God can do anything, therefore he can divest himself of his omnipotence if he so wishes. And one way to do that would be to create a thing too heavy for him to lift.

But as God can do anything, he can also - if he wishes - create a thing too heavy for him to lift, and lift it.

You are not omnipotent, for though you have powers in common with an omnipotent being (for anything you can do, an omnipotent being can do too), you cannot make a thing too heavy for you to lift and lift it, can you?

God can do anything, therefore he can divest himself of his omnipotence if he so wishes. And one way to do that would be to create a thing too heavy for him to lift. — Bartricks

:100:

As the root user of my computer, I can modify anything about it... including user permissions... including removing my own permissions to do things.

If there were an omnipotent God, he would be like the root user of the universe, and as such could do anything, including limiting his own -potence.

So I am god, because I am omnipotent. — god must be atheist

Using the primary principle:

Your argument doesn't make sense at the point where you, being an omnipotent God, would create a paradox with the already established monotheistic "God".

And well, humanity has been worshiping this "God" for over 4,000 years for what I studied. Long before you were born, therefore, the chances of you being God = 0.

This is my argument. To be omnipotent, God would be required to be able to do every possible and impossible thing while maintaining its omnipotence. If God got rid of its omnipotence or limited its potence, God would not be omnipotent any more. In the case God maintained the quality of omnipotence after getting rid of its omnipotence, or after limiting its potence, God would not be truly not-omnipotent, meaning that God would not be able to be entirely not-omnipotent (see the problem?).

Pretty sure I know a rock or two that you can't lift...

Unless you create a universe similar to ours on your PC. You will be omnipotent in that universe. Have all the exact same abilities that God has etc.

All you have to do, is encode all the laws of physics, then manifest a ball of atoms, and watch it blow up into a universe in about the time it takes to say, let there be light. Then skip forward a few billion years and watch the AI try to comprehend your existence, what you look like, and how could you be omnipotent.

I don't see how you not being able to lift a rock is logically impossible.

Many charge that god can't create a stone he can't lift, therefore he is not omnipotent. — god must be atheist

And if God can't draw a square circle, then he's not omnipotent, right?

Resorting to the illogical and the absurd is lame.

What is the aim for trying to prove that God is not omnipotent? Probably the aim of such is to find a justification for not believing in God.
Guess what? You don't need a justification for not believing in God. You simply don't believe, period.

I don't see the problem. Once we take seriously that God can do anything, surely no problems arise? An all powerful being has the power to make himself less than all powerful. He doesn't have to exercise it to have it. It is sufficient that he 'can' make himself less than all powerful.

Of course, an all powerful being can also make himself less than all powerful and all powerful at the same time - a prospect that makes no sense at all to us, but that's because what we use to determine whether something makes sense is logic which, by hypothesis, God is not bound by (which is not to say he flouts the laws of logic - he just could if he wanted, for he made them up).

So God can genuinely cede his omnipotence, and he can genuinely cede his omnipotent and remain omnipotent. These are two powers he has. Just as I can pat my head and pat my head and rub my tummy at the same time, so too God can cede his omnipotence, and cede his omnipotence and maintain his omnipotence at the same time. The latter we cannot fathom, but that's not a problem so much as entirely to be expected, given that we're talking about someone who is not bound by logic.

That wouldn't be omnipotence. He wouldn't be able to make contradictions true.

Many charge that god can't create a stone he can't lift, therefore he is not omnipotent. — god must be atheist

Last night I saw upon the stair...

Logic marks out the statements that are well-formed from those that are not. That there is something an omnipotent being cannot do is not well-formed. This does not place a limitation on god, only on language.

That is, most of this thread is nonsense.

Moreover, talk of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being is quite analogous to talk of a little man who wasn't there. Were there a need, theologians would attempt to develop a coherent account of Antigonish.

Whereof one cannot speak, one writes nonsense in a philosophy forum.

I don't see how you not being able to lift a rock is logically impossible. — DoppyTheElv

People here haven't heard what my grade 6 classmates back then 50-60 years ago were saying:

If god is omnipotent, he can create a stone so heavy that he himself can't lift it.

But if he can't lift it, he ain't omnipotent.

If he can lift it, he failed in creating something so heavy that he can't lift it.

This is the argument. This is not to prove that god is not omnipotent; it is to prove that omnipotence is a quality which is not possible.

So you tell this to religious friends, and they reply, "God will not want to do something (that disproves his omnipotence) that he does not want to do, and that is part of his omnipotence."

So I don't do what I don't want to do. It makes me equal to god, in this aspect of the common (if such a thing exists) conception of what god's qualities entail.

I did not spell out the whole argument, because I figured that people on a philosophy forum would be fully familiar with it, it being such a basic one. Well, I was wrong: people grossly misunderstood me, because I MISCOMMUNICATED. I admit I ought to have written out the whole argument -- but who would think that 10 or so people on a philosophy forum are unfamiliar with this argument.

At any rate, I only blame myself for this miscommunication, because I ought to have written out the entire argument in the OP.

If god is omnipotent, he can create a stone so heavy that he himself can't lift it.

But if he can't lift it, he ain't omnipotent.

If he can lift it, he failed in creating something so heavy that he can't lift it.

This is the argument. This is not to prove that god is not omnipotent; it is to prove that omnipotence is a quality which is not possible. — god must be atheist

But the argument doesn't work, which is probably why only grade 6 children are impressed by it.

He 'can' create such a stone (obviously). That doesn't mean he 'has' created such a stone.

I can go to my kitchen. That doesn't mean I am in my kitchen. I can create something too heavy for me to lift. That doesn't mean I have. And so on.

John is a bachelor. That means he doesn't have a wife. It doesn't mean that he's incapable of acquiring one.

If he acquires one, he won't be a bachelor anymore. That doesn't mean he isn't a bachelor.

God is all powerful. That means he can do anything, including ceding omnipotence. That doesn't mean he's ceded his omnipotence.

So you're repeating a 'puzzle' that simply isn't a puzzle once one starts thinking more clearly about it.

It's easy. Turn all matter and space, into an infinity large solid stone. Then there is no where to lift it, meaning, its infinitely large, and can not be lifted.

Ie, not even the creator can lift it, because there is no where to lift it too, or from.

You could encode it using procedural generation.

Well, if that's true, then I'm god. — god must be atheist

The programmer is the god of his virtual world. He can enter his world as an invulnerable super-avatar, or stop virtual time and rearrange things, or whatever he likes. Characters within the program will argue the impossibility of an omnipotent programmer to exactly the extent that the programmer has ordained. The programmer might even be able to write a program he cannot fully understand. Therefore, there is no programmer.

it is to prove that omnipotence is a quality which is not possible. — god must be atheist

What does drawing square circles or making superheavy rocks have to do with omnipotence??
Why should drawing square circles or making superheavy rocks have any bearing on a being's power?

because if he can't do them then he can't do all things. If I can do everything you can do, but I can also draw square circles then I have more power than you.

because if he can't do them then he can't do all things. If I can do everything you can do, but I can also draw square circles then I have more power than you. — Bartricks

The kind of power that gets people locked up in institutions with white padded cells.

Insisting that omnipotence should include being able to do the illogical is something 6-graders are impressed by.

Logic provides the limits for what is tenable. What some people present as the limits of God's power, are actually the limits of what is tenable, as provided by logic.

In the same way that it is impossible to draw a square circle, or a bachelor being married, or you being your own father, it is impossible for God to create a rock so heavy he can't lift.

God is defined as the greatest being, the biggest being etc.. So the concept of something being bigger than God (in this case, a rock) is a concept flawed from the onset. The way a "square circle" or a "married bachelor" are flawed from the onset.


And if you're going to make up your own definitions of "God" to begin with, and ignore the way God is defined in actual monotheistic religions, then why bother with the analysis at all? You're just arguing against a strawman.

I'm sorry good sir, but you're argument is fundamentally flawed. The claim that God is omnipotent is certainly affirmed by classical theist of course, and they do believe it to have good foundation. However, we must distinguish between two very different perceptions of what God's omnipotence entails; on the one hand, there is the interpretation of the Thomist, which is that omnipotence is the power to exercise any given set of actions so long as they hold intelligibility - i.e whatever is logically possible. This follows from the idea that the divine will follows the intellect. The other interpretation is one pedaled by William of Ockham, a voluntarist, who forwarded the claim that God's omnipotence entails that all may be willed and accomplished, regardless of whether or not it is in any way intelligible. This followed from his idea that the divine intellect follows the will, and so what is willed is what is ultimately the foundation of reality, and thus the intellect conforms to the will to mark things as "intelligible".

Of course, many egregious implications are opened the moment this idea is accepted; for example, because there is not any law of logic or intelligibility that reality need conform to except for what God wills, propositions such as 2+2=6, although contradictive and incohesive, may become an accurate manner by which to conduct mathematics given that God wills it. The law of noncontradiction would of course be heavily violated, and as such undermine whatever argument William may have forwarded to bring him to voluntarism, but nonetheless it seems as if his ideas have spread further than it should, as this post seems to show.

For given that you are arguing against the God of Ockham, of course these objections of "can God make a rock he can't lift" seem quite devastating - at least until you realize that Ockham would merely assert that God is not subordinate to logical cohesiveness (and not trivially but as a result of the very premise which brings us to this objection). But to a Thomist, or any one who takes the classical interpretation of God seriously, these objections are silly and can be answered quite easily: you simply do not understand omnipotence.

Omnipotence entails that what ever is intelligibly possible may be willed to occur. And as such, no, God cannot make a boulder that he can't lift because that is an unintelligible conception; it is not logically possible for actus purus to be undermined in some capacity by what is a composite of potency and act. Nor can God will that a four sided triangle exist, or that the internal angles of a triangle be any more or less than 180 degrees in Euclidean space. And no, that does not mean that God is thus limited by some principle above him such as logic and thus is not highest being (which is also an absurd proposition, as highest being cannot be actus purus, only being itself can be). Instead, it is to say that the divine intellect, which is God, is first before the divine will, which is God, and as such God only acts in accordance with his intellect, which, as all perfect intellectual activities must be, is cohesive and noncontradictive.

Thus, you're argument rests on more than a little questionable premise.

I find no unintelligibility about "god is capable of creating a stone he can't lift" if it comes to his power of creation. I find no unintelligibility about "God is capable of lifting a stone he had created" if it comes to his power of lifting.

It is not unintelligible to create a self-contradiction with the two. If twelve-year-olds are completely capable of understanding the proposition and seeing that it leads to a self-contradiction, then it is not impossible to expect normal adults to see the same thing.

I think you are hiding behind a rhetoric of devout god-worshippers, who can't admit that there is no such thing as irrefutable contradiction in the scriptures.

I can go to my kitchen. That doesn't mean I am in my kitchen. I can create something too heavy for me to lift. That doesn't mean I have. And so on. — Bartricks

The potency is there. The capacity to do so. The ability to do so.

Yes, god can create a stone that he can't lift. Can he? Let's suppose that he can. Then CAN he lift it? No, he can't. He fails at the CAN LIFT part.

Therefore he fails the test at the "can" state. He does not heave to actually go and try and do it.

If, on the other hand, god CAN'T create a stone (whether he actually tries or not) that he couldn't lift, that is, he can only create stones he can lift, then he fails the CAN CREATE part.

Either way, whether he actually tries in real time, or just supposes to do so, he necessarily fails in one or the other of the "CAN DO"-s.

And we agreed that omnipotence is a potency to "do". The capacity, the ability, to "do". Not restricted to any actual act, but encompassing the ability, the potency, the capacity.

Any failure at the ability to "do" will render the quality omnipotence invalid. The example puts to task those thoughts, that god can do the CREATING and the LIFTING. And that proves that there is no omnipotence as such.

I find no unintelligibility about "god is capable of creating a stone he can't lift" if it comes to his power of creation. I find no unintelligibility about "God is capable of lifting a stone he had created" if it comes to his power of lifting.

It is not unintelligible to create a self-contradiction with the two. If twelve-year-olds are completely capable of understanding the proposition and seeing that it leads to a self-contradiction, then it is not impossible to expect normal adults to see the same thing.

I think you are hiding behind a rhetoric of devout god-worshippers, who can't admit that there is no such thing as irrefutable contradiction in the scriptures. — god must be atheist

Ah yes, the accusation game, the most fun source of entertainment in the world of wannabe intellectuals where you give a rather dull fallacious argument based on straw manning against an opposing view and then label the individual as having some sort of exterior motive or underlying irrationality keeping them from enlightenment without any of the evidence to suggest let alone actually substantiate such a claim. How cheery :lol:.

Well, I suppose I'd be no better by playing such a game, so I suppose I'll just talk philosophy and not fall into nonsense or attacking the motive fallacy (though I'd be lying if I said I'm not annoyed when others do not show the same kindness).

In any case, onto the first objection:

I find no unintelligibility about "god is capable of creating a stone he can't lift" if it comes to his power of creation. — god must be atheist

Oh but there is certainly much unintelligibility here; for given that God is pure actuality (or pure being itself if you'd like), which is analogous I suppose to infinity, then nothing less than pure actuality (such as an act/potency composite) could ever limit, derail, encumber, or even produce change in God. It would be like saying that given a big enough number we can actually reduce infinity to a finite quantity; such an assertion simply does not understand that infinity cannot be reached by finitude (unless it is an infinite series of finite quantities, but then we are dealing with an infinite and an infinite, not a finite and an infinite). So yes, because there is nothing beyond being itself other than nonbeing (which is exactly that: nothing, and thus has zero effect on being), nothing can inhibit God (pure subsisting being) even theoretically as that would obviously suggest, as I said, something beyond being itself (a plainer absurdity cannot be found, as being encompasses what is, thus if something is yet isn't being... well that's like saying there's a triangle out there without three sides). Thus, it is an unintelligible suggestion that God may be ontologically inferior to anything so that he may not effect it (some may say it is reason he is inferior to, for he need obey it, but the Thomist simply holds the position that the will follows the intellect, and because all perfect intellectual activities are cohesive, consistent, and constant, so to is God, so that God is reason himself; the logos). Any objections to this argument presupposes an anthropomorphic conception of God, one which is far more contemporary and widely divorced from classical theism; one that should be easily dismissed as erroneous. Thus, if you are of such a kind, I would politely ask that you don't straw-man me by invoking such an interpretation of God into your counter argument given that I too dismiss such a God; please and thank you :).

I find no unintelligibility about "God is capable of lifting a stone he had created" if it comes to his power of lifting. — god must be atheist

This, of course, is intelligible given that God is being itself and thus ontologically superior infinitely over any and all of creation (for, unlike God who is pure actuality, they are a composite of actuality and potentiality, and thus may be subject to change, transformation, creation, destruction, passions, appetites, imperfect intellects, etc. to which God is not). As such, God could very will lift any stone he'd like given that he determines such to be good and befitting his natural end (his own goodness and perfection). If any of this is alien to you (my interpretation of God, my terms such as act and potency, my belief that God does not change or hold passions, etc.) then I truly mean without malice that you should do your due diligence towards the classical theism of the sort found in St. Thomas Aquinas (rooted in Aristotle, as you may have heard) or some contemporary Thomist, such as Edward Feser, and learn from them what it is to be a serious theist (unlike many of the theist of today who are quite shallow and worthy of every argument against them). I think it might be better than attacking the age old boring caricatures of God forwarded by today's culture and cultural intellects, wouldn't you agree :).

If twelve-year-olds are completely capable of understanding the proposition and seeing that it leads to a self-contradiction, then it is not impossible to expect normal adults to see the same thing. — god must be atheist

Very true; and if we were discussing voluntarist theism like the very kind I address in my initial response to you, you'd see that I find such a position untenable (and if you go over to the thread "Can God do Anything", you'd see how I attack quite harshly those who do forward such a "God can do anything what so ever even if its completely illogical" philosophy). But, it seems as if you've looked past that unfortunately, and indeed, lump me into the very same position I disagree with. Indeed, such is disappointing given that some of the back hand, half baked arguments you respond to me with are actually addressed in my last response; and indeed, also exemplify how I am against the labels you now place on me. For, doesn't...

it is not logically possible for actus purus to be undermined in some capacity by what is a composite of potency and act. — Questio

... give a comment on the statement....

I find no unintelligibility about "god is capable of creating a stone he can't lift" — god must be atheist

...despite it being written earlier? Geez, its almost like I anticipated this response :). Of course, if you had a problem with such a response, you should've been a little more specific; perhaps I could've thus been more useful to you, ay?

Ah, but I have the strangest of feelings that you are too busy accusing me of...

hiding behind a rhetoric of devout god-worshippers, who can't admit that there is no such thing as irrefutable contradiction in the scriptures. — god must be atheist

...inspite of conceding that God cannot make logical contradictions true:

Nor can God will that a four sided triangle exist, or that the internal angles of a triangle be any more or less than 180 degrees in Euclidean space. — Questio

How unfortunate...

I can go to my kitchen. That doesn't mean I am in my kitchen. I can create something too heavy for me to lift. That doesn't mean I have. And so on.
— Bartricks
The potency is there. The capacity to do so. The ability to do so.

Yes, god can create a stone that he can't lift. Can he? Let's suppose that he can. Then CAN he lift it? No, he can't. He fails at the CAN LIFT part.

Therefore he fails the test at the "can" state. He does not heave to actually go and try and do it.

If, on the other hand, god CAN'T create a stone (whether he actually tries or not) that he couldn't lift, that is, he can only create stones he can lift, then he fails the CAN CREATE part.

Either way, whether he actually tries in real time, or just supposes to do so, he necessarily fails in one or the other of the "CAN DO"-s.

And we agreed that omnipotence is a potency to "do". The capacity, the ability, to "do". Not restricted to any actual act, but encompassing the ability, the potency, the capacity.

Any failure at the ability to "do" will render the quality omnipotence invalid. The example puts to task those thoughts, that god can do the CREATING and the LIFTING. And that proves that there is no omnipotence as such. — god must be atheist

By the way, on a side not, completely agree with this response (and I wish I could like comments as there are many that either ammuse me or make solid points worthy of recognition).
At least until...

you realize that [the voluntarist] would merely assert that God is not subordinate to logical cohesiveness — Questio

...and as such can make the contridiction both valid logically yet untrue at the same time. Is it absurd? Absolutely. Do they deserve to be called out for it? Certainly. Does that mean they'll be convinced by this argument? Likely not my friend. Though I commend your effort :).

You realize that you sound completely like Galileo's critics in the church in his time. They said something similar to this quote: "Your argument makes perfect sense logically, Galileo/God Must Be Atheist, but we reject it because the scriptures say otherwise."

I wonder if you, Questio, think, accordingly, that the Earth is flat. If you tell me that you do, then I accept your counter-argument. If you think the Earth is not flat, then I rest my case.

↪Questio You realize that you sound completely like Galileo's critics in the church in his time — god must be atheist

What? I'm sorry good friend, but where on Earth do you get that?

They said something similar to this quote: "Your argument makes perfect sense logically, Galileo/God Must Be Atheist, but we reject it because the scriptures say otherwise." — god must be atheist

When on Earth did I say anything of that sort?! I made not a single reference to scripture, but instead to reason and history, and pointed out the flawed logic to which you employed, as it rested fundamentally on a voluntarist set of assumptions instead of a classical theistic set of assumptions (that being that the will follows the intellect and not the other way around). Where on Earth do you get this absolute straw-man retort where you compare me to Galileo's critics?! Can you give me even one quote in which you can remotely substantiates such assertion? For I certainly don't think you could, given that I had no such thought in mind at the time of writing my response. Perhaps, my friend, instead of making half baked assertions and lazy retorts you should either admit you don't know what you're talking about or actually produce a well written response to claims and arguments I actually make and defend. After all, that is the spirit of fair discussion, wouldn't you agree?

I wonder if you, Questio, think, accordingly, that the Earth is flat. — god must be atheist

@god must be atheist, what I'm truly wondering is how on Earth anything I said even remotely implies that I am a fundamentalist's Christian given that 1) I am a Catholic, and the Catholic Church does not endorse fundamentalism 2) I am a Thomist, and Thomist traditionally do not endorse fundamentalism, and 3) I made zero reference to scripture, fundamentalist's interpretations, or anything even remotely concerning such things. I made responses purely based on Thomistic philosophy, scholastic history, and voluntarist criticisms. But, of course, I suppose none of that matters, for that might require you to actually read, understand, and respond to my arguments.

If you tell me that you do, then I accept your counter-argument. If you think the Earth is not flat, then I rest my case. — god must be atheist

...what? Rest your case? I fail to see how this is a retort in any sense of the word, let alone a case closer. But, once more, I suppose that's what happens when you completely misread, misunderstand, or misrepresent another's arguments or claims. In any case, no, the world is not flat. For the love of what is good, please do even the slightest bit of diligences if you plan on responding to me, for I'd rather respond to actual rational arguments and claims, not fallacies and straw men.

I made a sandwich that was too big to eat! That's gotta count for something!

"Your argument makes perfect sense logically, Galileo/God Must Be Atheist, but we reject it because the scriptures say otherwise." — god must be atheist

Are you perhaps referring to this:

By the way, on a side not, completely agree with this response (and I wish I could like comments as there are many that either ammuse me or make solid points worthy of recognition).
At least until...
you realize that [the voluntarist] would merely assert that God is not subordinate to logical cohesiveness
— Questio

...and as such can make the contridiction both valid logically yet untrue at the same time. Is it absurd? Absolutely. Do they deserve to be called out for it? Certainly. Does that mean they'll be convinced by this argument? Likely not my friend. Though I commend your effort :). — Questio

If so, you most definitely are misunderstanding me. For the volunturist - based off of their central premise that the will has primacy over the intellect (and not scripture, for God's sake) - is who would find a way to side step your argument. That has nothing to do with flat Earths' or my position at all; my position is that the voluntarist are wrong in asserting that the will is first over the intellect, and as such God cannot do things which are unintelligible, meaning your argument falls on the premise

god can create a stone that he can't lift. — god must be atheist

, because such a thing can't happen, for...

given that God is pure actuality (or pure being itself if you'd like), which is analogous I suppose to infinity, then nothing less than pure actuality (such as an act/potency composite) could ever limit, derail, encumber, or even produce change in God. It would be like saying that given a big enough number we can actually reduce infinity to a finite quantity; such an assertion simply does not understand that infinity cannot be reached by finitude (unless it is an infinite series of finite quantities, but then we are dealing with an infinite and an infinite, not a finite and an infinite). So yes, because there is nothing beyond being itself other than nonbeing (which is exactly that: nothing, and thus has zero effect on being), nothing can inhibit God (pure subsisting being) even theoretically as that would obviously suggest, as I said, something beyond being itself (a plainer absurdity cannot be found, as being encompasses what is, thus if something is yet isn't being... well that's like saying there's a triangle out there without three sides). — Questio

As such, my agreeing with your argument was my acknowledgment that the alternative to my position is absurd and irrational (something they embrace, strangely), while my claim that it would nonetheless be of no use is based off the fact that they do not believe intelligibility eliminates the possibility or actuality of certain state of affairs. That is by no means an advocation for voluntarism, but rather a rebuttal of your argument on the basis of ignorance pertaining to voluntarist premises. Again, please, next time, actually read what I wrote in proper context and with a dash of diligence before you fire lazy shots at me, or indeed, anyone else.

What? I'm sorry good friend, but where on Earth do you get that? — Questio

You did say you agreed with me,

By the way, on a side not, completely agree with this response — Questio

until you thought of a decree of church figures:

God is not subordinate to logical cohesiveness — Questio

Here, you ab ovo declared that logical thinking is not appropriate when criticizing the scriptures.

THIS is in complete parallel to the treatment the Church gave to Galileo. The defence of a church decree supersedes logic, and there is nothing anyone can do. I challenge that, in the following way:

If you agree that God's abilities and actions are not subject to logic, then you agree that Galileo was wrong; because though his theory was logical and right on, it still got rejected by the Chruch on the same reason: the use of logic is not a valid tool to question ways of the Lord. Hence, since you subscribe to this decree, and you deny the validity of logic when it comes to scrutinizing the scriptures, you must agree that the Earth is flat (since Galileo is wrong).

Therefore, if you believe the Earth is NOT flat, then you negate your stance, and you agree that God's words, teachings, and very essence are also subject to logic.

What? I'm sorry good friend, but where on Earth do you get that?
— Questio

You did say you agreed with me,

By the way, on a side not, completely agree with this response
— Questio

until you thought of a decree of church figures:

God is not subordinate to logical cohesiveness
— Questio — god must be atheist

...really... are you really doing this when I just addressed this here:

"Your argument makes perfect sense logically, Galileo/God Must Be Atheist, but we reject it because the scriptures say otherwise."
— god must be atheist

Are you perhaps referring to this:
By the way, on a side not, completely agree with this response (and I wish I could like comments as there are many that either ammuse me or make solid points worthy of recognition).
At least until...
you realize that [the voluntarist] would merely assert that God is not subordinate to logical cohesiveness
— Questio

...and as such can make the contridiction both valid logically yet untrue at the same time. Is it absurd? Absolutely. Do they deserve to be called out for it? Certainly. Does that mean they'll be convinced by this argument? Likely not my friend. Though I commend your effort :).
— Questio

If so, you most definitely are misunderstanding me. For the volunturist - based off of their central premise that the will has primacy over the intellect (and not scripture, for God's sake) - is who would find a way to side step your argument. That has nothing to do with flat Earths' or my position at all; my position is that the voluntarist are wrong in asserting that the will is first over the intellect, and as such God cannot do things which are unintelligible, meaning your argument falls on the premise
god can create a stone that he can't lift.
— god must be atheist
, because such a thing can't happen, for...

given that God is pure actuality (or pure being itself if you'd like), which is analogous I suppose to infinity, then nothing less than pure actuality (such as an act/potency composite) could ever limit, derail, encumber, or even produce change in God. It would be like saying that given a big enough number we can actually reduce infinity to a finite quantity; such an assertion simply does not understand that infinity cannot be reached by finitude (unless it is an infinite series of finite quantities, but then we are dealing with an infinite and an infinite, not a finite and an infinite). So yes, because there is nothing beyond being itself other than nonbeing (which is exactly that: nothing, and thus has zero effect on being), nothing can inhibit God (pure subsisting being) even theoretically as that would obviously suggest, as I said, something beyond being itself (a plainer absurdity cannot be found, as being encompasses what is, thus if something is yet isn't being... well that's like saying there's a triangle out there without three sides).
— Questio

As such, my agreeing with your argument was my acknowledgment that the alternative to my position is absurd and irrational (something they embrace, strangely), while my claim that it would nonetheless be of no use is based off the fact that they do not believe intelligibility eliminates the possibility or actuality of certain state of affairs. That is by no means an advocation for voluntarism, but rather a rebuttal of your argument on the basis of ignorance pertaining to voluntarist premises. Again, please, next time, actually read what I wrote in proper context and with a dash of diligence before you fire lazy shots at me, or indeed, anyone else. — Questio

Good sir, I'm sorry, but I'm beginning to suspect you're reading the first three sentences of what I write and then drawing conclusions from those mere three sentences without the proper context, just evaluation, or fair interpretation. How do you expect to show anyone anything if you take what they say, pull it out of its context, twist it, and then attack that straw man of an argument or assertion? Its either the highest of laziness (which it is, fair enough, but just don't pretend to be interested in discusing the topic at hand) or the lowest of intellectual integrity (given the repeated fallicious pittfalls you dive in); whichever it is, I simply ask you stop that, as some people prefer discussions and not a game of shoot down the fallacy.

If you agree that God's abilities and actions are not subject to logic, — god must be atheist

I specifically, repeatedly, have made my position clear that I detest the idea espoused by volunturist that state God can do whatever he wants despite intellectual restrictions. So of course I disagree with this.

then you agree that Galileo was wrong — god must be atheist

Galileo was not wrong, he was indeed right, and the church was acting uncharacteristically silly in punishing him for abiding by the doctrine of universal intelligibility origining from the logos. This example was the exception of the rule, that being that the church was more prone to advocate, support, and defend institutions of learning even if it sometimes runs contrary to the scriptures, for they believed if they do someone might one day find a way of reconciling it with church teachings or instead to defeat the idea through their own sound logic (a good example would be Aristotle's grand philosophy which, initially having been forwarded through Averros, was very much contrary to scripture. However the church let it grow because it was an intellectual movement which they believed could either be defeated via Platonism or, in a future event, be reformed by an Aristotlean who finds errors in Averrosian interpretation, which did indeed happen with the arrival of St. Thomas Aquinas).

because though his theory was logical and right on, it still got rejected by the Chruch on the same reason: the use of logic is not a valid tool to question ways of the Lord. — god must be atheist

That was indeed ridiculous, and very much contrary to the normal circumstances in which they treasured logic and reason for being God himself (the divine logos). Don't believe me? Well throughout the middle ages, universities and learning institutions weren't very cheap, so the state hardly had the money or will to create and support such things. The church, on the other hand, being quite wealthy indeed and being rooted in an intellectual tradition primarily in Platonism, were both willing and able to further the education of the masses. They were the bulwark which brought most if not all the major universities to creation in medieval Europe, and not, as many hold, their inhibitors. Everything from mathematics, astronomy, philosiphy, theology, history, to literature was taught at these universities, and were the main source of education for most of those who could afford it. So no, the church is indeed not against reason, nor does the church believe God above reason (given they believe him to be the logos); Galileo was the exception, not the rule.

Hence, since you subscribe to this decree, and you deny the validity of logic when it comes to scrutinizing the scriptures, you must agree that the Earth is flat (since Galileo is wrong). — god must be atheist

No. I completely denounce your interpretation of both my position and the church's position over all (especially given they recognized the roundness of the Earth since the beginning, as it was recognized by mathematicians, which the church advocated for. What was challenged was the heliocentric theory Galileo forwarded, not the Earth's shape).

Therefore, if you believe the Earth is NOT flat, then you negate your stance, and you agree that God's words, teachings, and very essence are also subject to logic. — god must be atheist

Yes... I agree... God is subject to logic. Good job for deducing the position I was open about from the beginning? I hope you're proud, I suppose.

Yes... I agree... God is subject to logic. Good job for deducing the position I was open about from the beginning? I hope you're proud, I suppose. — Questio

Well, I did not get that drift from you. I thought I had to make you make a stand. If your position was that right from the start, I missed it, as I was mislead.

Mislead by what? I don't know. Perhaps by my interpretation/miscomprehension of what you said.

So now you agree that God is not omnipotent, because omnipotence is a concept that is absurd in and by itself.

Thank you.