Is God Omnipotent

@urangutan,

GOD IS DEAD!! Very Happy

:rolleyes::p Wink

:p

@boagie,

God as we can consider him is only a human concept as we cannot consider a being beyond human limitations without leaving behind human limitation in doing so, thus reding such a being beyond our consideration and thus undertanding and all logical consideration. Sice we cannot concieve of him he holds no answers for us so long as we are human and it is not sensible to consider what things would be like were we not as we are and cannot understand that about which we are talking.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent-Wittgenstein

@Zetetic11235,

Quote:

God as we can consider him is only a human concept as we cannot consider a being beyond human limitations without leaving behind human limitation in doing so, thus reding such a being beyond our consideration and thus undertanding and all logical consideration. Sice we cannot concieve of him he holds no answers for us so long as we are human and it is not sensible to consider what things would be like were we not as we are and cannot understand that about which we are talking.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent-Wittgenstein

Why can't we consider anything beyond human limitations? I can consider what comets do.

And if God is a human concept, wouldn't we have to be able to at least consider God?

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

But it's the response that matters, right? -- and as you say it's the loading of the question that sets up the paradox in the answers. It's like when a lawyer creates a yes/no question out of a more nuanced subject -- and forces the witness to commit to an answer that's not really correct -- it just goes to rhetorically support a case.

Sure, my point was yes; I see it as a trick question. But its intent is to illustrate the problem with an omnipotent being. No, I don't believe it for a second, but I think the problem it illuminates is a fair one; and one many deists need to wrestle with and resolve to maintain their faith.

@Ruthless Logic,

Ruthless Logic wrote:

Your provocative constraint pertaining to the abilities of omnipotence would also suggest that unless an Omnipotent Presence is capable of self destruction, then the claim of omnipotence would maintain validity, but the very nature of omnipotence only knows existence to be consistent with invoking immortal supremacy.

Can anyone reconcile what is express in the contained words above?
And if you can, does it appear to be consistent or inconsistent with the offered analogy from the tread starter?

Aedes wrote:

The problem with this scenario is not the way it queries the abilities of God but rather its use of negation.

To say "God CANNOT create a boulder that he cannot lift", the use of two negatives makes this tantamount to saying "God can lift any boulder that he creates." It's the ambiguity of the word "can" that makes it seem like it's God's abilities that are in question, whereas in reality it's the tenability of the scenario that is in question.

I fail to see where there is any ambiguity created by the verb "can" in the original analogical scenario below. The words contained in the paradoxical claim are completely straightforward, and consequently require attempted reconciliation for cognitive consistency.

God is supposedly Omnipotent (All powerfull) and so, can he create a boulder so huge that he can not lift it?
Now, If you answer yes then he can not be all powerful as there is something he can not do (he wont be able to lift the rock). If you answer no there is also something he can not do (create the rock)

@philosopherqueen,

philosopherqueen wrote:

Okay I'm not tryin to be offensive or anything. I'm just ran across this and thought it would be a good thread.

God is supposedly Omnipotent (All powerfull) and so, can he create a boulder so huge that he can not lift it?
Now, If you answer yes then he can not be all powerful as there is something he can not do (he wont be able to lift the rock). If you answer no there is also something he can not do (create the rock)

I choose neither. A common scenario is thus: can God make a rock not even he can lift?

There's two conclusions I've come to. One, ∞<x =/=. Nothing can exceed infinity by the very nature of infinity. Thus, this question is invalid because it uses illogic to try to come to a "logical" conclusion which obviously means the whole scenario is corrupt. However, the second simultaneous conclusion is that indeed, if there is a God, he has limitations.

(from an earlier post I made elsewhere)

@Mephistopheles phil,

I don't know about God being Omnipotent, but I know "Q" is.

Philosophy Forum

Is God Omnipotent

Quick Links

My Account

able2know