If God Is All Powerful, Can He Make A Rock So Big, That Even He Cannot

[Papist]

Can an atheist ask a question so tough that even he can't answer?

[stevil]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1308829293' post='2257666']
Can an atheist ask a question so tough that even he can't answer?
[/quote]
I can, does that make me all powerful?

An atheist's claim is not necessarily to know but is a position of not knowing, if you know what I mean. Yes, this fits agnostic label as well.
A hard atheist, maybe not.

Edited June 23, 2011 by stevil

[Papist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1308831834' post='2257672']
I can, does that make me all powerful?

An atheist's claim is not necessarily to know but is a position of not knowing, if you know what I mean. Yes, this fits agnostic label as well.
A hard atheist, maybe not.
[/quote]
Then you are certainly in a position of not knowing.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1308836070' post='2257682']Then you are certainly in a position of not knowing.[/quote]Hypothetical situation. You are with a friend drinking in an empty house, suddenly a disturbing and frightening noise comes from a window, both of you startled you investigate but find nothing there. You speculate that it could of been any number of things but that you don't know. You're friend objects, saying that you don't know, therefore it must of been a robber and you should call the police. You point out a robber would of been undeterred and would make more than just a noise, so you're friend retorts back you don't know what it was... therefore, robber.

This is the theistic position of glazing over an unknown with "god".

Edited June 23, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Nihil Obstat]

1) But of the times and moments, brethren, you need not, that we should write to you;
2) For yourselves know perfectly, that the day of the Lord shall so come, as a thief in the night.
3) For when they shall say, peace and security; then shall sudden destruction come upon them, as the pains upon her that is with child, and they shall not escape.
4) But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308846250' post='2257710']1) But of the times and moments, brethren, you need not, that we should write to you;
2) For yourselves know perfectly, that the day of the Lord shall so come, as a thief in the night.
3) For when they shall say, peace and security; then shall sudden destruction come upon them, as the pains upon her that is with child, and they shall not escape.
4) But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

[/quote]The christian god comes as a thief. Explains so much. Thank you for that.

Although it is completely unrelated to the topic.

[Winchester]

Actually, it does.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308182171' post='2254357']
it's hard to escape the confines of language, I suppose, and hard to explain concepts outside the confines of language.[/quote]

This.

I guess a square triangle couldn't exist linguistically because then it would be a triangle (three angles) and not a square, with four angles.

Unless the triangle might have fourth angle in a higher dimension that we can't see or something.

Edited June 26, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[BigJon16]

errr... sorry double post...



see post below.

Edited June 27, 2011 by BigJon16

[BigJon16]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1308829293' post='2257666']
Can an atheist ask a question so tough that even he can't answer?
[/quote]


[img]http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/commercials/2010/8/geico-mike-mcglone.jpg[/img]


Can switching to Geico really save you 15% or more on car insurance?

[Aloysius]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308725729' post='2257191']
I think it's the sort of question that isn't asked enough, and since it's the theists who are making the claims, they have a burden to give a satisfactory answer.

The problem is that of logical contradiction and incompatibilities and depend on the claims.

[u]Omni[/u]benevolent, [u]omni[/u]present, [u]omni[/u]scient and [u]omni[/u]potent just don't go well together. They cancel eachother out.

Also, as somone pointed out if you were to say that god is omnipotent but can't do things that are against his nature, then by that definition everybody is omnipotent. God would just be more powerful than omnipotent humans. Why say that god is [i]all [/i]powerful then?
[/quote]
there is a difference between something that is beyond one's nature and ability, and something which is contrary to one's nature. I can't leap off a building and fly away because it's beyond my capability; but if I did start flying, no one would say I was no longer a man (they'd probably say I was a super-man). but if a being was defined by its nature as being honest, and then it lied, it would be said that it was no longer an honest being. and of course, an omnipotent being being unable to limit his omnipotence is just par for the course when you define the word omnipotent, though, because omnipotence would not be omnipotence if it were limited, so again, as I say, it's a word trick like a square triangle, which you appear to have agreed with that paradigm in another post

preternatural power is power that is above human power. this is what Catholics attribute to angels: they have powers that are above human powers, but those powers are natural to them, so the powers aren't super-natural. God's power is not simply above humans, or above angels, God's power is the source of all the other powers, the one capable of doing anything that is a power. Catholic moral theology views evil as a privation of good; an evil action is a privation of power, and we believe that to do something evil, while in this limited lifetime it may look like some sort of amazing capability, it is in reality when you come out of the cave and see all things for what they truly are something that was diminishing your power, limiting your own self. lie and you are a slave to lying, cheat and you are a slave to cheating; God cannot make himself a slave to these things; God cannot do these things because they are not things at all, they are a void, they are negations of true things.

and let me remind everyone that I don't here want to argue that there IS or IS NOT a God, I'm merely saying that these objections are invalid; perhaps other objections are valid, but these ones prove nothing IMO. though the omnibenevolence vs. omnipotency is harder to explain and a deeper objection; in my opinion the reason it's harder to explain is the veil that is placed over our eyes as to the true lack of nature that evil has; we refer to evil actions as if they are powers to be had, but I suggest that in reality they are not powers at all.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1309251743' post='2259592']
there is a difference between something that is beyond one's nature and ability, and something which is contrary to one's nature. I can't leap off a building and fly away because it's beyond my capability; but if I did start flying, no one would say I was no longer a man (they'd probably say I was a super-man). but if a being was defined by its nature as being honest, and then it lied, it would be said that it was no longer an honest being. and of course, an omnipotent being being unable to limit his omnipotence is just par for the course when you define the word omnipotent, though, because omnipotence would not be omnipotence if it were limited, so again, as I say, it's a word trick like a square triangle, which you appear to have agreed with that paradigm in another post [/quote]

Makes sense.

[MithLuin]

What it really comes down to is how you view this question:

Which person has more might?

One who can do only good deeds

OR

One who can do good and evil deeds?


At first glance, the person whose actions are constrained to the good seems more limited. He can't lie. He can't steal. He can't cheat. Surely...in a battle of sheer might...he is at a disadvantage. This person cannot 'fight dirty.'

BUT, that does not make one weaker. Being able to include evil deeds in one's repertoire does not make one greater. The person who can (seemingly) either be honest or dishonest is not able to command the respect or trust that the actually honest person does. The existence of evil is diminishing, and weakens the one who seemed to have a wider range of options at his disposal. By narrowing one's actions to [i]only[/i] good actions, one achieves power that is not available to those who 'mix' in some other traits.



Yes, that's just a slightly philosophical way of saying, 'The bad guy always loses,' but if one looks at [i]why[/i] the good guys win, it becomes clear that these avenues are not available to someone who mixes good and evil together at will. Evil is not more, it is a negation, so if God is not evil and has no part in evil....[i]omni-[/i] is the appropriate prefix to his power.

An illustration from [i]Lord of the Rings[/i]:
When Gandalf notices that Saruman's robes are not white, but are actually made of many colors, he remarks, "I liked white better."

"White!" [Saruman] sneered. "It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken.”

To which Gandalf replied: "In which case it is no longer white."



The ability not to murder makes one stronger than the ability to murder....because 'not murdering' is not an absence, but shows a value for human life. It is the murderer who disregards this and is thus lacking. Just because our language gives a name to the absense of something does not make it more powerful.

[dairygirl4u2c]

can the rock be made? the reason i say no.

this is akin to asking. can the unlimited limit itself? by definition it is unlimited, so the answer is no. then we approach the other end... is the fact that the unlimited being unable to limit itself, then a limitation on the unlimited? as a play on words only... the unlimited cannot contradict itself by limiting the unlimited.. it can't limit itself. it's a play on words, like, can a square be a circle? no, cause it's a square. our langauge is builty upon concepts that have limits... but we're not accustomed to concepts that don't have limits. we're used to using limtied language to describe things, but it doesn't work right with the unlimited, as it's is contradictory to the natuire of the unlimited.

[MIKolbe]

i need table to translate that.