God

[[BoT] Jason]

Can Your God Create a Rock That it Cant pick up??

[[BoT] Jason]

dunno. move it then

just a question my pastor asked

no straight answer i got

[semper]

It's meant to be a paradox. The perfect being, with limitless power should be able to create a rock it could not pick up, yet that would make it not all powerful.

Echoes of the perfect island argument. Think of a perfect island, if it is so perfect and you can imagine it, then it MUST exist, this would apply to God. Of course, the counter to this is...think of a perfect giraffe, no! Think of a perfect mound of mud..

it goes on..

there is no sure fire proof for God, the most LOGICAL argument for it would that of intelligent design, and even that is not so full proof. Gad really is a big leap of faith.

[Juliette]

There's a simple solution to every logical paradox, your mind is just too shrunk to handle it. No offense, Super, or anyone, but that's just it. Unless you know the answer.

The only way God can create a rock he cannot lift is in an absurd situation where they are constrained by reality. Theoretically, God could adjust the 'Laws of Nature' to enable him to create a rock he cannot lift. That would defeat the point of creating the rock though.

No.. the simple fact is that either our definition of God (as omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent) is wrong, or God does not adhere to regular logic, stands outside of this reality, does not exist (but since the paradox assumes the existence of a hellenistic deity), or the paradox is proven to be nothing but an attempt at being a nuisance. Who knows..

[Deaths_Rider]

There's a simple solution to every logical paradox, your mind is just too shrunk to handle it. No offense, Super, or anyone, but that's just it. Unless you know the answer.

who would take offense to that?

its kinda common sense that human brain cannot comprehend everything

what are you talking about i comprehend everything*



*everything may only include the word everything

[Mister Sandman]

How do we even apply human logic to God? This question, in fact traps the answerer to answer with a complete definition of God. Which the matter is that no man can 100% understand or comprehend who God is. Thus, the question is void. Because to make even a workable question we need absolute definitions of each subject.

[semper]

There's a simple solution to every logical paradox, your mind is just too shrunk to handle it. No offense, Super, or anyone, but that's just it. Unless you know the answer.

The only way God can create a rock he cannot lift is in an absurd situation where they are constrained by reality. Theoretically, God could adjust the 'Laws of Nature' to enable him to create a rock he cannot lift. That would defeat the point of creating the rock though.

No.. the simple fact is that either our definition of God (as omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent) is wrong, or God does not adhere to regular logic, stands outside of this reality, does not exist (but since the paradox assumes the existence of a hellenistic deity), or the paradox is proven to be nothing but an attempt at being a nuisance. Who knows..

That's not a solution to the paradox though is it...as you're changing the definition of god, or introducing new aspects to its attributes (constrained by reality for example)... if they were indeed the case, it would not be a paradox to begin with... but then again, it's still not an answer to the paradox.

The paradox is a wonderful demonstration of the inadequacies of human language and comprehension, as really if God does exist by our limited ideas of it, it would have a way to create a rock it could not lift, but still lift it even if we could not understand how. It's the same paradox/anti-god argument as it being a perfect being with imperfect attributes and acting in imperfect ways yet remaining perfect.

there is no suitable answer a human being can come to other than..."that's just the way it is, who am I to question the almighty."

So either we change some of the attributes to make life easier for our small minds like you have done, in which case that's NOT solving the original paradox or we just smile and take the paradox as it is...

or our third wonderful option, as you so very correctly and rightly pointed out is to question the human races actual idea of God..but good luck with that one and finding another one that sticks so well...

[[BoT] Jason]

There's a simple solution to every logical paradox, your mind is just too shrunk to handle it. No offense, Super, or anyone, but that's just it. Unless you know the answer.

The only way God can create a rock he cannot lift is in an absurd situation where they are constrained by reality. Theoretically, God could adjust the 'Laws of Nature' to enable him to create a rock he cannot lift. That would defeat the point of creating the rock though.

No.. the simple fact is that either our definition of God (as omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent) is wrong, or God does not adhere to regular logic, stands outside of this reality, does not exist (but since the paradox assumes the existence of a hellenistic deity), or the paradox is proven to be nothing but an attempt at being a nuisance. Who knows..

That's not a solution to the paradox though is it...as you're changing the definition of god, or introducing new aspects to its attributes (constrained by reality for example)... if they were indeed the case, it would not be a paradox to begin with... but then again, it's still not an answer to the paradox.

The paradox is a wonderful demonstration of the inadequacies of human language and comprehension, as really if God does exist by our limited ideas of it, it would have a way to create a rock it could not lift, but still lift it even if we could not understand how. It's the same paradox/anti-god argument as it being a perfect being with imperfect attributes and acting in imperfect ways yet remaining perfect.

there is no suitable answer a human being can come to other than..."that's just the way it is, who am I to question the almighty."

So either we change some of the attributes to make life easier for our small minds like you have done, in which case that's NOT solving the original paradox or we just smile and take the paradox as it is...

or our third wonderful option, as you so very correctly and rightly pointed out is to question the human races actual idea of God..but good luck with that one and finding another one that sticks so well...

there is no straight answer as stated . so lets change this into a disscussion on how we can get a straight answer from this situation

[semper]

There's a simple solution to every logical paradox, your mind is just too shrunk to handle it. No offense, Super, or anyone, but that's just it. Unless you know the answer.

The only way God can create a rock he cannot lift is in an absurd situation where they are constrained by reality. Theoretically, God could adjust the 'Laws of Nature' to enable him to create a rock he cannot lift. That would defeat the point of creating the rock though.

No.. the simple fact is that either our definition of God (as omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent) is wrong, or God does not adhere to regular logic, stands outside of this reality, does not exist (but since the paradox assumes the existence of a hellenistic deity), or the paradox is proven to be nothing but an attempt at being a nuisance. Who knows..

That's not a solution to the paradox though is it...as you're changing the definition of god, or introducing new aspects to its attributes (constrained by reality for example)... if they were indeed the case, it would not be a paradox to begin with... but then again, it's still not an answer to the paradox.

The paradox is a wonderful demonstration of the inadequacies of human language and comprehension, as really if God does exist by our limited ideas of it, it would have a way to create a rock it could not lift, but still lift it even if we could not understand how. It's the same paradox/anti-god argument as it being a perfect being with imperfect attributes and acting in imperfect ways yet remaining perfect.

there is no suitable answer a human being can come to other than..."that's just the way it is, who am I to question the almighty."

So either we change some of the attributes to make life easier for our small minds like you have done, in which case that's NOT solving the original paradox or we just smile and take the paradox as it is...

or our third wonderful option, as you so very correctly and rightly pointed out is to question the human races actual idea of God..but good luck with that one and finding another one that sticks so well...

there is no straight answer as stated . so lets change this into a disscussion on how we can get a straight answer from this situation

Universe and I have both just answered that already.

You cannot without changing the terms of the paradox or the idea of God.

[Thriller]

There's a simple solution to every logical paradox, your mind is just too shrunk to handle it. No offense, Super, or anyone, but that's just it. Unless you know the answer.

The only way God can create a rock he cannot lift is in an absurd situation where they are constrained by reality. Theoretically, God could adjust the 'Laws of Nature' to enable him to create a rock he cannot lift. That would defeat the point of creating the rock though.

No.. the simple fact is that either our definition of God (as omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent) is wrong, or God does not adhere to regular logic, stands outside of this reality, does not exist (but since the paradox assumes the existence of a hellenistic deity), or the paradox is proven to be nothing but an attempt at being a nuisance. Who knows..

This paradox is actually derived from the abstract idea on ininity..

.. i'm still waiting for your complete definition on it universe.

[Mordack]

I'm reminded of a scene in something or other where an alien/god/whatever has come down to nineteenth century earth and is somehow forced to interact with some of the residents. When one of them clocks on that something isn't right, he asks the being in question to explain itself. The being points to a nearby beetle, crawling on a rock, and asks if the human would be able to explain his own existence to the beetle and make it understand. When the human replies that he couldn't, the alien/god/whatever says that he could no more explain his existence to the human then he could to the beetle. I wish I could remember what that was from.

The title of this thread made me think of the John Lennon lyric, though: "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

[Stubert]

Please post useful things towards the discussion stubert.

~Semper

[agapooka]

Ask the right questions.

What qualities would a rock need to have in order to be unliftable by an omnipotent being?

Would it need to be excessively heavy? Even then, omnipotence means that an infinitely heavy rock could be lifted. Is this a question of whether or not God could, temporarily or even permanently, give up its omnipotence? That would be a better question. If it can, it can certainly create a rock that it cannot lift. This is all in theory, of course.

Practically speaking, I see no motivational force that would push an omnipotent being to giving up their omnipotence, which, surely if they are omnipotent, they could do.

Quite like I am unmotivated to kill myself right now, but I could do it. This isn't a paradox.

Another possibility would be to make the rock omnipotent, in which case, who knows what would happen? What if the rock resolves not to be lifted and the deity resolves to lift it and both are omnipotent? THAT would be a paradox worth considering. kthx.

Agapooka

NB: I could rephrase the question...
"Can Admin create a user he cannot ban?"
(Assuming that he remains capable of operating the computer, remembers his password, his computer and servers don't crash and there are no hackers attacking him. )

[Thriller]

whether or not an omnipotent being could make himself unomnipotent is at the heart of the paradox created in the rock thought experiment. Because if the being where able to truly make itself unomnipotent it could not go to being omnipotent again; since it would no longer have the power to do so. It it is impossible for an unomnipotent being to make itself omnipotent; to do so would mean that would mean it was still omnipotent the entire time and never really achieved unomnipotent status.

See the paradox there.

Agapookas post derives some interesting talking points though.
Could the being separate itself into two unomnipotent parts? meaning that the whole is all powerful while the parts are finite.
Are two infinites able to coexist in the same reality?
...


So the paradox still stands if it could create such a rock that it is unable to lift. This is an inherent paradox lying in idea of infinites and to tackle that subject matter fully you would probably need two or more phd's in theoretical physics.
Not saying it is not fun to try.

[agapooka]

whether or not an omnipotent being could make himself unomnipotent is at the heart of the paradox created in the rock thought experiment. Because if the being where able to truly make itself unomnipotent it could not go to being omnipotent again; since it would no longer have the power to do so. It it is impossible for an unomnipotent being to make itself omnipotent; to do so would mean that would mean it was still omnipotent the entire time and never really achieved unomnipotent status.

See the paradox there.

Agapookas post derives some interesting talking points though.
Could the being separate itself into two unomnipotent parts? meaning that the whole is all powerful while the parts are finite.
Are two infinites able to coexist in the same reality?
...


So the paradox still stands if it could create such a rock that it is unable to lift. This is an inherent paradox lying in idea of infinites and to tackle that subject matter fully you would probably need two or more phd's in theoretical physics.
Not saying it is not fun to try.

So, basically you disagree that an omnipotent being could temporarily be wholly unomnipotent? What about permanently?

And concerning the temporary paradox, I see none. Before giving up its omnipotence, it can create an automatic timer that will give it its omnipotence back - transferring omnipotence to a subservient force that lacks the free radical of free will and will dependably transfer it back according to programming. See?

So yeah, I agree that an unomnipotent being couldn't make itself omnipotent, but while it still has omnipotence, it can empower another being to make it omnipotent after it has given up its omnipotence. It can even create that being and program it to be dependable.