1. Standard memberorfeo
    Missing 285 + 1
    On a ship of fools
    Joined
    26 May '04
    Moves
    25590
    06 Apr '05 23:041 edit
    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.
  2. Joined
    16 Dec '04
    Moves
    97738
    06 Apr '05 23:23
    Originally posted by orfeo
    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.
    Would 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.
    just a thought
  3. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    06 Apr '05 23:24
    Originally posted by orfeo
    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.
    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.
  4. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    06 Apr '05 23:492 edits
    Originally posted by Coletti
    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.
    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.
  5. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    06 Apr '05 23:56
    Originally posted by Coletti
    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.
    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 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.
  6. Graceland.
    Joined
    02 Dec '02
    Moves
    18130
    07 Apr '05 00:20
    Question to the Christians here.

    By God's own Word, we know God cannot do evil.

    Why thus concern yourselves with whether God is omnipotent by that supplied definition ?

    pc
  7. Standard memberOmnislash
    Digital Blasphemy
    Omnipresent
    Joined
    16 Feb '03
    Moves
    21533
    07 Apr '05 00:48
    Originally posted by Coletti
    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.
    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 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
  8. Charlotte, NC
    Joined
    13 Sep '04
    Moves
    9392
    07 Apr '05 01:05
    if you were a hotdog would you eat yourself?

    does it matter?


    mike
  9. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    07 Apr '05 01:42
    Originally posted by Omnislash
    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
    So, what would 'Omnislash' mean?

    😉
  10. Standard memberRingtailhunter
    Track drifter ®
    Hoopnholler, MN
    Joined
    28 Feb '05
    Moves
    4500
    07 Apr '05 02:06
    God could create a rock he could not move; after all god can do anything.
    The question should be: Wouldn't god not have enough foresight to see that he may have to mow around that rock and wish he could move it?

    Only man makes mistakes as foolish as that.

    RTh
  11. Standard memberOmnislash
    Digital Blasphemy
    Omnipresent
    Joined
    16 Feb '03
    Moves
    21533
    07 Apr '05 02:071 edit
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    So, what would 'Omnislash' mean?

    😉
    Infinitely crap at chess. 😀
  12. Standard memberorfeo
    Missing 285 + 1
    On a ship of fools
    Joined
    26 May '04
    Moves
    25590
    07 Apr '05 02:40
    Coletti and bbarr, I agree with you.

    So why do variations of the question come up so often?
  13. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    07 Apr '05 05:21
    Originally posted by orfeo
    Coletti and bbarr, I agree with you.

    So why do variations of the question come up so often?
    These questions come up because people don't think clearly enough about what they are saying, or think they are saying.
  14. Donationbelgianfreak
    stitching you up
    Joined
    08 Apr '02
    Moves
    6943
    07 Apr '05 08:08
    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.
  15. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    07 Apr '05 08:31
    Originally posted by bbarr
    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.
    Can an omnipotent creator create a rock unliftable by man?
Back to Top