|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 6, 2022 21:51:17 GMT
I don’t understand. What depends on how I define omnipotence, and is it the same thing on which the size of the rock depends? You said "incapable, therefore not omnipotent" I replied "Depending on how big the rock is" referencing the rock thread where I posited that the rock argument is not a question on omnipotence of god at all, but instead a meditation on the definition of omnipotence (i wont rehash my argument, you can read it in the thread) I further clarified, when you expressed confusion, that I was intending my comment to indicate that it depended on how you define omnipotence. I guess I need to spell it out: I said that a perfect God is incapable of change, by which I actually meant that any changes to perfection would mean that the thing in question was not perfect to begin with. You responded with incapable means that god is therefore omnipotent, however that depends on your definition of omnipotent: Omnipotent is bound by the laws that are in place, so therefore as you cannot change something that is perfect and god is perfect god is incapable of change but is still omnipotent or Omnipotence is not bound by any rules, so therefore god can be perfect, change itself and still be perfect, and is therefore omnipotent. Clearly I ascribe to the first view. (this argument clearly also rides on the assumption that you (like I do) think god is perfect, if you do not that is a whole 'nother argument. You said omnipotence is the ability to do anything regardless of the rules. So if there's literally anything God is incapable of doing, then he isn't omnipotent.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 6, 2022 23:12:13 GMT
You said "incapable, therefore not omnipotent" I replied "Depending on how big the rock is" referencing the rock thread where I posited that the rock argument is not a question on omnipotence of god at all, but instead a meditation on the definition of omnipotence (i wont rehash my argument, you can read it in the thread) I further clarified, when you expressed confusion, that I was intending my comment to indicate that it depended on how you define omnipotence. I guess I need to spell it out: I said that a perfect God is incapable of change, by which I actually meant that any changes to perfection would mean that the thing in question was not perfect to begin with. You responded with incapable means that god is therefore omnipotent, however that depends on your definition of omnipotent: Omnipotent is bound by the laws that are in place, so therefore as you cannot change something that is perfect and god is perfect god is incapable of change but is still omnipotent or Omnipotence is not bound by any rules, so therefore god can be perfect, change itself and still be perfect, and is therefore omnipotent. Clearly I ascribe to the first view. (this argument clearly also rides on the assumption that you (like I do) think god is perfect, if you do not that is a whole 'nother argument. You said omnipotence is the ability to do anything regardless of the rules. So if there's literally anything God is incapable of doing, then he isn't omnipotent. Take a closer look, I said both. That was an explanation of what the argument does. EDIT to be fair I could have included 'OR', I thought it was quite heavily implied.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 6, 2022 23:20:42 GMT
Take a closer look, I said both. That was an explanation of what the argument does. EDIT to be fair I could have included 'OR', I thought it was quite heavily implied. That stupid rock isn't an argument. It's a loaded question that presumes God is omnipotent then concludes that he's impotent no matter how it's answered. It basically says "if God can do anything, then he can't do anything."
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 7, 2022 0:00:42 GMT
Take a closer look, I said both. That was an explanation of what the argument does. EDIT to be fair I could have included 'OR', I thought it was quite heavily implied. That stupid rock isn't an argument. It's a loaded question that presumes God is omnipotent then concludes that he's impotent no matter how it's answered. It basically says "if God can do anything, then he can't do anything." As I say the argument is not around what god can do, but instead around the definition of omnipotence, im sorry you find it stupid, it's a pretty standard philosophical argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 7, 2022 0:07:41 GMT
That stupid rock isn't an argument. It's a loaded question that presumes God is omnipotent then concludes that he's impotent no matter how it's answered. It basically says "if God can do anything, then he can't do anything." As I say the argument is not around what god can do, but instead around the definition of omnipotence, im sorry you find it stupid, it's a pretty standard philosophical argument. The so-called argument literally asks if God can do something if he can do anything. How is that not about what God can do? FYI: IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/5184459/thread
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 7, 2022 0:18:06 GMT
As I say the argument is not around what god can do, but instead around the definition of omnipotence, im sorry you find it stupid, it's a pretty standard philosophical argument. The so-called argument literally asks if God can do something if he can do anything. How is that not about what God can do? FYI: IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/5184459/thread That is not what all the philosophical sites I have read determine. You know that quote is saying in a round about way that god CANNOT create a rock that it cannot life, because that would be "intrinsically impossible", C S Lewis is pointing out the argument of the rock and saying that he falls on the side that god cannot break the rules. You even acknowledge that yourself. You agree with CS Lewis that god cannot break the rules, while still being omnipotent, are you aware that the other argument of the rock paradox is that god CAN break the rules, the point of the paradox is you have to decide what omnipotent means. EDIT www.ncregister.com/blog/the-rock-god-can-t-lift-actually-it-s-not-complicatedPertinent point
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 7, 2022 0:35:01 GMT
That is not what all the philosophical sites I have read determine. You know that quote is saying in a round about way that god CANNOT create a rock that it cannot life, because that would be "intrinsically impossible", C S Lewis is pointing out the argument of the rock and saying that he falls on the side that god cannot break the rules. You even acknowledge that yourself. You agree with CS Lewis that god cannot break the rules, while still being omnipotent, are you aware that the other argument of the rock paradox is that god CAN break the rules, the point of the paradox is you have to decide what omnipotent means. To be fair, the definition of omnipotent should be up to the one asking the question. And so it is when they begin with the premise that "God can do anything." At any rate, it doesn't matter because if God is omnipotent in the sense of being able to do literally anything at all, then he wouldn't be bound by the rules and therefore not challenged by what you and I consider to be paradoxes. It's actually extremely arrogant to say that if we can't do something, then it can't be done. Say, do you suppose it's possible to be perfectly impotent?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 7, 2022 1:31:28 GMT
That is not what all the philosophical sites I have read determine. You know that quote is saying in a round about way that god CANNOT create a rock that it cannot life, because that would be "intrinsically impossible", C S Lewis is pointing out the argument of the rock and saying that he falls on the side that god cannot break the rules. You even acknowledge that yourself. You agree with CS Lewis that god cannot break the rules, while still being omnipotent, are you aware that the other argument of the rock paradox is that god CAN break the rules, the point of the paradox is you have to decide what omnipotent means. To be fair, the definition of omnipotent should be up to the one asking the question. And so it is when they begin with the premise that "God can do anything." At any rate, it doesn't matter because if God is omnipotent in the sense of being able to do literally anything at all, then he wouldn't be bound by the rules and therefore not challenged by what you and I consider to be paradoxes. It's actually extremely arrogant to say that if we can't do something, then it can't be done. Say, do you suppose it's possible to be perfectly impotent? The definition of omnipotent is the very heart of the question, that is the actual point. Does not even remotely start with the premise that god can do anything, not at all Which would mean you fall into the opposite camp to me and CS Lewis (funny because you argued the other way in your quote you gave me, grand you think omnipotence means not bound by any laws, for you God can make a square circle. It's not about if we can do it or not, it is about logical absurdity, can God do the logically absurd. Never had any problems in that regard, I feel like that is the perfect state.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 7, 2022 2:31:04 GMT
To be fair, the definition of omnipotent should be up to the one asking the question. And so it is when they begin with the premise that "God can do anything." At any rate, it doesn't matter because if God is omnipotent in the sense of being able to do literally anything at all, then he wouldn't be bound by the rules and therefore not challenged by what you and I consider to be paradoxes. It's actually extremely arrogant to say that if we can't do something, then it can't be done. Say, do you suppose it's possible to be perfectly impotent? The definition of omnipotent is the very heart of the question, that is the actual point. The definition of omnipotence is provided in the question itself. "If God can create such a stone" is a premise that most definitely deals with God's ability to do something. The premise of the rock question is that God can do anything: "If God can do anything..."That's the setup; the stage; the arena in which the actual question is being asked: "...can he create a rock he can't lift?"The answer, of course, is yes, for if he "can do anything," then he can make a rock so heavy he can't lift without compromising his ability to do anything. So are you, then, presuming that omnipotence is the ability to do anything? After all, if you ask if I can make something too heavy for me to lift, then answer is a swift and definite yes without even a vague reference to omnipotence or lack thereof. So conclusively, it isn't merely a general philosophical issue; it's actually quite specifically about God's capacity. It also presumes his existence, but I'd bet you won't dispute that. You are mistaken. My position is that omnipotence doesn't include the ability to do what can't be done, just as omniscience doesn't include the ability to know what can't be known. So omnipotence only allows the ability to do the intrinsically impossible (such as making square circles) if omnipotence is the ability to do anything, as the rock question presumes. If he can do anything, then yes, he can. So God is perfect regardless of whether he's omnipotent, impotent, or anywhere in between. That seems a bit too convenient. I suppose Genesis 6:6 only serves to demonstrate his capacity for regret.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Sept 7, 2022 17:02:27 GMT
Perfect is very ambiguous also. What would the word even mean in regards to a God? Omnipotent and omniscient would probably be part of it? What else though? Good point, I was kind of waiting for someone to mention that, the way it is explained in the texts I read is a perfect singularity, ie all as one homogenous thing, one simple and perfect atom if you like, having said that the stuff I read never defines god, but instead gods impact on reality, and at the beginning, god is a simple I AM. God is the one starting point of creation, it may well be much more than that, however all we can ever know is the starting point as that is the only thing within our creation. God is “I was, I am, I will be”. It’s what God’s real name means in Hebrew. |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Sept 7, 2022 17:13:34 GMT
The Jewish view is that the physical reality we see is something God sees all at once (like looking at a spreadsheet).
Just as we who look at spreadsheets don’t exist as part of them, God isn’t limited by the physical world that is visible to God all at once.
So God can’t be challenged or defined by it.
Whereas the spreadsheet has a beginning and an end, God does not. God exists outside it but “owns” is, so to speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Sept 7, 2022 19:06:24 GMT
Omnipotence/heavy rock is a loaded question; it has no correct answer because it's illogical.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 7, 2022 20:20:40 GMT
The definition of omnipotent is the very heart of the question, that is the actual point. The definition of omnipotence is provided in the question itself. "If God can create such a stone" is a premise that most definitely deals with God's ability to do something. The premise of the rock question is that God can do anything: "If God can do anything..."That's the setup; the stage; the arena in which the actual question is being asked: "...can he create a rock he can't lift?"The answer, of course, is yes, for if he "can do anything," then he can make a rock so heavy he can't lift without compromising his ability to do anything. So are you, then, presuming that omnipotence is the ability to do anything? After all, if you ask if I can make something too heavy for me to lift, then answer is a swift and definite yes without even a vague reference to omnipotence or lack thereof. So conclusively, it isn't merely a general philosophical issue; it's actually quite specifically about God's capacity. It also presumes his existence, but I'd bet you won't dispute that. You are mistaken. My position is that omnipotence doesn't include the ability to do what can't be done, just as omniscience doesn't include the ability to know what can't be known. So omnipotence only allows the ability to do the intrinsically impossible (such as making square circles) if omnipotence is the ability to do anything, as the rock question presumes. If he can do anything, then yes, he can. So God is perfect regardless of whether he's omnipotent, impotent, or anywhere in between. That seems a bit too convenient. I suppose Genesis 6:6 only serves to demonstrate his capacity for regret. If is a conditional not a truth. Yes IF you believe that omnipotence means being able to accomplish the absurd. Which apparently in this response you don't, this time you agree with Lewis and I and believe that omnipotence does not include the absurd, you have used the rock argument to define omnipotence, congratulations asks.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 7, 2022 20:28:20 GMT
Good point, I was kind of waiting for someone to mention that, the way it is explained in the texts I read is a perfect singularity, ie all as one homogenous thing, one simple and perfect atom if you like, having said that the stuff I read never defines god, but instead gods impact on reality, and at the beginning, god is a simple I AM. God is the one starting point of creation, it may well be much more than that, however all we can ever know is the starting point as that is the only thing within our creation. God is “I was, I am, I will be”. It’s what God’s real name means in Hebrew. One of them yeah.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 7, 2022 20:29:07 GMT
Omnipotence/heavy rock is a loaded question; it has no correct answer because it's illogical. How is it illogical? I feel like it presents two options, and asks you to choose one based on your definition of omnipotence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 7, 2022 22:17:01 GMT
If is a conditional not a truth. As I've explained several times, the premise isn't that God is omnipotent, it's that he can do anything. That's the condition under which the question is being asked, as evidenced by the "if." No, it's yes if he can do anything. If you want to remove that condition and simply ask if he can make a rock he can't lift, I'd respond by asking why he couldn't. Seems like a simple task that virtually anyone can do. This isn't revelatory for me. In fact, the first time I posted the word "omniscience" to this forum was in this post from April 2017: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/745047/threadThe rock question doesn't define omnipotence; it presumes that God can do anything. Nothing more, nothing less. There are no exceptions in the premise. Note how the condition isn't that God can do anything but the logically absurd. It's simply that he can do anything. Period. Full stop. Nope. It asks if he can make a rock he can't lift under the condition that he can do anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 7, 2022 22:45:08 GMT
If is a conditional not a truth. As I've explained several times, the premise isn't that God is omnipotent, it's that he can do anything. That's the condition under which the question is being asked, as evidenced by the "if." No, it's yes if he can do anything. If you want to remove that condition and simply ask if he can make a rock he can't lift, I'd respond by asking why he couldn't. Seems like a simple task that virtually anyone can do. This isn't revelatory for me. In fact, the first time I posted the word "omniscience" to this forum was in this post from April 2017: IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/745047/threadThe rock question doesn't define omnipotence; it presumes that God can do anything. Nothing more, nothing less. There are no exceptions in the premise. Note how the condition isn't that God can do anything but the logically absurd. It's simply that he can do anything. Period. Full stop. Nope. It asks if he can make a rock he can't lift under the condition that he can do anything. Well it was great fun not agreeing with you again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 7, 2022 22:51:05 GMT
As I've explained several times, the premise isn't that God is omnipotent, it's that he can do anything. That's the condition under which the question is being asked, as evidenced by the "if." No, it's yes if he can do anything. If you want to remove that condition and simply ask if he can make a rock he can't lift, I'd respond by asking why he couldn't. Seems like a simple task that virtually anyone can do. This isn't revelatory for me. In fact, the first time I posted the word "omniscience" to this forum was in this post from April 2017: IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/745047/threadThe rock question doesn't define omnipotence; it presumes that God can do anything. Nothing more, nothing less. There are no exceptions in the premise. Note how the condition isn't that God can do anything but the logically absurd. It's simply that he can do anything. Period. Full stop. Nope. It asks if he can make a rock he can't lift under the condition that he can do anything. Well it was great fun not agreeing with you again. I can see that you actually aren't disagreeing with me. Why can't you?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 7, 2022 23:01:14 GMT
Well it was great fun not agreeing with you again. I can see that you actually aren't disagreeing with me. Why can't you? ok sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 7, 2022 23:12:07 GMT
I can see that you actually aren't disagreeing with me. Why can't you? ok sure. Ok, maybe I just agree with you, then. Whatever. When someone asks if you believe in God, it would be wise to enure that they aren't asking if you believe there's a magical sky fairy floating around on a plate of spaghetti, because that could very well be what they had in mind when they asked. Similarly, if the question didn't presume that God "can do anything," but instead presumed he's omnipotent, I would respond by saying, "That depends on what you mean by omnipotent." So... If God can do anything, can he- Yes.
|
|
