Could God create something so big even HE couldn't move it???

[tarasan]

The second definition is a bad one. Our abilities aren't limited by our personalities. Just because I'm unwilling to do something doesn't mean that I'm incapable of it.

again until you can tell me why definition in my first talk is a bad one i dont believe why I should change, after all church history is definately on my side when it comes to this topic infact they have been saying that omnipotience is only true under certain clauses for example
Aquinas says that "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God."

I mean Aquinas was a important church theologian! and he made agreed with the clause way of thinking!

words change their meaning through time and omnipotience is no different, holding one to strand of it and claiming that this is the only right way to define it is in my view shorted sighted of theology and church history.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

again until you can tell me why definition in my first talk is a bad one i dont believe why I should change, after all church history is definately on my side when it comes to this topic infact they have been saying that omnipotience is only true under certain clauses for example
Aquinas says that "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God."

Okay, then "the omnipotence of God" is not true omnipotence... like how fool's gold is not true gold. Problem solved.

I mean Aquinas was a important church theologian! and he made agreed with the clause way of thinking!

I don't know what you're saying here.

words change their meaning through time and omnipotience is no different, holding one to strand of it and claiming that this is the only right way to define it is in my view shorted sighted of theology and church history.

Wait... so omnipotence might've meant "power without limit" at some point in the past, but it doesn't mean this any more?

Then what does omnipotence mean now?

 

[tarasan]

Okay, then "the omnipotence of God" is not true omnipotence... like how fool's gold is not true gold. Problem solved.


I don't know what you're saying here.


Wait... so omnipotence might've meant "power without limit" at some point in the past, but it doesn't mean this any more?

Then what does omnipotence mean now?

i was saying that main church theologians of the medievil era where redinfining omnipotience, refer to my first statement for the definitions.

 

[gnomon]

This question was brought up at a debate at my college tonight. It was an atheist and a christian. The atheist asked this question in an attempt to stump the christian, but instead he was left speechless to this response...

"Yes God could create something so big even he could not move it. That object would be infinite in size, and there would be nowhere to move it."

The atheist had no response. What are your thoughts?

My thought that is if this was a hosted debate they ran out of beer?

Of course, given the mundane question by the atheist and the ridiculous response by the theist I guess they drank all the beer.

 

[tarasan]

My thought that is if this was a hosted debate they ran out of beer?

Of course, given the mundane question by the atheist and the ridiculous response by the theist I guess they drank all the beer.

probably! i guess you boil down to these kinds of questions the debate is over

 

[DarkSun]

again until you can tell me why definition in my first talk is a bad one i dont believe why I should change, after all church history is definately on my side when it comes to this topic infact they have been saying that omnipotience is only true under certain clauses for example
Aquinas says that "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God."

I mean Aquinas was a important church theologian! and he made agreed with the clause way of thinking!

words change their meaning through time and omnipotience is no different, holding one to strand of it and claiming that this is the only right way to define it is in my view shorted sighted of theology and church history.

Appeal to Authority? :sarcastic

 

[tarasan]

Appeal to Authority? :sarcastic

im saying that your simplifying what omnipotience means, i went back to the church fathers to show its not as simple as you see it, by using histroy yes, just trying to show you that christians havnt used what your saying omnipotience is for a long time

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

im saying that your simplifying what omnipotience means, i went back to the church fathers to show its not as simple as you see it, by using histroy yes, just trying to show you that christians havnt used what your saying omnipotience is for a long time

So... in the Christian view, omnipotence is limitless power, subject to certain limits?

If this is the case, then omnipotence itself would be one of those logical consistencies that you said are beyond God's power.

 

[tarasan]

So... in the Christian view, omnipotence is limitless power, subject to certain limits?

If this is the case, then omnipotence itself would be one of those logical consistencies that you said are beyond God's power.

the omnipotience your phrasing yes it even inconsistant with the bible man! God can have nothing to do with evil, and therefore by this standard cannot do everything therefore is not by this standard omnipotient. like I have said before though not many people belief the omnipotience you are describing, (this point i think your not getting, we dont describe omnipotience the way you are using it!) although maybe some christians do somewhere Im not sure.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

the omnipotience your phrasing yes it even inconsistant with the bible man!

Heh... the Bible being contradictory wouldn't exactly shatter my worldview.

God can have nothing to do with evil, and therefore by this standard cannot do everything therefore is not by this standard omnipotient.

And this gets back to what I touched on before: there's a difference between not being able to do something and simply not wanting to do it.

Hypothetically, God could be capable of evil even if He never chooses to be evil.

like I have said before though not many people belief the omnipotience you are describing, (this point i think your not getting, we dont describe omnipotience the way you are using it!) although maybe some christians do somewhere Im not sure.

Oh no, I get your point; I just disagree with it. I think that your definition of omnipotence is incorrect.

 

[tarasan]

Heh... the Bible being contradictory wouldn't exactly shatter my worldview.


And this gets back to what I touched on before: there's a difference between not being able to do something and simply not wanting to do it.

Hypothetically, God could be capable of evil even if He never chooses to be evil.


Oh no, I get your point; I just disagree with it. I think that your definition of omnipotence is incorrect.

instead of argueing ill give you an article on what im trying to say, its not hte best one but i think it will do.

DEFINITION OMNIPOTENCE

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

instead of argueing ill give you an article on what im trying to say, its not hte best one but i think it will do.

DEFINITION OMNIPOTENCE

The article begs the question. It implicitly assumes that "omnipotence" is not self-contradictory, which IMO is the exact thing we're trying to figure out.

Also, I disagree with one of the fundamental leaps it makes:

Other philosophers cautiously restrict universal quantification of omnipotence in order to avoid predicating false propositions of God. Restricting universal quantification of omnipotence, they parse the claim that God is omnipotent as:
3) God can do some things.
Apparently (3) avoids predicating counterintuitive assertions of God, e.g., that God do what is logically contradictory, metaphysically impossible, and morally reprehensible.

"God can do some things" is not equivalent to omnipotence.

Here's my point: I think that omnipotence is inherently self-contradictory. This article basically says that if you interpret omnipotence in a way that's not contradictory, then it won't be contradictory. That makes no sense. It's as if when I tell you that your boat isn't seaworthy, you respond, "but if I make it seaworthy, then it will be".

If you want to claim that your god is very, very powerful, fine. I don't believe in him myself, but I don't see any inherent logical contradiction so far. But it seems like you're not satisfied with that; for whatever reason, you're married to the idea of calling your god omnipotent. Unfortunately, the title doesn't fit... and it doesn't fit because omnipotence is a logical impossibility, and therefore doesn't fit anything.

Back to the rock problem: if God were truly omnipotent, here's how you'd have to answer:

- can God create a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it? Yes.
- can God still lift that rock? Yes.

The fact that this is a paradox is your problem to sort out, not mine.​

 

[Willamena]

"God can do some things" is not equivalent to omnipotence.

But it is necessary for an examination of omnipotence within the bounds of truth, which is what a philosophical examination attempts. For instance, God cannot do anything that is impossible, else we allow that the impossible be possible.

This article explains it well.
Omnipotence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Here's my point: I think that omnipotence is inherently self-contradictory.

It would be, if we allow that all things are possible. But some things are impossible.​

 

[tarasan]

But it is necessary for an examination of omnipotence within the bounds of truth, which is what a philosophical examination attempts. For instance, God cannot do anything that is impossible, else we allow that the impossible be possible.

This article explains it well.
Omnipotence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It would be, if we allow that all things are possible. But some things are impossible.​

you willamena deserve frubals

 

[Storm]

The fact that this is a paradox is your problem to sort out, not mine.

I don't think it's a paradox at all. I think it's an infantile question based on an even more infantile notion of God, no more than Superman (yes, from the comics).

The whole thing is based on the assumption that God is a physical being like us, bound by the limitations of His body. This is about as profound an understanding of God as my son's discarded notion that God is a giant in the sky making it rain with His garden hose, and I defy you to find a believer over the age of 10 who holds to it.

But it is necessary for an examination of omnipotence within the bounds of truth, which is what a philosophical examination attempts. For instance, God cannot do anything that is impossible, else we allow that the impossible be possible.

This article explains it well.
Omnipotence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It would be, if we allow that all things are possible. But some things are impossible.​

Well done.

 

[logician]

It can be proven that an omnipotent, omniscient benevolent god cannot exist.

All other gods are not worthy of worship.

 

[logician]

If god cannot do the impossible, the how did the supposed Jesus walk on water, or turn water into wine?