Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Religions and Gods → God Omnipotence's Paradox

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Today at 01:32 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 09:01 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 08:53 AM
New Britain
Yesterday at 08:17 AM
Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: God Omnipotence's Paradox

 (Read 6861 times)
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     OP - March 30, 2014, 07:57 PM
    So, there is a paradox that atheists use to prove that God can't exist.

    "Can God create a stone so heavy that he won't be able to pick it up?"

    I have a problem with this paradox, because It just doesn't sound right.

    1. God is infinite, so he would need to create something infinite.
    2. But he is already EVERYTHING so how can he create something that he won't be able to pick up?
    3. God is infinite and creator of the universe, which means he is not outside the universe but a part of it.
    4. God cannot create something outside the universe, because it is infinite, so it has to be within the universe.
    5. God is everything.

    So how is that paradox supposed to explain God's non-existence?
    Help me understand this paradox  Shocked
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #1 - March 30, 2014, 07:59 PM
    It's easy to understand. It's bullshit. Smiley
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #2 - March 30, 2014, 07:59 PM
    What are those numbered points?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #3 - March 30, 2014, 08:10 PM
    ^I'm trying to explain God's omnipotence according to a religious point of view.
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #4 - March 30, 2014, 08:12 PM
    Quote from: INcePtion on March 30, 2014, 07:57 PM
    4. God cannot create something outside the universe, because it is infinite

    Justify this.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #5 - March 30, 2014, 08:15 PM
    Ok, so Im confused now. Isn't God infinite and god created the universe?
    The universe is infinite.  Huh?
    Of course I can't justify God's existence lol I'm asking for an explanation of the paradox.
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #6 - March 30, 2014, 08:16 PM
    Who says the universe is infinite?
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #7 - March 30, 2014, 08:21 PM
    Infact, it is impossible to know that...
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #8 - March 30, 2014, 08:27 PM
    Quote from: INcePtion on March 30, 2014, 08:10 PM
    ^I'm trying to explain God's omnipotence according to a religious point of view.

    I don't think the paradox is a useful paradox to use. It's kinda useful as a conversation starter, but beyond that it's not an effective argument. I don't understand how any of those points deal with the paradox, though.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #9 - March 30, 2014, 08:31 PM
     Those points are my mental confusion. I don't really get the paradox.
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #10 - March 30, 2014, 08:35 PM
    Well, judging from God’s track record of stupid and moronic things, I’d say making a rock too heavy for him to lift sounds exactly like something he would do. 
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #11 - March 30, 2014, 08:37 PM
    It is not a paradox because it is taking a certain aspect of God out of context. The weight of a stone and lifting are physical concepts with the universe. God by definition it not subject to our concept of physics within the universe. God is outside of our universe. If God were subject to concepts such a weight, physical actions such as lifting God becomes a physical being which than becomes subject to our concept of nature. It renders God as a powerful but limited agent. More so our concept of physics breaks down at the point, singularity, of the Big Bang. So we can not assume our understanding of physics can be applied at the point of and before said singularity.

    It is the opposite of the causality, first cause or prime move arguments. All 3 versions apply a concept of our universe on to God in order to prove God's existence. However by doing so they limit God rendering God less than omnipotent.

    Better arguments are the problem of evil and the problem of time.  
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #12 - March 30, 2014, 08:46 PM
    Quote from: INcePtion on March 30, 2014, 08:31 PM
    Those points are my mental confusion. I don't really get the paradox.

    It's basically a quandary presented to those crude, unwashed masses who define their god as a being that is able to do anything. If a god can do anything, then it should be able to create anything, including creating a rock too heavy to lift. But if it's too heavy for it to lift, it's wrong to say it can do anything.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #13 - March 30, 2014, 09:07 PM
    Quote from: bogart on March 30, 2014, 08:37 PM
    It is not a paradox because it is taking a certain aspect of God out of context. The weight of a stone and lifting are physical concepts with the universe. God by definition it not subject to our concept of physics within the universe. God is outside of our universe. If God were subject to concepts such a weight, physical actions such as lifting God becomes a physical being which than becomes subject to our concept of nature. It renders God as a powerful but limited agent. More so our concept of physics breaks down at the point, singularity, of the Big Bang. So we can not assume our understanding of physics can be applied at the point of and before said singularity.

    It is the opposite of the causality, first cause or prime move arguments. All 3 versions apply a concept of our universe on to God in order to prove God's existence. However by doing so they limit God rendering God less than omnipotent.

    Better arguments are the problem of evil and the problem of time.  


    Thanks for the explaination. 

    IMO a better argument would be this one:
    "Can an omnipotent God create a more powerful being than himself?"

    Quote from: happymurtad on March 30, 2014, 08:35 PM
    Well, judging from God’s track record of stupid and moronic things, I’d say making a rock too heavy for him to lift sounds exactly like something he would do. 

     Cheesy

  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #14 - March 30, 2014, 09:12 PM
    Quote from: bogart on March 30, 2014, 08:37 PM
    If God were subject to concepts such a weight, physical actions such as lifting God becomes a physical being which than becomes subject to our concept of nature. It renders God as a powerful but limited agent.

    That's how a lot of believers define their god, though. Defining god does only two things - either it says what god isn't (which isn't actually defining what it is) or it narrows and restricts that god's functions.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #15 - March 30, 2014, 09:13 PM
    INcePtion  starts a wrong thread with wrong heading   "God Omnipotence's Paradox "

    No no no.., INcePtion,   you should start a thread with a heading that reads

    "God Is Impotent  And It is Not Paradox " .,  

    Then I can write something on God's impotence and god's helplessness. Otherwise I protest....  
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #16 - March 30, 2014, 10:13 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on March 30, 2014, 09:12 PM
    That's how a lot of believers define their god, though. Defining god does only two things - either it says what god isn't (which isn't actually defining what it is) or it narrows and restricts that god's functions.


    Yes it how they define it in order to defend God from any criticism be it physics and logic, in a way. It pushes God into the non-existence in order to defend God's existence.

    The Free Will vs Omniscience argument is also a good argument.
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #17 - March 30, 2014, 10:38 PM
    Quote
    If the above was too verbose, let me break it down for you in the following manner:

    According to Islamic doctrine, God's ability (qudrah) applies to those things that are possible. It does not relate to things that are impossible/absurdities, like a four-sided triangle. Since a triangle is by definition a three-sided object, the phrase "four-sided triangle" is an absurdity, merely words that carry no real meaning. Similarly, "an entity more powerful than God" is also such an absurdity, because God is by definition (according to Islamic doctrine at least) the most powerful entity. Therefore, his ability does not apply to it.

    Isnt that a contradiction? Doesnt that just mean
    "Allah can't do the impossible, because he operates within the law of the universe"
    Since he is not able to change the laws (do the impossible), how can he be omnipotent?
    http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?59226-omnipotence-paradox
    Wtf?!
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #18 - April 02, 2014, 09:50 PM
    The 4 sided triangle is an impossibility by the definition of what a triangle is. However a triangle is not a law of the universe but is merely a description of a concept of a geometry shape. So it is not a contradiction that God can not make a 4 sided triangle. It is logical impossibility as a 4 sided shape becomes a square, rectangle, quadrilateral, rhombus, etc by definition.

    I couldn't find your quote, "Allah can't do the impossible, because he operates within the law of the universe", in the link. However if someone were to suggest God is limited to the laws of the universe this is a limit place upon God. God needs to be unbound or it merely becomes a powerful but restricted agent. Like I said earlier God is required to be beyond our physical reality to be all powerful. God must always be separate unknowable being in an unknowable reality within it's self. The second we start to define God we have placed limits on God, something which a lot of people have done for centuries without realizing they have done so.
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #19 - April 02, 2014, 10:10 PM
    I don't think you can go so far as defining it as a being in any meaningful sense of the word without causing problems.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #20 - April 02, 2014, 10:14 PM
    ^agreed
    I still need to read more about the paradox, but now I get it.  yes

  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #21 - April 03, 2014, 04:49 AM
    It is not a paradox, rock lifting.  Do not use this argument it is nonsense.

    Quote from: Ishina on April 02, 2014, 10:10 PM
    I don't think you can go so far as defining it as a being in any meaningful sense of the word without causing problems.


    An issue is people have defined what God is not. God is not bound by time for example. However this is still a definition as we are eliminating a possible definition. For example ? is not a P. If later I were to say ? is not Z you can refine the probably of which letters ? is. There is also child's game used to teach how to reason and apply critical thinking. There are 4 box and 6 colours. 1 of the six colours is applied to each box and hidden from the child. The child must guess at the colour for each box. The only answers the child receives is 1) a colour matches the correct box, 2) a colour is in the wrong box and 3) a colour match no box. By using the definition what is and is not a child can deduce what colour matches which box without ever seeing the colour behind the box. We can do the same with God.
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #22 - April 03, 2014, 04:50 PM
    It can go the other way too, though. A definition might not eliminate possibility but broaden it. If a definition makes a thing less tangible or broadens its possible nature, we are going the opposite way.

    In the box example you gave, we can fruitfully explore possibility because there are conceivable possibilities. Guessing the colour of a box from limited options is a relatively simple project. But if I was to describe the box as being any size it wants to be and ask you what it contains, there are an infinite number of possible things it could contain. You could be ruling out possible contents for the rest of your life and still not get it right.

    If the goal is to portray a thing as a coherent and communicable parcel of approximations, an apophatic approach is not conductive to that end. Especially when one uses words like unknowable. That does the opposite of narrowing it down. In the context of religious apologetics, this is usually a very convenient and deliberate tactic to frustrate or hamstring potential criticism.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #23 - April 03, 2014, 07:55 PM
    Quote from: happymurtad on March 30, 2014, 08:35 PM
    Well, judging from God’s track record of stupid and moronic things, I’d say making a rock too heavy for him to lift sounds exactly like something he would do. 

     Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #24 - April 03, 2014, 08:43 PM
    Non-tangible concepts can be defined by what is not. When someone suggestion an atemporal being I can create concepts of this state. I can propose different ideas and direct these at the person claiming no time. Now if I am unable to grasp a concept presented to me, not proposed by me, it is the burden of the one claiming to explain their concept. They must explain the concept of atemporal, they must explain how an object in this state functions, how an object function in the creation of another object, how this object interacts with a time based object, etc. If they can not explain this concept, and they can't, it amounts to no better than fiction.

    Colours represent demonstrable concepts and naturalistic explanations. I can give up so the game will tell me or display the colour. If the game can not do either how do I know I got the question wrong? I can trust that the game is telling the true, which people do often, or and I can demand proof. I demand proof.

    If we push God into the non-tangible it amounts to well explained magic but still magic.
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #25 - April 03, 2014, 08:54 PM
    I don't understand. Non-tangible has no explanatory or descriptive power to me.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #26 - April 04, 2014, 07:39 PM
    Non-tangible was not the best word choice. Rather concepts which are based in the observation of an object or the effects of the concept on objects in comparison to purely abstract concepts which are only theoretical. Time vs atemporal.
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #27 - August 27, 2016, 08:41 PM
    You were right, the paradox is shit lmfao.

    Classical theism subscribes to a type of omniscience that should be constrained by subjunctive (logical at the very least?) possibility. This iteration of the paradox is attacking a straw man.

    This is a very old thread so I'll just fuck off now.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #28 - August 27, 2016, 08:56 PM
    Hmm why did I even care about it?

    Should have used my time wisely.
  • God Omnipotence's Paradox
     Reply #29 - August 27, 2016, 08:57 PM
    So true.

    You're wise for a 12 year old.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »