Can Abrahamic God do things that are logically impossible?
I see some religious scholars say that God could make a square circle, or know exactly what is going to happen in advance and be the cause of all our actions yet also give us free will, we just can't understand how because we are mortal.
On the other hand I see some religious scholars say that that is not the case.
Which is it?
Are logical axioms like A=A or something cannot be both A and not A at the same time necessarily true?
Obviously if God is omnipotent, he can do anything. And yes that includes doing logically impossible things.
fpbp
the entire idea of a transcendent miracle is that it occurs despite being logically impossible according to the rules of our reality as we understand them.
Yes he can, and he did when he became three while still being one.
And yes it implies that he should be able to give his creatures free will without having them suffer from it; or that he could let people stay away from him without being in hell.
Sauce?
Our Invisible Pink Unicorn can do everything Abrahamic God can do + 1.
God is omnipotent, in fact it is quite likely that he was the one who created logic in the first place, therefore he can pretty much break reality itself whenever he feels like it.
why should we believe that omnipotency including things which are logically impossible is itself a possible or valid idea.
for example A = A is a tautology, t's negation is unsatisfiable in any model.
what reason do we have to believe that God feasibly could make A != A ?
Once A != A you know longer have a model.
this is different from 1 = 3 which you can create a model satisfying as 1 != 3 is not a strict tautology.
1!=3 in this case also implies 3!=3 and 1!=1.
not true necessarily true.
1 = 3 in clock arithmetic modulo 2 for example. You can construct models like that .
>"And god became three while still being one"
>"How?"
>"because he can"
The bible hast the laziest writing I have ever seen
The trinity isn't in the bible.
This whole discussion is entirely useless, as god, especially in the old testament and in Judaism is a representation of reality rather than a being, stop humanizing god you dumb fuckers.
>asking Christians not to humanize god.
Your wasting your time.
But what if God created tautology as well?
Assuming Yahweh made the universe meaning he also made planck physics then yes he could edit logic IN THE UNIVERSE to be whatever he wanted. However the physics outside the universe would still be applied to him/.
But if you say "god is one" or "there's three gods", you are not a Christian.
1!=1=3!=3
You may need to reread the Old Testament sometime because it consistently shows God as a person. He speaks, he walks, he listens, he thinks, etc.
>Can Abrahamic God do things that are logically impossible?
The Abrahamic "God" isn't a god so it can't do anything. Abrahamics are intergalactic outlaws.
What is your endgame.
It's been months already
Outlaws of what?
>Outlaws of what?
Outlaws of God - you think a billions of years old intergalactic superhuman entity is going to stop the universe (if it even could/can) just because one species on one planet decided to go batshit crazy and redefine "God" as "raping, pillaging, mass-murdering, delusional lynch mob?"
youtube.com
>What is your endgame.
>It's been months already
I'm just telling the truth - it's not my fault if this species doesn't want to take the truth seriously - we all make choices in life.
God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely. For a thing is said to be possible or impossible absolutely, according to the relation in which the very terms stand to one another, possible if the predicate is not incompatible with the subject and absolutely impossible when the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject, as, for instance, that a man is a donkey.
It must, however, be remembered that since every agent produces an effect like itself, to each active power there corresponds a thing possible as its proper object according to the nature of that act on which its active power is founded. The divine existence, however, upon which the nature of power in God is founded, is infinite, and is not limited to any genus of being; but possesses within itself the perfection of all being.
Whence, whatsoever has or can have the nature of being, is numbered among the absolutely possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent. Now nothing is opposed to the idea of being except non-being. Therefore, that which implies being and non-being at the same time is repugnant to the idea of an absolutely possible thing, within the scope of the divine omnipotence. For such cannot come under the divine omnipotence, not because of any defect in the power of God, but because it has not the nature of a feasible or possible thing. Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them. Nor is this contrary to the word of the angel, saying: "No word shall be impossible with God." For whatever implies a contradiction cannot be a word, because no intellect can possibly conceive such a thing.
>What is your endgame.
Being an amerimutt who cannot into logic nor theology
This autist is right, God is less of a deity and more of an invincible batshit insane extradimensional alien.
If God is infinite in His very nature, then to create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift, God would have to create something greater than Himself - who is infinite - which is impossible.
But not only that, God would have to deal with physical realities that simply make the proposition in our universe impossible.
Firstly, God cannot create a physical rock of infinite mass, because no such matter can exist on our plane of existence. Matter is, by its very nature, finite.
Secondly, we have to look at what it means to "lift" something to begin with. To "lift" means to elevate something against the current predominant gravitational field. Newton's law of universal gravitation suggests that the gravitational pull between two objects is directly proportional to their masses. So not only would God have to create something of infinite mass, but He would have to create a plane of existence where there is an infinite force of gravity acting against Him to lift the mass, but the plane of existence would also have to act in such a way that its gravity was somehow greater than the infinite mass.
So, if God were to fundamentally alter the gravitational coefficient, the laws of gravity, or the definition of lift - and thus cause the physical universe as we know it to cease - then yes, He could create something of so great a mass that He could not lift it, thus causing the end of all things.
But, as we see, this is simply impossible.
>a representation of reality rather than a being
>in the old testament and in Judaism
but the opposite is true
>This autist is right, God is less of a deity and more of an invincible batshit insane extradimensional alien.
Everyone knows that...
The idea behind a miracle is that it defies what we understand as possible. According to the Bible, Jesus walked over water and cured leproses just by putting his hands on them.
You could say that's not impossible or ilogical per se and that it could respond to some sort of energy that we don't know or can't have access to. But that would be an equally biased and arbitrary stance, and it would assume that we could potentially in time do it all and know it all.
The whole idea of God is that he's above us and we are limited. By definition, we'll never know it all nor do it all. We can never be god.
It's our understanding and capabilities what is limited. A=A and the rest of human logical axioms belong in the junior leagueof mankind. In the major league of God, those axioms are nonsense.
could you dumb it down a little please?
it seems like a big stretch to say that because God can alter laws of physics he can do things that are logically impossible, self-contradictory or paradoxical.
where is the evidence?
there's nothing logically impossible about parting the red sea, turning a stick into a snake or walking on water or the other miracles that come to mind.
Nope, the Demiurge is limited
>how to write like apostmodernist 101
easily could of distilled that and not write with language in a way that evades clarity
Yes God could do anything but this square circle bullshit is pure none sense, thats why definitions exist, it cant be something it is and something it is not at the same time. Definitions determine what somethinhg is classified as dumbfuck
Imagine what you could do if you wrote with the purpose of being understood.
>Can Abrahamic God do things that are logically impossible?
Yeah sure, why not? He's the giant rat that makes all of the rules.
Let's see what type of trouble he can get himself in to.
God loves you, so do i lol God Bless
God is called omnipotent not because he can do so much more than human, nor that he can do anything that he can but because he can do anything possible absolutely i.e. anything that can be done to the given ubject, God can do.
Remember that divne nature is by defintion perfect so it acts by defintion does not corespond to the subject. For exemple the power of giving warmth is related as to its proper object to the being capable of being warmed while God who posses perfection of all being can act in any possible way upon subject.
Now, existence cannot be the same as nonexistence. Therefore, self-contradictory things (like square circle or four angles triangle etc) cannot be done, not because power of God falls short, but because they possibly cannot be. Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent while rest does not have posssiblity in it whatover. It is thefore better to say that thing cannot be done than that God cannot do it.
And it is not contrary to Scripture when it talks about God's omnipotence since it says that all word i.e. intelctual concept can be done by God. For self-contradictory things cannot be created in any mind.
>Thomas Aquinas Summa
>postmodern
Not my fault that you want to discus theology without knowing basic terms.
It is clear theological language, created to have sharp and concrete definitions.
The only reason that the logic exists in the first place is because God made it, so He can definitely bend it.
Lol eat shit faggot
>he's so strong that if he can't do something he makes it so he can anyway lol
Wars have been fought over this retarded shit. It would be funny if not for the untold suffering it has brought.
Then maybe you should have defined exactly what a proper object or an active power are.
Active power - power that actually changes stuff. For exemple fire heating stuff up is have active power of heating.
Proper object - thing that is subject to act via active power. To use above example proper object is food.
I thought it was obvious.
There is evidence that suggests that the Abrahamic God was originally a henotheistic deity among other deities. When you read the Genesis account, the tower of Babel account, god is referred to in plural. "God standeth in the congregation of gods, in the midst of the judges He judgeth" from Psalm. Abrahamic God was likely *monotheised* to justify the rule of a single sovereign back when the canon was made and the state version of Christianity took root. When you look at the original words used for "god" they are differentiated. "Yahweh", "Adonai", "El", "Elohim", "Eloah", "El Shaddai", "El Elyon", "Baal" etc etc
aquinas gets a pass becuase he was writing against precursing modernist philosophers, he himself was a simple man and considered his work dung, to people you aim for clarity not uber sophistication which is meaningless in this case, do it with your philopshy class, anyways it reiterates what i said here and i said it like a pleb....
If God made the rules of the universe, he could change them. A=A because the laws and logic of our universe say so.
We can't even imagine what A=/=A would look like because we live here in the universe where A always =A.
This is where all those ideas that if you looked upon God or an angel's true form you'd go mad come from, they don't make sense within the laws of our universe so we can't even comprehend what we're looking at.
Your is upside down. Henotheism came from Monotheism as evident from isolated tribes that have monotheistic view on supreme being. Henotheism was born when one tribe merged with another and since they could not came to conclusion that "my supreme being have to be your suprme being by defintion of being supreme being" thay thought that one of suprme being is more suprme than another. And after many such cycles and general tendency of specialisation in human thought henotheism evolves unto polytheism.
Can you bring up a few examples of tribes with monotheistic views? I thought most of them to be animistic perhaps prioritizing certain essences above others e.g. god of storm, sun god, god of sky, river god, god of war... whatever natural forces or characteristics were most valued in the tribe
North americans had their High God (though it devolved into monolatry and monotheism due the range and merging of tribes), aborigens also (same story) and iirc some African tribes too.
But of course academical establishment shifted in 50s and 60s so you do not hear about it often.
Sorry brainlet here
I can hardly make heads or tails of your post, and since we are also dealing with alien man in this thread I'm going to ask you for credentials
I know credentials offer no intrinsic merit to logical arguments, but it would help me determine how much effort to put forth in reading your post
You don't have to of course, this would just be for my benefit
>I can hardly make heads or tails of your post
Simplification presented already here Core argument here by some other user >I'm going to ask you for credentials
I have no title no merit to offer, if this is what you mean by credentials, save charity towards my only true love, Church, and her doctrine.
And I am not even author of this argument. I just abridged Thomas Aquinas Summa Thologica. I can link it to whole article but it's matter of googling "aquinas summa omnipotence".
Also, don't give atention to cultist, he is just your typical mutt american evangelic who since his sect prooved itself not to be the church runed into new age shit.
He did so routinely. Unless you think it's "logical" to be able to feed 30,000 people with one kid's lunch.
God can never lie because what he speaks becomes reality. He can change the laws of this earth when he wants. He made it. But he made these laws for us to follow. If he wants to help us he can jump in and change them. I assume though that he doesnt like to change the natural flow of our time or space except in extraordinary circumstances.
Post source, OP
It depends on whether or not logic is an aspect of God that we perceive or a creation of God . Aquinas thought that God was inherently logical, Descartes thought that God could perform logical impossibilities.
You can't lack the ability to do a non-thing.
Ok that's what I thought.
And what would you say to someone like who would presumeably assert that God is omnipotent therefore he must be able to do everything including doing things that are mutually contradictory but we are simply unable to understand how?
Muslims for example believe that God knows for certain absolutely everything that has and will ever happen and is the cause of everything that has ever happened but still assert that we have free will.
This is mutually contradictory because our actions are necessarily limited by God knowing the exact thing we are going to do, if we do not have the option to do anything different from what God has seen for us then we do not have free will .
But muslims will simply say "no, God can do everything but your mind cannot understand how"
first love syndrome
why do people think they can understand fucking god. it's god, he's beyond our dumb monkey understanding.
Why is there so many Christ fags on Veeky Forums?
if God is capable of doing the logically impossible then that would mean that God is capable of being in a state where he is both capable of doing the logically impossible and incapable of doing the logically impossible at the same time.
Also God can do that which God can not do
also he is capable of being unable to do things, while also being capable of doing anything and everything.
You wouldnt go mad seeing God's true form you would just see nothing because your brain cannot perceive it dumbass.
Yes
ITT morons
Isn't Aquinas' proof of the triangle supposed to show that God CANNOT produce a triangle with more or less than three sides, and that the conception of geometry or arithmetic as a system to be discovered in divine?
In other words, the people claiming that God can do logically impossible things are wrong because in order for something to happen that is fundamentally impossible, a new reality would have to be created.
This being said, God can manipulate any physical object or time itself because this universe IS him. It's just not logical to assume he can change the rules of the universe he created if he wants there to be any consistency at all.
To be honest with you, for God to change his rules of reality and morality like that, i.e. create things that are logically or morally impossible to be 'good', then this would actually support a Nietzschean existence of God in itself, and no permanence of divine command at all.
More like you’re just a lazy reader. Use your God-given brain.
>could of
You have no room to give writing advice to others
It’s not contradictory if you take into account the fact that God exists outside of time.
Why are there so many atheshits on Veeky Forums?
That doesn't explain how he creates things that aren't possible.
In fact, there is no valid explanation for that. Blindly just saying God can do anything is fine for physically and spiritually possible things, but for things that are impossible, like creating a triangle with more than three sides, doesn't make any logical sense.
It's like saying that God could roll a three sided die. We leave those sorts of problems with the sophists, they'll probably assert some sort of Nietzschean sentiment to make this possible.
>logically impossible
God created everything
Who created God?
God was just always there.
OK.
God, by definition, can't be constrained by human understanding. There is no "explanation" because in attempting to seek one you have already failed.
There are different levels of understanding, however. For instance, one would be a fool to state that books one and two of Euclids Elements are the same level of contemplation as Book X of Euclid's Elements.
Some level of reasoning is simpler than others. The propositions thus are still rigorously defined in the same way, with no care whatsoever given to how difficult it is to conceptualize it.
Surely, reading properties of hydrodynamics or fulcrums in Archimedes' books is more complex than Euclid, and yet Euclid is mentioned.
In this way, God cannot create a reality where the two sides of a right triangle subtending the right angle squared AREN'T equal to the hypotenuse squared, just like he cannot create a reality where the value of pi is determined by this very ratio (using 92 triangles) down to somewhere between the fractions 3+1/7th and 3+10/71sts.
The fundamental fabric of reality is inherent. Which is why also certain inventions were waiting to be discovered, like mathematical properties, because of the conception of the inventions themselves, using mathematical properties. This is similar to Plato's conception of 'forms'
So the demiurge?
What makes you think God needs to have been created?
Anyway the answer as to why there are some things that we don't understand that God does, is found in the first sentence of my reply. I kind of went off on a tangent, but I was basically saying that there are different levels of understanding. Like God understands everything you do, but there are SOME things that God understands you do not.
When you grasp comprehension of what God understands, these are inherently spiritual experiences.
I have had many encounters that can answer this. To tell you the truth, to answer this is to also describe why we are here on Earth. We sinned before God. God could have simply destroyed everything and started all over again. However, instead, he allowed us to exist. Part of the reason is because he still loved us. However, another reason is that he already knew his own plan of eventually sending Christ to sacrifice himself for us, thus bridging the gap between us and God. What does this add up to? Well, God does not want us to be mindless "robots". He loves us for who we are. However, life here on Earth is a necessary set of trials to see whether or not we CHOOSE to love him or not. For this reason, he also allowed Satan to exist (to act as the other option... that will eventually be destroyed anyways if you read Revelation in the Bible). So, to answer your question, he knows what will happen in advance. If you follow his plan, it will go together in an oddly satisfying fashion. Go against it, and your on your own. And even then, God is still knowing of everything you will do. But he still leaves it up to us whether or not to follow him. After all, the point to living on Earth is to be given this choice throughout the trials we face. To test our loyalty (so, in a way, life is kind-of a game of sorts. Neat, huh?). In fact, you know what, the answer to your question is to compare it to a video game. Like a video game, the developer sets up the events, and the player interacts. The developer can still make players do things, but not all the time. I know this was a broad answer, but it's the best one my mortal mind could come up with.
>In this way, God cannot
No.
stop talking about factorials plz
>is against saying God cannot, entirely
You have got to be kidding me. You realize I am conceding God is everything and can do anything physically or spiritually possible in the world he created right?
You just aren't thinking about it logically. Your position basically amounts to 'God can use a mobius strip as a treadmill', which is a position that puts you with the surrealists like Dali.
Sounds like a predestination argument
Yes according to Muslims no according to Jews
Holy shit, google delivered sauce immediately. That never happens.
This is probably the nicest thing the Jews have ever done for me.
jk a Jewish guy sucked my dick once.
Not according to muslims, no. The argument is that God has created the laws of this world. We're not saying he can't create a rabbit out of thin air, because that is obviously POSSIBLE.
We're saying he can't flip a three sided coin.
Bring this to Veeky Forums instead. This is not suitable for Veeky Forums.
ACTUS PURUS
...
>You just aren't thinking about it logically.
See
Again, that's such a simplistic point. See
a circle has no edges, no lines, a square four equal lines and four edges, god cant make a "circle" "square" seeing as that is a new defintion if you combine the two, he could alter your reality to think you see both as a trick obvisouly but logically it cannot be you dumbfuck
>And what would you say to someone like
That they are wrong from theological (and logical) point of view and lament over poor level of understanding of divine things.
As for free will. Foreknowledge does not cause thing to happen per se. For example, when there is thread about theology I am certain that someone will bring up free will (and that majority of them would be rude retards). Similarly God knowing all things past, future and present does not necessarily cause them.
Now, God is of course efficent cause of all things for he created them and without him they would cese to be. But not all things are willed by God. For exemple God don't willed any sin to happen but he permited it becuase free will neccesarry to love and love and God is love.
To put it in words of holy man: He created humanity at the beginning, and he left them to the power of their choices.
I think you have the right idea, but lets go to where you are talking about 'causing' things. I believe you are right, knowing what is going to happen does not 'cause' the thing to happen, but that is also a poor choice of words because the event will happen 100% of the time with perfect prescience like God.
So overall, I think it is better described like this: just because God knows everything that will happen, does not mean the human individual does not have free will, because human beings make good and evil choices all the time. If God knows a man is going to kill another man, that doesn't mean that the man didn't decide to kill that man, it just means that God had foreknowledge of the event.
The idea of God knowing what will happen in the future is important if we are to suppose the book of Revelations should be true, or any of the prophecies like through Moses and Aaron or Jesus' last supper. Clearly prescience is fully within God's power, it is something that doesn't show its head very often.
I think about many times if the Koran wasn't just describing a prophet in the future sometimes as well. All of these ideas are very important to consider, because they are creative, logical, and inherently confirm the existence of a being outside time and space as we know it.
Quran is definitely not revelation. It contains errors and I mean not such "errors" like "this author counted patriarch among his children so it came out as 667 not 666" or what you can find in Bible but claiming that God himself is lier and deciver, that moral law is not fixed in his goodness but changable, that God claimed that Sun sets in muddy pool that Alxander the Great (who he also claim to be devout muslim) found in the west and that people live there. Anything that good is in Quran came from Mohhamed putting there anything he heard, including some Christian things. But overall it is is bullshit.
Not to mention that it calims that Bible is authority while Bible contridicts it at any moment (for exemple Quran claims that Allah is father to no one while Bible is clear that God is not only father of his church by grace but he is eternal father in himself)
Show me in the Bible where it says that God is the father of someone. If it's not an interpretation of Christianity like Paul's writings, you will have converted me.
Otherwise, no, you have not made a point.
The Quran is a very good book, and not bullshit at all, but confirmatory of past works in the name of God, since it is the word of God himself.
>If it's not an interpretation of Christianity like Paul's writings
Paul writings are Scripture as good as Genesis and Sirach. It is only Scripture save Gospel of Luke that is called Scripture in NT even and not by anywho but the Pope himself, Peter
>Show me in the Bible where it says that God is the father of someone.
Sure:
King David, 1 Chronicles 29:10: And he blessed the Lord before all the multitude, and he said: Blessed art thou, O Lord the God of Israel, our father from eternity to eternity.
Psalm 67:6 Who is the father of orphans, and the judge of widows. God in his holy place
Ethan, the Ezrahite, Psalm 88:27 He shall cry out to me: Thou art my father: my God, and the support of my salvation.
Salomon, Wisdom 10:1 She preserved him, that was first formed by God the father of the world, when he was created alone
Sirach 23:4 O Lord, father, and God of my life, leave me not to their devices.
Apostle John, John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Christ himself: John 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed.
John 6:45 It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.
John 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father.
John 8:27 And they understood not, that he called God his Father.
Etc etc etc.
>The Quran is a very good book, and not bullshit at all, but confirmatory of past works in the name of God, since it is the word of God himself.
No good book claims that Sun sets in muddy pool. No good book claims that God himself said this bullshit.
Shoo shoo little tripagan
Maybe, but he's OUR batshit insane extradimensional alien
>And yes that includes doing logically impossible things.
But cant he do logically impossible things without breaking logic?
this picture reminds me to masturbate
Psalm 2:7 “I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.
Matthew 3:17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
Matthew 17:5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!”
>Can Abrahamic God do
Yes.
Logic, reason, the act of, the inaction of, causation, duality, boundaries and so on do not affect God. God is beyond all this in ways you cannot comprehend due to the fact that omnipotence contradicts itself extremely when he try to analyze it to make sense of it.
Stop trying to reason with something that can't be reasoned with.
Psalm 2:7 is talking about Israel, not Jesus.
Jeremiah 31:9 "I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn."
>Quoting the New Testament to prove Christian claims
Nah.
You're actually rather aggressive for a so-called Christian. Remember, I'm the one who believes in the Quran here, not you, you shouldn't be so aggressive right?
Anyway, your proof is salient, however I posit this: the proofs you have of God being called a father are not saying he IS a father of ANYONE, but simply he is their COLLECTIVE father. This philosophical point is important, because it is only said in Paul's writings (and some other interpreters as well), and apparently in John's gospel shortly, that he is their father. In all other places in the New Testament included, he is not mentioned as a specific father of anyone. Christ is a prophet, yes, but not a son. You may think this a trivial distinction until you consider the complication of the trinity with regards to worship is based on this distinction.
This is worrying because while Jesus came and instructed us well, he was not supposed to complicate worship. It was always supposed to be one God and one God only. Mathematically, this makes sense. Theologically, this makes sense. Every theological proof, even Christian, begins and ends with worshiping one. There is only one thing to worship after all: God. So the Christians are right, your inter-connected spirits, Jesus, and God are all God. But only God should be worshiped, as he has created all.
Please don't insult the Quran like that, it is a beautiful book, sent down by God.
>You cannot use historical sources accepted by even atheist historians as authentic
Nah.
>You're actually rather aggressive for a so-called Christian. Remember, I'm the one who believes in the Quran here, not you, you shouldn't be so aggressive right?
Christians are not stoics nor buddhist to claim that passions are to be eliminated from self. We are to control them by will under intelect. All of our saints were passionate people. And anger is one of passions that are to be used in some situations. Apologetics against one of biggest heresies out there is one of them.
>Anyway, your proof is salient, however I posit this: the proofs you have of God being called a father are not saying he IS a father of ANYONE, but simply he is their COLLECTIVE father.
And that does not change a fact that he is called Father. And Quran says that Allah is father to anyone in any given sense see Sura 5:18 and others.
>This philosophical point is important, because it is only said in Paul's writings (and some other interpreters as well), and apparently in John's gospel shortly, that he is their father.
This point is irrelevant for question was "Does anyone save Paul claims that God is father to someone". And answer is yes, therefore Quran is false for it denies it.