A rock so big, it can't be moved.

[pjnlsn]

Either address what I said in response to your original claim or keep repeating yourself, in which case only confirms your evasiveness or lack of comprehension.

Personifications of what was written are irrelevant. All that was written originally by others in the thread is the equivalent of this, and, I suppose, which is commonly referred to as the omnipotence paradox, which is true, and is not contradicted by anything you've written:

[Barring differences in how terms are defined between reader and writer,] there's a contradiction between the idea of being omnipotent and being able to create anything, which is part of having all abilities.

If a being is said to be able to create anything, but is also said to have the strength, in whatever form, to manipulate any object, then there are a few actions which cannot be done by the being.

 

[elopez]

Personifications of what was written are irrelevant. All that was written originally by others in the thread is the equivalent of this, and, I suppose, which is commonly referred to as the omnipotence paradox, which is true, and is not contradicted by anything you've written:

If you don't understand that I showed the omnipotence paradox wrong by exposing the false presuppositon you just don't understand how the fallacy of a loaded question works. If you do understand such, you would be able to explain what the fallacy is, and how what I said in relation to it does not disprove it. Yet again another baseless claim on your end, though not surprising.

 

[Dave Ellis]

God is perfect.

Mans so called "knowledge" against God, fails.

So how do you know that your knowledge about God being perfect is correct?

 

[Gottservant]

There's a contradiction between the idea of being omnipotent and being able to create anything, in all contexts, which is part of having all abilities.

No one ever said God could create anything in all contexts.

For example if creating something violated the Law, God could not.

For example if everyone but God wanted God to stop creating, he would have to stop creating in accordance with the second great commandment to love your neighbour as yourself.

But again, He could still circumvent this for the sake of the first commandment to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul.

So it remains a question of context.

Your statement that you could always appeal to a greater context is interesting, in that it relates to what one may observe of God, for if no one acts (being stuck in the observance of contexts, for example) one may assume the status of God. So for example, if God created a rock so big that He couldn't lift it and everyone was aghast as to how to change the context so that God could lift the rock, someone could assume the status of God. You could not replace God, but you could help Him (as God).

This is the power of God, that as long as God exists, others can assume the status of God, in order to help God.

For those that will contend that this is not scriptural, I remind you that David ate the showbread when he was hungry. In other words, he was not a priest but was made equal with a priest when it was evident that the priest could not serve the people because they were hungry and yet there was showbread.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's often said, and many believe, that god is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient... which begs one question...

Does god know he can make a rock so big he can't move it?

Omnipotence is sometimes thought of as the power to do anything, but I think it is more correctly understood as the power to do anything that is possible.

So, he would not be able to move anything that is immovable, and he would still be omnipotent.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Metal Minister]

It's often said, and many believe, that god is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient... which begs one question...

Does god know he can make a rock so big he can't move it?

Here's a better question. Which is longer, a line or a ray?

 

[contango]

It's often said, and many believe, that god is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient... which begs one question...

Does god know he can make a rock so big he can't move it?

Perhaps an omniscient God would have foreknowledge of philosophical questions that are really rather daft.

 

[quatona]

Omnipotence is sometimes thought of as the power to do anything, but I think it is more correctly understood as the power to do anything that is possible.

So, he would not be able to move anything that is immovable, and he would still be omnipotent.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Then again, I keep being told that "with God, everything is possible".

 

[astein]

Does god know he can make a rock so big he can't move it?

It truely isn't in doubt, unless one doubt's truth.

 

[astein]

So how do you know that your knowledge about God being perfect is correct?

Believe in God.

 

[HitchSlap]

Believe in God.

Believe in Santa.

 

[HitchSlap]

Omnipotence is sometimes thought of as the power to do anything, but I think it is more correctly understood as the power to do anything that is possible.

So, he would not be able to move anything that is immovable, and he would still be omnipotent.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So with god, all things are not possible.

 

[HitchSlap]

Here's a better question. Which is longer, a line or a ray?

Does god know which is longer?

 

[HitchSlap]

Perhaps an omniscient God would have foreknowledge of philosophical questions that are really rather daft.

Perhaps an omnipotent god could tell you the answer?

 

[Metal Minister]

Does god know which is longer?

I have to assume you do not. They are both infinite.

 

[HitchSlap]

I have to assume you do not. They are both infinite.

You're free to assume what you need to.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's often said, and many believe, that god is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient... which begs one question...

Does god know he can make a rock so big he can't move it?

I prefer the version about a taco.

"Can God create a taco so hot that he can't eat it?"

Hebrews 6:18 suggests an approach to this question by pointing out that there are things in which it is impossible for God to lie. The passage says,

When God made the promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, and said, I will indeed bless you and multiply you. And so, after patient waiting, he obtained the promise. Human beings swear by someone greater than themselves; for them an oath serves as a guarantee and puts an end to all argument. So when God wanted to give the heirs of his promise an even clearer demonstration of the immutability of his purpose, he intervened with an oath, so that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge might be strongly encouraged to hold fast to the hope that lies before us. This we have as an anchor of the soul, sure and firm, which reaches into the interior behind the veil, where Jesus has entered on our behalf as forerunner, becoming high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.
(Hebrews 6:13-20)
​

You may object to this use of scripture as evidence for the proposition that I am about to state; that is for you to decide.

God cannot do anything that is impossible to do.

One example of an impossible thing is to make a triangle that has exactly two sides. Other examples will occur to the reader.

A materialist might formulate an answer thus:

Basing the answer on the fundamental equivelence of mass and energy (through the equation e = m * C^2),

A universe in which there exists such a thing as an irresistible force is, by definition, a universe which cannot also contain an immovable object. And a universe which contains an immovable object cannot, by definition, also contain an irresistible force. So the question is essentially meaningless: either the force is irresistible or the object is immovable, but not both.​

Thus, this question appears to be a case of the fallacy of the pseudo-question.

 

[pjnlsn]

No one ever said God could create anything in all contexts.

For example if creating something violated the Law, God could not.

For example if everyone but God wanted God to stop creating, he would have to stop creating in accordance with the second great commandment to love your neighbour as yourself.

But again, He could still circumvent this for the sake of the first commandment to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul.

So it remains a question of context.

Your statement that you could always appeal to a greater context is interesting, in that it relates to what one may observe of God, for if no one acts (being stuck in the observance of contexts, for example) one may assume the status of God. So for example, if God created a rock so big that He couldn't lift it and everyone was aghast as to how to change the context so that God could lift the rock, someone could assume the status of God. You could not replace God, but you could help Him (as God).

This is the power of God, that as long as God exists, others can assume the status of God, in order to help God.

For those that will contend that this is not scriptural, I remind you that David ate the showbread when he was hungry. In other words, he was not a priest but was made equal with a priest when it was evident that the priest could not serve the people because they were hungry and yet there was showbread.

violated the what?

All that was said by some people originally in the thread was that there is an internal contradiction in the idea of omnipotence. And I suppose as you describe there is another contradiction, if this entity must reform itself to suit the wishes of certain people, or whatever.

The addition of 'contexts' is irrelevant, in any case, per my last post.

There is no contradiction in the idea of simply having many more great and ephemeral powers than anything else, depending, but there is in the idea of omnipotence, which is all that was said originally.

 

[pjnlsn]

If you don't understand that I showed the omnipotence paradox wrong by exposing the false presuppositon you just don't understand how the fallacy of a loaded question works. If you do understand such, you would be able to explain what the fallacy is, and how what I said in relation to it does not disprove it. Yet again another baseless claim on your end, though not surprising.

What I wrote was written only with the intent that the words themselves be true, not that they would compare favorably with any other statements, standards, or criteria in any way, save if they made what I wrote false.

And it is still true what I wrote, and that nothing you have written has contradicted what I wrote. Indeed, many of your posts involve their own internal contradictions.

Originally it was said in this thread what is equivalent to the following: [Barring differences in how terms are defined between reader and writer,] there's a contradiction between the idea of being omnipotent and being able to create anything, which is part of having all abilities.

If a being is said to be able to create anything, but is also said to have the strength, in whatever form, to manipulate any object, then there are a few actions which cannot be done by the being.

Since I just wrote it in another post: While the concept of omnipotence has this internal contradiction, an imagined entity which is not all-powerful but rather most powerful, or which has various abstract and ephemeral abilities doesn't involve this particular contradiction.

I could have spelled this out to you, but the simplicity of it and your responses which had their own internal contradictions made me feel odd to do so.

 

[Hawisher]

This question is the same sort of sophistical garbage as the ontological argument.