4 ms·

He could even create a rock he himself could not lift. Oh wait...

ars 8y ago
The answer to that is the concept of "can't" does not exist for God. Same as how the concept of alphabet does not apply to a number, or how you can't divide by zero. It's simply not a concept that can be applied.
- IgorPartola 8y ago
  If he literally created the universe and all the laws of nature, couldn’t he create such a concept?
  - mikeash 8y ago
    I think this shows that the concept of omnipotence is itself logically incoherent. It’s the theological equivalent of Russell’s set of all sets that do not contain themselves.
    - ars 8y ago
      > If he literally created the universe and all the laws of nature, couldn’t he create such a concept? That would imply that there are two things: God, and this creation of his "the ability to can't", but since God is just "one" this entire concept can not be attributed to him. You can read about "Negative theology" if you are really interested in this topic. > I think this shows that the concept of omnipotence is itself logically incoherent. It’s the theological equivalent of Russell’s set of all sets that do not contain themselves. That's not a new idea, wikipedia has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox The subsection "Paradox is meaningless: the question is sophistry" covers it about as well as I could in a comment here.
svieira 8y ago
> If he literally created the universe and all the laws of nature, couldn’t he create such a concept? What is not, is not. Omnipotence means "being able to do anything that is possible to do", not "being able to do anything that is possible to be spoken of". Re-stating your argument: * "He could even make a square circle" * "He could even tell a true falsehood" * "He could even do that which contradicts itself" Making a rock too large to lift is "He could even make something that He could not control". What you have wound up rhyming with is Anselm's argument for the existence of God [1] - for if your god can make a rock to heavy for him to lift, then there exists a greater omnipotence that could lift that rock. Therefore, your god is not omnipotent, and is not god. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proslogion#Faith_Seeking_Understanding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proslogion#Faith_Seeking_Under...
- IgorPartola 8y ago
  > Omnipotence means "being able to do anything that is possible to do" Would you say that omnipotence includes the ability to define what omnipotence means? My limited understanding of theology is that polytheistic religions resolved a lot of this by not having omnipotence, and by having hierarchies of gods. You had a sort of overarching force of nature thing that gave creation to everything else, and to which gods answered. And then you had gods like Zeus that were almost all powerful, but still bound by laws of the higher tier being/force/whatever. And below gods like Zeus you had another tier that obeyed even more rules, but was still more powerful than a mortal. Dualistic religions postulated that there is god and an evil counterpart with which god is in eternal struggle. God in this sense is not omnipotent since an omnipotent god could defeat any foe just by changing the rules of the struggle. Monotheistic religions hold that there is only god, an omnipotent being and the source of all creation. Christianity is an inconsistent mix of this and dualism where god is omnipotent, yet cannot just do away with the devil.

ars 8y ago

The answer to that is the concept of "can't" does not exist for God. Same as how the concept of alphabet does not apply to a number, or how you can't divide by zero. It's simply not a concept that can be applied.

IgorPartola 8y ago
If he literally created the universe and all the laws of nature, couldn’t he create such a concept?
- mikeash 8y ago
  I think this shows that the concept of omnipotence is itself logically incoherent. It’s the theological equivalent of Russell’s set of all sets that do not contain themselves.
  - ars 8y ago
    > If he literally created the universe and all the laws of nature, couldn’t he create such a concept? That would imply that there are two things: God, and this creation of his "the ability to can't", but since God is just "one" this entire concept can not be attributed to him. You can read about "Negative theology" if you are really interested in this topic. > I think this shows that the concept of omnipotence is itself logically incoherent. It’s the theological equivalent of Russell’s set of all sets that do not contain themselves. That's not a new idea, wikipedia has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox The subsection "Paradox is meaningless: the question is sophistry" covers it about as well as I could in a comment here.

svieira 8y ago

> If he literally created the universe and all the laws of nature, couldn’t he create such a concept? What is not, is not. Omnipotence means "being able to do anything that is possible to do", not "being able to do anything that is possible to be spoken of". Re-stating your argument: * "He could even make a square circle" * "He could even tell a true falsehood" * "He could even do that which contradicts itself" Making a rock too large to lift is "He could even make something that He could not control". What you have wound up rhyming with is Anselm's argument for the existence of God [1] - for if your god can make a rock to heavy for him to lift, then there exists a greater omnipotence that could lift that rock. Therefore, your god is not omnipotent, and is not god. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proslogion#Faith_Seeking_Understanding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proslogion#Faith_Seeking_Under...

IgorPartola 8y ago
> Omnipotence means "being able to do anything that is possible to do" Would you say that omnipotence includes the ability to define what omnipotence means? My limited understanding of theology is that polytheistic religions resolved a lot of this by not having omnipotence, and by having hierarchies of gods. You had a sort of overarching force of nature thing that gave creation to everything else, and to which gods answered. And then you had gods like Zeus that were almost all powerful, but still bound by laws of the higher tier being/force/whatever. And below gods like Zeus you had another tier that obeyed even more rules, but was still more powerful than a mortal. Dualistic religions postulated that there is god and an evil counterpart with which god is in eternal struggle. God in this sense is not omnipotent since an omnipotent god could defeat any foe just by changing the rules of the struggle. Monotheistic religions hold that there is only god, an omnipotent being and the source of all creation. Christianity is an inconsistent mix of this and dualism where god is omnipotent, yet cannot just do away with the devil.