Can God create a rock so heavy that even he himself can not lift it?

I remember the last time this was posted. One user posted something about segmenting the questions into two parts.

Wrong forum. Go to my god. This is a philisophical question concernig whether an all powerfull being could place limits upon himself.

[This message has been edited by xXPhoenixFireXx (edited 08-18-2006).]

God is not a man that lifts rocks, the question is such that it implies a man like God. When God encompasses all rocks and all men and all liftings.

Though God may encompass all rocks, men, and liftings, you have dodged the actual point of the question.

An omnipotent being gives rise to a paradox: can that being create something SHe cannot destroy? If SHe can, then SHe can't destory that thing, and therefore is not omnipotent. If SHe can't, SHe isn't omnipotent.

Sure, you may say God encompasses all creations and destructions, but that doesn't resolve the paradox. It only makes it trickier.

quote:Originally posted by AtomicZagnut:

Though God may encompass all rocks, men, and liftings, you have dodged the actual point of the question.

An omnipotent being gives rise to a paradox: can that being create something SHe cannot destroy? If SHe can, then SHe can't destory that thing, and therefore is not omnipotent. If SHe can't, SHe isn't omnipotent.

Sure, you may say God encompasses all creations and destructions, but that doesn't resolve the paradox. It only makes it trickier.

Omnipotent means All Powerful. There is nothing God can do that God can not undo.

"So God is powerless to create an indestructable rock?"

Indestructable to us, but for God, nothing is impossible to destroy.

Can God create a Rock that even God can't destroy? No. Does that negate the fact that God is all Powerful? Not in my opinion, if God could indeed create something he couldn't destroy then it would.

Here is the definition of Omnipotent and Power:

om·nip·o·tent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-np-tnt)

adj.

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.

n.

One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.

pow·er ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pour)

n.

The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively.

A specific capacity, faculty, or aptitude. Often used in the plural: her powers of concentration.

Strength or force exerted or capable of being exerted; might. See Synonyms at strength.

The ability or official capacity to exercise control; authority.

A person, group, or nation having great influence or control over others: the western powers.

The might of a nation, political organization, or similar group.

Forcefulness; effectiveness: a novel of unusual power.

Chiefly Upper Southern U.S. A large number or amount. See Regional Note at powerful.

The energy or motive force by which a physical system or machine is operated: turbines turned by steam power; a sailing ship driven by wind power.

The capacity of a system or machine to operate: a vehicle that runs under its own power.

Electrical or mechanical energy, especially as used to assist or replace human energy.

Electricity supplied to a home, building, or community: a storm that cut off power to the whole region.

Physics. The rate at which work is done, expressed as the amount of work per unit time and commonly measured in units such as the watt and horsepower.

Electricity.

The product of applied potential difference and current in a direct-current circuit.

The product of the effective values of the voltage and current with the cosine of the phase angle between current and voltage in an alternating-current circuit.

Mathematics.

See exponent.

The number of elements in a finite set.

Statistics. The probability of rejecting the null hypothesis where it is false.

A measure of the magnification of an optical instrument, such as a microscope or telescope.

powers Christianity. The sixth of the nine orders of angels in medieval angelology.

Archaic. An armed force.

adj.

Of or relating to political, social, or economic control: a power struggle; a power base.

Operated with mechanical or electrical energy in place of bodily exertion: a power tool; power car windows.

Of or relating to the generation or transmission of electricity: power companies; power lines.

Informal. Of or relating to influential business or professional practices: a pinstriped suit with a power tie; met with high-level executives at a power breakfast.

Therefor, God is Omnipotent, All Powerful, there is nothing God can do that God can't undo, and that does not negate God's Authority or Power. God's Control is All Encompassing.

au·thor·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-thôr-t, -thr-, ô-thôr-, ô-thr-)

n. pl. au·thor·i·ties

The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.

One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials: land titles issued by the civil authority.

Power assigned to another; authorization: Deputies were given authority to make arrests.

A public agency or corporation with administrative powers in a specified field: a city transit authority.

An accepted source of expert information or advice: a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority.

A quotation or citation from such a source: biblical authorities for a moral argument.

Justification; grounds: On what authority do you make such a claim?

A conclusive statement or decision that may be taken as a guide or precedent.

Power to influence or persuade resulting from knowledge or experience: political observers who acquire authority with age.

Confidence derived from experience or practice; firm self-assurance: played the sonata with authority.

con·trol ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-trl)

tr.v. con·trolled, con·trol·ling, con·trols

To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. See Synonyms at conduct.

To adjust to a requirement; regulate: controlled trading on the stock market; controls the flow of water.

To hold in restraint; check: struggled to control my temper.

To reduce or prevent the spread of: control insects; controlled the fire by dousing it with water.

To verify or regulate (a scientific experiment) by conducting a parallel experiment or by comparing with another standard.

To verify (an account, for example) by using a duplicate register for comparison.

n.

Authority or ability to manage or direct: lost control of the skidding car; the leaders in control of the country.

One that controls; a controlling agent, device, or organization.

An instrument or set of instruments used to operate, regulate, or guide a machine or vehicle. Often used in the plural.

A restraining device, measure, or limit; a curb: a control on prices; price controls.

A standard of comparison for checking or verifying the results of an experiment.

An individual or group used as a standard of comparison in a control experiment.

An intelligence agent who supervises or instructs another agent.

A spirit presumed to speak or act through a medium.

Don't listen to Abrahim... he thinks his ideas are revolutionary, in reality, he just plays semantics and ends up looking stupid.

quote:Originally posted by Inti:

Don't listen to Abrahim... he thinks his ideas are revolutionary, in reality, he just plays semantics and ends up looking stupid.

My ideas aren't revolutionary they are old! Often I find myself making clearifications on things rather than giving new revolutionary ideas. The definitions I displayed are old and belong to the dictionary, when I talk about God the ideas I am reffering to as to the nature of God are some of the most ancient in history.

In the case of my post above I am only trying to clearify what Omnipotent means.

The Question of Omnipotence by the definition above has nothing to do with God creating a rock that can not be lifted by God, there is nothing God can do that God can not undo, and that is why God fits into the definition of omnipotent.

Revolutionary != New

quote:Originally posted by Inti:

Revolutionary != New

Yes, but I don't think my ideas are new, they can be found in much older texts including the Hindu's Vedas, some Taoist philosophy, even Islam. I came to these conclusions by myself perhaps but realized they were everywhere before me too. They are very ancient ideas.

Well, according to your dictionary defintions, God should have an unlimited capacity to preform and act effectively. However, here is an action which God cannot preform effectively: The act of doing something SHe can't undo. If there's a limit to what God can do, how can God have unlimited power?

FYI, it's hard to tell where your comments end and your citations begin. It would be most helpful if you make those definitions you love so much look seperate from the rest of your text. Or just link to wherever you pasted that from.

Sure why not. He is the creator of all things after all.

quote:Originally posted by Nightshade:

Sure why not. He is the creator of all things after all.

Then you're admitting he can't do everything.

Wow i love this question. it makes you think. if god can do anything then that means he can create an object he cant destroy yet if he creates an object he cant destroy then that means he cant do everything. so if god tried pull one of those tricks he would collapse into nothingness.

I hate this question. It pops up so damn often.

And it's also the gayest question ever.

Can god do what god can't do?

Yes he can and no he can't....... both at the same time. :P

Can god kill himself?

quote:Originally posted by The_Big_Beef:

Can god kill himself?

Yes and no.......both at the same time http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

Yes and no.......both at the same time http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

That's illogical. Go into more detail of why he can do both, don't just say he can.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

That's illogical. Go into more detail of why he can do both, don't just say he can.

Naa, I'm have no care for this discussion.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

Naa, I'm have no care for this discussion.

Then it still holds that what you said is illogical bullshit until you state otherwise. He can either pick up the rock or not pick up the rock, he cannot do both. I've heard the excuse he made it so he couldn't pick it up at the time but he could make it so he could pick it up later on, well, then, he could always pick it up and him not picking it up was merely a gimmick.

Seriously, don't make claims unless you can and are willing to back them up.

^Chill out geez. Quit taking shit so seriously.

My previous so called "Claim" was just a playful answer. Hence the smiley face. Don't be losing sleep over it now.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Yes, but I don't think my ideas are new, they can be found in much older texts including the Hindu's Vedas, some Taoist philosophy, even Islam. I came to these conclusions by myself perhaps but realized they were everywhere before me too. They are very ancient ideas.

His ideas are definately not new, or at least, not new to me anyway.

It's a stupid question for people that like to think they know philosophy but haven't ever actually studied it.

It's a fallacy of contradictory premises.

It's like asking if you can have a triangular circle.

Someone delete this thread.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

That's illogical. Go into more detail of why he can do both, don't just say he can.

Your logical faculties are the manifestation of God. I don't know where the definition of Omnipotent said anything in conflict with God as anything God can do he can undo, if there is something he can't undo then that is the only proof of non control.

God would be beyond physical attributes as weight and lifting. Since God defines the physical nature of reality, God could just as easily bend the laws of Physics and make the rock that is so heavy be the rock that is so light.

The word "omnipotent" is never used in the Bible, but has been inferred primarily by one of God's Hebrew titles, "Shadday," which is most often translated "almighty." However, the Bible never claims that God can do all things. In fact, the Bible makes a point that there are things that God cannot do. The Bible says that God cannot commit sin. God cannot lie. Therefore, biblical omnipotence does not mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character. However, God can do anything that He determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the ability to do anything that one sets out to do.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rock.html

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

The word "omnipotent" is never used in the Bible, but has been inferred primarily by one of God's Hebrew titles, "Shadday," which is most often translated "almighty." However, the Bible never claims that God can do all things. In fact, the Bible makes a point that there are things that God cannot do. The Bible says that God cannot commit sin. God cannot lie. Therefore, biblical omnipotence does not mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character. However, God can do anything that He determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the ability to do anything that one sets out to do.

He cannot sin? Uh, has anyone actually read the Old Testament? He sins a hell of a lot.

edit - and if that is the true meaning, then it still stands that god can do anything he wants to, and the question the OP asked still stands.



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-18-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

The word "omnipotent" is never used in the Bible, but has been inferred primarily by one of God's Hebrew titles, "Shadday," which is most often translated "almighty." However, the Bible never claims that God can do all things. In fact, the Bible makes a point that there are things that God cannot do. The Bible says that God cannot commit sin. God cannot lie. Therefore, biblical omnipotence does not mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character. However, God can do anything that He determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the ability to do anything that one sets out to do.

http ://www.god andscience .org/apologetics/rock.html (http: //www.goda ndscience. org/apolog etics/rock .html)

Besides Luke 18:27 stated "What is impossible with human beings is possible with God". The statement that "God cannot lie" is contradicted in 1 Kings 22 in which he sends the prophet a spirit to "deceive" King Ahab and in Jonah when he promises to destroy Ninevah in 40 days, but doesnt execute. If God can set out to do "anything", then he could do "anything" according to your definition. Therefore the claim stands.

quote:He cannot sin? Uh, has anyone actually read the Old Testament? He sins a hell of a lot.

It doesn't matter if you think his actions are sinful. According to the Bible, God cannot sin and cannot lie. The Bible is clearly not claiming that He is omnipotent.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

It doesn't matter if you think his actions are sinful. According to the Bible, God cannot sin and cannot lie. The Bible is clearly not claiming that He is omnipotent.

One rule for us and another for God, huh? God, hypocrisy at its best.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

It doesn't matter if you think his actions are sinful. According to the Bible, God cannot sin and cannot lie. The Bible is clearly not claiming that He is omnipotent.

God can not sin, God can not lie because God is the President of the Universe!

Hey, that's the way it goes when you rule the universe. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Whoa- simulpost!

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Hey, that's the way it goes when you rule the universe. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Thank fuck that genocidal maniac isn't real then. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

The solution is easy. Even the undergrads in God Prep School know this one.

God creates a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it. Condition one satisfied. Then god makes himself strong enough to lift the stone, thereby retaining his omnipitence. Or if he were in a playful mood, he'd simply undo gravity for a while.

A better question would be why would god want to create a stone so heavy he could not lift it?

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

Then you're admitting he can't do everything.

You know I always wondered if my higher power has limitiations and if so what are they? The fact of the matter is I do not know if it does or does not. I am not a Christian, rather I am a spiritualist. I believe that "god" is the spirtual power and energy of the universe. But enough of my beliefs.

Can god undo what is created? Even that rock that was created? And if so, does that constitute a work around of limitiations?

quote:Originally posted by Fate:

The solution is easy. Even the undergrads in God Prep School know this one.

God creates a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it. Condition one satisfied. Then god makes himself strong enough to lift the stone, thereby retaining his omnipitence. Or if he were in a playful mood, he'd simply undo gravity for a while.

A better question would be why would god want to create a stone so heavy he could not lift it?

uh, if he could make himself strong enough to lift it, then he could always lift it and not being able to lift is was merely gimmickry.

The trick with omnipotence is that, by nature, it must be capable of paradoxical actions ro else it is not capable of everything. SO yes, an omnipotent being of any kind could make a rock so heavy, it couldn't lift it.

quote:Originally posted by Gorloche:

The trick with omnipotence is that, by nature, it must be capable of paradoxical actions ro else it is not capable of everything. SO yes, an omnipotent being of any kind could make a rock so heavy, it couldn't lift it.

Well, in reality, such a being couldn't exist because of a little thing called logic.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

Well, in reality, such a being couldn't exist because of a little thing called logic.

QFT.

quote:Originally posted by Gorloche:

The trick with omnipotence is that, by nature, it must be capable of paradoxical actions ro else it is not capable of everything. SO yes, an omnipotent being of any kind could make a rock so heavy, it couldn't lift it.

I disagree, the definition of omnipotence in the dictionary doesn't seem to require inability to prove control and power.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

Well, in reality, such a being couldn't exist because of a little thing called logic.

I never said I believe in omnipotent beings. I am an atheist through and through. However, following just definitions, it works.

I agree with the guy that said that the question is a fallacy of contradictory premises. He's smart.

If there is an all-powerful God (which I don't believe in, but meh) then that doesn't mean that he can do the illogical.

God can't make a triangular circle because that concept is logically impossible. It doesn't matter that God can't make one, because no such concept could actually exist. Logic isn't something that can be contravened.

What you are asking is "Can God do something that God cannot do?". And that's so pointlessly illogical to talk about that it pains me people think it's a clever problem to solve.

Yes. though it would require him to give up all of his power to do so.

[This message has been edited by One_way_mirror (edited 08-18-2006).]

If a chicken falls from a silent tree and no one is around to hear it, what soind domes it make when it claps with one hand and lands on the egg?

You can't apply logic to God. That's not the way religion works. This is a good question for thinking about the nature of God. It is not something that is really open to logical discussion, because the nature of God, faith, and belief don't exist within the realm of logic.

quote:Originally posted by dlmcc:

If a chicken falls from a silent tree and no one is around to hear it, what soind domes it make when it claps with one hand and lands on the egg?

You can't apply logic to God. That's not the way religion works. This is a good question for thinking about the nature of God. It is not something that is really open to logical discussion, because the nature of God, faith, and belief don't exist within the realm of logic.



Of course you can apply logic to God. There is absolutely no way that logic can not apply to something.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

It doesn't matter if you think his actions are sinful. According to the Bible, God cannot sin.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

One rule for us and another for God, huh? God, hypocrisy at its best.

Not really. An act may be done through good or bad intentions. Godly acts are always done through good intentions, else they are ungodly acts done through bad intentions.

What may seem ungodly to some is often godly. Robin Hood (Or at least the concept) is a good example.



[This message has been edited by ---Beany--- (edited 08-19-2006).]

It's impossible for God to anything "wrong" or "bad" because his actions define what "right" and "good" actually are.

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn

It's impossible for God to anything "wrong" or "bad" because his actions define what "right" and "good" actually are.

So, we should be able to follow his examples in the OT and we would be doing good, right?

Also I find that Good and Bad, Right and Wrong were often and in some senses originally warnings for what was harmful or less beneficial and what is positive and more beneficial.

A lot of people knock this question, saying it's "the gayest question ever" (Beany), or even that it's a "stupid question for people that like to think they know philosophy but haven't ever actually studied it" (PerpetualBurn).

I disagree. Working on koans and paradoxes such as this is what philosophy is all about. Plus, it's an excellent mental workout.

Some of you say God isn't supposed to be omnipotent. However, one of the most common definitions of God is omnipotent, omniscent, and omnipresent. All powerful, all knowing, and all being.

A being that isn't fulfilling these critea isn't worth worshipping. It could be one of those gods you hear about, but it certainly isn't the one true God with a capital G.

BTW, dlmcc, your mega-koan parody was hilarious.

this question makes many false assumptions... the answer, first of all, is no. And the negative is to the notion that God could limit Himself. To limit oneself is in itself a retraction of omnipotence. So to be unable to limit oneself isn't affecting the omnipotence.

so the big false assumption is that inability to retract omnipotence makes something non-omnipotent. That's like saying:

Q: Is God omnipotent?

A: yes

Q: So if God can do ANYTHING, can God make Himself non-Omnipotent.

A: No

And not only is this not inconsistent, its really not even that paradoxal. My name is David, that is my identity. Assume I'm omnipotent. Can I make myself not David? No.. I can change my name. But I can't change my identity. Because that gives way to contradiction. And nothing that spawns contradiction can be applied in this manner.

And that is the main point here... it gives way to contradiction... so it's an invalid question from the beginning.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Originally posted by PerpetualBurn

It's impossible for God to anything "wrong" or "bad" because his actions define what "right" and "good" actually are.

So, we should be able to follow his examples in the OT and we would be doing good, right?





I really don't know how you managed to think something so stupid. God is the big guy in charge (supposedly) and He gets to do what he wants. Humans have to obey him.

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn

I really don't know how you managed to think something so stupid.

Well, I can't take all the credit for that stupid thought. Ya see, I got it from the Bible:

quote:Ephesians 5

1Follow God's example in everything you do, because you are his dear children.

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn:

It's a stupid question for people that like to think they know philosophy but haven't ever actually studied it.

It's a fallacy of contradictory premises.

It's like asking if you can have a triangular circle.

Someone delete this thread.

Exactly, my friend, that's kind've the whole point. An omnipotent being is logically impossible, so either our system of logic is flawed or there can be no such thing as an omnipotent being (or triangular circle).

quote:If there is an all-powerful God (which I don't believe in, but meh) then that doesn't mean that he can do the illogical.

Of course it does. All-powerful: able to do anything. It makes little sense to me to think that such a being is limited by a system such as logic - a system that it itself created.

quote:God can't make a triangular circle because that concept is logically impossible. It doesn't matter that God can't make one, because no such concept could actually exist. Logic isn't something that can be contravened.

What you are asking is "Can God do something that God cannot do?". And that's so pointlessly illogical to talk about that it pains me people think it's a clever problem to solve.

You're really missing the point. It is illogical. This isn't supposed to tell you that the question is flawed, this is supposed to show you that the notion of omnipotence is. You're rejecting the question, but it should be omnipotence that you find unsatisfactory. If God cannot do everything, including what a human might call "impossible", then he is not omnipotent; and as I said before, doing something plainly contradictory to our system of logic means that either our logic is flawed or the idea of omnipotence is. And as logic has served us well - as logic is as necessary to the function of our universe as gravity - I think it's a safer bet to conclude that it is in the idea of omnipotence that the problem lies.

quote:The solution is easy. Even the undergrads in God Prep School know this one.

God creates a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it. Condition one satisfied. Then god makes himself strong enough to lift the stone, thereby retaining his omnipitence. Or if he were in a playful mood, he'd simply undo gravity for a while.

You're just sidestepping the question. Like Raw_Power said, it's a "gimmick"; we can easily change the question to "can God make a stone so heavy he can never lift it?"

quote:And that is the main point here... it gives way to contradiction... so it's an invalid question from the beginning.

Either that, or it's dealing with an invalid concept. The question is fine, a simple can ___ do ___. Easily answerable... with any being except an omnipotent one.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret

Of course it does. All-powerful: able to do anything. It makes little sense to me to think that such a being is limited by a system such as logic - a system that it itself created.

Since this omnipotent being is also omniscient, isn't it possible he can somehow satisfy the requirements for what seems like a paradox to us using logic that is far superior than ours? Maybe only He can explain or show us how he can make such a rock or make a triangular circle.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Since this omnipotent being is also omniscient, isn't it possible he can somehow satisfy the requirements for what seems like a paradox to us using logic that is far superior than ours? Maybe only He can explain or show us how he can make such a rock or make a triangular circle.



Yes, that's what I was diving at. However, I wouldn't actually believe in this alternative until I had good reason to think that either our system of logic is incomplete, or that there is such a being. As it stands now, I think it more logical to reject the notion of omnipotence, for which there is no evidence. It's either that or reject the current system of logic, which I have no reason to believe is flawed or incomplete. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret

As it stands now, I think it more logical to reject the notion of omnipotence, for which there is no evidence.

I reject the idea of an omnipotent/omnicient/omnificient being due to lack of evidence also.

But the God/rock question is a mind exercise designed to answer the question if an omnipotent being could exist, not if he does.

instead of rejecting all known logic, why not reject god(whom is very unlogical)?

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

[B] Well, I can't take all the credit for that stupid thought. Ya see, I got it from the

The Bible also acknowledges that men don't have the intelligence or information with which to judge people. So that doesn't mean that man has the right to destroy nations unless God say so.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Exactly, my friend, that's kind've the whole point. An omnipotent being is logically impossible, so either our system of logic is flawed or there can be no such thing as an omnipotent being (or triangular circle).

The question is illogical, so you can't ask it. It simply isn't a concept that can exist by definition. It's not a limitation on God, it's a question that doesn't make sense.

Why not ask if God can do the square root of Popeye?

No he can't, because the question doesn't make sense, but this isn't a limit on his power.

quote:

Of course it does. All-powerful: able to do anything. It makes little sense to me to think that such a being is limited by a system such as logic - a system that it itself created.

...logic isn't a system that's created. Logic is the state of "consistency" for want of a better word. Nothing illogical exists or can exist.

quote:

You're really missing the point. It is illogical.

No, you just haven't ever studied formal logic or theology to any respectable standard.

quote:This isn't supposed to tell you that the question is flawed, this is supposed to show you that the notion of omnipotence is. You're rejecting the question, but it should be omnipotence that you find unsatisfactory. If God cannot do everything, including what a human might call "impossible", then he is not omnipotent; and as I said before, doing something plainly contradictory to our system of logic means that either our logic is flawed or the idea of omnipotence is. And as logic has served us well - as logic is as necessary to the function of our universe as gravity - I think it's a safer bet to conclude that it is in the idea of omnipotence that the problem lies.

You don't get to ask questions that don't make sense. The question is fallacious, so it simply doesn't stand.

Just because everything that happens or can happen is logical doesn't imply limitation on omnipotence. All-powerful only covers things which can actually be, which the illogical cannot.

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn

The Bible also acknowledges that men don't have the intelligence or information with which to judge people.

You're making a straw man arguement. You said you don't know how I can think something so stupid as to think we are supposed to follow God's example. I showed you that this stupid thought came from the Bible. Are you one of those people who just can't admit when you're wrong?

Second, your straw man arguement is incorrect. The Bible does not say that we don't have the intelligence or information with which to judge people.

quote:Originally posted by Fate:

The solution is easy. Even the undergrads in God Prep School know this one.

God creates a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it. Condition one satisfied. Then god makes himself strong enough to lift the stone, thereby retaining his omnipitence. Or if he were in a playful mood, he'd simply undo gravity for a while.

A better question would be why would god want to create a stone so heavy he could not lift it?

A perfect being cannot become more perfect just to lift a rock, or else the perfect being is not omnipotent. A perfect being cannot undo gravity either. Sorry.

quote:Originally posted by bonkers:

A perfect being cannot become more perfect just to lift a rock, or else the perfect being is not omnipotent. A perfect being cannot undo gravity either. Sorry.

?

Some of you are missing the whole point. You guys seem to think your definitions of the word Omnipotent covers all bases. Fact of the matter is, if it cannot exist by God's word, then it cannot be created. If God says a sin from him <b>cannot</b> be commited, then such is such.

Now a triangle cannot have multiple 90 degree angles, according to our logic. So that's instantly illogical. But God hasn't told us this. Has God ever called what we call a triangle a triangle? (I'm asking you 'cause I don't know)God doesn't make factual sense, nor does his power.

As for me, I believe he exists, and I believe he is omnipotent; in the sense of being able to do any logically possible action that he desires. As for rewriting logic...well that's where I'm lost.

quote:Originally posted by AtomicZagnut:

A lot of people knock this question, saying it's "the gayest question ever" (Beany), or even that it's a "stupid question for people that like to think they know philosophy but haven't ever actually studied it" (PerpetualBurn).

I disagree. Working on koans and paradoxes such as this is what philosophy is all about. Plus, it's an excellent mental workout.

Some of you say God isn't supposed to be omnipotent. However, one of the most common definitions of God is omnipotent, omniscent, and omnipresent. All powerful, all knowing, and all being.

A being that isn't fulfilling these critea isn't worth worshipping. It could be one of those gods you hear about, but it certainly isn't the one true God with a capital G.

BTW, dlmcc, your mega-koan parody was hilarious.

Thank you.

Great post, by the way.

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn:

The question is illogical, so you can't ask it. It simply isn't a concept that can exist by definition. It's not a limitation on God, it's a question that doesn't make sense.

Why not ask if God can do the square root of Popeye?

No he can't, because the question doesn't make sense, but this isn't a limit on his power.

The question is simply a front for the deeper problem of whether or not a god can do the illogical; in that context, it makes perfect sense as it exemplifies this problem magnificently.

In asking whether or not an omnipotent being can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift, one is essentially asking 'Can he make it so that (A ^ ¬A) has a value of True. That is, can he violate the law of non-contradiction.

While it is a question that we cannot answer through the use of logic, it is a question that makes sense nonetheless. In logic the truth of a theorem stands not just based on the proof offered, but on the lack of a counter-example refuting the proof given. What you're suggesting is that a being which can do anything imaginable, and that is supposedly above nature, could not give a counter-example to the law of non-contradiction, which is something you cannot know.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-20-2006).]

I'm getting the feeling that everyone is chasing the wrong path here. My first post was ignored, fine. But while everyone is attempted to use this question to attack the concept of omnipotence, thereby attacking the concept of God, they're skipping a crucial issue.

Perhaps there's something wrong with your definition of "omnipotence" ... Ultimately, it means to be all-powerful. But the inability to contradict is not a real limitation. It's merely a conceptual limitation. God is God, and God is unable to become "not God" ... Now the philosophically inept in here think that they can trash the title of omnipotent the second they can use the word "unable"... But this isn't the case. Obviously, God being unable to become not God is not a real limitation. It's a conceptual limitation that doesn't limit God, but rather the confines of logic. God being unable to deny His own essence (in contradicting Himself) is not a limitation on God, it's a conceptual limitation on the definition of omnipotent and on the1 confines of logic.

Basically, it's not a REAL limitation, and the notion of omnipotence, according to a consistent definition, is not affected.

quote:Originally posted by breastmilk:

I'm getting the feeling that everyone is chasing the wrong path here. My first post was ignored, fine. But while everyone is attempted to use this question to attack the concept of omnipotence, thereby attacking the concept of God, they're skipping a crucial issue.

Perhaps there's something wrong with your definition of "omnipotence" ... Ultimately, it means to be all-powerful. But the inability to contradict is not a real limitation. It's merely a conceptual limitation. God is God, and God is unable to become "not God" ... Now the philosophically inept in here think that they can trash the title of omnipotent the second they can use the word "unable"... But this isn't the case. Obviously, God being unable to become not God is not a real limitation. It's a conceptual limitation that doesn't limit God, but rather the confines of logic. God being unable to deny His own essence (in contradicting Himself) is not a limitation on God, it's a conceptual limitation on the definition of omnipotent and on the1 confines of logic.

Basically, it's not a REAL limitation, and the notion of omnipotence, according to a consistent definition, is not affected.

Not everyone attacked omnipotence here, I first showed what the definition of omnipotence is in the dictionary, then explained how saying "can God do something he can not deal with or undo" is not in anyway connected to the definition of omnipotence, by the definition of omnipotence, God can undo anything God can do, deal with it in any way God wishes, and God is capable.

The Definition of Omnipotence in the dictionary does not encompass or require "God having inability to do things" because by definition, Omnipotence means All Powerful or All Controlling, these are often connected as qualities of God, which I describe how they are qualities of God in my documents such as "What is God?" and how that "Control" is manifest before our very eyes.

quote:The question is illogical, so you can't ask it. It simply isn't a concept that can exist by definition. It's not a limitation on God, it's a question that doesn't make sense.

You don't get to ask questions that don't make sense. The question is fallacious, so it simply doesn't stand.

I'm not seeing your point here. How is it fallacious? How does it not make sense? It's a very simple question: Can God do logically contradictory things? Yes or no. You say that nothing can contravene logic, so you claim the answer is "no." Makes sense to me, but then I'm just a peon who hasn't ever studied formal logic or theology to any respectable standard.

quote:Why not ask if God can do the square root of Popeye?

The difference is in the meaning. What do you mean by the square root of Popeye? Popeye is not a number. The question just doesn't apply. God presumably couldn't do it because he'd have no idea what it means. Asking God to, say, make a pencil that is unbreakable and then to break it: the meaning is easily understandable. The only difficulty lies in execution, not comprehension.

I know it's hard to debate against two opponents at once, so I'd advise you to direct future replies at Rust; he can give a far better account of himself and his position than I could ever hope to (being unstudied to any respectable standard in formal logic and/or theology).

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

You're making a straw man arguement. You said you don't know how I can think something so stupid as to think we are supposed to follow God's example. I showed you that this stupid thought came from the Bible. Are you one of those people who just can't admit when you're wrong?

I was responding to the part where you thought that God can sin, which is of course imossible. And you then tried to use "following his example" to escape this. Well his OT examples would be considered righteous judgement that only he can make.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

[QUOTE]

I'm not seeing your point here. How is it fallacious? How does it not make sense? It's a very simple question: Can God do logically contradictory things? Yes or no. You say that nothing can contravene logic, so you claim the answer is "no." Makes sense to me, but then I'm just a peon who hasn't ever studied formal logic or theology to any respectable standard.

I've already explained the answer. Logic is not something that can be broken. It is not a concept limited by the human mind, it is all encompassing. If God did something, then there would have to be some logical explanation otherwise it could not have occurred.

quote:

The difference is in the meaning. What do you mean by the square root of Popeye? Popeye is not a number. The question just doesn't apply. God presumably couldn't do it because he'd have no idea what it means. Asking God to, say, make a pencil that is unbreakable and then to break it: the meaning is easily understandable. The only difficulty lies in execution, not comprehension.

They're both equally meaningless because neither question makes logical sense.

Once again, the fallacy is one of contradictory premises, so you cannot draw a logical conclusion from it.

quote:I know it's hard to debate against two opponents at once, so I'd advise you to direct future replies at Rust; he can give a far better account of himself and his position than I could ever hope to (being unstudied to any respectable standard in formal logic and/or theology).

It's nice that you can attempt to patronise me whilst not understanding the topic well enough to continue discussion.

So logic encompasses all, including God, and therefore is above god and, therefore, god cannot do anything illogical?

If so, that makes the bible easier to show as fallacious…

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

So logic encompasses all, including God, and therefore is above god and, therefore, god cannot do anything illogical?

If so, that makes the bible easier to show as fallacious…

God is what all logics are within.

is simple

god can do what ever he wants, thats it.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

God is what all logics are within.

Dude, get out of here with your universe god. You know that's not what we are discussing, we're discussing 'deity' type gods. Jesus, must you impose this view point on every thread? We get it already! You believe the universe is god! Yes, very innovating - not.

You screwed the pooch now, Raw_Power. Since you mis-stated his belief, you've just provided Abrahim the opportunity to rant with his explanation of what (he believes) God is.

He doesn't believe that the universe is God. He believes that the universe is within God.

I'm pretty sure that this attempted clarification will not stave off his rant.

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn:

I've already explained the answer. Logic is not something that can be broken. It is not a concept limited by the human mind, it is all encompassing. If God did something, then there would have to be some logical explanation otherwise it could not have occurred.

That's something that you cannot even begin to prove, or demonstrate. The foundations of Logic are a priori; so while I do not believe in a god and have yet to see anything break these rules of logic, I am not foolish enough to claim that a supernatural being who is above the rules of nature - the supposed creator of the universe, logic included - cannot break these rules of logic.

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn

I was responding to the part where you thought that God can sin, which is of course imossible. And you then tried to use "following his example" to escape this.

Would you please point out where I wrote such a thing? You are the one trying to escape something by coming up with strawman arguements, because you made the idiotic comment that following God's example is a stupid thought of mine, when to do so is right in the Bible!

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn

Well his OT examples would be considered righteous judgement that only he can make.

We are told to follow God's example in everything we do. That would include when we impose punishments on others.

quote:Originally posted by breastmilk:

this question makes many false assumptions... the answer, first of all, is no. And the negative is to the notion that God could limit Himself. To limit oneself is in itself a retraction of omnipotence. So to be unable to limit oneself isn't affecting the omnipotence.

so the big false assumption is that inability to retract omnipotence makes something non-omnipotent. That's like saying:

Q: Is God omnipotent?

A: yes

Q: So if God can do ANYTHING, can God make Himself non-Omnipotent.

A: No

And not only is this not inconsistent, its really not even that paradoxal. My name is David, that is my identity. Assume I'm omnipotent. Can I make myself not David? No.. I can change my name. But I can't change my identity. Because that gives way to contradiction. And nothing that spawns contradiction can be applied in this manner.

And that is the main point here... it gives way to contradiction... so it's an invalid question from the beginning.



Exactly. In other words, God's omnipotence encompases the ability to do anything that is logically possible.

Firstly whether god can do that or not is irrelevant, because even the most hardcore of religious nuts acknowledge that God generally tries to have no effect on our world anyway.

Secondly, (snip due to potential for starting yet another science versus religion flamewar).

quote:I've already explained the answer. Logic is not something that can be broken. It is not a concept limited by the human mind, it is all encompassing. If God did something, then there would have to be some logical explanation otherwise it could not have occurred.

This is irrelevant; it has nothing to do with the question and the sense it makes, only the answer. You've already explained the reasoning behind your answer, and I did not contest it. Instead, I was trying to explain to you why the question did make sense:

quote:Can God do logically contradictory things? Yes or no. You say that nothing can contravene logic, so you claim the answer is "no."

You just explained - again - why you think the answer is "no." You didn't address my post at all. http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

quote:Once again, the fallacy is one of contradictory premises, so you cannot draw a logical conclusion from it.

quote:Contradictory Premises (also known as a logical paradox): Establishing a premise in such a way that it contradicts another, earlier premise. For instance, "If God can do anything, he can make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it." The first premise establishes a deity that has the irresistible capacity to move other objects. The second premise establishes an immovable object impervious to any movement. If the first object capable of moving anything exists, by definition, the immovable object cannot exist, and vice-versa.

The whole point is that for omnipotence to exist, this fallacy couldn't be an actual fallacy. Omnipotence requires that logical contradictions be possible; therefore omnipotence cannot exist.

quote:It's nice that you can attempt to patronise me whilst not understanding the topic well enough to continue discussion.

"Whilst" is an ugly word.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

You screwed the pooch now, Raw_Power. Since you mis-stated his belief, you've just provided Abrahim the opportunity to rant with his explanation of what (he believes) God is.

He doesn't believe that the universe is God. He believes that the universe is within God.

I'm pretty sure that this attempted clarification will not stave off his rant.

ROAR! Thank you for clearifying my idea of God to him, I really appreciate it!

To Raw_Power: Like truckfixr said, I don't believe that the Universe is God, but rather that within God is everything, all universes, possibilities, realities, and that this reality, and this universe is just one of an infinite number. The Universe is as much a part of God, in my opinion, as a tree or a rock or a single atom or whatever may be smaller than that.

I state that Everything is within God, made of God, existing by God, dependant on God, that essentially all there is and ever was and ever will be is God.

The Logic of this Reality (which this Universe exists within) may not be the same as the Logic of another Reality but all Realities are within what I call Ultimate Reality, which is the all encompassing.

These ideas are not new but have existed for some time in history, even in ancient times.

quote:Originally posted by pyroniccorona:

Some of you are missing the whole point. You guys seem to think your definitions of the word Omnipotent covers all bases. Fact of the matter is, if it cannot exist by God's word, then it cannot be created. If God says a sin from him <b>cannot</b> be commited, then such is such.

Now a triangle cannot have multiple 90 degree angles, according to our logic. So that's instantly illogical. But God hasn't told us this. Has God ever called what we call a triangle a triangle? (I'm asking you 'cause I don't know)God doesn't make factual sense, nor does his power.

As for me, I believe he exists, and I believe he is omnipotent; in the sense of being able to do any logically possible action that he desires. As for rewriting logic...well that's where I'm lost.

How would you know if the logic of yesterday was rewritten and today is completely different, by the will of God. What if logic is constantly shifting in such a way that we can not know or comprehend but rather it is made to seem to us that it is completely stable?

In any case God can bend logic and do as God pleases. God is also what Logic exists within and what Logic is maintained by. Omnipotence means Ultimate Control or Power over something which by definition God is supposed to have, and that includes logic since Logic didn't exist first, but God is what is and always was.

Within God is this Reality, this Universe and this Logic and an infinite number of other logics which we can not even comprehend or reach.

If God so willed, God could change it completely, perhaps God has and does constantly change it and makes it so that we do not notice but integrates it into our understanding so all seems smooth.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Would you please point out where I wrote such a thing? You are the one trying to escape something by coming up with strawman arguements, because you made the idiotic comment that following God's example is a stupid thought of mine, when to do so is right in the Bible!

Ahem:

"So, we should be able to follow his examples in the OT and we would be doing good, right?"

This does not follow!

quote: We are told to follow God's example in everything we do. That would include when we impose punishments on others.

God states in the OT exactly when, why, and how we should punish people.

I'm sure you could also throw the flood up, but as stated before, man is simply not on a par with God to make these decisions.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

[QUOTE]

You just explained - again - why you think the answer is "no." You didn't address my post at all. http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

Okay, well here's a hint: a logically contradictory concept doesn't qualify as a "thing" so it doesn't count as a limitation on omnipotence.



quote:Contradictory Premises (also known as a logical paradox): Establishing a premise in such a way that it contradicts another, earlier premise. For instance, "If God can do anything, he can make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it." The first premise establishes a deity that has the irresistible capacity to move other objects. The second premise establishes an immovable object impervious to any movement. If the first object capable of moving anything exists, by definition, the immovable object cannot exist, and vice-versa.

Here's another hint: you can't make a correct conclusion from those two premises...because it would be *drum roll* a fallacy! Two mutually exclusive things can't both exist! Hurray! A fundamental logical truth!

quote:The whole point is that for omnipotence to exist, this fallacy couldn't be an actual fallacy. Omnipotence requires that logical contradictions be possible; therefore omnipotence cannot exist.

You can't argue that something illogical exists. The second you argue against logic you have to remove all logical form from your argument, and this renders it useless.

quote:

"Whilst" is an ugly word.

It's probably better than the inane drivel you keep churning out.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

That's something that you cannot even begin to prove, or demonstrate. The foundations of Logic are a priori; so while I do not believe in a god and have yet to see anything break these rules of logic, I am not foolish enough to claim that a supernatural being who is above the rules of nature - the supposed creator of the universe, logic included - cannot break these rules of logic.



If you would like to demonstrate how something illogical can happen, then go right ahead, but I'm fairly sure that the entire point of logic is that it encompasses everything. If something happened, then there would have to be a logical explanation, as logic is really just the state of what can be.

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn:



If you would like to demonstrate how something illogical can happen, then go right ahead, but I'm fairly sure that the entire point of logic is that it encompasses everything. If something happened, then there would have to be a logical explanation, as logic is really just the state of what can be.

The fact that I cannot demostrate how something illogical "can happen" does not leave you free to make the claim that a supernatural entity that is above any natural law and that is responsible for the creation of our existence - logic included - cannot break the rules of logic. That's the point. Your claim is as baseless as the claim that he could so. Even more so I'd say.

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn

Ahem:

"So, we should be able to follow his examples in the OT and we would be doing good, right?"

How can you possibly have taken that to mean that I said God can sin?

Still waiting for a retraction onm your comment that to follow God's example is a stupid thought of mine, when the Bible specifically tells us to follow God's example.



quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn

God states in the OT exactly when, why, and how we should punish people.

Can you show us some examples? How are we to punish children who make fun of a bald man? What's the punishment for homosexuality?

quote:Okay, well here's a hint: a logically contradictory concept doesn't qualify as a "thing" so it doesn't count as a limitation on omnipotence.

Could be, but I see no reason to discount the possibility.

quote:Two mutually exclusive things can't both exist!

That's the whole point. What do you think I have been trying to explain? The only actual point we differ on is the one above, that omnipotence does not require the ability to defy logic.

quote:You can't argue that something illogical exists.

It's a good thing that I'm not arguing that something illogical exists, then.

quote:It's probably better than the inane drivel you keep churning out.

A 78.6% likelihood.

Just because God does not always adhere to human logic does not mean He is not omnipotent.

Consider perhaps the creative power can happen a rock of infinite mass. But also think that he can lift an infinitely large mass. So he cannot outdo himself. Obviously this is in conjunction with many of the laws of the physical universe. Such as one may not extract more energy from one object than it can give.

Doesnt that make logical sense? There is therefore no paradox because it is logical.

If you were to suppose that the question would necessarilly supercede logic, you cannot then apply the term "paradox" to it, since it implies a seemingly illogical event.

If there is God,

and if he were to attempt such a thing,

it would require its placement in physical form.

The answer is yes

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Just because God does not always adhere to human logic does not mean He is not omnipotent.

So I guess now we are assuming god exists and is a male...ok moving on.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:



Consider perhaps the creative power can happen a rock of infinite mass. But also think that he can lift an infinitely large mass. So he cannot outdo himself. Obviously this is in conjunction with many of the laws of the physical universe. Such as one may not extract more energy from one object than it can give.

If a rock of infinite mass was created it would create infinite gravity as well, regardless of what god can lift, in fact the lifting would be irrelevant if your obeying the laws of the physical universe, like you said you were, considering you just created such a large source of gravity (infinite), the rock would leave the event horizon.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:



Doesn't that make logical sense? There is therefore no paradox because it is logical.



If fact god creating a rock in the first place is illogical because it violates the Law of conservation of mass, then assuming the infinite mass is created, it would be beyond restoration due to the result of gravity acting on the object.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:



If you were to suppose that the question would necessarilly supercede logic, you cannot then apply the term "paradox" to it, since it implies a seemingly illogical event.

Does violating the law of conservation of mass supercede your logic, or is that as you said "in conjunction with many of the laws of the physical universe"? What about the results of creating a mass of that size/density? I doubt you applied much logic beyond trying to render the question invalid for your own religious comfort.

quote:So I guess now we are assuming god exists and is a male...ok moving on.

Pointless rhetoric...

quote:If a rock of infinite mass was created it would create infinite gravity as well, regardless of what god can lift, in fact the lifting would be irrelevant if your obeying the laws of the physical universe, like you said you were, considering you just created such a large source of gravity (infinite), the rock would leave the event horizon.

I never said God must adhere to physical laws. I said that such a situation would be similar to a physical law. Also, how can something leave its own event horizon? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Besides, last I checked spirits dont have mass so they arent attracted by gravity...

quote:If fact god creating a rock in the first place is illogical because it violates the Law of conservation of mass, then assuming the infinite mass is created, it would be beyond restoration due to the result of gravity acting on the object.

What the hell are you talking about? http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

You are still assuming that God adheres to natural laws?

quote:Does violating the law of conservation of mass supercede your logic, or is that as you said "in conjunction with many of the laws of the physical universe"? What about the results of creating a mass of that size/density? I doubt you applied much logic beyond trying to render the question invalid for your own religious comfort.

Yea... your still thinking God adheres to natural law....

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

I never said God must adhere to physical laws. I said that such a situation would be similar to a physical law. Also, how can something leave its own event horizon? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Besides, last I checked spirits dont have mass so they arent attracted by gravity...

Rocks of infinite size would have infinite gravity." http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)"

Also about how can something leave it's own even horizen, I'm not here to teach physics to people who don't know how mass affects gravity.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

What the hell are you talking about? http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

You stated : Obviously this is in conjunction with many of the laws of the physical universe.

That is untrue if a god can create anything out of nothing.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Yea... your still thinking God adheres to natural law....

He may not but his creations (such as the rock) do.

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 08-22-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by breastmilk:

this question makes many false assumptions... the answer, first of all, is no. And the negative is to the notion that God could limit Himself. To limit oneself is in itself a retraction of omnipotence. So to be unable to limit oneself isn't affecting the omnipotence.

so the big false assumption is that inability to retract omnipotence makes something non-omnipotent. That's like saying:

Q: Is God omnipotent?

A: yes

Q: So if God can do ANYTHING, can God make Himself non-Omnipotent.

A: No

And not only is this not inconsistent, its really not even that paradoxal. My name is David, that is my identity. Assume I'm omnipotent. Can I make myself not David? No.. I can change my name. But I can't change my identity. Because that gives way to contradiction. And nothing that spawns contradiction can be applied in this manner.

And that is the main point here... it gives way to contradiction... so it's an invalid question from the beginning.

The fish that could wish!

It is a story about a fish who can wish, but then wishes himself to be normal and can no longer wish so he is screwed.

Maybe God could limit himself forever, but simply chooses not to.

quote:Rocks of infinite size would have infinite gravity." "

Also about how can something leave it's own even horizen, I'm not here to teach physics to people who don't know how mass affects gravity.

Mass does not affect gravity. Gravity is an intrinsic property of matter.

To say an infinitely massive object can escape its infinitely large event horizon just makes you look like a fool.

quote:You stated : Obviously this is in conjunction with many of the laws of the physical universe.

That is untrue if a god can create anything out of nothing.

"In conjuction with" in contextual terms doesnt mean that God is bound to physical laws. That defies logic altogether.

Except when you consider that te uiverse is a closed system at present. Hwever, God is necessarilly part of such a closed system, is He?

Blind ignorance...

quote:He may not but his creations (such as the rock) do.

Then if you are to be an idiot for suggesting that God may create a rock of infinite mass n our present plane, He could easilly pick it up since its His creation anyway.

If you were to suggest he make a rock of infinite mass right outside his palace, that neednt necessarilly adhere to the laws of this physical plane, would it?

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000

Mass does not affect gravity.

Alrighty then!

For the sake of keeping this mind experiment logical, how about changing the question to:

Within the confines of the laws of the physical universe as we know them, can God create a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it?

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Alrighty then!

Mmmm, sarcasm.

Gravity is the force caused by mass. A mass left to itself will not affect anything. It just exists, as does its gravitational force.

Increasing a mass causes gravity to become stronger, but that does not imply that mass left to itself will have some anomalous affect on its own gravity.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Mass does not affect gravity.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Blind ignorance...

*Presents the hypocrite award.*

Honestly I'm still laughing as I type, did you even go to high school? I almost feel bad for you...

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Mmmm, sarcasm.

Gravity is the force caused by mass. A mass left to itself will not affect anything. It just exists, as does its gravitational force.

Increasing a mass causes gravity to become stronger, but that does not imply that mass left to itself will have some anomalous affect on its own gravity.

Mass bends spacetime, otherwise we wouldn't have the theory of relativity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity) Please stop making yourself look bad.



quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Gravity is the force caused by mass.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Mass does not affect gravity.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Blind ignorance...

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 08-22-2006).]

This image illustrates the effect of gravity on spacetime. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/Spacetime_curvature.png)

quote:Quoted from Wikipedia:

General relativity was developed by Einstein in the years 1907 - 1915. General relativity replaces the global Lorentz symmetry of special relativity with a local Lorentz symmetry in the presence of matter. The presence of matter "curves" spacetime, and this curvature affects the path of free particles (and even the path of light). General relativity uses the mathematics of differential geometry and tensors in order to describe gravitation as an effect of the geometry of spacetime. This theory is based on the general principle of relativity, which requires all observers to experience the same laws of physics, not just those moving with uniform speed, hence its name.

quote:Quoted from Wikipedia:

General relativity (as well as most other metric theories of gravity) not only says that black holes can exist, but in fact predicts that they will be formed in nature whenever a sufficient amount of mass gets packed in a given region of space, through a process called gravitational collapse.

Anything of infinite mass would collapse upon it's self. It would also pass through an event horizon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon), and become unrecoverable, in any universe governed by physics.

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 08-22-2006).]

In theory an object may be created as such, however under the presumtion that God can do so a whole new structure would need to be created.

In the event of event horizon,

the collapsing of structure is not physical or elemental but partical and in theory requires a time trigger understood as

a The metric tensor

The metric tensor is a central object in general relativity that describes the local geometry of spacetime (as a result of solving the Einstein field equation???). Using approximation, the metric can also be thought of as representing the 'gravitational potential'.

The metric is a symmetric tensor and is an important mathematical tool. As well as being used to raise and lower tensor indices, it also generates the connections which are used to construct the geodesic equations of a /motion...

Its theory until it happens/

it would require time measurement to achieve a required invariant.

In the occurance of

time A - the invention of such structure

time B - in the event of such mass that

B time(a stone of mass and structure that it is the whole form in place occurring between A and C in time

time C - you dont need God to do it http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

You could probably throw another one on for good measure...

you know,

make sure...

Yes.

P.S. proof.

http://www.free2explore.com/sports/rock_bio1.jpg

Pleasse check out CONFIRMATION FOR CATHOLICS it has turned into a debate on Omnipotence.

If God as an omnipotent being exists then yes he can create the rock and still be omnipotent. God is all powerful, so he can both create the rock that he cannot destroy and still have full power to destroy it because he is powerful enough to not be governed by logic and laws of reality that exist in our universe. Once God creates the rock he can then both destroy and not be able to destroy it ant the same time. It's impossible in what we know of our universe yes, but no omnipotent being would ever be governed by the laws of everything we know.

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

If God as an omnipotent being exists then yes he can create the rock and still be omnipotent. God is all powerful, so he can both create the rock that he cannot destroy and still have full power to destroy it because he is powerful enough to not be governed by logic and laws of reality that exist in our universe. Once God creates the rock he can then both destroy and not be able to destroy it ant the same time. It's impossible in what we know of our universe yes, but no omnipotent being would ever be governed by the laws of everything we know.



Hmmmm lets see now...

Lets break this down for you T-bagger

quote: God is all powerful, so he can both create the rock that he cannot destroy..

WAIT, so.. he just made a rock he can't destroy..

Lets continue

quote:

and still have full power to destroy it



Uhhh, did you not just say he couldn't destroy it?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anti Christ Super Star:

Like I said:

[B]In theory an object may be created as such, however under the presumtion that God can do so a whole new structure would need to be created.

quote:Originally posted by Nibroc:

Uhhh, did you not just say he couldn't destroy it?



Obviously an all powerful god has power so great we cannot comprehend it. It's kinda like the number i in a way. It does things that numbers can't actually do.

Roman numerals have nada to do with it!

/i is the first additive or calculative....!!??

quote:Originally posted by Anti Christ Super Star:

Roman numerals have nada to do with it!

/i is the first additive or calculative....!!??

Lol, are you stoned? i as in the square root of -1. Not Roman numerals.

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m313/siash/stfupope.jpg

You guys are really behind on the times. Read up on Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence."

Can God make you believe He could not lift the rock, to get you off his back? Yes

Can God turn around and lift the rock, after proving to you that He couldn't? Yes



(After giving Itself arms/the ability to "lift,")

God creates rock

(After lowering whatever strength It has)

God tries to lift rock

God cannot

(After raising strength/making it once more 100 percent)

God lifts rock, affirming Its omnipotency

That has to be one of the most ridiculous replies ever.

Obviously, the question is whether he can lift an impossible-to-lift (impossible by god's standard) rock while possessing all his powers.

Why do you call it ridiculous? Because it's the first answer you've seen that actually solves the dilemma?

Either it is possible, or the demanded action is an illogical, unfair, and "impossible" (in the sense of the structure and intention) one.

"Obviously"

ha

Can he create a rock? He did.

That is too heavy for him to lift? Uh huh

Can he lift the rock? Yep.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Why do you call it ridiculous? Because it's the first answer you've seen that actually solves the dilemma?

It's ridiculous because it doesn't solve anything. It merely deconstructs the original question in steps in order to "answer" it when it is obvious the question does not ask whether it would be possible for god to create a god, not lift it, then lift it.

The question is specifically if he can lift a rock that is impossible to be lifted. Which is precisely why the question can be analyzed in the sense of, "Can god do the illogical?". The moment that he lifts the rock, it wasn't a rock that is impossible to be lifted!

quote:Can he create a rock? He did.

A rock which was not impossible for him to lift in the first place, which is what is being asked.

quote:

That is too heavy for him to lift? Uh huh

Not at the time of it being lifted.

quote:

Can he lift the rock? Yep.

Again, he lifted a rock which was not too heavy for him to lift, thus your "answer" is not an answer at all, because it is obvious that the rock is liftable (in your scenario) when the scenario specifically calls for one that is impossible to lift. The moment it is lifted, it was not impossible to lift.

"Hah" indeed.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-07-2006).]

But the fact that it was TEMPORARILY too heavy for him to lift satisfies that portion of the problem. 'Nuff said. It doesn't matter whether it keeps being too heavy or not, because he can try again.

The question requires the creation of a rock that God could not lift. That rock was created. But in order for God to be omnipotent, he has to be able to lift the rock eventually, so even though at some point he wasn't able to lift it, later, he can.

He didn't "not lift it;" for a bit, he COULD NOT lift it, because of the restrictions.



EDIT:

"The moment it is lifted, it was not impossible to lift."

The moment he could not lift it, it was impossible to lift. But only for that moment.



[This message has been edited by Merlinman2005 (edited 09-07-2006).]

You've just exemplified why your "answer" is ridiculous. It is merely you splitting hairs in order to "answer" the problem, and in doing so, you ignore the whole point of the problem in the first place. Again, the problem is not whether god could create a rock, that's a trivial example; the core issue is whether or not a god could do the logically impossible. Your "answer" doesn't represent that in the least, because it is merely a way for you to escape this glaring problem by splitting hairs.

Here, the fool-proof problem:

Can god create a rock that is always too heavy for him to lift it.

That's how meaningful your "answer" was... I can utterly refute it by a slight modification of the original problem. Hell, it really isn't a modification; that was already implied in the problem to begin with! That's why it is meaningful philosophical question. If you think that this question (and others similar to it) has stood because nobody knew of this magical "answer" of yours then you're sorely mistaken.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-07-2006).]

Then you might as well ask if he can flashlight a green.

Makes the same amount of sense.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Then you might as well ask if he can flashlight a green.

Makes the same amount of sense.

I think what he is saying is that while god is still "full power" and without limiting his/her/its self, can it create a mass (a rock) which it cannot lift and/or destroy (depending on the question being asked).

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 09-07-2006).]

Or if he can giraffe a Reebok.

Illogical. Nonsensical.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Then you might as well ask if he can flashlight a green.

Makes the same amount of sense.



No, it would be the same as asking if he can break a rule of logic, which does not equal uttering some inane bullshit.

Logic.

Can you flashlight something? Why not? I want this omnipotent being to flashlight a green to prove his omnipotence.

Because things don't work that way.

Again, saying inane bullshit does not equal questioning whether or not the rules of logic apply to a god, or whether or not the rules of logic are actually as we consider them.

Um I'm not questioning anything. Or trying to.

I'm only saying that telling an omnipotent being

Make a rock that's always so heavy that you can't lift it

is the same as saying

Hey I want you to ligament this read.

The way that the pieces are impossible to fit together remains the same. Neither can be fulfilled. But some argue that He can do just that.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Or if he can giraffe a Reebok.

Illogical. Nonsensical.

It is sensible but it is a paradox.

Heres the problem.

1. Assume god is real, and all powerful

2. God can create anything

3. God can un-create anything

So can he create something he can't un-create?

It is an unsolvable problem. You can't answer without violating a rule. It isn't illogical, but you can't answer without proving yourself wrong. (as far as I know)

What you keep doing is changing the problem into something else then solving or dismissing that problem. No one asked you can god green a flashlight. That question is not even related to the thread starter's question. It is however illogical, but that proves just as much as me saying "Spiders make webs so your wrong!" It is irrelevant that the things you made up are illogical, and it is irrelevant that spiders make webs. You just can't answer the topic starter's question and it bothers you.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Um I'm not questioning anything. Or trying to.

I'm only saying that telling an omnipotent being

Make a rock that's always so heavy that you can't lift it

is the same as saying

Hey I want you to ligament this read.

The way that the pieces are impossible to fit together remains the same. Neither can be fulfilled. But some argue that He can do just that.

No, they are not the same. One of them is unintelligible bullshit that is impossible to even understand let alone carry out, the other is something that is perfectly understandable but may or may not be possible for a god to do; hence why the core question in the "paradox" is whether or not a god could do the illogical. If he can then we can definitely say that he could fulfill the request.

No, it doesn't bother me. I've already said

"Either it is possible, or the demanded action is an illogical, unfair, and "impossible" (in the sense of the structure and intention) one."

I'm just continuing from that.

Square triangle.

Same thing.

The original question isn't supposed to be answerable, because it is an impossible situation, with impossible qualities and expecting literally impossible results and events. I only presented the proposed "solution" as a change of pace and to show how that one thought could be gone around. As it stands, and has stood, the "Can God create a rock that is so heavy He cannot lift it" paradox in no way disproves the omnipotency of God, and only shows what people will do to try to push impossible standards upon His abilities, or just outright seem to negate them with words.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

No, they are not the same. One of them is unintelligible bullshit that is impossible to even understand let alone carry out, the other is something that is perfectly understandable but may or may not be possible for a god to do; hence why the core question in the "paradox" is whether or not a god could do the illogical. If he can then we can definitely say that he could fulfill the request.



Impossible to understand by you. By limited beings. But if a God can do the illogical Rock paradox, He can also do any of the things that I have said, and thereby prove, or keep, His omnipotency.

If He creates that rock, what is accomplished? Must you witness or otherwise have it proved to you that He cannot lift it? If so, is He still omnipotent? How? How are we supposed to understand that?

Just as He must be able to create that rock, He has to be able to do those other "unintelligible" things. It doesn't matter whether you can understand them, because you're not God.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:



As it stands, and has stood, the "Can God create a rock that is so heavy He cannot lift it" paradox in no way disproves the omnipotency of God, and only shows what people will do to try to push impossible standards upon His abilities, or just outright seem to negate them with words.

It does disprove his omnipotence unless you result to saying that god possesses the ability to do the illogical. If you do not do that, then the "paradox" shows something that god cannot do, thus refuting the possibility that he possess the ability to do anything.

You just thought your "answer" would resolve the problem and it doesn't, so now you're discussing what was dealt with in the beginning of the thread.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Impossible to understand by you. By limited beings. But if a God can do the illogical Rock paradox, He can also do any of the things that I have said, and thereby prove, or keep, His omnipotency.

If He creates that rock, what is accomplished? Must you witness or otherwise have it proved to you that He cannot lift it? If so, is He still omnipotent? How? How are we supposed to understand that?

Just as He must be able to create that rock, He has to be able to do those other "unintelligible" things. It doesn't matter whether you can understand them, because you're not God.



Saying : "It doesn't matter whether you can understand them, because you're not God" just dodges the question. To say the paradox is impossible is to say omnipotency is impossible.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Impossible to understand by you. By limited beings. But if a God can do the illogical Rock paradox, He can also do any of the things that I have said, and thereby prove, or keep, His omnipotency.

Then why the fuck would you mention that in the first place? Those increadibly idiotic statements don't refute anything that I've said.

I didn't say that god's supposed omnipotence must be refuted, I deliberately allowed for the possibility of he being able to do the illogical and therefore his omnipotence not be refuted by the paradox.

So please, pray tell, why the hell did you even say such inane things?

quote:

If He creates that rock, what is accomplished? Must you witness or otherwise have it proved to you that He cannot lift it? If so, is He still omnipotent? How? How are we supposed to understand that?

If he cannot lift it, then he doesn't possess the ability to do anything, which would mean he's not omnipotent by definition.

If he can lift it, then it means he possesses the ability to do the illogical.



quote:

Just as He must be able to create that rock, He has to be able to do those other "unintelligible" things. It doesn't matter whether you can understand them, because you're not God.





I didn't say that I needed to understand them. It's you who are mentioning irrelevant bullshit in a desperate attempt to keep an argument alive.

The fact remains that your "answer" wasn't an "Answer" at all. It was ridiculous.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It does disprove his omnipotence unless you result to saying that god possesses the ability to do the illogical. If you do not do that, then the "paradox" shows something that god cannot do, thus refuting the possibility that he possess the ability to do anything.

You just thought your "answer" would resolve the problem and it doesn't, so now you're discussing what was dealt with in the beginning of the thread.

Didja hear me before when I commented on the answer?

This isn't the first time I've talked about this paradox. I didn't discover it yesterday.

But go ahead and throw.

Now

IF GOD CAN DO THE ILLOGICAL as in, create this friggin' rock

THEN HE CAN DO WHAT I SAID

Once again

If he can create this rock, and stay omnipotent

He can giraffe a reebok. He must.

If he can't lift this rock, there's a little section of reality where an omnipotent being can't do something, but stay omnipotent. Where it doesn't make sense, but still is.

So there must be another where it can giraffe a reebok.

"What? Giraffe a reebok?"

"Yes."

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Saying : "It doesn't matter whether you can understand them, because you're not God" just dodges the question. To say the paradox is impossible is to say omnipotency is impossible.



But it's true. It can be done, if an omnipotent being can't lift that rock. Can you understand how he could stay omnipotent after that? He's not. But yet he is.. hmmmm.

The paradox IS impossible. It's a (*gasp*) PARADOX. That's why it's used so much to "disprove," or argue, omnipotency.





[This message has been edited by Merlinman2005 (edited 09-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Didja hear me before when I commented on the answer?

Yes, and it reeked of you desperately trying to disassociate yourself from the failed "answer" you gave.

quote:

This isn't the first time I've talked about this paradox. I didn't discover it yesterday.

Which makes it more surprising that you even thought your "answer" was at all interesting or meaningful enough that you had to provide it.

quote:

Now

IF GOD CAN DO THE ILLOGICAL as in, create this friggin' rock

THEN HE CAN DO WHAT I SAID

Once again

If he can create this rock, and stay omnipotent

He can giraffe a reebok. He must.

I still don't get why you keep mentioning this...

Yes. If he has the ability to do the illogical, then he must be able to "giraffe a reebook". Who gives a shit? I didn't say otherwise. Why you keep mentioning these examples is beyond me.

quote:

If he can't lift this rock, there's a little section of reality where an omnipotent being can't do something, but stay omnipotent. Where it doesn't make sense, but still is.

That makes absolutely no sense.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

The paradox IS impossible.

It has to be possible for omnipotency to be possible.

- Why did I say those things? Read. Makes the same amount of sense. Illogical.

- What do you mean you never said you needed to understand them?

"One of them is unintelligible bullshit that is impossible to even understand let alone carry out, the other is something that is perfectly understandable but may or may not be possible for a god to do"

Liar.

Nothing's irrelevant. If you don't need to understand it, then don't bitch about not being able to understand it. Easy enough, right?

-My answer was gone once you added the "always." It temporarily fulfilled the requirements. So...

"Yes. If he has the ability to do the illogical, then he must be able to "giraffe a reebook"."

What I needed.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

- Why did I say those things? Read. Makes the same amount of sense.



It doesn't make the same amount of sense, and it is irrelevant.

Heres why:

You are using a different type of statement than the one being given.

We said a paradox, you said gibberish.

What you said would only be relevant if we said "Can god (insert noun here) something?"

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

- Why did I say those things? Read. Makes the same amount of sense. Illogical.

[...]

Liar.

Nothing's irrelevant. If you don't need to understand it, then don't bitch about not being able to understand it. Easy enough, right?



Sorry, but your inability to follow the discussion and/or to understand what I said does not make me a liar.

We're discussing what would be a sutible request of a god.

Saying "giraffe a Reebok" does not equal saying "Can You create a rock so heavy...". The two statements would only be equal if the god can do the illogical, which is not a supposition you can make!

Thus, you cannot compare the two. You cannot substitute "giraffe a Reebok" if the whole point of the request is to determine if he can do the illogical to begin with. That was my point. You were saying "Then you might as well ask..." which is not true at all. When making the question you cannot suppose the god is able to do the illogical. You cannot say "you might as well ask if he can giraffe a Reebok because he will be able to do so" because that assumes he can do the illogical.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

It doesn't make the same amount of sense, and it is irrelevant.

Heres why:

You are using a different type of statement than the one being given.

We said a paradox, you said gibberish.

What you said would only be relevant if we said "Can god (insert noun here) something?"

Can he? Why not?

You didn't have to say it before for the option to be available. It's just another example of something an omnipotent being should be able to do.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Can he? Why not?

You didn't have to say it before for the option to be available. It's just another example of something an omnipotent being should be able to do.

First of all it is not the same type of thing. One is a paradox, the other is an error of the english language.

Second of all you can't noun something, because technically the english language doesn't allow you so show action through a noun, just verbs. "Cat" is not a verb.

That is really the worst arguement I've ever heard. -1

Edit:

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Mass does not affect gravity.

That might be a worse arguement, I still havn't decided.

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 09-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Sorry, but your inability to follow the discussion and/or to understand what I said does not make me a liar.

We're discussing what would be a sutible request of a god.

Saying "giraffe a Reebok" does not equal saying "Can You create a rock so heavy...". The two statements would only be equal if the god can do the illogical, which is not a supposition you can make!

Thus, you cannot compare the two. You cannot substitute "giraffe a Reebok" if the whole point of the request is to determine if he can do the illogical to begin with. That was my point. You were saying "Then you might as well ask..." which is not true at all. When making the question you cannot suppose the god is able to do the illogical. You cannot say "you might as well ask if he can giraffe a Reebok because he will be able to do so" because that assumes he can do the illogical.

Okay I see where you're going with the assumptory illogicality of God. And the discussion of whether or not he can lift this rock ends up at "can he do the illogical?" The answer to Can He Giraffe A Reebok comes down to the same. I did not suppose he could lift the rock at the time, I only brought the question out as an example of the queerness of the request.

But

the "liar" came from

`you saying that it could not be understood

`me saying you don't have to understand it

`you saying that I was "dodging the question

and

`you saying you never said you needed to understand it

EDIT: "HEY you didn't say I was dodging."

[This message has been edited by Merlinman2005 (edited 09-08-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

First of all it is not the same type of thing. One is a paradox, the other is an error of the english language.

Second of all you can't noun something, because technically the english language doesn't allow you so show action through a noun, just verbs. "Cat" is not a verb.

That is really the worst arguement I've ever heard. -1



Language. Comprehension of ideas using words.

Omnipotent, yet cannot lift a rock. Comprehend that.

Oh and did I only use nouns there? I didn't notice. I could've gone with "honest a help," or "Grow a yellow." Nonsensical things that He should still be able to do if he's expected to do this rock thing.

EDIT: Clarification and organization



[This message has been edited by Merlinman2005 (edited 09-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Okay I see where you're going with the assumptory illogicality of God. And the discussion of whether or not he can lift this rock ends up at "can he do the illogical?" The answer to Can He Giraffe A Reebok comes down to the same. I did not suppose he could lift the rock at the time, I only brought the question out as an example of the queerness of the request.

But

the "liar" came from

`you saying that it could not be understood

`me saying you don't have to understand it

`you saying that I was "dodging the question

and

`you saying you never said you needed to understand it

Asking Him the rock question does not presume he can do the illogical. Asking him "girafee a reebok" does.

When I say that it cannot be understood, I'm saying that about both us (because we're asking the question/request to begin with - it's ridiculous to ask something that is ungramatical to begin with) or a god that doesn't possess the ability to do the illogical (which would be the god in question here since we can't assume he can do the illogical).

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:



Language. Comprehension.

Oh and did I only use nouns there? I didn't notice. I could've gone with "honest a help," or "Grow a yellow." Nonsensical things that He should still be able to do if he's expected to do this rock thing.



Nonsensical, exactly that. Those are things that can't be done because they are illogical and don't apply to each other. That is NOT a paradox and has NOTHING to do with this thread. Like I mentioned earlier "Gravity does not affect mass"

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:



Omnipotent, yet cannot lift a rock. Comprehend that.

I do comprhend that, it would mean he is not omnipotent, or he would be able to lift the rock. That ISN'T the paradox, once again you make up your own question to dismiss, the paradox is can god create a rock not even he can move (ever).

- Who's talking about gravity?

- They can't be done in the same manner that the rock bit can't be done. Illogicality. Omnipotence. Possibilities.

- Just as you can't (or shouldn't) understand why he can giraffe a reebok, you cannot understand how he can fulfill the rock portion.

But After Image, my underlying problem was not with you, and if you can't understand me, I'm not gonna strain myself to make it so you can.

I was dealing with Rust when you popped in and needed to define, or clarify, or whatever it was you did. I had to attempt to get you to see how I was thinking.

But I feel I don't need to.

You win.

lol this question is funny because it's meaningless. Basicly what you are asking if the all powerful, perfect, God can become less perfect by creating something he can not control thus making him less perfect ?

[This message has been edited by Deoz (edited 09-08-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

- Who's talking about gravity?



I was quoting an argument against the paradox, reread the thread if you don't know why.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:



- They can't be done in the same manner that the rock bit can't be done. Illogicality. Omnipotence. Possibilities.

Wrong, one is completely illogical, the other is an actual problem with the idea of omnipotence.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

- Just as you can't (or shouldn't) understand why he can giraffe a reebok, you cannot understand how he can fulfill the rock portion.



They are unrelated!! For the last time they DON'T relate to each other.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Oh and did I only use nouns there? I didn't notice. I could've gone with "honest a help," or "Grow a yellow." Nonsensical things that He should still be able to do if he's expected to do this rock thing.

You consistantly seem to think that if you can fufill the details of an argument, you are correct. You're just splitting hairs again. After Image's main point is not that you can't use nouns as verbs; it's that your supposed refutations are using the English language wrong. "Grow a help" uses a verb (help) as a noun; it's equally as wrong as using a noun as a verb. Your "answer" here doesn't change anything.

The rock paradox is perfectly understandable, and not nonscensical at all. It's asking: Can an omnipotent being defy its own omnipotence? Can an omnipotent being do the illogical? Yes or no. It is far from meaningless, and is easily answerable. "Can God grow a help", however, is without meaning. It is not a contradiction of logic. It is not dealing with an error in logic, as the rock question is; it is dealing with an error in the English language. They are completely different subjects, completely different forms. The rock question is about a contradiction in logic; please tell me where the contradiction in logic is in growing a help. There is none, because growing a help isn't illogical - it's nonscensical.

If God could do the illogical, it doesn't mean that he could grow a help - growing a help has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with language.

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 09-08-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

They are unrelated!! For the last time they DON'T relate to each other.

Exactly. If you are trying to disprove this argument by counterexample, Merlinman, then your counterexample needs to be of the exact same form as the original example. "Growing a help" differs from "lifting a rock" in that one makes sense, and the other does not. You may say that the entire rock paradox doesn't make sense, but like I said - that's an issue of logic. Your supposed refutations are issues of grammar.

Taking something completely different and showing how it's nonscensical doesn't effect the original problem. You're comparing apples and oranges, Merlin.

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 09-08-2006).]

God damnit! Mackie, you sons of bitches! MACKIE!

Read up!

Here, I even found a link to "Evil and Omnipotence;" http://www.jstor.org/view/00264423/di984392/98p0294e/0

In addition, please read up on the Ontological Argument, Aquinas' The Existence of God, Russell's Why I Am Not a Theist, and Leibniz' God, Evil, and the Best Possible World.

For christ sake, if we had a little bit of philosophical background in this forum, the number of dumb, re-repeated questions would plummet.

Your link does not work for me. Perhaps you yourself would care to engage in debate? I wasn't aware that the purpose of this forum was to spam broken links at people while screaming about their lack of education. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

Edit: I have read on the ontological argument - mostly St. Anselm's version - and found it lacking. I have and have read Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian" (not "theist"), and while I haven't read Leibniz' work I am familiar with his theories on this being the best of all possible worlds, and needless to say disagree quite strongly. While I'm hardly an expert on philosophy, I am at least not completely ignorant, and pretty well-versed compared to your common man.

So... what's your point? The books you mention that I have read in no way refute this question. It remains a valid one.



[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 09-08-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Your link does not work for me. Perhaps you yourself would care to engage in debate? I wasn't aware that the purpose of this forum was to spam broken links at people while screaming about their lack of education. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

Edit: I have read on the ontological argument - mostly St. Anselm's version - and found it lacking. I have and have read Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian" (not "theist"), and while I haven't read Leibniz' work I am familiar with his theories on this being the best of all possible worlds, and needless to say disagree quite strongly. While I'm hardly an expert on philosophy, I am at least not completely ignorant, and pretty well-versed compared to your common man.

So... what's your point? The books you mention that I have read in no way refute this question. It remains a valid one.



The books I refer to may not speak of the question directly, I merely suggested them so that many could get a firmer basis.

Mackie's Evil and Omnipotence, however, does indeed address the question of God's omnipotence.

I believe it speaks more of moral, or logical law, rather than a rock, though. Like: Can God, an omnipotent being, create rules that even HE must follow, thus immediately limiting his omnipotence?

quote:Originally posted by Karik:

Mackie's Evil and Omnipotence, however, does indeed address the question of God's omnipotence.

I believe it speaks more of moral, or logical law, rather than a rock, though. Like: Can God, an omnipotent being, create rules that even HE must follow, thus immediately limiting his omnipotence?

Ah, interesting. What is Mackie's conclusion?

I dont understand why people are still interested in this thread.. Atheists have been posing this question forever to try and "disprove" gods existance..and they fail.

For one, there are plenty of religions where "god" is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.

Also, where the hell is it written in cosmological stone that god is omnipotent anyway.

god is the rock

yes

quote:Originally posted by VolatileShiftInPersona:

Can God create a rock so heavy that even he himself can not lift it?

I remember the last time this was posted. One user posted something about segmenting the questions into two parts.





maybe you should ask him that the next time he takes your order at micky D's