-->
@Stronn
Yes, there will be a lump of rock nothing will be able to move, not even God. Which means God must have limits, which is the point.
There's a point?
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it?
Posts
Total:
95
Whether weight is linked to God's ability to lift something isn't the issue.
It is the issue if you make the ability to lift a rock the issue.
OK. But this cannot be demonstrated with an irrational example. Thus you have shown no contradiction.The issue is that God cannot be limitless without apparent contradiction.
One can easily leave weight out of it. Can God create a rock that can never be moved, even by Himself?
Inchoherant. "Can never be moved" is not a created quality. You cannot create a contradiction in God by setting up illogical scenarios. The contradiction is in your question, not in God.
If so, can He then later move the rock? If the answer to either question is no, then God has limits. But one cannot answer yes to both questions without a contradiction.
Because the question is irrational homer. It lacks sense. It is self contradicting.
-->
@TwoMan
Good post, but you are still thinking the size of the rock has a relationship with God's ability to lift it. It doesn't. God can lift all sizes of rocks equally easily. Bigger rocks are not harder for Him to lift. Like the color of the rock, the size is immaterial.
Saying "make a rock larger so that God can't lift it, is logically exactly like saying, "make a rock yellower so that God can't lift it. Neither the size or the color of the rock affect God's ability to lift it.
The question is illogical gibberish.
Has anyone ever witnessed a god do anything? Other than Michael Jordan I mean.
-->
@secularmerlin
omnipotent, or all powerful kinda implies that he can only do that which is logically possible in the first place. I don't think there is a word that describes being able to do things that aren't logically possible to do.
-->
@Smithereens
Didn't someone suggest that some god has unlimited power? For that to be a true statement the being in question could not have logical limits because those are limits. Limitless power is self contradictory in and of itself. Am I to understand that you propose that a being we can consider omnipotent would be a being of finite/limited power?
This is untrue, and you have made no effort to show any reasoning why we should consider it true.For that to be a true statement the being in question could not have logical limits because those are limits.
You are playing semantics when you say "logical limits". What is a logical limit? How does it differ from other limits? Is it sensible to call my inability to give birth, a "limit"? Is the fact I cannot be a married bachelor a limit?
The phrase " logical limit" illogical nonsense posing as rationality.
I'd say it boils down to the problem of imagining a rock that is both liftable and un-liftable at the same time.
Matthew 19:26 applies, i.e. "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
-->
@ethang5
Is it sensible to call my inability to give birth, a "limit"? Is the fact I cannot be a married bachelor a limit?
The are both limits and any being that has limits such as this is not unlimited. It's fine if you believe your god (whatever that is) has limits in fact that makes more logical sense than believing in an unlimited being but it then becomes logically contradictory to claim this being has power without limits.
Is it do hard to just admit that you believe in a god who has very definite limits?
-->
@secularmerlin
why does unlimited power suggest no logical limits?
Christians believe in an omnipotent God. Omnipotent meaning "All-powerful" meaning anything that can be done, he can do. The suggestion that anything that can't be done, he can do is a contradiction in terms. You effectively have two definitions of omnipotent to deal with, one is coherent and the other is contradictory and undefined. I would've thought it was obvious that the coherent definition must be the correct one.
-->
@Smithereens
I agree that the concept of omnipotence is contradictory.
-->
@secularmerlin
humans are the ones that invent these words to describe things. If the message theists want to convey to you is that God is all powerful, pointing out that ambiguity in the word they chose to use can lead to a logical contradiction is being pedantic and legalistic imho.
I agree that there there is a logically incoherent way to conceptualise omnipotence, but given another, perfectly ordinary interpretation of the word, I wouldn't argue that Christians are somehow obliged to define God via the incoherent term, as that would be me putting words into their mouth.
-->
@Smithereens
All powerful is a self contradictory term. Nothing can be all powerful without creating an apparent logical contradiction.
-->
@secularmerlin
If All powerful is used to mean "Can do anything possible" I would have to disagree with you. Again I don't see why ambiguity in the term means that the person using the term is forced to use a logically incoherent definition of it. If you're taking away a definition that isn't what they mean, then there's a language barrier between you.
-->
@secularmerlin
Is it sensible to call my inability to give birth, a "limit"? Is the fact I cannot be a married bachelor a limit?The are both limits and any being that has limits such as this is not unlimited.
This is untrue, and as I said, you have made no effort to show any reasoning why we should consider it true. Just saying it is a limit may work on atheist forums, but here, logic is required of you.
So answer. How are you "limited" by the impossiblilty of you being a married bachelor?
Is it do hard to just admit that you believe in a god who has very definite limits?
It is hard to accept illogical and unsupported assertions. That is what is hard.
-->
@Smithereens
Or you could define all powerful as meaning taller than a baby turtle, you see if you change the definition of a word (term) you are no longer discussing that word (term)
-->
@vagabond
The thought existed before the term. If a religion wants to convey the image of a God who can do anything possible, would you discredit their idea because the word they chose to describe it could be extended to mean something else?
-->
@Smithereens
Can you supply any evidence that they meant anything possible? They weren't in any way shape or form sophisticated enough to distinguish between possible and impossible. Dividing the waters of a sea is possible? WOW
-->
@vagabond
Physically possible --> metaphysically possible --> logically possible.
Physically impossible are things you and I just can't do for physical constraints; metaphysically impossible are things that would break the laws of physics; logically impossible things are things that cannot conceivably be done.
You're asserting that religious people invariably believe that God can do logically impossible things. you believe that unless he can do said things, he can't be omnipotent because omnipotent necessitates anything logically possible or not.
Have you considered that though religious people claim God can do anything, they don't claim God can sin? If their definition of omnipotence is as you say it is, then Christian would widely believe God can sin. They believe the opposite however, so your view of what Christians believe about God's omnipotence is misguided.
-->
@Smithereens
Actually you just proved how unaware christians are of the consequences of their beliefs, their beliefs are proof that their gods CAN"T exist. And that's the whole point.
BTW it has nothing to do with my beliefs re gods that don't exist.
-->
@vagabond
It's more to do with the logical coherency of the concept of omnipotence. You've pointed out rightly that true omnipotence is not possible because God can't do everything, but no Christian asserts that God can do anything in the first place. The definition of omnipotence that you're attacking is clearly not the one being employed by Christians.
If your argument is that Christians ought not to believe in a God that suits your definition of omnipotence, then you win because Christians don't believe in such a God.
-->
@Smithereens
It's not my definition, it's the definition that the godists need to modify in order that it is relevant and compatible to their beliefs. They need to invent a word that means what they believe, omnipotence is not word that supports their beliefs. Invent a word that means almost all powerful which is what they are forced, by reality, to embrace.
-->
@vagabond
is the need to invent a word to describe something in any way a problem?
-->
@Smithereens
You would need to pose that question to those who claim omnipotence with reservations but still omnipotence for their particular god.
-->
@vagabond
then re the OP, I don't think you have an issue with the answer "no."
-->
@Smithereens
So an "all powerful" being can do anything accept those things an "all powerful" being cannot do?
-->
@ethang5
Do you believe God can lie? How aboit commit suicide? Make a mistake? I can do all those things if god cannot do all or even one of them then god has limits.
Back to the movement question forget about weight or size, hell forget about rocks. Can the god you propose create an object of any kind that can never be moved from where he placed it by any force in any way?
-->
@secularmerlin
I tire of you dodging my questions but always having more of your own. Why do you do that? Even worse, you will make a sweeping assertion, and when challenged to show some logical reasoning behind it, you simply reassert the assertion.
Since you can't or won't answer my questions, and you can't or won't show any logical reasoning for your assertion, I can dismiss it as gibberish.
Have a good day.
-->
@secularmerlin
So an "all powerful" being can do anything accept those things an "all powerful" being cannot do?
But of course. As I pointed out to Vaga, all Christians assert that God cannot sin or do evil. I'm not sure why you ask if God can make a rock too heavy to lift when you could simply ask if God can do the simple mundane action of telling an outright lie. The answer to both is no. How does that factor into Christian doctrine on omnipotence? It means they understand omnipotence to mean anything logically possible.
You're inserting a definition into their rhetoric that they don't use and then discrediting that definition that they don't use. It's a straw-man.