Robwill; interesting point;
"4 every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"
What would be considered the "reaction" 2 the "big bang"?
The plasma of universal nothingness must be pushing back against the sudden event of our universe.
And if god were, as is often proposed, the "prime mover", it probably has some pretty nasty bruises!
Did someone mention chaos?
I think Umberto Ecco put it most eloquently when he has the narrator of his novel "The Name of The Rose," Adso of Melk, the novitiate, posit a theological conclusion to his master, William of Baskerville:
But how can a necessary being exist totally polluted with the possible? What difference is there, then, between God and primigenial chaos? Isn't affirming God's absolute omnipotence and His absolute freedom with regard to His own choices tantamount to demonstrating that God does not exist?
truth
Infrablue, is he suggesting that to exist is to be limited, i.e.,finite. Therefore, an infinite being is a non-being? Interesting.
It seems to me that the question about whether an omnipotent being can limit himself is not contradictory. If he could not make a rock so heavy he could not lift it, he would not be omnipotent. But then he has been seen to undo his omnipotence as an act of ominpotence. He WAS omnipotent but rendered himself only partially potent.
Assuming a boulder was omnipotent, could it make a God so heavy that no one could crush it? Would it play global, even universal 'Rock, scissors, paper' just for fun?
Jln;
cav is merely giving 'god'ness the degree of reverence suited 2 the concept; and, i think, this thread the 'tongue in cheekness' it invites.
cavfancier wrote:Assuming a boulder was omnipotent, could it make a God so heavy that no one could crush it? Would it play global, even universal 'Rock, scissors, paper' just for fun?
Cav, I believe you've just attained the coveted title of "Monger's Supreme Big Cheese Guru Brahmin".
This sobriquet does not come without great responsibility.
cav; now u're going 2 have 2 go 2 the 11 step meetings!
u can leave out the 1st step.
"Infrablue, is he suggesting that to exist is to be limited, i.e.,finite. Therefore, an infinite being is a non-being? Interesting."
uh-huh.
In response, William says,
"How could a learned man go on communicating his learning if he answered yes to your question?"
Adso didn't understand what he meant and said,
"Do you mean that there would be no possible and communicable learning any more if the very criterion of truth were lacking, or do you mean you could no longer communicate what you know because others would not allow you to?"
All the while, the Abbey in which they were was burning down.
William said,
"There is too much confusion here.
"Non in commotione, non in commotione Dominus."
I bought a book called The Key to "The Name of The Rose"--Eco's book has sparked a cottage industry!--for the translations of the Latin he uses. The translation is as cryptic as the Latin itself.
"The Lord is not in confusion, not in confusion."
Wow, you really outsmarted God. Nice going. Plus, this was totally origional. Nice.
Can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up?
This question is representative of the type of paradoxes used in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this. God is supposed to be omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist.
Is this logical? A little. However, the problem is that this bit of logic omits some crucial information, therefore, it's conclusion is inaccurate.
What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.
For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is and not with what He is not since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with His nature. He cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that He is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if He stopped existing then He wouldn't be in all places at all time. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating His own nature.
The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate His own nature. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, He would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big He can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self contradiction.
Since truth is not self contradictory, as neither is God, if He were not true, then He would not be God. But God is true and not self contradictory, therefore, God cannot do something that violates His own nature.
Another way to look at it is realize that in order for God to make something so big He couldn't pick it up, He would have to make a rock bigger than Himself.
Since He is infinite in size, He would have to make something that would be bigger than Himself. Since it is His nature to be the biggest thing in existence because He created all things, He cannot violate His own nature by making a rock that is larger than He.
Also, since a rock, by definition, is not infinitely big, then it isn't logically possible to make a rock, something that is finite in size, be infinite in size (no longer a rock) since only God is infinite in size.
At dictionary.com, a rock is defined as a "Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. a) A relatively small piece or fragment of such material. b) A relatively large body of such material, as a cliff or peak. c) A naturally formed aggregate of mineral matter constituting a significant part of the earth's crust." A rock, by definition is not infinitely large. So, to say that the rock must be so big that God cannot pick it up is to say that the rock is no longer a rock.
What the critics are asking is that God become self contradictory as a proof He doesn't exist. Their assertion is illogical from the start. So what they are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. They want to use illogic to prove God doesn't exist instead of logic. It doesn't work and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid.
I don't think you understand the first thing about logic.
Your last paragraph is non-sensical and reveals your cards as not understanding the paradox in any meaningful way. Nobody is "asking" god to be self-contradictory. The paradox simply illustrated the absurdity of the concept of omnipotence.
The contradiction is inherent to the absurd notion of omnipotence. If you forget about god for example and treat it as an indictment of the idiotic concept of omnipotence you will be on your way to getting it.
The above post was supremely foolish. It makes some really really dumb assumptions. The whole point is that it's notthe truth, not that the truth is "contradictory".
Here's an example of what you have done:
Person A: "Your assertion that you made that cake is false. Sally made it."
Person B: "No, It is true that I made it. So you are trying to portray a truth as false. Your concept is logically flawed because you start with the attempt to make truth false."
Note: If it's not "truth" that's about as stupid of a comment as one can make.
This is a tired old paradox with a simple lesson: omnipotence is conceptually flawed.
It's a really simple lesson, and the convoluted attempts to get around that simple point are laughable.
The irresistible force represents God, and the immovable object, the rock. Thus the question is illogical.
By the very definition of "irresistible" the force wouldn't be able to be resisted, no matter how big or great the object it meets. Likewise, an "immovable" object can never be moved, not even by an "irresistible" thing. The contradiction should not be readily apparent, but may be aided by two other examples.
Can God red? Like our rock problem, this question is also illogical because "red" is a color, not an action. It does not limit God, nor does it reduce His power or otherwise take away from the glory of God. What's the difference between orange? Same thing as in the other two puzzles. This time, "difference" necessitates two things to be compared and contrasted, in this case "orange" and - ? The question is never answered, creating a sound sentence with unsound logic.
That (the "red" analogy) is nonsensical.
The contradiction simply illustrates a conceptual flaw in omnipotence, a flaw you cede in your arguments but ascribe to the question.
Lemme explain it in plain English:
When you say "Thus the question is illogical" I am responding by saying:
No duh. The concept is illogical and the paradox merely illustrates it.
I think it's a fun paradox but it doesn't mean anything; since an omnipotent God can necessarily lift all rocks, there can simply be no such thing as a "rock so heavy God can't lift it", and no one should expect God to create such a rock just as no one should expect him to be able to create square circles.
Upon what basis do you declare that the rock can't exist? If you do so on the basis of omipotence a fair question is why you do not rule out omnipotence.
The answer is that neither can exist. Which is, in large part, why the paradox is silly.
Omipotence, by its nature, conflicts with itself. Its creation is also a creation of its contradiction (as it created an undefeatable power that contradicts the concept of being able to beat all). The rock simply defies the concept of omipotence, but only because the concept is fatally flawed.
Just for the record, I think that the concept of omnipotence is incoherent. For one thing, it presumes a form of libertarian free-will (for the omnipotent being), which is itself an incoherent concept. I just don't think that the rock lifting paradox is an adequate example of its incoherency.
Both of you miss the point.
God trancends the universe (according to some authorities) Since "up" or "lift" implies overcoming gravity there is no way any "God" could make a rock too big for "Him" to lift simply becaues in reference to a universe there is no "up".
Since there is no way for "God" to know what way is "up" then "lifting" any rock becomes impossible for "God"
.
It's easy to claim people miss a "point" when you invent nonsensical ones and claim that it's "the point".
The "up" and "down" issue isn't relevant to the point of the question. The point of a question is to simply illustrate that omnipotence is self-defeating.
If the rock is distracting you just use another question:
"Can God kill himself?"
You people talk like God and the rock are separate and different things.
Can you point your finger such that your finger cannot be pointed?
Ketchup never has this problem.
