|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:25 pm
Many Gods are described as omnipotent or all powerful. This idea is commonly defined as having limitless and boundless power. However, using a simple chain of logic, it is easy to understand how this idea can be refuted.
When this idea is brought up in debate or discussion, I usually counter it with this question:
"If is omnipotent, can he make a mountain so large he cannot move it?"
Usually, I get 3 answers:
"Yes."
My rebuttal - If your God can make a mountain so large that he cannot move it, he is not omnipotent. He is limited in his inability to move the mountain.
"No."
My rebuttal - If your God can't make a mount so large that he cannot move it, he is not omnipotent. He is limited in his inability to make the mountain.
"What you're presenting is intrinsically impossible."
My rebuttal - It doesn't matter if making the mountain is impossible or not. Being omnipotent is the ability to do ANYTHING. This includes the seemingly impossible. An omnipotent being could make square circles or cause two objects to occupy the same space at the same time.
What I propose is, that omnipotence is completely impossible and is self refuting. Something or someone could have all the power there is to have, but could never be all powerful.
So, discuss.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:22 pm
I think omnipotence is more of a concept where something can happen that we never thought before imaginable to us, not to the omnipotent Being. Those words were included into the scripture by man, but not by an all powerful... whatever... so then it's man's limited imagination from the early B.C. era, not really the omnipotent being providing the statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:15 am
Someoneiknow I think omnipotence is more of a concept where something can happen that we never thought before imaginable to us, not to the omnipotent Being. Those words were included into the scripture by man, but not by an all powerful... whatever... so then it's man's limited imagination from the early B.C. era, not really the omnipotent being providing the statement. However, the men who believed in these Gods also claim that they witnessed their particular God/Gods performing mircales, feats that would seem impossible, etc. In several holy texts, the authors claim that they were influenced by their God/Gods or even directly written by them. How do we ignore that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:28 am
Here is something from my guild that I posted about "Can God make a rock so big that he couldn't lift it?" ----------------- Here is a link to the website, where you can listen to the answer to the question completely! http://biblestudypodcasts.org/index.php/archives/14The guy that does this is really really smart. If you want to more about apologetics and Christianity I STRONGLY suggest looking through his podcasts! Alright... Let me try to summarize this... It's an invalid argument. It's a fallacy of equivocation (fancy! O smile . Here's another example that is very blatant. Anything that is light, can't be dark. If a feather is light, then it can't be dark. We went from light meaning no darkness, to light meaning it doesn't weigh a lot. This question you proposed is similar to it. The question is basically saying. Is God powerful enough to create a rock that he would not be powerful enough to lift. It switches the definition of powerful in the middle. First we talk the ability to do things, then we talk about powerfulness to lift something. So they change the meaning of powerful. From creating something to lifting something. Thus, it's a logical fallacy and renders it invalid. If you want more info. listen to the whole podcast, it's really good! ^^ I hope this answers your question! :] Also, here is a link to a debate we had in my guild... http://www.gaiaonline.com/guilds/viewtopic.php?t=13311635
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:46 pm
mazuac Here is something from my guild that I posted about "Can God make a rock so big that he couldn't lift it?" ----------------- Here is a link to the website, where you can listen to the answer to the question completely! http://biblestudypodcasts.org/index.php/archives/14The guy that does this is really really smart. If you want to more about apologetics and Christianity I STRONGLY suggest looking through his podcasts! Alright... Let me try to summarize this... It's an invalid argument. It's a fallacy of equivocation (fancy! O smile . Here's another example that is very blatant. Anything that is light, can't be dark. If a feather is light, then it can't be dark. We went from light meaning no darkness, to light meaning it doesn't weigh a lot. This question you proposed is similar to it. The question is basically saying. Is God powerful enough to create a rock that he would not be powerful enough to lift. It switches the definition of powerful in the middle. First we talk the ability to do things, then we talk about powerfulness to lift something. So they change the meaning of powerful. From creating something to lifting something. Thus, it's a logical fallacy and renders it invalid. If you want more info. listen to the whole podcast, it's really good! ^^ I hope this answers your question! :] Also, here is a link to a debate we had in my guild... http://www.gaiaonline.com/guilds/viewtopic.php?t=13311635 This is nothing more than a rather stupid game of semantics. Even if this applied to the statement, powerful has one connotation: having the ability to do something, especially in the case of omnipotence where God would have to be able to both create and lift. In the statement about the feather, anyone can assume that the feather is any kind of light. Maybe it is light in color. Who knows unless you specify?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:26 pm
You're saying if God is all powerful, could God create a mountain (or any object for that matter) so big he can not lift it? You're asking a question that is, yes, a game a semantics I suppose. In your first post you said an omnipotent being could create a square circle. That is impossible. This, however, does not mean God is NOT all powerful. A square has four edges, and a circle has zero edges, so even if you were all powerful, all knowing, all everything, can you create a 4-sided-0-sided object? No. Logically, it's impossible. God CAN create out of nothing, that is supernaturally possible, however creating something that makes no sense (like... a square circle) and is not at all logically possible. Make sense? The fact that God can not "create" a square-triangle is because, by definition, there is no way for there to be a 3-sided-4sided thing. Your using omnipotence as a major theme here. So your basically asking, is God powerful enough to create a rock that he would not be powerful enough to lift. (Like I said before). But, also, again, like I said before you are changing the definition of powerful (because we ARE using omnipotence as the main factor). First you use powerful in a supernatural manner, then powerful in a natural, physical sense. Those two type of powerful have different definitions, and render the question invalid because it's a fallacy of logic. Also, here is something my friend Sarcastic_Angel has said... Quote: You are putting limits on God. You are giving God a physical form with which he would lift the rock, when our God is not contained in a physical form. And I know what you're thinking, what about Jesus, but I have an aswer to that. There are 3 parts of God, but he is one being. But focusing on the 3 parts, there is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus was man for a short time on earth. Yet he still had the ability, through the Holy Spirit and the Father to do what God can do. Basically the answer I have to the paradox is this. God, by sending Jesus to earth in a physical form, created rocks that Jesus' body could not lift. Yet God could still lift the stone. God both created a stone to heavy for him to lift (since all 3 are one) yet could still lift the rock (as the Father) that he could not lift. So I guess there are two answers... :]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:26 pm
mazuac In your first post you said an omnipotent being could create a square circle. That is impossible. The entire point of being omnipotent is to be able to do the impossible. I also included that in my post. Not having the power to do the impossible means having a limit. God is limited by it's inability to do the impossible. So, again, God can have all the power there is to have, but cannot be all powerful. mazuac Make sense? The fact that God can not "create" a square-triangle is because, by definition, there is no way for there to be a 3-sided-4sided thing. Correction: Basic psychology tells us there is no way we could perceive such a thing. Science tells us that there is no evidence of such a thing existing. This does not mean it is impossible to create. Even if it WAS impossible to create, because God cannot create it, he is limited by his inability to create it, and thus, no omnipotent. mazuac Your using omnipotence as a major theme here. So your basically asking, is God powerful enough to create a rock that he would not be powerful enough to lift. (Like I said before). But, also, again, like I said before you are changing the definition of powerful (because we ARE using omnipotence as the main factor). First you use powerful in a supernatural manner, then powerful in a natural, physical sense. Those two type of powerful have different definitions, and render the question invalid because it's a fallacy of logic. I'm using powerful in the sense of having power. The kind of power is irrelevant when we refer to a being that is all powerful. mazuac Also, here is something my friend Sarcastic_Angel has said... Quote: You are putting limits on God. You are giving God a physical form with which he would lift the rock, when our God is not contained in a physical form. And I know what you're thinking, what about Jesus, but I have an aswer to that. Actually, that doesn't concern me. What concerns me is you make the claim that God has no physical form or is not contained in one, and yet, fail to bother backing that statement up. How does one know God is contained in a physical form? mazuac Quote: Basically the answer I have to the paradox is this. God, by sending Jesus to earth in a physical form, created rocks that Jesus' body could not lift. Yet God could still lift the stone. God both created a stone to heavy for him to lift (since all 3 are one) yet could still lift the rock (as the Father) that he could not lift. If we're going to argue the idea of the trinity, let me state simply: A being cannot exist in two places or two things at the same time. This is why I find the trinity a complete fallacy. You cannot have three separate beings sharing the same consciousness and different bodies. For God to be one being, he has to be one consciousness, in one body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:29 pm
You know, your argument sounds very familiar kinda like.
"The barber cuts the hair of everyone who does not cut their own hair."
Answer me this. Who cuts the barber's hair?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lazarus The Resurected Crew
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:36 pm
rmcdra You know, your argument sounds very familiar kinda like. "The barber cuts the hair of everyone who does not cut their own hair." Answer me this. Who cuts the barber's hair? Another barber. why do you ask?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:46 pm
Lazarus The Resurected rmcdra You know, your argument sounds very familiar kinda like. "The barber cuts the hair of everyone who does not cut their own hair." Answer me this. Who cuts the barber's hair? Another barber. why do you ask? The point is from a theistic view point, the only answer to the OP is "I don't know". The OP to theists is akin to asking someone to simultaneously measure the precise position and velocity of a microscopic particle with a very high degree of accuracy and certainty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 8:44 am
rmcdra Lazarus The Resurected rmcdra You know, your argument sounds very familiar kinda like. "The barber cuts the hair of everyone who does not cut their own hair." Answer me this. Who cuts the barber's hair? Another barber. why do you ask? The point is from a theistic view point, the only answer to the OP is "I don't know". The OP to theists is akin to asking someone to simultaneously measure the precise position and velocity of a microscopic particle with a very high degree of accuracy and certainty. And an omnipotent being WOULDN'T be able to do this kind of thing? As far as the barber goes, that has more to do with Creationism. The first barber (God) cuts the hair (creates) everyone who does not cut their own hair (the universe). So who cuts his hair? Either he must cut his own (Create himself, an impossibility), or get his hair cut by another barber. Then we get into infinite regression. Another barber would have to cut that barber's hair, and so on. The only way to stop this chain would be to have a barber, that can cut his own hair (A God that can create himself, which is impossible.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:23 am
Kimihiro_Watanuki rmcdra Lazarus The Resurected rmcdra You know, your argument sounds very familiar kinda like. "The barber cuts the hair of everyone who does not cut their own hair." Answer me this. Who cuts the barber's hair? Another barber. why do you ask? The point is from a theistic view point, the only answer to the OP is "I don't know". The OP to theists is akin to asking someone to simultaneously measure the precise position and velocity of a microscopic particle with a very high degree of accuracy and certainty. And an omnipotent being WOULDN'T be able to do this kind of thing? As far as the barber goes, that has more to do with Creationism. The first barber (God) cuts the hair (creates) everyone who does not cut their own hair (the universe). So who cuts his hair? Either he must cut his own (Create himself, an impossibility), or get his hair cut by another barber. Then we get into infinite regression. Another barber would have to cut that barber's hair, and so on. The only way to stop this chain would be to have a barber, that can cut his own hair (A God that can create himself, which is impossible.) But here's the thing you're not asking God for an answer, your asking people that believe in God for an answer and they cannot give any answer without saying something false. I'm not answering because I cannot answer on the topic. The only logical answer your going to get is "I don't know". Thus asking someone that believes in God the question you did is like asking someone to simultaneously measure the precise position and velocity of a microscopic particle with a very high degree of accuracy and certainty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:25 am
There is a simple answer to this: We do not know.
It comes down to a simple statement: God created everything, we cannot put features to God because we cannot comprehend him.
Simple
In short, God can do whatever he wants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:57 pm
rmcdra Lazarus The Resurected rmcdra You know, your argument sounds very familiar kinda like. "The barber cuts the hair of everyone who does not cut their own hair." Answer me this. Who cuts the barber's hair? Another barber. why do you ask? The point is from a theistic view point, the only answer to the OP is "I don't know". The OP to theists is akin to asking someone to simultaneously measure the precise position and velocity of a microscopic particle with a very high degree of accuracy and certainty. that's why one must go outside the box. the OP while technicaly sound in principle is a little too simplistic for my liking. and technicaly since i am my own deity i could very easily create a mountain do heavy i would be unable to move it. and yet still find a way to move the mound i had created. there are always tricks and was around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lazarus The Resurected Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lazarus The Resurected Crew
|
Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:05 pm
Kimihiro_Watanuki rmcdra Lazarus The Resurected rmcdra You know, your argument sounds very familiar kinda like. "The barber cuts the hair of everyone who does not cut their own hair." Answer me this. Who cuts the barber's hair? Another barber. why do you ask? The point is from a theistic view point, the only answer to the OP is "I don't know". The OP to theists is akin to asking someone to simultaneously measure the precise position and velocity of a microscopic particle with a very high degree of accuracy and certainty. And an omnipotent being WOULDN'T be able to do this kind of thing? As far as the barber goes, that has more to do with Creationism. The first barber (God) cuts the hair (creates) everyone who does not cut their own hair (the universe). So who cuts his hair? Either he must cut his own (Create himself, an impossibility), or get his hair cut by another barber. Then we get into infinite regression. Another barber would have to cut that barber's hair, and so on. The only way to stop this chain would be to have a barber, that can cut his own hair (A God that can create himself, which is impossible.) unless said other barber happened to be man. a much as that might seem to be anther infinite regression but it isn't it is quite finite. God created amn in His image and then man created a god in his own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
