-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
A rock so big, it can't be moved.
- Thread starter HitchSlap
- Start date
You don't understand what you're saying. Very simply, logic is self-deterministic and nothing is 'beyond' logic.
Upvote
0
What was written was written because it was true, not because it would compare favorably to any external statements, standard, or criteria. That you perceive an intent behind the pointing out of this contradiction does not make it any less or more present.
[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.
But similarly to before, while the concept of omnipotence has this internal contradiction, an imagined entity which is not all-powerful but rather most powerful, or which is merely defined as having various abstract and ephemeral abilities, doesn't involve this particular contradiction.
The above more or less contains all information that you need to understand the question and the contradiction. Because of various inconsistencies in your responses and the simplicity of applying the above to the specifics of your responses, i'm not really inclined to help you with anything more than the above.
Upvote
0
The above supports that there is a contradiction in the idea of omnipotence, rather than dissipating it, if such was your intent. You can say that God can 'break' the laws of logic, but this doesn't mean that the contradiction isn't present either. And obviously that it makes no sense to you doesn't mean that the contradiction isn't present.
Upvote
0
I mean, it's wrong and you apparently don't understand the relatively simple concept of logic, what the word means. Or perhaps you're inclined to compartmentalize a little when thinking about the gods you believe in.
Upvote
0
It's a tough call saying changing context is a semantic solution when the question itself is very obviously a semantic paradox.
But to answer your question, the answer is "no". As I said, God has already said He will fulfil the Law and making a rock so big He cannot lift it does not fulfil the Law. The Law is God must remain all powerful, not God must create all things.
You may invoke the phrase "all things are possible with God" to which I reply that there is a semantic answer to your semantic paradox. Whether you find that satisfactory is entirely your problem!
Upvote
0
The entire thread is about whether in idea conflicts with another idea, yes, but as you wrote above rephrasing the question to add your contexts makes the answer as it was before.
And let us not speak of this idea personally or definitively, as to the existence of an entity with this characteristic, for it is, as of now, purely conceptual. I.e. God has not 'said' anything, effectively.
All that was said originally by some was the equivalent of:
[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.
And the 'solution' if you want to call it that, could be phrased like this:
But similarly to before, while the concept of omnipotence has this internal contradiction, an imagined entity which is not all-powerful but rather most powerful, or which is merely defined as having various abstract and ephemeral abilities, doesn't involve this particular contradiction.
Or perhaps what you've written, not of contexts, but of 'the Law,' although your phrasing is apparently designed for more than information conveyance, and for some sort of emotional impact in the reader.
Upvote
0
argh! This is the point: God could create a rock so big that He couldn't lift it, but then He would cease to be all-powerful, hence THE LAW prevents Him from doing it.
If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Law, not with God!
I suggest exploring a similar question, which is designed to expose the fact that the very premise of a contradiction is an anathema to God:
Can God create a contradiction?
The answer is "no". Even mentioning contradiction in the same sentence as God is against the Law, and therefore sin. It's invalid before you even start. Of course you are tempted to mention contradiction in connection with God, but that is not because God is weak or some such thing, it is because you are a sinner.
These are heavy words for someone who has no faith, but it is the truth. The sophistry of contradictions is not of God. God cannot create without the Law since what God creates must be for all time and the only way God can create for all time is if the Law sustains what God creates for all time. Hence there is nothing God creates that is apart from the Law, hence IF THE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW GOD to create CONTRADICTION God cannot do it. THAT IS the Law.
If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Law, not with God!
I suggest exploring a similar question, which is designed to expose the fact that the very premise of a contradiction is an anathema to God:
Can God create a contradiction?
The answer is "no". Even mentioning contradiction in the same sentence as God is against the Law, and therefore sin. It's invalid before you even start. Of course you are tempted to mention contradiction in connection with God, but that is not because God is weak or some such thing, it is because you are a sinner.
These are heavy words for someone who has no faith, but it is the truth. The sophistry of contradictions is not of God. God cannot create without the Law since what God creates must be for all time and the only way God can create for all time is if the Law sustains what God creates for all time. Hence there is nothing God creates that is apart from the Law, hence IF THE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW GOD to create CONTRADICTION God cannot do it. THAT IS the Law.
Upvote
0
And now you're no longer paying attention to what I'm saying. I specifically said that I believe God is bound by logic. Specifically and repeatedly. I am aware that logic is, at the very least in this universe, self-deterministic.
Upvote
0
Yes, but even if there was another universe where they speak English and they have something they call logic, if it wasn't self-deterministic, it wouldn't be logic, it would just be another random thing with a similar name, and so irrelevant. I mean, you said that bit about another universe as though it meant something now.
And I meant that it's likely you associate the god that could be with the god you believe is closely in your mind, and treat them similarly.
Upvote
0
Firstly, it's suggestive of inconsistencies to speak of directly creating a contradiction. What would be an object but which is described by a statement which has an internal contradiction is not an object to be created.
And again perhaps we should not speak of the entity which might be described in part by the concept definitively or personally, as though it must exist and we have had a personal interaction with it, even as there's no reason for it to exist.
And then there's that the phrasing, specifically of referring to everything as 'the Law' is a phrasing less designed to convey information and more to create some emotional impact in the reader, or to suggest one in the writer. And then of course, there's the use of the phrase 'the Law' to refer not only to a description of a possible entity, perhaps without the contradiction, but also of a command that people never talk about it. But as below, that you'd prefer it to be that way is irrelevant.
Furthermore, while you, as you have apparently thoroughly personified the possible entity, may very much not like anyone to point it out: There is still a contradiction between omnipotence and to be able to create anything, or an internal one in the concept of omnipotence.
That you really don't like this to be pointed out, because it might be construed as a 'weakness' is irrelevant. That it might've been anathema to the entity in some way is also irrelevant. That it is not 'of God' is also irrelevant is still present.
This is not to say that there is not a similar concept, of a god, which does not contain the contradiction, and indeed, I have already stated it.
But similarly to before, while the concept of omnipotence has this internal contradiction, an imagined entity which is not all-powerful but rather most powerful, or which is merely defined as having various abstract and ephemeral abilities, doesn't involve this particular contradiction.
I would say the above is a better way to describe it, for it's more clear (far, far more clear), and the one who wrote it doesn't do so in concert with various unjustified and mostly irrelevant things. Or in concert with saying that the topic should never be considered.
Upvote
0
this rock can only be moved by the son of a barren woman - twinc
Upvote
0
brightlights
A sinner
- Jul 31, 2004
- 4,164
- 298
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
brightlights
A sinner
- Jul 31, 2004
- 4,164
- 298
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
For those of you who think that this poses some sort of problem for omnipotence let me ask you a question: what is a square circle?
Upvote
0
brightlights
A sinner
- Jul 31, 2004
- 4,164
- 298
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I've tried to make sense of this a few times but I don't understand what you're saying. Could you rephrase?
Upvote
0
An infinite is something that is without bounds/limits, if something that have bound/limit than it's not infinite, an infinite not having bounds/limits does not mean that it's not infinite.
Upvote
0
brightlights
A sinner
- Jul 31, 2004
- 4,164
- 298
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
The question is whether or not logical limits are limits. Something logically impossible like a square circle cannot exist by definition. It's just two words put together. It doesn't mean anything.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
