/lit/ - Literature

>>16038774
It's not the size of the rock that affects one's ability to pick it up, but its weight

>>16038774
why not? he's already given you a brain so big that you cant use it

Yes.

>>16038845
kek

>>16038774
He will exist in a superposition of both lifting and not lifting the rock.
This is easily understandable and paraconsistent realities exist in our universe already.

>wasting your time on silly metaphysics

>>16038872
So can he not just do one or the other?

>>16038909
He can.

>>16038774
Could God make a cock so big that you mom can't suck it?

>>16038949
Then why would he exist in a state of superposition?

>>16038845
based

>>16038861
sorry I don't speak adidas

>>16038965
He exists in a metasuperposition state of superposition and nonsuperposition.

>>16039016
So can he not just be one or the other?

What's the point of asking these questions when God doesn't even exist?

>>16039023
He can.

>>16039034
Can the current king of France make a rock so big that he cannot lift it?

>>16038845
KEK!!! KEK!!!!!!!! BASED BASE D ASED BASED RED POLL REDPOLLED RED PLLLE PRED P I’LLL ! Bbbbb!!
>updooted muh fine gentlesir ;-)
>gift rebbit gold? y/n
>Y

That is an impossible object. A rock that He cannot lift implies a limit to his omnipotence. It’s a non-issue

>>16039040
Then why would he exist in a state of metasuperposition?

>>16039068
Because he can do this too.

>>16038909
Superposition means he's doing one and the other

>>16039052
Can trump make a wall so big even Mexicans cannot cross it?

>>16039097
But why can’t he do just one if he’s all-powerful? Why does he have to be in a state of superposition?

>>16039114
because god does not play dice

>>16039114
>But why can’t he do just one if he’s all-powerful?
He can.

>>16039034
See >>16037790

>>16039170
God won’t play dice or he can’t play dice?

>>16039185

>>16039178
Then what’s the point of bringing up superposition? Just answer the original question.

>>16039202
>Just answer the original question.
I did.

>>16039238
Can he make the rock or not?

>>16039251
He can.

>>16038774
Complete idiots think this is deep because they don't think.
>Can God make a rock so big that he cannot lift it
Let's Unpack This (TM)
>cannot lift it
This is a qualitative assessment of his interaction with the rock, not a distinct physical quality. A rock cannot possess a quality of "one's inability to lift it". A rock simply possesses "heaviness" or "lightness", or if you're a disgusting monoweightist it possesses "heaviness" alone in varying degrees. In a sense, the heaviest rock possible is composed entirely of heaviness and none of lightness, or it is composed of an unlimited amount of heaviness. One may be described as having "strength" or "weakness", but one does not possess the quality of "able to lift rocks"; surely it would be ridiculous to say that a man can lift a branch or a box but not a rock of lighter weight. A person who possesses some great enough strength is therefore able to lift objects of a certain heaviness, and so while someone might appear to have the quality of "able to lift rocks" what they really have is the quality of strength in great enough amounts to lift some rocks with less than some certain quantity of heaviness. A being who is omnipotent has an unlimited amount of strength. Since "ability to lift a rock" is not a true intrinsic quality but is itself the result of more basic properties, namely strength its comparison to the heaviness of an object being interacted with, we must use unlimited strength to determine ones ability to lift a rock. If one's strength is unlimited, then necessarily the weight of rocks they can lift is also unlimited. And so therefore one can readily and happily reply to "Can God make a rock so big that he cannot lift it" with "You are a complete mouth-breathing imbecile who routinely eats the feces of cows like a base animal. No, he can't, because his strength is unlimited and there is no such thing as a rock so heavy God can't lift it."

>>16039274
So God can’t lift the rock? Tell me beforehand if you’re planning to bring up superposition again.

>>16039283
>So God can’t lift the rock?
He can.

>>16038845

>>16039286
Is God also capable of not contradicting himself and giving me a single answer that doesn’t involve them being two at once?
>He can.
What’s the final answer?
>He can.
He can make the rock or he can’t?
>He can.
Apparently not because you can’t give me a final answer.

>>16039332
>Is God also capable of not contradicting himself
He is capable.
>and giving me a single answer
He can.
>What’s the final answer?
That he can.
>He can make the rock or he can’t?
He can.
>Apparently not because you can’t give me a final answer.
He can (and so do I).

>>16039280
So he is not omnipotent

>>16038845
Based

>>16039380
He is.

>>16039371
>>Is God also capable of not contradicting himself
Maybe God is but you aren’t/can’t

>>16038774
it would collapse into black hole before that point. god made contingency plans for these sorts of things

>>16039395
Even I can do it. Now imagine what can the God do.

>>16039401
You can’t.

>>16039412
I can.

>>16039392
He can’t make the rock.

>>16039015

1
>If you're omnipotent, create a rock that you can't lift!
>ok

2
poof! a rock is made

3
God can't lift the rock

4
>see I can't

5
>Aha! So you're not omnipotent!
>The fuck you said to me? YOU'RE not omnipotent!

6
God lifts the rock

7
>But you were supposed to create a rock that you yourself cannot lift!

8
>Well I can't lift it (in a smug manner akin to telling a dad joke)

9
trolled

>>16039421
He can.

>>16039380
No, he is omnipotent. Anon's point is the question is phrased in such a manner that either answer leads to an effective dead end, when really the answer is simple as "God can make a rock that is infinitely heavy yet can still lift it". It's an argument of semantics.

>>16039431
>”God can make a rock that is infinitely heavy yet can still lift it".
That’s the opposite of what he said.

>>16039380
Yes, he is, you absolutely retard. "Omnipotent" does mean "Capable of literally anything you can string together in a sentence". It means having unlimited strength, power, authority, and control over reality.

If I create the ultimate computer and say "This computer is capable of solving any mathematical problem in reality" and you say "Oh yeah, but it can't solve the square root of negative 1" that has no bearing. It's outside the bounds of the problem. "God isn't all powerful because if he was all-powerful he could create a situation in which he wasn't all-powerful" is not a coherent fucking sentence. Whether he's powerful enough to achieve the goal is an assessment of the quality of the interaction. The word "All-powerful" means that the assessment of the quality of the interaction is always "He can do it".

Your argument is, LITERALLY, "God isn't all-powerful because he isn't not-all-powerful". Are you so stupid you can't understand why this is invalid?

God can lift a rock, but he also can can't lift a rock.

>>16039462
Anon here, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID YOU ABSOLUTE FUCKING CRETIN. READ THE FUCKING POST

>>16039471
Putting any limitations on God (e.g. he can’t do x because muh semantics) is a limitation and means that he isn’t all-powerful.

>>16039505
Just don't put it on him then.

>>16039481
>No, he can't, because his strength is unlimited and there is no such thing as a rock so heavy God can't lift it.
> the answer is simple as "God can make a rock that is infinitely heavy yet can still lift it"

God can make a finitely heavy rock he can't lift, finitely heavy rock he can lift, infinitely heavy rock he can't lift and infinitely heavy rock he can lift.
He also can lift all of them at once.

he can make a really heavy rock and then pretend that he can't lift it

>>16039505
It's not a limitation. Why don't you get this? Again, your argument is "God isn't all-powerful because he isn't not all-powerful". "Incapable of failure" is not a limitation you fucking moron. It's the lack of a limitation.

What a retarded fucking monkey question. People make fun of evangelicals and Muslims and so on for being blabbering dipshits but atheists are universally pseud midwits. I know this thread is a joke but it's pathetic that this is the extent of atheist discourse on the validity of gnosticism. If you consider this to be a serious argument, just know that we're all laughing at you.

>>16039557
But do you laugh in ehehe or nyufufu way?

>>16038774
Can God make a rock that he cannot lift?*

paradox to expose how cringe is the idea of omnipotence

>>16039516
Yes, those are the same thing.
>God's strength is unlimited and so there is no such thing as a rock so heavy God can't lift it
>i.e., the cap on the weight of rocks God is capable of lifting is infinite
>i.e., God can make a rock that is infinitely heavy and still lift it.

>>16039556
>it’s not a limitation
>being unable to create something isn’t a limitation
Is there something I’m missing here?

>>16039016
So can't he just exist in one state of metasuperposition?

>>16039572
>god can lift the rock
>god can’t lift the rock
>these are the same thing

>>16039280
>Complete idiots think this is deep because they don't think.
No one thinks this is deep you pseud, the Op is a meme post. But yes I agree with you.

>>16038861
>>16038872
>>16038949

cringe. The point is that that unique rock he creates cannot be lifted , if he can somehow lift it, it is not that rock. in superposition he does lift it, he cannot but lift it. to not be able to lift it, it must be impossible for him to lift, which is not because as you claim, it is possible for him to lift through superposition, wich means that both things ARE actual, meaning that it is not impossible for him to not lift.

>>16039181
>when i put my teeth on the pillow, it desappears over night
>if do not put it in my pillow, it does not
>an entity which we will name the tooth fairy has all the qualities necessary to explain this phenomena
>experience is unreliable
>therefore, the toothfairy exist

anything can be proven a priori brainlet without an account of experience, read some god damn kant

>>16039604
He certainly can.

>>16039622
>meaning that it is not impossible for him to not lift.

meaning that is impossible for him to not lift***

>>16039662
>santa does not exist
Then who brought me the presents?
>your parents brought them
That's clearly false because my parents gifted me another present.

>>16039034
As usual, tranny with the most retarded possible comment. Hey remember when you shat your panties green and posted them? We all do.

>>16039614
I have met people who think OP's is a legitimate argument.

>>16039607
Jesus fucking christ anon
>There are no rocks God cannot lift
>There are an infinite number of rocks God can lift
Yes these are the fucking same, are you ESL or something?

>>16039594
Yes, there is. The fact, which I fucking stated, that "ability to be lifted" is not a quality a physical object can possess, but a quality of the interaction of an object-to-be-lifted and the lifter. You're THINKING that the question being asked is "Can God create a rock that he can't lift", but the actual question is "Supposing God created a rock of the greatest weight conceivable: a rock which embodies heaviness in its absolute form and which has unbounded heaviness, is this rock possess more heaviness than God possesses strength?" to which the obvious answer is "No, it doesn't." because there is no such thing as a rock which has more than infinite weight. More-than-infinity is a non-concept. It doesn't mean anything because the literal definition of an infinite weight is an unbounded weight. Not a very large weight, not the largest weight.

So this, again, is why I'm rewriting your argument as "God isn't all-powerful because he isn't not all-powerful". You can't argue that the non-existence, even among the ideal forms, of heaviness such that even ideal strength cannot lift it is evidence that ideal strength does not exist.

>>16039556
This argument is like saying that a being with unlimited power couldn’t limit his power if he wanted to. If a being with unlimited power can’t limit himself then he has limitations either way and ceases to be all-powerful. The failing premise is a being who’s “all-powerful.”

>>16038845

still coping?

>>16039715
You're not just missing the forest for the trees, you're missing it for a fucking lake. Not only that though, but you're again equating "Able to do anything" with "unlimited power". These are not the same thing. AGAIN, omnipotence doesn't mean you can achieve anything you can string together with words in the English language. For example, God cannot create "Dry water". This isn't a limitation on God's power, it's because dry denotes the absence of water, therefore dry water is water that has no presence of water and as such is a non-concept.

>>16039715
it is you who doesnt understand the very terms you use:

failure is undesirable, but it is a possibility nontheless, and to be all powerfull would mean that no possibility can escape the realm of your will, but then this paradox arises in which an omnipotent being cannot fail at something, which does not mean that "God isn't all-powerful because he isn't not all-powerful", it means that omnipotence itself is impossible.

>>16039751
>Omnipotence itself is impossible
It's more that omnipotence as a conception of "Capable of all-things" in the literal sense is impossible. In the sense that it's really used, as in of whatever and however many qualities may be used to complete an action, God has an infinite amount of them, it's not a non-concept in the way >>16039742 "dry water" is.

>>16038774
Any being that is not all-powerful is not God. You are essentially asking if it is possible for God not to be God. Is it possible for the impossible to be possible?

>>16039742
If he is all-powerful why can’t he bypass simple semantic problems? Why does he have to abide by your human logic at all?

>>16039769
it seems to me that these are mental gymnastics, or maybe i didnt get your point. An omnipotent being would also have infinite capacities, but this is not so because he has not the capacity to create a rock with the capacity of not being lifted by god, thus refuting the concept all togheter. Qualities are a valueable concept, but capacities seem to me as a more fitting concept in this case.

>>16039796
>why can’t he bypass simple semantic problems
He can.
>Why does he have to abide by your human logic at all?
He can do it if he wants to.

>>16039732
i'm actually a tranny myself and i make a sizable proportion of the >she >her etc posts whenever the subject comes up
i can't even describe to you how much i hate other trannies, i wish trump was actually the next hitler so he could gas us and put us all out of our collective misery

>>16039769
Dry water is a real thing.

>>16038774
The real question is: "would" he? Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

>>16039742
>>16039769
>It isn't even a paradox
Wait, I thought we were suspending all brain cells when we brought God into the equation anyway?
Fuck dry water.
He'll bake you a cake for your backwards birthday using only toothpaste and translocate it to you via his asshole. And so on.
You can't beat illogicality with sense. That's just stupid.

>>16038774
>Can god ascribe limits upon himself
Obviously, yes.

>>16039834
>>16039200

>>16039838
>Fuck dry water.
Only if you are ready to raise your wet powder son and dry liquid daughter.

>>16039852
a =/= b, b =/=a

>>16039425
haha

>>16039200
Holy frack that's Monkey Island. Didn't expect to see that on here

>>16039875
sexy

>>16039034
>God doesn't exist
And you've come to that conclusion based off what?

God does not make a rock nor does he lift a rock. He *is* the rock.

>>16039822
Kek at making me look it up but you know that's not what I'm talking about.

>>16039796
>human logic
There isn't human logic you carpet-muncher. There is only logic. These so-called "semantic problems" aren't conceptual issues, they're non-concepts that exist as a result of language. Going back to the "Dry water" example. The phrase "Dry water" is possible because the English language allows adjectives to be appended to any noun without qualifications, and has both an adjective denoting a lack of water and a noun for water. So you can construct in words "Dry water", which is water-less water. This isn't a real concept. There are real concepts that exist in reality, like dirt or light. Real concepts that don't exist in reality, like a vase the size of the Earth or something like that, which you can imagine. And non-concepts that emerge because languages are open ended which you can neither find in reality nor conceive of even. "Dry water" is a non concept. So is a rock so heavy an omnipotent being can't lift it. These aren't concepts that emerge out of limitations in reality, they're non-concepts that emerge because language is open-ended. The fact that God can't solve the system x > 4, x < 3 doesn't mean he's not omnipotent because a number greater than four and also less than three is a non-concept. It doesn't exist in the hard sense, as opposed to not-existing in the soft sense where it just doesn't exist in observable reality.

>>16039811
See above really. Omnipotents reflects complete and unlimited authority and control over reality. Non-concepts that don't exist in a hard sense being impossible to achieve by God aren't really arguments against omnipotence. Or at the very least if you're going to make that argument the real challenger one to make is "How can God be omnipotent if non-concepts exist at all", which you could say is the one you're making, I guess.

>>16039058
someone forgot his meds i see

>>16039796

if human logic is limited, then you cannot prove the existence of god either. It is only limited when you need it to be it seems...

The rock is but an example to show the paradox of omnipotence, which is that unlimited capacities would also mean that the creation of something with the capacity to not be interacted in a certain way is impossible, as a god would have infinite ones and would bypass said capacity. It doesnt seem a wild metaphysical speculation at all, just deriving conclusions from concepts. At least, it is not a wilder speculation that the concept of god itself.

>>16039822
got eeem!
>>16039838
you assume anon does not try to make sense of their faith, but you they are obviously refuting OP's nonsense question. Make a point or fuck off.
>>16039839
don't fall for this nonsense question.

God is a girl.

>>16039913
You seem to lack imagination. If there is a God, he exists outside of reality and can change the rules of it from outside. And can you stop writing tl;dr when your points don’t require it?

>>16038845
You're stupid

>>16039915
If human logic is limited, it is limited, but not non-existant. Just because you can't comprehend one aspect of God does not mean God does not exist. Asking an illogical question and expecting to make sense of reality won't help either.

>>16039913
>non-concepts

who is taliong about concepts? if i was talking about semantics, i would not be talking about god. I am talking about things

>>16039979
then, explain to me why can logic give an account of god and not its capacities.

>monkeyish cooing and howling

sage
sage
sage

>>16038845
lol destroyed

>>16039928
>Hello, based department?
Alternative version: https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/3765414

Hot take: this is a legitimately deep question

>>16038845
not funny didnt laugh

>>16039990
Logic is limited. That much is apparent in OP's question. Logic can be used to understand reality and truth. Logic cannot make the irrational, rational. It is irrational to suppose god cannot be god. Correct me if I'm not making sense.

>>16040141
>It is irrational to suppose god cannot be god
Isn’t that kind of what Christianity did with Jesus?

>>16039058
Based schizophrenic

>>16040164
I don't know, I'm not Christian.

>>16038774
God can't lack the ability to do a non-thing. This midwit proposition was laid to rest more than 2000 years ago, start with the Greeks.

>>16040217
>God can't lack the ability to do a non-thing.
If God cannot do literally everything imaginable in your puny mortal mind then there is no reason to call him God. Fuck you and the other pseudo-Platonist in this thread.

>>16038774
Yes and no.

>>16040272
Seems like you're disagreeing on the definition of the word "God." Also you missed the point of 16040217's reply.

>>16040330
You answered OP's irational question with an irrational answer.Epic. I should have seen it was bait all along.

>>16040336
God, existing outside of reality, does not have to abide by the rules of it. And yes, when I say all-powerful I mean literally all-powerful, not some tepid, demiurge-like sense of the word.

>>16040364
I see

God cannot make a cock so big OP cannot suck it

>>16039505
I don't see why a human can put limitations on what God can or cannot do.

>>16039622
> The point is that that unique rock he creates cannot be lifted , if he can somehow lift it, it is not that rock.
The point went completely over your head. If God is above the laws of logic, he can make a rock too heavy for him to lift and still lift it. It is that rock, but he lifts it. It's funny how something you'd grant to a Lovecraftian god or mind-bending monstrosity you wouldn't comprehend God doing.

>>16039742
I think that according to my previous belief he could actually create dry water. We, perhaps, would not be able to comprehend the dry water, or it would be a water that leaves no wetness on whatever passes through it (swimming in it would leave you utterly dry).

>>16039784
If He's omnipotent, He surely could. God could also make Himself not exist for all eternity, yet still act upon the world, or even exist, according to the aforementioned belief. Laws of logic ain't shit

>>16039796
Exactly. Why would an atheist pose OP's question, knowing this?

>>16039915
>if human logic is limited, then you cannot prove the existence of god either
Wrong. Human logic is limited, and you can't "prove" anything using logic, as there will always be a shadow of doubt. What if gravity is just demons pulling you down and angels pulling you up? We can't prove it, but that doesn't mean it isn't the case.

Human logic being limited doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Besides, science cannot prove anything, either.

>>16040164
He was stating that one cannot employ logic to understand a God that is, at his root, irrational, or suprarational, or what have you. If we could do that to God, then that would not be God (for example, if we could find God, sedate Him, and dissect Him to explain His origin and nature).

>Isn’t that kind of what Christianity did with Jesus?
That's not at all related to what he was talking about

>>16040684
He already did, and I'm its sole proprietor

>>16038774
rock cannot exist outside of God, idiot.

God is omnipotent, and as such he possesses every possible potency, and only those. This means that before asking the question you've asked, you first have to prove that the expression "creating a stone so heavy that not even God can lift it" refers to a possible type of potency. If it isn't, asking the question you've asked would be as meaningful as asking "can God green the beret dog-bazooka?".

My take on this one is that it's not a type of potency, since it directly contradicts the omnipotence of a being who is omnipotent by essence and definition. Since this cannot possibly be a potency, insofar as it cannot be actualized due to its internal contradiction, we can say that God cannot create that kind of stone, and that this fact does not hinder His omnipotence in the slightest (since he can still do everything that is possible).

>>16041413
So... he has limits, being therefore unable to do that which is impossible and is constrained by paradox.
Just claiming that this doesn't hinder the concept of his omnipotence in any way does not make it so. Even if God is subject to something as fundamental as reason, that still means he is not the limitless, unbounded force you claim him to be, whether you like it or not