Is God almighty?

I was just wondering here the other day, if god really was almighty.

If “almighty” is defined to have “unlimited power”, it basically means you don’t have to follow any rule what so ever, right?

So then why did Jesus have to die for our sins? Couldn’t God just not done that, and man would still be living without sin, because he is almighty?

Does this then mean that God is living in some sets of rules, thereby not almighty?

No, that is not what “almighty” means.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p3.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm

No, it doesn’t mean that at all. It also doesn’t mean that He would be irrational and do things against Logic, i.e. silly things like a square circle or a two sided triangle. That is nonsense. God is the Logos, He is God of Order, not disorder, He is the source of reason and rationality as can be seen through His work. The Universe is a Creation of great order and rationality from the largest macro systems to the smallest micro-systems. From the electron current in a system (i = e/r) to the largest objects (f = m.a) all operate in accordance with the order established within 180 seconds of Creation the current attributes behaviours of Physics were established. For more detail see here: physicsoftheuniverse.com/photo.html?images/bigbang_timeline.jpg&Timeline%20and%20major%20events%20since%20the%20Big%20Bang

Yes, His rules are known as The Ten Commandments and to perfectly keep them one needs to be almighty.

God did not give us the “Ten Commandments” for Him to obey.

i.e. silly things like a square circle or a two sided triangle.

Silly things kinda exist in the world already: Like light, moving as both particles and waves (and a single light particle can interfere with itself, which I think is kinda funky).

Silly things kinda exist in the world already: Like light, moving as both particles and waves
[/quote]

Your example of light behaving as both particle and wave does not contradict logic. Also, “kinda” is not a scientifically precise conceptualization. If you believe in science then use scientific precision. All matter behaves in this way under the right conditions. Water always, even though it is made of discrete molecules. Even solid land can undergo liquefaction in an earthquake. This causes no break with logic and is simply observing them at differing levels of granularity. They do not represent a break with order or logical continuity.

Try again. And this time, please do a little proper scholarship, sound logic and please show the primary sources of your research.

Sorry for digging up old thread.

If you haven’ done Youngs Double Slit experiment in class at some point: The experiment
Do it, it’s really cool (you might need a laser). This shows that light is behaving as a wave.
Both of lights properties can be shown by shooting one and one photon trough a double slit, you will still see this interference-pattern after n photons. (1 photon will light up one spot on the background, thereby also a particle).

Some source for that (sorry for Wikipedia entries, but they should be somewhat correct): Wiki-link

You can also read about it here: Wave–particle duality

Over to science. Nothing in science is based on absolute precision.The scientific method is based on measurement and models that resembles them. Therefore they can be proved wrong or inaccurate.

A little source for that: Source

Math. Nothing here can be absolutely “proved”. This is because math is based assumptions. A great example of one of these are Euclid’s axioms and postulates. They cannot be proved, but we assume they are right. The books of Euclid’s defined what most of us call geometry today, and did all of the proofs based on the axioms and postulates.

The axioms and postulates can be found here:friesian.com/space.htm

After some time a bunch of really smart people found out that Euclidian geometry just wasn’t wide enough, and made non-Euclidian geometry. One proof in it is for example that the sum of the angles in a triangle increases as the area of the triangle decreases. This cannot be done using Euclidian geometry where the sum of the angles always is 180 degrees.
Source

What i’m coming to here is that nothing in science is set in stone, and can always change. “Silly things like a square circle or a two sided triangle” can happen. Our logic is based on our perception of the world. We cannot know if something is absolutely true.

sidenotes:

  1. I could argue that you get one two sided triangle just by using the unit circle and use the definition of sinus. Then watch what happens with sin(x) when x approaches 0 the side of the triangle will get smaller and smaller, until sin(0) where you got a “triangle” with two equally long sides(both are 1), and one side that is 0; two corners and still a “triangle”.

  2. The square circle can occur in non-Euclidian space. For example where a unit circle looks like a square en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lp_space

  3. “i = e/r”. I can also throw around equations that is about electronics, look:
    The Laplace equivalent expression of a capacitor is V(s) = 1/(sC)I(s)+V0/s
    Source

  4. If some of my formulations of words are somewhat strange, i’m sorry. English is not my first language.

Jesus, in perfect example, obeyed them and so did Our Lady :slight_smile:

So, are you saying that “Our Lady” is also “Almighty” since you wrote, “Yes, His rules are known as The Ten Commandments and to perfectly keep them one needs to be almighty.”?

No brother but it should give us pause to ponder just how, when compared to us, close She is to God & what it means to be Immaculate.

Quantum superposition (according to the Copenhagen interpretation) is not the same as an impossible existence (because obviously light exists, and we can observe both properties, but never at the same time).

A square circle is an impossible existence. It’s not something that merely seems impossible (to us), but it actually is impossible.

As far as, “what it means to be Immaculate”, in Mary’s case what it means is that God personally chose Mary to be Immaculate, it wasn’t something that Mary did.

I, personally, am grateful that Mary said YES and I believe that Gabriel was in full Angelic attire, whatever that is, when he was sent to Mary.

Maybe what should give us pause is that God does not love Mary any more than God loves the rest of us.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.