It’s rather amusing to see unbelievers level mutually exclusive objections to the Christian faith. I’ve commented on this once before, but to take a different example:
On the one hand, when unbelievers are mounting the argument from evil or the argument from divine hiddenness, they appeal to divine omnipotence. Surely God would make a better world. He could improve the world by intervening more often. By suspending or bypassing the laws of nature. He could make his existence more evident tot all by arranging the stars to spell out Jn 3:16. Things like that.
Not only could he do so, but if he really existed, this is what he would and should be doing. God is unbelievable because an omnipotent God should be far more generous with his signs and wonders.
On the other hand, when unbelievers are attacking YEC or the Resurrection or dominical exorcisms or Biblical miracles generally, they reverse course by appealing to the uniformity of nature and the laws of nature.
Such events are unbelievable because they’re too supernatural. They invoke too many miracles, thereby violating the laws of nature and disrupting the uniformity of nature. We must always presume methodological naturalism.
Apparently, militant unbelievers need to hold a private retreat in order to decide among themselves why they don’t believe in Christianity. Is it because the Christian worldview is too ordinary or too extraordinary? Too miraculous or too providential?
After they report back to us on which objection they’ve finally agreed to use, we’ll be happy to respond in kind.
Perfect timing, I was just ruminating over this due to some issues within our church.
ReplyDeleteYou are manufacturing a fake contradiction. Nice try but to say God could, for example, make an amputees arm miraculously grow back whenever one entered a church and to point out the lack of credible evidence for the miraculous events christians claim to have occurred in ancient times is hardly a contradiction.
ReplyDeleteWhich is, of course, utterly obvious.
You're confusing internal critiques and external critiques. Objections raised against Christianity which extrapolate the logical implications of notions such as 'omnipotence' are clearly applying Christianity's own declarations against itself. It's not at all difficult to do this; believers simply retreat into denial. Objections raised against Christianity which cite, for instance, the uniformity of nature, simply point out that what Christianity claims is contrary to what we find in reality. So there is no contradiction in taking both courses of objection here.
ReplyDelete"Apparently, militant unbelievers need to hold a private retreat in order to decide among themselves why they don’t believe in Christianity. Is it because the Christian worldview is too ordinary or too extraordinary? Too miraculous or too providential?"
It is because Christianity is internally inconsistent (borne out by internal critiques) and inconsistent with what we discover in reality (e.g., no evidence for the miracle stories affirmed in the bible, etc.). Noting both flaws in no way indicates a contradictory approach.
Tax Czar said:
ReplyDelete---
Objections raised against Christianity which extrapolate the logical implications of notions such as 'omnipotence' are clearly applying Christianity's own declarations against itself.
---
Except for the pesky little problem of never allowing Christianity to define "omnipotence." Every instance I've ever read where atheists attempt a critique based on God's omnipotence, they use their own definition of omnipotence, not the Bible's.
Perhaps you could be the first to do otherwise by demonstrating the "clear" logical problem?
PP: "Except for the pesky little problem of never allowing Christianity to define "omnipotence."
ReplyDeleteNo one is preventing Christianity from defining 'omnipotence'.
PP: "Every instance I've ever read where atheists attempt a critique based on God's omnipotence, they use their own definition of omnipotence,"
This is autobiographical. Perhaps you should get out and read some more.
PP: "not the Bible's."
Please state the Bible's definition of 'omnipotence' for the record, noting the chapter and verse if you will.
Peter Pike:
ReplyDelete"Except for the pesky little problem of never allowing Christianity to define "omnipotence." Every instance I've ever read where atheists attempt a critique based on God's omnipotence, they use their own definition of omnipotence, not the Bible's."
Just wondering, here -- what is the Bible's definition of "omnipotence"? I always thought it meant that an omnipotent being could do whatever it decides to do. Does the Bible use a different definition?
The Bible's definition of omnipotence is worthy of a lengthy book in itself. There's no cut-and-dry definition, which is what is so ironic about Peter's complaint. To whatever extent that Christians are willing to give "omnipotence" a definition, it will be full of qualifications and exceptions, many of which are held in reserve to be toted out when the going gets rough.
ReplyDeleteI would love to believe in the supernatural. I have no problem believing that God could invoke as many miracles as he wishes. The problem is that we have never seen him so such a thing, so we generally do not believe it when miracles are claimed.
ReplyDeleteI wrote an article on this the other day, called 'My Miraculous Hangup'. A am a Christian, although a doubting one, and it is written from that perspective. I welcome your comments.
http://heissailing.edublogs.org/2007/02/11/my-miraculous-hangup
david b. ellis said...
ReplyDelete"You are manufacturing a fake contradiction. Nice try but to say God could, for example, make an amputees arm miraculously grow back whenever one entered a church and to point out the lack of credible evidence for the miraculous events christians claim to have occurred in ancient times is hardly a contradiction. Which is, of course, utterly obvious."
Yet another illustration of ellis' lack of mental discipline. What he's done here is to ignore my actual argument, substitute a different example, impute that to me as if this were equivalent to my original argument, then attack his own stawman argument which he imputed to me, in substitution for what I really wrote. When an opponent has his wires that badly crossed, I don't think that even an electrician could repair it. Time to toss the fusebox into the dumpster and start from scratch.
tax czar said...
"You're confusing internal critiques and external critiques. Objections raised against Christianity which extrapolate the logical implications of notions such as 'omnipotence' are clearly applying Christianity's own declarations against itself. It's not at all difficult to do this."
If it's not at all difficult to do this, then why don't you do it? You have not shown that extrapolating the logical implications of omnipotence generates an internal contradiction.
"Objections raised against Christianity which cite, for instance, the uniformity of nature, simply point out that what Christianity claims is contrary to what we find in reality."
Two more errors:
i) You are merely asserting that Christian claims run contrary to what we find in reality. Where's your argument?
ii) Even if this were true, it misses the point of what I said. I was comparing one set of objections to another set of objects. How do they correspond with *each other*, not how do they correspond with *reality*.
And if they don't correspond with reality, then, at best, only one could correspond with reality, while both could fail to correspond with reality.
"It is because Christianity is internally inconsistent (borne out by internal critiques)."
Which internal critiques?
"And inconsistent with what we discover in reality (e.g., no evidence for the miracle stories affirmed in the bible, etc.)."
Two more problems:
i) To say there's no evidence for Biblical miracles is yet another assertion absent a supporting argument.
ii) Even if there would no evidence (corroborating evidence?), absence of evidence is not *inconsistent* with reality. Absence of evidence is not a form of contrary evidence. It doesn't contradict reality. At most, it would be neutral. Lack of evidence is not synonymous with counterevidence.
"Please state the Bible's definition of 'omnipotence' for the record, noting the chapter and verse if you will."
I think that misses the point of what Peter was saying:
i) You won't find many *formal* definitions of anything in Scripture. But what you will find are many descriptions and other statements which supply the raw material for Bible-based definitions.
ii) Contrariwise, the unbeliever is often attacking the Bible on the basis of terms whose definition has no connection whatsoever with the Biblical depiction of God.
Indeed, they often define their terms in a way that has no connection with philosophical theology.
Rather, they generally operate with purely etymological definitions or secularized definitions.
yusef said...
"To whatever extent that Christians are willing to give 'omnipotence' a definition, it will be full of qualifications and exceptions, many of which are held in reserve to be toted out when the going gets rough."
This is a silly statement:
i) To begin with, we don't have a classified theological lexicon which we whip out when the going gets tough. There are standard definitions in systematic and philosophical theology. And these are part of the public domain.
ii) Yes, the definition is qualified. Philosophical and dogmatic usage is always qualified. These are terms of art, like scientific nomenclature.
iii) The definition is qualified to bring it into agreement with the Scriptural doctrine of God.
Omnipotence: God's ability to do all his holy will.
ReplyDeleteNow, where's the internal critique?
This just in from the Rational Response Squad:
ReplyDeleteYo, ya'll be showin ur mentul duhseez Christianity wen u be sayin stuff about omnipuhtents. Its just dont makes no nonsents, ya know?
So if yous guys wants to duhbate this stuff, jus try comming on hour sho. jus try takin on da six of us's. Lettuce know if ur duhseez dont make u skared two.
Senseerly,
Duh Rashunul Responz Sqwod
tundaz said:
ReplyDelete---
No one is preventing Christianity from defining 'omnipotence'.
---
Which misses the point. The definition used in the debates is never the one the Christian would use.
tundaz said:
---
This is autobiographical. Perhaps you should get out and read some more.
---
A) Of course it was autobiographical. That's the way it was intended.
B) I'm not going to waste my time trying to track down the one who didn't do this; you track it down and you point him out to me. The atheist is the one trying to demonstrate the tension, not me.
tundaz said:
---
Please state the Bible's definition of 'omnipotence' for the record, noting the chapter and verse if you will.
---
This subject will be something I'll post on later.
Please state the Bible's definition of 'omnipotence' for the record, noting the chapter and verse if you will.
ReplyDelete---
This subject will be something I'll post on later.
---
The Bible's definition of omnipotence needs an entire post???
Gray Mouser said:Just wondering, here -- what is the Bible's definition of "omnipotence"? I always thought it meant that an omnipotent being could do whatever it decides to do. Does the Bible use a different definition?
ReplyDeleteTundaz said:
Please state the Bible's definition of 'omnipotence' for the record, noting the chapter and verse if you will.
yusef said...
"To whatever extent that Christians are willing to give 'omnipotence' a definition, it will be full of qualifications and exceptions, many of which are held in reserve to be toted out when the going gets rough."
Steve said:To begin with, we don't have a classified theological lexicon which we whip out when the going gets tough. There are standard definitions in systematic and philosophical theology. And these are part of the public domain.
Steve is quite correct. It's not as if there isn't a mountain of information on this going back for centuries. One would think that if any person was to mount a critique of it, he would actually, you know, do his homework. Like I said, "Cookie Cutter Christianity..."
FYI:
II. The Attributes, or Qualities of the Divine Nature.
This is an important topic, for it is chiefly by a knowledge of the attributes of God that an acquaintance with his nature and perfections is obtained. Consequently, in the Scriptures whereby God has made himself known to man, much is said about the attributes of the divine nature, and in the Standards prominence is given to the same thing. The Shorter Catechism, in its matchless answer to the question: What is God? gives the main categories of the divine attributes. The Larger Catechism, and still more the Confession, enlarges this description considerably.
A difficulty will be felt in the confessional statement of the attributes by almost any one who tries to define and classify them. As a matter of fact, no classification of the attributes is attempted in the Standards, nor is there given any definition of what an attribute is. And some qualities which denote certain aspects of the essence are regarded as attributes, and this increases the difficulty. In a general way an attribute may be defined as some quality which pertains to the essence or activity of God. This supplies a twofold general division of the attributes: the one essential, pertaining to the essence; and the other determining, pertaining to the activity of God. But such a division is not formally followed in the Standards, and so, for the sake of simplicity, it may be better to gather their teaching around the definition of the Shorter Catechism. This opens up a fourfold division.
1. Attributes which pertain to the essential nature of God, and which qualify all the other attributes. From this point of view God is immutable, or unchangeable, which means that his essential nature is not subject to any mutation. Immensity is also an attribute of the essence of God. This is the basis of his omnipresence, which means that he is everywhere present. God is also eternal, which simply denotes the fact that his being has had no beginning, and shall have no end. He is from everlasting to everlasting. Then he is incomprehensible, which expresses the idea that the essential nature of God cannot be fully understood. God is also almighty and glorious, which means that he possesses all power, and is clad with all glory. This is the basis of his omnipotence, which is his power over all things, boundless and free, rendering him all glorious. These are the chief essential attributes of God mentioned in the Standards.
That's from the Westminster Shorter Catechism commentary by Francis Beatie.
I would also point you to Geerhardus Vos’ Commentary on the Larger Catechism, Chapters 1-9. Find a copy and then answer this question:
Does God’s omnipotence (or being all-powerful) teach he can do all things? Are there some things God cannot do?
Also see here:http://www.biblicaltheology.org/
omnipotence.pdf
Here as well, by D.H. Kuiper:
http://www.reformedwitness.org/pmphltlst/Attributes/
Omnipotence.html
If that won't do, then run to Borders Books and look in Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology book. I know the one in Winston-Salem, NC has several copies of the book. Surely Gray Mouser can make the effort to find one. There is a definition there: God's ability to do all His holy will. The explanation is in chapter 13 of the text of Systematic Theology.
You might also try Stephen Charnock's Existence and Attributes of God, chapter 2.
Then there is Sam Storms article here:
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article.asp?
id=239
There's a plethora of material here:http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/
Godattributes.html
Now, if you can find where Christian theology is at a substantive variance on this, if that is what is being inferred by the request to show the Bible's own definition, then by all means have a go at historical theology to show these variances. These texts, bar the Socinians, are texts about which there is substantial consensus between Protestants and Catholics, Calvinists and Arminians, etc.
Cebaquip said:
ReplyDelete---
The Bible's definition of omnipotence needs an entire post???
---
No, the idea that Christians need to provide a narrowly constricted definition so as to satisfy an atheist's deceptive request is what got an entire post.
Thank you, GeneMBridges for the definition(s) and the link(s).
ReplyDeleteGiven the simplest definition: “God’s ability to do all His Holy Will” can you explain what Steve meant, in the original blog entry by contradictory appeals to omnipotence in the skeptics argument on the Problem of Suffering as compared to a non-believer’s skepticism as to the claims of miracles? Isn’t this word, “omnipotence” focusing on ability, rather than motivation?
It seems to me (and I may be reading this incorrectly) that Steve was arguing more of a contradictory appeal to naturalism—i.e. demanding supernatural intervention in the Problem of suffering, whereas demanding naturalism on stories of miracles. I am unclear how it is a contradiction on omnipotence.
Thanks.