Are the Laws of Nature Immutable? Or does God get a Pass?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Is God subject to the laws of nature, or is He Omnipotent?

V/R
Doctor Cameron, North Carolina for Me

[_Gadianton]

Hi Dr.,

It depends. God can part the Red Sea, so he gets a pass in that circumstance, but when Joseph Smith protested marrying of an attractive teenage girl, the laws of nature stood firm and just. Not even God could have permitted him to disobey and continue to live.

[_subgenius]

Is God subject to the laws of nature, or is He Omnipotent?

V/R
Doctor Cameron, North Carolina for Me

if by omnipotent you mean that God is able to do anything in accordance with His nature...then yes.

For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html

Would you extrapolate the highlighted portion a bit. It seems to be a contradiction. He is either Omnipotent, or He is subject to universal laws. He cannot be both.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_subgenius]

For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html

Would you extrapolate the highlighted portion a bit. It seems to be a contradiction. He is either Omnipotent, or He is subject to universal laws. He cannot be both.

V/R
Dr. Cam

Sure He can be both. The first line of my post states an acceptable and reasonable definition for the word omnipotent. Which is why i inferred the clarification. Now just because you would prefer to impose your own definition does not excuse you from the responsibility of having, at least, a fundamental knowledge of the subject which you are attempting to be critical of.
I consider your position to be rather typical among atheists in as much as they often claim disbelief for that which they do not really know much about....kinda ironic.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Sure He can be both. The first line of my post states an acceptable and reasonable definition for the word omnipotent. Which is why i inferred the clarification. Now just because you would prefer to impose your own definition does not excuse you from the responsibility of having, at least, a fundamental knowledge of the subject which you are attempting to be critical of.
I consider your position to be rather typical among atheists in as much as they often claim disbelief for that which they do not really know much about....kinda ironic.

Hello Sub-Genius,

By omnipotent I mean the generally accepted definition of omnipotent. Your acceptable and reasonable definition is a non-definition since it doesn't define omnipotent.

Would you be kind enough to define omnipotent for us so I can understand your position better?

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_subgenius]

Hello Sub-Genius,

By omnipotent I mean the generally accepted definition of omnipotent. Your acceptable and reasonable definition is a non-definition since it doesn't define omnipotent.

Would you be kind enough to define omnipotent for us so I can understand your position better?

V/R
Dr. Cam

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence
"A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie)."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm
Etc.

So, i stand by my assertion that many people like to criticize that which they initially know little about or have an incorrect understanding of...thus being a typical condition of most atheists. For example, you would propose a concept of God that is inconsistent with the concept which is proposed by those who actually believe in Him. So it is quite reasonable for you to not believe in or have confidence in your proposed concept.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Sub-Genius,

By omnipotent I mean the generally accepted definition of omnipotent. Your acceptable and reasonable definition is a non-definition since it doesn't define omnipotent.

Would you be kind enough to define omnipotent for us so I can understand your position better?

V/R
Dr. Cam

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence
"A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie)."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm
Etc.

So, i stand by my assertion that many people like to criticize that which they initially know little about or have an incorrect understanding of...thus being a typical condition of most atheists. For example, you would propose a concept of God that is inconsistent with the concept which is proposed by those who actually believe in Him. So it is quite reasonable for you to not believe in or have confidence in your proposed concept.

Hello Sub-Genius,

I clicked on your first link, and it defined "omnipotence" as:

Omnipotence (from Latin: Omni Potens: "all power") is unlimited power.

I double checked at Merriam-Webster and it defines omnipotence as:

om·nip·o·tence
noun \äm-ˈni-pə-tən(t)s\
1
: the quality or state of being omnipotent
2
: an agency or force of unlimited power

So. When we use the term omnipotent or omnipotence do you agree that it is ubiquitous with "unlimited power"?

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_DrW]

Doc,

Subgenius is going into his irrational apologetic routine of tap dancing around the issue by claiming that you do not understand either the nature of God or the meaning of the term omnipotent.

Fact of the matter is that religionists have huge problems with the attribution of omnipotence to their imaginary God(s), not the least of which is the problem of evil.

The problem is worse when it comes to the Mormon God, Elohim. It is obvious that the Mormon Elohim could not, and cannot, accomplish the works attributed to him without contravening the laws of nature. The claims of several prophets, including most famously Joseph F. Smith, that the Mormon God works according to natural law, have been proven false in the years since they were made. That is the problem with Mormonism, the latest version of the story is always about 50 -100 years behind the science and has no way to catch up.

Since no God such as the Mormons describe (be he Adam, or Elohim, or Jehovah or any other imaginary being) could exist, (according to their own internally inconsistent definitions and claims) then these religionists are either liars or delusional, or both (most likely both).

[_subgenius]

Hello Sub-Genius,

I clicked on your first link, and it defined "omnipotence" as:

Omnipotence (from Latin: Omni Potens: "all power") is unlimited power.

yet you refrain from mentioning that it also lists the following definition
"The term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:



A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.[1]
A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[2]
A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.
Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being performed by the deity, either due to omni-immanence, or because all actions must be 'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity.
Under many philosophical definitions of the term "deity", senses 2, 3 and 4 can be shown to be equivalent. However, on all understandings of omnipotence, it is generally held that a deity is able to intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics, since they are not part of its nature, but the principles on which it has created the physical world. However many modern scholars (such as John Polkinghorne) hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for a deity to go against its own laws unless there were an overwhelming reason to do so."

the definition i have put forth is appropriate and consider accurate by most every single adherent to a belief in God.
Though i appreciate you trying to frame a definition which suits your parlor-trick of an argument, i can not reasonably agree with your premise.

and again...another example of an atheist trying to criticize something that they seemingly have little knowledge about.
So, if you would like to propose that your definition of "omnipotent" is in accord with Mormon Doctrine, then do so and proceed accordingly...otherwise get in line with the other atheist hacks.