Can your god make a boulder so big that he can't move it?

You're suggesting that these paradoxes prove that omnipotence is impossible. However, the paradox lies in the arguement, not omnipotence. Take the arguement before, I can I find a number that is simultaneously positive and negative. That idea has nothing to do with omnipotence. But, it is a paradox. The arguement is simply flawed by definition, as are all of these questions about rocks and such.

Wrong.

There is just as much substantiation to assert that the omnipotent god that can't create a rock that heavy is impossible.

There is just as much substantiation to say that if God can't create what you call an impossible rock that the god is not omnipotent.



Sure it's flawed! It uses "omnipotent" and "god".

You have no basis upon which to declare that the flaws are not in those two words.

All your arguments assume that those two notions are possible to prove that the rock is not.

So you would find fault with a mathematician who can't find a number that is both positive and negative ?

No, I would find fault with the concept of a mathematician who can do"*ANYTHING* with numbers as that is clearly something said person can't do.

Likewise the concept of a being that can do *ANYTHING* is flawed.

How about, Can God kill that which is dead? These concepts are simply irrational, impossible under their own definition, not by any weakness of God.

I agree. A god killing that which is dead is a flawed concept. Just like the concept of a god that can do anything. ;-)

This rock moving business is faulted by OUR USE OF LANGUAGE. The rock is impossible BY DEFINITION, not b\c God is not omnipotent.

You have no basis upon which to declare this except for the fact that you assume omnipotence is possible.

It's a circular argument.

You can exchange the rock for the omnipotent god and the statement is just as valid.

True, but we do not know which is the case. Is the rock impossible if God is omnipotent? Or is the rock possible if God is not omnipotent? The fact that the rock can be impossible and God omnipotent shows that the "results" of this arguement are inconclusive. It is faulted. I was never trying to prove that God is omnipotent, only that this arguement does not prove that he is not.

There you go!



Yes, it's just a silly paradox. But can be a good conversation piece for 5 minutes.



You did a splendid job of pretending you were.

Thalion, your argument assumes that the force available is sufficient to move any conceivable rock, and if it can't be moved, it isn't a rock.

But it is illogical to insist that any rock that cannot be moved is not a rock. There is nothing inherent in the physical properties of "rock" or any other mass that requires it to be movable.

You could just as easily have said:

1. Forces are energy.
2. Energy obeys the laws of physics.
3. F=ma
4. (any force)/m = a
5. Any force is stoppable given enough mass (x/infinity = 0)
6. We imagine a force that cannot be stopped
7. Given (6), that force is not a force.

Do you see now where your argument breaks down? You cannot prove a premise by arbitrarily defining terms such that the conclusion is inherent in the definition.

BTW, the attribute of omnipotence is not inherent in the concept of "God." It is only wishful thinking on the part of human beings who would like to believe that such a being exists.

Anyway, you cannot move your own feet with your hands, standing.

True, which is one reason I don't claim omnipotence.

Law is God.

I want a God who makes fat free no carb potato chips, bloomin' onions, and Cheetos.

I will then return to church.

PS How about a nice cocaine with no unhealthy side effects that actually IS a sexual stimulant.

Then I'll even up the tithe to 15%.

God can do anything.

Paradox is a human construct. It has no application to God.

As opposed to: Omnipotent diety is a human construct that is foiled by paradox.

CDK has exposed many of my own ilk with his original posting in this thread of an age old question, and rightly so, after all if the answer to the question is demanded and so expected forth coming how do we answer? Why don't the theists hold our feet to the fire?

But we see responses such as

Finn d'Abuzz's:



Ah! The essence of elegance is simplicity. But is Finn d'Abuzz comfortable with his own explanation as regarding God's omnipotence? Perhaps, but why does he feel the need to clarify that
"Paradox is a human construct" and that "It has no application to God."? Are we to believe God set us up for all this stuff? God has no control over such things as "human constructs" such as paradox? Is this an abdication of God's responsibility towards his control over humans? If so, this can only be good news for those hoping for free will in the human condition. God created us in his own image, except when our "decisions" do not agree with...whom? Exactly where is this God's responsibility?

Then we see a perfectly reasonable request of a "God" that "can do anything" from Bi-Polar Bear who ponders his own technical aspirations towards a god who with all his omnipotence would afford Bi-Polar Bear ( and myself) with and additionally promises to given such earthly reqirements. It would seem BPB's wish for drugs that have caused so much misery to be a cause for such a deity's intervention to place them above a real world influence including good human effects sans their present real-world detrimental effects is a valid reasonable request...at least for an omnipotent God. Is there the possibility of humanistic subsets of heaven on Earth, given the church's propensity of overlapping of and encouragement towards such conventional thoughts? Given the Biblical claim regarding sexual relations between Man and Woman as God's gift is such a belief possible?

Respectably,

JM

My God is not a static, frozen God - he has a learning component to his personality.

So my god can place limits or constraints on his behaviours and actions (like not to intervene in human decisions - too promote and facilitate free will) etc to further his own plans.