God's Paradox/ Omnipotence Paradox

[Phi for All]

Perhaps it's a misinterpretation, but when you comment on a spelling mistake besides the point it of the post it makes you appear as though you are strawmanning.

 

I thought I made it fairly clear that I wasn't sure of your point because you kept referring to yourself and God with regard to omnipotence, and therefore wasn't sure it was a misspelling. It became the point because you kept doing it. It didn't make sense to me.

 

So then we should agree that unless there's something that can overturn the paradox, true omnipotence cannot exist.

 

We agreed on that quite some time ago. And now we agree that it is a paradox, it seems.

[MonDie]

Suppose God is omnipotent by definition. If God makes something that he has no power over, then he is no longer God, by definition. Voila!

Edited June 12, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Phi for All]

Suppose God is omnipotent by definition.

 

God is unobservable scientifically by definition. He seems to have chosen not to manifest himself in a way we can test. It could be that omnipotence is just another definition that puts God more firmly in the realm of the supernatural.

[MonDie]

God is unobservable scientifically by definition.

 

by what definition?

[SamBridge]

by what definition?

I wouldn't necessarily say it would be impossible to observe god at all, but being super-natural almost literally means above or immeasurable to science, not physical.

[sunshaker]

How i see it is if god is omnipotent he could create a rock he could not lift, then he would recreate himself out side himself as he his omnipotent, Then lift himself and the rock,

[knownothing]

If the definition of omnipotence is "the ability to do anything" than it is just begging to be a paradox. Statements with absolutes are often unsound. If there is such a thing as an omnipotent being, it would be impossible for any entity to possess the ability to do "anything" because "anything" involves being more than omnipotent, which is illogical. For that matter, it is just impossible to be able to "do anything" period.

 

I'm going to be the devil's advocate here (or God's advocate, ha ha). I do not think that omnipotence is usually thought of as "the ability to do anything." Does it really count if he cannot create something that he can't lift? If a god is omnipotent, shouldn't it logically be impossible for something to be more powerful than that god? Doesn't his inability to create a rock that he can't lift just attest to his omnipotence?

 

Having an inability =/= the loss of omnipotence. In this case, the inability is an inability to fail. It becomes kind of dumb when we are saying a being is not supremely powerful because it cannot fail at being powerful. It is only in our vocabulary that we define it as a lack of power, when in reality it is an affirmation of power. Since the god cannot create a rock that it cannot move, all that that means is that it is not stronger than itself.

 

So, to recap, it is only a paradox if the definition of omnipotence is "the ability to do anything." If it is merely "unlimited power" then that falls in line with not being able to make a rock that you cannot lift, because the inability has to do with unlimited power as opposed to a weakness. I think this is among the least of a religious person's worries when it comes to stuff that doesn't make sense.

Edited June 12, 2013 by knownothing

[Phi for All]

by what definition?

 

The Bible's. Many of those who interpret that work often say it's because we couldn't bear to see him (even though we're made in his image), or that if he revealed himself to us it would negate free will, or that it would make faith meaningless. No matter which version you believe, God is, by definition, not going to allow himself to be observed in a testable, repeatable, predictable way in order to satisfy science of his existence.

 

So, to recap, it is only a paradox if the definition of omnipotence is "the ability to do anything." If it is merely "unlimited power" then that falls in line with not being able to make a rock that you cannot lift, because the inability has to do with unlimited power as opposed to a weakness.

 

Are you saying that "unlimited power" has the limitation that it can only be used within the parameters of the physical laws of the universe? That would separate it from "the ability to do anything".

[MonDie]

The Bible's. Many of those who interpret that work often say it's because we couldn't bear to see him (even though we're made in his image), or that if he revealed himself to us it would negate free will, or that it would make faith meaningless. No matter which version you believe, God is, by definition, not going to allow himself to be observed in a testable, repeatable, predictable way in order to satisfy science of his existence.

 

 

Of course, this image I made begs the question of what would be evidence for a god. IMO, if something really whacky happened, like the stars moved to form the message, "This is God, stop emitting carbon dioxide," that might be evidence for a god or some other kind of powerful, intelligent being(s).

Edited June 13, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Stasis]

The point is that creating that which god cannot lift does not have anything to do with omnipotence anymore than my building a house does, that's my point. No matter what, if there is a physical obstacle he cannot overcome, he cannot be omnipotent, if there is something he cannot lift even if it's something he created, then he cannot be omnipotent. Whether he can do that or has done that is pure speculation or guessing.

Because of this, if we cannot create the weight, then because that is another physical limitation he cannot be omnipotent. There's no paradox, it's just that no matter what, there has to be something he cannot do. If he isn't omnipotent then we don't have to assume he can create a weight in the first place.

I agree with Sam.....

so basically either its not a paradox to begin with.. or that the paradox is a paradox within a paradox.. because if he creates the rock which he himself cannot lift then he is omnipotent... again if he cannot lift that same rock which he created not to be lifted.. he isn't omnipotent.... so think logically in this case.... the statement makes him both allmighty and non-mighty.....i.e. he is both omnipotent nd not omnipotent.. which is logically contradictory.. so the result this is not even a paradox.. the statement is just a illogical contradiction.

[Phi for All]

I agree with Sam.....

so basically either its not a paradox to begin with.. or that the paradox is a paradox within a paradox.. because if he creates the rock which he himself cannot lift then he is omnipotent... again if he cannot lift that same rock which he created not to be lifted.. he isn't omnipotent.... so think logically in this case.... the statement makes him both allmighty and non-mighty.....i.e. he is both omnipotent nd not omnipotent.. which is logically contradictory.. so the result this is not even a paradox.. the statement is just a illogical contradiction.

 

Do you also agree with him now that he has acknowledged that it IS a paradox?

 

Well if he has physical limitations then he cannot be omnipotent. This paradox would seem to prove that. No matter what, there is at least one thing god cannot do.

So then we should agree that unless there's something that can overturn the paradox, true omnipotence cannot exist.

[Greylorn]

This paradox has been on the run for quite some time.. nd by that i mean a couple centuries. One of the most fundamental statements to question the existence of God... it goes somewhat like this.....

"Is god so almighty, that he can create a rock, that he himself cannot lift?" ... now here comes the paradox.. if god does create it and he CAN lift the rock.. that means it wasn't created according to the mentioned condition in the first place.. so he's not almighty.... then again if he does create such a rock.. nd he CAN'T lift it.. that means he's not Almighty nd allpowerfull as he lacks the strength to lift it... so basically a two way trap..

Now having said these... I am a firm believer in the acts and existence of God,... so here's my real question.. what can be the possible solutions to this extraordinarily engineered paradox... ??

Nothing "extraordinarily engineered" about this paradox, since I first came up with it in 4th grade Catholic religion class, greatly annoying the young priest teaching the class.

 

Paradoxes tell us that our initial hypotheses are false. IOW an hypothesis that leads to a paradox is a falsified hypothesis. Centuries ago, Xeno's paradoxes demonstrated that motion is impossible. Last century we learned that he was right. At the atomic level, all energy transfers are quantized. This means that a tiny particle cannot move through space, but merely jumps from point A to point B. (A and B are very close together, separated by a small unit of distance known as the Planck length.)

 

The rock paradox simply shows that God cannot be omnipotent.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Greylorn