Gravity and omnipotence

[Jobar]

This was inspired by Thomas Metcalf's thread. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61671)

We are all aware of the paradox of the rock too heavy for God to lift. Now, just how heavy can a rock be, and still exist? The question is not an easy one- partly because real materials such as rocks are not infinitely strong. A sufficiently large rock would collapse under its own weight, like foam. If a rock the size of the Earth was set down on the surface of the Earth, no matter how gently, both world and rock would flow together like liquids- in fact, the energies generated would render both molten, and would result in a new planet of slightly greater size and twice the mass.

Let's step this up a notch, and consider stars. I'm sure all here know something about black holes- stars which have collapsed under their own gravity, so massive and dense that a surface forms around them at the level where the escape velocity from it is equal to lightspeed. This is the event horizon and is one of the most fascinatingly mysterious things in our universe.

I propose that we ignore the tiny problems involved for God in creating rocks and lifting them- let's ask ourselves if God can lift a mass, however tiny, through an event horizon!

Relativity theory tells us that no speeds faster than light can exist in the universe, and to lift a mass through an event horizon would require accelerating the mass past c. So, obviously, God cannot do it and maintain the laws of the universe which, for the sake of this argument, he has created.

This gives us an answer to the age-old problem- yes, God *can* create a rock too big for Him to lift, and in sober fact, he has! This means that omnipotence is limited by natural law, and God cannot do any number of things within this universe.

We've seen the many arguments concerning God's existence 'outside of spacetime'. All of them result in :confused: - we simply can't reach any sort of conclusion, nor obtain the tiniest sliver of knowledge, from beyond the universe we see. All our words and arguments fail.

Thus- the omnipotence which we can talk about is not truly omnipotent. Even if God existed, if He chose to act within the framework of the universe, He is limited by the realities of physics. If He is not so limited, then we simply cannot express it.

edited to change 'to' to 'too'

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Jobar
So, obviously, God cannot do it and maintain the laws of the universe which, for the sake of this argument, he has created. Is not "an intentional entity able to abrogate the laws of he universe" a reasonably sufficient definition of God(s)? Put differently, are you not simply asserting: "Gosh, if God could do this, it would have to be Supernatural!"?

Originally posted by Jobar
Even if God existed, if He chose to act within the framework of the universe, He is limited by the realities of physics.Huh? :confused: If it was in a position to choose, It was clearly not limited. :D

[Bill]

Originally posted by Jobar
Thus- the omnipotence which we can talk about is not truly omnipotent. Even if God existed, if He chose to act within the framework of the universe, He is limited by the realities of physics. If He is not so limited, then we simply cannot express it. This all sounds silly to me. After all, theists don't hesitate to claim miracles on behalf of their God, and what is a miracle if not the nullification of some natural law(s) for the benfit of some human? Thus, God is NOT "limited by the realities of physics." He generally choses not to exercise his right to nullify natural law(s), but you can't really argue that he cannot exercise that right without further proof.

== Bill

[xorbie]

What if we simply said that the laws of physics come from God, and it is against God's nature to violate his nature (if this makes sense...). Miracles be damned.

[ZikZak]

Originally posted by Jobar
We are all aware of the paradox of the rock too heavy for God to lift.

I'm not. Frankly, I've never been too impressed by this "paradox." If God is omnipotent, then he must posess the power to eliminate his powers. Q.E.D.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Jobar
This gives us an answer to the age-old problem- yes, God *can* create a rock too big for Him to lift, and in sober fact, he has! This means that omnipotence is limited by natural law, and God cannot do any number of things within this universe.[/i]

Since we don't believe in any gods, I don't see how it does us any good to take a stance on whether a god we don't believe in can do miracles.

Suppose you do decide in advance that the god you don't believe in can't do miracles; how can this preconception help you in debate with a Christian who believes in a god who does do miracles?

It makes more sense to me start debate by getting the Christian to declare which kind of god he believes in.

Once he declares, then you have to play in his arena. There is no point in refuting any gods except that person's god.

It seems to me that the vital categories are these:

1. The god who is not constrained by logic.

2. The contradictory god.

3. Lesser Christian deities.

4. Other.

Type one, the unconstrained god:
If your mark thinks god is not constrained by logic, your job is to point out that his opinions, including his opinion that god exists, are supposed to be based on logic. If logic doesn't work, then his opinions are worthless.

Type two, the contradictory god:
If your mark thinks god cannot violate logic, then you get to refute him by pointing out contradictions. Is his god the just creator of hellfire, both visible and invisible, omnipotent but not able to defeat iron chariots, vulnerable to the logical problem of evil, etcetera. Then his god can be proven not to exist.

Type three, lesser Christian gods: If his god is constrained by logic, and does not violate logic, then you get to force choices as to in which way his god departs from our understanding of the traditional Christian god. Is he less than omnipotent, less than omniscient, less than omnibenevolent, or some combination of these?

Christians pick all of these, in various combinations. Usually, the logical PoE (problem of evil) still works as an absolute disproof. Sometimes you have do use the evidential problem of evil. (Don't just start with the ePoE, though. It is important to force your mark further and further away from dogma. Make him commit himself to a god who cannot violate logic, and who is in some specific way less than omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.) If you get this far, you can deal with candid reasons for belief and non-belief, whether religion is actually attractive, and whether there is any point in believing in such a denatured god.

Type four, anything else: These are hardly a bother. Someone who believes in say, the deist god, isn't likely to slash my tires or take away my civil rights. Nor is it likely to be hard to get him to admit the weakness of his proofs. In this area, I can live and let live. After all, believers in miscellaneous gods are likely to be on our side, both in the struggle for civil rights and the effort to point out the logic errors of the oppressors.
crc

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by Jobar
Thus- the omnipotence which we can talk about is not truly omnipotent. Even if God existed, if He chose to act within the framework of the universe, He is limited by the realities of physics. If He is not so limited, then we simply cannot express it.


I agree. I don't think a not omnipotent thing can describe omnipotence in terms of what an omnipotent thing can or can't do. This is like asking exactly how high infinity can actually go. The only thing it can't do is be limited, (obviously not a statement of inablility) therefore all logical problems result from not-omnipotent, limited things. All-powerful is not a unit of measure to not-all-powerful things. It's simply a blanket statement like a child's reference to "my dad's infinity strong." All human attempts at comprehending this must fail. It's merely an assumption. Because infinity is required by mathematics, it is assumed to be a fundamentally understandable, if entirely abstract, concept. To attempt to disect it is illogical. Therefore "omnimax" is not subject to "well if this, what about this?" God cannot limit his own power, he cannot give himself more power, he cannot change his mind, he cannot make a mistake, and he cannot kill himself. These are all statements of ability, not inability, despite the negative structure of the sentences. These sentences show the absence of limits, they do not create limits.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Jobar
Relativity theory tells us that no speeds faster than light can exist in the universe, and to lift a mass through an event horizon would require accelerating the mass past c. So, obviously, God cannot do it and maintain the laws of the universe which, for the sake of this argument, he has created. [b]

And this is just where your clever little problem breaks down.
First, God is not part of the creation so is not bound to observe any of it's laws.
Second, you assume that he could only lift it by means with which you're familiar, i.e., force.
Third, and most importantly, you assume that he "created" laws which govern the universe independently of his sustaining power. This is not sound theology and, unless you know better, you can't base an argument on this.

[b]Thus- the omnipotence which we can talk about is not truly omnipotent. Even if God existed, if He chose to act within the framework of the universe, He is limited by the realities of physics.

This is nothing more than tautological, i.e., "if God chooses to limit himself, he would be limited." It says nothing about his ultimate power over his creation.

Further, you don't know anything about the "realities of physics" or any other physical entity. Science is no more than description; it knows nothing of laws or realities. What has been law up until now could change tomorrow.

If He is not so limited, then we simply cannot express it.

That's good because it's not our job to express it. He has revealled it so we're off the hook.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by long winded fool
I agree. I don't think a not omnipotent thing can describe omnipotence in terms of what an omnipotent thing can or can't do.

If words have meaning, an omnipotent thing can do anything.


This is like asking exactly how high infinity can actually go. The only thing it can't do is be limited,

Even if it wants to be? Why are you putting constraints on something you represent as unconstrained. If you believe it has limitations, you will do well to describe it as "nearly omnipotent" (or "punk," for short) rather than "omnipotent.


(obviously not a statement of inablility)

First you called it omnipotent, then you said there was something it couldn't do, now you are saying that being unable to do something isn't a limitation.


therefore all logical problems result from not-omnipotent, limited things.

If we are worried about logic, then we don't get to have omnipotence. If we do have omnipotence, we immediately get self-contradiction (as with the question about whether an omnipotent god can make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it).

Either you reject logic or you accept it. If you reject it, then you can believe in omnipotence, but your opinions, being contrary to logic, are illogical, irrational, unfounded, arbitrary. You can settle for that if want.

If you accept logic, then you reject omnipotence.



All-powerful is not a unit of measure to not-all-powerful things. It's simply a blanket statement like a child's reference to "my dad's infinity strong."

So belief in omnipotence is a childlike error?



All human attempts at comprehending this must fail.

In the same way that humans fail to understand other contradictions:

A equals not A;
Two plus two equals five; and
A just god will punish you forever for following your conscience.



It's merely an assumption. Because infinity is required by mathematics, it is assumed to be a fundamentally understandable, if entirely abstract, concept. To attempt to disect it is illogical.

I'm with you this far: Some things are true even if you don't understand them.

It does not follow that self-contradictory things can be true.



Therefore "omnimax" is not subject to "well if this, what about this?"

If god is ominimax, then he is omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, there is nothing he cannot do. If there is nothing he cannot do, then he can make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.

If god is bound by logic, then he is not omnipotent.

If god is not bound by logic, then opinions about him are nonsense. If opinions about god are nonsense, you cannot say with fairness, accuracy, or meaning that he is omnipotent.


God cannot limit his own power,

You are here advocating the opinion that you don't get to have opinions about this stuff. Be consistent: don't have opinions.



he cannot give himself more power, he cannot change his mind, he cannot make a mistake, and he cannot kill himself.

That's a lot of description for something that can't be, "describe[d] ... in terms of what [it] can or can't do."


These are all statements of ability, not inability, despite the negative structure of the sentences. These sentences show the absence of limits, they do not create limits.

Unless words have meaning.

crc

[Jobar]

Perhaps I could have expressed this better, but it's not ridiculous, or tautological. I am, in a way, addressing the same difficulty as I did in The search for absolutes. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56921)

When we start talking about a rock too big for an infinite power to lift, it's obvious that we have to start thinking about infinitely heavy rocks. lwf understands, I think. I want to emphasize that problems like this are actually pseudoproblems, incapable of logical answers because the terms of the problems do not allow us to use logic. When we start trying to analyze infinites, our language breaks down, and all answers reached are meaningless; like dividing both sides of an equation by zero, or multiplying by infinity.

Let's imagine that our hypothetical God decides to lift some tiny mass out of a black hole. Seems to me there are two possible methods- make the mass weightless, or accelerate it beyond lightspeed. If you take away the mass of a mass, what is left? Kind of cheating, don't you think? And if a mass, no matter how tiny, is accelerated to lightspeed, its relativistic mass increases to infinity, and the universe collapses into it. Sort of makes the whole exercise pointless!

I know, I know, an omnipotent God would just pass a miracle, and out pops the mass. But 'miracle' is one of those words like 'supernatural'. If it were ever observed, it would no longer be miraculous- unexplained perhaps, but simply knowing it *can* be done means that we *might* be able to duplicate the feat.

This stuff is incredibly hard to talk about; in fact, my premise is that it's impossible to talk about in any logical and meaningful way. (Not that I'm expecting any of us- including me- will stop trying to, though!) ;)

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Jobar
But 'miracle' is one of those words like 'supernatural'. If it were ever observed, it would no longer be miraculous- unexplained perhaps, but simply knowing it *can* be done means that we *might* be able to duplicate the feat. I don't think so.

There is a difference between "knowing it *can* be done" and "knowing [sic] it *can* be done by God(s)".

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Jobar
Perhaps I could have expressed this better, but it's not ridiculous, or tautological. I am, in a way, addressing the same difficulty as I did in The search for absolutes. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56921)

When we start talking about a rock too big for an infinite power to lift, it's obvious that we have to start thinking about infinitely heavy rocks. lwf understands, I think. I want to emphasize that problems like this are actually pseudoproblems, incapable of logical answers because the terms of the problems do not allow us to use logic. When we start trying to analyze infinites, our language breaks down, and all answers reached are meaningless; like dividing both sides of an equation by zero, or multiplying by infinity.

Let's imagine that our hypothetical God decides to lift some tiny mass out of a black hole. Seems to me there are two possible methods- make the mass weightless, or accelerate it beyond lightspeed. If you take away the mass of a mass, what is left? Kind of cheating, don't you think? And if a mass, no matter how tiny, is accelerated to lightspeed, its relativistic mass increases to infinity, and the universe collapses into it. Sort of makes the whole exercise pointless!

I know, I know, an omnipotent God would just pass a miracle, and out pops the mass. But 'miracle' is one of those words like 'supernatural'. If it were ever observed, it would no longer be miraculous- unexplained perhaps, but simply knowing it *can* be done means that we *might* be able to duplicate the feat.

This stuff is incredibly hard to talk about; in fact, my premise is that it's impossible to talk about in any logical and meaningful way. (Not that I'm expecting any of us- including me- will stop trying to, though!) ;)

The fundamental problem with trying to "think" about these things is confusing the Creator with his creation.
Speaking of a rock too big for God to lift equates the Creator with his creation, i.e., he is a "part" of his own creation (the rock is another part).

A second problem is the assumption that God has created physical "laws" which operate independently of him; if he does a miracle, he must "break" one of his own laws. But this is not a picture of the God of scripture. He ordains everything that comes to pass, including the smallest phenomenon.

[HRG]

Originally posted by theophilus


A second problem is the assumption that God has created physical "laws" which operate independently of him; if he does a miracle, he must "break" one of his own laws. But this is not a picture of the God of scripture. He ordains everything that comes to pass, including the smallest phenomenon.

May I quote you on that point next time an apologist claims that God is not responsible for evil acts ?

"A dies horribly from Ebola" or "B kills C after raping her" fall under the extent of "something that comes to pass", don't they ?

Regards,
HRG.

[long winded fool]

Wiploc, the rock paradox fails because it is set up to temporarily reject omnipotence (...he can't lift it...) and then reinsert it. (if God is omnipotent...) It is equal to ask the question, can infinity reach a maximum number? Obviously it can't by definition, however there are only so many numbers capable of existing to a finite being.

The rock paradox is like a child's question because it asks why can't infinity be limited if it is unlimited? While this seems redundant, the rock paradox is comparable, though it is described in such a way that it is difficult not to apply finite qualities to an infinite notion. The brain, incapable of ever truly understanding any infinite notion, wants to do this which is why the logical error is so difficult to spot. Like Jobar says, it is extrodinarily difficult to wrap our brains around, but the fact is that there is no self-contradiction in omnipotence. If omnipotence were to exist, then any being that is omnipotent would not be able to be limited. Sounds suspiciously like a limitation, however "limited by an unlimited nature" is not a limitation. It is a confusing definition of "limitless." We tend to interpret it as a limit because we are not limited by an unlimited nature. Sounds suspiciously like we are not limited, but in fact it means that we definitely are limited by some aspect of our nature. I apologize for the backwards sounding explanation, but it is the only way to explain the backwards argument that erroneously concludes that omnipotence is self-contradictory.

[Jobar]

My point is that the very concept of omnipotence is incoherent, irrational. We can't talk about it meaningfully. Perhaps we can talk about a power which approaches omnipotence- which is the reason I bring up the bit about black holes. A theological theory of limits, if you will! If we cannot find any power which is capable of the actions in my thought experiment here, it may be reasonable to assert that there are no omnipotent powers- at least, we can find no powers which approach infinity at our present state of knowledge.

HRG:
May I quote you on that point next time an apologist claims that God is not responsible for evil acts ?

"A dies horribly from Ebola" or "B kills C after raping her" fall under the extent of "something that comes to pass", don't they ?


:notworthy :notworthy

Theophilus, I assure you that *I* will save that remark. It'll come in very handy the next time you try to talk about free will. ;)

[wiploc]

Originally posted by long winded fool
Wiploc, the rock paradox fails because

Which is like saying, "2+2=4 fails because ..."


it is set up to temporarily reject omnipotence (...he can't lift it...) and then reinsert it.

1. If god can do anything, anything at all, then he can make a rock so big he can't lift it.

2. If he can make a rock so big he can't lift it, then he can't lift any possible rock.

3. If he can't lift any possible rock, then there is something he can't do.

4. Therefore, if god can do anything at all, there is something he cannot do.

5. Therefore, it is not true that god can do anything.

I am not "rejecting" omnipotence. I am pointing out that omnipotence necessarily leads to contradiction. If logic works, nothing is omnipotent.

You want to put restrictions on god anyway, so why don't you just admit it? Why don't you just say something like, "God isn't truly omnipotent; there are things he can't do. He can't die, for instance. But he's nearly omnipotent, because he can do anything that doesn't lead to a logical contradiction."

Belief in a nearly-omnipotent god is a common position. It's what you are trying to do anyway, why don't you just admit that this is your position? There is no reason to fight yourself, no reason to say you taking one position while really taking another.



(if God is omnipotent...) It is equal to ask the question, can infinity reach a maximum number? Obviously it can't by definition, however there are only so many numbers capable of existing to a finite being.

I don't think that scans. Are you saying something like, "A whole ocean can't exist to a fish that fits in a goldfish bowl?" I don't think the phrase "exists to" is going to work out for you.



The brain, incapable of ever truly understanding any infinite notion,

There are people smarter than me (and maybe even smarter than you) who seem to know what they are talking about when they talk about infinity. The fact that you and I get confused does not tend to prove that they get confused.

Infinity is in fact a "notion." That is, it is a concept formed in the human mind. That's where it lives. That's where it is comfortable. And I have no doubt that some minds are comfortable with it.



wants to do this which is why the logical error is so difficult to spot. Like Jobar says, it is extrodinarily difficult to wrap our brains around, but the fact is that there is no self-contradiction in omnipotence.

This claim is demonstrated to be false. Trying to deny that the contradiction is a contradiction is why you keep trying to limit god while saying that you are not limiting him. You can never reach clarity by using one contradiction to obscure another.



If omnipotence were to exist, then any being that is omnipotent would not be able to be limited.

Case in point.



Sounds suspiciously like a limitation,

Yes, indeed. If words have meaning, it is a limitation.



however "limited by an unlimited nature" is not a limitation.

What you want to do is to find is a position you can defend without having to commit gibberish.



It is a confusing definition of "limitless." We tend to interpret it as a limit because we are not limited by an unlimited nature.

Now you are two-stepping. Either we can know things about god, or we can't. Pick either position and stick to it.

If we get to know things about god, then you can say he is omnipotent, but by logic we know you are wrong.

If we don't get to know things about god, then you don't even get to say he is omnipotent.

Pick either position. Just don't try to say that you get to know about god and I don't.

crc

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by wiploc
1. If god can do anything, anything at all, then he can make a rock so big he can't lift it.

You can stop right here. This is logically false. If God can do anything, anything at all, he cannot make a rock so big that he can't lift it. Only limited things can achieve limit by definition. Unlimited things cannot.

Originally posted by wiploc
I am not "rejecting" omnipotence. I am pointing out that omnipotence necessarily leads to contradiction. If logic works, nothing is omnipotent.

I don't argue that "something is omnipotent." I argue that omnipotence is not incoherent in the sense that you are using. Though it may, as Jobar claims, be incoherent in the same sense that infinity is incoherent. My point is that the rock paradox is not a logical contradiction by the rock paradox. It only appears to be.

Originally posted by wiploc
You want to put restrictions on god anyway, so why don't you just admit it? Why don't you just say something like, "God isn't truly omnipotent; there are things he can't do. He can't die, for instance. But he's nearly omnipotent, because he can do anything that doesn't lead to a logical contradiction."

Belief in a nearly-omnipotent god is a common position. It's what you are trying to do anyway, why don't you just admit that this is your position? There is no reason to fight yourself, no reason to say you taking one position while really taking another.


Ok. :) God is restricted by being unrestricted. He cannot be restricted, therefore he can never be not powerful enough to do anything. Therefore he cannot make a rock too big for him to lift.

Originally posted by wiploc
I don't think that scans. Are you saying something like, "A whole ocean can't exist to a fish that fits in a goldfish bowl?" I don't think the phrase "exists to" is going to work out for you.

No. Unlimited and limited do not parallel to a goldfish bowl and an ocean. This would be a parallel between great and small. Unlimited and limited are not specific quantities by definition.

Originally posted by wiploc
This claim is demonstrated to be false. Trying to deny that the contradiction is a contradiction is why you keep trying to limit god while saying that you are not limiting him. You can never reach clarity by using one contradiction to obscure another.

The point is that it is not demonstrably false by the rock paradox. I have demonstrated the error using no contradiction. Unable to be limited means exactly that. If I am unable to be limited, I can't not do anything. The rock paradox assumes omnipotence ought to include a double negative, then shows the double negative as proof that it is not possible.

Originally posted by wiploc
What you want to do is to find is a position you can defend without having to commit gibberish.

lol. I agree. When explained logically, the rock paradox is gibberish. "God is limited by his unlimitedness, therefore he is limited and not unlimited," is as coherent a conclusion as I can conjure up from the backward logic of the rock paradox.

Originally posted by wiploc
Now you are two-stepping. Either we can know things about god, or we can't. Pick either position and stick to it.

If we get to know things about god, then you can say he is omnipotent, but by logic we know you are wrong.

If we don't get to know things about god, then you don't even get to say he is omnipotent.

Pick either position. Just don't try to say that you get to know about god and I don't.

crc

Perhaps Jobar's point can help us here. Can we know what omnipotence is? We can call it unlimited power, but how can we know really what this is? I think Jobar is right in that, we can refer to infinity, but we can't really experience it, therefore we can't really understand it. "Never ending" and "unbounded" is an abstract notion that is supposed to work, since it's required for mathematics, but can never actually be apprehended by the bounded, mortal human mind. Therefore, we can assume, for the sake of argument, that God is omnipotent, but questions of what he can and can't do fail by definition. Again, it's like asking what the maximum integer is in infinity. What's higher than one and all the zeros that can fit in the universe? ;) Once you start to calculate this, you reject the notion of infinity. Rejecting infinity is not proof that there is no infinity. It is a personal opinion, which, if based on an argument which arbitrarily rejects it, is not based in rationality.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by HRG
May I quote you on that point next time an apologist claims that God is not responsible for evil acts ?

"A dies horribly from Ebola" or "B kills C after raping her" fall under the extent of "something that comes to pass", don't they ?

Regards,
HRG.

No, but you may quote God: "Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

So what?

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Jobar
My point is that the very concept of omnipotence is incoherent, irrational. We can't talk about it meaningfully. Perhaps we can talk about a power which approaches omnipotence- which is the reason I bring up the bit about black holes. A theological theory of limits, if you will! If we cannot find any power which is capable of the actions in my thought experiment here, it may be reasonable to assert that there are no omnipotent powers- at least, we can find no powers which approach infinity at our present state of knowledge.

HRG:
May I quote you on that point next time an apologist claims that God is not responsible for evil acts ?

"A dies horribly from Ebola" or "B kills C after raping her" fall under the extent of "something that comes to pass", don't they ?


:notworthy :notworthy

Theophilus, I assure you that *I* will save that remark. It'll come in very handy the next time you try to talk about free will. ;)

Don't you guys pay attention. I have never spoken of, will never speak of free will.
Free will is an illusion. If you don't think so, cite me one thing that you can will to do which is against nature.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Jobar
My point is that the very concept of omnipotence is incoherent, irrational. We can't talk about it meaningfully. Perhaps we can talk about a power which approaches omnipotence- which is the reason I bring up the bit about black holes. A theological theory of limits, if you will! If we cannot find any power which is capable of the actions in my thought experiment here, it may be reasonable to assert that there are no omnipotent powers- at least, we can find no powers which approach infinity at our present state of knowledge.

It is only difficult because you try to think of it in terms of the creation, i.e., naturalistic categories. Incomprehensibility does not equate with irrational.
God is incomprehensible; as finite, contingent creatures, we cannot exhaustively understand his infinite, self-existent nature. But we can understand it as a concept and speak about it.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by wiploc
Which is like saying, "2+2=4 fails because ..."

No, it isn't like saying that at all. One is a statememt about mathematical principles based on experience, the other is a discussion of philosophical, non-empirical realities.

1. If god can do anything, anything at all, then he can make a rock so big he can't lift it.

The question itself is defective and any attempt at answering will be defective.

God and a rock do not share the same existence. God is spirit, he does not occupy space, he does not "function" by physical laws. Hence, he does not "lift" rocks of any size in the sense that Herculese would.
You are confusing ontology and therefore this puzzle is unintelligible.
I know this won't stop you from pushing this, but I can only try. As the theme of the website, "a drop of reason in a pool of ignorance."

The declaration of God's omnipotence is not stated in some bare theological way. It is always stated in the context of his ability to do what he has promised, to keep his covenants and as assurance that his eternal purposes will be fulfilled.

That is the only point at issue. Not only that he is completely sovereign over his creation but that whatever he "wills" to do, and only what he ordains, comes to pass.

The rest of this is foolishness.


There used to be a statement at the head of this forum warning against posting the same things over and over again. This "paradox" is nonsense and needs to be retired. It is full of logical and philosophical errors and needs to be dropped.
It gives the illusion of saying something meaningful but only reveals the ignorance (lack of knowledge) of those who repeatedly bring it up.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by theophilus
Free will is an illusion. If you don't think so, cite me one thing that you can will to do which is against nature.

Even if free will was an illusion, this would be no test unless we had the illusion that we could do things against nature.
crc

[wiploc]

Originally posted by theophilus
There used to be a statement at the head of this forum warning against posting the same things over and over again.

Thanks for this constructive criticism.

Is it your position that people should be able to claim god is omnipotent as often as they want, but other people shouldn't refute that claim as often as it is brought up?




This "paradox" is nonsense and needs to be retired. It is full of logical and philosophical errors and needs to be dropped.
It gives the illusion of saying something meaningful but only reveals the ignorance (lack of knowledge) of those who repeatedly bring it up.

[deleted comment]

Would you care for a debate? I'd love to have you in a situation where you are expected to defend your claims.
crc

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by theophilus
There used to be a statement at the head of this forum warning against posting the same things over and over again. This "paradox" is nonsense and needs to be retired. It is full of logical and philosophical errors and needs to be dropped.
It gives the illusion of saying something meaningful but only reveals the ignorance (lack of knowledge) of those who repeatedly bring it up.

While I agree with the fact that the so-called paradox is nonsense and has been shown repeatedly on these forums to be such, I wouldn't go so far as to forbid people from bringing it up. There are new readers here everyday and I think the beauty of forums like this is that they address any questions people have, from laymen to folks with advanced degrees in philosophy and science. I think it's important to remember that people of all ages post here and not everyone has been exposed to things that many of us would accept as axioms. And even those who repeatedly refuse to accept an argument as valid without any logical refutation of it should still have a voice here. While stubbornness ought to be labeled for what it is, I don't think it ought to be banned. People who won't be objective can always be ignored until they are.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by long winded fool
While I agree with the fact that the so-called paradox is nonsense and has been shown repeatedly on these forums to be such,

I'd love to see a bit of explanation.
crc

[theophilus]

Originally posted by wiploc
Thanks for this constructive criticism.

Is it your position that people should be able to claim god is omnipotent as often as they want, but other people shouldn't refute that claim as often as it is brought up?

I have never seen Omnipotence presented as an affirmative argument fo the existence of God. It is always a negative argument against such.
Omnipotence is a theological term and only has significance within a belief system.
So, no it is not my position that a positive claim can be made without refutation. It is my position that no such positive claim has ever been used as an apologetic argument for the existence of God.

[deleted comment]

deleted response

Would you care for a debate? I'd love to have you in a situation where you are expected to defend your claims.
crc

Well, I was under the impression that we were debating here and I always try to defend my claims, however unsatisying that might be to my opponents.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by xorbie
What if we simply said that the laws of physics come from God, and it is against God's nature to violate his nature (if this makes sense...). Miracles be damned.

How about we don't simply say that because it doesn't represent Christian theism?

How about if we simply stop this nonsense?

[theophilus]

Originally posted by wiploc
Even if free will was an illusion, this would be no test unless we had the illusion that we could do things against nature.
crc

Or if we had the illusion that we had the illusion that we had the illusion, etc.

Enjoy yourself.

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by wiploc
I'd love to see a bit of explanation.
crc

God is only "restricted" by being unrestricted. Unrestricted means He cannot be restricted, therefore he is not restricted, therefore can never be not powerful enough to do anything. Hence the logical conclusion that He cannot make a rock too big for Him to lift. "No" is the correct answer to the question. This conclusion is about a lack of restriction, which is obviously not a restriction. An inablility to be limited is an absence of inablility, despite the presence of the word inablility. This is merely a flaw in human communication.

If I am unable to be limited in my power, I am never unable to do anything. Can I be unable to do something? No. I am unable to be unable to do something. I am unable to do anything outside of my power, because "anything" isn't defined outside of my power. This is a prerequisite for omnipotence. Can an omnipotent thing make a rock so big even it can't lift it? No. Not unless it is not omnipotent, in which case it can. If God is omnipotent, is God also not omnipotent? The two are mutually exclusive, so the only logical answer must be no. Since God is omnipotent, he absolutely cannot make a rock so big that even He can't lift it.

[Calzaer]

bump!

[Jobar]

Calzaer, normally it's expected that if you want to continue a thread, you ask a question or make a statement which furthers the conversation or debate. But I'll agree that despite theo's objections, we haven't squeezed all the juice out of this.

We live in a limited universe. For that reason, when we try to talk about something unlimited, we cannot determine what is being talked about; it's indeterminate.

Theo and lwf, my whole point in starting this thread is to pinpoint just *why* this paradox is 'nonsense', in theo's apt term. It's not because of the 'limited' part of the problem, it's the unlimited part that stops it from being sensible.

Non-cognitivism (AKA igtheism) is the POV that God cannot be defined in any way which we can discuss or think reasonably about. And if you want to define God as unlimited- well, you cannot define unlimited in any meaningful way.

So, theo, if you come back and see this, can you tell us why you are a theist and not a non-cognitivist? How do you justify calling the rock paradox 'nonsense', as a theist who presumably thinks God can be talked about meaningfully?

I also think I will get wade w, who is a mathematician with some experience in thinking about infinites, to come look at this thread.

[Calzaer]

Is there a reason that an omnipotent god should be able to do the logically impossible (without, I suppose, changing the rules of logic first)? As in, create a married bachelor or a square circle?

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Calzaer
Is there a reason that an omnipotent god should be able to do the logically impossible (without, I suppose, changing the rules of logic first)? As in, create a married bachelor or a square circle?

An omnipotent god could do anything.

Many Christians aren't willing to defend god as truly omnipotent, though. So they use the same word, "omnipotent," to refer to a lesser deity. They also, under pressure, will admit that they don't actually believe he is omnibenevolent or omniscient, though, once again, they keep using those words in order to conceal their heresies from themselves. Different Christians yield on different points, but no Christian can be true to the meaning of all three words without falling foul of the Problem of Evil.

Demoting god to what I'll call "logically omnipotent" (he can do anything except violate logic) doesn't save them either. If they don't yield on omnibenevolence or omniscience, then they have to say there are some things consistent with logic that god still can't do.

crc

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by Calzaer
Is there a reason that an omnipotent god should be able to do the logically impossible (without, I suppose, changing the rules of logic first)? As in, create a married bachelor or a square circle?

Can God make a non-existent thing? Can he operate outside of space and time, when space and time are required before "operate" can be defined? Whatever it is that God can do "outside" of the boundaries of space and time or logic cannot, by definition, be defined by those who require all three to function.