Omnipotence paradox

[Anonymous No.13214861]

"Could God create a stone so heavy that even He could not lift it?"

Christians, What is the solution of this?
Now that Russell had thought of this, then monks at the 200A.D. would have been enough to know about this.
So... what's the solution?

[Anonymous No.13214900]

>>13214861
This is not sound on a theological level. God is the only perfect, all-powerful being. He cannot create something more or equally perfect and all-powerful than Himself (here: a stone heavier than His all-powerfulness) because that would equate creating Himself. Did Russell really say something so vapid?

[Anonymous No.13214901]

>looking for solutions to eternal beings in a limited experience
I hope you enjoy living to 80 and then dying

[Anonymous No.13214919]

>>13214900
IDK, russell would do anything if it's about arguing god, no matter how retard it is

[Anonymous No.13214940]

If you're omnipotent you can do anything though even create a 3 sided square

[Anonymous No.13214952]

>>13214940
Yep, and you could even be a total whacko and watch as the people you've created unwittingly call it a triangle. Madman.

[Anonymous No.13214957]

>>13214900
Separate this from God for a minute.
The point is that the concept of omnipotence is flawed.

[Anonymous No.13215029]

>>13214957
>separate this from God for a minute
But the concept of omnipotence can only be attributed to God so I'm not sure what you're trying to do here?

[Anonymous No.13215038]

>>13214861
Couldn't a theoretically omnipotent God simply match the infinite weight of a stone with infinite strength?

[Anonymous No.13215047]

>>13214952
kek

[Anonymous No.13215068]

>>13214861
Omnipotence is not defined as the ability to perform the illogical. Illogicalities don't even exist; they are just a contradictory set of words.
However if you want to say that omnipotence IS defined as being able to perform the illogical then god would make a stone too heavy for him to lift it --- and then he would lift it.

[Anonymous No.13215072]

>>13215068
>However if you want to say that omnipotence IS defined as being able to perform the illogical then god would make a stone too heavy for him to lift it --- and then he would lift it.
Yeah. And such a god couldn't exist.

[Anonymous No.13215075]

>>13215029
Bible doesn't explicitly stated omnipotency to anyone, so let's assume Gabriel has omnipotence too. And we can continue the subject

[Anonymous No.13215083]

>>13215072
You're the one who said omnipotence has to be defined as the ability to perform the illogical

[Anonymous No.13215097]

This is nothing more than sophistry. Omnipotence means being able to do anything that is logically possible, so no, God wouldn't be able to make a squared circle or an object too heavy for him to lift.

[Anonymous No.13215098]

>>13215075
Then that would mean Gabriel is God, and the same applies. I'm afraid now you're purposefully trying to create a niche alternate universe where words don't mean the same things as in ours just to push your riddle forward. There is no 'concept of omnipotence' that can be applied to various things in order to prove its self defeating definition, linguistics and philosophy have been cleverer than that by restricting this notion to God, with no self defeating definition of it. You trying to apply this word to something else is as if I was trying to convince you that what we call a stone can be eternal, you would tell me that it's stupid and that it cannot be, and you'd be right.

[Anonymous No.13215101]

>>13215029
The point is assuming an omnipotent being leads to paradoxes.

>but an omnipotent being his beyond human understanding

then stop talking about him you retard.

[Anonymous No.13215110]

He would not be able to lift the stone while lifting it.

[Anonymous No.13215120]

>>13214861
Im really fucking tired of this and epicurean garbage, you need to read metaphysics before asking retarded questions

[Anonymous No.13215126]

Could God create a stone so heavy that even He could not lift it?
>yes
but how??
>implying you can comprehend God

there, solved

[Anonymous No.13215134]

>>13215101
>The point is assuming an omnipotent being leads to paradoxes.
But it doesn't though, as it's been explained several times in this thread. What's the point of posting if you're not capable of reading?

>but an omnipotent being his beyond human understanding
Not sure who you're quoting.

>then stop talking about him
Why?

[Anonymous No.13215152]

>>13215068

This. Its nothing but a play of words. To think that you could disprove the existence of a divine being with a play of words is rather childish.

[Anonymous No.13215178]

>>13215098
Well what I did was reminding that one of refutation of OP's pic was similar to this. That G(x) is Godlike, not God. So something sufficiently godly enough can be done.
Back to the point, I don't get how more-powerful than God can be equal to creating himself. Look at the example. It is a stone. Stone is not a god, such as not having omniscience.
I'm not theologian, but I know one of favored solution to the problem of evil is "making free will to human(life)". Free will in here must not be grasped with god's potential. (If it is, then where the evil come from?) Is this mean god made human as same as god? What happened to here?

[Anonymous No.13215183]

The solution is don't anthropomorphize god. If it were necessary to move the rock, it would simply be moved.

[Anonymous No.13215201]

>>13215183
You're making God Spinoza's God. Not a good sign, isn't it

[Anonymous No.13215205]

>>13214861
The question excludes the notion that descriptions of man only have meaning by analogy to God, IE. man can be "good" but only by analogy to the goodness of God, which is infinite. This means that any question which addresses what God is or isn't capable of cannot be formulated in terms of matter, extension or finitude. Spatial and temporal references are by definition metonymic because they are finite or partial representations (slices) of the infinite (the monad). The question is nonsensical because it wrongly conflates infinite omnipotence with finite physical strength.

[Anonymous No.13215207]

>>13215134
>But it doesn't though, as it's been explained several times in this thread.
It hasn't, people have only explained how the most common paradoxe actually isn't one. That isn't proving the notion doesn't lead to a contradiction, which is what you need when you when to talk about a rational notion with no possible empirical basis. Can you prove to me that the ability to do anything not logically impossible doesn't lead to a contradiction ? Remember, there is a difference between a single statement not being a logical and a infinite system of statements being not contradictory. Of course that's assuming you have a clear logical system of "everything not logically impossible", which is aleady a dubious assumption.

>Not sure who you're quoting.
I was anticipating that objection, seeing as it is common.

>Why?
Because you'd be saying nonsense while pretending to be conducting rational discourse. I have nothing against mystical poetry, but rational discourse on the properties of thoroughly inconsistent notions should be avoided.

[Anonymous No.13215212]

>>13215152
Yet people have attempted to prove the existence of a divine being with a play of word, and that "refutation" is only an answer to that.

[Anonymous No.13215216]

>>13215207
*not being illogical

[Anonymous No.13215226]

>>13215212

>My argument is bad but that's okey because so is yours

[Anonymous No.13215237]

>>13215226
More like
>the argument you're calling bad is actually yours, so you're both retarded, shut up and go home now

[Anonymous No.13215264]

>>13215178
A favoured answer to the problem of evil is the same one I gave to the problem of omnipotence: God cannot create something as perfect as Himself, therefore he only created the best world he could--something where His limitless benevolence had to accomodate evilness.

>>13215205
Man I'm sorry I've been trying to read that a couple of times and I can't make any sense out of it except for the vague feeling that you have already decided you were not keen on changing any opinion that you currently harbour in the light of what has been previously and you're just trying to pull the topic at hand onto shifty sands and obscure language. If you want to think omnipotence is an incoherent notion, feel free to avoid 2000 years of theological discussions and carry on with your belief, what do you want me to say.

>>13215212
>trying to prove the existence of God with a play of word
That's close to a 'no you' argument, what are you referring to exactly?

[Anonymous No.13215288]

>>13215264
Oops, >>13215207, not >>13215205

[Anonymous No.13215302]

>>13215264
I actually read a book say that Leibniz's best possible world argument is the least favored solution to problem of evil. Quite a lol

[Anonymous No.13215306]

God can literally do anything though? These arguments rest on human understanding, surely god would be able to do things that defy our understanding.

[Anonymous No.13215342]

>>13215302
I used the sentence 'best possible world' but if you re-read what I explained it isn't Leibniz's theodicy.

[Anonymous No.13215348]

>>13215306
>mysterious ways
cope

[Anonymous No.13215367]

>>13215348
>Confusing the will of god with omnipotence

[Anonymous No.13215399]

>>13215288
I was maybe being too conrontational, 4chan style seeping into my posts as usual when I spend too much time here.

I'm just saying, omnipotence needs more justification than "it can only do what is logical therefore there is no problem with God creating something he cannot lift". You need to able to characterize to some extent the set of all act that are not logically impossible. This requires putting forth a language and axioms system. Then why that language and not any other ? And even if you settle down for that language and those axioms, can you prove no contradiction arises ? Just because each of the statement you consider makes sense doesn't mean the whole system of them is non-contradictory. And there have been very few actual proof of non-contradictoriness in the history of logic, 2000 years of theology notwishstading.

So either you admit you have no clue what omnipotence logically entails, or you choose a particular system of deduction and try (maybe, if you can, if that's possible) to prove that in that system omnipotence doesn't lead to contradiction and can be talked about meaningfully (that's restricting yourself a lot assuming you can even pull it off, but I suppose at least that's something). Or you refuse the notion of omnipotence altogether, which is ultimately not-so-different from the first solution.

Simply put, I don't see any reasonable way out of this general issue save for embracing mysticism, staying agnostic, or accepting fundamentally circular and metaphysically unconvincing Anselme-like argument like the proof in OP's pic. And the third solution seems like a cope to me, no disrepect. And Anselme (or Gödel in that case) was far from dispelling most doubts on the consistecy of Christian notions of omnipotence, even within the restricted scope of modal logic.

Now perhaps our divergences are not so stark, maybe you simply find that kind of logic convincing enough, while I think that, on top of not being very substantial logic (though in the particular case of Gödel's proof it works mechanistically) it is metaphysically empty.

But who knows, maybe a much more thorough and ambitious undertaking like Langan's CMTU might change my mind, I haven't had time to dvelve on it for now. I'm willing to consider it, but frankly I'm not holding my breath.

[Anonymous No.13215514]

>>13214861
God cant create something he cannot lift. That is ilogical. Think about what you are writing for a second. The proposition is nonsensical. You are writing about a imovable object being created by THE imovable object. Your chalange is the equivalent of saying God cannot be omnipotent because he could never draw a square circle. This is a ilogical proposition because a square circle is a contradiction of terms and cant exist anywhere outside this language.

Also, your definition of omnipotence is confusing. God can do all that which is possible, here meaning that he can actualize every existing potentiality. All that is possible is achievable to (and through) him.

[Anonymous No.13215539]

>>13215237

I'm not the one starting a thread with this argument or trying to defend it. Don't try to shift your retardation onto me. I made neither argument, you did.

[Anonymous No.13215544]

>>13214861
The solution is clearly to drop a really heavy rock on your cranium

[Anonymous No.13215590]

>>13215514
Again, i am not trying to convince you to follow some arbitrary definition of omnipotence. The aristotelean finite regression of actuals and potentials reaches the first actual, that contains all potentiality whitin itself. This is what omnipotence really is. Nothing more. Omnipotence deals with the concept of potentiality, while perception deals with actuality. Only through language are we capable of abstraction and of thinking about objects and their relations away from actuality, from perspective. Most of the contradictions raised are really ill thought propositions that carry whitin themselves the source of the contradiction.

[Anonymous No.13215638]

The definition of Stone (or any material object) makes it impossible to be infinitely heavy.

[Anonymous No.13215654]

>>13214861
In summa theologicae1,25;Art.4 Augistine writes "there does not fall under the scope of God's
omnipotence anything that implies a contradiction"
laws of logic applies also to God.
therefore its a paradox similiar to Irresistible force paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_force_paradox

>The unstoppable force paradox, also called the irresistible force paradox, shield and spear paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" The immovable object and the unstoppable force are both implicitly assumed to be indestructible, or else the question would have a trivial resolution. Furthermore, it is assumed that they are two entities.

>The paradox arises because it rests on two incompatible premises: that there can exist simultaneously such things as unstoppable forces and immovable objects. The "paradox" is flawed because if there exists an unstoppable force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object and vice versa."
I hope that helps.

[Anonymous No.13215692]

imagine even associating the word/verb 'lift' with god then making hypotheticals about god actually DOING/PERFORMING that verb, a tiny midget speck in all of creation only observable in a subset of the animal kingdom. the state of this thread is fucking astounding

[Anonymous No.13215727]

>>13214861
If I'm not mistaken, Augustine "solved" this saying that that's not what omnipotence is about. Omnipotence is about doing everything that is possible. Therefore God isn't capable of making such stone, but at the same time this doesn't make him not omnipotent.
I have a hard time to agree with this definition of omnipotence, though. Saying that omnipotence has a limit, a barrier(the possibility of an action) is a bit illogical to me. For me, omnipotence shouldn't be limited by anything; that's the definition of the word. What do you guys think? Please clarify this for me.

[Anonymous No.13215753]

>>13215692
Bread good
Op fgt

[Anonymous No.13215758]

>>13214861
Yes, he can. He can make such a stone. Nothing follows from it. It does not entail lack of omnipotence. The fact that anyone can kill themselves does not imply that they are dead.

[Anonymous No.13215760]

>>13215727
Omni possible.
All that is possible.
God is the limiter.

[Anonymous No.13215764]

>>13214940
People can create three sided squares. The definition of a square does not imply 4 sides. Only that the angles of its corners add up to 360 degrees and it’s sides be equal length.

[Anonymous No.13215774]

>>13214861
This is a classic problem of a finite/bound system trying to analyze an infinite/unbound system (God). Its only a problem in a framework lesser than God. All the terms involved in the statement are defined by God, including the logical inference so the answer is God could potentially do anything includinf redefine the logical inference we use in our world to make the logical problem disappear.

[Anonymous No.13215833]

>>13215774
>God could potentially do anything includinf redefine the logical inference we use in our world to make the logical problem disappear
Nah. God is logic's bitch.

[Anonymous No.13215885]

>>13215727
If god is above logic there's no point arguing about the logic of what he can or cannot do.
If god is not above logic then he cannot do logically inconsistent things.
Either way there is absolutely nothing to argue about.

[Anonymous No.13216071]

>>13214861
I love how humanities pseuds see that OP pic and argue about it without even understanding it. Without defining what the fuck "P(), G(), E()" are, this means absolutely nothing. You don't look smart for posting this pic, in fact, the exact opposite.

[Anonymous No.13216096]

>>13214861
God supports the entire weight of the cosmos.
God exists in every living being.
There are stones which a single man may not be able to lift.
Therefore God has created stones which even he may not lift.

[Anonymous No.13216104]

When are you retards gonna stop attacking the same God strawman that you realized at 13 when you - for the first time - had the thought that "wait... a giant all-knowing bearded dude isn't creating the universe... like wheres the evidence?"

[Anonymous No.13216712]

>>13215764
Name one

[Anonymous No.13216738]

>>13214861
>the rules that I've observed apply to my own existence are universally applicable to all of reality

[Anonymous No.13216898]

>>13216712
Cliff Stoll
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n7GYYerlQWs

[Anonymous No.13216913]

>>13214861
god doesn't create. nu-theologicians need to get this idea out of their heads.

GOD
*clap*
DOESN'T
*clap*
CREATE
*clap*
ok sweeties?

[Anonymous No.13216959]

There is no stone and religion is stupid the end.

[Anonymous No.13217599]

>>13214861
God isn't a person. He's a universal force, like gravity

[Anonymous No.13218015]

If you're arguing that god isn't bound by logic, you're a tard, and the stone thing is just a way to demonstrate that. Reasonable definitions of omnipotence adhere to what is logically possible.

[Anonymous No.13218038]

>>13215068
This.

[Anonymous No.13218053]

If god is omnipotent and omniscient, then can he get lost?

[Anonymous No.13218439]

>>13218053
It's like a comic I saw ten years ago. He cannot swim because he is Jesus.

[Anonymous No.13218456]

>>13214861
No because that he created something more powerful than himself which would me he is not omnipotent.

[Anonymous No.13218480]

>>13214861
The argument is a semantic one that harps on the definition of a God, and then disproves the existence of that God i.e.: if God cannot make that rock then he is not omnipotent, but if . If one were to reconstitute the definition to include: "God cannot be apprehended perfectly by any language less perfect than God," then we have a definition that cannot be ontologically disproven, because the parameters of the problem can never be set.

[Anonymous No.13218509]

>>13216071
I'm actually major in mathematics, but thank's for comment

[Anonymous No.13218591]

>>13215692
>And we ought not to listen to those who counsel us “O man, think as man should” and “O mortal, remember your mortality.” Rather ought we, so far as in us lies, to put on immortality and to leave nothing unattempted in the effort to live in conformity with the highest thing within us. Small in bulk it may be, yet in power and preciousness it transcends all the rest.

[Anonymous No.13218600]

>>13216913
wait then who creates?

[Anonymous No.13218609]

>>13218509
Then which posts are yours? I didn't read every post itt

[Anonymous No.13218632]

>>13214861
A purely omnipotent being should be able to modify its strength levels if what it wished to do was lift a stone that was too heavy. God would be able to lower or raise his STR stat on command. God's total power over reality would extend to the features of his own being. God would be able to change form at will.

[Anonymous No.13218634]

"God cannot be apprehended perfectly by any language less perfect than God,"

Would that not make any discussion on the nature of god useless? No conclusions can be drawn if they simply don't exist for humans.

[Anonymous No.13218644]

>>13218609
I'm OP, I uploaded it because I need some diverse information on this, go to sleep and awake, and seen this thread

[Anonymous No.13218868]

>>13215068
thr concept of omnipotence itself is a play of words, thats the whole point

[Anonymous No.13218899]

>>13215654
>laws of logic applies also to God.
So then God has to follow the laws of logic. Which means that either:
1. He didn't create logic
2. He created logic, but he can't change it

If 1 is true, then God didn't create the universe, or there is something that is higher than him that created the laws of logic. In this case, I wouldn't call him a God, but a demiurge at best.

2 can't possibly be true, because if he created logic, he can surely change it. If he can't change it, how could he have even created it? If he is able to create something he can't change, we are back at the un-lifteable-rock problem.

>What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
This is such a simple question to answer, you don't need all that mumbo jumbo. If an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, the unstoppable object will go right through the immovable one. None of the rules are broken, it is barely a paradox. Also bare in mind that solids are 99% empty vacum, it's easier to imagine it that way.

[Anonymous No.13219219]

>>13215201
Why not. The conception of God as a being or entity that lifts rocks or has properties like strength that relate to physical objects seems kind of dumb.

[Anonymous No.13219231]

>>13215205
>man can be "good" but only by analogy to the goodness of God, which is infinite.
ohoho but thats where your wrong bucko

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univocity_of_being

[Anonymous No.13219243]

>>13215654
>>13215654
it really never changes does it

[Anonymous No.13219250]

>>13214861
Yes, but he'd cease being omnipotent. Next question

[Anonymous No.13219302]

>>13214861
i think the real issue here is ambiguity within our language. if you think about the problem in terms of attributes rather than in the weird convoluted terms of our language its basically like asking if god can make a cheeseburger without cheese. the answer would be well ofcourse he can make a hamburger. then you insist that you dont want a hamburger but a cheeseburger without cheese. its just not really how it works outside of our bendable language. it can make a rock with the attribute unliftable and it can make a rock with the attribute liftable. you ask it to make a rock with attribute unliftable and then to remove that attribute thats no issue but its not unliftable anymore ya know? anyway i havent really thought about the problem alot so i might b totally wrong

[Anonymous No.13219966]

>ITT: OP proving to us that he is a retard from /r/atheism

[Anonymous No.13220443]

>>13214861
I'm really tired of seeing stupid "arguments" against God, like OP's or "if god exists why do evil things happen, checkmate lmao" shit.
Even without reading major philosophical works you can think for yourself and see why this shit is stupid.