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

[pjnlsn]

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

The ontological argument is garbage, and to point out the contradiction which is usually referred to as the omnipotence paradox doesn't change anything, but it's hardly the same, given that one is true, and the other is not, and that one attempts to prove the existence of something based on how it's defined, and the other.....doesn't.

 

[Hawisher]

The ontological argument is garbage, and to point out the contradiction which is usually referred to as the omnipotence paradox doesn't change anything, but it's hardly the same, given that one is true, and the other is not, and that one attempts to prove the existence of something based on how it's defined, and the other.....doesn't.

No, the other attempts to disprove the idea of omnipotence. And, as someone has repeatedly pointed out, fails.

 

[pjnlsn]

No, the other attempts to disprove the idea of omnipotence. And, as someone has repeatedly pointed out, fails.

If you don't mean to disprove the idea of a deity of any description, the contradiction is actually present (and 'succeeds' I suppose), regardless of a perceived intent in the pointing out of this, unlike validity in the ontological argument. And it is not the same to point out a contradiction as it is to say that a being must exist because of how it is defined, which is directly the ontological argument.

If you do, that is not the question of the thread, as it were.

 

[Gottservant]

violated the what?

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

violating the Law is against the commandment of God, He has already said He will not violate the Law, so if it is against the Law for Him to create a rock so big that He cannot lift it, then He cannot do it!

Contexts are valid how ever, since the subtext of the question is "can God make a rock so big he can't lift it ever?" Well there are contexts in which God would be unable to lift a rock, that would still be within the law. For example if He were on a computer program and the Law was He had to respect the computer, He might not be able to lift the rock in the program but He might still be able to lift the computer.

So context is everything.

 

[pjnlsn]

violating the Law is against the commandment of God, He has already said He will not violate the Law, so if it is against the Law for Him to create a rock so big that He cannot lift it, then He cannot do it!

Contexts are valid how ever, since the subtext of the question is "can God make a rock so big he can't lift it ever?" Well there are contexts in which God would be unable to lift a rock, that would still be within the law. For example if He were on a computer program and the Law was He had to respect the computer, He might not be able to lift the rock in the program but He might still be able to lift the computer.

So context is everything.

Their relevant to your conception of God, but not to that original point that was made by me and others, of omnipotence and internal inconsistencies. And a 'rock' in a computer program is not a rock, and an entity, ah, 'manifesting' in a computer program is not the entity itself. You can call it that, but it's just semantics.

Per my other post, the question needs merely to be rephrased to include your contexts.

Can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it, in all contexts?

And the answer is the same, and the contradiction is present, and nothing is changed by the addition of these 'contexts.'

 

[Hawisher]

Their relevant to your conception of God, but not to that original point that was made by me and others, of omnipotence and internal inconsistencies. And a 'rock' in a computer program is not a rock. You can call it that, but it's just semantics.

Per my other post, the question needs merely to be rephrased to include your contexts.

If you argue that a god created frameworks such as logical consistency, one possibility is that it could suspend this framework such that a rock is both too heavy and not too heavy for it to lift.

Just a random thought; I'm not sure my conception of God depends on a literally impossible standard of omnipotence.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

If you argue that a god created frameworks such as logical consistency, one possibility is that it could suspend this framework such that a rock is both too heavy and not too heavy for it to lift.

Just a random thought; I'm not sure my conception of God depends on a literally impossible standard of omnipotence.

Yes, most people construct congruous concepts of gods to support their beliefs. Yet, regardless of semantics, you're still left with a logical contradiction, either he can, or can't.

 

[pjnlsn]

If you argue that a god created frameworks such as logical consistency, one possibility is that it could suspend this framework such that a rock is both too heavy and not too heavy for it to lift.

Just a random thought; I'm not sure my conception of God depends on a literally impossible standard of omnipotence.

The meanings of the words in the question compared to one another don't change based on who the ultimate creator of everything is. Logic has no allegiance, and in a different context, the question itself would be different, but the answer would relate to it in the same way, and so the contradiction would still be present in an equivalent manner. 'Context' not quite as Gott means it.

 

[Hawisher]

Yes, most people construct congruous concepts of gods to support their beliefs. Yet, regardless of semantics, you're still left with a logical contradiction, either he can, or can't.

The meanings of the words in the question compared to one another don't change based on who the ultimate creator of everything is. Logic has no allegiance, and in a different context, the question itself would be different, but the answer would relate to it in the same way. 'Context' not quite as Gott means it.

That relies on the assumption that logic is a basic truth. It absolutely is a basic truth for us; I don't know that it necessarily would be for a hypothetical creator.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That relies on the assumption that logic is a basic truth. It absolutely is a basic truth for us; I don't know that it necessarily would be for a hypothetical creator.

I don't see how it could be otherwise. Could God exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect?

No, God is not beyond logic, for nothing that could exist is above logic.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[pjnlsn]

That relies on the assumption that logic is a basic truth. It absolutely is a basic truth for us; I don't know that it necessarily would be for a hypothetical creator.

The words men use to describe the deity they believe are not the same as the deity itself. The contradiction is still present.

Or, more directly, this:

No, God is not beyond logic, for nothing that could exist is above logic

 

[elopez]

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 pists involve tjeir own internal contradictions.

What you said was that God not being able to create a rock too heavy for Him does contradict omnipotence. The omnipotence paradox says the exact same thing. You might not want to think so but it's just the fact of the matter.

And you are still claiming what you think is happening without any reason to buy it. You obviously don't understand that your statements do compare to the omnipotence paradox, or that the omnipotence paradox is the fallacy of a loaded question. You couldn't even explain what said fallacy was or how what I said doesn't show it wrong. All you're doing is simply saying so.

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.

And we are not talking about a being who is kind of powerful but all powerful. A being in which nothing is more powerful than. That is nothing that needs to be pointed out.

 

[pjnlsn]

What you said was that God not being able to create a rock too heavy for Him does contradict omnipotence. The omnipotence paradox says the exact same thing. You might not want to think so but it's just the fact of the matter.

And you are still claiming what you think is happening without any reason to buy it. You obviously don't understand that your statements do compare to the omnipotence paradox, or that the omnipotence paradox is the fallacy of a loaded question. You couldn't even explain what said fallacy was or how what I said doesn't show it wrong. All you're doing is simply saying so.



And we are not talking about a being who is kind of powerful but all powerful. A being in which nothing is more powerful than. That is nothing that needs to be pointed out.

What was written is still true, and nothing in your responses contradicts it. The contradiction is still present. If nothing in your response makes what was written false, it's irrelevant.

[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, and barring differences in how terms are defined between writer and reader, 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.

 

[astein]

Yes, most people construct congruous concepts of gods to support their beliefs. Yet, regardless of semantics, you're still left with a logical contradiction, either he can, or can't.

Yeah, gods, eewww. How dare they worships dead, lifeless rocks and claim to be better.

 

[Hawisher]

I don't see how it could be otherwise. Could God exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect?

No, God is not beyond logic, for nothing that could exist is above logic.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I don't know that I agree with that. I don't mean to say that God IS beyond logic, because I don't honestly think He is, but I don't think it's impossible that some creator deity COULD be beyond logic.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't know that I agree with that. I don't mean to say that God IS beyond logic, because I don't honestly think He is, but I don't think it's impossible that some creator deity COULD be beyond logic.

How would it be possible?

It's very easy to say that it's possible. One can say anything. But how would it be possible?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Hawisher]

How would it be possible?

It's very easy to say that it's possible. One can say anything. But how would it be possible?

I have no idea. I just don't think I could rule out the idea that a hypothetical omnipotent being that operates by rules we don't understand is not bound by frameworks like logic.

I think that's really more of an argument a universal deist would approve of; I think God is in a very real sense bound by logic.

 

[elopez]

What was written is still true, and nothing in your responses contradicts it. The contradiction is still present. If nothing in your response makes what was written false, it's irrelevant.

You still have not supported this claim. Seems like you never will. Not only that but it's obvious you don't understand what the fallacy of a loaded question is or how it is more than relevant to your claim. There is no reason to even reply with the same circular reasoning.

 

[brightlights]

This is a tired question. You're asking: "can an omnipotent being create a rock that an omnipotent being can't move." The object in question -- a rock that an omnipotent being can't move -- is a logical impossibility. Like a square circle. So...

We could say "no" because square circles and rocks that omnipotent beings can't move are logical impossibilities. They don't make any sense. Or...

We could say "yes". But if God can break the laws of logic and create a rock that he can't move then there's nothing to stop him from breaking the laws of logic again and moving the rock that he can't move.

Cleared up?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Yeah, gods, eewww. How dare they worships dead, lifeless rocks and claim to be better.

I have no idea what you're saying.