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

[_subgenius]

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.

yea...crazy how numerous sources contradict his premise and you find that "irrational"...how ironic.

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.

it is actually not a fact...it is simply another fabricated "problem" by ill-informed atheists. You guys always try to put forth your own version, criticize it as a "problem", and then pat yourselves on the back. Problem is, rather "fact is", that no one but you believes your definition of God.
Funny, how someone who does not believe in God sure touts themselves as an expert on who God must be.

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.

yawn....CFR

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).

double yawn...CFR

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

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.

Hello Sub-Genius,

That's because I don't consider the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia a commonly used nor accepted source for the definition of words. ??

Can we agree on a source for defining common words in a commonly accepted manner?

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Paging Mr. Sub-Genius,

Can we agree on a source for defining common words in a commonly accepted manner? I'd like to move our conversation along...

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_subgenius]

Paging Mr. Sub-Genius,

Can we agree on a source for defining common words in a commonly accepted manner? I'd like to move our conversation along...

V/R
Dr. Cam

I do not think there is any dispute for sources of common words. However when using words that are specific to religious doctrine then it seems appropriate to use theological sources. Especially since common sources recognize such a distinction. Since this is a Mormon forum.....
I do not consider it reasonable for a non believer to define the terms subscribed to by a believer.

[Guest]

Paging Mr. Sub-Genius,

Can we agree on a source for defining common words in a commonly accepted manner? I'd like to move our conversation along...

V/R
Dr. Cam

I do not think there is any dispute for sources of common words. However when using words that are specific to religious doctrine then it seems appropriate to use theological sources. Especially since common sources recognize such a distinction. Since this is a Mormon forum.....
I do not consider it reasonable for a non believer to define the terms subscribed to by a believer.

Hello Sub-Genius,

Do you think the word 'omnipotent' is specific to religious doctrine, and can you prove that the editor of a commonly accepted source for definitions, such as Merriam-Webster, isn't a believer?

I don't think a non-believer is defining terms subscribed by a believer in this instance. I simply want us to agree to use a common accepted source that defines common words before we proceed*. Can you agree to this?

*The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't meet that criteria.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_subgenius]

Hello Sub-Genius,

Do you think the word 'omnipotent' is specific to religious doctrine, and can you prove that the editors of a commonly accepted source for definitions, such as Merriam-Webster, isn't a believer?

I don't think a non-believer is defining terms subscribed by a believer in this instance. I simply want us to agree to use a common accepted source that defines common words before we proceed*. Can you agree to this?

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't meet that criteria.

V/R
Dr. Cam

On this topic and on this forum the following qualifies as a common accepted source.

LDS.org

Because it is not just the word but your use of it that is pertinent to your post.

But i do admit that i am curious what you would use to define "all powerful".

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

But i do admit that i am curious what you would use to define "all powerful".

I would use the word "all-powerful" to define "all powerful" since it's a commonly used word defined as such in a commonly used dictionary such as the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Source:

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/all-powerful

all–pow·er·ful adjective

: having complete power : able to do anything

example:

▪ She believes in an all-powerful God.

often used in an exaggerated way to describe people or organizations that are very powerful:

▪ the all-powerful committee ▪ an all-powerful leader

So. Can we agree that the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia and LDS.org aren't commonly accepted sources used to define words, and that we should default to commonly used sources to define words so we can move this conversation forward?

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Nedloh_Deraj]

Dr Cam,

What is the supposed point of this thread? I saw a valid question at the start looking at whether God is subject to the laws of nature or if he is able to overrule them as and when he likes. If you want an answer to that question, then I'll give you one, but what I don't get is why you are asking Mormons about their beliefs in God's omnipotence and yet refuse to accept the definition commonly used by Mormons for the term.

I think what subgenius is saying, is that omnipotence is rightly about being able to do anything, but in the case of putting this into practice with a being who is also perfect, He would never choose to break the same laws that he has created. In essence, to retain His perfection and a reign of order, rather thn chaos, He is limited to operate within the rules He has created. On the other hand, He is also omniscient and therefore, knows how to use the laws of nature to do things that to humans would seem to be impossible without breaking the laws of nature. Those things only seem impossible and are often called 'miracles' because of the limitations of the knowledge gained by humankind so far and their inability to comprehend them.

Deraj

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

What is the supposed point of this thread? I saw a valid question at the start looking at whether God is subject to the laws of nature or if he is able to overrule them as and when he likes. If you want an answer to that question, then I'll give you one, but what I don't get is why you are asking Mormons about their beliefs in God's omnipotence and yet refuse to accept the definition commonly used by Mormons for the term.

Well, that's what I'm trying to understand. Is God omnipotent, OR is He constrained by the laws of the universe. That's it. Simple as that. I'm not interested in knowing whether or not He chooses to play by the rules He presumably put into place. If He chooses that, then that's fine.

What I want to know, according to LDS doctrine, is God omnipotent or not. I want to understand this not by redefining the word to fit a doctrine, but rather using the commonly accepted "all-powerful" when defining the word omnipotent, which, when commonly defined means "all powerful".

Additionally, when Sub-Genius stated in the highlighted portion:

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

I wanted him to clarify his position which he declined to do outside of simply redefining the "all powerful" to fit the doctrinal notion he presented, which is his god is not all powerful.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_DrW]

Dr Cam,

What is the supposed point of this thread? I saw a valid question at the start looking at whether God is subject to the laws of nature or if he is able to overrule them as and when he likes. If you want an answer to that question, then I'll give you one, but what I don't get is why you are asking Mormons about their beliefs in God's omnipotence and yet refuse to accept the definition commonly used by Mormons for the term.

I think what subgenius is saying, is that omnipotence is rightly about being able to do anything, but in the case of putting this into practice with a being who is also perfect, He would never choose to break the same laws that he has created. In essence, to retain His perfection and a reign of order, rather thn chaos, He is limited to operate within the rules He has created. On the other hand, He is also omniscient and therefore, knows how to use the laws of nature to do things that to humans would seem to be impossible without breaking the laws of nature. Those things only seem impossible and are often called 'miracles' because of the limitations of the knowledge gained by humankind so far and their inability to comprehend them.

Deraj

Oh, great. Here we go again. More twisted logic and doublespeak.

Welcome to MDB, Deraj.

Just noticed that the above is your first post here.

I will explain to you why it is that the version of reality described in your first post is illogical, internally inconsistent, self-contradictory and makes no sense whatsoever. But first, the URL below links to another thread on a related topic that you might want to look at if you have not done so already.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=27603&start=42