interpretation follows by necessity, the distinction is moot in the instance in question.

Jesse: Your interpretation involves at least the following assumptions, each of which are logically possible to be erroneous: (a) that there are no unstated qualifications to the Psalmist’s claim, (b) that when God does something, he does it perfectly, (c) that the Psalmist is teaching something about the extent of God’s power to begin with. (The context of the passage is a comparison between God and pagan idols, the difference being that God is alive and capable of some action.)

Me: I appreciate your attempts to read my mind, but I had none of the things you mentioned in my mind, and really, like much of everything else you have said so far, the assumptions you give are not relevant. Let’s go through them one at a time:

“a) that there are no unstated qualifications to the Psalmist’s claim,”

The Bible is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), and if the plain meaning of the text (known as the P’shat) is false, Psalm 115:3 is not true. Since God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2), this is not possible. The Bible was written with the four levels of interpretation in mind (and those four levels are validated by the use of this method of interpretation by Yeshua, the Apostles, and the Prophets, you may see how I arrived at this conclusion in this article. If there are any unstated qualifications that would change the plain meaning of the text, God would be a liar. Since, by adopting the axiom the Bible is the Word of God, Titus 1:2 is presupposed, there is no place for a lying God in my logical system. If God cannot lie, he cannot be lying about Psalm 115:3.

“b.) that when God does something, he does it perfectly”

In this conversation, I define “perfectly” as successfully executing one’s will without fail.

“c.) that the Psalmist is teaching something about the extent of God’s power to begin with. (The context of the passage is a comparison between God and pagan idols, the difference being that God is alive and capable of some action.)”

I define power as the ability to carry out one’s will. If God can do whatever he pleases, the statement in Psalm 115:3 speaks to the extent of his power. If God can do whatever he pleases, then he is omnipotent.

Jesse: For your understanding of omnipotence to be deduced from this passage, you need to at least show that each of these assumptions is true. Can you do that without inductive reasoning? Maybe you should start by trying to demonstrate (a) deductively and see what happens.

Me: ‘Twas easily done via a series of modus ponens inferences and Biblical hermeneutics.

Jesse: I’m going to regret responding to this, but I’m a glutton for punishment.

 
Me: For once, we agree albeit for different reasons.
 
Jesse: The term has a generic public meaning, so no, that’s not how it works. You can stipulate the term to mean something completely different—nobody will stop you—but doing so is misleading and reflects poor style.
 
Me: What came first? Language or dictionaries?
 
Jesse: It sounds like what you should do given your views (and perhaps already have done) is simply reject the doctrine of omnipotence. Why do you want to hang on to this term in the first place, since it isn’t in the Bible, as you said?
 
Me: It’s a blanket term that covers a wide variety of  topics that the Bible teaches. I have already given an acceptable view of omnipotence so there is no reason for me to reject it.
 
Jesse: This is completely ludicrous. OF COURSE my examples are beings other than God. That’s the whole reason I gave them. They’re test cases for your definition. There should not be so many omnipotent beings as there would be under your definition.
 
Me: Come off it. If they don’t apply to beings other than God, then what do the examples have to do with the Bible? Think! My definitions are not meant to apply to pagan deities or anything other than the Bible. I think this was already pretty clear in the article I wrote, but some people often miss the obvious.
 
Jesse: Your definition counts anyone whose desires does not exceed his abilities as omnipotent. This is ridiculous. That means your definition is bad, period. You should modify it.
 
Me: Finally, you have made an interesting point that I had not yet considered. Fortunately, airtight definitions of terms help avoid problems that one may not have initially considered when laying out their position.
 
In my definition of omnipotence, ‘will’ does not necessarily mean desire [though desire is certainly a component of it]. ‘Will’ means ‘plan.’ The definition of ‘will’ as used in my definition for omnipotence and ‘perfectly’ involves God’s will alone because he has dominion over all things. Since, according to the Bible, God is the one who has dominion over all things, no other being can qualify for omnipotence under my definition. Any consequence of a plan is because of God, not because of anything else (Proverbs 16:9, Proverbs 19:21). In essence, the reason why God executes his plans perfectly without fail is because no other planners can override his plan. I showed in the article (I don’t think you read it very carefully) this is an aspect of omnipotence that is to be taken into consideration in my definition. The meaning of ‘perfect’ in my definition has to do with God executing his plan without fail due to him not being confined by his creation.
 
Your point was interesting, but there is still no need to modify my position. If it were not so comprehensive, perhaps I would have to make a change, but this criticism isn’t a problem for my position either. This is why, as I have been telling you since we met, Jesse, definitions are important. Frankly, you should have asked for a definition of ‘will.’
 
Jesse: A demonstration is not a deduction, lol.
 
Me: I am the one who used the term [demonstration] so I am the one who gets to define it. The only way to show that something is true is by deduction. Therefore, demonstrations must be deductive.
 
Jesse: My point was that the term ‘perfectly’ cannot be found in this verse, nor can a synonym. So, you cannot deduce your definition of omnipotence from this passage insofar as it includes this term.
 
Me: Wrong. I can develop terminology with definitions that cover aspects of the Bible. I can then test the concepts against the propositional revelation of the Bible. If the definition is in agreement with what the Bible says concerning the subject matter that the word references, I can use it. It would be a simple modus ponens syllogism.
 
Jesse: This illustrates the difference between deduction and interpretation, as you asked me to explain.
 
Me: Nope. Interpretations involve either deductive or inductive inferences. I suppose some can be abductive, but I find abuduction to be a bit beside the point. There is, however, no material distinction between deductions and interpretations when the interpretation being referenced is deductive.
 
Jesse: Perhaps it is obvious to you that “perfectly” is in view in this Psalm. Maybe it is. But you certainly wouldn’t know that through deduction alone, since it *possible* that this verse simply means that God doesn’t follow anyone else’s rules; that he does what *He* pleases.
 
Me: I’ve already shown that I do. You can repeat your objections, but both the Bible and logic would disagree with you. I wouldn’t want to be on your side of the argument in this case.
 
I don’t see why the other possibility you raised would even be a problem because if he doesn’t act according to other’s plans, it already means that he does as he pleases. It would just be a different way of stating the same proposition. If God doesn’t do what others want him to do, then it follows that he only does what he pleases (that is, unless another person’s plan and God’s plan intersect). Even then, God takes dominion over the other person’s plan; Proverbs 16:9; Proverbs 19:21).
 
Jesse: This is consistent with him sometimes doing what he pleases imperfectly. Therefore, you cannot deduce the term ‘perfectly’ out of this passage alone. You must make a judgment about what the passage means first; a judgment which is fallible. “
 
Me: Incorrect, but very sneaky. Your argument rests on a different definition of ‘perfect’ than what I have specified in this thread. If you are going to equivocate and misrepresent my position with this criticism, I do not have to address it. You also need to define ‘judgment.’
 
Jesse: Uh, what? Are you asserting that if the Bible means something other than what it ‘plainly’ says; God would be a liar?
 
Me: Never said that. You need to read up on hermeneutics. If the P’shat’s meaning is other than what God has stated, he would be a liar. Don’t try to talk about things until after you have read up on them first. Aside from you not defining your terms as you should, this is another problem that you seem to have when it comes to doing philosophy.
 
Jesse: So there is no poetry or metaphor in the Bible?
 
Me: Didn’t say that. I also didn’t say that the P’shat is always literal. Take care not to read between the lines when there is no need to read between the lines.
 
Jesse: “The whole Judean countryside” in Mark 1:5 literally means every single person in the region? 1 Timothy 2:4 disproves Calvinism?”
 
Me: Since your point with your examples misrepresents what I said about the P’shat of the text, I do not need to answer these questions.
 
Jesse: I’m sure you don’t believe something as ridiculous as this, so I fail to grasp your point here.
 
Me: That is because you started trying to talk to me about a subject that you quite clearly know nothing about. Sometimes, it is beneficial to say, “Let me read up on that first.”
 
Jesse: The overriding point however is that it is *disputable* whether the plain meaning of this text has unstated qualifications in it or not.
 
Me: No, it is not (as I have already shown).
 
Jesse: You don’t claim to know this through a deductive inference, do you? You’re reasoning by examples → principles, aren’t you? In other words … inductively? 
 
Me: I have concluded the hermeneutical method I ascribe to is confirmed from the usage of the method in the Bible itself and from deductive inference[This means that when interpretting passages, there are certain rules we must follow that rules out erroneous interpretations that people say are *possible*]. The inferences involved would be of the modus ponens variety (It wouldn’t be a simple syllogism, however). In addition, I have inductive arguments for my position as well. As Clark says, one must come in possession of the truth before one can demonstrate it. In a system of propositions, the way the initial proposition is attained is not of consequence. What is of consequence is the placement of that proposition in the logical system.

Jesse: No more than the frog in my example from earlier is omnipotent. 

Me: The definition of ‘will’ that I use for omnipotence is not applicable to the frog so I am afraid that the frog is not omnipotent (even though he might be pretty cool). Your objection is just another example of equivocation and misrepresentation of my position.

Jesse: Did you deduce your hermenutical principles from the Bible?

Me: Yes, insofar as how it is arranged in my philosophical system.

For your own good, I’m going to give you some advice. Frankly, I do not think you know what you are doing when it comes to this philosophy thing. I have seen you say some good things in this group so I am not saying that you cannot be good at philosophy, but right now, you have a lot of things that are holding you back from clarity of thought. Engaging other people is good practice and it is a good way to test your ideas, but don’t be dogmatic about ideas on subjects that you clearly know nothing about. On several occasions in this discussion, you have tried to argue with me about things (the most obvious example being the P’shat of scripture) that you clearly know nothing about. Before you start arguing about something, for your own good and to avoid embarrassment, study the subject matter first.

I have had some critics in this group and others who did not like me and they found me to be annoying (much like you have said), but a couple of them have come around and started to see that I was pushing them to reflect on their ideas and they even started to agree with me on positions that they previously disagreed with. If you really reflect on some of the things I told you, I think it could help you come a long way on your philosophical journey. You don’t have to agree with me on everything, but every time I dialogue with you, I get a great sense of disrespect from you. You either need to get over whatever problem you have with me or stop dialoguing with me. If you are going to “regret” posting something, perhaps you shouldn’t post it. We only get so much time on this planet so it seems rather silly to willfully engage in activities that you do not like.

Conclusion

It is amazing that people think they can say things like, “That is just your interpretation.” There is no meaningful distinction between a correct interpretation of the Bible and the meaning of the Bible. When we interpret the Bible, there are rules that we have to follow, and we can see those rules used in the scriptures. One might say, “You have to use those principles in order to see them in the Bible in the first place.” That may be true; however, in mathematics, one must come to the possession of the truth that 2+2=4 before they can demonstrate that 2+2=4. This is because the axiom of addition must be granted prior to doing addition.

Just the same, we find out about the rules of interpretation and then we see those rules implemented in the Bible. The way we come to posses the truth of how to interpret the Bible is of no consequence. What is of consequence, however, is how we integrate those rules into our system of beliefs. We choose where to place our beliefs in our overarching philosophy. What is tested in philosophical discourse is not how we initially discovered a proposition, but how it fits in with the rest of what we believe.

If I helped you, please considering supporting me on my Patreon page with as little as $1/month.
——————————————————————-
My Book on Apologetics:

What is Omnipotence? It Isn’t What Most Think

by Leave a Comment

 

 

Introduction

Omnipotence is a confusing concept for both believers and unbelievers. The purpose of this article is to define omnipotence and make clarifications that will resolve common areas of confusion.
 
Omnipotence, Definitions and Philosophical Systems

There is no Hebrew equivalence to the word, ‘omnipotent’ in the Bible. Because of this, we have to be very careful when we are using foreign terminology to describe Biblical theology. If the definition or its implications are at odds with what scripture says concerning a subject matter, the definition for that term should no longer be used to construct a Biblical system of theology. Often, the Bible connects God’s power to his will (Colossians 1:16, Ephesians 1:19-21, Psalm 115:3-5). In this article, omnipotence is defined as the ability to carry out one’s will perfectly. This definition was chosen on the basis of what the Bible has to say concerning God’s power.

Mainstream Christian Philosophy’s Definition of Omnipotence

If God is all powerful, can he create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? In response to such questions, Christian philosophers have often said that omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically possible. This means that God can do anything that is not self contradictory. Perhaps such a definition would answer the omnipotence paradox, but it is not a definition that can be derived from the Bible. If we look at the Bible, we never see it speak in such terms. Where does it say that God is limited to what is ‘logically possible?’ What is ‘logically possible?’ Isn’t part of God’s glory and splendor found in his defying of expectations? Isn’t God’s power unquantifiable? If so, how can we place a limit on an unquantifiable power? If God created the world, what aspect of it can he not control (Jeremiah 32:37)? How could God’s power be confined to only this world? Clearly, such a notion is not Biblical. While the definition typically given by Christian philosophers may succeed in side stepping the omnipotence paradox, it raises a host of questions that I am convinced cannot be satisfactorily answered by these theologians.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, philosophers, theologians, and laypeople have a tendency to over complicate issues that are really not complicated at all. In essence, God can do whatever he wills, and that is what makes him omnipotent. It is senseless to put God in a box when he cannot be confined to his own creation. It is equally senseless to conjure up unbiblical definitions for foreign terms that are not used in the Bible. Not only does the definition proposed in this article make God’s omnipotence easy to understand, it also solves the so-called omnipotence paradox.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–
If I helped you, please considering supporting me on my Patreon page with as little as $1/month.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
My Book on Apologetics: