All-Powerful God

[Comrade Chi]

I recently got posed a question about god that made me wonder (I'm agnostic, if that matters). I'm sure some of you have heard this before, but for the sake of those who haven't: If God is all-powerful, could he create a stone so large that he himself could not lift it?

Any good answers? I'm strapped.

[Zingu]

Its called a paradox; a contradiction.

That should give you an idea about what god is.

[Xvall]

Religious people like to dance around the question that question. I asked my mother and she just said "yes". Upon stating that it would render him not-all-powerful, she said that god could ultimately destroy it if god wanted to, and just argued in a circle.

I wouldn't have so much of a problem with the religious if it weren't for the fact that so many of them try to insist that all of this religious theory has actual groundings in scientific reality. It's pretty frightening when you think about it - but us athiests live in a world where the vast majority of our fellow human beings believe in a bearded man in the sky — this is akin to schizophrenia and other forms of insanity and it bothers me just thinking about it, sometimes. Are you aware that there are some museums in America where the founders really follow the bible strictly, and thus have wax scenes of human beings coexisting with dinosaurs a la Dinotopia. It is absurd.

[Xvall]

Here is an answer from an Islamic website that is one of the more reasonable suggestions and replies to this sort of thinking, and at least seems rational enough to admit that a god can not be "all powerful".


Before answering your question, I would like to clarify what the concept of 'omnipotence'[1], as used with reference to God, implies. To fully understand the implication of the 'omnipotence' of God, we should keep in mind that God is not ONLY 'omnipotent'. God's omnipotence is subject to His mercy, wisdom, omniscience and His other attributes. Therefore, it would not be very accurate to say that 'God can do everything/anything'. A more accurate statement would be 'God can do everything/anything that His wisdom/mercy/omniscience/etc. require Him to do'. Hence, even though God is 'omnipotent', yet He CANNOT do anything, which is contrary to His other attributes. Thus, one may ask: "If God is 'omnipotent', can He create another one like Himself?" Or "if God is 'omnipotent' can He commit suicide?" Or "If God is 'omnipotent', can he throw the pious in Hell and place the evil in heaven?" All these questions are, in fact, based on a 'Playing Tom' view of an omnipotent God. God is absolutely clear of all wrong and, therefore, even though He is 'omnipotent', yet He CANNOT do anything, which is against His wisdom, justice, knowledge etc. It should, therefore, remain clear that God's omnipotence is conditional upon His other attributes.

Keeping the foregoing clarification in perspective, let us now turn to your specific question.

The fact that God is 'omnipotent' implies that, if His wisdom so requires, there is no limit on the largeness of a stone that He can make. It also implies that, if His wisdom so requires, there is no limit on His capacity of lifting stones. Both the capacities - that of creation as well as that of lifting - are unlimited; neither of the two knows any limits. Now, when someone asks whether God can make a stone, which He Himself cannot lift, the question can actually be rephrased as: 'Can God limit His power of creation?' or 'Can God limit His power of lifting stones?'. In other words, the question, in fact, is similar to 'Can God create something (a stone), upon which He loses control?' or that 'Can God create another God?'.

The answer to all these questions is 'No, God cannot do anything, which is contrary to His wisdom and His other attributes'.

[ComradeOm]

I feel I must give my standard answer when confronted by one of these pointless religious questions about the nature of god/angels etc. How many angels can dance on your head?

[Monty Cantsin]

I’m moving this to the OI because of board policy, even though I disagree that topics of a religious nature necessarily constitute an opposing ideology.

[Forward Union]

No

Conclusion. God's not all powerful. The bible argues that he is all powerful. Therefor he's a paradox.

[Publius]

I recently got posed a question about god that made me wonder (I'm agnostic, if that matters). I'm sure some of you have heard this before, but for the sake of those who haven't: If God is all-powerful, could he create a stone so large that he himself could not lift it?

Any good answers? I'm strapped.

Logically, not really, but a theist can argue AROUND logic by saying "He's God, he can do whatever he wants!" and be technically right, only because their priori assumptions are so askew.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 11:21 PM
Logically, not really, but a theist can argue AROUND logic by saying "He's God, he can do whatever he wants!" and be technically right, only because their priori assumptions are so askew.
Well that’s the whole point of religion isn’t it, avoiding logical discussion. A true believer understands that God transcends logic and all earthly perceptions of reality. All in all it’s a nice way to avoid a discussion on any subject and one that’s served the various churches well – "Look, it doesn’t have to make sense. God wills it."

[which doctor]

I have an answer: Who the fuck cares about god and him making a stone to heavy for him to carry.

[Xvall]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 31 2005, 01:37 AM
I have an answer: Who the fuck cares about god and him making a stone to heavy for him to carry.
I do.

[Red Powers]

This is hilarious. That line comes from George Carlin's "Class Clown" album of the early 70s. It was something he would ask the nuns to mess with them. I can't believe that anyone is taking it seriously. :lol:

[CCJ]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 25 2005, 04:51 AM
I recently got posed a question about god that made me wonder (I'm agnostic, if that matters). I'm sure some of you have heard this before, but for the sake of those who haven't: If God is all-powerful, could he create a stone so large that he himself could not lift it?
Well, I don't believe that God can create, and I definitely don't believe that God can lift up physical objects. That would be stupid. If God could create stuff out of nothing, why is there poverty?

[LSD]

Well, I don't believe that God can create, and I definitely don't believe that God can lift up physical objects.

Well, that's stupid.

If he can't make new things and he can't manipulate things which are already here, what good is he?

Even if such a "God" did exist, it would be entirely irrelevent to our lives. If he can't help us and he can't hurt us, then he's about as practically useful as Santa Clause.


If God could create stuff out of nothing, why is there poverty?

Ostensibly because we "deserve it" or some sort of metaphysical superstitious crap like that. Isn't that what the clergy has been telling us for millenia?

Perhaps it's a "test" of our "devotion".

I guess I've "failed"! :lol:

[shanks]

ummm, i dunno about you but if i was god the question wouldnt be can i lift the rock, it would be why should i? to prove it to some whiny little **** who doesnt even believe in me?

[C_Rasmussen]

Well if He exists and I do believe He does (though I respect your views and won't force my faith on you lot) then yeah He'd be all-powerful. It would be kinda rediculous to call yourself God and not be.

[our_mutual_friend]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 25 2005, 04:51 AM
I recently got posed a question about god that made me wonder (I'm agnostic, if that matters). I'm sure some of you have heard this before, but for the sake of those who haven't: If God is all-powerful, could he create a stone so large that he himself could not lift it?

Any good answers? I'm strapped.

If God is all-powerful, could he create a stone so large that he himself could not lift it?

Well of course he could, if he wanted to ... "God need not have a reason, for God is all-powerful" Well, yes, if you believe in God.
Perhaps God is all-powerful in a way that man cannot conceive. Perhaps his power lies not in physical exertion.
Perhaps it is not possible for God to create something that he cannot lift if he is ALL-powerful.

Actually - wouldnt it just depend on if you believe in God? And if you believe in what God can and cant do? So ultimately you control God, or your interpretation of God. So when you die and the guy with the flowing white beard and blinding white light asks you if youve been good this lifetime and believed in God like a good person, otherwise sufer eternal damnation in Hell, just answer 'no, i havent quite worked out if i believe in you or hell yet, fancy giving it another lifetime to work it out in?'

[KC]

It's a yes or no question. Don't make it complicated.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 05:37 PM
Logically, not really, but a theist can argue AROUND logic by saying "He's God, he can do whatever he wants!" and be technically right, only because their priori assumptions are so askew.
Let us take a look at this in a simplistic way. Hypothetically speaking, If a deity has the power to make himself not omnipotent (all-powerful), then they could obviously disable such ability but doing so, they must have the power to become omnipotent again or likely be without their omnipotence. If one was omnipotent, obviously the ability to not have an ability would be included.

I like the more absurd questions like: Could god make a hotdog so big that he couldn't eat it?

A more thought provoking question is: Can god create an equally powerful being? Can god destroy this being? Can god destry himself?

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 02:53 PM
i dunno about you but if i was god the question wouldnt be can i lift the rock, it would be why should i?


Well if god/s proved to us of theyr existance there would be no doubt and therefor no evil because there would be no doubt your going to hell for being evil.


Can god destry himself?

maybe it allready has. :D

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 09:49 PM
Even if such a "God" did exist, it would be entirely irrelevent to our lives. If he can't help us and he can't hurt us, then he's about as practically useful as Santa Clause.
Santa Claus brings presents tho :lol:

Maybe the whole "logic" behind it is that since this god is all powerful, he would be intelligent enough to know not to create a stone that he couldn't lift. The issue maybe isn't so much whether he can, but whether he would...

But I'm still an Atheist so it doesn't really matter lmao.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Originally posted by Skinz+Nov 25 2005, 08:30 AM--> (Skinz @ Nov 25 2005, 08:30 AM)
[email protected] 20 2005, 02:53 PM
i dunno about you but if i was god the question wouldnt be can i lift the rock, it would be why should i?


Well if god/s proved to us of theyr existance there would be no doubt and therefor no evil because there would be no doubt your going to hell for being evil.


Can god destry himself?

maybe it allready has. :D [/b]
Hahaha. Yes, God committed suicide!

[KGB5097]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 25 2005, 04:46 AM
I recently got posed a question about god that made me wonder (I'm agnostic, if that matters). I'm sure some of you have heard this before, but for the sake of those who haven't: If God is all-powerful, could he create a stone so large that he himself could not lift it?

Any good answers? I'm strapped.
I'll ask him

*Shoots self in head*

:D

[Postteen]

God is not only all-powerful but he also knows EvErything.So He knows that he wont be able to lift it.Therefore He wont create it.

:0

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 31 2005, 12:48 AM
I have an answer: Who the fuck cares about god and him making a stone to heavy for him to carry.
I do. I want to make the bastard suffer.

The concept of an all-powerful God is a paradox, and since paradoxes cannot be created, an all powerful God does not exist.

And if he's not all-powerful, what the fuck use is he?

[Bannockburn]

I wouldn't have so much of a problem with the religious if it weren't for the fact that so many of them try to insist that all of this religious theory has actual groundings in scientific reality.

Well this is why this statement is a paradox. It only becomes a paradox when we confuse our thinking. I'm not going to defend God here, on that assumption, I'm going to defend people's lack of making distinctions, and confusing disciplines. God, in the traditional sense is an all-powerful, transcendent entity who is eternal. Generally, as a transcendent being that is not within the physical world, he is considered supernatural, or in classical philosophy, a metaphysical being. As a result, metaphysics is the study which is not grounded on evidence, the empirical, and is beyond the physical. There is nothing new here.

Science on the other hand, is an empirical study, that assumes that everything has a natural, or a physical cause or reason. It is a natural science, and in the case of a rock it can be studied by a multitude of ways. Physics will deal with its spacial properties, chemistry its atomic structure, etc. Again, an empirical science grounded on physical evidence and experience. There is nothing new here.

However, the problem arises, and the so called paradox emerges when you bridge the gap between a metaphysical being, and a non metaphysical entity, and try to relate them accordingly. If God was to be able to “make a rock so heavy he can't lift it”, God would have to, for lack of better words, “come in” the natural works, and thus lose his metaphysical status. He would become a natural entity, which could then become studied, and as a result limited. More Christians, or religious people can not accept this as a premise whatsoever, and as a result argues in circles.

So the answer to your question is: It doesn't apply.


Well that’s the whole point of religion isn’t it, avoiding logical discussion. A true believer understands that God transcends logic and all earthly perceptions of reality.

I don't agree. Again, I'm not defending God, or religion, but I'm going to defend logic. Logic deals nothing with the contents of the propositions which are said. It only deals with the logical form of consistency. A valid argument has nothing to do with the truth of an argument, but only its deductive form. Thus, the propositions by both science and religion can be both logical, insofar as the deductive form. Yet, what I think you would rather argue is that you disagree with religious premises. However, I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Since logic deals with the form of the argument, and abstracts from it any content of its knowledge, religion is within the bounds of logic as well. This is why logic deals with arbitrary symbols, rather than the content of the argument. For example, I'll give you two valid arguments one for and against religion.






If there is a planet, then there is a God
There is a planet
Therefore, there is a God

Now, the above argument is valid, but it may not be truthful, or what logicians distinguish as being sound, hence both valid, and true.

Nevertheless, the argument in symbolic sentential logic would be the following: (unfortunately I don't have the actual symbols of logic on a computer, but you'll get the message)

If A, then B
A
therefore B (MP)

This form of argument is the logical inference of monus ponus.

As non religion argument, which is valid with the same logical inference of MP would follow:

If there is no evidence of God, Then God does not exist
There is no evidence
Therefore, there is no God

Again...

If A, then B
A
therefore B

Again, both valid, but neither may or may not be correct. Again, logic deals with the form rather of the argument rather than content of the argument. So, really even if a true believer who says God transcends logic, and argues, is itself arguing in circularity since they will use logic to establish their conclusions.

This brings me to another point. You can not argue for the existence of God without contradiction, and you can't use reason without circularity.

If somebody who is religious argues for the supremacy of faith over reason, they argue accordingly. However, the arguments they use are rational, insofar deductively logical, or inductively logical, for a so called area of “human knowledge” of faith being distinct from reason itself. Nevertheless to show that faith is better than reason, they use reason to establish their principles. Hence, a contradiction.



Likewise, somebody arguing that reason is supreme, assumes that reason is infallible, and uses the very premise of reason in order to establish the validity of reason, thus arguing in circularity.