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

pjnlsn · Apr 9, 2013

elopez said:
If you're asking me you should be well aware of my answer.

Nothing in your responses contradicts what I wrote.

elopez · Apr 9, 2013

pjnlsn said:
Nothing in your responses contradicts what I wrote.

You know the more you say that doesn't mean it becomes more convincing. Again, a claim with no support. Show how that is so or stop wasting your time.

pjnlsn · Apr 9, 2013

elopez said:
You know the more you say that doesn't mean it becomes more convincing. Again, a claim with no support. Show how that is so or stop wasting your time.

The following

Well that's the problem. Omnipotence is not defined as the ability to create anything or do anything. It literally means "all - powerful." God has power over all things, which entails that noting be too heavy for Him to lift, which means just because there exists no such rock doesn't mean He lacks omnipotence.

The argument is simply inconsistent.

....as well as the others, does not contradict what I wrote:

[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.

What exactly is unintelligible here?

elopez · Apr 10, 2013

Nothing is unintelligible. You just don't realize how I've addressed the argument. The definition of omnipotence you give is incorrect. The omnipotence paradox itself is a fallacy of loaded question. Now, what about that is unintelligible?

pjnlsn · Apr 10, 2013

elopez said:
Nothing is unintelligible. You just don't realize how I've addressed the argument. The definition of omnipotence you give is incorrect. The omnipotence paradox itself is a fallacy of loaded question. Now, what about that is unintelligible?

If you really need to be led to it: In response to your third sentence, see both the first clause of the first sentence of what was written, and the original definition of the word 'omnipotence,' which is actually already referenced in a post of yours, more or less.

In response to your fourth sentence: I wrote it with the intention of writing something that was true, not something that compared favorably to any external criteria, save if said criteria would, if incorporated, render my statements, taken together, false.

[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 · Apr 10, 2013

You need to stop being so vague. None of this makes sense, and that is your own fault. The first clause of which sentence? I know the definition of omnipotence as I already gave it - all powerful.

The omnipotence paradox is a fallacy. What do you not grasp about this? Do you know what a fallacy is, much less what a loaded question is?

elopez · Apr 10, 2013

The omnipotence paradox is a loaded question because it contains a false presupposition, namely, that there is a rock too heavy for God to lift. The false presuppostion is evidenced by the loaded aspect of what a reply would be, as in no matter how one answers he gets committed to saying God lacks omnipotence when in fact the respondent would claim no such thing. First you would need to ask, "Is there a rock too heavy for God to lift?" And the answer to that is a resounding "no" given the definition of omnipotence as all - powerful.

elopez · Apr 10, 2013

If there is no rock too heavy for God to lift, He cannot create one, and not because He lacks omnipotence but exactly because He is omnipotent.

elopez · Apr 10, 2013

Oh but wait, you're just going to repeat yourself yet again, right? If you post the same exact stuff you have been, which has been more than refuted, I will not reply. Think of an actual thoughtful response instead of pretending what you said has not been responded to.

pjnlsn · Apr 10, 2013

elopez said:
You need to stop being so vague. None of this makes sense, and that is your own fault. The first clause of which sentence? I know the definition of omnipotence as I already gave it - all powerful.

The omnipotence paradox is a fallacy. What do you not grasp about this? Do you know what a fallacy is, much less what a loaded question is?

I am not inclined to help you or rephrase unless what I wrote is unintelligible. If you can understand it, do so.

In response to your fourth sentence, see the first clause of the first sentence of what was written by me and is quoted below.

As to your second para., again: "[What is quoted below was written] with the intention of [presenting] something that was true, not something that compared favorably to any external criteria, save if said criteria would, if incorporated, render my statements, taken together, false."

To say that it is fallacious with respect to any other statement or extant interpretation is irrelevant. If what I wrote was internally contradictory or incomplete, along the lines of enumerated fallacies or otherwise, it would be false, and I would want to correct this. Otherwise, not really.

[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 · Apr 10, 2013

You said God lacks omnipotence because He cannot create a rock too heavy for Him to lift. That has been shown as incorrect. If you do not see the argument for that, it is your own issue. If you ever acknowledge the argument against what you have said, then you can reply to me and it will be taken seriously.

pjnlsn · Apr 10, 2013

elopez said:
The omnipotence paradox is a loaded question because it contains a false presupposition, namely, that there is a rock too heavy for God to lift. The false presuppostion is evidenced by the loaded aspect of what a reply would be, as in no matter how one answers he gets committed to saying God lacks omnipotence when in fact the respondent would claim no such thing. First you would need to ask, "Is there a rock too heavy for God to lift?" And the answer to that is a resounding "no" given the definition of omnipotence as all - powerful.

The above suggests that you've misinterpreted (pretty excessively, if I do say so myself) what was written. Strictly speaking, nothing in the above contradicts what was 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 · Apr 10, 2013

Wow. You told me originally that because God cannot create a rock too heavy for Him to lift He lacks omnipotence. I argued against that. If you fail to realize that again it's your own fault.

pjnlsn · Apr 10, 2013

(sic)

elopez · Apr 10, 2013

So let me get this straight, you did not say God isn't omnipotent because He cannot create a rock too heavy for Him?

pjnlsn · Apr 10, 2013

elopez said:
So let me get this straight, you did not say God isn't omnipotent because He cannot create a rock too heavy for Him?

What you had just suggested as an interpretation of what I had written was a) not the above and b) close, but not quite the same.

The above is it, more or less, but if you rely on your own simplified interpretation of the complete text below as a guide to responding, it may or may not be relevant. I.e. your interpretation may not be equivalent.

[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 · Apr 10, 2013

I was saying to another poster on page 4 that God is still omnipotent regardless of Him not being able to create a rock too heavy for Him to lift. You sad in post 40 that it does contradict omnipotence. What you said in post 40 is what I was arguing against, and have done so. It should not be this hard to grasp.

elopez · Apr 10, 2013

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.

Noxot · Apr 10, 2013

HitchSlap said:
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?

so we want to use human logic to understand spiritual reality? this kind of materialistic thinking leaves man no room for contemplation of differing forms of reality. God is not physical reality, physical reality is a story book. why do you think God is inside of a story book and why would humans think things that are not even real can hurt something that is real? why do people think God is limited to rules and human understanding and concepts?

you are asking something like this: can a computer programmer make a game npc that can slay him irl?

so if God made a character for this game called 'our universe', could God make a rock so big that he could not move it? yes. if he functions within the game rules that the physical part of humans function under then there are rocks that Jesus player character could not move.

if you are trying to use some kind of metaphor for something not even concerning the laws of this universe then I must ask why are you being so irrational and using a computer games logic system and rules to interpret reality?

if you are a character in a game and you search everywhere for a different kind of reality but can't find it, is it any surprise? no, you are simply limited in that form, you have to use the thing that controls your character to know that reality, you have to be in that reality to know about that reality. most players in this MMO called 'our universe' think all they are, are computer graphics and the only kind of knowledge is the game knowledge they have.

pjnlsn · Apr 10, 2013

Noxot said:
so we want to use human logic to understand spiritual reality? this kind of materialistic thinking leaves man no room for contemplation of differing forms of reality. God is not physical reality, physical reality is a story book. why do you think God is inside of a story book and why would humans think things that are not even real can hurt something that is real? why do people think God is limited to rules and human understanding and concepts?

you are asking something like this: can a computer programmer make a game npc that can slay him irl?

so if God made a character for this game called 'our universe', could God make a rock so big that he could not move it? yes. if he functions within the game rules that the physical part of humans function under then there are rocks that Jesus player character could not move.

if you are trying to use some kind of metaphor for something not even concerning the laws of this universe then I must ask why are you being so irrational and using a computer games logic system and rules to interpret reality?

if you are a character in a game and you search everywhere for a different kind of reality but can't find it, is it any surprise? no, you are simply limited in that form, you have to use the thing that controls your character to know that reality, you have to be in that reality to know about that reality. most players in this MMO called 'our universe' think all they are, are computer graphics and the only kind of knowledge is the game knowledge they have.

There is still a contradiction in the idea of an omnipotent being.

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

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

anarchist personalist

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency