Gods limitations

[Sheldon]

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.

The standard also has all the hallmarks of being derived entirely from humans, from an epoch of ignorance and superstition, and from patriarchal Bedouin societies hostile to individual rights, and especially to women having any rights.

 

[Sheldon]

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

As opposed to having the power to do things that are impossible to do you mean? You seem to have created a rather meaningless tautology. Omnipotent in the context of deity is widely accepted as having limitless power.

omnipotent
adjective

1. (of a deity) having unlimited power.

 

[ppp]

The standard also has all the hallmarks of being derived entirely from humans, from an epoch of ignorance and superstition, and from patriarchal Bedouin societies hostile to individual rights, and especially to women having any rights.

Bingo!

The standards that they attribute to their god do not rise up to meet my minimum moral standards

 

[Brian2]

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.

What Christians have done over the years is often not the standards set by Jesus.

 

[Brian2]

As opposed to having the power to do things that are impossible to do you mean? You seem to have created a rather meaningless tautology. Omnipotent in the context of deity is widely accepted as having limitless power.

omnipotent
adjective

1. (of a deity) having unlimited power.

No it is not a meaningless tautology. (I wonder if "meaningless tautology" is a tautology)
anyway...... what I said is not meaningless, it is a definition with an inbuilt disambiguation.
This disambiguation is important since some people think that someone who is omnipotent should be able to do things that are impossible to do.
Your definition "(of a deity) having unlimited power." does not necessarily include being able to do the impossible. That part of "almighty" and "all power and authority in heaven and on earth" would leave that qualifier out because the assumption would be that people should be able to figure that out.
However that does not mean that there are things that we humans see as impossible which are perfectly possible for God to do.
With that in mind it is not really up to us humans to answer for God about what He can and cannot do.
I suppose this would go for the rock question in the OP also. It appears logically impossible to us but do we really know that it is impossible? And if it is, then it is just one of those things that don't fit the omnipotent description of God.
Actually the Bible does give other things that God cannot do, besides and unanswerable koans such as the OP.

 

[samtonga43]

Yes

Me too.

 

[samtonga43]

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.

God cannot create a rock He cannot lift. Why not? Because God is not irrational.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

There are those that claim to believe in God but do not apply the principles in the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Yes, why would he? The initial question is ridiculous (absurd) to argue or contemplate.

 

[Brian2]

In this age where the shortest distance from one point to another might not be a straight line but a worm hole, and where people of science believe such possibilities even though it seems illogical to us, it is likely also that other things which seem logically impossible to us are actually possible for God to do.
But of course to believe this is not for a sceptic even if that sceptic believes in the possibility of wormholes.

 

[rational experiences]

As humans exhibit human behaviour. Behaviour says as human I became dominion on earth over everything else.

My consciousness aware says so.

So when I lit the even balanced sky myself evening.... I named by my human words the creatures I was aware of by human used words as names. Changing.

As you have to live to know a day and to count. The human.

As today anything new I give a name. Any given moment like today by study I name. By speaking. Human words.

I know I acted like a God.

Yet I claimed what the term god meant.

It was highest.
Greatest type.
Held.
Owned a saviour as it's inheritance.

Which I said was zero....the nothing emptiness extreme cold voiding heat.

Causing cessation. Holding. The term god....so god could be rock. God could be a gas. God could be a dust. God could be a gem.

And each God was held as it's greatest. Presence. Present.

The God.

What wasn't God was being destroyed.

My human terms only.

Therefore looking for god I claim I seek the law of holding.

As I say evolution was gained. Yet I want to change evolution myself by science.

So if I know God I can force change stop change then own a new god.

It's why in my theists confession I say when a human was an ape. Yet no human was ever an ape.

It's only aware humans who know how dangerous human theists are. As it's all said first just in their human head by human want.

Not fact or evidence.

What a human said by thesis what God was in science terms.

 

[1213]

So you don't think your deity is omnipotent then? .

I think He is.

 

[samtonga43]

In this age where the shortest distance from one point to another might not be a straight line but a worm hole, and where people of science believe such possibilities even though it seems illogical to us, it is likely also that other things which seem logically impossible to us are actually possible for God to do.
But of course to believe this is not for a sceptic even if that sceptic believes in the possibility of wormholes.

What about that married bachelor, Brian. Can God create him?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Actually the issue is that God is eminently logical and would never do something illogical.

 

[Brian2]

What about that married bachelor, Brian. Can God create him?

That sounds like an easy one, but it would depend for me on definitions of married and bachelor. But you would have to ask God.

 

[samtonga43]

That sounds like an easy one, but it would depend for me on definitions of married and bachelor. But you would have to ask God.

Married? Living together as spouses.
Bachelor? A man who is not and has never been married.

 

[Brian2]

Married? Living together as spouses.
Bachelor? A man who is not and has never been married.

Sounds like a tough one.

 

[Trailblazer]

That sounds like an easy one, but it would depend for me on definitions of married and bachelor. But you would have to ask God.

God does not create bachelors or married people so that is a moot point...
People have free will so they choose to be a bachelor or get married.

There is no such thing as a married bachelor since that is an oxymoron.

 

[samtonga43]

God does not create bachelors or married people so that is a moot point...
People have free will so they choose to be a bachelor or get married.

There is no such thing as a married bachelor since that is an oxymoron.

Whoosh!

 

[vulcanlogician]

Yes

So, your position is: "God can do anything, so long as it makes sense that such a thing can be done."

I respect that opinion for the most part. Not a shred of evidence for it, but at least it makes sense.