Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

The God paradox

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
StayCurious
Posts: 26
Joined: January 11th, 2018, 6:34 pm

Re: The God paradox

Post by StayCurious » February 13th, 2018, 5:00 am

Omnipotent can mean "Capable of doing all things" as well as, simply put, "does all things." It isn't a question of whether or not he would be capable of doing such a thing because such a thing would have no purpose, I believe the omnipotence surrounding the concept of the modern mythologized God in the west is incorrect in that it seems to believe that God is one "Capable" of all things, whereas I feel God is what "does" all things. The Great Dao, if you will.

Tamminen
Posts: 753
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: The God paradox

Post by Tamminen » February 13th, 2018, 1:43 pm

StayCurious wrote:
February 13th, 2018, 5:00 am
Omnipotent can mean "Capable of doing all things" as well as, simply put, "does all things." It isn't a question of whether or not he would be capable of doing such a thing because such a thing would have no purpose, I believe the omnipotence surrounding the concept of the modern mythologized God in the west is incorrect in that it seems to believe that God is one "Capable" of all things, whereas I feel God is what "does" all things. The Great Dao, if you will.
This was also Spinoza's view. He thought that God's free will is an absurdity.

Wayne92587
Posts: 1757
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: The God paradox

Post by Wayne92587 » February 13th, 2018, 3:52 pm

StayCurious; Omnipotent can mean "Capable of doing all things"
It is misinterpretations of Secret, Sacred Knowledge, like yours, that at is responsible for the God Complex, an abomination.

Man is forbidden to speak of the secret, Sacred, Hidden, Knowledge God, the end result being an abomination, lies,
deception, Duplicity, is to be Guileful

It is irreverent, forbidden, to speak of Priori Knowledge, to to give definition to Realities that can not be experience.

Omnipotent simply means "All Powerful.

Alias
Posts: 2450
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: The God paradox

Post by Alias » February 13th, 2018, 5:57 pm

This theospin-dressed-as-philosophical-argument is the biggest cartload of manure I've seen all year. (Granted, the year is young yet.)
Problem #1: this question commits the fallacy known as a loaded question.... "Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?" ...
Likewise, the question "Can God make a rock so big He cannot life it?" also starts with a false assumption, i.e., that God is not omnipotent.
No. There would be a similarity, if the first question read: "Can you beat your wife?" in which case the inherent assumption would be that the person questioned has a wife. A truthful answer might then be: Yes - I am stronger than her. or No, she is stronger than me. or I don't know; I've never tried.
Alternatively, in order to be a loaded, or begged question, the second would have to read: "Is God still trying to create a rock a he cannot life?"
If you answer "Yes" to the question, that means that God is not omnipotent since He can make the rock but isn't powerful enough to lift it. But if you answer "No," that also means that God is not omnipotent since He couldn't make a rock so big He cannot lift it! In other words, the question itself is dishonest, a pseudo-question, since it begs the question by assuming God is not omnipotent.
Any way you answer the question, you must either be lying or misdefining the words. The underlying assumption of the question is not that god is not omnipotent, but that omnipotence is impossible, and therefore an omnipotent entity is impossible, and if omnipotence is a necessary attribute of god, god cannot exist. The question is simply intended to challenge you to find an answer that is self-consistent. If you can't, your claim to such an impossible entity is demonstrated.

Therefore you sidestep the question by trying to invalidate it, thus:
Problem #2: this question commits a categorical fallacy. The question itself is incoherent and meaningless.
Suppose I were to ask you, "What does the color blue smell like?" or "How much does the number seven weigh?" These are category mistakes because colors don't smell and numbers don't weigh anything.
A synaesthetic might be able to answer both of those questions. But neither is anything like the god/rock question:
Rocks do have weight - or at least mass - depending on their placement.
Gods are credited [by their believers] with the ability to create things.
Gods are credited with the ability to affect and manipulate physical objects.
Rocks can be lifted.
... asking the question "Can God make a rock so big He cannot lift it?" is essentially to ask "Can God's power defeat His own power?"
Precisely! Which regards, not the characteristic of rocks and lifting power - both of which are real and measurable - but the claim of omnipotence. Rocks are possible. Lifting is possible. Power is possible. Omnipotence is impossible.
The question makes sense; but no possible answer does.
.... "The question is nonsense because it treats God as if He were two instead of one. The phrase 'stronger than' can only be used when two subjects are in view...
except, of course, that phrase was not in the question.
it makes no sense to ask if He is stronger than Himself."
We didn't as this; he did.
Problem #3: this question commits a straw man fallacy. The goal of the skeptic who asks this question is to somehow undermine the Christian concept of an omnipotent God.
This is the straw-man fallacy. It attributes a false motivation to the skeptic. The motivation of the skeptic is not to somehow undermine a concept, but to demonstrate the internal contradiction of the concept.
....However, this line of reasoning is attacking a distorted concept of Biblical omnipotence
I would like to see the biblical citation that was being distorted.
Omnipotence doesn't mean that God can do anything.
omni - all potency - power
Yes, it does. And if it doesn't, i wish you'd stop up those billboards tht say
Nothing is Impossible with God

Alias
Posts: 2450
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: The God paradox

Post by Alias » February 13th, 2018, 6:19 pm

erratum:
And if it doesn't, i wish you'd stop up those billboards tht say
Nothing is Impossible with God

should read: And if it doesn't, I wish you would stop putting up those billboards that proclaim"
NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH GOD
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire

User avatar
Griffin
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: February 5th, 2018, 1:59 pm

Re: The God paradox

Post by Griffin » February 13th, 2018, 6:23 pm

Since apparently we are allowed to ask questions in this forum about purely mythical beings, I would like to know whether Santa Claus can create a Christmas present that is too large for him to get down a chimney.

Alias
Posts: 2450
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: The God paradox

Post by Alias » February 13th, 2018, 7:59 pm

No, but the elves can. In fact, they play that practical joke on the boss every year, and the jolly one always laughs.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: The God paradox

Post by Namelesss » February 13th, 2018, 9:06 pm

Alias wrote:
February 13th, 2018, 5:57 pm
Omnipotence doesn't mean that God can do anything. ... The underlying assumption of the question is not that god is not omnipotent, but that omnipotence is impossible
Nonsense.
'Omni-' means all inclusive, One!
Need I explain the meaning and implications of "all inclusive'?
If there were actually any 'doing', then all 'doing' are features of God.
If there is Knowing, then all Knowing are features of the Omni- God/Universe/Self!
If there is 'presence', then all etc... etc... etc...
Omni- is far from impossible, it is the sum total of Reality!

Alias
Posts: 2450
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: The God paradox

Post by Alias » February 13th, 2018, 11:08 pm

So like, God is everything, but he's limited.
OK

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: The God paradox

Post by Namelesss » February 14th, 2018, 12:58 am

Alias wrote:
February 13th, 2018, 11:08 pm
So like, God is everything, but he's limited.
OK
That makes no sense. How can One be ALL inclusive, and be 'limited'? There are no boundaries.

Alias
Posts: 2450
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: The God paradox

Post by Alias » February 14th, 2018, 11:02 am

Namelesss wrote:
February 14th, 2018, 12:58 am
[A : So like, God is everything, but he's limited. OK]
That makes no sense. How can One be ALL inclusive, and be 'limited'? There are no boundaries.
I defer to your expertise in making no sense.
This is from the apologist you quoted:
So what does it mean then that God is omnipotent? Omnipotence doesn't mean that God can do anything.[/b] There are actually quite a few things that God cannot do. He cannot make squared circles. He cannot make a one-ended stick. He cannot sin. He cannot improve His morality. So God is limited in a sense. But not one of these "limitations" has to do with power, rather, they are logical contradictions. Also, notice that His "limitations" are not due to any defects in His character or power but rather they are the result of His perfection and rational nature! As Norman Geisler has stated, "He is only 'limited' by His unlimited perfection." To say that God is omnipotent then is to say that God can do anything so long as it is logically possible and consistent with His nature. God's omnipotence does not mean that He can do what is impossible but only that He can do whatever is actually possible.
Which is exactly what the rock question was intended to demonstrate.
Your job as an apologist, then, is to confound the meaning of words, just as you confound the rules of logic, with gobbledegook.

That makes perfect sense - if perfect means imperfect, but this "imperfection" has nothing to do with language and is rather a conceptual contradiction.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: The God paradox

Post by Namelesss » February 14th, 2018, 3:42 pm

Alias wrote:
February 14th, 2018, 11:02 am
Which is exactly what the rock question was intended to demonstrate.
our job as an apologist, then, is to confound the meaning of words, just as you confound the rules of logic, with gobbledegook.
I cannot have any discussion with someone so far up their own rectum as to be so completely devoid of the most basic understanding.
I did not write the article, but it is coherent and rational and logical and still remains quite valid, despite your pseudo-intellectual fit.
Good day.

Eduk
Posts: 2274
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: The God paradox

Post by Eduk » February 14th, 2018, 5:47 pm

The original question is basically if God is omnipotent can God do X where X is nonsensical.
As Alias points out the key question would be better expressed as if God is omnipotent please define omnipotence.
Many humans seem to believe defining omnipotence as being trivial. But the problem is that most people's normative definition of omnipotence is simply much more powerful than me. However much more powerful than a human could easily apply to an Alien who would, I assume, not count as God.
Thing is to actually define omnipotence a human would have to know all possibilities. Something no human can reasonably lay claim to knowing. Therefore no human is even remotely fit to say that God is omnipotent in any meaningful sense.
Unknown means unknown.

Alias
Posts: 2450
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: The God paradox

Post by Alias » February 14th, 2018, 7:51 pm

Eduk wrote:
February 14th, 2018, 5:47 pm
Thing is to actually define omnipotence a human would have to know all possibilities. Something no human can reasonably lay claim to knowing. Therefore no human is even remotely fit to say that God is omnipotent in any meaningful sense.
Nameless can, and did:
Omni-' means all inclusive, One!
Need I explain the meaning and implications of "all inclusive'?
If there were actually any 'doing', then all 'doing' are features of God.
If there is Knowing, then all Knowing are features of the Omni- God/Universe/Self!
If there is 'presence', then all etc... etc... etc...
Omni- is far from impossible, it is the sum total of Reality!
He thinks that's sense.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: The God paradox

Post by Namelesss » February 14th, 2018, 10:15 pm

Alias wrote:
February 14th, 2018, 7:51 pm
Eduk wrote:
February 14th, 2018, 5:47 pm
Thing is to actually define omnipotence a human would have to know all possibilities. Something no human can reasonably lay claim to knowing. Therefore no human is even remotely fit to say that God is omnipotent in any meaningful sense.
Nameless can, and did:
Yes, I did.
If you have a problem with what I wrote, perhaps you might want to call me names, as you seem unable to respond intellectually and critically?
Omni-' means all inclusive, One!
Need I explain the meaning and implications of "all inclusive'?
If there were actually any 'doing', then all 'doing' are features of God.
If there is Knowing, then all Knowing are features of the Omni- God/Universe/Self!
If there is 'presence', then all etc... etc... etc...
Omni- is far from impossible, it is the sum total of Reality!
He thinks that's sense.
First, what sort of juvenile needs to talk about a person rather than the concepts presented?
Segundo, all 'meaning' exists in the thoughts/ego of the beholder.
That means that if YOU are incapable of finding meaning, the lack is with YOU and your inabilities.
There are others who do find great meaning in what I said.
Perhaps this is just too advanced for you?
Obviously metaphysics is beyond your capabilities.
So, as you have nothing else, feel free to continue to call me names, and make snide comments in the margins about the gobbledygook you know so well.
Really brings the quality of the site to new heights! *__-

Last words in this 'conversation' are your's.

Post Reply