The rock question

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
What are you saying here then?

[b]If God can move from a state of omnipotence to non-omnipotence, then God would no longer be God by definition. So then the argument, "God can create a rock he can not lift," requires God to be God to create the rock and non-God to be unable to lift the rock. Or God is not omnipotent to start, because a non-omnipote ...[text shortened]... l.


It seems that you state the illogical qualities of God's omnipotence quite clearly.[/b]

If you understand what I said, then try putting it into your own words. It is the question that is illogical - not the qualities of God.

Originally posted by telerion
First off, dj2, probably in a rush to stamp out evil doers, has completely missed the point of your argument.

In my opinion, the theist who wants to endow his/her idol with the attribute of omnipotence should either stick to the definition that omnipotence means "the ability to do anything that is logically possible" (conceding that their deity is boun ...[text shortened]... nk that we should consider the second case above. From there, we dive into meaninglessness.

I think saying it is nonsense to consider that omnipotence need not me bound by logic, while literally correct, doesn't amount to an argument.

To me, if everything must be bound by logic, then logic is itself an absolute truth. I don't see what evidence we have for this. To us logic seems sensible but we are built that way. It certainly seems a useful tool and might even be the altar to which everything must bow but it might not be. We would certainly be a bit lost without it but maybe we know as little about the universe as we do because we have to use a primitive tool like logic to understand it. It is an argument, I'm not saying it's right but it does have to be considered.

If we demote logic a bit then that whole God/rock thing may not be a problem.

Originally posted by Coletti
I see what you are saying now. The definition of God you gave uses "conceived as" because the definition of God it provides is not universal. Some people have different conceptions of God. But then "conceived as" does not mean God in not absolute, only that some people think he is not omnipotent, or he has other characteristics then omnipotents. But i ...[text shortened]... n of God being omnipotent, then by that definition God is absolute by definition of omnipotents.

If omnipotence is a requirement of being God and choosing not to be omnipotent would change the requirments of godhood not the fact of it.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]If God is all-powerful, can He create a rock so big that He can't lift it?

This question has popped up quite a few times. The answer:

No. God cannot do the logically impossible, any more than He can act out of character with Himself. God cannot, for instance, create a square circle, stop being good, or cease being God. God can do everything t ...[text shortened]... iracles. For further study, see Jeremiah 32:17, Matthew 19:26, Hebrews 6:18, and 2 Timothy 2:13.[/b]

After much thinking and searching there is something that GOD cannot do. GOD cannot lie.

I hate it when my post is stuck as last of a page (3). It always seems to me that nobody reads the last post of a page.

Am I wrong? 🙄

Originally posted by blindfaith101
After much thinking and searching there is something that GOD cannot do. GOD cannot lie.

Didn't he lie to Abraham?

Originally posted by Wheely
I think saying it is nonsense to consider that omnipotence need not me bound by logic, while literally correct, doesn't amount to an argument.

To me, if everything must be bound by logic, then logic is itself an absolute truth. I don't see what evidence we have for this. To us logic seems sensible but we are built that way. It certainly seems a useful ...[text shortened]... be considered.

If we demote logic a bit then that whole God/rock thing may not be a problem.

I agree. Claiming that God is bound by logic begs the question: "Then from where does logic come?"

Originally posted by Palynka
Colleti, you said something similar, so this is also addressed to you.

According to my view of the Christian God, it is God who defines omnipotence, not omnipotence that defines God.

Therefore omnipotence is a state that is achievable only by God, but God is not omnipotence as he is an entity (spiritual, material or both) and omnipotence is merely a ch ...[text shortened]... n if that includes setting himself limits, thus losing his omnipotence but not ceasing to exist.

God does not define omnipotence, you have that backwards. Omnipotence is a characteristic of God. If a being is omnipotent, omniscient, then that being is God. If a being is not omnipotent or omniscient, that being is not God.

Cut a ball into half, and it is no longer a ball. Remove a leg of a triangle, it is no longer a triangle. Remove a defining characteristic from God, and he would no longer be God.

Now a omnipotent and omniscient being is necessarily eternal. An eternal being is immutable. God can not become not-God because God is immutable because the definition of omnipotent and omniscient are absolutes.

Now you might conceive of a god that is less than omnipotent or omniscient, but that would not be the same concept, not the same god. That would be a mutable god who could lose or gain power. But an absolute God can not gain power nor lose it.

Originally posted by telerion
I agree. Claiming that God is bound by logic begs the question: "Then from where does logic come?"

I don't think logic "comes from" anywhere. It is not a created thing or an entity, it is simply an axiomatic truth. One cannot argue against logic without using logic. It is like math, it was not really invented, it was discovered. The value of Pi was not invented or created.

Originally posted by Coletti
If you understand what I said, then try putting it into your own words. It is the question that is illogical - not the qualities of God.

The question is not illogical, only the concept of omnipotence. The question states something that most certainly can be done; a being need not be omnipotent to accomplish it, he only needs the ability to create. However, it is when the concept of omnipotence is thrown into the mix that things get illogical. When you taste the soup you are cooking and discover it to be bad, I would think that you would blame that last thing you put in.

... --- ...

Originally posted by Coletti
I don't think logic "comes from" anywhere. It is not a created thing or an entity, it is simply an axiomatic truth. One cannot argue against logic without using logic. It is like math, it was not really invented, it was discovered. The value of Pi was not invented or created.

So mathematics existed before God?

Originally posted by Coletti
I don't think logic "comes from" anywhere. It is not a created thing or an entity, it is simply an axiomatic truth. One cannot argue against logic without using logic. It is like math, it was not really invented, it was discovered. The value of Pi was not invented or created.

Then logic is independent of God.

edit: In the beginning, God, not-God, and logic.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
The question is not illogical, only the concept of omnipotence. The question states something that most certainly can be done; a being need not be omnipotent to accomplish it, he only needs the ability to create. However, it is when ...[text shortened]... that you would blame that last thing you put in.

... --- ...

Think of it this way: can a circle be a circle and not a circle at the same time. Why or why not?

Originally posted by Coletti
Think of it this way: can a circle be a circle and not a circle at the same time. Why or why not?

The question is not "Is God God," but instead "is God omnipotent."
If some told me that a circle has 100 angles and he knows this because he believes it to be in the definition of a circle, I would still question him even if he refuses to consider the possibility that he was misinformed all his life.

... --- ...

Originally posted by Coletti
God does not define omnipotence, you have that backwards. Omnipotence is a characteristic of God. If a being is omnipotent, omniscient, then that being is God. If a being is not omnipotent or omniscient, that being is not God.

Cut a ball into half, and it is no longer a ball. Remove a leg of a triangle, it is no longer a triangle. Remove a defining c ...[text shortened]... mutable god who could lose or gain power. But an absolute God can not gain power nor lose it.

Omnipotence is a characteristic of God.
You are right about me saying that God defines omnipotence, that is wrong. Afterwards, I actually said that Omnipotence is a characteristic of God. Sorry if I didn't express myself very well.

We agree that omnipotence is a characteristic of God

Cut a ball into half, and it is no longer a ball. Remove a leg of a triangle, it is no longer a triangle. Remove a defining characteristic from God, and he would no longer be God.

This is where I believe you are making a mistake. Entities do not cease to be who they are because they lose one of their characteristics. If a man is paralyzed he does not cease to be who he is. If he loses two arms he does not cease to be John.

Entities are not the sum of their definable characteristics.

Now a omnipotent and omniscient being is necessarily eternal. An eternal being is immutable.

An immutable being cannot be omnipotent as he cannot change himself. (And if he is all, then he could not change anything. But that's another point)

But an absolute God can not gain power nor lose it.
By definition he cannot gain it. But he can still lose it. Why not? If God has the power to lose power he is still the same entity known as God, only the characteristics of God would change.