God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-02-2013, 04:57 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(11-02-2013 03:17 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:What a very interesting idea you put forth.

So.. you are saying Jewbus couldn't poof the ready made snowball into existence, as It apparently did with everything else?

That's pretty limiting for an all powerful being.
I neither said that, nor implied it, but I know hedgehog's DAD cannot poof a snowball into existence. Try reading his post again, please.
And try and be more like Chas, who I find very thought provoking and insightful. Whereas you are just as terse in your reponses but seem interested in cheap jokes, not taking any ethical high ground or debating facts in evidence.
I already tried explaining the paradox in the simplest terms I could think of, and apparently you didn't/refused to understand (if you didn't read the latest posts in the thread before posting that is your problem not mine).

I already generalised the paradox so as to focus on the logic rather than the confusion that the specific concept of lifting something seemed to be causing. You didn't/refused to understand (again if you didn't read it go back and do so).

Instead you tried to come up with an analogy that was laughably nonsensical. You were the one that tried to use my dad as an example if you recall, and so I accepted that and used him in an analogy that was actually a decent approximation of the original paradox, unlike your "can he beat up himself" straw man.

If you fail to understand something, then take my simplification of the problem as a "cheap joke" then I can only assume you are refusing to admit you actually do understand whats going on and are just trying to deflect from it because you can't come up with a decent response.

But I will make one last attempt to help you understand, and let us indeed use your context of things beating each other up.

The correct modification of the paradox would not be "Can God beat himself up", but "Can God create a fighting opponent that would be capable of beating him in a fighting ring?"

If God can do this, then there is a stage of being that can defeat God, and is hence more powerful in that one aspect than God is, so God is not all powerful (omnipotent).


If God cannot do this, then he has been proven to be incapable of something, which means he is not all powerful (omnipotent).

It all boils down to whether God can do something that proves he is not omnipotent, because if he can then he isn't omnipotent and if he can't then he is not omnipotent.

It is beyond my ability to make it any simpler for you, so I apologise if you still don't understand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like hedgehog648's post
11-02-2013, 07:13 PM
RE: God's Omnipitance - The heavy rock paradox
(07-02-2013 11:57 PM)Egor Wrote:  The human being is created and is capable of choosing to move toward God or away. It really is about the only free choice we have. In order for that kind of spirit to exist, however, God has to give up both the ability to force it and to know ahead of time what will occur. It becomes a dark place in His mind He is not able to go to. This is, by the way, what is symbolized in the idea of God dying for us. In order to create a human being, he has to give up part of Himself. If the human being moves toward God, there is great glory to be had. God, Himself, is amplified by it and it becomes a net gain unto Him.

I pity the human who makes the wrong choice.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
12-02-2013, 08:13 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Quote:The correct modification of the paradox would not be "Can God beat himself up", but "Can God create a fighting opponent that would be capable of beating him in a fighting ring?"
Well, it isn't because that's NOT the rock question. The rock question is can "God's own power defeat God's own power?" ...and the question is loaded and moot on its face.
But God did create an opponent that defeated Him... and then He turned that hour of darkness and defeat into victory over the cosmos and for all mankind. Cool.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2013, 08:53 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(11-02-2013 01:52 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  
(11-02-2013 08:18 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  That is, unless you can find significant theist groups claiming your self-contradictory version of omnipotence. Then yes, you would have disproven their god.
Otherwise, if this is not intended as a serious argument then that took is ok so long as you aren't claiming it as serious.
No. All powerful means all powerful. If you want to say a god is all powerful within a given set of conditions then that's fine - the theist would still have to prove it but the paradox wouldn't apply if they did make that caveat.
But lets reword the paradox to have the same meaning but in the context you are describing:
Can God manipulate space/time in such a permanent way so as to prevent himself from manipulating it any further in any way?

Maybe this makes more sense in terms of Internet memes: Can a guy who can lift anything lift a weight so high he can't lift it? Your answer seems to be - If yes, then he can't lift anything so is not an omni-lifter. If no, then he doesn't even lift.

Again it ends up in the strawman territory. You choose a definition that has this is self-contradictory property. So yes, if someone believes in that definition the paradox wins and their god is false. Have you met anyone who would define their god's omnipotence thusly and seriously?

The definition that I would expect a theist to take and is more in line with holy books is that God can set the state of any quantum in the universe throughout all of space and possibly of time while he exists and operates in other dimensional space or some non-space context. Under this definition of omnipotence the god-beast is clearly not able to make a quantum state that they can't modify. This redefinition of omnipotence bypasses the paradox. The solution with this definition in place is simple: The god-beast can't create an immutable quantum state. They'll always be able to modify it again after having modified it the first time. Like a potter with clay they can start again, and this doesn't meaningfully diminish how we would describe the limits of their power or the limits of the potter's artistic skill.

You might call that overthinking, but I would call it defining your terms. If you demand that a strawman version of a property must be true, and disprove the strawman you have disproven nothing. There could conceivably be a god-beast out there who can manipulate space time in a manner of their choosing. There is nothing in known physics that necessarily prevents that. There might be an "omnipotent" being in every meaningful sense. My feeling is that the better argument against the existence of such a being is that there is no statistically significant exercise of this capability. It is down to Occam's razor to reject the argument from ignorance that says "we don't know so such a being must exist". I don't think this paradox solves any problem within the overall debate.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2013, 11:24 AM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2013 12:32 PM by PleaseJesus.)
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Quote:Can a guy who can lift anything lift a weight so high he can't lift it? Your answer seems to be - If yes, then he can't lift anything so is not an omni-lifter. If no, then he doesn't even lift.

Rephrase yours as "Can a guy who can lift an infinite mass or weight be unable to lift an infinite weight?" and you're right at the heart of my point about this boneheaded rock "paradox". An omnipotent God has unlimited (infinite) power and so would always have (infinite) power to lift any rock, even an infinite one!
The real issue, of course, is that a being of infinite power can share power. Man has free will and this does not thwart God nor compromise God's omniscience regarding salvation or anything else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2013, 02:01 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(12-02-2013 08:53 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(11-02-2013 01:52 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  No. All powerful means all powerful. If you want to say a god is all powerful within a given set of conditions then that's fine - the theist would still have to prove it but the paradox wouldn't apply if they did make that caveat.
But lets reword the paradox to have the same meaning but in the context you are describing:
Can God manipulate space/time in such a permanent way so as to prevent himself from manipulating it any further in any way?

Maybe this makes more sense in terms of Internet memes: Can a guy who can lift anything lift a weight so high he can't lift it? Your answer seems to be - If yes, then he can't lift anything so is not an omni-lifter. If no, then he doesn't even lift.

Again it ends up in the strawman territory. You choose a definition that has this is self-contradictory property. So yes, if someone believes in that definition the paradox wins and their god is false. Have you met anyone who would define their god's omnipotence thusly and seriously?

The definition that I would expect a theist to take and is more in line with holy books is that God can set the state of any quantum in the universe throughout all of space and possibly of time while he exists and operates in other dimensional space or some non-space context. Under this definition of omnipotence the god-beast is clearly not able to make a quantum state that they can't modify. This redefinition of omnipotence bypasses the paradox. The solution with this definition in place is simple: The god-beast can't create an immutable quantum state. They'll always be able to modify it again after having modified it the first time. Like a potter with clay they can start again, and this doesn't meaningfully diminish how we would describe the limits of their power or the limits of the potter's artistic skill.

You might call that overthinking, but I would call it defining your terms. If you demand that a strawman version of a property must be true, and disprove the strawman you have disproven nothing. There could conceivably be a god-beast out there who can manipulate space time in a manner of their choosing. There is nothing in known physics that necessarily prevents that. There might be an "omnipotent" being in every meaningful sense. My feeling is that the better argument against the existence of such a being is that there is no statistically significant exercise of this capability. It is down to Occam's razor to reject the argument from ignorance that says "we don't know so such a being must exist". I don't think this paradox solves any problem within the overall debate.
Your lifting paradox is not an accurate analogy of the original paradox.

For it to be so he would have to be able to create ever increasing weights to lift, height is not relevant. Because only then we are back to "can he create something he can't lift" territory. Only in these terms are we talking about an all powerful deity, whereas having him just lift weights means he is only all-powerful when it comes to one particular thing, which is not something I have ever heard any theist claim.

Nor would it be "if yes then he can't lift anything" - it would be "if yes then there is something that he cannot lift" and hence he is not an omni-lifter.


The key point here is you have had to redefine "omnipotence" to get around the paradox. By doing this you have shown the paradox to be correct. If the theist wants to redefine what they mean by omnipotence, fine, the paradox is no longer relevant. But the point is that they have had to do so in order to solve the problem, showing their initial position to be implausible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2013, 02:04 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(12-02-2013 11:24 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Can a guy who can lift anything lift a weight so high he can't lift it? Your answer seems to be - If yes, then he can't lift anything so is not an omni-lifter. If no, then he doesn't even lift.

Rephrase yours as "Can a guy who can lift an infinite mass or weight be unable to lift an infinite weight?" and you're right at the heart of my point about this boneheaded rock "paradox". An omnipotent God has unlimited (infinite) power and so would always have (infinite) power to lift any rock, even an infinite one!
The real issue, of course, is that a being of infinite power can share power. Man has free will and this does not thwart God nor compromise God's omniscience regarding salvation or anything else.
So taking what you say as true, God is unable to create a rock that his infinite power of lifting cannot lift.

Meaning his powers of creation are finite when confronted by his powers of lifting.

Meaning he is not omnipotent, until you do as has been suggested and redefine what you mean by omnipotence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2013, 02:08 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(12-02-2013 08:13 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  But God did create an opponent that defeated Him.
Wait, god's name is Voldemort? Who knew...

And why exactly did god create an opponent who defeated him? We all knew he is into really hardcore sadism, but the masochism part is news to me...

Of course, he kinda crucified himself, so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised.

Cool story, indeed, but rated NC-17 as it may contain brutality/pervasive strong graphic violence, explicit sexual content, sexual assault, extreme horror and/or crude indecent language. And yet, people willingly expose their kids to it... nay, shove it down their throats. What a wonderful world we live in!

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2013, 02:18 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(12-02-2013 02:04 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  
(12-02-2013 11:24 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Rephrase yours as "Can a guy who can lift an infinite mass or weight be unable to lift an infinite weight?" and you're right at the heart of my point about this boneheaded rock "paradox". An omnipotent God has unlimited (infinite) power and so would always have (infinite) power to lift any rock, even an infinite one!
The real issue, of course, is that a being of infinite power can share power. Man has free will and this does not thwart God nor compromise God's omniscience regarding salvation or anything else.
So taking what you say as true, God is unable to create a rock that his infinite power of lifting cannot lift.

Meaning his powers of creation are finite when confronted by his powers of lifting.

Meaning he is not omnipotent, until you do as has been suggested and redefine what you mean by omnipotence.
Logical consistency (human) may not be part of God's C.V.

If it/he/her/what did exist the former can't be blamed for what's written about it/he/her/what et al. surely, or semi surely.......................
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2013, 03:41 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(12-02-2013 02:18 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(12-02-2013 02:04 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  So taking what you say as true, God is unable to create a rock that his infinite power of lifting cannot lift.

Meaning his powers of creation are finite when confronted by his powers of lifting.

Meaning he is not omnipotent, until you do as has been suggested and redefine what you mean by omnipotence.
Logical consistency (human) may not be part of God's C.V.

If it/he/her/what did exist the former can't be blamed for what's written about it/he/her/what et al. surely, or semi surely.......................
Special pleading alert.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: