Actually I am not entirely sure. The Bible does not give much in the way of details. But, yes, it is obvious that God intervened directly.

There is confusion here about too many things to give answers to them all. The most central one appears to be:

“If I read you correclty, it does seem as though you are also trying to define the limits of your chosen diety’s omnipotence based on the laws and rules of science as we know it.”

I am simply trying to explain what “omnipotence” means. Or rather, explaining why an inability to do something self-contradictory is not a limit to omnipotence.

It is true that God could have created things totally differently, and yes, this means that “before creation” (an uncomfortable term, since time is also created, as I’ve discussed elsewhere on this blog) the universe is not naturally possible. ie it requires direct intervention from God to exist at all. However, it would still be logically possible. As you say, God could (and maybe will so far as I know) create a whole new ‘universe’ (another uncomfortable term, since this ought to include everything that exists in it, and so strictly there is only one) tomorrow. You are completely correct – he is not bound “by the physical laws of one of his creations?” (hence the possibility of the virgin birth in the first place).

Also, I don’t believe I ever saw (and certainly never accepted) the argument that God is logically incapable of making an immortal….

The only thing I have been trying to point out is that God is incapable of doing something that doesn’t make sense, because that is not really a “something” to be done in any case. It is nonsense in the strict sense of the term and impinges on omnipotence in no way at all.

So, to be clear, what logical method was used to instigate the Virgin Birth? I don’t recall the parable of Mary and the IVF clinic. If there was no physical placement of the fertilised egg into the womb then are we left with the “God put it there” explanation? If so, then is this really a “logical” thing to accept when we’re told that creating an immortal is illogical? What about bringing someone back from the dead?

If I read you correclty, it does seem as though you are also trying to define the limits of your chosen diety’s omnipotence based on the laws and rules of science as we know it.

That was the crux of my argument. To me it doesn’t make sense because any being capable of designing the entire earth and all the laws and behaviours in it must be able to change all that at any time.

How do I know this? Because for the stories to be true it must have already happened once. There must have been a time before the earth and before humans when God decided to create them both. At that time the very concepts of living matter and beings did not exist – they were created at this arbitrary point it time. In other words at time X, God spontaneously brought into being a new set of laws, behviours and the concept of living things. One second before that happened they were not logical or naturally possible by the existing universe.

If he can do this at some point in the past, why should an omnipotent being not be able to do this again? Why could he not create a new planet or universe with a completely different set of laws tomorrow? He’s done it once – why should he suddenly be bound by the physical laws of one of his creations?

It does seem somewhat ironic that it is actually the atheists that are arguing that an omnioptent God should be able to do more than the theist are crediting him with being capable of doing. Theists are arguing that God should only be capable of what the current earth defines as possible. Even though the world was created by that god – arbitrarily at a moment in time.

The reason, as far as I can see, is that it is impossible to make a sensible argument that supports a God capable of the sorts of things that he has supposedly been capable of previously. By tying down a deity to the limits of the physical world it’s creating an crutch which avoids having to explain why this omnipotent being supposedly now has limits.

It’s almost as if we’re being told “yes, God did do some mirculous things such as creating the earth and every living thing on it but I’m afraid now that humans are here he can only do what their scientists deem ‘possible’”. So no more mircales then?

The Virgin birth (which is not the same as the Immaculate Conception, by the way) is not illogical (self-contradictory). A 4-sided triangle is not illogical because it is physically impossible to make one, but because the meaning of triangle logically precludes it.

Perhaps this argument helps:
P1 A triangle has three sides
P2 Shape X does not have three sides (ie but 4)
C Shape X is not a triangle.

The Conclusion is reached by logical means, but ALSO, P1 is a definition of what a triangle is, so the argument is water tight.

BUT take arguement B:

P1 Human conception requires a human mother and human father
P2 Jesus did not have a human father
C Jesus was not humanly conceived.

Fine, he wasn’t. The conclusion certainly follows, but in any case P1 is not a definition and entirely disputable even if this is the normal, natural process. In fact we know that (unfortunately) other ways of conceiving humans may well be possible eg cloning.

It is not the logic of the argument that is at stake here, but the truth of one of the premises. Therefore God’s extraordinary intervention is certainly not precluded by purely logical means.

I hope this helps.

God can do all these that are able to be LOGICALLY done.

But as Rainman pointed out, God instigated a Virgin birth, which is completely illogical. Therefore, why would we judge God by any other logical constraints? I think using the immaculate conception as a counter to Joel’s point is perfectly reasonable, and salient.

Flying reindeers is an entirely unnatural phenomenon – we know a lot about reindeers, and for them to fly on their own accord would require… nothing short of divine intervention, I suppose!

On the other hand, the story of creation is not strictly speaking “non-sense”, even if you don’t think it is not true – it is not a self-contradiction, in other words. Nor are the other things you mentioned: splitting the atom or travelling faster than sound. Even if someone (including scientists, not just theologians!) might have thought these things were impossible centuries ago, the ideas are still meaningful.

The question of miracles (including the Virgin birth which you don’t understand) is also not a logical contradiction. Once again, that does not mean that they are all necessarily true.

Why? Because it sounds like nonsense of course -right? And there, in a nutshell, is how most athiest see the original stories of creation.

Interesting that theists are defining what their omnipotent God is capable of doing by the limits and restrictions of human scientific knowledge to date. Presumably 100 years ago people will have been saying “of course God couldn’t split the atom, of course he couldn’t create a machine to make man travel faster than sound – that’s not logical”.

We would all acknowledge that these theologians of the past were mistaken because these things are now possible. So using the same argument, isn’t it very likely that a book written 2000 years ago could be mistaken about an awful lot of things of which the writers were ignorant?

Interesting also that some have said that of course God cannot create an immortal being. Yet at the same time believe that he can “create” a virgin birth and have a son that rises from the grave to live on in spirit. I thought you said that he could only do things that were “logically” possible?

“get used to things not making perfect sense all the time bro. like how light works, travels, bends, warps and distorts. or the whole sub-atomic realm. or why some things can defy the laws of the universe. maybe we should lump it all in with santa’s reindeer too.”
Now i’m not exactly clear on what you’re referring to here or what statement you’re trying to make. Give me an example about what you mean with regards to light and sub atomic particles and the laws of the universe being broken or bent. It’s a bit vague to just throw some words around and expect it to make sense. Clarity, you will find, is key. There’s no way to have a debate if you’re not making sense.
Giraffe and carrot cake.