To save time in the future, my response to the question "can God create a rock that He cannot lift" will be as follows:
Can God create a rock that He cannot lift? No.
Is God, as a matter of strict, absolutist and simple logic, omnipotent? No.
Does this worry me in the slightest? No.
Why not? Because...
Does the unliftable rock EXIST? No - see above. God cannot create it.
Am I going to encounter the unliftable rock? No. It does not exist.
Does the theoretical limit on God's power apply to anything that actually exists? No.
Is God, for all practical purposes in the universe in which I actually live, omnipotent? YES.
Do I care? YES.
I consider this to be a perfectly legitimate use of the word "omnipotent", and shall continue to use it that way. If necessary, I will refer people to this thread. I see no reason to stop using the word simply because of a highly artificial construct which has no practical meaning and is indeed DESIGNED to be paradoxical. There is a point in time where one needs to pull one's head out of a logical argument and consider whether the answer has any practical implications whatsoever.
So there. 😛😉
PS The edit was for a typo, not because I changed my mind.
Originally posted by orfeoWould CHRIST be considered that unmoveable rock? CHRIST has been put before all of mankind. He is worshipped, hated, debated now for over 2 thousand years. CHRIST taught that noone can get to GOD except by him.Mankind has tried to twist, move, misinterrpet,his purpose, but HE is still there. GOD will not move him, he cannot. He has given HIS word that all of mankind must come to face that Rock JESUS CHRIST.
To save time in the future, my response to the question "can God create a rock that He cannot lift" will be as follows:
Can God create a rock that He cannot lift? No.
Is God, as a matter of strict, absolutist and simple logic, omnipotent? No.
Does this worry me in the slightest? No.
Why not? Because...
Does the unliftable rock EXIST? No - see ...[text shortened]... ns whatsoever.
So there. 😛😉
PS The edit was for a typo, not because I changed my mind.
just a thought
Originally posted by orfeoGod can do anything logically possible. God can not make a round triangle. The question is not a vaild one because it has a built in contadiction. An unliftable rock is meaningless.
To save time in the future, my response to the question "can God create a rock that He cannot lift" will be as follows:
Can God create a rock that He cannot lift? No.
Is God, as a matter of strict, absolutist and simple logic, omnipotent? No.
Does this worry me in the slightest? No.
Why not? Because...
Does the unliftable rock EXIST? No - see ...[text shortened]... ns whatsoever.
So there. 😛😉
PS The edit was for a typo, not because I changed my mind.
Originally posted by ColettiI take that back - it is not that the un-liftable rock is itself meaningless, it is the question presumes God is not omnipotent. An un-liftable rock presumes God is not omnipotent. God could make a rock that is un-liftable only if you first presume God is not omnipotent, but if you presume God is omnipotent, then yjr question is logically impossible.
God can do anything logically possible. God can not make a round triangle. The question is not a vaild one because it has a built in contadiction. An unliftable rock is meaningless.
Originally posted by ColettiHere's a nice way to put this point:
I take that back - it is not that the un-liftable rock is itself meaningless, it is the question presumes God is not omnipotent. An un-liftable rock presumes God in not omnipotent. God could make a rock that is un-liftable if you presume God is not omnipotent, but if you presume God is omnipotent, the question is logically impossible.
Take the question:
"Can God create a rock unliftable by God?"
Now, substitute 'an omnipotent being' for 'God' in the question above.
We get the following question:
"Can an omnipotent being create a rock unliftable by an omnipotent being?"
Now, this question is asking whether an omipotent being can create an object with a particular property. The object is a rock with the property of being unliftable by an omnipotent being.
But, if an omnipotent being can do anything that is logically possible, then an omnipotent being can lift any rock at all. Hence, the property being attributed to the rock entails a contradiction. Hence, the rock is itself an impossible object (like the round-square). Hence, it is impossible to create such an object. Hence, there is no paradox resulting from the notion of omnipotence at issue.
Originally posted by ColettiI hear what you are saying.
I take that back - it is not that the un-liftable rock is itself meaningless, it is the question presumes God is not omnipotent. An un-liftable rock presumes God is not omnipotent. God could make a rock that is un-liftable only if you first presume God is not omnipotent, but if you presume God is omnipotent, then yjr question is logically impossible.
Does anyone remember the dozen or so times I explained that the question itself is paradoxal? As a quick summary, whenever refering to an "omni" trait and suggesting that it "can't" do anything, you are infact simply implying that an "omni" trait is impossible. "omni" is a reflection of infinity, and the moment you say that "X" can't be "omni-Y", all you do is state ipso facto. It is a fruitless question, which despite its prose, is more of a statment in all truth. The question answers itself.
The concept of God (atleast most modern and major concepts of God) reflect a being of infinite powers. If you make the arguement that God can not be "omniX" because he can not defy the nature of "omniX", the bottom line statement there could be summarized as "It can't because it can't". Prooves nothing, means nothing, is irrelevant for the purposes of theistic contemplation.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
Originally posted by OmnislashSo, what would 'Omnislash' mean?
I hear what you are saying.
Does anyone remember the dozen or so times I explained that the question itself is paradoxal? As a quick summary, whenever refering to an "omni" trait and suggesting that it "can't" do anything, you are infact simply implying that an "omni" trait is impossible. "omni" is a reflection of infinity, and the moment you ...[text shortened]... othing, is irrelevant for the purposes of theistic contemplation.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
😉
what, you man it's like asking "can God put his foot in a shoe without his foot being in the shoe?", or does that not work in quite the same way? I'm trying to think of a 'dumbed down' way of putting it that I can get right in the heat of debate (ie. while drunk down the pub) and that others can easily understand.
Originally posted by bbarrCan an omnipotent creator create a rock unliftable by man?
Here's a nice way to put this point:
Take the question:
"Can God create a rock unliftable by God?"
Now, substitute 'an omnipotent being' for 'God' in the question above.
We get the following question:
"Can an omnipotent being create a rock unliftable by an omnipotent being?"
Now, this question is asking whether an omipotent being can ...[text shortened]... e such an object. Hence, there is no paradox resulting from the notion of omnipotence at issue.