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?

Khuutra on 27 October 2009
ManusJustus said:
Khuutra said:

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.

Yeah well I'm trying to change the way people think, little by little.

Because the original God of the Hebrews was pretty awesome, if a bit of a jerk.

@Akvod:

I think the problem is that most people take the idea of omnipotence too far, or approach this question in the wrong way.

A better way to phrase th omnipotence paradox might be, "Can an omnipotent being create something even more powerful than themselves?" I would say no, since that would violate logic: you can't have infinity+1. So unless you have a being that can violate logic, then "omnipotence" has to be accepted to mean absolute power over something, but not the power to exceed oneself.

It's like asking whether or not I'm stronger than me. You see the problem?



Around the Network
Akvod on 27 October 2009
Khuutra said:
ManusJustus said:
Khuutra said:

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.

Yeah well I'm trying to change the way people think, little by little.

Because the original God of the Hebrews was pretty awesome, if a bit of a jerk.

@Akvod:

I think the problem is that most people take the idea of omnipotence too far, or approach this question in the wrong way.

A better way to phrase th omnipotence paradox might be, "Can an omnipotent being create something even more powerful than themselves?" I would say no, since that would violate logic: you can't have infinity+1. So unless you have a being that can violate logic, then "omnipotence" has to be accepted to mean absolute power over something, but not the power to exceed oneself.

It's like asking whether or not I'm stronger than me. You see the problem?

Really? I thought infinity+1=infinity? Or is your point that nothing can surpass infinity, (re-reads, oh ok).

But now you're just adjusting and changing the definition to fit the paradox. The definition of omnipotent is all powerful. By putting a restriction (not the power to exceed oneself), you just changed and broke the definition entirely O.o

I'll say that it's illogical, and that your question has indeed pointed out the logical problems, and not think that the question was stupid XD

The paradox is interepreted by many people as pointing out the illogical... ness(?) of omnipotence (all powerful). So I don't see your point.

I'm done BTW, I really enjoyed your points though. Made me realized to be more specific and careful when discussing a common and famous topic, since I can't just assume we all are on the same page.




Kasz216 on 27 October 2009
ManusJustus said:
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 :)

He wouldn't be ominiptoent ANYMORE.

Which is my point.  If Omnipotence lets you do everything it would stand to logic that would include giving it up.



Khuutra on 27 October 2009

Omnipotence did not originally have that meaning, though. Zeus was omnipotent in that he had power over all, not that he was all-powerful. Ditto God.

I can't help it that the word was changed into something that it was not originally meant to be!



Kasz216 on 27 October 2009
Khuutra said:
Omnipotence did not originally have that meaning, though. Zeus was omnipotent in that he had power over all, not that he was all-powerful. Ditto God.

I can't help it that the word was changed into something that it was not originally meant to be!

Yeah, i never really bought into omnipotence as "power over everything always" to be honest.  Just playing out the scenario with those devised parameters.

I mean if he's powerful enough to create everything, and way more powerful then everyone else... what would be the difference?

Who cares if he could create rocks he can't lift... it's not really relevent to anything.



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 27 October 2009
Zlejedi said:
TheRealMafoo said:

But this is still a contradiction.

God can know what path I am taking, but it can't make me take any path it chooses. This means it can't do anything (make me take a path of it's liking).

if it can, then I don't have free will.

How is it contradiction ? God could make you choose any path he wants, however he doesn't do so because it would remove your free will.

 

Wow, this thread exploded. I have not read pages 7-11, so someone might have already answered this.

If you are allowed to do whatever you want until god feels he now wants to make you do something, it's not free will, it's gods will.

If at any time god can control what you do when he choses to take over again, it's not free will.



ManusJustus on 27 October 2009
Kasz216 said:

He wouldn't be ominiptoent ANYMORE.

Which is my point.  If Omnipotence lets you do everything it would stand to logic that would include giving it up.

By giving it up, you have to be unable to retrieve it.  God cant give up omnipotence if he can take it back, which is how you describe God not being able to lift a certain rock.

If I'm rich and I put all my money in the bank, I cant say that I'm poor because I still have the ability to get that money if I so desire.



Khuutra on 27 October 2009
Rath said:
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.

This makes my head hurt.

You want him to break the laws of logic

But without breaking the laws of logic

Unless by "he has the ability to do anything under the laws of logic" you make him exempt from having to fulfill logical paradoxes.



Rath on 27 October 2009
Khuutra said:
Rath said:
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.

This makes my head hurt.

You want him to break the laws of logic

But without breaking the laws of logic

Unless by "he has the ability to do anything under the laws of logic" you make him exempt from having to fulfill logical paradoxes.

Nope, I don't.

It is meant to be impossible, thats the entire point of it =P



Khuutra on 27 October 2009
Rath said:
Khuutra said:

This makes my head hurt.

You want him to break the laws of logic

But without breaking the laws of logic

Unless by "he has the ability to do anything under the laws of logic" you make him exempt from having to fulfill logical paradoxes.

Nope, I don't.

It is meant to be impossible, thats the entire point of it =P

So you won't mind if he just breaks logic in half over his knee, right?