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

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

GOD does not see our physical world the way we do. why would we question this. We feel accomplished and are celebrated when we make a yummy dish of food. By Our puny knowledge of the world around us it would seem so. I have seen things in the natural healing world that would seem like magic to most people. The way those people understand our world it is common sense to them. So to answer that question with any intelligence at all one would have to be able to see the physical world through the same perspective GOD does. This is where Faith is needed. Understand you, in this life will never even begin to understand some of these mysteries.

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

V/R
Doctor Cameron, North Carolina for Me

[_subgenius]

So, is God subject to the laws of nature, or is He omnipotent?

False dichotomy

By your own insistence, there is a natural law that defines omnipotence. You are perpetuating nonsense. One could argue that He is not subject to natural law but its not omnipotent.
Exactly what are you proposing as a discussion?

I am of the opinion that you do not possess the information to have a sincere discussion about which came first, God or the Law?

[_redi2ride]

I would say he Is subject to HIS laws/Truth. In which he can do anything at HIS will. HIS will is only in righteousness. which means he WILL not act in evil. Making HIS power under natural law. Saying he is Omnipotent would be saying that God could turn evil and exercise evil at will also. Can he? If it is GOD doing evil is it still evil or just Gods will to destroy and maim truth and innocents?.. You see how this will just go in circles? There are just some things We as man are not equipped to understand. That's part of Growing up and being a man of God. Knowing when to understand that your question has nothing to do with Your or anyone else's Salvation. So, It's really non of your business. LOL.

[_DrW]

Neither of your references contradict my statement. Neither of your references demonstrate that God is subject to anything, let alone natural law.

You really should read both my post and your references again, except this time for comprehension.

So, are you claiming that God is not subject to natural law but has decided to operate within natural law anyway (as taught by James Talmage, Joseph F. Smith and John A. Widsoe)? This would seem a bit presumptuous on your part.

[Guest]

So, is God subject to the laws of nature, or is He omnipotent?

False dichotomy

By your own insistence, there is a natural law that defines omnipotence. You are perpetuating nonsense. One could argue that He is not subject to natural law but its not omnipotent.
Exactly what are you proposing as a discussion?

I am of the opinion that you do not possess the information to have a sincere discussion about which came first, God or the Law?

subgenius,

Looks as if you are headed off the rails here, my friend.

Are you now arguing that God is not subject to natural laws but is not omnipotent? Earlier, I had the distinct impression that you were claiming that God is not subject to natural laws and is omnipotent. Then, as described in the post above, there was the implication that God is not subject to natural law but, for some unfathomable reason, has decided to work within natural law anyway.

Which is it?

Surely you are not just making this up as you go along, are you?

[_ludwigm]

So, is God subject to the laws of nature, or is He omnipotent?

False dichotomy

By your own insistence, there is a natural law that defines omnipotence. You are perpetuating nonsense. One could argue that He is not subject to natural law but its not omnipotent.
Exactly what are you proposing as a discussion?

I am of the opinion that you do not possess the information to have a sincere discussion about which came first, God or the Law?

Please define Your viewpoint - if there is such thing. If it is a false dichotomy, and there were plus 12 possibility, list them. Please...
"False dichotomy (also called the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option."

Up to now, I've read from You only this type of patterns:
"your own insistence"
"You are perpetuating nonsense"
"One could argue"
"what are you proposing"
"you do not possess the information"

Have YOU anything but personal attacks?
Have YOU one private thought, outside of gainsay?

by the way there is nobody on my enemy list, neither You. Fortunately, I read very fast. I can decide after two sentence that the next dozens should be skimmed. Or many times they should be skipped (this is a hidden foe's list in my brain...).

[Guest]

Well, what's interesting to me is if there's a false dichotomy with the OP then Sub-Genius' statement proves one half the proposition in that God is not All-Powerful. Anything but All-Powerful means one is not All-Powerful, but Partly-Powerful.

Sub-Genius,

Now if you switched positions and you're positing that God is not All-Powerful, even though He's supranatural?

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_DrW]

Well, what's interesting to me is if there's is a false dichotomy with the OP then Sub-Genius' statement proves one half the proposition in that God is not All-Powerful. Anything but All-Powerful means one is not All-Powerful, but Partly-Powerful.

Sub-Genius,

Now if you switched positions and you're positing that God is not All-Powerful, even though He's supranatural?

V/R
Dr. Cam

Subgenius has apparently not thought through his position here very well. Without a shred of evidence to back up one's position, it is hard to remain consistent in one's claims or denials regarding said position.

I find it especially interesting that subgenius is willing to throw the likes of James Talmage, Joseph F. Smith and John A. Widsoe under the bus in an attempt to remain consistent in his position on the topic of the OP (which position, by the way, is still not clear to me - or to anyone else I would guess).

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Subgenius has apparently not thought through his position here very well. Without a shred of evidence to back up one's position, it is hard to remain consistent in one's claims or denials regarding said position.

I find it especially interesting that subgenius is willing to throw the likes of James Talmage, Joseph F. Smith and John A. Widsoe under the bus in an attempt to remain consistent in his position on the topic of the OP (which position, by the way, is still not clear to me - or to anyone else I would guess).

I think this is the existential dilemma for Mormon apologists. They have to become heretics in order to defend the very thing they're trying to save. In other words, they reject what they embrace.

It makes for a psychologically fascinating picture.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Bhodi]

Subgenius has apparently not thought through his position here very well. Without a shred of evidence to back up one's position, it is hard to remain consistent in one's claims or denials regarding said position.

I find it especially interesting that subgenius is willing to throw the likes of James Talmage, Joseph F. Smith and John A. Widsoe under the bus in an attempt to remain consistent in his position on the topic of the OP (which position, by the way, is still not clear to me - or to anyone else I would guess).

I think this is the existential dilemma for Mormon apologists. They have to become heretics in order to defend the very thing they're trying to save. In other words, they reject what they embrace.

It makes for a psychologically fascinating picture.

V/R
Dr. Cam

Why? Why is beating up on subgenius psychologically fascinating in anything other than the animosity that is being directed towards him?

The nature of God has been debated and discussed for millennia, and will likely be discussed for further millennia. This has been done through discussion, meditation, and in the case of Sufi Dervishes, through interpretative dance (my personal favorite). As mankind advances in knowledge, there will be attempts to reconcile previous beliefs with further scientific understanding. Subgenius is exercising his right to further this discourse through his own thoughts, I see no reason to criticize this.
Mormonism, to its credit, is certainly open to further understanding, particularly in light of scientific advances. Why is this heresy?