and...... it must be 'pointed out';
that most of us here, cannot point our heads, in such a manner that they are not pointed!
Here is a simple theist answer to a simple theist question.
He could if He wanted to but He doesn't want to, and He's God so He doesn't have to if He doesn't want to. :wink:
Now, which god are we talking about here? The vengeful OT god wouldn't care really, because hey, if the boulder misbehaved, he would just smite it, so no point in even trying to pick it up. If it was a benevolent-type NT god, they wouldn't care either, because the boulder deserves kindness and charity, so it would only be moved if it was somehow charitable to the boulder. Buddha was not technically a god, so therefore would never have attempted such a task. The Taoist would say, "Hey, nice place to sit down and take a rest. It's a beautiful day."
As for whether or not a god could kill themselves, I am sure they could, but you know what they say about absolute power. God has it sweet...no point in suicide.
and now, musing back on this 'tour de force' in hypothesy, i must amend my answer to be:
sorry, i don't have one; so, no!
It also easy to claim a point when talking about nonsense.
That's what I said to you.
Without being excessively concerned with the paradox of omnipotence I was simply remarking that "God" doesn't even know which way is up. Whether or not "He's" omnipotent has nothing whatever to do with the mechanics of the situation. There is simply no way for "God" ( the Abrahamic one) to know which way is up. So much for omnipotence
God gave humans free will didn't he? Wouldn't that count as a rock he can't move? Just a thought...
adrian; stubborness is next to 'godliness'!
Omnipotence is a very controversial word, just as much as a God himself. So questioning omnipotence is just the same as questioning God. If someone can prove God omnipotent then one has just substantiated the existence of God. Its like asking: "can you think something that you don't know you thought?" Just a thought could be wrong just laying things out.
I believe the arguement to be flawed by virtue of the fact that it is simply a paradox. The rock is not creatable due to the fact that your use of language in this case is flawed. I believe this as follows:
1. Rocks are material objects b\c they exist as matter.
2. Matter obeys the laws of physics.
3. F = ma
4. F/(mass of any rock) = a
5. Any rock is movable given enough force.
6. We imagine a rock that cannot be moved.
7. Given (6), that rock is not a rock.
Paradox. The arguement simply falls apart due to the language you've used to define it. If we say that "rocks" aren't material objects, then we're not talking about rocks as in "stones", it's something else. You fail to define what your definition is then though. If these "rocks" aren't matter and therefore aren't required to be moveable, how do we know that they are even possible to exist if all that humans know of is that which is made of matter? Saying that God is flawed because he cannot make a rock so large that He cannot move it is like calling a mathematician flawed because he cannot find an interger that is simultaneously positive and negative.
This does not prove the absurdity of omnipotence either. The rock is impossible as is the positive and negative number. God and the mathematician both have complete control over their respective "fields." The fact that the rock is a paradox does not demonstrate that omnipotence is a paradox. It is a paradox under the language you've used to state the arguement. An omnipotent God is still possible.
You are not making any sense. You exclude the possibility of the rock for no reason.
I think a better way of putting this would be "can god make 2 + 2 = 5?" A rock that cannot be moved is tautologically equivalent to a 2 such that when doubled it equals 5. I had a discussion with someone a little while ago about free will - they said that technically since we can't do things like fly and become invidsible that we were predetermined to act logically. I pointed out that under that definition, God was predestined too, insofaras creating things on earth went.
But anyway.
The first book on anthropology I ever read (the one that got me really interested) was the Golden Bough which I found in a thrift store. Of course, it's all about god.... so I waded through several chapters of what must be a life's worth of random acontextual information hoarded and published, and it seemed to me at the time that you could divide up all of the societies that Frasier talks about into two categories - scientific ones and religious ones. That is, when the rain stops and the crops die, the scientific cultures choose to torture and kill their king/gods until they make it rain again, or otherwise entice nature into doing their will. The religious ones pray because they think they've angered their gods and maybe they'll be taken pity on. So there are two distinct conceptualizations of god/nature - something powerful and omnipotent to be feared and begged at, or something weak that we can control. Western culture is generall one of the latter religious ones, and the cultures with a weak god philosophy are generally regarded as somewhat backward, even by science. Just thought I'd share.....
The exclusion of the rock makes perfect sense:
1. Matter obeys the laws of physics.
2. F = ma
3. a = F/m
4. All matter is moveable, regardless of mass.
5. Rocks are made of matter.
6. All rocks are moveable.
7. God creates a rock that is unmoveable.
6 and 7 = Contradiction
Of course it's a contradiction! Now why you exclude the rock instead of omnipotence (i.e. the god in this puzzle) is something that you have no way to substantiate.
It's a contradiction of omnipotence as much as it is a contradiction agsinst the existence of the rock.
So why do you choose to pick on the rock? Upon what do you base that choice? ;-)
It's the idea of a rock that can't be moved that is in contradiction. It has nothing to do with omnipotence. All rocks can be moved. A nonmovealbe rock is impossilbe by definition, a priori. Omnipotence plays no part in this. The rock is simply impossible by the virtue of it's own definition (that's it made of matter.)
It is the fact that the rock is impossible under it's own definition that shows that it's impossibility has nothing to do with the concept of omnipotence.
So you're saying that God can't create a contradiction? Blasphemer!
Thalion wrote:It's the idea of a rock that can't be moved that is in contradiction. It has nothing to do with omnipotence. All rocks can be moved. A nonmovealbe rock is impossilbe by definition, a priori. Omnipotence plays no part in this. The rock is simply impossible by the virtue of it's own definition (that's it made of matter.)
It is the fact that the rock is impossible under it's own definition that shows that it's impossibility has nothing to do with the concept of omnipotence.
That's easy to do when you change the definition.
The definition was not a rock that "can't be moved".
It was a rock that the GOD could not move.
Here's an easier one for you:
Does an omnipotent being have the power to kill itself.
What's impossible in and of itself is the notion of omnipotence because it can't be self-defeating. Thereby negating one of the powers that's supposed to be included in the 'omni'.
If God is omnipotent, and He cannot move the rock, then noone can move the rock, it is unmoveable. And as I said, an unmoveable rock contradicts itself, so the arguement is invalid.
Is God a living being as we conceive of "living". God is not "living" as we understand the word. He is beyond our comprehension. Therefore, we get the same exact contradiction as before. The death of an unkillable being. Another paradox. God cannot "be killed." This is a paradox, impossible by definition. Therefore, it does not prove that omnipotence is impossible, b\c the arguement is flawed in it's use of language.
