Could Eru change the very laws of nature if he wanted to?

[radagastly]

Originally posted by Mithalwen:

I suppose at a basic level the answer has to be yes since an omnipotent creato has to be omnipotent however I don't know if he coukd change thee rules in something already created without destroying it is another thiing.though ... depends a bit on the changes.... like it is easy to dye whit cloth another colour but to change a dark colour light tou have to bleach it at potentiall damage the structure..

I can imagine this leading to a discussion on the creation of the Dwarves. One instant, they were objects created by Aule, who had his hammer raised and ready to destroy them in subservience to Eru; the next instant they were living beings with consciousness, cowering in fear from that very hammer. Eru had violated his own natural laws to give them life. One has to wonder if, in that same moment, Eru had taken that life back again, whether the Dwarves would have been destroyed by their loss of life, or if they would have gone back to the mindless automatons that Aule built them as at the start?

[Mithalwen]

It also touches on whether creation is conceived of as a single defined action or a continuing organic process...there is a fantastic debate available on you tube between the British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and Dr Richard Dawkins. Lord Sacks says that he does't have a problem with evolution since it just means that God is a gardener not a mechanic. If Eru is seen as a gardener then changeas in growth and development is part of the plan. If he is an engineer change necessitates a redesign.

[Inziladun]

The Fall of Númenor might be considered a pretty substantial alteration in "natural law". We see an island overturned in response to actions of its inhabitants, and a simultaneous removal from the physical world of an entire "continent" when Valinor was transferred to what amounted to a separate plane of existence or dimension.
Also, there was the exchanging of mortality to the reverse that was apparently done to Tuor, a Man.

Originally Posted by radagastly

One has to wonder if, in that same moment, Eru had taken that life back again, whether the Dwarves would have been destroyed by their loss of life, or if they would have gone back to the mindless automatons that Aule built them as at the start?

I would say the latter, since they already "lived" before having the Fire. Being bereft of it should have left them in the same state as previously.

[jallanite]

Whether God (Eru) can change the past is one question. Another is whether God is capable of doing evil.

Basically the general religious position is that God in theoretically omnipotent and can do anything he wants to. But there are things that God just doesn’t want to do. Therefore practically God is not omnipotent. God does not break his own rules.

God is limited by his own will.

God may also be limited by logic. He can’t make one plus one equal three. At least theologians in general try to be logical which would be pointless if God does not follow the rules of logic.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Whether God (Eru) can change the past is one question. Another is whether God is capable of doing evil.

That's getting a bit afield from the purpose of this thread, but if one examines "evil" in Tolkien's Arda as being defined "morally reprehensible", or "sinful", I would say no. Eru as Creator would also be the author of Morality, and thus "evil" would have to derive from a refusal to acknowledge and obey his authority.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Basically the general religious position is that God in theoretically omnipotent and can do anything he wants to. But there are things that God just doesn’t want to do. Therefore practically God is not omnipotent. God does not break his own rules.

By those standards though, I think Eru demonstrates his omnipotence in instances like I cited. The destruction of Númenor and the giving of immortality to Tuor were both unnatural acts, in that they would seemingly not have been accomplished without his direct intervention.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

By those standards though, I think Eru demonstrates his omnipotence in instances like I cited. The destruction of Númenor and the giving of immortality to Tuor were both unnatural acts, in that they would seemingly not have been accomplished without his direct intervention.

But Tolkien leaves it questionable in both cases how much one is even supposed to give fictional belief to his account of the destruction of Númenor or the giving of immortality to Tuor.


In Morgoth’s Ring, “Myths Transformed”, I, Tolkien declares:

It is now clear to me that in any case the Mythology must actually be a ‘Mannish’ affair. (Men are really only interested in Men and in Men’s ideas and visions.) The High Eldar living and being tutored by the demiurgic being must have known, or at least their writers and loremasters must have known, the ‘truth’ (according to their measure of understanding). What we have in the Silmarillion etc. are traditions (especially personalized upon actors, such as Fëanor) handed on by Men in Númenor and later in Middle-earth (Arnor and Gondor); but already far back – from the first association of the Dúnedain and Elf-friends with the Eldar in Beleriand – blended and confused with their own Mannish myths and cosmic ideas.

In later writings the same idea occurs at odd places, that the Silmarillion tales and connected stories as they appear in the writings are often not accurate as written.

So the tale of the downfall of Númenor is in error when it claims that the Earth was only made spherical at that point in its history. The Earth had always been spherical.


As to Tuor, the published Silmarillion only claims (bolding by me):

But in after days it was sung that Tuor alone of mortal Men was numbered among the elder race, and was joined with the Noldor, whom he loved; and his fate is sundered from the fate of Men.

Tolkien also says in The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, letter 153 (bolding by me):

Tuor weds Idril the daughter of Turgon King of Gondolin; and ‘it is supposed’ (not stated) that he as an unique exception receives the Elvish limited ‘immortality’: an exception either way.

Here Tolkien points out clearly that the information about Tuor’s supposed immortality is not actually stated in the text. In short it is only what would now be called a legend.

You might as well claim that the accounts in the Bible of Enoch and Elijah being taken to heaven by God without facing death proves God’s omnipotence. But the Bible also does not actually say any such thing. It is only readers who infer it. And later creators of legend.

The fictional Eru is omnipotent not because of anything he actually does in Tolkien’s account, but because Eru is obviously a fictional version of the God whom Tolkien worshipped in real life who is said to be omnipotent. But theologions limit this God’s omnipotence, reasonably so I think. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm for Omnipotence as defined and discussed by the Catholic Encyclopedia. Or see Wikipedia’s discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence . You may also find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox of interest.

PaigeStormblood’s original question can only be answered, as much as can be answered, by getting into theological philosophy which considers such things.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I am not going to join with any long discussion regarding this question, I believe the only and best evidence we have is what has been already mentioned, and I side with Inzil. Eru seems to abide by the laws of the world, or even more, he actually seems to let the world abide by the laws set by Valar in their stewardship (such as the Ban on Noldor). At the moments when the laws of the world need to be drastically altered, such as destruction of Númenor (and I disagree with jallanite's interpretation, but whichever the case, it still is undeniably such a big change that Eru needed to be consulted) and creating the Straight Path, Valar ask Eru and he responds. The second alteration of that calibre that I know of is, with a questionmark, the sending of Istari (there is a note in the "Istari" essay in the Unfinished Tales that Manwë *perhaps* asked Eru for permission to send the Istari). At that point (in the Third Age), the Valar already are also more on the side of Eru on the scale of intervention with the world: they basically don't intervene at all. I would phrase it the way that during Third Age, one of the "natural laws" is also that Valar are not anymore directly intervening with the world. I would argue that it actually becomes exactly such an unchangeable law just like the fact that things fall down when dropped and so on.

Eru actually, from the beginning, is a rather unintervening creator - a deist creator, if you will. He lays out some theme in the beginning (perhaps we could say, basic set of rules in which things may function, i.e. the basic unchangeable laws? Some mathematical types would certainly say that, such as if G. Leibniz got Silmarillion into his hands and was supposed to write his Theodicy based on it in regards to Eru), but the Valar are the ones who create based on it. He gives life to it, and as we see with Aulë's Dwarves, he sustains the life (we could presume also that he sustains the world). But he does not really do anything else, except for the few dramatic occassions where really the highest power is necessary to intervene, such as the case of Númenor.

But Eru does not change the laws of the world, normally. It says nothing about whether he could or not, though. So it is not about the potential to do something. Tolkien's tale does not speak, at all, about Eru's potential. We can only conclude based on

If I were to answer this, I would copy Inzil: Based on all evidence, Eru probably is (meant to be) omnipotent, but he actually seems to have decided not to intervene with his creation very much. That is also one of the "natural laws" of Arda. Obviously, since it is set by the creator himself. If he breaks these laws, it's a very rare occassion (I really think Mr. Leibniz would have been even happier with Silmarillion instead of the Bible, since the discussion of the creator's potential is far more straightforward in the former).

Speaking of which brings me to one final remark. As much tempting as it is, let's be careful not to confuse Eru with (Judeo-Christian) God, since even though the parallel is obvious, you cannot obviously put an equation there, and already such mistaking of terms can lead to different conclusions. (Actually, I slightly suspect the author of the first post of such "confusion in terms", but I may be mistaken and it's merely an inquiry applying the famous "god's potential" question to Eru, which would be actually good question; I am however very much aware of the confusion of terms in jallanite's posts, so let's be careful about it.) I think the similarities show better on a deep level on some specific occassions, but the general picture remains very different: overall, the Biblical God is defined by intervening, and acting in very personal manner, Eru in general shows these aspects only rarely and is closer to the idea deistic of god who creates, sets the rules, winds up the clock and then leaves his creation alone. (Of course, that is disproved on closer look by realising the fact that he probably acts continually to sustain the life of all creatures, such as in the abovementioned tale of the Dwarves. But again it is questionable whether Eru sets "rules for life" and lets it go - the basic law being that from now on every Dwarf born, as much as human, is a living being from start - or if he needs to "renew" this life with every new creature born, "breathe life" into every new generation again or else the Dwarves would again fall into nothing, or if he even - as some theologies maintain about the Judeo-Christian God - continually "is present", to keep the world sustained, keep the living creatures breathing every single moment. From superficial reading of the Silmarillion, though, I think it seems even as if Eru didn't do even the former, just created the world in the beginning and that's it.)