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

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308169627' post='2254180']
I do too, it would of been a waste of time and energy, such as you're silliness is now. But I was never offended by that comment, as it was a shot in the foot at you're own supposed traditionalism.
[/quote]
Not particularly. I don't think you'd have made a good pastor.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308169961' post='2254183']Not particularly. I don't think you'd have made a good pastor.[/quote] lol, he doesn't know... I don't think I will ruin it yet. It's too comical.

[Aloysius]

this is a linguistic problem, not a limitation on God. the fact that God is part of the definition of the Rock is what causes the paradox, "a rock so big that God cannot lift it" is a non-existent rock because a theoretical God could lift any rock. there is no limit to God's power, therefore the rock cannot exist because the rock is a limit to God's power. is it a limit that God cannot make that rock? not at all. the rock only exists as a structure of language, not as a potential reality.

the premise you ask me to accept before declaring this as a limit on God's power is that this is a potential reality, rather than a simple string of human words that do not signify anything in reality. it is not related to reality at all. it is the same thing as a shape which is simultaneously a square and a circle. God cannot make a shape which is simultaneously a square and a circle. if it is a square, by definition it is not a circle. if it is a circle, by definition it is not a square. these are the definitions of the words. the only thing God could do would be to intervene and re-write our dictionaries so that the language terms "square" and "circle" meant different things than they do.

I can ask the question because language makes it possible to state contradictions, but that's just a linguistic trick. from the standpoint of reality, it's not a problem at all. when we say God is all-powerful, no one is saying that God can make something true and not true at the same time, that God can make something square and circle at the same time.

God is incapable of contradiction. If by your definition that makes Him not all-powerful, then so be it, but the theological definition of omnipotence (or even a good philosophical definition of omnipotence IMO) does not make him not all-powerful. God cannot contradict his own nature. at least, that's the God we profess to believe in: an omnipotent God who can do anything except contradict His own nature... but since we don't see that as a limit, we just cutI it off at "omnipotent".

it's a silly paradox, not a legitimate point. there are so many better arguments against God than this, it shouldn't even be on the radar.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Aloysius

[Mr.Cat]

Could anyone demonstrate that god can lift any rock without human intervention?

[Aloysius]

see, that's a much better argument against God. rather than exploiting a linguistic loophole to pretend that there is a contradiction in the philosophical/theological theory of an all-powerful God, it asks for empirical proof that there is a God.

I have no empirical proof, of course, since I rely on faith and a priori reasoning. any and all a posteriori knowledge and argumentation I have for the existence of God is purely subjective and subject to interpretation. as the priest on the [i]House[/i] episode "Unfaithful" (season 5 #15) said: "coincidences are God's way of remaining anonymous"

the a priori theoretical discussion is much more challenging, but one certainly has the upper hand when one asks an a posteriori question. I concede that I have never witnessed God lifting a rock without human intervention.

[Mr.Cat]

So we can't demonstrate that this "god" can create or lift any kind of rock... why call it god?

[Aloysius]

because I don't only believe in thngs I can prove in the materialist sense. I can argue a priori philosophical reasons why I believe in God, I can give you a posteriori reasons from my own experience that you could discount as nothing more than imagination and coincidence. but no, there's no way I can show you God lifting a rock without human intervention.

that doesn't mean God can't lift a rock. I can't make Him do it though, and He invented the law of gravity so that rocks would lie exactly where he wanted them to.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Aloysius

[dairygirl4u2c]

can you or God limit the unlimited? if this is what is being asked, then i'd say no. if that question is like hte rock question... can't we just say no?
im not sure it's about loop holes and such, it's just a basic answer to a basic question... you can't limit the unlimited.
but even if we agreed to that much, i still dont see why it's wrong to say that God cannot say that God can't lift the rock if he desired it to be so. im not convinced that it's sthe same as a square circule, or that an unlimited nature couldn't limit itself in this specific way, given there's many things even most theists say God cannot do.

in some sense God answered the question when he became human as Jesus. he made a cross so big that he couldn't lift it... very well. only a paradox could answer the question about the rock, and only a paradox could illustrate how God as man couldn't very well lift that cross.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308175967' post='2254264']because I don't only believe in thngs I can prove in the materialist sense. I can argue a priori philosophical reasons why I believe in God, I can give you a posteriori reasons from my own experience that you could discount as nothing more than imagination and coincidence. but no, there's no way I can show you God lifting a rock without human intervention.[/quote]I might consider it anecdotal. But when we discuss a priori questions such as if god can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, you dismiss it. So it seems we can't demonstrate god coherently in a a priori or a posteriori sense.

[Aloysius]

dairygirl, the world "unlimited" is a human word. it means it cannot have limits. if God limited it, the human word would no longer apply. it's a linguistic loophole. God can limit ANYTHING at all, but if He limited that thing, it would no longer fall under the definition of the word "unlimited".

Mr. Cat, I'm not dismissing a priori discussions, I am simply saying that this particular a priori argument holds no water because it is nothing other than a linguistic loophole.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308176436' post='2254280']Mr. Cat, I'm not dismissing a priori discussions, I am simply saying that this particular a priori argument holds no water because it is nothing other than a linguistic loophole.[/quote]So you accept that god is all-powerful in spite of this?

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308176740' post='2254285']
So you accept that god is all-powerful in spite of this?
[/quote]
yes, God is all powerful, AND He cannot make a rock that He cannot lift. ie, because by definition He is all-powerful, He cannot make Himself not all-powerful.

He cannot limit the unlimited, because to do so would make it no longer "unlimited". if something is by definition unlimited, it cannot have any limits. if something is by its nature all powerful, there can be no rocks it cannot lift. so His inability to make one simply reflects the definition of the word all-powerful.

[Mr.Cat]

[Aloysius]

it's hard to escape the confines of language, I suppose, and hard to explain concepts outside the confines of language.

but ultimately the question attempts to prove that nothing all-powerful can exist because an all powerful being is incapable of limiting its own power. but tthat incapability is inherent to the definition of omnipotence, and it does not contradict it.

[Mr.Cat]

[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.

but ultimately the question attempts to prove that nothing all-powerful can exist because an all powerful being is incapable of limiting its own power. but tthat incapability is inherent to the definition of omnipotence, and it does not contradict it.[/quote]Some have suggested that god can do all that is possible and that he wants to do, which would answer many of these questions coherently, but it does put a definition to god being all-powerful. If I were to play devil's advocate with myself, I would say if you are willing to argue that god being all-powerful doesn't necessarily mean the extremes, you might have something. But the problem becomes the simpler, easier, and more common explanation is that being all-powerful is a contradiction.

Such as it is remotely possible that the sun revolves around the earth... but the simpler, easier, and more common explanation is that the earth revolves around the sun.

But you are right, merely appearing to be a contradiction doesn't necessarily disprove it; [i]paradoxes for example[/i]. But it falls upon you, the claimant of an all-powerful being, to warrant and demonstrate this supposed all-powerful being... Which as you have admitted that doesn't seem to be possible.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat