"No YOU are using human nature to define god." - Really? I am using human nature to define who God is? Would you care to show where I used human nature to define God?
"What are you talking about? You can't rationally accept that I suspect you're trying to bamboozle me?" - I NEVER said "I can't rationally accept this." YOU said that, after I told you you about God's inability to lie and steal.
"It's also hard not to suspect you're trying to bambozzle me."
" I can never rationally accept this."
- In that case, I will ask you this: what was your INTENTION of responding to my video through the comment board? Was your intention to sincerely understand why I rejected the argument and see if the argument was wrong, or was your intention to prove that I am wrong because I do not understand the argument?
Remember there is always an INTENT behind what we choose to do.
Sin exists as a way to prove that we are not omnipotent, but God is.
So my question to you is: if there is no possible way in which sin can be done by God, why would it be so hard to accept that actions such as creating an unliftable stone is a contradiction to omnipotence, and not a possibility?
The problem is your argument assumes that human nature precedes God's nature, when really that is not the case.
If sin were a possibility within omnipotence, then there must be a chance in which sin could be done by God, but there isn't. Sin is when we try to be our own gods, but in doing so we become sinful, which draws even further away from God then we are supposed to be. Human beings are God's image, but the complete opposite of Him now that sin is our nature.
2) God cannot steal. Stealing is taking something that isn't yours without permission. What in this universe DOESN'T belong to God? Nothing. Everything already belongs to God. Asking permission is not an option. We are the ones who stole ourselves away from Him and manipulated everything in such a way that we could deny following Him. That's what sin is. There is no possible way in which God COULD steal. Therefore there is no contradiction in God's "inability" to steal either.
1) God cannot lie. Lying is intentionally telling something that is not true. God continually defines Himself as the Truth. If God were to lie, then logically He is denying Himself as the Truth. However, denying yourself requires that you must first exist in order to deny yourself. Therefore there is no contradiction when we say "God cannot lie".
Believe it or not, sin is more than just going against God's nature and his moral law. It is also that which is logically impossible to be performed by God. In other words, there is no possible circumstance in which sin can be performed by this omnipotent being. Just because there no possible way in which it can done, it doesn't mean that it is a contradiction to God's nature. Let me elaborate by giving you some examples:
"So I'll just say theists say god came first for the sake of argument." - Then would it not logically follow that the reason why you can do certain things which God cannot do is because He made you a finite being?
"A god should have the power to do every thing that I can do; otherwise it's absurd to call it all-powerful." - Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Here's another question: According to theists, who came first: you or God?
"How?" - My point is that "ceasing to be all-powerful" is not logically possible when talking about omnipotence. "Ceasing to be all-powerful" is a CONTRADICTION to the definition of omnipotence, namely "having unlimited power, or the power to do all things." "Ceasing to be all-powerful" is not a thing at all. Let me give you an example:
Ex: If a Christian were to say "God cannot sin," then you would probably say therefore God is not omnipotent, correct?
3) "It would still be contradictory if the Christain answered yes." - My point exactly. The fact that you insist that there is a contradiction no matter what the answer is is precisely what I'm getting at. You're only begging the question as to WHY "ceasing to be all-powerful" is a logically possibility that GRANTS God's omnipotence, let alone an action.
1) I don't permit swearing in my comment boards. See my policies video.
2) It's not a made-up word, because pseudo is permitted to be applied to any noun, when there is sufficient difference between the subject and what APPEARS to be the subject. A pseudoaction is something that appears to be an action but really is not an action. What makes you think that "ceasing to be all-powerful" is an action? This is not a question that intended to insult one's intelligence. Please answer.
"The skeptic asks if it has the power to to make itself not all powerful. It's doesn't. Therefore the concept is contradictory." - Ah, but that is the same objection that the last few people have argued. The reason why you are saying that omnipotence is contradictory is simply because the Christian's answer to the question is "no".
Having said that, I'd like to ask you a question: What leads you to conclude that "ceasing to be all-powerful" is an action and not a pseudoaction?
There are no logical fallacies in the rock question, let alone three.
The set of all rocks that an omnipotent being cannot pick up is the empty set. Therefore, the assertion that an omnipotent being can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it is vacuously true.
Why it took you so long to eek out the *wrong* explanation beats me.
Omnipotence is having unlimited power. Anything that cannot be done is a limitation on that unlimited power, thereby contradicting omnipotence. Therefore creating a stone that cannot be lifted is a nonsequitor. It really all boils down to the logic behind the argument itself. Ironically, you're trying to refute the law of noncontradiction, by saying that the contradiction is still true. You're saying that God must not be able to do some things in order to do ALL things, which is self-defeating.
I'm not showing you disrespect as a person, so I advise that you refrain from ad hominems about my comprehension. I will delete your comments as stated in my Policies video, if you continue to post comments like that
May I suggest you read J. Lowe's writings, whereas the empty set "...was undoubtedly an important landmark in the history of mathematics, we should not assume that its utility in calculation is dependent upon its actually denoting some object." (cont.)
You don't seem to have any idea what a contradiction is.
A contradiction is when a statement and its negation can be derived logically from the given assumptions. It indicates that one or more assumptions are invalid.
Asking the question "Can god create a rock he can't lift" does NOT introduce any assumptions and does NOT produce a contradiction.
"Can god create a rock he can't lift" - Ah now I see where you're going. The question in the video is "If God is OMNIPOTENT, can He...," and that's vastly different. You're referring to INDUCTIVE logic which deals with arguments that do not apply definitions.
Ex: 1) All things with purple tails are birds.
2) All cats have purple tails.
3) Therefore all cats are birds.
None of the terms are defined, but the argument is still valid. You're presupposing that 'God' has NO definition here.
The set of all rocks omnipotent being X cannot lift is { }. (The empty set).
Can X create each element in the set? Because the set is empty, the answer is yes.
Therefore, X can create any rock he cannot lift (simply because there are no such rocks).
Get it?
I'm essentially agreeing with you but saying that your explanation is off. Your explanation was far longer than necessary and asserted the existence of contradictions and fallacies that are not present.
"I'm essentially agreeing with you but saying that your explanation is off." - Oh, if you agree, all you had to do was say so, because I didn't see anything in your initial comment that said this. However: here's something to consider: If there exist no such elements in the set, then nothing can be lifted. Agreed?
"The set is all rocks that cannot be lifted. What's not in the set is everything that isn't a rock or can be lifted." - Ah, but you just said that "Everything can be lifted, which is exactly why there are no such rocks in the set."
Tell me: how is it that everything can be lifted, if you just said that the set is all ROCKS that CANNOT be lifted? If there are no such rocks, then doesn't that prove that there CANNOT be any such elements? If it DOESN'T prove that, then that assumes that there DO exist such elements that cannot be lifted, but you just said that there are NO such elements. Either there are such elements OR there are NO such elements? Which one is it?
In this video, we're talking about DEDUCTIVE logic, where the terms are CLEARLY defined. Empty sets, at best ONLY apply to inductive logic, but ONLY if the 'term' God has no definition, much like the variable X.
So saying that the argument is vacuously true, is a halftruth.
Wow, that was very well put. I have thought about that question a lot (and even just made a video on it today). You put it in a way I have never thought about before. I realized it was logically contradictory, but I had never thought about how it was question begging. Well done.
You seem to have a good understanding of the argument. I refute the argument in a slightly different way. Feel free to check ti out, you might find it interesting.
The argument you're pointing out here is meant to be paradoxal in origin. If god can create a stone so big that he can't lift it, then he is not omnipotent, because he can't lift the stone. I see where you're trying to rebut here, but the point of this argument is meant to show it goes both ways. If god CANNOT create a stone so big that he can't lift it, well then that's something that he can't do, therefore nullifying his omnipotence. It is a bit of a crap argument, but you didn't quite get it.
I know it's paradoxical, but the point I'm making in the video, is that if you try to use this argument to disprove God's omnipotence, then you're actually contradicting yourself and GRANTING God's omnipotence. Either way you look it, either way you try to answer the question, it'll states something that God could NOT do, which would contradict His omnipotence:
1. Yes, God can create a stone so big that he CANNOT lift.
2. No, God CANNOT create a stone so big that He CANNOT lift it.
(cont.) The paradox exists in #2, because if you negate an un-doable action, the qualifier is put in place, thereby removing the alleged contradiction. So #2 is really saying that there is no stone too big for God to create or lift. #2 does not actually work the same way as #1.
So I think you're arguing the same redundancy that I was mentioning in this video.
You still don't understand the argument though. You constantly say that if he is indeed omnipotent, he can lift all stones of any size, but backtrack to the second argument. If he CAN'T create a stone so big that he can't lift it, this is something he CANNOT do. Therefore, he is not omnipotent. Remember, omnipotence is described as someone with infinite power, and can therefore achieve any task. This is a task he can't perform either way.
This is where you're incorrect. You are actually redefining what omnipotence is, in this case. There are 2 actions being done in the proposition:
1) Creating the stone.
2) Lifting the stone.
By saying that "God must create a stone that He cannot lift" you are only acknowledging ONE of the actions right from the beginning. You must acknowledge BOTH actions, or else you stating that He is not omnipotent right from the beginning, and then concluding that therefore God is not omnipotent.
By saying that because God CAN'T lift that stone, therefore He is not omnipotent, you are ignoring the second action (lifting the stone) entirely. That's the problem with your reasoning.
The question is a strawman because no matter which way the theist tries to answer it, God apparently loses either way. That's a dishonest tactic that skeptics use as a way to explain AWAY God, out of their own intentions.
If I asked you "If God is all-powerful, then why must that stone be unliftable", you could not think of any logical reason as to why that must be so.
If you say that God has the power to do all things, then you are CONTRADICTING the statement by saying God CANNOT lift the stone. God MUST be able to do BOTH actions in the proposition not just one of them, yet you're implying that only ONE of the actions must be doable. Why?
No offense, but you don't have any logically sufficient reason why.
You still don't quite understand do you? First of all the argument is not meant to shoo away the concept of a god. That would be highly irrational. What it's truly trying to argue is his omnipotence, and no it's not trying to create a situation where god loses, it merely points out that through a simple paradoxal argument, you notice how omnipotence is either incomprehensible on human's behalf, or it just doesn't exist (Mainly the latter). Cont->
"you notice how omnipotence is either incomprehensible on human's behalf, or it just doesn't exist" - But the nonexistence of His omnipotence doesn't logically follow NECESSARILY from answer #2. If God cannot create the stone that is unliftable, then it was because the stone itself would have been the INITIAL limit to His power. Both those options you've presented form a false dichotomy basically. So why wouldn't it follow that God must be capable of doing BOTH actions to be omnipotent?
I'd like to stop this particular part of the argument here. Not because I'm a coward, not because I feel that you have won, but because in order for me to create a self respecting argument, it's very very difficult for me to type it out. I prefer to be talking face to face with you about it.
The definition that Google gives me of Omnipotence is having unlimited power. Now have a look through the argument. First of all, here's the main clause: God must create a stone bigger than he can lift it. If he cannot, and can lift any stone of any size, no matter how he creates it, then his power overrides this clause, and his UNLIMITED power fails. If god DOES create a stone bigger than his own strength, then here is the obvious downfall. Cont->
"Omnipotence is having unlimited power....his power overrides this clause." - This is why the argument fails. Even YOU said God's power is unlimited. If that is the case, then logically, God's power create the stone would NEVER override His ability to lift the stone. His power for lifting the stone would be "EQUAL" (so to speak), to that of creating. You ARE contradicting the definition for omnipotence.
No offense, but do you honestly think that I don't understand the idea behind the argument?
Believe this argument or not, you misunderstood its ideas. Now, here's my own little argument against his omnipotence. If god is all powerful, yet chooses not to help, he is malicious. If god wishes to help, but cannot, then he is not all powerful.
"If god is all powerful, yet chooses not to help, he is malicious." - This is actually a different subject altogether (the problem of evil), but I'll address it only in terms of omnipotence. Let me ask you a question: why do conclude that God would be malicious, if He chose not to help? Wouldn't God have morally sufficient reasons as to why He choose not to help and permit the evil to occur?
What you're assuming is that God has no morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil to exist.
Okay, give me a moral situation where he should allow evil to exist. What we're assuming is that god is not only omnipotent, but all loving, correct? If so, why did he allow humans to sin? Why create the instances of the evils that he doesn't permit? I understand the concept of free will, however we can see him CLEARLY setting boundaries which act against our free will. The inevitability of Hell for one. Why create such things, if he is a loving god, and omnipotent?
You do as you wish, but for now I tire of this argument, simply because we haven't really gone anywhere with it. Still, it was fun while it lasted, thankyou for the intellectual challenge.
The question is not the logical fallacy here. The notion of omnipotence to begin with, is the logical fallacy. If you're omnipotent, you can lift stones that you cannot lift, and that's self-conflicting nonsense. God cannot be omnipotent because omnipotence itself is logically impossible. It's not a straw-man (which is putting words in other people's mouths) or anything like that. The question is only logically invalid because the premise of omnipotence is logically invalid.
You seem to be missing the point entirely... what the question boils down to is this, "Is god powerful enough to limit his own power?" But I'm not a big fan of that logical contradiction.
I prefer, "If god is all-knowing then he knows exactly what he is going to do in the future, but if he is all powerful, shouldn't he be able to do something different? But then if he did do something different from what he knew he was going to do, wouldn't he not have been all-knowing in the first place?"
"But then if he did do something different from what he knew he was going to do, wouldn't he not have been all-knowing in the first place?" - Anty that's precisely the point that I'm making in this video. Your preferred question assumes is that God's choices would have to be different from what His own nature implies. If His choices were different from His own nature, then He is contradictory by necessity. Your question is actually assuming the same redundancy that I've mentioned before.
@PostITnoteGUY
"No YOU are using human nature to define god." - Really? I am using human nature to define who God is? Would you care to show where I used human nature to define God?
"What are you talking about? You can't rationally accept that I suspect you're trying to bamboozle me?" - I NEVER said "I can't rationally accept this." YOU said that, after I told you you about God's inability to lie and steal.
BassP86 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
"It's also hard not to suspect you're trying to bambozzle me."
" I can never rationally accept this."
- In that case, I will ask you this: what was your INTENTION of responding to my video through the comment board? Was your intention to sincerely understand why I rejected the argument and see if the argument was wrong, or was your intention to prove that I am wrong because I do not understand the argument?
Remember there is always an INTENT behind what we choose to do.
BassP86 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
"human nature precedes God's nature" - That means you are using human nature to define what God's nature must be, yet that circular reasoning.
God is one who gave us our limited human nature, so us trying to define God's being on our terms is self-defeating.
BassP86 1 year ago
(cont.)
Sin exists as a way to prove that we are not omnipotent, but God is.
So my question to you is: if there is no possible way in which sin can be done by God, why would it be so hard to accept that actions such as creating an unliftable stone is a contradiction to omnipotence, and not a possibility?
BassP86 1 year ago
(cont.)
The problem is your argument assumes that human nature precedes God's nature, when really that is not the case.
If sin were a possibility within omnipotence, then there must be a chance in which sin could be done by God, but there isn't. Sin is when we try to be our own gods, but in doing so we become sinful, which draws even further away from God then we are supposed to be. Human beings are God's image, but the complete opposite of Him now that sin is our nature.
BassP86 1 year ago
(cont.)
2) God cannot steal. Stealing is taking something that isn't yours without permission. What in this universe DOESN'T belong to God? Nothing. Everything already belongs to God. Asking permission is not an option. We are the ones who stole ourselves away from Him and manipulated everything in such a way that we could deny following Him. That's what sin is. There is no possible way in which God COULD steal. Therefore there is no contradiction in God's "inability" to steal either.
BassP86 1 year ago
(cont.)
1) God cannot lie. Lying is intentionally telling something that is not true. God continually defines Himself as the Truth. If God were to lie, then logically He is denying Himself as the Truth. However, denying yourself requires that you must first exist in order to deny yourself. Therefore there is no contradiction when we say "God cannot lie".
BassP86 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Believe it or not, sin is more than just going against God's nature and his moral law. It is also that which is logically impossible to be performed by God. In other words, there is no possible circumstance in which sin can be performed by this omnipotent being. Just because there no possible way in which it can done, it doesn't mean that it is a contradiction to God's nature. Let me elaborate by giving you some examples:
BassP86 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Sorry for the late reply. School obligations.
Would you mind answer this question: If I were to argue that God cannot sin, would you argue that therefore God must not be omnipotent?
BassP86 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
"So I'll just say theists say god came first for the sake of argument." - Then would it not logically follow that the reason why you can do certain things which God cannot do is because He made you a finite being?
BassP86 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
"Neither." - Ah, but what makes you say that?
BassP86 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
"A god should have the power to do every thing that I can do; otherwise it's absurd to call it all-powerful." - Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Here's another question: According to theists, who came first: you or God?
BassP86 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
"How?" - My point is that "ceasing to be all-powerful" is not logically possible when talking about omnipotence. "Ceasing to be all-powerful" is a CONTRADICTION to the definition of omnipotence, namely "having unlimited power, or the power to do all things." "Ceasing to be all-powerful" is not a thing at all. Let me give you an example:
Ex: If a Christian were to say "God cannot sin," then you would probably say therefore God is not omnipotent, correct?
BassP86 1 year ago
(cont.)
3) "It would still be contradictory if the Christain answered yes." - My point exactly. The fact that you insist that there is a contradiction no matter what the answer is is precisely what I'm getting at. You're only begging the question as to WHY "ceasing to be all-powerful" is a logically possibility that GRANTS God's omnipotence, let alone an action.
BassP86 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
1) I don't permit swearing in my comment boards. See my policies video.
2) It's not a made-up word, because pseudo is permitted to be applied to any noun, when there is sufficient difference between the subject and what APPEARS to be the subject. A pseudoaction is something that appears to be an action but really is not an action. What makes you think that "ceasing to be all-powerful" is an action? This is not a question that intended to insult one's intelligence. Please answer.
BassP86 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
"The skeptic asks if it has the power to to make itself not all powerful. It's doesn't. Therefore the concept is contradictory." - Ah, but that is the same objection that the last few people have argued. The reason why you are saying that omnipotence is contradictory is simply because the Christian's answer to the question is "no".
Having said that, I'd like to ask you a question: What leads you to conclude that "ceasing to be all-powerful" is an action and not a pseudoaction?
BassP86 1 year ago
There are no logical fallacies in the rock question, let alone three.
The set of all rocks that an omnipotent being cannot pick up is the empty set. Therefore, the assertion that an omnipotent being can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it is vacuously true.
Why it took you so long to eek out the *wrong* explanation beats me.
x1101011x 2 years ago
Omnipotence is having unlimited power. Anything that cannot be done is a limitation on that unlimited power, thereby contradicting omnipotence. Therefore creating a stone that cannot be lifted is a nonsequitor. It really all boils down to the logic behind the argument itself. Ironically, you're trying to refute the law of noncontradiction, by saying that the contradiction is still true. You're saying that God must not be able to do some things in order to do ALL things, which is self-defeating.
BassP86 2 years ago
You fail at reading comprehension.
Try again.
x1101011x 2 years ago
I'm not showing you disrespect as a person, so I advise that you refrain from ad hominems about my comprehension. I will delete your comments as stated in my Policies video, if you continue to post comments like that
May I suggest you read J. Lowe's writings, whereas the empty set "...was undoubtedly an important landmark in the history of mathematics, we should not assume that its utility in calculation is dependent upon its actually denoting some object." (cont.)
BassP86 2 years ago
You have disrespected me already. I will admit that I probably feel improperly hostile toward you because of it.
Still, you clearly demonstrate that you do not understand my post.
Consider this rewording of the question:
Of the rocks god cannot lift, can he create all of them?
x1101011x 2 years ago
You don't seem to have any idea what a contradiction is.
A contradiction is when a statement and its negation can be derived logically from the given assumptions. It indicates that one or more assumptions are invalid.
Asking the question "Can god create a rock he can't lift" does NOT introduce any assumptions and does NOT produce a contradiction.
x1101011x 2 years ago
"Can god create a rock he can't lift" - Ah now I see where you're going. The question in the video is "If God is OMNIPOTENT, can He...," and that's vastly different. You're referring to INDUCTIVE logic which deals with arguments that do not apply definitions.
Ex: 1) All things with purple tails are birds.
2) All cats have purple tails.
3) Therefore all cats are birds.
None of the terms are defined, but the argument is still valid. You're presupposing that 'God' has NO definition here.
BassP86 2 years ago
No.
The set of all rocks omnipotent being X cannot lift is { }. (The empty set).
Can X create each element in the set? Because the set is empty, the answer is yes.
Therefore, X can create any rock he cannot lift (simply because there are no such rocks).
Get it?
I'm essentially agreeing with you but saying that your explanation is off. Your explanation was far longer than necessary and asserted the existence of contradictions and fallacies that are not present.
x1101011x 2 years ago
"I'm essentially agreeing with you but saying that your explanation is off." - Oh, if you agree, all you had to do was say so, because I didn't see anything in your initial comment that said this. However: here's something to consider: If there exist no such elements in the set, then nothing can be lifted. Agreed?
BassP86 2 years ago
I agree that the question does not prove that assuming omnipotence leads to a logical contradiction.
"If there exist no such elements in the set, then nothing can be lifted"
I disagree. Everything can be lifted, which is exactly why there are no such elements in the set.
x1101011x 2 years ago
"Everything can be lifted, which is exactly why there are no such elements in the set." - So whatever is not in the set cannot be lifted, correct?
BassP86 2 years ago
Incorrect.
The set is all rocks that cannot be lifted. What's not in the set is everything that isn't a rock or can be lifted.
x1101011x 2 years ago
"The set is all rocks that cannot be lifted. What's not in the set is everything that isn't a rock or can be lifted." - Ah, but you just said that "Everything can be lifted, which is exactly why there are no such rocks in the set."
BassP86 2 years ago
Yes. Everything can be lifted, which is why the set is empty.
Is this going somewhere?
x1101011x 2 years ago
"Is this going somewhere?" - I'm not sure.
Tell me: how is it that everything can be lifted, if you just said that the set is all ROCKS that CANNOT be lifted? If there are no such rocks, then doesn't that prove that there CANNOT be any such elements? If it DOESN'T prove that, then that assumes that there DO exist such elements that cannot be lifted, but you just said that there are NO such elements. Either there are such elements OR there are NO such elements? Which one is it?
BassP86 2 years ago
There are *no* such elements, which is why the set of all such elements is the *empty* set.
x1101011x 2 years ago
In this video, we're talking about DEDUCTIVE logic, where the terms are CLEARLY defined. Empty sets, at best ONLY apply to inductive logic, but ONLY if the 'term' God has no definition, much like the variable X.
So saying that the argument is vacuously true, is a halftruth.
BassP86 2 years ago
No.
This has nothing to do with inductive reasoning.
x1101011x 2 years ago
Wow, that was very well put. I have thought about that question a lot (and even just made a video on it today). You put it in a way I have never thought about before. I realized it was logically contradictory, but I had never thought about how it was question begging. Well done.
You seem to have a good understanding of the argument. I refute the argument in a slightly different way. Feel free to check ti out, you might find it interesting.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
The argument you're pointing out here is meant to be paradoxal in origin. If god can create a stone so big that he can't lift it, then he is not omnipotent, because he can't lift the stone. I see where you're trying to rebut here, but the point of this argument is meant to show it goes both ways. If god CANNOT create a stone so big that he can't lift it, well then that's something that he can't do, therefore nullifying his omnipotence. It is a bit of a crap argument, but you didn't quite get it.
withthebirdillshare 2 years ago
I know it's paradoxical, but the point I'm making in the video, is that if you try to use this argument to disprove God's omnipotence, then you're actually contradicting yourself and GRANTING God's omnipotence. Either way you look it, either way you try to answer the question, it'll states something that God could NOT do, which would contradict His omnipotence:
1. Yes, God can create a stone so big that he CANNOT lift.
2. No, God CANNOT create a stone so big that He CANNOT lift it.
BassP86 2 years ago
(cont.) The paradox exists in #2, because if you negate an un-doable action, the qualifier is put in place, thereby removing the alleged contradiction. So #2 is really saying that there is no stone too big for God to create or lift. #2 does not actually work the same way as #1.
So I think you're arguing the same redundancy that I was mentioning in this video.
BassP86 2 years ago
You still don't understand the argument though. You constantly say that if he is indeed omnipotent, he can lift all stones of any size, but backtrack to the second argument. If he CAN'T create a stone so big that he can't lift it, this is something he CANNOT do. Therefore, he is not omnipotent. Remember, omnipotence is described as someone with infinite power, and can therefore achieve any task. This is a task he can't perform either way.
withthebirdillshare 2 years ago
This is where you're incorrect. You are actually redefining what omnipotence is, in this case. There are 2 actions being done in the proposition:
1) Creating the stone.
2) Lifting the stone.
By saying that "God must create a stone that He cannot lift" you are only acknowledging ONE of the actions right from the beginning. You must acknowledge BOTH actions, or else you stating that He is not omnipotent right from the beginning, and then concluding that therefore God is not omnipotent.
BassP86 2 years ago
By saying that because God CAN'T lift that stone, therefore He is not omnipotent, you are ignoring the second action (lifting the stone) entirely. That's the problem with your reasoning.
The question is a strawman because no matter which way the theist tries to answer it, God apparently loses either way. That's a dishonest tactic that skeptics use as a way to explain AWAY God, out of their own intentions.
BassP86 2 years ago
If I asked you "If God is all-powerful, then why must that stone be unliftable", you could not think of any logical reason as to why that must be so.
If you say that God has the power to do all things, then you are CONTRADICTING the statement by saying God CANNOT lift the stone. God MUST be able to do BOTH actions in the proposition not just one of them, yet you're implying that only ONE of the actions must be doable. Why?
No offense, but you don't have any logically sufficient reason why.
BassP86 2 years ago
I'm not trying to be condescending, but if God is ALL-powerful, then He must be able to do BOTH actions, period.
BassP86 2 years ago
You still don't quite understand do you? First of all the argument is not meant to shoo away the concept of a god. That would be highly irrational. What it's truly trying to argue is his omnipotence, and no it's not trying to create a situation where god loses, it merely points out that through a simple paradoxal argument, you notice how omnipotence is either incomprehensible on human's behalf, or it just doesn't exist (Mainly the latter). Cont->
withthebirdillshare 2 years ago
"you notice how omnipotence is either incomprehensible on human's behalf, or it just doesn't exist" - But the nonexistence of His omnipotence doesn't logically follow NECESSARILY from answer #2. If God cannot create the stone that is unliftable, then it was because the stone itself would have been the INITIAL limit to His power. Both those options you've presented form a false dichotomy basically. So why wouldn't it follow that God must be capable of doing BOTH actions to be omnipotent?
BassP86 2 years ago
I'd like to stop this particular part of the argument here. Not because I'm a coward, not because I feel that you have won, but because in order for me to create a self respecting argument, it's very very difficult for me to type it out. I prefer to be talking face to face with you about it.
withthebirdillshare 2 years ago
The definition that Google gives me of Omnipotence is having unlimited power. Now have a look through the argument. First of all, here's the main clause: God must create a stone bigger than he can lift it. If he cannot, and can lift any stone of any size, no matter how he creates it, then his power overrides this clause, and his UNLIMITED power fails. If god DOES create a stone bigger than his own strength, then here is the obvious downfall. Cont->
withthebirdillshare 2 years ago
"Omnipotence is having unlimited power....his power overrides this clause." - This is why the argument fails. Even YOU said God's power is unlimited. If that is the case, then logically, God's power create the stone would NEVER override His ability to lift the stone. His power for lifting the stone would be "EQUAL" (so to speak), to that of creating. You ARE contradicting the definition for omnipotence.
No offense, but do you honestly think that I don't understand the idea behind the argument?
BassP86 2 years ago
Therefore the option of creating s tone too big for God to lift is non-sequitor, because it is self-contradictory.
BassP86 2 years ago
Bird, what you are saying does NOT grant the definition for omnipotence, it CONTRADICTS the definition.
BassP86 2 years ago
Believe this argument or not, you misunderstood its ideas. Now, here's my own little argument against his omnipotence. If god is all powerful, yet chooses not to help, he is malicious. If god wishes to help, but cannot, then he is not all powerful.
withthebirdillshare 2 years ago
"If god is all powerful, yet chooses not to help, he is malicious." - This is actually a different subject altogether (the problem of evil), but I'll address it only in terms of omnipotence. Let me ask you a question: why do conclude that God would be malicious, if He chose not to help? Wouldn't God have morally sufficient reasons as to why He choose not to help and permit the evil to occur?
What you're assuming is that God has no morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil to exist.
BassP86 2 years ago
Okay, give me a moral situation where he should allow evil to exist. What we're assuming is that god is not only omnipotent, but all loving, correct? If so, why did he allow humans to sin? Why create the instances of the evils that he doesn't permit? I understand the concept of free will, however we can see him CLEARLY setting boundaries which act against our free will. The inevitability of Hell for one. Why create such things, if he is a loving god, and omnipotent?
withthebirdillshare 2 years ago
Your question is straining a bit too far from the topic, so here, I'll ask you:
Would you like to take this talk of evil to the message board, or would you prefer that I make a video (series) is response to this question?
BassP86 2 years ago
You do as you wish, but for now I tire of this argument, simply because we haven't really gone anywhere with it. Still, it was fun while it lasted, thankyou for the intellectual challenge.
withthebirdillshare 2 years ago
The question is not the logical fallacy here. The notion of omnipotence to begin with, is the logical fallacy. If you're omnipotent, you can lift stones that you cannot lift, and that's self-conflicting nonsense. God cannot be omnipotent because omnipotence itself is logically impossible. It's not a straw-man (which is putting words in other people's mouths) or anything like that. The question is only logically invalid because the premise of omnipotence is logically invalid.
helgihg 2 years ago
Blimey son, you are VERY boring.
lineswine 3 years ago
You seem to be missing the point entirely... what the question boils down to is this, "Is god powerful enough to limit his own power?" But I'm not a big fan of that logical contradiction.
I prefer, "If god is all-knowing then he knows exactly what he is going to do in the future, but if he is all powerful, shouldn't he be able to do something different? But then if he did do something different from what he knew he was going to do, wouldn't he not have been all-knowing in the first place?"
antybu86 3 years ago
"But then if he did do something different from what he knew he was going to do, wouldn't he not have been all-knowing in the first place?" - Anty that's precisely the point that I'm making in this video. Your preferred question assumes is that God's choices would have to be different from what His own nature implies. If His choices were different from His own nature, then He is contradictory by necessity. Your question is actually assuming the same redundancy that I've mentioned before.
BassP86 3 years ago
BassP86 Why don`t you go and play with your marbles, instead of talking about something you nor anybody else knows anything about.
Philos2006 3 years ago
Please see my Policies video, Philos.
BassP86 3 years ago