To add too big or too heavy is not really what the thought experiment is about, maybe God cannot reach the rock. The point is whether this makes God omnipotent or not.
Now if others could lift the rock, then there are things people can do in terms of potence that god cannot do. The rule also doesn’t stipulate whether god could change Gods mind and decide to lift it, but then the paradox would be meaningless… so the way it’s actually stated is that god creates a rock God could never lift, but if god could never lift it in the first place, how could he create it? This came about when someone used this as an analogy to my disproof of God, when I said that God couldn’t have created the cosmos, because the cosmos has to have always been there otherwise it came from nothing at all (material), and no sentient being can create or destroy this law, therefor that leaves the god concept out of the equation entirely. I think the rock scenario renders the same result, if God could never lift the rock in the first place, then how could he create or destroy his ability to not lift it… it’s a contradiction.
Dunno, watching turtle, he does kind of seem to go whither and fro simultaneously.
The “heavier than can be lifted” argument is different than the “eternal universe” argument. The eternal universe requires an eternal God to keep it eternal.
I can create… well, not literally create, but I can assemble rocks or other weight in a form that I cannot lift. If God can’t do that it means there is something I can do and God can’t, aka God isn’t omnipotent, and not only that, but there are things I can do that he can’t. If God can do it, it means he can’t lift the rock, aka he isn’t omnipotent.
That’s why I prefer the term “maximally powerful” to “all powerful”. But even that is up to further scrutiny - what is maximal? How do we determine what are the limitations of the maximally powerful and/or knowledgeable being from our human standpoint, aware of our own limited mental faculties?
Perhaps this is the time to appeal to Wittgenstein’s famous quote:
Or, in common language: ‘If you don’t know what you’re talking about, shut up.’
LOL.
If God can’t assemble stuff into something which He can’t lift then He is not omnipotent . If He can assemble stuff into anything which He can lift then He can’t assemble stuff which is unliftable.
Oh, ok, I’ll come down to your level… for a while.
Your retort: Idiocy.
My response: Bullshit.
Did I win now?
He isn’t ALL(omni) powerful if he can’t do ALL. Otherwise you’re just butchering words.
Like you’re butchering the word “everywhere”. Do I really have to point out what kinds of nasty places “everywhere” includes?
‘God is ALL powerful, he can do ALL and ANYTHING… well, EXCEPT…’
‘God is everywhere, well, everywhere except…’
When all doesn’t, actually, include all and when everywhere doesn’t actually mean EVERYwhere…
I might as well argue that I too am all powerful and everywhere, by your standards
Yeah, you win the word game.
The entire game was based on the definitions of words. If God can’t create a cat that is also a dog at the same time, then He is not omnipotent.
Holy crap.
Happy? Satisfied? Think that you are smart?
Think again.
Again, Wittgenstein would claim that philosophy is nothing more but word games, clarifying and refining particular thoughts and arguments.
A God that is above logic, transcends logic is surely more powerful than the one that is limited by logic, no?
Obviously you’re agreeing with me that there are things God can’t do. Therefore, he isn’t omnipotent (all powerful), since he is limited by logic.
An unlimited God that isn’t governed by anything other than himself would be omnipotent. Pretty sure there is officially a branch of theology or a theological position which advocates such a God as well, though that obviously doesn’t fall into the category of philosophy since it doesn’t “play” by the fundamental laws of logic and rules of rational discourse, in other words, it can’t be subject to rational criticism because it is claimed to be above the rational in the first place.
An omnipotent God can disagree with himself and agree with himself in the same time and still remain stronger than the God limited by logic, who can’t disagree with oneself and not become weaker.
phyllo, pointless? Who ever said it is pointless? Arguments/words can be about reality and have a practical aspect to them.
But this particular argument is not about reality. One does not know the actual extent of God’s power. This argument is purely based on the definition of the word ‘omnipotence’ and whatever conclusion is reached … it has no application to reality. :-"
