|
|
Post by kls on Jun 16, 2019 20:32:12 GMT
How would doing either of those things be part of His plan? It's presented as a gotcha that is supposed to point at logic fallacies with believing, yet what's the point? That’s the point: to point out the logical fallacy with believing such a thing. The believers want to assert that this God character is an all-watching, all-knowing, all-being entity, yet when it comes to such a mind-bending question like God creating a rock so heavy God itself cannot lift they can’t answer it — because no answer can be given satisfactorily without contradicting the assertion which they stand by with such conviction. (The ‘plan’ is irrelevant.) Mind bending question? It falls in with bizarre what ifs that would never happen. I feel like it is supposed to be seen as deep or thought provoking, but it's really just nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 16, 2019 21:31:09 GMT
The flaw with these questions is that they are too vague, its the same question twice so let me respond to the stone. Yes or no the answer answers nothing:
Could God create a stone so heavy that even He could not lift it?
the two answers depend on what you think omnipotent means:
1. Omnipotent means capable of performing any act, no matter what, ie total power. Yes then God can create a stone so heavy he could not lift it, and he could lift it, he need not follow the laws of logic, his omnipotence trumps it
2. Omnipotent means capable of performing any act, but it must conform to logic, God can create the stone, but he cant lift it, but that does not make him not omnipotent, since omnipotence if defined to allow this.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 16, 2019 21:51:28 GMT
How would doing either of those things be part of His plan? It's presented as a gotcha that is supposed to point at logic fallacies with believing, yet what's the point? It's not a gotcha. This is known as Omnipotence Paradoxes and have been discussed by theologians since the 11th. century. Several have dedicated their lives to these questions.
The stone is (probably) the oldest, while the prison is a newer version.
Thomas Aquinas advanced a version of the omnipotence paradox by asking whether God could create a triangle with internal angles that did not add up to 180 degrees.
I merely thought it's an interesting discussion point on the religious board. I am interested to hear what people have to say about them.
I wonder if Kurt Godel was thinking of these when he came up with his incompleteness theorems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2019 21:55:42 GMT
These days theists like to say god is not infinitely capable, but merely maximally capable; the smartest, most powerful, most benevolent being that can possibly exist. Yes, the catholic church actually changed the definition of omnipotence in response to these questions. Most deist sects followed them.
A classic atheist response (not mine) is that they where moving the goalpost.
What does it say about religion that they're perfectly willing to redefine god to avoid the absurdities of the notion?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 16, 2019 22:17:13 GMT
Yes, the catholic church actually changed the definition of omnipotence in response to these questions. Most deist sects followed them.
A classic atheist response (not mine) is that they where moving the goalpost.
What does it say about religion that they're perfectly willing to redefine god to avoid the absurdities of the notion? I think this is a rhetorical question however I just wanted to say 'its bullshit'.
|
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Jun 16, 2019 23:01:27 GMT
It's not a gotcha. This is known as Omnipotence Paradoxes and have been discussed by theologians since the 11th. century. Several have dedicated their lives to these questions.
The stone is (probably) the oldest, while the prison is a newer version.
Thomas Aquinas advanced a version of the omnipotence paradox by asking whether God could create a triangle with internal angles that did not add up to 180 degrees.
I merely thought it's an interesting discussion point on the religious board. I am interested to hear what people have to say about them.
I wonder if Kurt Godel was thinking of these when he came up with his incompleteness theorems. I'm fairly certain he was, although it wasn't the only paradoxes he was thinking of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2019 23:44:19 GMT
What does it say about religion that they're perfectly willing to redefine god to avoid the absurdities of the notion? I think this is a rhetorical question however I just wanted to say 'its bullshit'. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 17, 2019 8:05:08 GMT
I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the "standard position of theologians." I use logic and much reading of actual texts, many commentaries too, but mostly original texts Good; then I am sure you are familiar with Malachi 3:6 : "For I am the Lord and do not change". God, apparently, has no need to change for He is complete and perfect in Himself with no need of anything. The Covenantal name that He gave to Moses to tell the people of Israel just Who God was is this: I AM that I AM or I AM the self-existent One. You are welcome to not having an opinion (then going on to express one, lol). My impression is that, the nature of the Christian deity is regularly associated with goodness and omniscience (as well as some other choice attributes), both in scripture and by the traditionally faithful. And whether or not you are aware or not of the usual philosophical position the fact remains it remains that God would not be able to change His own supposed nature. For one thing this would enable God to be something He is currently not, where most would say that the deity necessarily is only is what it is. 'Escaped' from God? You mean leaked out like urine from a colostomy bag? You have a disturbingly pedestrian understanding of the words in the verse you quoted. There are no details in the verse and you are assuming your own. You are also forgetting that God did change after the flood.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 17, 2019 10:46:43 GMT
Lets just assume he's not omnipotent if it'll stop this question being asked Why? Because you don't like having your delusion shattered. Yes, lets just accept it for what we want things to be, not what they really are....  How does that question shatter anything? 
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 17, 2019 10:49:53 GMT
All things are possible, just not at the same time and place. As for an omnipotent being deliberately limiting himself, that could be arranged for a time. If it is arranged forever then the omnipotence would voluntarily cease in that scenario. If however the omnipotent being chose not to limit himself forever that would not mean that he was not omnipotent yet. He's still omnipotent until he chooses to limit himself forever. This does not seem to fit in with the standard position of theologians that God can do most anything except change His nature. For surely it is an inseparable aspect of the deity that it knows all (as scripture makes clear); what you are suggesting is the equivalent of God choosing not to be good. In answer to the main question of the thread, many theologians also assume that God is bound by the rules of logic, i.e. He cannot do what is impossible. (It might be added that if one assumes the deity knows everything then it would surely know what cannot be done, and hence would not even attempt it.) This leads of course to the standard question of whether, akin to those of mathematics, the pertinent rules of logic are invented by man, or discovered. For if invented, then this gives an out, and reason why God need not be bound by them. And so on. What else do many theologians say? Lol
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 17, 2019 16:48:21 GMT
How does that question shatter anything? You tell me why you don't want the question asked? Do you not want your God to be omnipotent?
Your stale popcorn tends to come out when you get called out. You attempt to play some warped and weird game of reverse psychology, where you pretend to know what you are talking about—but really don't—because you think you have, or know something that others don't—and don't really want—and then those that challenge it are then painted as presenting you with a specious argument, when it is just your own mirror of phony beliefs you are really reflecting.
You must really dislike what is staring right back at you, and\or your mirror is cracked and smeared. The quintessential, arrogant, passive aggressive deluded Christian in a nutshell. So you presumed to know what I thought about something again. Has that ever worked in your favor? Since you will probably say the wrong thing the answer is no, it has never worked in your favor. I don’t care if God is omnipotent. Now tell me why you don’t believe that clear and concise statement. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 17, 2019 19:38:47 GMT
This does not seem to fit in with the standard position of theologians that God can do most anything except change His nature. For surely it is an inseparable aspect of the deity that it knows all (as scripture makes clear); what you are suggesting is the equivalent of God choosing not to be good. In answer to the main question of the thread, many theologians also assume that God is bound by the rules of logic, i.e. He cannot do what is impossible. (It might be added that if one assumes the deity knows everything then it would surely know what cannot be done, and hence would not even attempt it.) This leads of course to the standard question of whether, akin to those of mathematics, the pertinent rules of logic are invented by man, or discovered. For if invented, then this gives an out, and reason why God need not be bound by them. And so on. What else do many theologians say? Lol You seemed exercised with sarcasm at my reporting theological and scriptural commonplaces. It is ironic that a sceptical soft atheist like myself would have to spell out such things to believers. Whatever; I certainly have no personal investment in arguing over how many hairs are likely on God's chin. If it turns out that you prefer to worship a changeable deity capable of doing the logically impossible then good luck to you. Meanwhile in the other corner here are the words of John Stott, English Anglican priest and, yes. theologian noted as a leader of the worldwide evangelical movement, and one of the principal authors of the Lausanne Covenant in 1974: "The idea that there may be something which God ‘cannot’ do is entirely foreign to some people. Can he not do anything and everything? Are not all things possible to him? Is he not omnipotent? Yes, but God’s omnipotence needs to be understood. God is not a totalitarian tyrant that he should exercise his power arbitrarily and do absolutely anything whatsoever. God’s omnipotence is the freedom and the power to do absolutely anything he chooses to do. But he chooses only to do good, only to work according to the perfection of his character and will. God can do everything consistent with being himself. The one and only thing he cannot do, because he will not, is to deny himself or act contrary to himself. So God remains for ever himself, the same God of mercy and of justice, fulfilling his promises (whether of blessing or of judgment), giving us life if we die with Christ and a kingdom if we endure, but denying us if we deny him, just as he warned, because he cannot deny himself." Or, as Christian philosophers Norman Geisler and Paul Feinberg have stated more generally about the perceived problem of Omnipotence: "God cannot do something which is impossible by definition. As it is impossible to make a circle square or to create another un-created God, theists hold that it is impossible for God to make a stone that He cannot lift. Or if we to put this into logical notation, however, the statement would read: ‘Any stone which God can make, He can lift.’ Worded this way, the statement does not present any limitation to God’s power." I hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 17, 2019 20:00:16 GMT
Good; then I am sure you are familiar with Malachi 3:6 : "For I am the Lord and do not change". You have a disturbingly pedestrian understanding of the words in the verse you quoted. There are no details in the verse and you are assuming your own. You are also forgetting that God did change after the flood. The problem of contradiction in the Bible is certainly made much easier if one assumes a changeable deity lol! Of course one contradiction to your view is that your alleged God, as I have said, explicitly says the opposite. But maybe when God says He "does not change" in Malachi he actually meant the opposite? Or, come to that, when Hebrews assures us [13:8] that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." It is just bad inspiration? Or when James [1:7] refers to the "Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change..." it is mistaken? One can see how the objective reader might be excused in taking a view after what is said, over and over. But, once again: I don't have an investment, so I am happy to go along with your preference here. So be it. You worship a changeable deity. The question of course is whether something which is changeable is necessarily reliable. But I leave that to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jun 17, 2019 22:37:13 GMT
Who else can take a rainbow, soak it in a sigh, and make a groovy lemon pie?
The Goddy Man can. The Goddy man can. The Goddy man can cause it mixes it with love and makes the world taste good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 18, 2019 6:11:15 GMT
You have a disturbingly pedestrian understanding of the words in the verse you quoted. There are no details in the verse and you are assuming your own. You are also forgetting that God did change after the flood. The problem of contradiction in the Bible is certainly made much easier if one assumes a changeable deity lol! Of course one contradiction to your view is that your alleged God, as I have said, explicitly says the opposite. But maybe when God says He "does not change" in Malachi he actually meant the opposite? Or, come to that, when Hebrews assures us [13:8] that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." It is just bad inspiration? Or when James [1:7] refers to the "Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change..." it is mistaken? One can see how the objective reader might be excused in taking a view after what is said, over and over. But, once again: I don't have an investment, so I am happy to go along with your preference here. So be it. You worship a changeable deity. The question of course is whether something which is changeable is necessarily reliable. But I leave that to you. I'm not surprised that you're confused by the present tense in English since it is so rarely used. It is rarely used because it is usually stating the obvious, "I run." It is used in elementary education for beginning readers. "See the dog. See Spot. See the dog run. See spot run. Look Mommy, I run with Spot." When the present tense is used later in life it is a variation of the simple present such as can state something less obvious. "You aren't running (anymore)." "Yes I am running." (progressive present) "You aren't chopping (correctly)." "Yes I do chop." (emphatic present) "I do change" is the emphatic present tense. "I do not change" is the same tense expressing a negative. Unless otherwise specified the present tense only applies to the moment or existing conditions in the context. I understand how embarrassing it must be for a person who lives in England to flunk English, but you are an atheist after all and those people have never done well in any subject. Actually that verse in its context does go on to specify what exactly does not change, but you didn't bother to read the verse in context. I fully realize that English is merely a translation of the original text of the Bible. I do believe however that the tenses can be translated with adequate detail. The problem of "contradiction" in the Bible proves once again to be the mistaken notions of bumbling atheists.
|
|
|
|
Post by theauxphou on Jun 18, 2019 8:24:55 GMT
That’s the point: to point out the logical fallacy with believing such a thing. The believers want to assert that this God character is an all-watching, all-knowing, all-being entity, yet when it comes to such a mind-bending question like God creating a rock so heavy God itself cannot lift they can’t answer it — because no answer can be given satisfactorily without contradicting the assertion which they stand by with such conviction. (The ‘plan’ is irrelevant.) Mind bending question? It falls in with bizarre what ifs that would never happen. I feel like it is supposed to be seen as deep or thought provoking, but it's really just nonsense. Describe it how you want, but the fact that it’s unanswerable just goes to show how incongruent the position is on such a thing; it’s like, “I believe strongly in God but it’s not subject to the ability to be explained by real-world applications just like everything else. But..but it exists!!”
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 18, 2019 11:20:49 GMT
Mind bending question? It falls in with bizarre what ifs that would never happen. I feel like it is supposed to be seen as deep or thought provoking, but it's really just nonsense. Describe it how you want, but the fact that it’s unanswerable just goes to show how incongruent the position is on such a thing; it’s like, “I believe strongly in God but it’s not subject to the ability to be explained by real-world applications just like everything else. But..but it exists!!” Has it occurred to you that the trouble might be on your end?
|
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jun 18, 2019 11:22:17 GMT
Describe it how you want, but the fact that it’s unanswerable just goes to show how incongruent the position is on such a thing; it’s like, “I believe strongly in God but it’s not subject to the ability to be explained by real-world applications just like everything else. But..but it exists!!” Has it occurred to you that the trouble might be on your end? Some folks don't get that some believers don't feel the need to prove it or make up tests for God.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 18, 2019 11:45:59 GMT
So you presumed to know what I thought about something again. Has that ever worked in your favor? Since you will probably say the wrong thing the answer is no, it has never worked in your favor. I don’t care if God is omnipotent. Now tell me why you don’t believe that clear and concise statement. More of your confused blather non-Cool, which only endorses what I have previously commented to you about your approach. You have been arrogant and presumptuous enough to assume that others wern't going to, or shouldn't challenge your comment on an open discussion thread.
You made the statement, so if you don't want 'us' to assume that God isn't omnipotent and someone like yourself is supposed to be well versed in this subject, tell us why this is, as opposed to the OP's subject.
The OP would have to explain why the question is mandatory to defining omnipotence. I’m giving the OP the benefit of doubt. God can’t do what the question asks. Now what? |
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Jun 18, 2019 13:14:20 GMT
More of your confused blather non-Cool, which only endorses what I have previously commented to you about your approach. You have been arrogant and presumptuous enough to assume that others wern't going to, or shouldn't challenge your comment on an open discussion thread.
You made the statement, so if you don't want 'us' to assume that God isn't omnipotent and someone like yourself is supposed to be well versed in this subject, tell us why this is, as opposed to the OP's subject.
The OP would have to explain why the question is mandatory to defining omnipotence. I’m giving the OP the benefit of doubt. God can’t do what the question asks. Now what? I usually stay out of slugfests, but since I'm invoked, I feel compelled to give my answer.
When it comes to defining anything, including omnipotence, I think every question about a term is mandatory.
The meaning of the latin word omni means "all, every, the whole, of every kind,". While potence is "power or strength". In other words "All powerful". It is also how I was raised to view God, so that's my definition of the word.
But I didn't pose the question to convince or deconvert anyone. I posed them because I find the question interesting and are interested in other peoples opinions on the matter.
|
|
