Biblibical claims of Omnipotence?

[h1a8]

Many atheists claim that the biblical God can't exist by the usual Omnipotent Omniscient arguments.
At first I failed to see where the bible claims that God is omnipotent until I found this

In Matt. 19:26 it says,
But Jesus beheld, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Now if Omnipotent means able to do all things that are logically possible, then how would I combat the claim that God should be able to do even the logically impossible since He can do all things.

[cslewislover]

if Omnipotent means able to do all things that are logically possible, then how would I combat the claim that God should be able to do even the logically impossible since He can do all things.

I'm not sure I get your question, since you say that omnipotent means to do all things logically possible, then you change it to logically impossible. At any rate, this question has been gone over many times on this board. I'm goint to go try to find some links. One thing, though, based on the bible verse you quoted: do you think the bible writers would have considered such a question? And that we should take it that way? It seems pretty absurd that they would've thought of explaining this.

OK. Here is a short article from the main site:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rock.html

[Johngreg]

Sorry can't comprehend your original message. It is logical and rational that GOD created all things. Its scientific. It is illogical and irrational to think unscientifically. Logic is math, and I am a mathematician. It is illogical via statistics and other archetypes, ratio's and patterns to accept a less than omnipotent GOD. I tried to avoid a discussion, as I haven;t hardly any time, but your divergence from omnipotence to illogic, was illogical in and of itself. I must not get involved, but that was a wild one. Just stick with the omnipotence of GOD, and omnipresense of GOD, it makes sense and is logical.

[Byblos]

Sorry can't comprehend your original message. It is logical and rational that GOD created all things. Its scientific. It is illogical and irrational to think unscientifically. Logic is math, and I am a mathematician. It is illogical via statistics and other archetypes, ratio's and patterns to accept a less than omnipotent GOD. I tried to avoid a discussion, as I haven;t hardly any time, but your divergence from omnipotence to illogic, was illogical in and of itself. I must not get involved, but that was a wild one. Just stick with the omnipotence of GOD, and omnipresense of GOD, it makes sense and is logical.

Just out of curiosity, John, how would you show God's omnipotence through logic/math?

[Johngreg]

As a mere starter study Sacred Geometry. But understand that it is much more than this as well. Old Age progressive evolutionists however can not logically and rationally believe in an omipotent omipresent God that created all things at once, or all things in ratio's and harmony together. Yet from what I have read here so far, they have little or no logic or rationality...... in understanding an omipotent GOD. I must go, time is of great value.

[Byblos]

As a mere starter study Sacred Geometry. But understand that it is much more than this as well. Old Age progressive evolutionists however can not logically and rationally believe in an omipotent omipresent God that created all things at once, or all things in ratio's and harmony together. Yet from what I have read here so far, they have little or no logic or rationality...... in understanding an omipotent GOD. I must go, time is of great value.

I honestly was looking forward to your response but I must confess I am greatly disappointed. First I do not understand your claim that progressive evolutionists cannot believe in an omnipotent God; I totally reject that out of hand as baseless nonsense, unless of course you care to engage in clarifying it, much less proving it, logically, mathematically, philosophically, whatever. Second, you come here saying you are a friend of a member who was banned, that you're doing him a favor that somehow you're going to try to right the wrong that befell him, and yet I don't see you doing that (whether or not we will allow that is besides the point for now). All I see from you are accusations that have not a hint of factual support whatsoever. May I suggest to you that you either back up your claims or refrain from posting them if you can't or don't have the time (or both).

[Johngreg]

As for evolutionists not being rationally able to believe in the omipotency of GOD, that is their problem. Lets talk about you personnally. So start by declaring your position that God is omipotent if you choose, and then state your belief system that math does not show HIS OMNIPOTENCY. Or state that no sciences show His Omipotency and it is all by faith in the absolutely impossible as the original poster stated. Once you have made this contradictory statement or statements then I shall explain further how sacred geometry shows that GOD is OMNIPOTENT in His CREATION. You may begin .....

[zoegirl]

JOhngreg,


When you use the phrase "progressive evolutionists" are you really referring to evolutionists or are you equating that to Old Earth progressive creationists? The former, of course, believes in a solely natural process with absolutely no supernatural involvement from GOd, whereas the latter believes in the Omnipotence of God creating over time, not because He HAD to, or because He was limited, but because He CHOOSE to do so.

Are you lumping us with evolution?

Because if you are, you really to educate yourself on what we believe. We believe in the Omnipotence of God.

However, all of this is secondary to the OP, which has to do with the theological question about the nature of God, not how He created the universe. It seems that the OP deals with the age old question about whether an omnipotent God can create a rock so big that He couldn't move it.

[Johngreg]

Without the double speak, will you Christian evolutionists or whatever you call yourself please have the strength or conviction to say, you do NOT believe that Science and God are harmonic. One of you just backed out of the challenge and started to state that math and God do not go together, or science and God do not go together. Please have some courage and enough double speak. Your abbreviations and categories mean nothing just be honmest and be clear.

[Cross.eyed]

Uhh...is it just me, or does anyone else note the similarity of Davidjayjordan's manner of type speech with that of Johngreg ?
Even the use of the colon key in place of the apostrophe is the same....hmmmm.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Uhh...is it just me, or does anyone else note the similarity of Davidjayjordan's manner of type speech with that of Johngreg ?
Even the use of the colon key in place of the apostrophe is the same....hmmmm.

There once was a man with no schooling,
Who said, ''I am not one for fooling!
''You know I can tell,
''From only the smell,
''The same rotten fish are a'schooling!''

FL
Graduate, tsellis Institute

[Byblos]

As for evolutionists not being rationally able to believe in the omipotency of GOD, that is their problem. Lets talk about you personnally. So start by declaring your position that God is omipotent if you choose, and then state your belief system that math does not show HIS OMNIPOTENCY. Or state that no sciences show His Omipotency and it is all by faith in the absolutely impossible as the original poster stated. Once you have made this contradictory statement or statements then I shall explain further how sacred geometry shows that GOD is OMNIPOTENT in His CREATION. You may begin .....

Like I said, nothing but nonsense. What I will begin is your exodus from here. You may now go commiserate with your friend. Good bye.

[madmaddyu]

This is going to sound so way out there…..but let me give you insight of this concept-- possible theory. I was requested by a friend to create a website that is to provide both English and Hebrew as an option on the website. Never in my wildest dreams did I expect to start considering the Hebrew language as a “means to support” the argument of God's existence nor as a “means to express” his attributes of omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent. But after what I encountered on developing a website to include Hebrew and English —I am really beginning to wonder.
So to make a long story short---a lot of mathematical formulas had to be created in a nutshell. One aspect was to enable calculations (“data”) to loop—to run continuously….infinitely. As a result all data had to be “converted” numerically. Unbeknown to me at the time of the assignment I did not know that the Hebrew number and alphabet can be “linked” to each other. Each letter in the Hebrew alphabet (or “aleph-bet”) has a numerical value assigned to it. Anyone aware that the Hebrew alphabet is three dimensional in format:
1. Religious and biblical text, calendars in Hebrew use Hebrew Letters as numeric values.
2. Each letter can express a symbolic concept of God
3. Each letter represents a mathematical value. Then a Hebrew word has a mathematical value, and the bible can literally be translated into a mathematical value. Note: there are mathematical equations that can demonstrate omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresent. Also it provides a reason why the Hebrew language has not “dramatically” changed over time (5000 years and counting) because that numerical value system prevented change.
The really interesting part of the Hebrew language there is NO representation for zero (0). It starts with 1 = aleph=Beginning, Eternal God, single, Head. I guess my question to anyone is that has anyone considered the Hebrew language (origins, linguistics, numerical value system, mathamatics) as a means to support God's omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresent because those attributes can easily be expressed in mathematical equations and since Hebrew is based on a numerical value system—I am seeing several mathematical formulas that are supporting these attributes of God…. Is there a mathematical code to the Bible ……or have I been sitting in front of my computer way too long programming--Algorithm in Hebrew & English--a programmers worst nightmare come true......lol ---

— Trust me when I say the Hebrew language is not obsolete in terms of it being ancient. ….. can I dare to say “pure” in formulation and supported by computer science? Is there a mathematical code in the Bible that can express God's attributes?
Here are some verses that support God's attribute of omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresent ---is there a mathematical expression in the following verses via the Hebrew language… can these verses be “translated” mathematically?
• In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 NIV)
• "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last." (Revelation 22:13 NIV)
• In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1 NIV)
• God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " (Exodus 3:14 NIV)
• “Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.” (John 14:10 NIV)
• Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:19-20 (King James Version)
• " The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14 NIV)
• “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. “(John 1:14 King James Version)

Then consider the definition of infinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity)

That is whole, this is whole
From the whole, the whole arises
When the whole is taken from the whole
The whole still will remain — Isha Upanishad.

"if you remove a part from infinity or add a part to infinity, still what remains is infinity".

[Canuckster1127]

Many atheists claim that the biblical God can't exist by the usual Omnipotent Omniscient arguments.
At first I failed to see where the bible claims that God is omnipotent until I found this

In Matt. 19:26 it says,
But Jesus beheld, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Now if Omnipotent means able to do all things that are logically possible, then how would I combat the claim that God should be able to do even the logically impossible since He can do all things.

There is that which is irrational, rational and then there is that which is suprarational.

Most of the logically irrational appeals to the limits upon the powers of God are based on artificial semantical appeals to age old conundrums, such as can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it. That question assumes physical limitations on God and in fact demonstrates a logical fallacy. It's a direct result of our approaching God as subject to our own limits and projecting those limitations upon God, in effect making Him into our own limits.

Recognizing God as possessive of attributes that we neither possess nor can fully comprehend is not necessarily irrational. It simply recognizes that we lack either or both the capacity to comprehend the complete nature of God or/and the perspective to observe God within that context. That allows for a suprarational element of God that we often put into the realm of mystery.

Mathmatically a strong illustration of what I'm speaking of was presented by Edwin A. Abbot in his book, "Flatland" which illustrates the absurdity of a 2 dimensional being being exposed to a 3 dimensional world who then in turn returns to Flat land and attempts to describe the experience but is limited by the langauage, experience and perspective of his audience. The presuppositional framework and experience of man when assumed to be limited to his own experience, perspective and capacity to comprehend by definition eliminates the irrational, but it fails to account for the suprarational or anything greater than himself that cannot be examined on his own terms.

[CliffsofBurton]

There is rational. There is Irrational. Then there is JohnGreg.

Its like a new category.

I think when he was talking about sacred geometry, he was referring largely to the Divine Proportion.

1.618 to 1