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

[_subgenius]

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

V/R
Doctor Cameron, North Carolina for Me

Ok, for the sake of staying on track, let us re visit the OP.
1. the premise is flawed
2. Not being subject to the laws of nature does not necessarily conclude with a claim of omnipotence.
3. Not being subject to the laws of nature but being subject to "other" laws does not exclude a claim of omnipotence.
4. The use of the term omnipotent is ambiguous in the context of the OP because of the inaccurate contrast being implied by "being subject to the laws of nature".

If the use of the concept of the laws of nature allows for there to be supernatural laws then God is omnipotent in the broadest definition.

It is without exception that one can state that God is NOT subject to natural law.
God is also omnipotent.

The OP is absurd except as it may be used as a point of departure.

[Guest]

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".

Simply put, He is omnipotent according to your definition and not constrained by the laws of the universe, in that He is all-powerful and is free to do as He wills. He is also omnipotent according to the definition provided by Sub-Genius, as the definitions do not actually contradict, the only difference being an additional clarification to the second definition. There is a difference between being all-powerful and being able to do anything i.e. both good and evil concurrently.

I will clarify for you further on in this reply how He is not constrained by the laws of the universe and yet how He is omnipotent according to the definition provided by Sub-Genius.

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

The highlighted portion reads;
"He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent"

The quote is from St. Augustine. He puts it that although God "can neither die nor fall into error" He is omnipotent. I agree with the concept that St. Augustine is putting across here, but to play devil's advocate I will be pedantic and pick at the point that St. Augustine claims God cannot die or fall into error. Yes, He can die and He can fall into error. He can die, if He chooses to change the order of things as they are, which He may if He so wills it. He can die by breaking the laws as they currently are. He has the knowledge and capability to do so, bu why would He? seeing He would die in that particular example? I would imagine a perfect being not "falling" immediately, as if by accident, but consciously choosing to err, but then by doing so He would no longer be perfect (and no longer God), so He would then be well able to fall into error from that point onwards, should He still exist. I agree with the concept that St. Augustine is trying to put across, that God is limited by His nature, in so much that He will not choose evil or chaos.

Edit: Omnipotence can only be achieved (achieved is probably not the right word?) with consistency. You cannot be perfect in any one sense (such as power) without being perfect at one end of the spectrum or another in terms of morals. Therefore, God, all-powerful, cannot be both good and evil concurrently, but being all-powerful, He can now for the future choose to do evil, contrary to His prior goodness up to this point, if He so chooses at the risk of changing everything.

God chooses to live according to law and order, but this does not mean He is therefore unable to choose anything other than this if he wills it. The consequences of this however, would be a change in the order of absolutely everything to say the least. According to the Testaments, and my personal testimony of their divine source and my experiences in dealing with God, I can tell you with certainty that He never wills to break a law and it is not in His nature, so although there is no outside force and nothing within Him lacking that restricts Him in doing anything, He just would not, or else He would cease to be God.

I hope I have not misrepresented what Sub-Genius' position on this is, but I believe he shares the same position as I.

[_DrW]

It is without exception that one can state that God is NOT subject to natural law.

subgenius,

There you go again. You should really look this stuff up before you write it down.

Joseph F. Smith in "Man and his Origins" (1954, pp 484) wrote that every miracle performed by Jesus was "done on natural principles and in obedience to natural law."

Elder Talmage made the same claim in "Jesus the Christ", wherein he said that "miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law".

Of course, I understand how you feel that you may know more about modern Mormon doctrine than these two deceased Church leaders. After all, Mormon doctrine seems to change at a fairly constant rate. Still, the statements of these Church leaders, deceased or not, would appear to Trump you claim that God is NOT subject to natural law.

Perhaps you are in the wrong Church.

[Guest]

Simply put, He is omnipotent according to your definition and not constrained by the laws of the universe, in that He is all-powerful and is free to do as He wills.

Perhaps you should have a look at the above quoted statements by J.F. Smith and Elder Talmage. Your statement above and the similar statement by subgenius are in directly contradiction to what these Church leaders have said. This kind of religionist rhetoric is make-it-up-as-you-go-along mumbo jumbo. There is no evidence to support your statement, whatsoever.

[_Nedloh_Deraj]

It is without exception that one can state that God is NOT subject to natural law.

subgenius,

There you go again. You should really look this stuff up before you write it down.

Joseph F. Smith in "Man and his Origins" (1954, pp 484) wrote that every miracle performed by Jesus was "done on natural principles and in obedience to natural law."

Elder Talmage made the same claim in "Jesus the Christ", wherein he said that "miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law".

Of course, I understand how you feel that you may know more about modern Mormon doctrine than these two deceased Church leaders. After all, Mormon doctrine seems to change at a fairly constant rate. Still, the statements of these Church leaders, deceased or not, would appear to Trump you claim that God is NOT subject to natural law.

Perhaps you are in the wrong Church.

That's a little rash isn't it? Suggesting that someone change their entire belief system based on your assumption that you are correct and there is no way that Sub-Genius would be able to come back on what you have said. You may find that when you are taken down off your high-horse, that it doesn't feel so good...

I think what Sub-Genius is saying is that God can choose to do as He likes and so is not subject to natural law, but what Joseph F. Smith and Talmage are getting across to their audiences serves a different purpose, showing their audiences that God is not a law unto Himself, as He chooses to abide by the order of the universe that He created.

[_Nedloh_Deraj]

Simply put, He is omnipotent according to your definition and not constrained by the laws of the universe, in that He is all-powerful and is free to do as He wills.

The two parts of the above statement are contradictory and, in fact, mutually exclusive. This kind of religionist rhetoric is make-it-up-as-you-go-along mumbo jumbo. Please see my post above.

Seen your post above and retorted appropriately.

Please explain how and in what sense is the quoted statement of mine, contradictory. Is not omnipotence about being subject to nothing? That's what I said in both parts of the sentence. Maybe you mis-read it the first time. If so I'll overlook your error.

[_DrW]

[quote="Nedloh_Deraj"]

Deraj,

Misread your post and changed mine in response. I see that I did not do so quickly enough.

[_Nedloh_Deraj]

Deraj,

Misread your post and changed mine in response. I see that I did not do so quickly enough.

No bother... easily done. I've done it before on another forum.

[_DrW]

Deraj and subgenius,

Either God is subject to the laws of the Universe or he is not. What you seem to be claiming is that there is one set of natural laws for humankind and a different set for God.

I trust you can see that this position is no different than claiming that God represents magic in the Universe.

You must be able to see that once you claim that your god is magic, instead of some advanced being who operates within natural law (as claimed by Talmage, Smith and others), then every other magical god from all of human history has as much claim to the truth as yours does. If anything is possible, then everything is possible.

[_Nedloh_Deraj]

Deraj and subgenius,

Either God is subject to the laws of the Universe or he is not. What you seem to be claiming is that there is one set of natural laws for humankind and a different set for God.

I trust you can see that this position is no different than claiming that God represents magic in the Universe.

You must be able to see that once you claim that your god is magic, instead of some advanced being who operates within natural law (as claimed by Talmage, Smith and others), then every other magical god from all of human history has as much claim to the truth as yours does. If anything is possible, then everything is possible.

DrW,

I think you are right about the magic, but what we must not forget is that never has magic been performed that did not have a rational explanation behind it, but sometimes the explanation is not commonly known.

What if there are no laws of the universe in the eyes of God, because He knows so much that any laws as we perceive them do not get in the way of anything He does? What do you think of that? possible? If he can command the atoms and particles of the universe to do His will based on the knowledge and power He has, then at what point does He no longer have a command of things? Maybe there is no point at which He has no command of things, because He knows absolutely everything. Who says that once you know everything, there are still some things that are impossible? Isn't that your position as an atheist, that the laws of the universe are such that they actually restrict despite perfect knowledge being attained?