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

[Mr.Cat]

[quote][b]Mr.Cat's Parody[/b]
Omnipotence Paradox Abridged: An unlimited being seems to be a paradox, for to create a square circle is impossible and a contradiction. Therefore a limitation, the impossible and contradictory cannot be done.

Aloysius's Counter-Argument Abridged: The omnipotence paradox proposes impossible and contradictory examples, therefore it is invalid.

Mr.Cat's Argument Abridged: Paradoxes do not necessarily preclude existence, but without certainty of an omnipotence, the simpler explanation is preferred.[/quote]Please excuse me, but it does seem you are merely using the argument as a counter-argument. It seems you merely deny the paradox.

At least writers such as Thomas Aquinas assert that its a misunderstanding of omnipotence. Which if I were to argue this as a devil's advocate, that would be my case. That omnipotence means only that which is possible and willed. That absolute omnipotence is to be rejected.

[Winchester]

Can Dairy make a poll so dumb no one can answer it?

[Mr.Cat]

[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3-h7k_OIJk0/TCo-M-zQjCI/AAAAAAAAC5U/0lHl-pkkJ2M/s1600/terrified1.jpg[/img]

[stevil]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat']
"An unlimited being"
[/quote]
It seems to me that no being can be unlimited, even if we are simply talking about nonsensical logical parodox's, these are indeed limits.

Being unlimited would also mean that the being is not constrained by the reality of existence (spacial, temporal and material).
I have heard people claim that their god created existence (energy, time and space) which to me seems absurd. Without these constraints a thing is purely conceptual, but of course I can't prove that there is nothing within existence that does not conform to at least one of these constraints.
If god created existence does this mean that god doesn't exist?

[Aloysius]

I'll just end with the final statement that I see this as a specific characteristic of language that makes it always possible to object to any absolute by a string of mutually exclusive terms; the things only can't exist because of the definitions of the terms, nothing that would be made would satisfy the human definitions of the terms. sure, God cannot create something that would satisfy the definition of those human terms, but God can still do anything at all as far as I see it. I mean, if He really wanted to He could probably just rewrite the dictionary so that he fulfilled the statement, but alas, James Kirk is not God.

as far as the existence thing, it's common to understand the name YHWH, ie "I am that I am", to mean that God is pure existence, pure being. He is not appart from existence, existence is an uncreated eternal reality because God is an uncreated eternal reality. we attribute personality to the force of existence and call it God.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308381501' post='2255496']
I'll just end with the final statement that I see this as a specific characteristic of language that makes it always possible to object to any absolute by a string of mutually exclusive terms; the things only can't exist because of the definitions of the terms, nothing that would be made would satisfy the human definitions of the terms. sure, God cannot create something that would satisfy the definition of those human terms, but God can still do anything at all as far as I see it. I mean, if He really wanted to He could probably just rewrite the dictionary so that he fulfilled the statement, but alas, James Kirk is not God.

as far as the existence thing, it's common to understand the name YHWH, ie "I am that I am", to mean that God is pure existence, pure being. He is not appart from existence, existence is an uncreated eternal reality because God is an uncreated eternal reality. we attribute personality to the force of existence and call it God.
[/quote]


I AM WHO AM. Exodus 3:14

Not I AM THAT AM...and you can't limit God to pure being. We think in finite terms and that is a finite understanding....

God simply is who is.

I love you and I won't judge you. You are one of the People of God and one of my sisters and brothers. You are the embodiment of love and that is all that is important....we all need to be friends and love one another....

Edited June 18, 2011 by Cam42

[dairygirl4u2c]

if my arguemnts don't work, about limiting the unlimited, my second, and perhaps if i decided then primary, argument is that omnipotence doesn't have to be unlimited. and if that's the definition of the word, then God simply isn't omnipotent.

[Cam42]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1308414386' post='2255592']
if my arguemnts don't work, about limiting the unlimited, my second, and perhaps if i decided then primary, argument is that omnipotence doesn't have to be unlimited. and if that's the definition of the word, then God simply isn't omnipotent.
[/quote]

I love this response dairy....it is so nonsensical....and I love you too.

[Aloysius]

"I am that I am" is a common English translation, "I am who am" would work too. not sure what the problem is there...

yeah, you can't limit God, but all human words fall short of ever fully describing God. but I would not say that God created existence, God is existence (among other things, of course)

CCC 213 is a good description for us of what I'm trying to say, the way I was saying it was specifically directed at the atheists here so i was being a bit simplistic since they won't accept our premises.

"The revelation of the ineffable name "I AM WHO AM" contains then the truth that God alone IS. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and following it the Church's tradition, understood the divine name in this sense: God is the fullness of Being and of every perfection, without origin and without end. All creatures receive all that they are and have from him; but he alone is his very being, and he is of himself everything that he is."

in any event, God didn't create existence, but all existence comes from and is founded upon God.

[Aloysius]

this expresses it as well, the commentary on Exodus 3:14 from the Douay Rheims Bible:

"[14] "I am who am"... That is, I am being itself, eternal, self-existent, independent, infinite; without beginning, end, or change; and the source of all other beings."

"I am being itself", that is what God is. God is being, God is existence. we attribute a personality and a benevolence to Existence, whereas an atheist would not.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it seems pretty simple now, i dont see the issue. the question about the rock is essentially the same as 'can you limit the unlimited?'. the answer to that is, 'no' as that's a contradiction... it's unlimited, how can you limit that?. or, better yet... one could say... 'can the unlimited limit itself, the unlimited?' the answer is still no, cause it's unlimited.
is the fact that the unlimited cannot limit itself, or that you cannot limit hte unlimited, a limitation? you could call it that... but it's playing iwth words and concepts. the ulimate answer is no, you cannot limit the unlimited. (and for the sake of argument, if the unlimited could by virtue of it being unlimited, then limit itself.. as if God making the rock so big he can't lift it... the unlimited, or God in this case, could always then unlimit it self, or God could change his mind... so, ultimately, given any 'limitation' could then be unlimited, it's ultimately then unlimited, which couldn't be limited by definition)
this is as simple as can be explained... i dare anyone to poke holes in this... i dont see the issue any more.

Edited June 19, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1308414386' post='2255592']
if my arguemnts don't work, about limiting the unlimited, my second, and perhaps if i decided then primary, argument is that omnipotence doesn't have to be unlimited. and if that's the definition of the word, then God simply isn't omnipotent.
[/quote]

and, in a nutshell, what the above means, is if the for the sake of argument my last post didn't work, the only way to explain it is to say that 'God' isn't unlimited. that'd explain how a rock could be made that he coujldn't lift etc. either he isn't omnipotent, or what we generally understand to be omnipotence isn't really omnipotent.... there can be limitations upon omnipotence, and it's not truly unlimited.

Edited June 19, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1308103061' post='2253847']
In my experience, it's annoying because religious people have difficulty giving a satisfactory answer to it. It is the kind of question that a third grader would ask. That's probably because children are very good at asking very obvious, fundamental questions. They tend to not be very skilled at obfuscation.

That's not to say that the conclusions atheists try to derive from the problem's tricky nature are valid.
[/quote]

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?

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308424876' post='2255671']
"I am being itself", that is what God is. God is being, God is existence. we attribute a personality and a benevolence to Existence, whereas an atheist would not.
[/quote]

That's exactly how I see the differences of interpretational paradigms between atheists and theists.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1308298725' post='2254988']
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9SS95q2kpg[/media]
[/quote]

LOL!