Evidence for God from Science

Hi everyone. I had a discussion, using the very helpful page about the omnipotence of God, with someone and I'm wanting to consult with some 'experts' before I form my response.

The godandscience.org part (with some additions) will be in blue, the response in red.

I already have some thoughts on my response to this and will love to discuss it with any of you further

Peace and Blessings


If we are arguing about the Christian God, then we have to argue about it based on it's own parameters, right? So, the Bible then is an obvious place to begin. The word "omnipotent" is never used in the Bible. It has been inferred primarily by one of God's Hebrew titles, "Shadday," which is most often translated "almighty." However, the Bible never claims that God can do all things. In fact, the Bible makes a point that there are things that God cannot do. Therefore, biblical omnipotence does not mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything that is contrary to His character. However, God can do anything that He determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - "the ability to do anything that one sets out to do".

This is ludicrous, God is either omnipotent or not, saying omnipotence doesn't include being able to do anything that is contrary to their nature dilutes the word "omnipotent" to meaningless drivel. By this definition I'M omnipotent(and everyone/everything else), I can do anything!...as long as it doesn't contradict my inherent properties. This is a common and clearly ridiculous theist argument.

Also, if you take this definition as omnipotence, even if you somehow think you can argue the first point, your very bible states that human's are omnipotent by god's own word, this is simply not even debatable.

Genesis 11:5-6

"5) But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6) The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them."

Clearly, if you accept your definition of omnipotence it loses all meaning. Additionally this shows a great proof of god's apparently LACK of omniscience, not being able to see a mere 4000-5000 years into the future and knowing that this act would have done [love] all except delay the inevitable, a massive failure what with everyone on earth being able to communicate rather easily now. But of course god can't fail...right? We could of course go on to talk about how tall a structure built at that time would've been compared to the everyday skyscrapers of today as well as this silly idea of heaven being physically "above" the earth...or the fact that God was clearly fearful here, not fearful for others, but fearful that mere humans could ruin his plan for the world...yeah, real omnipotent.


Since an all-powerful being will always be able to accomplish whatever He sets out to do, it is impossible for an all-powerful being to fail. The argument you, and other atheists present, is that the God of the bible cannot exist because if we claim God is all-powerful, He can do anything - even fail.

I haven't made any actual arguments about this yet, but I will at the end, and these "rock too heavy" idiotic arguments won't be them. The argument can be watered down to it's base though without some stupid rock analogy and hold weight however, could god create ANY task that he would be incapable of doing, if he can, then he becomes no longer omnipotent. If he can't, he never was to begin with.


This is like saying that since God is all-powerful He can be not all-powerful. Obviously, this is absurd. An all-powerful being cannot fail. Therefore, God can create a rock of tremendous size, but, since He is all-powerful, He will always be able to lift it. The ability to fail is not a part of omnipotence. The Bible makes it clear that God is able to do anything He wants to, and that nothing He wants to do is too difficult for Him to accomplish. This is the true meaning of omnipotence.

If the bible claims the God can do "anything he wants" then that goes against your previous definition of omnipotence, which is: "anything he wants, except those things that are logically impossible or against his inherent nature." This once again brings us to the problem of absolute omnipotence as stated above. That's the problem with the God of the bible, he's either omnipotent, and therefore cannot exist because of the inherent logical fallacies therein, or he's simply very very powerful...in which case he's NOT omnipotent. theists are the ones who can't seem to decide on a definition for omnipotent, not atheist. Atheists just have to keep changing their arguments because theists take omnipotence from meaning the ability to do absolutely anything, to the ability to do anything as long as it doesn't contradict with its nature, to a being that is just extremely powerful until the word loses all veracity and meaning and ends in a no longer all-powerful deity. We don't set the definition to define God, Christians do...by definition.


In regards to omniscience, even though God never really repented, isn't the assertion that God knows everything brought into question when God feels sorry over some decision He has made or changes His mind? After all, if God was really omniscient, wouldn't He have known what was going to happen, so that He could have chosen another path?
No. God's omniscience does not mean that God changes His character to pretend that everything is fine when human beings sin. For example, in Genesis 6:6, the Lord was sorry because of the rampant sin that mankind had fallen into and the sadness that was causing. We basically have the same reaction to our own children. We grieve when they make bad choices, although if we had it to do over, we would still have brought them into the world. We KNOW for 100% certainty that they will make mistakes, but does that mean we change who we are?

This is absolutely false. God is clearly disappointed with his creation at multiple points, the story of Adam and Eve, the Flood and so on and so forth. Disappointment, by its very nature, is the non-fulfillment of what one hopes, an omniscient being does not hope, it knows. In your very own example you miss the key factor, sure we may choose to have children if we could do it over again, but to claim that we wouldn't try to take steps to avoid the mistakes made, is simply ludicrous, we absolutely would do our best to do so if given a second change, God is allowed infinite chances, because he is not bound by time, of course he shouldn't need them since he's also perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient. God is purported to be infallible and he has his omnipotence to back it up. The very fact that creation ISN'T perfect by God's wishes is proof that he is either not omniscient or not omnipotent. God, in the bible, acts like the fall from grace of Adam and Eve happened in the past and is irreversible, however, the God of the bible isn't bound by time and given that he's made HUGE grievances against free will in the bible itself, a minor one there to save the the majority of the human race from eternal damnation would rather insignificant. Additionally, he wouldn't even have to impede free will to save the human race, just don't put the bloody tree there, it's that simple. This doesn't impede free will in any way and maintains his perfect creation. Honestly, the genesis story of creation is so full of holes as to make criticizing it feel like stealing candy from a baby and drop kicking it.

Repentance is irrelevant. God would have known beforehand that they would repent, but regardless these aren't the only issues. Any instance in which God tests someone's faith is a demonstration of God's lack of omniscience. The story of Abraham is incredibly barbaric and cruel, and anyone doing what Abraham was claiming to do today would be locked up(In fact people HAVE done exactly what Abraham was claiming to do...it's not different now than it was then, people listening to voices in their head to kill their children for God). The very fact that Abraham lies to the people that came with him as well as his son is paramount to show how evil this act truly was, whether to believe it was perpetrated by God, or a man with serious mental issues. Same with the story of Job, an absolute sickening account of God allowing people to die simply to have a bet with Satan. Why would Satan have even made a bet with God if God's omniscient...it makes no sense God would win every time, however, the crowning jewel of that story is that God lost the bet...so yeah...

All the things that are impossible in our universe are so because they are defined to be impossible by us. If you restrict God to our four dimensional universe, He would, likewise, be unable to do those things. However, God is not restricted to our universe. If we look to our universe and the rules we have determined to use to measure it, we must realize we are only capable of doing so within our own dimension of time and space, but as I said at the beginning, we can argue, and SHOULD argue, first and foremost from a philosophical perspective, the possibility of God.

Fair enough, which is why I don't. I give God all due allowance that the bible grants him and don't expect him to only be able to work in the dimensions of our universe, and yet, he still cannot exist as Christians define him.

Of course what I was originally talking about here is the combined attributes of omnipotence and omniscience cannot exist together in the same being, not those attributes independently, regardless of the feasibility of each. If a being is omniscient it knows everything, including everything it will do, it is therefore bound by this and cannot tread off of it. Now, the question is: can a being that is both omnipotent and omniscient choose to not do what it already knows it will do? This would be a change in mind regardless of cause, whether because people repented or simply because he wanted to doesn't matter in the slightest. The bottom line is, that if the being CAN choose not to do what it already knew it would do, it's not omniscient. However, if instead it cannot, then it is not omnipotent. Based on your own interpretation of the bible from your earlier statement regarding changing of mind, it seems you would side with the former, in which case, your God is not omniscient.

These types of arguments have been answered a thousand times over.

Here are a few helpful links:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1025.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

Ominpotent and Omnicient are qualities that Man has given God to try to understand God's nature.
What do they mean?
From OUR human prespective it would depend on how we understand God as God interacts with THIS universe.
Is God all knowing because he sees all or because he knows every possible outcoem to every possible decision or because being outside of time as we know it, He sees present and future as ONE ?
Is god all powerful because God can do ANYTHING or because God can do EVERYTHING or because God HAS done just that?
What is OUR understanding of those terms and why do we feel that they even apply to God?

Indeed, Paul. I agree completely. The same thing can be said to various other arguments against God's nature. It's so frustrating -.-

Thanks for the links, Byblos!!

God bless you both.

The last argument in red is silly at best.... if God is omnipresent, meaning that he can also either exist in all time or in time unlike we experience it, or perhaps even above or outside of time, then he first doesn't know what he is GOING to do, but what he does. Also, He wouldn't need to change what he was going to do, being perfect... everything would be the way He intends.

Typical of atheists' arguments against God are enormous misunderstandings. First, while God does have a plan for mankind that will turn out EXACTLY as He has always known it would and has always desired it to, yet nonetheless He carries it out and interacts with mankind within our own understandings and our own realtime existence here on earth. He allows us to respond to his commands as our hearts so desire. He allows us CHOICE - to rebel or embrace him in repentance. He did not create robots! We are a stubborn people who learn extremely slowly - and for many of us, not at all. And thus God responds to us as He deems appropriate, and as we respond to Him - His patience is a reflection of His mercy, grace and desire for us to come into fellowship with Him. If He had desired for this to be a given and instantaneous (us loving Him), He would not have given us free will to choose Him or reject Him. He would have just CREATED us BORN loving Him. But True love cannot be forced - it must be CHOSEN!

But God has allowed for and planned for our resistance and stubbornness. Furthermore, He is patient, merciful and LOVES us. If God immediately reacted to what He has always known would be our rebellion and failures, then a much bigger question would be why did He create humans in such a way that they could choose to be so foolish and rebellious in the first place; why did He give us free will?. The answer is that the end result is not dependent upon us, but upon God perfectly enacting his plans. He is not dependent upon us for His plan to work (obviously!). What the atheist sees as the "absurdity" of God changing His mind is actually God being patient with mankind, responding to us as we respond to what He has already revealed to us and commanded of us. God this by nurturing us, loving us, encouraging us, and correcting us - a very slow process. And yet, the entire way God is in control, always influencing and directing events. But God is in no hurry for the end result, as it will be exactly as and precisely WHEN He planned it.

Basically, the atheist says, "the God of the Bible doesn't fit MY intellectual box of how I think a god should be; that if he is all-powerful and all-knowing then He wouldn't do it like THIS or like THAT." And THAT, my friends, is his real problem, as God the Infinite transcends all that the finite mind can conceive. And is it any great surprise that the atheist states that, "Repentance is irrelevant"? Even stranger, is the apparent anger most atheists reveal, as when they argue against God it's as if they are commenting on being they think is REAL - otherwise, why the anger?

Of course what I was originally talking about here is the combined attributes of omnipotence and omniscience cannot exist together in the same being, not those attributes independently, regardless of the feasibility of each. If a being is omniscient it knows everything, including everything it will do, it is therefore bound by this and cannot tread off of it. Now, the question is: can a being that is both omnipotent and omniscient choose to not do what it already knows it will do? This would be a change in mind regardless of cause, whether because people repented or simply because he wanted to doesn't matter in the slightest. The bottom line is, that if the being CAN choose not to do what it already knew it would do, it's not omniscient. However, if instead it cannot, then it is not omnipotent. Based on your own interpretation of the bible from your earlier statement regarding changing of mind, it seems you would side with the former, in which case, your God is not omniscient.

This really fails to take into consideration basic reasoning. A teacher will always fail students. The same teacher will always pass students. Although these statements seem to contradict, they are both true, and both logically compatible. The key is the actions of the student. The teacher will always fail students who fall below the passing grade. The teacher will always pass students who reach or exceed the standard.
God is not like man that He would change His mind. God not changing His mind is not an issue of power. To say God never would do something really isn't a statement of ability or lack thereof. To say God isn't omnipotent because He can't change His mind is really nothing more than stubborn resistance.

jlay wrote:

Of course what I was originally talking about here is the combined attributes of omnipotence and omniscience cannot exist together in the same being, not those attributes independently, regardless of the feasibility of each. If a being is omniscient it knows everything, including everything it will do, it is therefore bound by this and cannot tread off of it. Now, the question is: can a being that is both omnipotent and omniscient choose to not do what it already knows it will do? This would be a change in mind regardless of cause, whether because people repented or simply because he wanted to doesn't matter in the slightest. The bottom line is, that if the being CAN choose not to do what it already knew it would do, it's not omniscient. However, if instead it cannot, then it is not omnipotent. Based on your own interpretation of the bible from your earlier statement regarding changing of mind, it seems you would side with the former, in which case, your God is not omniscient.

This really fails to take into consideration basic reasoning. A teacher will always fail students. The same teacher will always pass students. Although these statements seem to contradict, they are both true, and both logically compatible. The key is the actions of the student. The teacher will always fail students who fall below the passing grade. The teacher will always pass students who reach or exceed the standard.
God is not like man that He would change His mind. God not changing His mind is not an issue of power. To say God never would do something really isn't a statement of ability or lack thereof. To say God isn't omnipotent because He can't change His mind is really nothing more than stubborn resistance.

To say the least of it being utter nonsense. His argument can be summarized as follows:

a) If God chooses to change his mind then he is not omniscient

Among God's attributes is changelessness so no, God does not change his mind so yes, he is omniscient.

b) If God cannot choose to change his mind then he is not omnipotent

By whose definition is this true? Who put that restriction for omnipotence and why should anyone consider it a valid restriction? Where does it even imply in the definition of omnipotence that for an entity to be classified as such it MUST be able to do ANYTHING, including the nonsensical (a rock too big ...) or do things CONTRARY to its nature? Of course there are things that God CANNOT do, whoever said otherwise?

God CANNOT:
- lie
- not love
- cheat
- steal
- deceive
- do evil
- etc, etc

But what does this mean? Does it mean God is not omnipotent because he cannot do these things? Of course not, that is absurd. God cannot do these things because they are contrary to his nature and God cannot change his mind because he is changeless. But that in no way means he is not omnipotent.

The argument is tantamount to saying: if God cannot be not God then he is not omnipotent. Like I said, utter nonsense.

Thank you gentlemen, for your insightful and very straight-forward responses. I found them extremely helpful.