ok let me just clerify that I was not actually suggesting that you had been personally irrational… I was only saying “IF” you should become irrational… I would bow out…
Anyway… My issue here is that you are supporting a notion of “omnipotence” which can not nor could ever have made sense to human kind… it is a meaningless term by your definition…
Using a bit of common sense… and exploring the context in which it is always used… I would have to support the definition in which omnipotence does not allow the omnipotent “thing” to defy it’s own identity…
If you have an example of the word omnipotence being used to describe NOTHING… then I suppose assuming it’s meaning to be “unlimited power” in an absolute sense is fair enough… though still a bit foolish…
and i’d like to take this opertunity to stress that logic is the limit of human understanding… we cannot have made up a word that defies logic by definition and used it in any meaningful way… Omnipotence could not have meant nor mean “Unlimited power” in an absolute way… the word would be interchangable with “gibbirish” in any context if that were the case…
“God”, “divinity”, “divine being” “metaphysical force” or “Almighty” being the agency which is comprised of “unlimited power”.
Hyperbole to the most extreme, and it would seem that due to the overwhelming capacity of the human brain to engage abstraction, a term has been created and defined for what cannot be, beyond ludicrous and irrational perceived context.
The question “Can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?”
is not asking “Is God all-powerful?” or “Is omnipotence possible?”
So – it is not circular.
Nor is it asking “Does God exist?”
So – it is not circular.
Nor is it asking “Do rocks exist?”
So – it is not circular.
Nor is it asking “Is there such a thing as lifting?”
So – it is not circular.
Nor is it asking “Can God make something?”
So – it is not circular.
Hopefully that explains it.
“God” in the question includes the concept “all-powerful” because a being that is not all-powerful is not God. You could say omnipotent and God are synonyms. It would be rather impossible to ask the question without including omnipotence – if there were a need for that, which there isn’t.
Not really. See you just declared it human comparision to our imagination and thoughts. You just set the the comparision. Omnipotent compared to what we can think of. Our limited imagination and abstractions. Not Universal.
A creature can appear as omnipotent to us but, not be without limits. At what point would you argue with the creature over its omnipotence? Just make sure I am not standing next to you… no offense, just inching away…
It doesn’t matter how the creature appears to us. If the creature is omnipotent then its power is without limits.
If the creature has limits on its power then it is not omnipotent, regardless of how it appears to us.
We may believe, based on insufficient evidence, that a limited creature is omnipotent. This, however, does not mean the creature is actually omnipotent. It means only that our belief that it is omnipotent is false.
Just because the earth may appear to be flat to an aborignee tribesman does not mean that the earth really is flat. It means only that the tribesman’s belief is false.
How reality really is doesn’t depend upon our beliefs about it how it is.
ROFL it actually does matter. Because of action and reaction. Seriously, you all are going by text book, not reality of action reaction.
I have already asked and as yet it has not been answered. Are you going to argue with what appears to be a godlike creature its omnipotence?
Unless you are a total idiot you won’t. So you accept its omnipotence.
It is the reality of action /reaction that count on subjects like this.
Once you step back and do not argue, you have defined omnipotence.
Of course this is based upon an actual god creature making an appearance in your life, if it does though, you know how you would react. your action and probable action defines it. Not a definition in a book.
In this case we can almost hands down agree none of us here would argue with a god and piss it off, about its appearance of omnipotence.
We may argue with it about other things but not such a petty issue. It would not be worth it.
This is not twisting by any means, it is simple knowledge ,which we all have, of action reaction, creates definition.
Action of nothing? Interesting, and yet you still state your perception of nothing as though it were a thing to react.
The reality is, there is “no-thing” which can meet with the definition. Everything afterwards, is the irrationality of not accepting the obviousness of reality.
ROTFLMFAO hard… Since when did you get to go out and play in the universe that you could possibly know this for an absolute? You are human right? How did you get off this mud ball and find this out?
Omnipotence is a concept word much like the term ineffable. They are words of finality. Once written or uttered, you’re all done. Attempting to ascribe further attributes cancels the concept the words represent. It really is as simple as that. It isn’t that the concept and its symbol (word) are meaningless, it is attempting to ask questions to circumscribe the concept that is meaningless.
I didn’t read the second paragraph last time I replied – but I’ll say that the question has the word “big” in it. You’re nitpicking about weight. However, a rock God can’t create is as much a (logically meaningless) figment of the imagination as the rock so big God can’t lift it.
In addition to my last reply to this quote, I’ll add that the question, “Can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it,” is not asking “is there omnipotence” – but, instead, is asking “what is the nature of omnipotence?” – it is not asking “Is God ominipotent?” or “Is omnipotence possible?” – it is asking, “does being omnipotent mean you can even contradict your own omnipotence?” And the answer is: no – that is not what omnipotence means. Omnipotence applies to the real world, and things that are meaningless, contradictory, and paradoxical are not part of the real world.
“A rock so big God can’t lift it” – think about that all by itself. It contradicts His omnipotence and is therefore a meaningless figment of the imagination. A rock so big God can’t lift it is a logical impossibility. That is why people answer “God cannot do the impossible” – it is shorthand.
There is a verse that says “With God, all things are possible,” – but He is not talking about logical impossibilities – He is talking about reality.
ROFL , We find ourselves once again in a, did not/did too, situation. You have no direct evidence and niether do I. And please, do tighten your stinkchucker, it is dribbling all over the floor, I am not cleaning it up.
Take a fact about reality and, if you can, explain how a mistaken belief about reality affects reality itself and does not simply affect the person who holds the mistaken belief.
Most people alive today know that the earth is a sphere. Some people, however, still believe that it is flat. How might one’s belief that the earth is flat affect the fact that the earth is really a sphere?
Are you saying that the earth in reality IS actually flat for those people who sincerely believe that it is flat; that, for example, the people who sincerely believe that the earth is flat will fall off the ‘edge’ of the earth if they sail out far enough on the ocean?
I think that is a very difficult position to maintain. In reality, the common reality that we all share, the earth is a sphere, period. It is a sphere for those of us who believe that it is a sphere AND it is a sphere for those of us who believe that the earth has some other non-spheroid shape. This is because our beliefs about reality don’t affect reality. Reality is only the way it is.
I still don't think that's the case. It comes back to weight for me. If we change it just slightly, dropping 'big' so it just becomes 'A rock God can't lift", then it doesn't seem impossible at all, and yet raises the same issues. Sure, maybe God can lift a rock regardless of it's size. But it seems completely possible that He could imbue 'unliftability' in a rock in some other way. After all, wouldn't this be a parallel to how he imbued our free wills with 'untouchability' or whatever it is that makes us truly free?
Anyways, does dropping 'big' from the question cheat somehow, or do you think it still raises the same point?
That’s not the ‘standard’ response with which I’m familiar. The standard response is close to that but is more like this: Like a square circle, a liftable unliftable object is a contradiction in terms and therefore cannot exist. God never even enters into the equation.
Nothing can be square and non-square at the same time in the same respect. Nothing can be both ‘liftable’ and ‘not liftable’ at the same time in the same respect. When we talk about a rock that both at the same time can be lifted and cannot be lifted we are obviously not talking about anything that can exist.
You can drop “big” and it would still be a paradox (and question the nature, but not the fact, of omnipotence), for the reason given already.
I think you mean to say, “Sure, maybe God can make a rock regardless of its size.” The question is “can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it” not “can God lift a rock so big He can’t lift it”. This shows how absurd the question is. Normally the answer, if God was not the lifter, would be “duh – if it’s a rock so big s/he can’t lift it, then s/he can’t lift it” – but, since God is the lifter, the answer is, “there is no such thing as a rock so big God can’t lift it, so the question of whether or not He can lift it is meaningless.” The same is true in the other question: there’s no such thing as a rock so big God can’t lift it – so the question of whether or not He can make it is meaningless.
And that’s before you consider what it means for God to lift something. It doesn’t mean the same as it means for us – He doesn’t have the limitations we do. The same is also true for God’s creating versus our creating. He can create from nothing. We cannot.
Not when it comes to Him being the lifter, He can’t. It’s meaningless.
Not sure what you mean by untouchability, but our being free does not contradict anything. And, no, in case you’re curious, I haven’t even started revising the determinism thread. A very good monkey wrench got thrown in the workings of life and both my big projects have been temporarily delayed.
Starting tomorrow I will be off-line for a couple of weeks.
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
