God’s “Yes” and Omnipotence

Atheist: (beginning of conversation)

Can God be omnipotent?

I will pose a series of philosophical-theological questions and answers and would like anyone to comment on them as they see fit. The topic is as follows: If we take as a given fact that God is omnipotent (in the simple and broader sense that omnipotent is the one who can do EVERYTHING), then the following questions are posed:

1)    Can God, as omnipotent, eliminate his own existence?

2)     If not, the term omnipotent does not apply.

3)     If it does, can he re-create his existence?

    The third question is contradictory, because from the moment he doesn’t exist, how can he create his own existence? Therefore it follows in the third question that: If yes, he cannot re-create his existence. So, do we remain at the question of can he or can’t he?

4)     Can the term ‘omnipotent’ apply literally, or only metaphorically?

 
Christian:

My dear friend, God is LITERALLY OMNIPOTENT. Christian theology has already given its reply to your questions. These questions are called “God’s Yes” by theology.  I will mention a few things here, which, for you to understand, you must first know the difference between “essence” and “hypostasis”, the notion of God’s “unchanging status”, but also the theology of freedom. In the hope that you are familiar with this terminology, I will set out the things that follow. (Whatever you don’t understand, you can ask me and we can analyze it further). For now, we will briefly examine the meaning of “denial” of God.

We must first say that we cannot refer to God with human terms. Our existence begins with limited freedoms.

We have the potential to exercise freedom – at least there is the temptation – to exercise our freedom negatively, because our existence is attributed to someone else and hence we react to this existence. In the case of God, how can God be free? How can God exercise His freedom, if His existence is not attributed to something else?

There is only one way that He can exercise it: in an affirmative, positive way. To God, freedom is a one-way street; it is always affirmation.  God doesn’t say “no”, since everything is a given fact by Him. His freedom is only affirmative; That is why God’s freedom is expressed in His Triadic existence. The freedom of the Father is expressed by His saying ‘yes’ to the Son and the Son saying “yes” to the Father. This is the “yes-yes” that Paul mentions, when he says that Christ brought us the “yes” (Corinthians II, 1:19). You cannot say “no” in the bounds of a freedom that is not attributed to a given existence; one that is not given from the outside. With God, nothing comes “from the outside”; Even His own Self, His own existence, are not the result of his essence, but His Free volition.

His existence therefore is not in the least obligatory, because otherwise He would not have been free. If we are ever deprived of the ability to say “no”, we cease to be free. Because for us, whose existence is something given to us, there must exist the option of saying “no” to whatever is given to us “from the outside”. But for God, there is no reason for Him to choose; freedom is not exercised by God as a choice of His. It is exercised affirmatively, and only in the sense of love, in the affirmative sense.

Now if we apply this to the human existence, now realized as the likeness of God or as revealed in Christ or as it is to be fulfilled eschatologically in the state of theosis, we shall see that there too, freedom (as developed extensively by saint Maximus) is a one-way street. Affirmative only.  Freedom is not the ‘yes’ and the ‘no’. It is only the ‘yes’. The relative passage in Corinthians II is most revealing.

 As Paul says in there, “Jesus Christ, the one who was among us and was proclaimed by us, did not become ‘yes’ and ‘no’; He became ‘yes’ Himself. (Corinthians II 1:19) God’s ‘yes’ and Christ’s ‘yes’ now represent the freedom of affirmation. This side of existence called freedom also springs from- or rather, is illuminated by – the Triadic dogma. And how is it illuminated? With what conclusion? The conclusion is that there is only one way to exercise freedom, to show you are free, and that is by LOVE; The positive attitude towards another being – other than yourself; to freely say that I acknowledge that this exists for me, and that it becomes a part of my existence.

That is how the Trinity exists. The Father freely accepts that He wants to have a Son and freely has a Son. God exercises His freedom when the Father begets the Son and sends forth the Spirit. And He exercises it in one and only form: as love, as an affirmative action and not a negative one. His negative freedom would have been His ability to say that He Himself doesn’t exist; to deny Himself.  But he would have said that, only if the essence had preceded Him, and had defined His existence.

I hope this covered your enquiry. I would like to use this opportunity here, to say that God has no need of anyone, much less His creations. We are all a product of His love, and His very existence, His very essence is a product of Free Love.  You might ask me: But what kind of love is this? Towards Himself? Well, this is where Triadic theology comes in, and leaves no problems unanswered. Because God is one essence with three personae. There is the endo-triadic love, where the Father loves the Son and the Holy Spirit and is likewise loved by Them, just as They love each other.  Thus, this triadic love is neither “bi-polar” nor unilateral and “exclusive”; it DIFFUSES itself, without exclusivities, even towards creation.  And in keeping in mind that God not only isn’t a man – so that He might feel lonely – and that He is also TIMELESS and UNCHANGING and exists as a COMMUNITY OF PERSONAE, there is no issue of loneliness or of dependence on creation, as He isn’t even subject to time, the way we are.

 

Another participant (1^st partcipant):

CAN GOD HAVE THREE HYPOSTASES?

Christian:

Why not, if that’s how He wants it?

Atheist:

My dear “Christian’ friend.  With the reply you gave me, you covered me partially in quite a few of my questions, but allow me to ask for a few more clarifications on the following.   You say that: “We must first say that we cannot refer to God with human terms. Our existence begins with limited freedoms”

First of all, I can accept that our existence begins with limited freedoms, but only with regard to our actions, not our expression. I consider it a given fact that we don’t have freedom of actions, not because of society, but because of natural laws. But I disagree that we can’t speak of God with human terms, because I believe that with our vocabulary (especially the Greek one….’racist’, eh?) we can describe every single thing, be it human or not. If I am mistaken, please give me a characteristic example.

From what you say, you are making me understand that God is free (you have proven that it isn’t possible for Him not to be free); that His freedom is exercised positively, affirmatively and only as love, and generally, that freedom for God is a one-way street and that He cannot say ‘no’ since everything is for granted because of Him.

On the basis therefore of all the above (which I accept), the answer to my question is YES.  God cannot say ‘no’, because EVERYTHING is for granted thanks to Him.  So, it must be for granted that He can eliminate His own existence. (Note: I’m not asking if He wants to, but if He can).

With this opportunity, I will pose another question that arose from your answer. Bearing in mind the following two things:

1)    that God is omnipotent and perfect and

2)    that you said “God has no need of anyone, much less His creations”

my question is: What need did God – a perfect existence – have, to create us? I am of course keeping in  mind that we are all products of His love, but, from the moment that He is considered to be perfect, it means He has no such need. Hence, no need to create anything and also no need to express His love. In simple terms, if He is indeed perfect, He has no reason to do anything whatsoever.

Christian:

Created and Uncreated, "I want" and "I can"

Dear ‘atheist’, the subject of freedom is much ‘broader’ that that which we have learnt to consider as meaning ‘liberties’; the notion of ‘choice’ being THE LEAST of them. Freedom means your existence doesn’t depend on any kinds of pressures, vices and needs.  Even the need for food and breath is a LIMITATION. Even the inability to determine our very existence and essence, is a deprivation of freedom. And that is what the entire therapeutic treatment of God within the Church aims at: COMPLETE LIBERATION by His grace. Being creatures whose cause for existence lies elsewhere (in God), the prerequisite for this liberation is to FREELY pursue this course for liberation that God has carved out for us, so that we might become SIMILAR TO HIM by grace, by transcending every vice and need (in His likeness).

One characteristic example of the human vocabulary’s weakness, is the phrasing of God’s timeless status. Of course, (by using our very precise Greek language – of which I too am proud), we make use of the Present tense for concepts such as this one, with the addition of the word “pre-eternally”. But I don’t think that this gives us anything that we can feel EMPIRICALLY. We may define it verbally and agree on what it signifies, but that is still very far from “feeling it”. From there on, it is a matter of EXPERIENCE for us to perceive it. It would be like expecting a congenital blind person to understand the meaning of colour, based on our descriptions. It simply isn’t possible. That’s why Paul – when he was swept up to the Third heaven in a state of theosis – had said that he “heard inexpressible words”. They could not possibly be expressed in any human tongue, precisely because description and experience were two things so very distant from each other.

You write: .  God cannot say ‘no’, because EVERYTHING is for granted thanks to Him.  So, it must be for granted that He can eliminate His own existence. (Note: I’m not asking if He wants to, but if He can).

My reply to this:  Your question, although grammatically correct, has no LOGICAL meaning. (Here is a good example of a language’s inadequacy to express timeless logic). The reason is quite simple:  God is TIMELESS (beyond the bounds of time). And being timeless, He is therefore UNCHANGING (He does not alternate). His Omnipotence IS VALID, PRECISELY BECAUSE HE IS TIMELESS AND UNCHANGING. Everything that is “within the bounds of time” lacks omnipotence and is changeable, because it is subject to the influence of TIME. For God therefore “to be able to eliminate His own existence” presupposes ALTERNATION (changing). But, since He is UNCHANGING, beyond the influence of time, His existence is TIMELESSLY AND CHANGELESSLY A GIVEN FACT. So, if we simplified your question in a logical manner, you would be asking: “If God has omnipotence, why can’t He be impotent?” I think the answer is pretty obvious. Its only when we think about it in human terms and words, that it is natural to reach an impasse.

 I will analyze your question grammatically, so that you can see how it is incorrect notionally (given that you are referring to a TIMELESS BEING and are placing it within the bounds of time). You say: “So, it must be for granted that He can eliminate His own existence.” But the words: ‘can eliminate’ imply a certain change that would theoretically be taking place at a point in TIME IN THE FUTURE, because you have used a verb connoting a FUTURE TENSE and have forgotten that you are referring to a TIMELESS being, which is unchangeable. If you had expressed it properly here, with the conditions that I mentioned at the beginning, the following phrase would have ensued, which would comply with logic: “THEREFORE, HIS EXISTENCE IS UNCHANGINGLY AND PRE-ETERNALLY A GIVEN FACT”. Nothing more. Every phrase that implies change, GOES AGAINST OUR INITIAL ADMISSION THAT HE IS OMNIPOTENT (=timeless and unchanging) and therefore is of no logical value. It would be like asking: “How many heads does the color red have?” – an entirely illogical and non-existent question, to which there is therefore no answer.
 
And now, on to your last questions. You write: With this opportunity, I will pose another question that arose from your answer. Bearing in mind the following two things:

3)    that God is omnipotent and perfect and

4)    that you said “God has no need of anyone, much less His creations”

my question is: What need did God – a perfect existence – have, to create us? I am of course keeping in  mind that we are all products of His love, but, from the moment that He is considered to be perfect, it means He has no such need. Hence, no need to create anything and also no need to express His love. In simple terms, if He is indeed perfect, He has no reason to do anything whatsoever.

Answer:

Since we already clarified that He has no need of anything, why then do you ask: “what need”?  Again, the question is senseless, because it goes against our original admission that GOD HAS NO NEEDS.

But you finish with the words: “In simple terms, if He is indeed perfect, He has no reason to do anything whatsoever.”  Here, you have confused TWO DIFFERENT NOTIONS. You have confused the word “need” with the word “reason” (obviously ‘reason’ in the sense of ‘cause’). But ‘need’ is one thing, and ‘reason’ is another.  For someone to not have any ‘need’ does not mean that he has no ‘reason’.  The ‘reason’ would be his own volition: He WANTS to do it, so it is done. Without any ‘need’ for it. Simply and plainly like that. Even His essence –love- is determined by His volition. That is why we say “God IS love” (not God HAS love, but IS love). The word “love” is used to determine the ESSENCE of God. However, in the uncreated, essence does not determine the hypostasis as in the case of the created; it is the hypostasis that determines the essence.  Hence, He does not act out of a certain ‘need’ that is determined by His ‘love’ (His essence), but by His volition, which is determined by His hypostasis, His “WANT TO”.
 
In general lines, if examined carefully, you will see that ALL QUESTIONS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION that are directed at God, lead to impasses, for the very reason that they are phrased incorrectly, with a human mentality.  A correct phrasing NEVER leads to an impasse.


2^nd Participant

Can God be omnipotent?

For someone to respond to this question, one must first determine what he means by the word “god” and then tackle the defining characterizations like “omnipotent”.

In my simple opinion, the precise definition (that is commonly accepted) based on human tools (language, science, experimentation etc.) cannot be given, and at this point I will agree with the “Christian”. But I believe that the existence or non-existence of “god” can likewise not be proved with the same human tools. Hence, no theological essay or philosophical method can indicate god. The acceptance of God is Faith and it relates to “Revelation” which is always a personal event for every person.
To put it differently, I can feel God much more as I observe the world (around me and inside me), rather than inside the various churches, holy books, lives of saints etc.
 

Atheist:

My “Christian” friend, I have to confess that with your previous text, you made me understand that to speak in grammatical terms of Time about a timeless being is unfounded.

You say that “ I will analyze your question grammatically, so that you can see how it is incorrect notionally (given that you are referring to a TIMELESS BEING and are placing it within the bounds of time). You say: “So, it must be for granted that He can eliminate His own existence.”
But the words: ‘can eliminate’ imply a certain change that would theoretically be taking place at a point in TIME IN THE FUTURE, because you have used a verb connoting a FUTURE TENSE and have forgotten that you are referring to a TIMELESS being, which is unchangeable.

Based on the above, however, I would like to say the following:  I don’t disagree with your phrasing, but as you already know, Greek grammar also includes verbs. Thus, I can’t speak to you with nouns alone; I am forced to use Time. Given that we are dealing with a timeless existence, we are forced to use some kind of tense, because we can’t do otherwise. I can only imagine two solutions to this “obstacle”: either we speak with tenses bearing in mind that we are speaking of a timeless existence, or we don’t speak at all. If there is another solution, tell me.

You also say “ God is TIMELESS (beyond the bounds of time). And being timeless, He is therefore UNCHANGING (He does not alternate). His Omnipotence IS VALID, PRECISELY BECAUSE HE IS TIMELESS AND UNCHANGING. Everything that is “within the bounds of time” lacks omnipotence and is changeable, because it is subject to the influence of TIME.”
 
In here, I can comprehend how it is very logical for God to be omnipotent, from the moment that He is timeless and unchanging, and also how everything that is changeable and subject to the influence of Time is lacking in omnipotence.  But I would like to submit the following: If we take into account that God is literally omnipotent, and in effect can do anything, then it can be surmised that even His being unchangeable and timeless can be changed by Him, otherwise the term ‘omnipotent’ cannot literally apply. Even if we take it for granted that God is timeless and unchanging and that He cannot change these in any way, again the term ‘omnipotent’ cannot literally apply. But you might say that: He is omnipotent because He is unchanging. Yes, but if He cannot change His attribute of being unchanging, then He cannot be omnipotent, because if He was, He would be able to change it. What I am trying to say is, whichever way we tackle it, we always reach a contradiction and it is not because we can’t define it properly, but because the specific term is by nature contradictory (after being analyzed of course); just like various ancient sayings that are absolute contradictions whichever way you look at them, I believe the same thing applies here.

Christian:

You are absolutely correct in what you say my friend (2^nd participant).  But in this discussion we are of course referring to the God of Christians (being the Christians that we supposedly are). If we had been referring to pagan deities which are understood “within space and time”, everything would be different and the questions that our friend posed above would be CATAPULTS against all pagan deities, because then those questions would have a meaning, since they are based on the Time factor.

Indeed, the existence of (Christianity’s) God is not provable AT ALL (as is the opposite). Because a truly free persona REVEALS ITSELF only. Thus, it is definitely a matter of faith, if we are to believe in God or in atheism (which is also an example of an unprovable religion).

To the person whom God revealed Himself, there is no longer any need for philosophies and logical entailments. Preoccupation with these is only for the sake of those enquiring, because each of us becomes familiarized with God personally, as one does with one’s parents.

My “Atheist” friend, I can understand how these are concepts that require time to be ‘digested’. I don’t think there is any gap in whatever I have told you here; you simply need to think over it more extensively. I can’t think of much else that I can add. I will only epigrammatically repeat the following:

1. Because human grammar does in fact involve tenses (Time), we (usually) use the Present Tense when defining anything timeless (which is an inference to a continuous time, just as something timeless doesn’t change) and we also add the word “pre-eternal” or “timelessly”.
 
2.  For God (no matter how impossible it is for us to comprehend) change –per se- does not exist, since His every choice is ONCE and for all, and it is unalterable.

Because I can discern your love for philosophy, I am recommending you to study the Orthodox Dogmatics section that you will find in our website.

So that you don’t get bored, you could begin (if you want to) from the chapter “On cognizance”. In there, you will discover step by step all those things that interest you – from the cognizance of the created to the cognizance of the uncreated, and to the subtle meanings that we mentioned above.

May God be your guide.

Atheist:

My “Christian” friend, I will wrap up this topic by mentioning an example that I remembered. I am assuming that you are familiar with the old “funny” question (but if you don’t, it is interesting enough to hear), that goes as follows:

Can God create a rock that not even He can lift?

The answer is totally contradictory, for the reason that if He cannot create it, then the term omnipotent does not apply; but if He can create it, again it won’t apply, because He will not be able to lift it.  This classic question shows in simple words that the term ‘omnipotent’ cannot have a founded, literal significance. Because no matter where you apply the above, you will always have the familiar contradiction of the term, for the reason that you always take something for granted (in this instance, God’s timeless and unchanging attribute); you cannot not take something for granted, because if you don’t take something for granted, you will end up in nihilism. So, I believe that the above example is a variation on the whole theme as we partially analyzed it these days, with the only difference that we have used more literal terms. On a final note: on the basis of everything that you told me, my personal viewpoint is that I believe you are looking at the subject unilaterally, because if you look at it bilaterally, the collapse of the literal meaning of the term ‘omnipotent’ is inevitable.

Have a good journey towards the truth.

Christian:

Dear ‘atheist’ friend, I was starting to wonder when you would say that. I had also imagined you would leave it for your ‘finale’, that’s why I also have a ‘finale’ for you.

This familiar question with the ‘rock’ falls into another category of questions, which again contain errors of logic. The logical error here is that denial is understood as affirmation.

If you would like to study the analysis of this question, then you can check out that specific page (under construction) in or website.

You will see there, that –once again- it is not a matter of God’s omnipotence being violated; it is merely a case of a ‘tricky phrasing’ that breaks the rules of logic.

I will merely add something here (the finale that I mentioned) that you won’t find in that website: Those who pose this question (if we disregard its absurd context) are UNINFORMED. Because God – as the timeless one – ensured thousands of years ago THE TANGIBLE REPLY TO THIS QUESTION also, as He did to the question of existence that you posed in the beginning.  So, you need to remember that:

God became incarnate, without ever ceasing to be God in His “beyond time” status. As a human being, He actually BUCKLED UNDER THE WEIGHT OF THE CROSS, which He Himself had created, along with all the other elements of the universe. And He even needed the assistance of one of His creations, on the path leading to Calvary Hill. Yes! At that moment, God was actually unable to lift the object that He had created, yet He didn’t cease to be Omnipotent in His “beyond time” status. He is so omnipotent, that He did even this preposterous thing!

And then? He reached Calvary hill where He was crucified, saying the words “It is finished”, thus putting an end to His own existence, WHICH ALSO REPLIES TO YOUR INITIAL QUESTION: “Can God put an end to His existence?”

And as illogical as the question may have sounded – since it referred to Time – He gave you His reply, in a tangible way: He submitted Himself to Time by becoming an incarnate mortal, and put an end to His existence. He then answered your next question: “from the moment he doesn’t exist, how can he create his own existence?” The answer: On the third day after His death, HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD!

Yes!  He is Omnipotent, Almighty! Admit it, and glorify Him!
 

Transcript: Ν.Μ.

Translation by A.N.

Greek Text