Gods limitations

[ppp]

Where does it come from?

"To understand what we don’t know about energy, let’s start with what we do know. We know that energy may be transferred, stored, and transformed, but it cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. This means the total energy of an isolated system does not change. Now, let’s understand what we don’t know. It boils down to just two points:

1. We do not know how to define energy independent of context. For example, we can define and measure electrical energy in the context of an electrical system, like a light bulb. However, if we change context to a mechanical system, we need to redefine what we mean by energy and how we measure it. For example, a body in motion has kinetic energy. In physics, we define kinetic energy and we are able to measure it.
2. We do not know how to create or destroy energy. Arguably, the most sacred law in physics is the conservation of energy, which states energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system."

"For example, it is widely accepted that the universe evolved from the big bang. That is to say, the universe started as an infinitely dense energy point that expanded to what we now observe as reality, the sun, planets, stars, etc. However, the most profound question in cosmology is: Where did the energy that started the big bang come from? Although, some physicists have forwarded theories to address the question, no theory has gained wide acceptance by the scientific community. It remains a profound mystery."

What We Don't Know About Energy | Science Technology Savvy Life Strategies

Nothing in that article contradicts what I said

 

[Brian2]

Logically possible? Perhaps you have been listening to atheists for too long, you and me both.

Yes there is always going to be some influence from association.
The logically possible position in defining omnipotence comes from believers and the belief that God is logical and has arranged the universe that way, a way that humans can understand. Hence the Christian influenced West developed science more so than the East and their philosophies about God.
The OP question is logically impossible to do since if God can make a rock that He could not life then He is not omnipotent because He cannot lift the rock and if He cannot make such a rock then He is also not omnipotent.
So the whole thing about that sort of argument about God's omnipotence is that it is a trick question and uses the wrong definition of omnipotence.
If you think that God can pass the test of the rock that He cannot lift with a special God sort of reasoning above ours then that is one way to go but it is easier to see the stupidity in the OP question to begin with.

I don't think that Jesus meant that we could actually move a mountain I think He meant that figuratively to demonstrate how important it is to have faith, and even a little faith is very powerful.

I would say that moving a mountain is not as difficult as doing the logically impossible.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hi @Madmogwai

While the question itself creates (or reveals) a paradoxical paradigm, I think the problem consists in the way individuals often define "omnipotence" as it applies to God.

Sometimes there is an insistence that "omnipotence" means that God can do absolutely anything, even the illogical or irrational thing. (e.g. Can God annihilate himself and then restore himself? and other illogical things, etc). It is as though religionists are unable to admit there might be something God cannot do rather than a logical definition for omnipotence (such as God can do anything that can be done by a God or etc.)

For example, I agree with @YoursTrue suggestion that there are eternal laws that God himself cannot break and retain his current Characteristics.

He cannot for example, arbitrarily change certain moral laws and remain a good and just God. If he suddenly declared that it was a GOOD thing to torture and rape a child, and encouraged his followers to do this, then torture and rape would not suddenly be a GOOD thing, but instead, God would become an EVIL God rather than torture and rape of a child become GOOD. Certain principles have an eternal basis if one is to remain logical and rational.

In any case Madmogwai, I hope your own spiritual journey is a good one.

Clear
σεσιφυω

Yes, thinking of politics, people find things that are not good in various politicians -- now we see that the standard of morality changes with the times in many cases. God's standards, as you state, do not change.

 

[ppp]

Yes, thinking of politics, people find things that are not good in various politicians -- now we see that the standard of morality changes with the times in many cases. God's standards, as you state, do not change.

We don't have any god's standard. We have only humans claiming to know what some god's standards are. And that standard not only changes over time, but as we look over each and every person who is professing to know their god's standards.

And not a one of those professing god believers have any objective standard for claiming that their purported god's standards are good.

 

[Brian2]

It may seem that way to you, but it is theists who do the defining. Watch your fellow theists on this debates forum for examples. Check out the arguments for the problem of evil. I have already acknowledged that there are multiple schools of thought on what how omnipotence is defined. In fact I made that acknowledgment in a post that you directly replied to. Please. Pay attention.

So you know the different definitions of omnipotence and that the one you choose to use is self contradictory, so why do you choose to use it in such a debate when you are talking mainly with people who use another definition. There is no coming together of minds in what is really a very simple discussion, if people are using different definitions in their terms. Is it for that reason,,,,,,,,,,,,, just to be obstropolous? (I know, not the best choice of words but you no doubt know what I mean and it won't bother you as much as the definition of omnipotence does even though you know what mostbelievers mean when they use the word.)

You know you do this every time. You present your arguments and assertions. They are disassembled one by one. Then you accuse the person of just wanting to be a big meanie with dark dastardly motives. '

I'm sorry, I did not know that you felt that way. I did not mean to hurt your feelings. I know you're not a big meanie with dark dastardly motives.
Then again, if the cap fits.

I would look kinda hot in this...

If you say so. It is a hot outfit for the right person.
Some people just look hot in anything.

 

[vulcanlogician]

So you know the different definitions of omnipotence and that the one you choose to use is self contradictory, so why do you choose to use it in such a debate when you are talking mainly with people who use another definition. There is no coming together of minds in what is really a very simple discussion, if people are using different definitions in their terms.

How do you define omnipotence?

 

[Brian2]

How do you define omnipotence?

Having power and authority to be able to do all things that are possible to do.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Having power and authority to be able to do all things that are possible to do.

So God can make the sun brighter or change the location of a galaxy. But God cannot make a triangle whose angles add up to something different than 180 degrees. Similarly, he can't create a rock that can't be lifted by an omnipotent being.

That's your position?

 

[ppp]

So you know the different definitions of omnipotence and that the one you choose to use is self contradictory, so why do you choose to use it in such a debate when you are talking mainly with people who use another definition.

Only a minority use the maximal definition. Most who I encounter are ignorant of the maximal definition until I tell them. Why are you ignorant of that fact?

There is no coming together of minds in what is really a very simple discussion, if people are using different definitions in their terms. Is it for that reason,,,,,,,,,,,,, just to be obstropolous?

And again you try to pretend that no one can honestly disagree with you. As though the world revolves around your preferences.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would I have to prove I'm not God? God doesn't need a computer to communicate.
Power is what? Energy. Energy can't be destroyed.
A being with unlimited energy cannot cease to exist.
God created the rules of logic. Therefore he's not bound by them, but being a being with purpose and order, why would he violate those?

Interesting point because God made himself clear to some. Not always without a trial, however. Such as the fight between Moses and pharaoh. And still Pharaoh didn't give up.

 

[Brian2]

So God can make the sun brighter or change the location of a galaxy. But God cannot make a triangle whose angles add up to something different than 180 degrees. Similarly, he can't create a rock that can't be lifted by an omnipotent being.

That's your position?

Yes

 

[Brian2]

Only a minority use the maximal definition. Most who I encounter are ignorant of the maximal definition until I tell them. Why are you ignorant of that fact?.

Maybe I am, maybe I am not. I do not read philosophy much and so am not up on terminology even if I know a certain position.

And again you try to pretend that no one can honestly disagree with you. As though the world revolves around your preferences.

Thanks for you're insight. Maybe I am just arrogant or ignorant or both.
Hopefully I learn something from my discussions.

 

[Heyo]

So you know the different definitions of omnipotence and that the one you choose to use is self contradictory, so why do you choose to use it in such a debate when you are talking mainly with people who use another definition.

Are we? There have been posters advocating for both definitions. I didn't count them but it seems to be about equal. As I have a feeling that is outside of this debate. Not even most Catholics know the position of the RCC on the mater. (It is Thomist.)
Aquinas saw the problem of the argument of the unliftable stone and formulated his theology accordingly. Some people refuse to see the problem. And I think we can agree that they are irrational. (And I use "irrational" as a description not as an insult, I do irrational stuff all the time.)

 

[InChrist]

Can God create a Rock he cannot lift

God, the Creator of heaven and earth, is not a physical Being. God does not “lift” rocks. God speaks and things come into existence or move.

 

[Madmogwai]

Did you check to see how many times this question has been asked over time on the forum? Did you check to see how others have answered the question in the past?

Sorry this Question bothered you so much, wishing you a speedy recovery from the mental anguish and torment caused.

 

[1213]

Is there any such thing as "later" for God? Does time even exist for him?

I think Bible say God doesn't change, which is why I think He is timeless. This means then, I don't think God would do the rock, even if He could.

 

[Sheldon]

Madmogwai said: ↑
Can God create a Rock he cannot lift

The answer is proven no since He MOVES THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, and therefore ALL the rocks.

The conundrum is designed to illustrate the innate contradiction contained within the notion of omnipotence. For instance your answer asserts there is something such a deity cannot do, create the rock, thus it would not be omnipotent. Conversely if you answered a deity could create such a rock, this infers he cannot lift it, and thus is again no omnipotent.

 

[Sheldon]

I think Bible say God doesn't change, which is why I think He is timeless. This means then, I don't think God would do the rock, even if He could.

So you don't think your deity is omnipotent then? The question was can he do it, not would he do it btw.

 

[Sheldon]

Speaking of grammatical meandering. Omnipotence is an absolute. Not a comparator.

But but but, what about omnipotent lite? I've seen apologist use this risible argument many times.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes, thinking of politics, people find things that are not good in various politicians -- now we see that the standard of morality changes with the times in many cases. God's standards, as you state, do not change.

The problem is these standards assigned by believers have dated quite badly, murdering witches, condemning people who happen to be born gay, stoning children etc etc.

Also many theists have managed to change their views and see that condemning people for being gay is in fact immoral. So that seems at odds with you claim.