Lets examine this commonly held belief that God is omnipotent, and, by this we know that the majority of the populous would assume that God is omnipotent to the point that all things are possible. The term “all things” would also include illogical things such as: 2+2=5, 6-6+6, and actualize/alter past events. However, can God really actualize the illogical?
I previously posted an argument that addresses Alvin Plantinga’s views on the existence of natural evil. My argument is as follows:
- 1. If Satan is a spiritual being (not consisting of anything physical), then he has no influence or effect on physical objects.
2. Satan is spiritual.
3. Therefore he has no influence over physical worlds
I have had a number of valid objections, and I can see why. One objection stated “the argument works against God too. For Satan, fill in “God.” Thus, God has no influence over the physical world.” I agree with this objection superficially. However, I feel that there are some very important points that seem to make one believe that it doesn’t apply to God. If we examine some of the attributes of God when compared with Satan we find some very important differences. First, God is a being that is omnipotent, where as Satan is a being impotent and limited. Due to the fact that God is omnipotent then he would have control over a physical world, where as Satan would not.
With that concluded, an objector might state that God (according to my argument) cannot be non-physical and logically have control over this physical world. This objection brings up a number of possible solutions
1. One could state that God is composed of physical and spiritual parts.
2. State that God is omnipotent and has dominion over the physical world because he created it.
3. State that because he is omniscient and omnipotent he uses spiritual means to effect possible changes and occurrence on the physical world.
By taking any one of the following responses one could attempt to formulate a sufficiently sound argument to thwart the previous objection, yet would it be logically possible according to the previous argument?
I feel that even if one were to use the previous argument one still might run the chance of committing a fallacy or dealing with semantics in order to define God, so it would seem that the argument can’t retain it’s validity.
I think that it is possible, but I think that it is much easier to edit the premises of the current argument:
-
1. If Satan is an impotent spiritual being (not consisting of anything physical), then he has no influence or effect on physical objects.
2. Satan is a impotent spiritual being.
3. Therefore he has not influence over physical worlds
By changing (1) we have created a much tighter conclusion that God can actualize physical worlds being spiritual because he is omnipotent. This is due to the fact that premise 1 refers to only impotent spiritual beings. Therefore, Alvin Plantinga’s view that natural evil is caused by the free acts of the devil and other malevolent spiritual beings is flawed.
John
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 31, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Brody
I’m sort of playing devil’s advocate here (oh yes, that pun was intentional), but it seems to me that it’s not a matter of Plantinga’s view being inherently flawed as it is a disagreement on premises about the nature of supernatural influence and power in the natural world.
Also, just a minor semantic thing, but I don’t know that you really mean “impotent” when referring to Satan. The Bible is clear that Satan does have some authority and power (meaning that he is not “unpowerful” as impotent implies) but that it is limited in scope and subordinate to that of God’s authority. You could grant that Satan is given this limited power by God and hence cannot do just whatever he wants on earth (a premise that I think most would agree with in the context of the discussion), but I don’t know that you could say He is totally impotent in the physical realm.
April 3, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Joe
The revised argument is tight, but I don’t think that Plantinga’s position is threatened by it – supposing that Satan is “impotent” for the moment.
A disturbing consequence of your argument is that God is the creator of natural evil. Since Satan is impotent, he has no influence over any part of the physical world. Since God has reign over the physical world and Satan doesn’t, God created natural evil. And we’re back to square-one with the problem of evil.
Have I missed a piece of the argument?
April 4, 2007 at 3:01 am
john
Joe,
Sorry for the delay. I think that you have a very good point about my argument causing us to remain back to where we started. I am in the process of finalizing an argument that, in my opinion, helps remedy that problem. (That’s what my paper will mainly focus on)
If I am not mistaken, Plantinga’s argument is basically saying that: 1 Satan has rebelled against God. 2. He exists to torment men. 3 He dose this by means of his free actions.
Now, in order for Satan to interfere with the physical world, and cause natural evil, he would have to have enough power to be able to do so. To do this he must be either physically -composed, or omnipotent .
Thus, by saying that Satan is spiritual and not physical, and to also say that he is impotent causes him to not have any ability (because of his actions) to interfere with men’s physical worlds. Thereby, eliminating the idea that his ‘free actions’ cause situations of natural evil.
I think that this doesn’t threaten Planting’s claim that Satan’s actions –> natural evil.
f not, then can you please explain why.
October 9, 2008 at 1:03 am
Loveblog
Thanks for visiting my . Yours is pretty interesting too!