[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 2.31 MB, 2123x1181, 1539142816333.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19517124 No.19517124 [Reply] [Original]

>Could an omnipotent being create a stone too heavy for it to lift? More generally, could an omnipotent being make something it could not control (Mackie 1955: 210)? This question is known as the Paradox of the Stone, or the Paradox of Omnipotence. It appears that answering either “yes” or “no” will mean that the being in question is not omnipotent after all. For suppose that the being cannot create the stone. Then it seems that it is not omnipotent, for there is something that it cannot do. But suppose the being can create the stone. Then, again, there is something it cannot do, namely, lift the stone it has created.

Please, lit.
Discuss your answers.

>> No.19517149

Reddit argument. First of all the question is faulty as it starts by limiting G-d. There's nothing he can't do. It's similar to saying "can G-d make a circle a square? Oh then he's not omnipotent." G-d doesn't contradict himself nor does he commit illogical acts. Another point if you ignore the initial fallacy is that he would be able to make such a stone but then he would be able to lift it, as there is nothing he can't do

>> No.19517157

>>19517149
Can you ignore the initial fallacy?
It seems counterintuitive to the thought process.

>> No.19517169

>>19517124
That's just odd. Rocks are of his creation so to treat it equivalently w God is odd or requires more justification. You would be importing a second god to do that.
Also I think of God as maximally existent not all existent or, even less, all powerful.

>> No.19517170

>we recognize that you have unlimited power but since you can't create a stone that's too heavy for you to lift you can't be classified as omnipotent
its basically a moot semantics argument

>> No.19517181

>>19517170
Well, it directly goes against traditional religions in which states god does not lie. If God is omnipotent, he should be able to do this.

>> No.19517212

>>1951715
>wants a logical statement but
>"Can you ignore the initial fallacy?"
Fuck off

>> No.19517222

>>19517124
A rock that can't be lifted by an omnipotent being is an impossibility, since by definition an omnipotent being can do anything. Bit retarded of your part to propose otherwise.

>> No.19517230

>>19517222
If it can do anything that means it can make the rock, but cannot move it. How does it move the rock?

>> No.19517238

>>19517181
To do what? Create the rock or lift it?
This is just a word game. An omnipotent god has the power to take speech and rational capabilites from all of us. That's enough to deal with your little verbal trick.

>> No.19517244

>>19517230
Not him but I still see it as a category issue

>> No.19517248

>>19517244
Please, elaborate.

>> No.19517255
File: 108 KB, 880x617, 9706262.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19517255

>>19517124
Could omnipotent being create a stone too heavy for it to lift and then lower everything else except for that stone?

>> No.19517257

>>19517238
Create and lift.

>> No.19517265

>>19517230
Easily: god makes a rock and announces - this rock is so, that even I can't lift it. God doesn't lie, remember, but this rock indeed is one of the quality that can't be lifted by God, ontologically speaking.
God tries to lift it and he can't. He is shocked. He decides, then, that he can lift this rock. The rock then becomes this same rock, but liftable by god.
Explain this. I can't. He showed me in a dream.

>> No.19517278

Hilarious how religitards despite more than 2000 years of intellectual history still can't logically refute child level arguments like this.

>> No.19517280

>>19517265
Does he not cease to be omnipotent once the stone that he cannot create is made?

>> No.19517284

>>19517280
Cannot lift*

>> No.19517299

>>19517124
>an omnipotent being who by very definition is not constrained by any rule or limited in any way cannot create a stone too heavy to lift because that goes against the rules and limitations that constrain us mortals
you understand that an omnipotent being could do even nonsensical things like turn gravity into chocolate right?
the limitation is language, not god.

>> No.19517306

>>19517280
Crealy not, since moments later he showed himself to be able to lift it.

>> No.19517313

>>19517306
Then he could always lift it because it was clearly something he could pick up.

>> No.19517317

>>19517299
>the limitation is language, not god.
Which limitations has god placed upon us, that we cannot articulate through language? The bible was given to us in language, after all.

>> No.19517335

>>19517317
how does this tie to the original argument? itt OP argues "if god is omnipotent can he do _" to which the answer is yes.
we are not arguing for the validity of the bible. stop moving the goalpost

>> No.19517339

>>19517335
It was on the discussion of word semantics. Which seems to be the only way people are avoiding the question.

>> No.19517350

>>19517313
uh, no. he couldn't. that was a rock he couldn't lift when he tried. he wasn't pretending, anon.

>> No.19517357

>>19517350
Then if he could not lift it was he not omnipotent?

>> No.19517367

>>19517357
well, no. he clearly showed me he could lift it afterwards.

>> No.19517368

>>19517339
>semantics
you are the one relying on semantics. there are no restrictions on an omnipotent being. it can do whatever, even if its contradictory or flat out impossible.
that's what omnipotence is

>> No.19517370

>>19517367
If he wasn't lying, then during that point in time he was not omnipotent, which means there are limitations.

>> No.19517380

>>19517257
he literally can't

>> No.19517387

>>19517370
but he can mess with those supposed limitations at will? how is that not omnipotence?
and of course he wasn't lying. he is god, he doesn't lie.

>> No.19517409

>>19517299
>you understand that an omnipotent being could do even nonsensical things like turn gravity into chocolate right?
100% meaningless sentence. Just because you can construct a phrase does not mean the referents exist or are able to interact in any coherent way corresponding to it. The whole point is that "God" is ill-defined; "omnipotent" is ill-defined; and the fact that this is the calibre of argument that religitards are able to summon up—utterly child-like, akin to playground disputes over imaginary friends—is strong evidence for their being unintelligent and deluded rather than divinely inspired.

>> No.19517439

>>19517124
>>19517149
>>19517255
>>19517278
>>19517299
>>19517409
Where does it say God is omnipotent, other than saying he is "almighty"? Bible gives you no reason to believe in such a thing, nor does it say he is everywhere, quite the opposite. Only the omniscience is somewhat arguable, and still I wouldn't say so.

>> No.19517495

>>19517124
For a human to understand God is split up, but he's not really. It's just to understand how he is full potentiality that's a physical comparison.

Theology and stuff.