By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Can God create a rock so big that he can't lift it?

Akvod on 27 October 2009
Khuutra said:
Akvod said:
Khuutra said:

No it isnt.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2758754

I talk about scriptural reasons for dismissing those assumptions in this post earlier in this topic.

I see, I guess I mispoke a bit. However, nobody specificly pointed to the Jewish god at all.

In this paradox we set out in the very beginning that we have a specific omnipotent god (or being). The paradox isn't inteded to disprove god's existence, but the impossibility of an omnipotent god/being.

Not so: the "paradox" is more useful as a jumping-off point concerning the nature of God. Angrypoolman brings it up specifically in th context of the beliefs of believers and that's the context that it has to be addressed in.

It's very much about the Judeo-Christian God, and the answer is still unequivocally "yes". When you argue hte logic behindi t, you stop arguing about God altogether, and it becomes meaningless.

?

So the paradox doesn't show the logical fallacy of omnipotence? Sure you can use that to then try to define limits for your god, but again, the paradox isn't meant to disprove the existence of an god, but of an omnipotent god (or being).

The paradox isn't "meant" to do anything but show the logical problem with something. What we find as a result of the paradox anyone can use for their own benefit.



Around the Network
Khuutra on 27 October 2009
Akvod said:

?

So the paradox doesn't show the logical fallacy of omnipotence? Sure you can use that to then try to define limits for your god, but again, the paradox isn't meant to disprove the existence of an god, but of an omnipotent god (or being).

The paradox isn't "meant" to do anything but show the logical problem with something. What we find as a result of the paradox anyone can use for their own benefit.

I am saying that the only useful application of this paradox is as a talking point for believers about the nature of God and his relationship with his creation. That's all there is.

And the paradox doesn't hav a specific intent of proving anything, otherise it would not be a paradox, and it is certainly not meant to disprove the possibility of omnipotence. There are many answers which preserve omnipotence, namely apaloosa's "The paradox is meaningless in the face of the fact that nothing can be greater than God" and the old standby, "God can change the rules of logic if he wants to"

Omnipotence is a big wide, yawning chasm of an idea.



ManusJustus on 27 October 2009
Khuutra said:
ManusJustus said:
Khuutra said:

This isn't supposed to be a logical paradox, though, it's supposed to be a stepping-off point for ruminations about the nature of God and his relationship with his creation

If anything, all this argument does is prove that there is no such thing as omnipotence.

Not..... exactly. I don't think the nature of God lends itself to the idea of omnipotence, but omnipotence is possible if one can imagine that it includes the ability to change the rules of logic.

So for God to be true, we have to believe in fantastical stories with no evidence and allow for logic to be violated.

For being omniptent, God sure does catch a break.



Khuutra on 27 October 2009
ManusJustus said:
Khuutra said:

Not..... exactly. I don't think the nature of God lends itself to the idea of omnipotence, but omnipotence is possible if one can imagine that it includes the ability to change the rules of logic.

So for God to be true, we have to believe in fantastical stories with no evidence and allow for logic to be violated.

For being omniptent, God sure does catch a break.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2758754



Rath on 27 October 2009
Khuutra said:
Akvod said:

?

So the paradox doesn't show the logical fallacy of omnipotence? Sure you can use that to then try to define limits for your god, but again, the paradox isn't meant to disprove the existence of an god, but of an omnipotent god (or being).

The paradox isn't "meant" to do anything but show the logical problem with something. What we find as a result of the paradox anyone can use for their own benefit.

I am saying that the only useful application of this paradox is as a talking point for believers about the nature of God and his relationship with his creation. That's all there is.

And the paradox doesn't hav a specific intent of proving anything, otherise it would not be a paradox, and it is certainly not meant to disprove the possibility of omnipotence. There are many answers which preserve omnipotence, namely apaloosa's "The paradox is meaningless in the face of the fact that nothing can be greater than God" and the old standby, "God can change the rules of logic if he wants to"

Omnipotence is a big wide, yawning chasm of an idea.

The entire point of the paradox is to disprove omnipotence. And yes paradox's are meant to prove things, namely logical contradictions.

Apaloosa's one doesn't address the paradox itself and the logic one can be gotten around by adding 'under the current laws of logic' to the end of the question.



Around the Network
ManusJustus on 27 October 2009
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
@Kasz. He isn't creating a rock he chooses not to lift, he is creating a rock he cannot lift.

If he creates the rock and is able at any point to lift it, then he has not created a rock he cannot lift.

Sure he has. 

I can find a statue I can't life... but if I worked out enough eventually I could lift it.  Or I can make the statue smaller.... whatever.

It's not really a difficult concept.  Omnipotence would mean that you can do anything you want... (or can't if you want) until you change your mind.

Yes but you're not omnipotent.

Omnipotence requires being able to do anything at anytime. Literally all powerful.

 

And I do get your concept, I just think it doesn't fit the definition of the problem. If you want I can change the question slightly - can God create a rock that he will never be able to lift even if he wants to?

Your not asking if god can create a rock he can't lift then however.

You are asking if god can create an object that is immune to his omnipotence.


Still an easy answer.

Yes.  However he would then no longer be ominpotent.

It would take more then just creating a rock though, clearly he would need to invest some of his "omnipotent" power into said rock so it became more powerful then him, and he in turn became weaker.

 

Really "Can god wipe himself from existance" is a more interesting question.  Also depressing.  Imagine a religion like Christanity but the god killed himself.

So you are suggesting that God can create another omnipotent thing that is more powerful than him?  He wouldnt be omnipotent then if something else was more powerful.

God killing himself would be more respectful than having the Romans do it :)



Khuutra on 27 October 2009
Rath said:

The entire point of the paradox is to disprove omnipotence. And yes paradox's are meant to prove things, namely logical contradictions.

Apaloosa's one doesn't address the paradox itself and the logic one can be gotten around by adding 'under the current laws of logic' to the end of the question.

I don't understand what appending that clause would mean if omnipotence includes the ability to negate them.



ManusJustus on 27 October 2009
Khuutra said:
ManusJustus said:
Khuutra said:

Not..... exactly. I don't think the nature of God lends itself to the idea of omnipotence, but omnipotence is possible if one can imagine that it includes the ability to change the rules of logic.

So for God to be true, we have to believe in fantastical stories with no evidence and allow for logic to be violated.

For being omniptent, God sure does catch a break.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2758754

When it comes to religion, it doesnt matter what scripture says, what matters is whay people think.  People think that God is omnipotent, and until this idea changes then the discussion of his omnipotence is still relevent.

I do agree that the orginial idea of the Abrahamic God was one who was not omnipotent.  God was nothing more than a big human, and he had big emotions and big enemies to go with that.



Akvod on 27 October 2009
Khuutra said:
Akvod said:

?

So the paradox doesn't show the logical fallacy of omnipotence? Sure you can use that to then try to define limits for your god, but again, the paradox isn't meant to disprove the existence of an god, but of an omnipotent god (or being).

The paradox isn't "meant" to do anything but show the logical problem with something. What we find as a result of the paradox anyone can use for their own benefit.

I am saying that the only useful application of this paradox is as a talking point for believers about the nature of God and his relationship with his creation. That's all there is.

And the paradox doesn't hav a specific intent of proving anything, otherise it would not be a paradox, and it is certainly not meant to disprove the possibility of omnipotence. There are many answers which preserve omnipotence, namely apaloosa's "The paradox is meaningless in the face of the fact that nothing can be greater than God" and the old standby, "God can change the rules of logic if he wants to"

Omnipotence is a big wide, yawning chasm of an idea.

"Useful" is such a bad reason though. I can use anything I want for my own "uses". I can use the paradox to sound smart, as the OP said. I can use the paradox to deny the existence of a specific god that's claimed to be omnipotent. You may interpert god as not being omnipotent from your interpretations of the text, but you can't deny there is a shit load of Jewish, Christians, and Muslims that claim, believe, and interpert from their texts that their god is omnipotent. The paradox can be used to deny such an interpreation and existence of a god.

I agree thought that a question itself, can't be used as a statement (it doesn't prove anything technically, only asks).

 

 

I'm starting to get confused at where we are or what.

So do you and me agree that omnipotence can't work logically? Because the paradox accomplishes that for me.

You and me can do whatever you want with that (The Jewish god is outside of logic, etc).

But do we agree that our analysis of the paradox comes out the same?

And because the paradox has stimulated so much discussion and exchange of ideas, that it's not a "stupid" question?

Because I'll love for this thread to reach some sort of conclusion, so that it's not fruitless.



Rath on 27 October 2009
Khuutra said:
Rath said:

The entire point of the paradox is to disprove omnipotence. And yes paradox's are meant to prove things, namely logical contradictions.

Apaloosa's one doesn't address the paradox itself and the logic one can be gotten around by adding 'under the current laws of logic' to the end of the question.

I don't understand what appending that clause would mean if omnipotence includes the ability to negate them.

He has the ability to negate them, but omnipotent should mean he also has the ability to do anything under the laws of logic. Otherwise he cannot do absolutley anything.