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?
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)