Power, Love, and What God Can’t Do: More on Omnipotence With Tom Oord and Chris Lilley

What kind of God is worth trusting when life falls apart? We pull up a chair with Thomas Jay Oord and guest Chris Lilley for a spirited, vulnerable conversation about omnipotence, evil, and why love may be the only measure of divine power that doesn’t betray our moral core. The stakes are high: beliefs about God’s power shape how we face suffering, talk to our kids about hope, and decide whether prayer is protest, surrender, or both. If you haven't heard our first conversation with Tom about God's power, we recommend checking that out first here.

Tom lays out open and relational theism: God moves through time with us, gives and receives, and has a nature of uncontrolling love. From there he challenges three classic readings of omnipotence—doing anything, exerting all power, and unilaterally determining outcomes—arguing they either collapse logically or become morally intolerable in the face of real-world evil. Chris, a former Thomist and Reformed teacher now in the Episcopal ordination process, offers a thoughtful pushback: if omnipotence can be carefully qualified, should we abandon it, or teach it better? His turning point is painfully human: holding his newborn while teaching election and realizing he couldn’t preach a God who ordains every outcome and still call that good.

We wrestle with creation, “almighty” in the liturgy, liberation theology’s demand for a God who not only intends justice but accomplishes it, and a hard question about the afterlife: could you rest eternally with a God who could have stopped your suffering? Tom reframes power as maximal influence—everlasting, universal, persuasive—rather than control. Kyle names the unresolved middle: if God could fix it later, why not now? The conversation doesn’t hand out easy answers; it invites you to weigh goodness against power and decide which vision of God you can actually pray to.

If this episode challenges or helps you, share it with a friend, hit follow, and leave a review so others can find the show.

=====

Want to support us?

The best way is to subscribe to our Patreon. Annual memberships are available for a 10% discount.

If you'd rather make a one-time donation, you can contribute through our PayPal.

Other important info:

• Rate & review us on Apple & Spotify
• Follow us on social media at @PPWBPodcast
• Watch & comment on YouTube
• Email us at pastorandphilosopher@gmail.com

Cheers!

Chapters

• 0:00 Unusual Setup And Lost Voice
• 1:03 Why Omnipotence Again And Why Nerdy
• 3:07 Why Metaphysics Matters To Real Life
• 5:27 Faith, Logic, And Living With Mystery
• 8:20 Quantum Tunneling And Theology’s Value
• 9:35 Beers, Beer Camp, And Setting The Table
• 10:57 Introducing Chris Lilly’s Journey
• 13:10 From Calvinism To Collapse To Calling
• 17:05 A Father’s Dilemma And Leaving Reformed
• 19:36 Finding An Episcopal Home
• 20:55 Tom Oord’s Open And Relational Theism
• 23:00 What Omnipotence Has Meant And Why It Breaks
• 25:23 Can We Save A Nuanced Omnipotence?
• 27:18 Clarify vs Qualify: Love And Power
• 30:08 Maximal Power And People In The Pews
• 32:18 Framework Clash: Thomism vs Openness
• 35:05 Coherent Yet Monstrous: Evil As The Test
• 38:19 From Logical Games To Lived Experience
• 41:38 What Is God, Really?
• 44:08 Maximal Influence And Noncoercive Love
• 47:12 Creation, Creatio Ex Nihilo, And Doubt
• 49:28 Choosing Jesus Over Raw Power
• 52:12 Must God Be Creator In That Way?
• 55:24 Goodness Over Power: Do We Intuit It?
• 58:05 If One Must Go: Keep Love
• 1:00:12 Tradition, Hope, And Liberation
• 1:03:06 Afterlife With A God Who Could Have Stopped It
• 1:05:44 Almighty, Liturgy, And Language Choices
• 1:07:48 Wrap-Up, Gratitude, And Listener Support

Transcript

Randy: 0:06

I'm Randy, the pastor half of the podcast, and my friend Kyle's a philosopher. This podcast hosts conversations at the intersection of philosophy, theology, and spirituality.

Kyle: 0:15

We also invite experts to join us, making public a space that we've often enjoyed off-air around the proverbial table with a good drink at the back corner of a dark pub.

Randy: 0:24

Thanks for joining us, and welcome to a pastor and a philosopher walk into a bar.

Kyle: 0:36

So this episode is a little bit unusual for us in that I do almost all the talking. Pretty much all the talking. Part of the reason for that is that Randy lost his voice. You want to say hi, Randy.

Randy: 0:46

Yeah, it works out. Works out that I don't have much to say about this because I can't really say much about this. Except for when it cracks, right? Yeah. I gotta keep way low and quiet. A little bit slow too. A little breathy breathy, yeah. God damn it.

Kyle: 1:02

Excellent. Um, so this is another conversation about omnipotence.

Randy: 1:06

I probably shouldn't say goddamn it without being right.

Kyle: 1:09

Maybe it fits the I don't know. Maybe it fits the theme. So we're talking about omnipotence again with Tom Ord. We had a conversation about this with him, I don't remember when it was, two years ago, something like that. You can go back in our feed and find it, or just look in the show notes. And a friend of mine named Chris Lilly, who went to grad school with me, had said some things about Tom's view of omnipotence that were published on Tom's website and that I've found and Chris and I texted back and forth about, and I thought it would be really cool to have a conversation about this and really just kind of nerd out. And I I approached it with you, Randy, as uh you can join this or not, which every now and then we'll we'll do. You've had a couple like that. Uh, and I did it that way because I knew it was gonna be nerdy and I knew it was probably not gonna be interesting to everybody that follows this podcast, and I think occasionally that's okay. I don't want to do that all the time, but every now and then uh it's nice to be a little bit in your element as a certain kind of person. And Chris and Tom and I are all that kind of person. Now, I do think there's like real uh meat on these bones and rubber meeting the road in a certain sense when it comes to how the way you conceive of God at a fundamental conceptual level shaping how you orient yourself to the world, what life means to you at a very basic level, what you think your suffering means, if anything at all, how you're able to look at your children and tell them good things about life. Um I I mean I think this actually affects all of that stuff and a lot more, but a lot of it will probably feel very nerdy. And Randy was here for the whole conversation and and said very little. And uh that's okay.

Randy: 2:44

Yeah, I mean, again, I can't say much right now. However, I I mean my my quick take on the conversation is I'm really glad there's people who are smart enough and dorky enough to care about conversations like that because I think they are important. Um I think this conversation that uh listeners you're gonna listen you're gonna uh hear and be a fly in the wall for like I was, uh I think they are uh almost essential because our faith has to at least try to make sense and be logical. And when we run into logical fallacies within our within our faith tradition, we should not hide from those. We should actually deal with those and face those and have conversation and search the scriptures and seek the spirit and do all of these things in community, which I think this is how the spirit works and informs our ideas about who and what God is. That being said, I kept imagining this conversation, and this sounds like a slam on the conversation, and I don't mean it as such, right? But um it reminded me of really smart people coming to Jesus in the gospels and trying to get Jesus with a gotcha question, and I don't think you were you were trying to give Tom or Tom giving you gotcha questions at all. I think that was a a genuine good faith conversation. But Jesus is so evasive in conversations like this, and there are conversations similar to this in in the Gospels. And he always seems to leave that person and leave many of us feeling a little bit um disappointed and a little bit evasive and a little bit kind of trying to switch the the narrative and the conversation. And I wonder if this notion of power, and some of you guys were doing this a little bit, is like, what is power, you know, and why is it so important to us? And why is this concept so essential to having faith in God and following Jesus? And for me where I sit today, I want it to make sense, but I don't need it to. If that if that it's and I and the reason that I say that is because my faith doesn't start in it doesn't rest on it being logical, even though I want it to be, and I think it mostly is. And I say mostly with genuineness. My faith rests and is kind of stands on the person of Christ. And that means that I'm gonna have to be humble enough to hold mystery with some level of comfort and familiarity in my faith walk. And for me, that just means I'm probably not smart enough to partake participate in that conversation without f sounding like a huge dumbass. And also it might be because I'm not as smart as you guys, but it might just be because also I don't think that's essential to me following Jesus. Not even close. Yeah. Um and so when it comes down to that, I'm just concerned about what it means for me to follow Jesus with my kids and with my wife and with my church and with my neighbors and community. And then, you know, throwing back a mock tail while listening to you guys talk about some really important things that people can do. Can mock tails be thrown back?

Kyle: 6:08

Maybe they can't.

Randy: 6:09

I'm reaching here. But all that said, there's a place for the conversation. I'm glad you had it, and I'm glad many of our listeners will be interested in it. And at the same time, I'm okay with it being unresolved, and I know you are as well.

Kyle: 6:22

Yeah, yeah. In fact, I find ever I completely agree with everything you just said, and I think it's insightful and generous. And I mean that entirely. Um, so thanks for that. And listener, you know, give it a shot. Maybe you'll fall on my side of this, maybe you won't. Um, but yeah, I really do think this stuff, Matt. Like, they I'm not comparing anything that happens in this conversation to this, except in a very, very loose analogy. So I want to disclaimer with that. But like the the uh Nobel for Physics was just awarded to somebody for doing uh work on quantum tunneling. Uh none of that means anything to me, right? Any of our lived experiences. But my God, how important is it that someone is doing that and is getting the funding needed to figure that stuff out, which may have very significant downstream consequences for all of our lives that we can't possibly envision. Yeah, but that's not one-to-one true for theology. And yet at the same time, I think it is important for the church that someone in it is thinking at this level about these complexities and these difficulties and trying to make sense of how they do make a difference to the people in the peew's lives, because they do. Yes. You know they do, right? You've seen people struggling over these concepts and not having any idea what to do with it.

Randy: 7:29

And they don't matter to you until your life's hanging in the balance, or a loved one's life is hanging in the balance, or somebody some you know, some person who doesn't believe in God said something that shattered your worldview and your your your spirituality, that's when they matter. And those are really important times to have actually some context and some foundation of these conversations, is what I'm trying to say.

Kyle: 7:52

Yeah, well, I appreciate that. Uh yeah, I'm interested in any feedback anybody might have about this. Do you like to hear more of these or less of these? I would I would like to know.

Tom: 8:26

You know what? I'm also happy to be here.

Kyle: 8:31

If either of you are drinking anything you want to tell us about, uh feel free.

Chris: 8:35

So uh in honor of uh being from going to school with you in Milwaukee, I'm drinking a Lakefront brewery, Oktoberfest, uh in honor of the season. And uh it just the weather started to change, and I thought, you know what? I think I just need something. So switching to Oktoberfest and scotches and gearing up for theology beer camp. So um yeah, it's delicious and it reminds me of uh hanging out after after seminar at uh at Lakefront. So yeah, awesome.

Randy: 9:00

It is possible to attend theology beer camp without drinking. It is, but they don't really make it NA friendly, that's they make it difficult. Yeah, yeah.

Tom: 9:08

Free-flowing beer for sure. I don't have anything right now. I usually drink a Gatorade Zero, but I just got down there on theater, and so love it, love it.

Kyle: 9:17

Well, I asked you both on here to have a chat about omnipotence, and we're gonna get to that. We've talked to Tom about that once before. So, listeners who haven't heard that, look in the show notes. There's a link there to that. If you have heard that, you'll know I had some issues with Tom's take on omnipotence. Maybe we'll get back into some of those. But I wanted to invite Chris on. Chris and I go way back. We went to grad school together. Chris was in the well, you kind of straddled the theology and philosophy departments at at Marquette.

Chris: 9:44

Yeah, I was a dual dual competency program.

Kyle: 9:47

Yeah, yeah, I remember that. So we took quite a few classes together and we also hung out and drank beer. Yeah. Good time. Talked about God a lot. Um, and then I I realized, Chris, that you had written a thing, uh, a little blog blogish-like thing, in response to Tom's view of omnipotence, and I thought that was really intriguing. Yeah. And I also know that you've been on an interesting theological journey since our days in grad school where we would argue about determinism. Uh so I want to hear a little bit about that. Um, and first I just want you both to introduce yourselves and kind of share um, I don't know, your theological background. I'll let you interpret that how you want to, and in particular, how you got to the place you currently are on this topic of God's power.

Chris: 10:26

Hey, go ahead, Chris. Well, uh, yeah, like uh like Kyle said, my name is uh Chris Lilly. Um I am currently a postulant for holy orders in the Episcopal Church. So um uh God willing and the um and the people consenting, I'll be ordained a deacon in about a year from now, and then a priest about six months after that. So um how I ended up in the Episcopal Church is uh I never would have believed it. Um I if anything to make me doubt um determinism and exhaustive and providence. Like this this is just too screwy of a ride, like there's there's no way, you know. So um, but uh yeah, so when I when I knew um when I knew Kyle, uh I was we I was going I was in the PhD program at Marquette and in theology and philosophy. And I I I think it was something of a moderate conservative, uh maybe slightly progressive evangelical, still a lot of unexamined premises and things like this. And I at the time I was I discovered reform theology, which I'm not sure if it's a good thing or not. But before then, I didn't really have a theology. Um, I just dove when I went to seminary, I went to Prince and Sim, um I worked with uh Venslov and Hasting, as as uh that Tom whom Tom knows. And and uh I I dove into a lot of advanced classes, but what I actually thought about theology, I couldn't tell you. I just knew a lot about God and you know wanted to learn more about from Aquinas. And um and and from there, I uh I I discovered I discovered reform theology. And for me, it uh it connected a lot of dots. There was a sort of rich intellectualism um combined with uh the idea of having um this classical theism that I was enamored with at the time, and I wanted to explore that. Um so when Kyle knew me, I think we had some really interesting discussions. Actually, my favorite story about Kyle, if I may briefly, is uh I in one of our uh seminars, I think you I think you were with with Dr. Michael Reen, you were, I think you were you were either auditing or part of it. But I gave a presentation, and um I I think I was assigned some random chapter, and it was it was a really boring topic. It was just some really like you know epistemological, just low-level stuff. And and I gave my presentation and Kyle raised his hand, and you said, uh, you asked a couple questions, and you said, and also I'm just wondering why we should care. Um, you know, that's well, Kyle, it's because I was assigned this really exciting chapter, so maybe that's why I shouldn't care. So I always appreciate that that sort of that sort of feedback from Kyle. Um but but uh but from but from there, um I I moved to uh so from Milwaukee, I moved to uh Minnesota. At the time I was still working on my PhD, and um I got connected with uh Bethlehem Baptist Church, which was John Piper's church. And I got sucked into that ecosystem, which was really interesting. Um, but it was there that my faith began to be really tested. Um I began to encounter things that didn't match my experience, my moral intuitions, especially regarding LGBT inclusion, women in leadership, and my idea of God really began to become tested. Um, right before the pandemic hit, I was uh teaching the adult um education courses at at the church, uh teaching the Calvinism class. And it went John Piper used to teach it, and then it went to me. So I was the one. So people showed up and said, We love John Calvin. And I said, Well, I mean, not John Calvin, John Piper. Sorry. So what's the difference? It was basically the same thing. But uh, you know, it but people people showed up, and and I I think as I started to teach it, it was one thing to to theorize about this stuff, but to actually say and to say, here's um, there are elect and non-elect, there are reprobates, and this is how um hell works. It it really started to shift the way I thought about God, and and I I don't think I could hold that view anymore. Um uh and right around the pandemic, that's when I think at many in the church I began to wake up to some of the political issues, capitulation to certain uh political views I found anthetical to Christ, um COVID denialism, vaccine skepticism. Uh it all came to a real head. And uh um and one of the issues I think theologically, I think when I was teaching, I one of the things that challenged me was um when I talked about teaching people about the elect. My daughter had just been born, and I uh I had this thought as I was holding her one night before bed, um, what if she's not elect? And what would I do? And I remember at that moment I I knew exactly what I would do. I would fall on my knees and I would beg God to take me in her place. And um I knew all the right theological answers. My friends and mentors told me that, well, you don't you don't know what you're saying. Maybe even the fact that you're saying that means you're not really elect, but it just didn't make any sense to me. I couldn't take it anymore. This wasn't the God I knew. This wasn't God in Jesus Christ, and I um and uh so in 2021 I just dropped, I I left the church, and uh I didn't really know what to do. Um, Tom, I have to say that uh during those times when I didn't my faith was shattered, I I returned to some of your works. And I think one of the one of the best things I can say about you, Tom, is that you talk about a God that I want to believe in, a God who's worth believing in. Um and uh I wasn't sure what what I thought. I still had you know a lot, a lot of Thomistic uh metaphysics in the back of my mind, but um you encouraged me to think more critically about God and how does that fit with what I'm observing politically and in the world. So uh that led me to uh wanting to be involved in a church, and uh I got connected with the Episcopal Church, and uh because they have a really good mix of history and and then also some some really nice uh um liturgy, but also connection to to free thought. You can actually think critically in the Episcopal Church. And uh when I was there, I I began to uh worship, and one of the my priests said, I think maybe you're called to something a bit more than just sitting in the pew. So I went through the discernment process, and uh that's where I am now.

Kyle: 16:24

Thanks, man. I really appreciate that.

Chris: 16:26

Yeah, sorry, I was a bit long-winded, but it's been it's been a wild ride.

Kyle: 16:30

No, I'm gonna come back to it a little bit because I want to know more specifics about how your view of God has changed, and that's gonna impact what we're here to talk about, which is omniscience. But first, I want Tom to introduce himself and say whatever you want to say about how you got to the theology of God that you got to. I know that's a long story.

Tom: 16:45

Yeah, uh, maybe the short end of it, short, is that I grew up in a very pious family. We were part of the Church of the Nazarene, which is a Wesleyan holiness tradition, and so we had a free will theology, but it was uh not all that sophisticated in terms of thinking through all the implications. The Church of the Nazarene isn't known for being intellectually sophisticated. Um by the time I was in college I was uh an a hardcore street evangelist, which was Campus Crusade for Christ. And um then I took a course in philosophy of religion that made me question my grounds for belief in God at all. And I became an atheist or an agnostic for a while. I returned to belief in God based upon my intuitions about meaning and love and I just started began slowly re structuring, rebuilding my faith over time, and that meant um rejecting some you know common ideas of my youth, probably common ideas among most uh theists in America, uh and eventually to something I call open and relational theology.

Kyle: 18:02

Do you want to define that real quick for for those who might be able to do that?

Tom: 18:04

Yeah, openness means that uh God moves through time with us and the future is open not only for us but for God. So God not only can't predestine but doesn't foreknow what's gonna happen. And relational is an emphasis upon this giving and receiving God, so God who's passable to use the classic language. And then in addition to those things, you know, I emphasize creaturely freedom and agency, I deny God's omnipotence and uh a few other things, but that those are some of the the big ones.

Kyle: 18:36

So yeah, good. And this all for you comes from a place of viewing God as in essentially loving.

Tom: 18:42

Right. That's my primary motivation. I'm not saying that my o my attempt to describe God's love is the only way to do it, but obviously I think it's preferable to the other options I know, so that's what I'm laying on the table.

Kyle: 18:56

Yeah, totally. And this leads you to the view that anything that is incompatible with God's love, defined in a particular way, cannot be a real attribute of God. And that would include omnipotence. Good. Yeah. Um, so I want to get you quickly to because we talked up, we spent a whole episode on this, and I want to kind of start from just after that conversation if we can. But quickly define omnipotence. I know that's difficult to do. You give like three or four different definitions of it in the whole book you wrote about it. So define like what it has meant primarily, classically, and what you don't like about that, and then I'll I'll give Chris the opportunity to jump in on what he thinks you got wrong.

Tom: 19:34

Yeah. Well, I think if we look at the tradition, it's hard to find really precise definitions of omnipotence in the tradition. It's kind of just assumed. I try to identify three meanings that I find, and I give quotes from major thinkers in the past who say those things or something close to them. One is the idea that God can just do anything. Another is the idea that God literally exerts all the power, so omnipotence means all power in that particular way. And that's a view that if John Calvin didn't have it, at least some of his followers had that view. And then the third one is something like God is able to control others, where the word control means to act as a sufficient cause. So God can act in a such a way that single-handedly determines an outcome. And those three kinds of definitions of omnipotence aren't the only ones, but I think they're prominent, and I reject all three.

Kyle: 20:33

Yeah. And I guess we can get into some of the details of why as we as we go on, but a lot of that is unpacked in our first conversation. So, Chris, which parts of that appeal to you and which parts of that don't appeal to you anymore?

Chris: 20:48

Um uh do you say anymore? Is that what you said?

Kyle: 20:51

Well, I know that well, maybe I should put that differently. Which parts of that do appeal to you now that might not have used to, and which parts do you still have reservations about?

Chris: 20:59

So uh let me start out by saying that um that uh my criticisms here are really friendly. Um I really like what Tom's doing with his view of omnipotence. I practice saying omnipotence because it's always it's like omni without the knee. It's like um it's omnipotence. So I think I think I got it. Um but I think that when when we think about omnipotence and as you mentioned it throughout history and throughout theological history, it's this concept that's uh disembodied. It's this concept that's really just uh done with metaphysical considerations that isn't really connected to the implications for the real world. And uh I think Tom does a really good job of drawing our attention to what does this mean if we're gonna say that God is omnipotent, can do all things. And like those three definitions you mentioned, um, I think there are uh some problems that come depending on how you how you understand omnipotence. The second thing I would say is that you know, in Tom's work, especially in chapter two, you do a really, really good job of showing that whatever omnipotence means, it's really complicated. And there are and there are a lot of you list like, you know, I like you know, hundreds of or at least dozens of not hundreds of ways that it has to be qualified. I think that's all really good. Where I am, I guess, where I hesitate and where I'm less convinced as someone, because as coming at this from someone who may want to hold some idea of omnipotence, is that it's not clear to me that that shows we have to abandon it. You mentioned a lot of ways that it has to be qualified. And it's not clear to me that that generates the necessity of saying we have to kill it. Because you're pretty strong in your book. Uh you say, like it's time to, I mean, I was waiting for you know, pardon the phrase, like the the final takedown. Where's where's the where's the finishing boot? And uh I I guess I guess I didn't find it. It was sort of just it was sort of assumed. I'm I feel like I'm missing a premise there. So maybe uh that's where I would start.

Kyle: 22:49

Why is it dead? Yeah. Rather than just qualify well, qualified, because one of the things we talked about, Tom, I don't know if you've it's been like two years since we talked about this, I don't expect you to remember this at all. But one of the objections I had was if your objection this is something Chris talked about too, if your objection is that the concept is incoherent, I don't think you've made that case. And I I tried to give you some notions of omnipotence, a couple of which you agreed with, that it I think they're omnipotence. You think maybe we should call them something else. Perfectly coherent ideas that I don't think have necessarily the baggage that you rightly critique of of a lot of those concepts. So Chris and I, I think are on the same page here. There is a notion, maybe a simplified notion compared, or maybe it in some ways a simplified notion, and in some ways a more complex notion, depending on which audience you're you're thinking about here. But like there's a philosophical notion that I think is very coherent and even defensible. And then there that notion may or may not be held by the average person in the pew, but I'm not sure that's like a critique. The conclusion of that is not that therefore omnipotence is dead, it's that therefore we need better theological education.

Tom: 23:53

Well, and I think this is actually an important point. It's not my main point, but it's an important one. And that is um, yes, I think philosophers can carefully lay out a view of omnipotence, taking into account all of the kinds of qualifications that I have listed there, most of them logical, some of them ontological, some having to do with the divine nature, some having to do with the nature of time, etc. etc. Um But there are some philosophers who think that we ought to affirm omnipotence without qualifications. They're in the minority, so let me admit that quickly. There we we usually associate them with Descartes, but there's this small minority of philosophers who think that omnipotence is coherent without qualification. And and this is the main point I want to make here I haven't done a survey, but enough time I've spent in church and talking with people and arguing on the internet, there's lots of people who aren't in the academy who think that God can do anything that's illogical. And that's part of my audience with this book. And I think many of those people portray God's power in ways that that make no sense to academics, but well, at least the majority of academics. But they have great influence on those who end up not believing in God because of the problem of evil, divine hiddenness, or something else. So I do think that's important to note that the major maybe not the majority, but a large number of people who are quote untrained, um, aren't gonna find the qualified omnipotence convincing?

Kyle: 25:40

Chris, any response to that?

Chris: 25:43

Yeah, so um I think I just echo Kyle here. I think I think I would agree that most people I talk to probably wouldn't have that understanding, a nuanced understanding. What I'm wondering is how is that really different from most other theological concepts that are very sophisticated? Um, and does the fact that it needs to be qualified um disqualify it? Or um and if if I may, I might I have an example from from your own work, if if I was I was going to bring so for those of you know who don't know, Tom is you've heard of the love guru. Tom is the love theologian. And uh I have your book, uh Plurriform Love. Um, you've done a lot of work on defining love pretty accurately and clearly, and you have a definition of love that is um acting intentionally in relational response to God and others to promote overall well-being. Each of those phrases you've argued for extensively. You've argued for in a lot of your books that I've read, you've argued against many number of theologians who define love in different ways. Um people have used love in ways that harm others. I was told that to love queer people meant to um not affirm their identity.

Kyle: 26:50

Right.

Chris: 26:50

Um, but to me, the fact that it has to be qualified in dozens and really carefully by really, really, you know, ivory tower academics like Aquinas, Augustine, Tom Ord, doesn't disqualify it as a concept. I think we just need to be clear of what we mean. So I'm wondering why wouldn't love be a candidate for being overly qualified to death? And I and and secondary to that is like like Kyle mentioned, how why is this not just a failure of education rather than of the concept?

Tom: 27:17

Yeah, good questions. I think and I haven't thought this through carefully, y'all. So I think I would make a distinction between clarify and qualify.

Chris: 27:29

Okay.

Tom: 27:30

I think my definition of what love clarifies what I think love is. And it really, at least in most instances I hang out with people, it sort of resonates with their intuitions. In fact, that's one of the most common uh responses I get when I give presentations, is like people hear me talk about love and they say, yeah, that fits the way I think of things. Whereas omnipotence, I think, would be different because uh to many people at least, it means implicitly something that's unqualified uh in terms of power. And I think if we gave a precise definition like you know you find in analytic theology, for instance, most people wouldn't say, Oh, that fits my intuitions. They would say, Oh, no, no, that's I don't even know what you're talking about here. And I could give some examples if we want to if we want to do that. But um I I I I I hear your point, and I think there's some validity to it in that I think whatever concepts we have, we we should clarify them and have as much precision as we can. But in the case of omnipotence, the word has typically meant for for many people, including professional theologians in history, something that is unqualified, except perhaps logically, but unqualified in lots of other ways, you know, relation to the divine nature, time, etc. So I agree, yes, clarify, but I don't think the love power uh analogy quite works.

Chris: 29:02

I guess as you explain, I mean the clarification qualification, I'd love to maybe define the difference more precisely there. Um, but it seemed like what you said is is that um one one of the clarifying factors and one of the uh it would be whether or not it resonates with people. And and I'm wondering, um, and and I think that it's hard for me to to use that as an assessment because I talk to all sorts of people as a you know as as in in the in in ministry, and some people really, really resonate with the idea of a of a of a God who can do anything. And whether or not that's good or not, I'm just wondering how is how that's assessed.

Tom: 29:40

So it's a fairly fair response, yeah.

Chris: 29:43

So which again doesn't invalidate, but for me, what I keep coming back to when I read your critique is that it has to be qualified or clarified, and then you jump to therefore we should, you know, it dies the death. And I think in your response to me is is that well, it it it it it's not the same as. Um online, you said it's not the same as what most people think.

Kyle: 30:04

Yeah.

Chris: 30:04

And even if I agree with that, I still feel like there's a missing premise there. Like the amount to which it's qualified, the amount to which it doesn't resonate, um, that that would prompt our the argument that um we should abandon it. And I guess I'm looking for uh the uh the takedown move.

Tom: 30:22

I think that's your strongest point, Chris. Uh I think, at least this is my assessment of your argument. Um, I think your strongest point is that the word omnipotence in in careful in in in the sophisticated hands, careful minds, whatever, in the in the the in the hands of an expert could be so so wisely crafted to avoid the problems that I mentioned in that chapter dying the death of a thousand qualifications. And so I'm I am probably too strong in saying omnipotence dies because we have all these qualifications, because it could still live, but just it would be highly nuanced, you know. Actually, let me let me read something just just to illustrate this from uh an influential analytic uh essay uh from Fredoso and Flint. So this is a pretty classic uh essay they wrote on maximal power. But listen, this is I I just to give our listeners an idea of what I mean, this is what they how this is how to define omnipotence. S is omnipotent at time t in world w, if and only if for any state of affairs P and a world type for SLs, such that P is not a member of the L's, if there is a world asterisk, such that L's is true in both world and world asterisk asterisk, I just can't say that word very well. And world asterisk shares the same history as world at times t and at t in world asterisk, someone actualizes P, then S has the power at T in world W to actualize P. Now, obviously, those letters are standing for a variety of things about possibilities, times, world, etc. And so if if I had all of the added all those right words in there, it might be a little clearer to the average person. No, but even if we did that, that still is a very highly nuanced, qualified definition. Um, and I think you know it probably works as a definition for omnipotence. But I I look at that and I say, well, what's the advantage of staying with the word? Why stick with that word if it's a cause problems for so many people around the questions of the problem of evil and the problem of divine hiddenness and even you know biblical inerrancy? And then B, and this is my argument in the first chapter. If it's not a word we find in scripture, and so I mean, I'm still a person who wants to stay attuned to the scripture. Since I don't the scriptures is not requiring it, then uh it may not die the death, but it's on life support. It's life support. Uh what do you think of that?

Kyle: 33:27

So we did something similar in our sorry, Chris. Real quick, in our previous conversation, I I mentioned to you a certain definition that actually came from Mike Green, who we were talking about earlier. And if you read it written out, it's very much like that one. But there's a way to cash it out in sort of layman's terms, which I try to do then. That makes it sound a little more intuitive. And you actually agreed with it at the time and said, Oh, that's amipotence. So there might be a semantics thing here going on, you know.

Tom: 33:52

Um I want to say you bring up a good point in that any alternative I am to offer, I've got to also clarify, right? Right. So there's gonna be clarifications if it's gonna be uh helpful to those who are thinking very critically and seriously. And and I I definitely grant that.

Kyle: 34:10

Yeah. Chris, go ahead.

Chris: 34:12

Uh well, first of all, I was going to say uh, you know, the the definition you read. I mean, I just preached on that last week. I think it's pretty that'll preach. I think I'll recall probably there. Say something. Come on. Uh but no, I think you're right. And I think as I as you were reading this, you know, when you when you put it in the really abstract language of analytic philosophy, I think, you know, I think as Kyle mentioned, you can phrase these in different terms. But uh yeah, I I guess uh your your point is taken. What I what I what is thinking of, and I think the your question of why should we stick with it, what I think is lurking in the background of this that I think maybe is unexamined, is these aren't concepts in a vacuum. Um when I read your critique of omnipotence, it sounds like to me, like I said this in my article, is that it sounds like you're you what you want to do is give an imminent critique. That is, omnipotence fails on its own terms. It's not granted open and relational theism or process theism, omnipotence fails. Because, you know, as a Thomist, again, I don't know where I am in the at the moment, but I'm reading this from a Thomist lens, and most of the Thomist friends that I know of would say, well, you you can't just abandon it because that's a necessary um uh uh conclusion from the nature of God as pure act. That's what it means to be have have unlimited uh power. And all the ways you parse it are simply saying what it would mean for that to act. Um so for example, they would say, um, you list all these different things that God can do. And reading it, it's a lot. But I might suggest from a Thomas perspective, they all all boil down to the same thing. Um, God can't do things that aren't perfections on God's own being. Um so for example, if I if I were to say, uh to me, it's like someone saying, uh, look, look, a married bachelor uh can't have a spouse. Look at all the things a married bachelor can't do. A married bachelor can't have coffee with a spouse, a married bachelor can walk a dog. I mean, you can list a thousand different things. And and even and I mean I mean, and uh, but really what you're trying to say is this is what it means to be a bachelor. And so um uh I guess what what I'm wondering in the background is is if you're really trying to shoot to the heart of uh critiquing classical theism, and then when it to me, when it comes across as you you critiquing sort of like an offshoot of classical theism, I think there's a disconnect there, if that makes sense.

Tom: 36:33

Yeah, I I first of all, I want to agree with you that um at least in those who use the word omnipotent well, they do so in the context of a larger metaphysical framework. And Thomism has a pretty sophisticated one, pretty impressive one, one that I think is pretty bad. And I've written this day, used, you know, I've written a lot of things about why I don't think God is pure act without potentiality and all that sort of stuff. But I grant that omnipotence could work in this broader framework. And I'm coming with a particular broader framework I call open relational thought, influenced by Alfred North Whitehead and lots of other things. So yeah, um, I I agree with that. Then of course, we have to stand back a little bit further and try to judge the relative value of the frameworks and and then of course I do that in some places, but maybe not so much in this book that that we're responding to here. Uh so yeah, I I I'm in agreement with you there. You it kind of reminded me, Chris, of um the criticism of my friend Bill Hasker, who's an analytic philosopher of religion. When he criticizes me, he he likes to say, well, Tom's qualifications all boil down to logical qualifications. But what he means by that is that he assumes all kinds of ontological and metaphysical claims about God. And if you share all of his my metaphysical claims about God, then there's all these logical implications, right? But like, you know, for instance, he and I both think God experienced time moment by moment, uh, and so therefore, it's just logical that God can't change the past because there's no chance, you know, and so it just makes perfect sense. But a classical theist like my uh friend Kevin Tempe, he thinks God can change the past because he's got a different metaphysics, so it's not a logical thing. So um, so just saying it's logical, uh logical that I'm just denying logical uh contradictions doesn't go nearly far enough in cashing out all the ontological and metaphysical claims. And I think that also applies to the Thomistic uh example you gave. Yeah, except yeah.

Chris: 38:59

By the way, I'm not even saying Thomas is right. I mean, I think uh I know that. Yeah, I like there's uh you know, there like Thomas, you know, he he hedges a lot. Um and uh um so it's more just how would I read this? Uh Kyle, I I think I've been talking a lot, I apologize. But what I might say is that as I read your argument, I think where you get really strong, where I stood up and took notice, where you get to evil. And what what what I might suggest for you know, and um is uh as I read it, and what it might to me what's more effective is it's not that omnipotence is is incoherent, it's perfectly coherent and perfectly monstrous. And so that that might be so which might be the the uh I guess the the the kill shot, if you might ask, as it were. So which I think is is um uh that's sort of my position now on Thomas. I think to me, I think his system is perfectly coherent. I just don't know that it's God. And so that that's that's sort of the question I have at the back of my mind as I as I read as I read you.

Kyle: 39:56

So this is fascinating to me, Chris, knowing you I mean, we haven't I don't know when the last time we we we we like tag or you know, we'll message each other sometimes back and forth. It used to be on Twitter, but I'm not on Twitter anymore. So no, no. We'll text and whatever, but like back in the day, you were you were hardcore, man. And uh I remember an exchange you had with Greg Boyd on on the old Twitter one time that went on for quite a while, and you were like hardcore defending this um secondary causal distinction in Aquinas or or whatever. I mean, you drank that. I don't want to call it Kool-Aid because it's way more sophisticated. You drank like that that high-end wine, yeah. The way you're pretty hard. Um so like what I mean, you said a little bit of what happened, but yeah, to to drive something to the point where now you're willing to say that's whatever that is, I I have an immense deal of respect for Thomas Aquinas. I wouldn't go so far as to say that whatever he was talking about was not God. Um, and I never loved him as much as you did. So I want you to explain a little more uh about how you're willing to say that. And how do you conceive of God now such that that can't be what it is?

Chris: 41:07

Sure. No, I appreciate the question. Um I think um during during grad school and and in in those days, um, even before kids, kids changed the way it doesn't necessarily mean you have to have kids to change your mind, but I think having children really just shifted the way I viewed the world. And um I think I've talked to Tom about this over email, but for me, it was almost uh a logical game. Um giving given certain premises, how can I make it work? Uh that's what it was for me with secondary causality. And it was fun for me to make it fit um with uh with Greg Boyd. I uh I really enjoy Greg Boyd. What I was pushing back on him was that he was critiquing Thomas, but what he did is he cited from the part of the Summa that Thomas was disagreeing with and and didn't make the distinction. So which is again as so which easy, you know, it's a mistake to make, but but I I was, you know, I was I was I was in my my uh angsty grudge phase. But for me, thinking about these terms and how they apply to the real world um really shifted how I is that really the God I can worship? I uh again, I think I think I've talked to Tom about this as I've expressed my the my shift in perspective. But one one of the ways that I was looking at Thomas was the how can God not be the cause of evil? And and when when Aquinas deals with with evil and sin, he clarifies in a lot of different ways, and so let's say we grant all of his premises. Aquinas will conclude that God is the cause of the act of evil, but not the evil itself. And it's reduced to the to the deficient secondary cause. Um, an analogy might be uh when the sun casts a shadow on a tree, uh when the sun shines on a tree and the tree casts a shadow, the the cause of the shadow is the sun, ultimately, but you trace the shadow back to the tree. It's an imperfect analogy, but it kind of makes sense. But then when I put that into practice, switch out words with God is the cause of the act of murder, God is the cause of the act of genocide, fill in the blank. No matter how much I thought about it, it didn't seem to me like that was God as described in Jesus. And I as I've become more involved, and and I guess Randy, you know, as a as a pastor, as you talk to people and see people's pain and uh and hear their heartbreak and want to know about does God love me? Is this God? Um, I've adopted uh Peter's approach, which is um in in scripture, which is uh where Peter sees, he thinks he sees Jesus coming to him across the water. Is it a ghost? And and he says, if that's you, tell me to come to you. And that's my approach with theology. So I can make lots of things make sense. But to me, it's is that is that you, Lord? Is that is that Jesus? And uh I think when I when I read Aquinas like you, I have a lot of respect for him. Um I I think that he has a wonderful vision of God, and I think he takes the best of philosophy and science of the day and synthesizes it brilliantly. And he's not afraid to push back against people who keep who preceded him. Uh and uh he was, you know, in some ways, I think he was a theological rebel, and I love it. And I think uh, but as far as his view of God, um, I just don't know that that's the the God I can believe in who is revealed in Jesus Christ. So that's kind of where I'm where I'm at. I can't preach that. I mean, I guess I could, but I don't really believe it. And that's and if I don't believe it, then my parishioners aren't going to believe it.

Tom: 44:43

That's that's beautifully put. I I'm hearing two major justifications for your shift. One is uh evidence based on experience or how you say the world really works, so your own experience in the world. And the second one is an appeal to what you think Jesus is like and whether or not he reveals. Those seems to be pretty central for you.

Chris: 45:07

Yeah.

Tom: 45:09

For me too.

Chris: 45:11

Uh yeah, and so as I read you, Tom, you know, I think you do a really good, I mean, really, really good job. But for me, it's not that it's incoherent. It's just it creates a God I think I can't believe in that God in real with relation to evil, and I just I just can't. So that's to me where I really picked up in you in your book is the the evil part. Thanks.

Randy: 45:29

What do you mean when you say that I've what do you mean when you say that, Chris, that you can't believe in that God as it relates to evil? Did you say?

Chris: 45:36

Yeah, so if if if the classical uh picture of God where um God ordains all things and um not only the ends, but the means to the ends, um, and then with given the amount and subs pain and suffering we see in the world, I I don't think the the the answers that I've been given are are good enough. And even if they are, it results in a God that I would have want to have nothing to do with. Okay.

Tom: 45:59

Yeah, and in this book uh that you responded to, The death of omnipotence, birth of amnipotence, um you know from my past work that I've really focused on the problem of evil as my reason to reject traditional views of God's power. But in writing this book, I wanted to sort of uh make the argument broader and bring in the philosophical considerations and the biblical considerations, in addition to proposing an alternative. So um I think you're right for most people, the problem of evil is the strongest of those arguments.

Kyle: 46:38

Yeah, and it's the thing I I'll say that makes this worthwhile, like all this nerdom. Uh it's what gives it teeth. This this is why it matters. It it fundamentally reorients your perspective of what God can mean as a concept, and therefore what kind of being you can be in a relationship with, and therefore what you can expect of the world, this one and the next one, if there is a next one. And what I mean by that is there's either like we're surrounded by horrific daily I won't even give references, but I could name things I read about today that make me think there can't be anything behind this. And if there is, I don't want to know it. And same same as you, Chris, when I had kids, that that increased a thousandfold. Um and so this fundamentally reorients what you can expect to be done about that, if anything, if you think that's meaningful at all. And yet I'm I'm in this weird position where I can't go the way that Tom has gone. Yeah because well I want to try to discuss a little bit here why that is, um try to think it out loud because I'm not totally sure myself, but I find myself in this position where I don't think there's a good answer to the problem of evil after having thought about it very carefully for a long time. In fact, some of the proposed solutions to it offend me. Um and yet I think God exists, and I think that entails that that something could have been done about it. Something could be done about it now that isn't being done. And that puts me in a weird position with God, a weird position with Jesus. And we've we've talked about this a lot on the show about problem of evil and what it means and what it you know does to our faith. And it puts me in a position of aporia or like I mysterianism, whatever you want to call it, um, I'm in a really strange place with Jesus. Uh when we talked about prayer uh recently. Yeah. And the best I could say about it was when I try, the first thing I feel is in a kind of estrangement and a little bit of anger. And this is a huge part of that. Um and i i if I try to imagine an afterlife, which I'm not sure I believe in anymore, but if I try to imagine one, the only thing I can imagine is how fucking dare you, like some version of that, right? So that's where I'm at. And it would be really nice, frankly, to be able to say, as you do, Tom, uh, God couldn't do anything about that. God is in a similar position to me with respect to evil for very good reasons, for very considered reasons. And so I want you both to comment a little bit on your fundamental ideas of what it means to be God. Because I'm still kind of, maybe, Tom, you would say I'm stuck in this place, I don't know, but I'm in this place where when I think of the concept, just the same as I used to teach it to my students in philosophy 101, before we even get to the question of whether this thing exists, we have to define the concept. We have to understand what the hell we're talking about. And to me, a notion of God, not just a really powerful being, but God, includes that it created this world. And I don't know how to make sense of that without something very close to omnipotence, close enough that it could have done something about all this. And so if it if it can't do that, then I have a very hard time thinking of that thing as God. Maybe I'm getting that all backwards, but I want you guys to talk about like when you get down to brass tacks, what is God really? Because I asked you, Tom, and kind of somewhat jokingly, tongue in cheek, but I kind of meant it, on your view, how is God different from a really advanced alien? If God is limited, for example, by not having a body, uh, or or whatever, like that's a sci-fi scenario to me. Like, that's we're not talking theology anymore. So tell me why I'm wrong, Chris. I want your take on all that as well.

Tom: 50:40

You want to start, Chris? What do you think?

Chris: 50:42

Oh, I'll I'll add you, I'm still I'm still thinking.

Tom: 50:44

Okay. There's so many things that I want to comment on there, uh, Kyle. But I'll just start with my own view of things, and then um we'll see where that takes us. For me, God is a universal spirit whose nature is love and has maximal influence in the world. I can add things like knows all that's possible to know and everlasting, which I also agree with. So those are kind of characteristics that make God different from any alien or creature that I know. So there's some pretty big claims. But I think the biggest one for us maybe to explore is the maximal power one. What does it mean to have maximal power? And um I think as you know, that when you start thinking about God's power, you always have to have a certain assumptions about the primacy of divine love. So whatever you say about divine power as I see it, can't contradict or undermine or be in opposition to love. And another thing I think you need to do is take into account what you think you know best from your experience. And so claims about free will, which are, you know, pretty prominent in in the literature here, uh, that we all have we all at least believe, think we make free choices. We gotta take that into account. And, you know, I'm in the camp that says God can't control free creatures, uh, otherwise we're not really free. But we also have to take into account suffering and evil and things we think that are opposite of what God wants. And so maximal power for me is always gonna be qualified by not only God's nature of love, but life as I seem to understand it. Acknowledging that I don't know all things and I can make mistakes and you know, I'm I'm fallible, all that sort of stuff. Um so that's how I start to think about maximal power in God. And because other philosophers like to use the language of maximal power, and I think they don't aren't specific enough, I try to hone in on the characteristics of this universal loving spirit who has maximal power. I think that means that God exerts influence on all other existence in creation and receives influence from all other things. I think maximal power means doing that everlastingly. So the duration of that influence, so that we we're talking breadth, we're talking duration. Uh I think that it also means that the individuals in our own lives who we think are the most powerful have the ability to inspire other people to use their powers towards some common goal. So that's why we think Mother Teresa is stronger or more powerful than the the Olympic the gold medal Olympic weightlifter, because that person used their muscles, but Mother Teresa has inspired other people to use their muscles in a lot greater and bodies in a lot greater ways. So that's I could say more about this, but I think I'll start there. That's what I mean by God, and that's how I try to um think about God's power in light of these other factors.

Chris: 54:24

Well, thanks for that, Tom. As you were describing that, it reminded me of what I really appreciate about your work and um your your your theological imagination. Um I like the fact that you're not afraid to uh topple sacred cows of theology. Um and I think that uh that shows a real um commitment to truth, which I I respect. Um for me, Kyle, I'm in a similar place as you. I don't know what to think about God at this point. Um I think, like you mentioned, and I think uh, you know, I've been reading a lot of process metaphysics just to get my get the background. And while it's interesting, where I think a lot of these things founder, at least, at least for me, is creation. And I think uh Tom, your work on creation of nothing uh is uh is fascinating to me. I've read a lot of what you've said, and some days I think I think he's got it. And other days I think I think he just restated creation out of nothing but used different words. So it depends on the day. So I'm looking forward to our discussion. I got a couple, I've got a couple questions. But um because as Kyle, as you mentioned, uh for Aquinas, omnipotence is the only thing that can bring something into being from nothing. Um, and so that's sort of built into the system. But then what do we do with the world? What do we do with what we observe in the world, the amount of pain and suffering on a daily that that stagger the imagination? Um at the risk of just pulling a Jesus juke, um, I will I'll say that in in the Anglican tradition in my church, we uh you know there's a saying that goes back a long, long ways back, but we use it a lot, which is just um uh lex orandi lex credendi, which is the rule of prayer is the rule of belief. And so as I've um done um pastoral work and as the work of through my ordination processes of of um of praying the prayer book of con prayer um and participating in the sacraments, that's where I meet God. And um at first I thought uh when I if I hear myself say that, I would have thought that's really just shallow. But as I participated in it, whatever sense that I've had of its shallowness has disappeared. I I when I when I when I serve the bread and the wine, I'm meeting God's graciousness and presence in that. And to me, it points to um who Jesus is. Uh Rowan Williams, one of our one of our greatest uh theologians, he said that faith is bel is trusting that God is not less than has been revealed in the person of Jesus. And so when I think about God, I'm of two minds. I have all this interesting metaphysical questions. What does it look like to say that God created the world? Um, what are the implications for evil? Um what does disembodiment mean? What I had what I, you know, all these really good questions. But for me is does it does it, does it reflect the self-sacrificial nature of who Jesus was? Something that I consistently preach um on Sundays, um, and again, Randy, uh you can hopefully uh speak to this as well, is that in the Gospels, Jesus is constantly shifting our perception of what power is, of what wealth is, of what favor with God is. It isn't to the physically powerful, those who can control and dominate it. It's to the weak. Jesus did not come as a conquering king, but as um as an oppressed, subjugated savior. So when I look at that, that's honestly where I have to say that's who God is. And what that means for evil, I have no idea. And I really like what you say, Tom, as far as the implications, but I'd have to think about it some more because um it's really challenging. I'll leave it at that, but then that's that's what I have on that topic.

Tom: 58:03

Can I challenge you, Kyle?

Kyle: 58:05

Yes, that's why that's why I invited you here, Tom.

Tom: 58:08

Good. Uh this is probably not exactly the way you said it, but I've heard other people say this, and you said something to the effect of God for you has to be omnipotent, sort of an aspect in part, or maybe in main, because God has to be the creator. God the word God functions as an omnipotent creator, and I'm assuming you mean out of nothing there as well. And that approach always seems seems weird to me. Like if you start with a premise, God has to be X, Y, and Z. I do that too, but um I I like to think that I'm open to shifting my premises. Kind of like if someone said the world for me, by definition, has to be the center of the universe. And then someone came along with good arguments for why there was the world wasn't at the center of the universe, but there still is a universe, you wouldn't dismiss the whole universe because the world's no longer at the center. You'd adjust what you think is going on in some way and probably maintain the world and the universe just in a different kind of relation. Um is what you're suggesting here similar with God? Like is it the case that you can maintain the word God, keep some of the attributes that most people think God has, but shift some of the others because just like because there's reasons to do so, evidence, whatever. What do you think of that?

Kyle: 59:46

I think that's a fair critique. And it depends on how central that thing I'm being asked to shift is, I suppose. Sure. And I don't want this to boil down to just semantics, right? I want there to be like meaningful, important differences here that have purchase. And I think they're But I'm totally open to the idea. In fact, I embrace the idea that some of our I mean, some concepts we absolutely take for granted we know are wrong. And we give all kinds of examples from science of that, right? Like the idea that space is curved. I mean, what that even makes sense to me, right? That's not my experience of space. And so it might just be that my concept of that thing that I take to be basic to my experience is just fundamentally mistaken. And I, if I want to be informed and if I want to speak carefully, I have to replace it with an entirely different concept. And so it's it's possible that that's true of God too. I'll grant that. Absolutely it is. Um I guess maybe it's because I read Anselm at an informative age. I don't know what it was. Maybe I shouldn't have done that. But like the uh that whole argument uh doesn't get off the ground with Anselm's any ontological argument, but primarily primarily Anselm's. The whole thing is based on the idea that we all kind of have an idea of what God is, even the atheist. We know what we're talking about. If we're actually disagreeing, we're disagreeing about something that we share in common. And that idea is something along the lines of the greatest conceivable maximal possible being, whatever you want to, however you want to catch it out. And that includes any great making power, and one of those is um the ability to make a world, uh, to make it differently from the way that it could have been. And if God could have done better than what is here, then that wouldn't have been God. Right. Or if we can conceive of a thing that could have done better than this, then that thing that we're conceiving of is God. Like that's the whole ontological argument. And I guess I was persuaded by that basic premise. I think I do kind of have that idea, and I don't think it's I don't think I'm imagining the greatest human or the best pizza or any of those other stupid parodies of the argument. Right? I think God is a unique kind of notion in that sense.

Tom: 1:01:59

Isn't it also true though, even though you think God is that then which nothing greater can be conceived, God is perfect, has all these great making great making properties. But you're like 90 or the vast majority of the rest of us. If you see that one of those gr that two of those great making properties are contradictory, you're willing to adjust, right?

Kyle: 1:02:19

Yeah.

Tom: 1:02:19

I mean, yeah. So it's not like you just say, okay, God's gotta be the greatest in all things, reason be damned, experience be damned. That's right. So it I suspect you're also kind of in the game of trying to make it all work out in some way.

Kyle: 1:02:37

And I'm just maybe and I don't even really have a dog in this fight anymore. Oh, really? It's like a kind of a a weird conversation to enter back into because I'm still interested in it, you know, kind of like Chris, I think. I spent so long being so much so caring caring so much about this that I still feel like I have a dog in the fight, even though I probably don't. Um but but where it is real to me is that that evil thing, right? Yeah, yeah. And if I could conceive of a thing that seems to me like God, a thing that I could willingly worship, that in some way squares it with the existence of the evil that I see, I would gladly embrace that thing. Even if it meant upending what I thought the word God meant or whatever, you know, changing the concept out entirely. So I resonate a lot with both both what both a lot of what both of you are saying here.

Tom: 1:03:26

And I'd like to ask you another question of actually both of you, Chris and oh I can guess all three of you if you want. I was reading today an article in a Faith and Philosophy journal maybe 10, 15 years ago. And uh one of the argument and the guy was making arguments similar to the kind of arguments I make, but near the end, he said something that I found to be true, but I wasn't sure it was true for universally. He said something like we all know that if push comes to shove and we have to choose between goodness and power, we intuitively know that goodness is better uh intrinsically better. So in other words, he's making the argument that we we sort of intuitively know we have to rethink power issues in order to align them with our notions of goodness. Do you think that's too strong a claim? Does that fit with you guys?

Kyle: 1:04:19

If he really meant we all know, then it's obviously false. Unless you just don't take Nietzsche's if you think Nietzsche was lying. Yeah, or I was thinking of certain politicians Yeah, yeah, Trump couldn't exist if that were true. Like maybe he just meant maybe he just meant um beyond certain forms of sociopathy or uh real psychological d issues, but that wouldn't account for Nietzsche or people like that either. So no, he's wrong about that. But it resonates. Yeah. I think it's the conviction is accurate. Yeah. Chris, what do you think?

Chris: 1:04:52

Yeah, so I'm with you. Um I think the conviction is accurate. Recent events in the world have have seen I've seen people who would say they agree, but what they identify as goodness is power. So maybe again the the the premise is correct, but the way that plays out is hard. I I I uh I've I I am a little bit disheartened to the to the extent to which people I thought could distinguish the two cannot.

Kyle: 1:05:17

Yeah. Yeah. Good points. Did the pastor have anything to pitch on? No, okay. Um this reminds me of something that I thought of a little bit earlier in the conversation, but I think is relevant here as well. Is and it's a point in Tom's favor for what's worth, is like if if we have these two ideas, because you used that beautiful analogy, Chris, earlier when you were pressing Tom on. Um, well, what about your notion of love? That has a lot of qualifications too, hasn't it? Um but like if we have to get rid of one, this is maybe what something like what this guy was getting at, right? If it's between a certain kind of Jesus-based definition of love, or not even just Jesus-based, you don't have to be Christian to see the value in this, right? Yeah, yeah. Some some kind of um universal, um yeah, I want to say unqualified, like a kind of an unconditional, you know, love based on whatever the essence of human beings is. Um doesn't have to God doesn't even have to exist to, I think, see the value in that. And if you have that on one hand and some complicated notion of power on the other, it's pretty obvious which one you should get rid of, right? Like what do you lose if you get rid of of these? On the one hand, you lose everything, and on the other, I'm not sure, honestly. Like you you lose some the ability to explain some intuitions that are already hard to explain.

Chris: 1:06:32

So No, I think you're exactly right, Kyle. And uh, you know, I realize as even as I was writing the paper, is I mean, what a what a boring thing am I presenting of like, well, technically, uh, you know, so but I mean, look, when I when I was reading your your book, Tom, I I was thinking, how how can this make the most impact? And you know, reading your treatment of of um of the the death by thousand qualifications, I guess I I thought, man, I was waiting for for something that would really, you know, make me as a former Thomas to really just like stop. But when you cite Thomas, I thought, well, Thomas already dealt with this, or or you know, and so ultimately I I think like uh Kyle, it doesn't matter if it's coherent. Uh it's uh because great, what are the implications? I'd go with love if if it's incompatible with love, it's if it's incompatible with Jesus, I'm choosing Jesus uh for my context or love um every day and twice on Sunday. Uh so I think I think that's a that's a good point. I just wanted to focus what exactly is the criticism here?

Kyle: 1:07:31

Yeah. Yeah. Anything else we should uh hash out while we're all here together? Did we figure this out?

Tom: 1:07:40

Well, one of the things I try to do is take my critics' best arguments to heart. Um and part of that means I try to ask myself, well, what are the good reasons to retain belief in omnipotence? And obviously there's some things that some people are good reasons I'm not gonna think are good reasons, but like if I try to give people the best, the most charitable interpretation. Uh one reason to hold on to omnipotence that I have some of my friends uh who affirm, and I don't think you guys are in this camp, is basically an argument based on tradition. The vast majority of theologians in the Christian tradition and in Islam as well as Judaism have said that God is omnipotent, and it's kind of like, you know, why why um try to why try to go away from something that's working, which I don't think it's working, but that's kind of their argument. Like it's it's an appeal to the authority of the tradition. Um another one, and this was the last kind of thing to fall for me, was an eschatological hope. So you know, if folks are in dire straits, you know, I think our country's in going through some tough times now, but could get worse, and there's been worse times in history, but you're going through dire straits, and it's not looking like good is prevailing. It it would feel great if you could bank on an omnipotent God who could single-handedly fix things at the end, whether that means you know, universalism or some sort of annihilationism or two classic heaven and hell, or whatever it is. Somehow this God um that would be a a reason to want to hold on to omnipotence. Um so those are two possibilities. Can you think of guys think of others that are you've heard that are fairly at least somewhat compelling?

Chris: 1:09:45

Uh yeah, Kyle, visor, if I tack on here. Please do, yeah. Connected to those, connecting maybe to the to the eschatological hope one, is um I speak to a lot of um uh friends who are really invested in liberation theology.

Kyle: 1:09:58

Yes.

Chris: 1:09:59

Um, and so um I've heard you talk about this before, and I think your response, please correct me if I'm wrong, is something like, How's that working out for you so far?

Tom: 1:10:09

Yeah, you've heard me. That's Julie kind of being snarky.

Chris: 1:10:13

Exactly. And and and and I and I I I I certainly get that response. But when I read James Cohn, for example, and it's not just that it's not gonna work out now, but a God who intends to and is dead is aimed towards liberating um God's people, um, even if it's not now, that God can and will redeem you from what what happened to you is really important. That and um I find, you know, that that response, again, I I think it it it it it makes sense because right, you know, how's that working out for you now? But when I speak to people like that, I don't know how I can articulate that in a way that stays true to the spirit of God, it's not just intent, but God will redeem you from what what has happened to you. Um your your dehumanization will be turned into humanization. Um your destruction of life will be brought to life in wholeness and fullness. And that's um sometimes that makes me uh sit back and think about how to think about God's power. So I don't know how you respond to something like that.

Tom: 1:11:22

Yeah, I I've been thinking a lot about this, and and um and some of the ways I'm responding, Chris, is to say um there is the James Cohn's of the world, but there's also the major Joneses of the world, a guy who wrote a book called Is God a White Racist? And he's a person of color who rejects omnipotence for these issues. Um but one of my this is gonna sound snarky again, maybe a little bit, but um another line I've been using in moments when I'm I'm trying not to, you know, when I'm I'm kind of letting loose with my friends, is um something like this. Um so you want to spend eternity with a God who allowed all the crap you went through when that God could have stopped it. Does that sound like the kind of eternity that sounds blissful? You know? Um so that's kind of another appeal to the how that's working out for you. Except it's it's asking, okay, what do you imagine the afterlife being in the presence of a God who could have prevented your suffering and liberated you far more quickly? Um so yeah, I'm not sure those are going to convince everybody, but I do think they're pretty strong.

Kyle: 1:12:40

Yeah. I'm I'm a Tom on this one. Like there's there's uh if God could do something about it in the future, then God could do something about it now or at any point in the past, unless we have a good reason for thinking otherwise. And I'm just not aware of what that reason is. So but at the same time, who am I to speak to what gives those liberation theologians that kind of hope? I get it. I just recently finally got around to reading Tana Hasikot's book between the world and me, and he takes a much more realist kind of uh you know, atheistic kind of take on the thing. And I I think it's also important to be able to face head on the possibility that there is no point to any of that, that it happened and it was every bit as bad as you think it was, and there was no reason for it. Oh, there was a reason for it, but not anyone that will satisfy anybody.

Chris: 1:13:23

Yeah, no, I'm I'm tracking with you. I I just um it's it's something I'm in co I've encountered, and I I've thought about how do I respond um possibly. Um I uh Tom, I I want to say briefly about tradition. Um I uh there's a line in your book about how omnipotence is kept on life support through high church liturgies, and I thought, oh man, that's that's a that's my fault. Um so I thought you know I I I you know I I brought my you know, looking through my book of common prayer, a lot of times we don't use the word omnipotent, we use um almighty God.

Kyle: 1:13:56

Sure.

Chris: 1:13:57

And and uh I have some friends in my tradition who would insist that means omnipotence. But one of my priest mentors, I think you know him, uh his name is Paul Nancaro.

Kyle: 1:14:07

Yes, I do.

Chris: 1:14:08

Yeah, so he I've had a lot of conversations with him, and he was adamant that in absolutely no way does that commit myself as a minister in the Episcopal Church to omnipotence, or you just he would re-I forget his definition, but he but uh I uh I was thinking about your line. I thought what way do ways do I do when we when we use the liturgy, does it prop up views of God that are harmful? And it's something I've been more aware of, but I keep thinking whenever I say Almighty God, I think I'm like, oh but but the way I do it is the Almighty is God possesses because you've talked about God as is extremely powerful in a certain sense. And so um that's where I just use the crystal I the Christological definition of God possessing the most power, which is which is not um coercive or controlling. So but anyway, I just I I had to laugh at your line of like I love it.

Tom: 1:15:00

And it's you can find if you go back 10 or 15 years, you can f I think 15 years ago probably, you can find me defending the use of the word almighty and defining it in three ways. Almighty means God exerts might upon all, Almighty means God gives might to all, and Almighty means God is mightier than any other. And God could be Almighty in those three ways and be uncontrolling or amnipotent in the way I'm talking about. I just ended up uh deciding I wasn't going to use Almighty because I realized that was uh what is found in scripture from what I think are mistranslations of Hebrew and Greek, and and also some people equate almighty and omnipotent, and so yeah. Anyway, thanks for sharing that.

Kyle: 1:15:53

Well, if we've made it back to the Bible, that means the conversation has reached its zenith, as far as I'm concerned. Who cares about that thing, right?

Tom: 1:16:02

I'm kidding. Thanks so much, Chris, for for your criticisms.

Chris: 1:16:07

Yeah, uh, no, I appreciate it. It's it was a joy to read, and I've uh I've I've given away copies. Um and uh I yeah, for sure. And you know, I love I love this idea. And you know, uh uh Kyle, but just the last thing I might say is you know, thinking about the term omnipotence is uh, you know, for someone like Thomas, the power of God is, yeah, he uses the term omnipotence, but it's proper to who the name it's it's the power God's active power in relation to the nature of who God is. And so I mean, you could say the nature of who God is as as prime primarily loving is God is maximally powerful in that sense. So I mean, so I mean you could even have like a neo-Tomist, yeah. He he wouldn't, if he's listening, Thomas, I'm sorry. But um, but uh but uh you could I rephrase it. So I think it's not alien to these these concepts, which is why I think you know you have a lot of uh promise in your idea.

Tom: 1:17:00

So thank you.

Kyle: 1:17:01

Fair enough. And he was he'd be the first to say that uh he didn't get it all right, right? If if the uh apocryphal story about him giving up everything after his truth.

Chris: 1:17:10

He said it when he got when he hit his head, he said everything he'd written is just drawn is straw. And I think what he meant to say further is also omnipotence should be omnipotent, but that I think that part was lost.

Tom: 1:17:22

Right there in the text. That's really good.

Kyle: 1:17:26

All right. On that note, guys, thanks so much. I hope that uh you guys have a great time at the LGBT camp. I'm sad that I won't be there with you.

Randy: 1:17:37

Sorry I had nothing to contribute here. We hope you're enjoying these conversations. Help us continue to create compelling content and reach a wider audience by supporting us at patreon.com slash a pastor and a philosopher, where you can get bonus content, extra perks, and a general feeling of being a good person.

Kyle: 1:18:04

Also, please rate and review the show in Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Please help new people discover the show and we may even read your review in a future episode.

Randy: 1:18:12

If anything we said pissed you off, or if you just have a question you'd like us to answer, send us an email at pastor and philosopher at gmail.com.

Kyle: 1:18:20

Find us on social media at PPWB podcast, and find transcripts and links to all of our episodes at Pastor and Philosopher.buzzproduct.com. See you next time. Cheers.