...you can't refute an argument with an incredulous stare — Bartricks

...an argument, yes, indeed.

1. If a person is omnipotent, then they can do anything
2. If a person can do anything, then they can cease to be omnipotent
3. Therefore, if a person is omnipotent they can cease to be omnipotent
4. God is omnipotent
5. Therefore God can cease to be omnipotent

Keep going. Tell us again how god can friddling a bleth.

Tell us again how god can friddling a bleth. — Banno

I never told you. I haven't a clue - it doesn't make any sense.

Refute the argument. You know - do some philosophy!

it doesn't make any sense. — Bartricks

But god can do anything...

Are you dropping that now, and saying he can't friddling a bleth?

But god can do anything... — Banno

Yes. I know. I said that.

Are you dropping that now, and saying he can't friddling a bleth? — Banno

No. Can't you read? I said I don't have a clue how he'd do it - it makes no sense.

He can do things that make no sense, for he can make what makes no sense make sense. I don't know how though - I mean, if I did, they'd make sense wouldn't they. Dur.

No. Can't you read? I said I don't have a clue how he'd do it - it makes no sense. — Bartricks

SO he can friddling a bleth?

That's settled, then.

Thanks for the chat.

God is omnipotent, but there are potential things that he cannot do (like lifting a certain stone).

The above statement is incongruous but it’s implicit in your idea of omnipotence.

SO he can friddling a bleth? — Banno

Yes. He can do anything. So he can do that. Christ. Are you literally an infant?

That's settled, then. — Banno

You can't refute an argument by agreeing with it.

God is omnipotent, but there are potential things that he cannot do (like lifting a certain stone). — AJJ

God is omnipotent, but potentially not omnipotent. What's the problem? Again, if he lacked the ability to divest himself of omnipotence, he would not be omnipotent, would he?

Would you say that once he creates the stone he cannot lift then he stops being God?

SO he can friddling a bleth? — Banno

Rest assured god is at this very moment simultaneously friddling and not friddling a bleth.

Since god can friddling a bleth - that is, do things that are not things - then arguments about god are not limited by mere congruity; they are not even limited by intelligibility.

Bartricks' argument places god firmly in the world of the uninteligible, the incoherent; he makes god into nonsense.

You can't refute an argument by agreeing with it. — Bartricks

I'm not interested in a refutation. But repeating "God can do anything" does not constitute an argument.

No; what we have here is nonsense.

Rest assured god is at this very moment simultaneously friddling and not friddling a bleth. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Indeed, it would seem so. All worship the friddler of bleth! All worship he who cannot friddle bleth!

Not necessarily.

There are two ways - not one - in which God can create a stone too heavy for him to lift.

He can divest himself of omnipotence. That's one way. And in that case, he would have stopped being God (just as a bachelor ceases to be a bachelor when he takes a wife).

The other way - the more dramatic way - would be to realize a contradiction by making a stone too heavy for himself to lift at the same time as being able to lift it. That makes no sense of course, for at the moment the law of non contradiction obtains. And so it really doesn't make sense. It doesn't appear to make no sense, but really makes sense. No, it makes no actual sense. But God is in charge of what does and does not make sense and, by hypothesis, if he makes a stone too heavy for himself to lift at the same time as being able to lift it, then it would make sense. That's the nature of omnipotence - an omnipotent being has the power to make what does not make sense, make sense. Needless to say, the dumber element on this site have difficulty making sense of that. They think that in order for it to make sense that a person could transform what does not make sense into that which does make sense, it has already to make sense. Which is silly, of course.

If you say he stops being God once he creates the stone he cannot lift then you’ve effectively claimed that God can’t not be omnipotent (because in that case he stops being God).

Bartricks' argument places god firmly in the world of the uninteligible, the incoherent; he makes god into nonsense. — Banno

No it doesn't. Like I say, you just can't distinguish between being able to do something and actually doing it. God is not incoherent. Try and show it, I dare you. God is able - able - to do things that currently make no sense. That does not make God incoherent. God is not his actions, for one thing. And for God to be incoherent you'd need to demonstrate an actual contradiction arises through his possession of the properties of omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolence. Do that then.

I'm not interested in a refutation. But repeating "God can do anything" does not constitute an argument. — Banno

That was a premise in an argument. Do you think God is not omnipotent? Then you are misusing a word.

Huffing and puffing - it's all you've got. "Aw, but my hackneyed objections to God don't seem to work against Bartricks! What's going on? Why are they not working?? Wikipedia and Stanford - where are you? I need help!"

God is not incoherent — Bartricks

SO, god cannot be incoherent? But you said he could do anything.

:lol:

If you say he stops being God once he creates the stone he cannot lift then you’ve effectively claimed that God can’t not be omnipotent (because in that case he stops being God). — AJJ

God is what you're called if you're omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, just as 'bachelor' is what you are called if you're male and lack a wife.

Can God - the person of God - cease to be omnipotent? Of course he can. Why would he not be able to cease to be omnipotent? How would an inability to cease to be omnipotent be a power and not a disability and thus constitute a contradictory idea? The idea that you have - you, not me - of omnipotence contains a contradiction and so is akin to the idea of a square circle. You seem to think that being omnipotent essentially involves having an 'inability'. That's a contradiction - an omnipotent being can do anything, but you are asserting that an omnipotent being can do anything and not some things. That's an actual contradiction and so actual nonsense.

SO, god cannot be incoherent? But you said he could do anything. — Banno

You don't seem to understand English or basic logic. God is coherent. That does not mean the same as 'God cannot be incoherent'.

God is omnipotent, but potentially not omnipotent. — Bartricks

Do you agree that what he say here then is inconsistent? God isn’t potentially not omnipotent if under that circumstance he stops being God.

No. An unmarried man is a bachelor but has the potential to be married. Do you think that makes no sense?

If you think it makes sense - and you should, for it does - then apply that to God and omnipotence and the ability not to be omnipotent and find the same sense there, please.

A bachelor (as opposed to a particular man who is a bachelor) does not have the potential to be married, because a bachelor can’t be married. God does not have the potential not to be omnipotent, because God is omnipotent.

You don't seem to understand English or basic logic. God is coherent. That does not mean the same as 'God cannot be incoherent'. — Bartricks

Oh, ok.

SO you are saying that "god cannot be incoherent" is not placing a limit on god? How's that?

I can be incoherent. Why can't god? Have I a power that god does not?

Er, what?

A bachelor (as opposed to a particular man who is a bachelor) does not have the potential to be married, because a bachelor can’t be married. — AJJ

No, the person, not the concept. Concepts don't have abilities, people do.

Now, once more, can a bachelor get married?

It's yes, right?

They won't be a bachelor after they do so.

But they can do so.

An unmarried man is a bachelor. That's true by definition.

Can the unmarried man get married? Yes. He has the ability to get married.

God is omnipotent. That's true by definition.

Can God cease to be omnipotent? Yes.

This really isn't hard! Why are you lot having such difficulties??

God is a concept, so you’re making a category error when you compare him to an instance of another concept rather than the concept itself.

Er, what? — Bartricks

I can be incoherent. Why can't god? Have I a power that god does not? — Banno

No 'God' is not a concept. There is the concept of God. God is what the concept is of.

The concept of God is the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person.

God himself is the person who answers to that concept.

The concept of a chair is a concept; chairs are those things which answer to the concept.

You are the one making the category error - a very common one. The mistake of confusing a concept with what it is the concept of.

If God ceases to be omnipotent - which is something he has the ability to do - then he, the person, will cease to answer to the concept of God. Which is just a convoluted way of saying that he'll cease to be God.

In the context of this discussion he’s certainly a concept.

Er, what?
— Bartricks

I can be incoherent. Why can't god? Have I a power that god does not?
— Banno — Banno

You either don't understand English or you've had a stroke, for this really isn't hard to understand.

God can do anything. So anything you can do, God can do. Kinda obvious.