he can create a stone impossible to lift and lift it
>His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense.
>>884858
If he felt like it.
>>884858
God isn't a physical being, you fucking retard
>>884866
So the laws of reality are stronger than God?
this is why omnipotence is a retarded concept
>>884870
>This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.
>people still unironically use this as an argument
>>884858
I imagine these words echoing around some vast empty space, after being spoken by the black science man. He turns and looks at you directly in the eyes, and mouths: Black Holes". He winks. His tongue covers his lips with saliva.
>People still ironically believe in God
>They can read all the philosophy in the world, they will never apply that which does not support their current beliefs
>>884866
>in trins sick
Coming from a skeptic, this argument has always been pointless to me. The answer is yes.
1. See >>884869
2. There are differing levels of infinity. the infinite amount of decimal numbers between 1-2 is a shorter infinite set than the set of infinite decimals between 1-100. Such is God's "omnipotence" over our lives. There may be a God's God, but he would be irrelevant to the human experience even if there was.
3. Both in nature, human and otherwise, forces can use a limited amount of power to create something exceeding their own capability to influence it. Think of entropy and the butterfly effect in physics, or on a smaller scale just look at the things we can create with the use of tools we utilize VS what we can create without.
>>884858
No, because the creation of the stone would imply that he lacked power, but God lacks no such power- so among the things that have possible existence such a stone is not one of them.
He could both create the stone while simultaneously lifting and not lifting it, since he can do all things at once despite the actions being contradictory.
The MY-STER-Y of Faith
>>884858
An omnipotent god can create any stone and lift it too. A stone "heavier then he can lift" is an invalid object.
>>884858
Yes
If he wishes to lift it later he simply changes it so he can
>>885109
So God is incapable of creating something?
>>884865
then he didn't make anything that was impossible to lift
>>885157
Hes stating that such a thing could not exist because of the lack of a limiter
As such though it could be created then by itself it could not be proven, because god could pick up the stone even though the immovable stone was stull created. It creates a paradox where it is but cannot be.
Theologically this implies a self limitation of divinity, for making things like that are ultimatly useless and incapable of even having a true provable identity.
So in theory you are correct, but the proper way is to say "So god wont make some things."
Yes, but God would be able to lift it anyway. The only reason why this question can be asked is because this is how God ordered the universe. If he wanted to violate the ideas of possible and impossible or causality or anything else like that he could because he defined what is possible and impossible, it does not define him. This is the nature of omnipotence.
god can lift any stone he creates, and he can create any stone of any weight
>>885157
God is incapable of creating impossible things like square circles and infinite mass rocks. This doesn't contradict omnipotence.
>>885233
God created the rules by which he can't create those things. He could just as easily change them.
DO THE IMPOSSIBLE SEE THE INVISIBLE
ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER
bet he can't lift my dick
>>885235
>itt arguments as to the function of omnipotence
Bait OP or not the topic as to the scope of the divine is an interesting theological topic.
I can already see two camps in this thread.
Absolute Omnipotence (logic does not appy as logic is dictated by the divine)
And
Self-Governed Omnipotence (the divine created logic thus and refuses to deviate from it)
Which side is more or less correct?
>>885235
No. Just because language allows you to string any two words together, doesn't mean they express a valid idea. "A stone so heavy he could not lift it" is an invalid condition.
could god create a riddle so difficult to solve that he couldn't solve it?
useless question
>>885248
It just might be a problem language and our perception.
>>885161
It is impossible to lift by beings other than God.
But he is all powerful and thus can lift it.
>>884858
Yes, because God isn't constrained by the mortal limitations of logic and language. Assuming otherwise is hubris.
Is god able to do anything? If not, then he is not almighty. Is he able to not know something? If yes, then he is not omniscient, if no, he is not omnipotent
Boom
>>884858
Yes. And he could also lift it.
What's the point in conceiving a god so weak as not to be able to trespass the boundaries of rationality? I mean you're already kind of doing it when you consider him atemporal, might as well go all the way.
>>885084
>There are differing levels of infinity. the infinite amount of decimal numbers between 1-2 is a shorter infinite set than the set of infinite decimals between 1-100.
No, not at all
>>885109
I like this argument
>>885451
actually yes.
Not all "infinite sets" are the same size.
>>884858
I'm not even a christfag, but they've got a good response to this.
The proposition is nonsense, it's like asking can God make 1+1=3. It doesn't have any real meaning, and thus has no answer.
>>885455
No, Bishop Berkeley specifically argued against infinitesimals.
>>884858
Yes. In case if He one day wish lift it, He will create a special angel.
>>885455
>Not all "infinite sets" are the same size.
Sure, but [1,2] and [1,100] have the same cardinality
>>885430
But that means you may as well not consider God as an entity since he can be or do literally anything, even things that are contradictory and would make him not God. If making sense is no obstacle, that means God can make himself not omnipotent, he can decide to not exist, he can decide that he never existed, he can turn himself into a tree and never become God again. If you accept that all logical contradictions are possible then there is no reality and no God to speak of.
>>885467
Or you can accept god is able to do anything, but he doesn't do everything.
>>885467
Well pretty much, yeah. I don't see what's the problem with this stance really.
Stop debating and go ask him.
Let's see if he can answer it.
>If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him?
>If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future?
>If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers?
>If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him?
>If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has, filled with weaknesses?
>If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them?
>If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him?
>If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable?
>If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees?
>If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him?
>If he has spoken, why is the Universe not convinced?
>>884858
So I see we are starting with the premise that there is a God.
Could God take a shit so big even he could not clean it up?
Can god answer that question?
>>885489
Could you understand the answer?
>>885491
Could God make it understandable?
>>884858
>bait
that's a semantic game, and also utter nonsense
god is weight, is stone, is action, is space-tine that necessitates the duality of action and rest, is direction, is orientation, etc.
If there is no irony in that sentence, Is it that stone cant be created not to be lifted by god not god not able to create such stone?
>>885493
Could you survive the process?
You dont have to define god being able to do anything
We can just define that everything done is by god.
Apparently god cant lift unliftable stone created by him. Not because he cant make it but cant lift it cause it is unflitable.
So unliftable stone hadnt been lifted by god cause he cant.
If god exisit, hed done everything, but hadnt done what he couldnt.
Agree Theisits?
>>885558
So he couldnt, and such thing exists just in our mind!
>>885524
Could he make me survive?
>>884858
>God
>omnipotent
This meme needs to die, at least with the Christian god, he is not one referred to as omnipotent. He is referred to as all powerful which idiomatically means "more powerful than any other" or "none is greater". People that think he's omnipotent are either dumb believers or trying to start shit just look at this thread.
>>885309
How do you know that?
>>885564
Such irony cant disprove that everything was done by one
Letz debate about things that exist, like when doctors found out that man and woman has same number of ribs, or mathmaticans found out that pi is actually bigger than 3, or when physicist found out that earth is at least few million years old, or when astronomers found out that universe is about 10 billion years old.
>>885572
What does it mean to survive?
God can do whatever the fuck he wants, regardless of semantic games, because he is transcendental.
>>885592
If I take the mask off, will you die?
Atheist are in haste.
Before we prove that god does not exist, letz prove that we cant disprove that god exist.
You see, we are reproving that we cant disprove gods' existence for centuries and STILL NOT ENOUGH!
>>885604
Atheism is in unstable position.
Athiest cant disprove that "God sure exists"
No athiest can disprove Flying spagetti monster.
but Theisist can disprove that "God does Not exist for sure"
We hadnt checked every possible way to find god.
But not being able to disprove the God's existence is The Best Weapon of Atheist!
Thiests cant disprove that ANY SINGLE ASPECTS OF GOD THEY BELIEVE THAT GOD HAS! You cant!
>>884858
God is the stone
>>885271
Thats not the question OP is asking.
Its asking whether God can create a stone so heavy God couldn't lift it, not other beings can't lift it.
>>885686
And the answer is yes. God per definition defies humans logic.
>>884858
Lets ask God together when we meet Him. I for one do not know this answer and no believer in God does either.
>>885689
Can God create logic that even he can't defy?
checkmate nigger
>>885692
>Me: could you create a stone so heavy you could not lift it?
>God: I'll think about it and see how I feel about it later.
:-(
>>885696
You are just putting the semantic problem on another level.
>>885700
>god has problems with semantic
Thanks
>>885586
>Luke 1:37
>For nothing will be impossible with God.
>Jeremiah 32:27
>Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?
>Mark 10:27
>Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God
>Romans 4:17
>As it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist
>>885702
No. We do.
>>885451
Learn math you fucking retard there are different types of infinity
>>885711
If we have semantic problem, then why are you answering a problem that only god can answer?
Why believe in a thing that is impossible to verify, and outside of the universe i.e. has nothing to do with it?
>>885730
I am not answering it I am saying your question is pointless regarding an omnipotent being. Not stop trying to sound smart and so some reading, okay?
>The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein is often interpreted as arguing that language is not up to the task of describing the kind of power an omnipotent being would have. In his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, he stays generally within the realm of logical positivism until claim 6.4—but at 6.41 and following, he argues that ethics and several other issues are "transcendental" subjects that we cannot examine with language. Wittgenstein also mentions the will, life after death, and God—arguing that, "When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words."[18]
>Wittgenstein's work expresses the omnipotence paradox as a problem in semantics—the study of how we give symbols meaning. (The retort "That's only semantics," is a way of saying that a statement only concerns the definitions of words, instead of anything important in the physical world.) According to the Tractatus, then, even attempting to formulate the omnipotence paradox is futile, since language cannot refer to the entities the paradox considers. The final proposition of the Tractatus gives Wittgenstein's dictum for these circumstances: "What we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence".[19]
What God creates, Man can destroy
>>885742
Taking a no position is still a position.
>>885712
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKy_VTBq0yk
>>885689
There is no such thing as "defying logic".
In lifting a supposedly unliftable stone, he didn't make the stone unliftable in the first place.
No, if anything god could indeed create a stone that he couldn't lift, because an omnipotent being can of course restrict its own omnipotence.
>>884858
I'll ask Him
>>885823
>Him
If you're gay
>>885709
None of these are evidence of God's omnipotence only biblical writers' tendency for hyperbole
>>885712
Moron
could God beat Batman?
Can infinity outfinity itself by creating infinity+1? If so, can it outfinity infinity?
Literally this question.
You know, debating what omnipotece means is a very thorny and interesting discussion.
But this is one of the most retarded questions i've ever seen.
>>885987
>Can infinity outfinity itself by creating infinity+1
Plato was right
Considering that God is almighty, and that God would be beyond reality itself, that would mean that to do such a thing, God would have to comply to the rules of physics, since the action has to happen in the physical universe. And since the the laws of thermodynamics are a thing, it becomes a mu question.
>>886045
>God would have to comply to the rules of physics
Nope.
In the words of the immortal C.S. Lewis, "Nonsense is nonsense even when you insert the word "God" into it."
