• Inis
    147
    No, I'm saying that God is able to, but because he doesn't, there isn't a stone that he cannot lift, and so he remains omnipotent.

    Your mistake is in saying that if God can create the stone then there is a stone that he cannot lift. That doesn't follow.
    Michael

    I don't quite get the idea that an omnipotent/omniscient being is required to have logically impossible abilities, and have access to in principle unknowable knowledge. It seems we demand too much from our gods.

    I don't see that being unable to make a stone so large he cannot pick up, or a rose that is simultaneously white and red, is a slight on his omnipotence?
  • Inis
    147
    God can create a stone that he cannot lift, and if he does then he will lose his omnipotence, but if he doesn't then he remains omnipotent.Michael

    I don't think it reasonable to regard omnipotence as something you can lose just by making a stone.
  • Michael
    7.5k
    I don't quite get the idea that an omnipotent/omniscient being is required to have logically impossible abilities, and have access to in principle unknowable knowledge. It seems we demand too much from our gods.Inis

    I haven't said anything about having logically impossible abilities?
  • Jake
    1.1k
    What you guys don't understand is that the inverse relationship between parallel interpolations of the cosmic constant varies in proportion to the electromagnetic force field surrounding both the observer and the observed leading to multiple perspective views of both the seen and unseen which of course transposes the optical perception of phenomena as it appears to life forms outside of the observation area leading to a magnification of the dark energy aura of both God AND the stone which in the end means that this means whatever you want it to mean.
  • TheMadFool
    2.7k
    No, I'm saying that God is able to, but because he doesn't, there isn't a stone that he cannot lift, and so he remains omnipotent.

    Your mistake is in saying that if God can create the stone then there is a stone that he cannot lift. That doesn't follow
    Michael

    Well, the way I see it the phrase ''doesn't'' implies choice which should be free. However, in this case God doesn't create the stone because God's forced not to. After all, if God did then God wouldn't be omnipotent.

    In short God is forced to not create the stone. Being forced to do/not do something implies that God isn't omnipotent.
  • Michael
    7.5k
    However, in this case God doesn't create the stone because God's forced not to. After all, if God did then God wouldn't be omnipotent.

    In short God is forced to not create the stone. Being forced to do/not do something implies that God isn't omnipotent.
    TheMadFool

    He's not forced to. He's free to give up his omnipotence if that's what he wants.
  • Inis
    147
    In short God is forced to not create the stone. Being forced to do/not do something implies that God isn't omnipotent.TheMadFool

    Since when does omnipotence require the ability to defy logic, to instantiate logical contradictions?
  • Terrapin Station
    6k
    It's not clear to me what difference it would make if he were to actually create the stone or not.

    Either it's possible for him to create a stone that he can not lift or that's not possible. Both possibilities imply something he's not able to do (he either could not lift that rock that he could create, or he could not create such a rock). Whether he actually creates it or not is beside the logical point.
  • Pattern-chaser
    720
    This never seemed like a real argument to me and none of those solutions seemed quite right to me. The obvious answer always seemed to me to be that the whole premise is faulty. If God is defined as omnipotent, and omnipotence is understood as the ability to do anything, we should recognize that there's an implicit assumption there: This only regards things that can be done. Why would Christians define God as a being who can do things that can't be done in principle? In this case, that impossible thing is having a being that can succeed at any possible thing failing to create a scenario where he fails to do something. That screams contradiction to me.

    There might be an interesting discussion with regards to God failing to do things we are capable of but at the very least the rock thing always feels a bit silly to me. It'd be like saying "If God can't checkmate from both sides of the board in the same game he's not omnipotent."
    MindForged

    Is there anything to add to this? If there is, I can't see it. Well said! :up:
  • Inis
    147
    Either it's possible for him to create a stone that he can not lift or that's not possible. Both possibilities imply something he's not able to do (he either could not lift that rock that he could create, or he could not create such a rock). Whether he actually creates it or not is beside the logical point.Terrapin Station

    No one ever argues that god lacks omnipotence because she cannot make 2+2=5.
  • Terrapin Station
    6k
    No one ever argues that god lacks omnipotence because she cannot make 2+2=5.Inis

    That doesn't have the same dilemma built into it though. The "rock heavier than he can lift" thing sets up a dichotomy where either answer implies something a god wouldn't be able to do.
  • Inis
    147
    That doesn't have the same dilemma built into it though. The "rock heavier than he can lift" thing sets up a dichotomy where either answer implies something a god wouldn't be able to do.Terrapin Station

    I think the difference is psychological rather than logical. We can all imagine things we can't lift, and even making things we can't lift, and this clouds our reasoning.

    The paradox translates to something like this:

    Can God create logical inconsistencies?
    If not, then God is not omnipotent.

    Non-sequitur if you ask me.
  • Mww
    89
    Hey kids, god here. I don’t do this very often, but I’m reminded of one of my more astute creations.....well, according to some of you anyway, to others he was just some old dude with funny hair......which pretty much illustrates just what’s going on right now. Now I know y’all are really challenging yourselves and not me exactly with this stone thing, but really....c’mon man. Far be it from me to get in the way, you’re free.....get it? Free?.....to talk about this however you like as long as you like, but just be aware of what you’re actually doing.

    “....To know what questions we may reasonably propose is in itself a strong evidence of sagacity and intelligence. For if a question be in itself absurd and unsusceptible of a rational answer, it is attended with the danger—not to mention the shame that falls upon the person who proposes it—of seducing the unguarded listener into making absurd answers, and we are presented with the ridiculous spectacle of one (as the ancients said) "milking the he-goat, and the other holding a sieve”.....

    ......Different as are the significations in which the ancients used this term for a science or an art, we may safely infer, from their actual employment of it, that with them it was nothing else than a logic of illusion—a sophistical art for giving ignorance, nay, even intentional sophistries, the colouring of truth, in which the thoroughness of procedure which logic requires was imitated, and their topic employed to cloak the empty pretensions. Now it may be taken as a safe and useful warning, that general logic, considered as an organon, must always be a logic of illusion, (...), for, as it teaches us nothing whatever respecting the content of our cognitions (...) any attempt to employ it as an instrument in order to extend and enlarge the range of our knowledge must end in mere prating; any one being able to maintain or oppose, with some appearance of truth, any single assertion whatever. Such instruction is quite unbecoming the dignity of philosophy....”

    Peace.
  • Terrapin Station
    6k


    It's not a nonsequitur, because then logic is "above" god so to speak.
  • Inis
    147
    It's not a nonsequitur, because then logic is "above" god so to speak.Terrapin Station

    If your conception of God is an inconsistent, incoherent, self-contradictory, unnecessary entity, then I'm not sure the point of engaging with the idea.
  • Terrapin Station
    6k
    If your conception of God is an inconsistent, incoherent, self-contradictory, unnecessary entity, then I'm not sure the point of engaging with the idea.Inis

    If someone's conception is that logic is somehow "above" him, then he's not omnipotent. That's okay, people don't have to propose an omnipotent god, but I'm just sayin'.
  • Daniel
    17
    1. I am me.
    2. I am not god.
    3. god is not me nor can it be me.
    4. god is not onm
  • TheMadFool
    2.7k
    He's not forced to. He's free to give up his omnipotence if that's what he wants.Michael

    Let me at it from another perspective:

    Unicorns don't exist. The stone that God can't lift doesn't exist.

    God chose not to make either of them.

    Is there a difference between a unicorn and the stone God can't lift?

    Yes.

    A unicorn doesn't affect God's omnipotence but the stone does.

    To not make a unicorn was a free choice but to not make the stone was a forced choice.

    This is what I've been trying to tell you.

    Since when does omnipotence require the ability to defy logic, to instantiate logical contradictions?Inis

    The stone paradox demonstrates that omnipotence isn't possible.
  • Michael
    7.5k
    To not make a unicorn was a free choice but to not make the stone was a forced choice.

    This is what I've been trying to tell you.
    TheMadFool

    It's not a forced choice. He can choose to make the stone if he wishes and forgo his omnipotence.
  • TheMadFool
    2.7k
    It's not a forced choice. He can choose to make the stone if he wishes and forgo his omnipotence.Michael

    Why didn't God choose to make the stone even God can't lift?

    Why didn't God choose to make unicorns?

    The point of the stone paradox lies in the difference between the answers to the two questions above.

    In one case (unicorns) there are no consequences that impinge on God's omnipotence while in the other there are serious consequences for God.

    That's all I want to say.
  • Michael
    7.5k
    In one case (unicorns) there are no consequences that impinge on God's omnipotence while in the other there are serious consequences for God.

    That's all I want to say.
    TheMadFool

    Yes, there are consequences. But so what? Those consequences don't entail that God is forced not to make the stone, that omnipotence is incoherent, or that God isn't presently all-powerful.

    God can do anything. He can make a stone that he cannot lift. But because he hasn't made a stone that he cannot lift there's no current limit on his power. There's only a hypothetical future limit that can only be of his own making.
  • Mayor of Simpleton
    425
    hmm... odd thought here.

    If I'm not mistaken the notion of creating or making something (act of creation) is bound by the standards of either the temporal or spatial (of course it could be both).

    Is it just me or does it seem odd to suggest that omnipotence is bound by the same set of constraints of the temporal and spatial?

    If indeed omnipotence is not bound by standards of the temporal and spatial, yet the act of creation is indeed bound by them would this be an indication that:

    a) when discussing omnipotence the standards of temporal and spatial prove omnipotence as wrong?
    b) when discussing omnipotence the standards of temporal and spatial play no role and prove nothing?
    c) something else

    Oh... and somethng else...

    If indeed omnipotence is not bound by the standards of temporal and spatial, yet there seems to be a conflict in our perception of omnipotence not being able to hold it's end up against this standard of measure which is the case:

    a) omnipotence is at fault as it just cannot hold up to the standard of measure binding it to the temporal and spatial?
    b) the fault has to do with our inability to have a standard of measure that is not bound by temporal and spatial norms (implying perhaps that all language/experience is bound in the context of temporal and spatial standards); thus the fault here is due to our inability to coherently (or consistantly) speak of omnipotence?
    c) something else

    How does one speak of omnipotence in a coherent manner with language that is itself bound by a standard of measure that omnipotence should theoretically not share as a constraint?

    On a side note...

    The act of creation is cause/effect.
    Omnipotence, it seems, would/should include omnipresence; thus cause/effect in the face of omnipotence loses any and all meaning?

    Perhaps this is all but a race to the pot at the end of the ranbow filled up with gold pins and we somehow feel counting the number of angels who sit atop those gold pins grants or denies credence to the entire folly?

    Meow!

    G
123Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.