Thursday, September 23, 2021

PhD: Twitter quote 102

Photo: University of Wales, Trinity Saint David (UWTSD), official 

PhD: Twitter quote 102

Twitter version (part 1)

Phillips reasons it is not logically contradictory for one to ride a bicycle and therefore God should be able to do it and yet he cannot. (part 1 of 2)

Twitter version (part 2) 

(Phillips) Therefore, God is not omnipotent. (I disagree on omnipotence) (part 2 of 2)

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter 

Edited

Frame explains that God cannot perform logically contradictory actions,[1] as in making a square circle,[2] committing that which is immoral and sinful,[3] and interestingly, God cannot commit actions ‘appropriate only to finite creatures.’[4] This would include ‘buying shoes’ and ‘taking medicine for a cough.’[5]  Philosopher, D.Z. Phillips within The Problem of Evil and The Problem of God, disagrees with this basic notion and writes that since God cannot commit the actions of finite creatures such as ‘riding a bicycle’[6] he is not omnipotent.[7]  Phillips reasons it is not logically contradictory for one to ride a bicycle and therefore God should be able to do it and yet he cannot.[8] Therefore, God is not omnipotent.[9]

One approach to Phillip’s argument[10] is to admit that God, as non-finite, cannot commit finite actions[11] and is therefore not omnipotent[12] as classically reasoned by many within traditional thought.[13] A second approach is in agreement with Frame’s point that even though God cannot by nature commit the actions of finite creatures,[14] this does not disqualify God as being omnipotent within his infinite nature.[15] God’s lack of finiteness is actually a strength.[16] Frame states God could commit the type of finite actions discussed if he so desired by taking human form.[17]  I reason God could take human form to accomplish the task of riding a bicycle, as for example, God is stated in Genesis[18] to have walked and spoken[19] in the Garden of Eden.[20] Although I do not reason this is a ridiculous suggestion to deduce God could take bodily form[21] to walk or ride a bicycle,[22] it certainly would not be within God’s nature to typically ride a bicycle.[23]

Philips summarizes his view on God’s omnipotence in three points.[24] One, God would only be omnipotent if he could do anything that can be explained that is done without contradiction.[25] Two, he then reasons there are many countless activities that God without contradiction cannot do.[26] Three, his conclusion is that God is not omnipotent.[27]  Philips’ view can be accepted as reasonable and for some God’s omnipotence would need to be redefined.[28] However, I reason Frame’s explanation adequately offers the points that God can only do what is logically possible[29] and as well what is not contrary to his infinite and spiritual nature.[30]

Bibliography

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996)  Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy,  Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CAUTHEN, KENNETH (1997) ‘Theodicy’, in Frontier.net, Rochester, New York, Kenneth Cauthen, Professor of Theology, Emeritus, Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING  (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?,  Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

FRAME, JOHN M. (1999) ‘The Bible on the Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39’, IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium.

FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.),  Atlanta, John Knox Press.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005)  The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004)  Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence, Kansas. 

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology,  Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology,  Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

WRIGHT, R.K.McGREGOR (1996) No Place for Sovereignty,  Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

 


[1] Frame (2002: 518).  Erickson (1994: 277). Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 359-360 Volume 1).

[2] Frame (2002: 518).  Thiessen (1956: 126).

[3] Frame (2002: 518).  Thiessen (1956: 126). Weber (1955)(1981: 440).

[4] Frame (2002: 520).

[5] Frame (2002: 520).

[6] Phillips (2005: 113).

[7] Phillips (2005: 113).

[8] Phillips (2005: 113).

[9] Phillips (2005: 113). For Philips, God’s inability to do finite things is a weakness making God less than all-powerful.  For Frame it is a strength which maintains God as omnipotent.  Frame (2002: 520). 

[10] Phillips (2005: 113).

[11] Frame (2002: 520).  Phillips (2005: 113).

[12] Phillips (2005: 113).

[13] Cauthen (1997: 1).  Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 85-86).  Wright (1996: 278).

[14] Frame (2002: 520).  Phillips (2005: 113).

[15] Frame (2002: 520).  A traditional perspective would not view the lack of finite nature of God as a negation, but God would be understood in the positive sense as not lacking power by being infinite.

[16] Frame (2002: 520).  With Phillips’ view, God could be considered less than omnipotent with my own example I provide here, because it is not illogical for a being to sleep, and God cannot sleep.  However, it could be stated that it is a strength for God to not need to sleep or be able to sleep.

[17] Frame (2002: 520).  Phillips would more than likely view this as an ‘absurd suggestion’ with no contextual warrant, as he describes similar attempts to counter his argument.  Phillips (2005: 113).

[18] Genesis 3: 8 in The New American Standard Version Bible Version (1984: 4). 

[19] Old Testament scholar Victor P. Hamilton reasons this could be taken from a literal (to some degree) reading. Hamilton (1982: 48).

[20] I realize there is debate on the creation story in Genesis concerning whether it is to be taken as plain literal, figurative literal, myth or a combination of approaches.  La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush reason there is definitely metaphorical language in Genesis. La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72).  My example does serve well as agreement with Frame’s point, however.  Aspects of Genesis will be further discussed within this thesis.

[21] Hamilton (1982: 48).

[22] Phillips (2005: 113).

[23] Phillips (2005: 113).

[24] Philips (2005: 11).

[25] Philips (2005: 11).

[26] Philips (2005: 11).  Frame (2002: 518-520).   I of course offered Frame’s response to this view, and my own. 

[27] Philips (2005: 11). 

[28] Traditional perspectives would still reason that God’s omnipotence need not be redefined as a lack of finiteness would demonstrate God’s lack of impotency.

[29] Frame (2002: 518).  Erickson (1994: 277). Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 359-360 Volume 1).  Blackburn (1996: 268). 

[30] Frame (2002: 520).   Erickson (1994: 277).  Thiessen (1956: 126).  Weber (1955)(1981: 440).  David Hume within Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion questions this traditional understanding of an omnipotent supreme being as human limitations make God’s attributes ‘totally incomprehensible.’  Hume (1779)(2004: 21).

Saturday, September 19, 2020>>>PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD 


No comments:

Post a Comment