The only thing this video really proves is that the entire concept of omnipotence is stupid. It does not disprove the paradox. In general, the idea of dealing with complete absolutes is messy and a bad habit of humans.
As for the first proposal, that god can make faulty logic work, because he can do anything (first of all, that's a cop-out, but that aside), well, why didn't he then? He allowed this paradox to exist, so I guess he failed to make the faulty logic work. So I have debunked both your proposals then. Bua ha ha ha. I am victorious.
I can certainly give you a flaw in your second proposal, beginning at 2:34. And that is, put simply, the ROCK also meets your definition of god! Sure, its abilities may be limited, but it doesn't WANT anything. Therefore, it can do anything it WANTS to do. This demonstrates that the ability to do anything you WANT is nothing special. It is attained by every unambitious aimless simpleton on Earth. Your standard for god needs to be a little higher, I think. You're setting the bar pretty darn low.
The basic premise of this video is flawed. No one, especially atheists, is trying to disprove god. Everyone knows you can't. In light of this, all the "atheists" are trying to do is answer the question. They aren't trying to "disprove god", just prove that he cannot be omnipotent. That's all. Because if he's not omnipotent, there's no reason to even call him a god, in the sense most people think of. Also, the argument from "nature" is silly. I'm omnipotent if i can do all things within my nature
Your next fallacy is the fallacy ad baculum. The appeal to fear. When you say "This line of thinking atheists use is actually very dangerous to do so." That doesn't make the given question false. You are also appealing to emotion when you label people by putting a bad stink on 'atheists'.
Lastly, at 4:04 you are implying that God exists without question. Nobody can know for certain that God exists. At the same time nobody can know for certain that God doesn't exist.
There are claims in your refute that are fallacious. You are implying that because a God doesn't have the intention of achieving X makes it irrelevant. That is false. The fact that a God doesn't want to achieve something doesn't change the fact that he/she can't achieve it. Nowhere in the definition of omnipotence does it say that said omnipotence must be the of one's intention. Also, how is this stone question fallacious? You don't explain why it is. It's a general logical question.
note on the end of your video. if God is my creator he is the instiller of the doubt within me as my brain is a part of the physical world and governed by physical laws that god would have then created. so if there is a god that would punish me for doubting him when he is the cause of my doubt i do not wish to worship him.
so i stab you. you tell me you feel pain. i tell you no you are feeling joy. why? because god has in this instant changed the laws of logic and now pain is joy so i have done something nice for you :D
Can I now have a guess at what happens beyond 4 billion lightyears from the world?
You just go ahead and guess away at what this god character can or cannot do, I say you should write a book about it, but be carefull to place it in the fiction section!
You don't let people show if they like or don't like your video. So I write it: I don't like your video. And since you don't let people show by thumbs, I'm not only one
Your fear of God is very amusing to me, or rather the fact that you vigorously defend that which threatens you. It reminds me of the soldiers of North Korea fighting not against their oppressor but for him, who btw is dead but still ruling the country - much like jesus.
And to threaten even thinking about such things shows religions true and sinister nature that goes beyond North Korea - thought-crime.
Lets hope you don't dream about it without wanting to. Because that means hell.
The paradox states that if a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task it is unable to perform, and hence, it cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if it cannot create a task it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.
But what if he creates something he can not do, then he creates a skill with witch he could do it.
@MrNomSauce Wrong because if he cant lift it then that means he can't do everything and therefore he is not omnipotent. Omnipotent beings can do ANYTHING even if they cant do one thing, they cease to be omnipotent.
@trueChaos23 Being able to do something is the same as being able to not do something, because he is ABLE to not do something; therefore the omnipotent being that cannot lift the stone is still able to do everything.
@MrNomSauce "Being able to do something is the same as being able to not do something" what? that makes no sense you are either able to do something or not I am either able to run or not they are not equal that is a bigger logical fallacy then when people say atheism requires faith, its incorrect. Just because he is able to not do something doesn't refute the fact that if he created a rock that he WOULDN'T be able to lift he would cease to be omnipotent that is the point.
@MrNomSauce There are lots of things I am not able to do. Does that mean I am able to do anything, because I am able to not be able to do some things?
Thing is, the argument that God can do the logically impossible simply compounds the problem of evil because he would be able to give us free will in world without evil.
I refute your refuting. The Omnipotence Paradox sets a clearly defined boundary, one that God could only be one side of. He can make the stone, or he can lift it. This has nothing to do with God 'contradicting' himself, this is about God being unable to do one or the other. It is a logical outline of the inherent limits against any being in Creation, divine or otherwise. As for God's willingness to do one or the other, the paradox isn't about what he wants, it's about what he can do.
This is nonsense. The whole point of the Omnipotence Paradox is to show that omnipotence requires belief in logical contradictions. To say "God can do anything, logical or illogical" does nothing to refute the point. The point is that we have to reject logic to believe in God.
If you or no one has any speculative traits of God, then why argue what he can or can't do? That just means all arguements are aimless. No one on Earth can fathom omnipotence. The answer is just that; God can do all things."
well someone may have already brought this up i have not sifted through the comments but if your first premise if god can do the logically contradictory and still be logical he could say he's an all loving god and be evil or say only christians go to heaven and send them to hell if you go with that premise there's no reason to trust anything the bible which is the "word of god" says since it can be a lie and still be true...
...bullshit, bullshit, get real, we are in the 21st century, time for humanity to grow out of this stage of mental retardation and refusal of actuall truth that can be proven scientifically. you need to get laid sir, or lady or whatever the fuck you're supposed to be. spending your life trying to prove the existence of some magical sky daddy from a 2000 year old fairy tale only makes you look silly.
@shaququ when will we be able to say yes we have reached the truth? even with all the scientific breakthroughs heralding revelations of the universe, for all the questions answered two questions emerge. The truth is a very subtle thing, though all pervasive and all encompassing. The truth transcends our limited brains I study science but i still have to accept that
@nejileesansenpai lol, when i look at someones page and the first thing i see is "eminem" i cannot take them seriously, and please, dont try to convince me you know anything about science as it is very well known that there are fewer believers among scientist that in any other community. most scientists experience complete disbelief in gods, religions, souls and supernatural concepts in general; and im talking about America. Wait till you come here to Europe (where Christianity originated).
@shaququ are you so fickle minded? and your logic is skewed.eminem is a good rapper, I like rap. I also like philosophy and science. I am not going to try to convince you I know anything about science as that would be a digression from the subject. Yes it might be that there are fewer believers among scientists than any other community but have you ever thought that I might be a part of that few?more and more science is unearthing evidence that there is a more fundamental truth than mere atoms
um, if i'm correct about this, then i might be a genius. God being omnipotent can create a being that's beyond being omnipotent. therefore if he/she/variable being who then create a stone that cannot be lifted by said God, then the being he created would lift it. therefore to conclude, He/ She/ Variable being would still then created the object and subjected to the rules of that object, while in the same time having the power to lift it, by not lifting it but the created being.
@firefrostpeacemaker it is impossible to go beyond being omnipotent since the definition of the word is an entity which is able to do ALL things, but i see what u are getting at though, very insightful
@realitities if God appeared how would you know? do you expect him to announce his presence with a booming "I AM GOD" would he perform miracles to prove he is God? with my very limited knowledge. I know that this seeming boastfulness would not be an attribute of God.
@nejileesansenpai is it boastful for scientists to produce evidence for their theories? i think not...if god showed up and turned my gatorade into wine i think i would be thinking "holy shit its god." not "this god character is a show off". i didnt say god should come down and perform a magic show. with his all powerfulness im sure he could come up with some non-show offish, but definitive, proof of his power
@realitities fair enough but,scientists posit theories not a definitive declaration that what they are saying is right, so they actually need to produce evidence to support their viewpoint. But God knows all things so he does not have produce evidence, actually the fact that there is something in the universe rather than nothing is evidence .It seems you think that God is a person sitting in the heavens on a throne-thats fantasy, I think God is an intelligent being who permeates all things
@nolobede Please read my channel on commenting policies. It's one thing to have a conversation, but another to just be rude and mock the channel host.
By the channel disclaimer I have no choice but to block you.
Look to Jesus Christ, your heart is deep in sin. Life is a vapor, there is no assurance your children would remember you, and it would not benefit you if they did. You are offered everlasting life by Christ, how can you neglect such a great salvation?
@nolobede You are living for this live, but don't you know this life means nothing?
No one will remember you after you die, except God. You should be concerned on how you stand before God. Jesus says, unless you REPENT, you will surely perish because of your sins.
My friend you are deceived, go ahead mock me but you need Jesus Christ. You can mock Christ but that will only be for your downfall.
Also, please do not be rude, or you will be blocked. (read it on my channel)
@SalvationEternity777 "No one will remember you after you die" - I won't care, I'll be dead. But my children and friends will remember me. "You should be concerned on how you stand before God. " -No more than I am concerned about being trampled by a pink 6 legged unicorn "go ahead mock me :" -I havent mocked you, only asked of you, what you asked of me... proof. "you need Jesus Christ" -There is nothing I can't have, do, or give without christ than I could with. Unnecessary myth.
@nolobede For some reason my post didn't appear. I post it again:
Wait, are you or are you not asserting that ¨Existence of a god completely conflicts with reality"? If you are, as it seems to be the case (e.g. "it should be evident by my reply, that I profess reality rather than imagination") then you do have a burden of proof.
Such rhetorical irrelevant drivel There need be no disproving of god... Waste of electricity and drivespace. Prove god, then we can have a conversation.
-Only to those too weak to accept what is truly obvious.
"It is like you are denying math!"
No, if a god could fit into any mathematical equation, there would be a thread of evidence... Math, is truth. God is incongruent to any equation ever posed.
It is you who are in denial of all that is proven.
@nolobede Wait, are you or are you not asserting that "Existence of a god completely conflicts with reality."? If you are, then you do have a burden of proof.
@nolobede For some reason my post didn't appear. I post it again:
Wait, are you or are you not asserting that ¨Existence of a god completely conflicts with reality"? If you are, as it seems to be the case (e.g. "it should be evident by my reply, that I profess reality rather than imagination") then you do have a burden of proof.
@fidesquaerensintel89 Right on point with the reference. Excellent paper, and probably the best analysis of omnipotence thus far. For those who do not know, just type "alfred freddoso maximal power" on the google serach bar.
I'm afraid that this doesn't quite pass muster. First, there are many things that I might not want to do, which I am nevertheless *able* to do. There are many things a cat or an ox might not want to do, yet might be able to do. So what a given being might want is not at all a measure of what it is *able* to do.
God might not *want* to flood the earth, yet since he did it he clearly must have the *power* to do it again, were he to want to.
(cont'd) He might not want to destroy the earth with fire. Yet would you dispute that he would have the *power* to do it, were circumstances to cause him to desire it?
Also, that "tempting" business works both ways. Neither you nor I have any business placing limits on what God might conceivably desire nor for what purpose, as his purposes, after all, surpasseth understanding.
So it is not a fallacy -- as you suggest.
Nevetheless, I believe that it is a false argument.
(cont'd) I think that one must conclude that, if we accept the premise of a God that is all-powerful, it must be restricted *only* to mean that God can accomplish anything that is not *logically* impossible.
And all of these paradoxical challenges are exactly that. They amount, in all sorts of variations to demanding of God that he cause X and Not X to exist at the same time and in the same place.
That God can't do, any more than he can make A<B and A=B at the same time.
@SalvationEternity777 I think there's a lot of confusion here. I don't have space for everything. I'll just comment that the aim of the paradox is not to show that God is not omnipotent (this is a consequence), but rather that the concept of omnipotence itself is logically inconsistent, i.e. that it cannot be consistently applied or predicated of any being whatsoever (God or anything else). If so, then the existence of an omnipotent agent is logically impossible. ------> continue
@SalvationEternity777 So whomever assumes that if God exists then He is (necessarily or contingently) omnipotent is begging the question. For we can't solve the paradox by saying that on the assumption that God (or anything else) is omnipotent it simply fails when what's really at stake is whether or not we can even coherently assume (predicate) the property of omnipotence of anything. I do think the paradox fails, however, but its solution cannot follow the reasoning you've given. God bless.
@SalvationEternity777 Begging the question is a logical fallacy. Roughly, it is when you assume the proposition which is to be proved. So you assume that
(A) God is omnipotent.
such that
(B) It is possible that some being is omnipotent.
But of course, what's at issue with the paradox is precisely whether or not (B) is true. So whomever assumes (A) is (necessarily) true is already assuming that (B) is true, and thus is begging the question to the paradoxical argument. I hope is clearer now.
@SalvationEternity777 If you are saying if anyone can be omnipotent on the basis of the question of the paradox, then what I've said offers a clear defense.
If the question is can someone possess omnipotency even if we disregard the points made in the "paradox", then the question I would ask is; can you give me a reason in light of all we see as the work and divine signature of God that someone cannot?
@SalvationEternity777 But what you've said begs the question, so it fails as a defense. That's the point. You can't assume that some being is omnipotent in order to show that it is possible for some being to be omnipotent. And this is exactly what you do. For you "refute" the argument that it is not possible that something is omnipotent from the assumption that something is omnipotent. And this, of course, is logically fallacious. So the paradox is immune to your "refutation". That's the point.
@SalvationEternity777 Hi. I don't think I understand your question. But I didn't say you refuted the argument, rather that you didn't because your argument against the paradoxical argument begs the question. If your interested in the paradox of the stone you should, at least, check out the papers by J. L. Mackie, B. Mayo, G. I. Mavrodes, G. B. Keene, J. L. Cowan, C. Wade Savage, R. Swinburne, etc. There are much more, but these are good introductions to the analytic debate. God bless.
@SalvationEternity777 "This is exactly what you do", not "this is exactly what you say". And what you do is beg the question. I don't understand what you don't grasp about the fallacy of begging the question. You assume that something is necessarily omnipotent in order to show that the "paradox's" conclusion that "it is impossible that something be omnipotent" is false. Do you not see the fallacy here?
@SalvationEternity777 Oh my. I've already told you where you beg the question. Let me see if this will work for you. This is the essence of the dilemma. Let S stand for any being:
(D) Either S can create something which S cannot lift, or S cannot create something which S cannot lift.
The argument you put forward to show that (D) fails to prove the impossibility of S being omnipotent is viable only on the prior assumption that S is necessarily omnipotent. See, now, where you beg the question?
@SonoPortoricano S already assumes omnipotency, and attempts to show that this is impossible.
I operate under the assumptions given by S, and show S is self-contradictory.
I did not assume anything S did not assume. There is no begging the question.
Second, what you said only is valid if the systems we're investigate are themselves indeterminate and in unproven form. The fact that God's nature is the starting pointing in all logic negates "begging the question" when merely appealing to Him.
@SalvationEternity777 Where does S assume omnipotence? It does not. Since S stands for any being, (D) concludes by mere logical form that there is at least something S cannot perform (either create or lift the something in question). And this entails that any concept which predicates of something the power to do anything is self-contradictory, and thus logically impossible. So if you assume it, you've failed to prove that the self-contradiction is not due to the concept of omnipotence itself.
@SonoPortoricano If S does not assume it and already regards it as untrue, there is no need of a paradox. If S only assumes the possibility, then the subset possibility of the entire assumption in itself is the assumption, and what I said therefore remains.
Reading your new comment, I don't think you understand my refutation of the actual paradox.
"...something the power to do anything is self-contradictory, and thus logically impossible"
@SalvationEternity777 I do understand it. The fact is that I find them erroneous. For instance, the ability to do logically impossible tasks has some unwelcoming theological consequences, for it allows that God have the power to make it true that He exists and that He does not exist simultaneously, that He is omnipotent and not omnipotent simultaneously, and so on. There's a lot to be said about this and 500 word is not enough. If you want, we can continue this by private messages. God Bless.
@SalvationEternity777 After all, the task of "creating a stone which its creator cannot lift" is a most certainly logically possible task. As C. Wade Savage states, "What the paradox of the stone really seeks to prove is that the notion of an omnipotent being is logically inconsistent... The essence of the argument is that an omnipotent being must be able to perform this task and yet cannot perform the task." (1967, p. 76). So to assume the omnipotence of some being is begging the question.
How about if language cannot be applied to God, then this omnipotent paradox is irrelevant.
Maybe language cannot be applied to God in the same way that natural laws, such as space and time, cannot be applied to God. As God is both timeless and spaceless, then too perhaps language cannot be applied to Him.
If this is the case, the paradox simply would not refute His existence for words cannot describe Him.
@JoePalin1 If omnipotence means it could contradict anything, then it can also exist while contradicting everything, and therefore omnipotence exists.
(cont 1)... Christ came to save sinners like you and I, wretched sinners. If you would believe upon His name, He will grant you forgiveness because He died in the place of believers, so that they are justified and forgiven.
Secondly, the God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament, and the living God.
He advocates and endorses NONE of what you mentioned, and therefore I charge your second comment. Either make a case, recant, or you will be blocked upon repeating the offense.
@SalvationEternity777 Give me one shred of evidence Christ was the son of God and your claims take this seriously. Im not going to pretend Im perfect- of course I've lied, but Hitler was a catholic, did his aceptance of Jesus and God save him from hell? Why should I believe in the Judeo-Christian God Yahweh rather than; Zeus, Apollo, Wotan, Allah, Jupiter, Osiris, Brahma, Vishnu, Flying Spaghetti monster, Santa Clause or most likely of all- none of them?
@JoePalin1 Jesus affirms from His own words that He is the Son of God in Mt 26:63-64.
I'm glad you acknowledge you are not perfect, and that you have lied. Moreover you also have stolen, lusted, disobeyed, self-righteous and self-exalting. You therefore deserve punishment. You should believe upon Jesus Christ because He is the only one that can cleanse you from this sin. None of those idols you mentioned can cleanse sin, only the blood of Jesus' can, therefore that is the perfect reason.
@SalvationEternity777 the god of the old testement did advocate all of the mentioned offenses and Censoring me will do no good to your cause as it is a weak defence of any argument. If you want evidence and references either read the bible or watch this video (watch?v=hCovYF51qHE)
@SalvationEternity777 I'm afraid there is far too much for me to say to settle with a comment. If you would allow it, I will post a video response to this video retalliating to all of your comments, and of course if you wish to comment on my response video, vote it down, reply with a video response, or anything else I will not block or Censor you.
@JoePalin1 Indeed you are sinful. Not only is rejection of God's promises a sin, but lying, stealing, adultery, disobedience to God's perfect laws are also sinful.
This is because God has provided you a life through His providence, and you have used it selfishly for your own pleasure, rather than glorifying God with it. Therefore by the word of God, you are sinful, and deserve the just punishment of a sinner against God, eternal punishment.
@SalvationEternity777 You failed to explain at all why all powerfulness is not impossible. Why do I need to believe in him to have the salvation you mention granted for me, seeing as you said he is infinitely merciful anyway (and has provided me no evidence of himself) . Lastly, if your god is perfect none of his judgements can be imperfect meaning he cannot be both all powerful and perfect simultaneously (regardless of whether he wants to be perfect, the issue is whether he is able not to be)
@JoePalin1 You're shifting the burden of proof. Omnipotence of a being is given and not the end, there is no burden upon the one who proposes this to prove it. You have to disprove it.
You need it granted to you because you have sinned and broken God's law. You deserve punishment, and only Christ's death as a substitute for you can save you.
If you define omnipotence literally as 'all-powerful', then it must include the ability to do contradictory things, so your arguments are rendered.
If we go with your proposal, then we can say God is bound by logic, and all conclusions are logical no matter how seemingly illogical they seem, and thus the theistic position is true by default...
@SalvationEternity777 All is logical, though it may seem illogical. All is perfect though it may seem faulty. Black is white despite apperances to the contrary. You're right. If you can accept this then the theistic position is unassailable.
God can do anything even stuuff that is completly immposable he is not bound by his won laws hell he even turned himself into his own creation man in the form of Jesus Christ God can do anything with accorance to his will. so lets not even attempt to think we can expalin God he will revel that to us one day if that be his will
there are things he "cannot do" in the sense that our language presents it like that - he cannot fail, he cannot be unjust, he cannot be unable to lift a rock. He can choose NOT to lift a rock though, which accomplishes whatever goal not lifting the rock accomplishes, and he can lift it when he desires. so he is always able to accomplish his will.
@SalvationEternity777 Really? Was humanity, a success, or a big dissapointment? What does scripture say about this? Why the flood? Why the need of a redeemer? Do you believe in the doctrine of hell?
No, God can not create a rock so heavy even God cannot lift it - because creating such a thing would be a failure, whereas always being able to lift is a success.
It is exactly like saying "are you capable of achieving the success of losing every match?" - you frame losing every match as a success falsely, while maintaining that it is damaging, and present the alternative of winning every match as a negative falsely.
God is incapable of failure, such as being unable to lift a rock.
He can't fail, so he can't do everything. He doesn't know what it is to fail, so he doesn't know everything. Round and round we go. Hey, do you think creation was a success?
I don't understand your comment. If you proceed with an argument based on contradiction of terms, then I can simply argue with the exact same premise yet declare a much more rational conclusion.
If god created a rock so heavy that even he couldn't lift it, it would be because he wanted to. And if anything god wants he can create than once he wanted to lift the rock he would make it possible, and it would happen. Thus Making the rock liftable and unliftable because if gods power is infinite then he has the power to solve unsolvable paradoxes, even in ways unimaginable by humans.
"if gods power is infinite then he has the power to solve unsolvable paradoxes, even in ways unimaginable by humans."
Then God is not bound by logic, and there is no reason for us to speak about him.
Without logic God exists and does not exist at the same time. He also exists as a black and pink unicorn on mars and he exists as zulok1337 dressed in a colour not known in this universe, actually he is dressed by three more than infinitive of these colours, and God is not God he is the Devil. Etc
"Thus Making the rock liftable and unliftable because if gods power is infinite then he has the power to solve unsolvable paradoxes, even in ways unimaginable by humans."
Well, I need to quote the rest of it.. so there are no misunderstandings.
If god can see the future then it would be the reality before he changed it. And by changing it to make the future different than what he saw then he wouldn't be seeing the future at all but an alternate reality. Thus, meaning that he can still feasably see into the future but just didn't.
"Thus, meaning that he can still feasably see into the future but just didn't."
A would be possible future is not THE future.
The future is yet to be reality. The future is not present. If I saved a child of some trainway lines I can't claim that I saw the future simply because I had a vision of a kid killed by a train, because the future never happend. I was wrong about what was going to happen because I saved the child.
In the same way God would be wrong in the first place.
"If God Knows ALL/omniscient, then he knows the future.
But God is omnipotent, and he can change the future, but then he didnt really know the future in the first place did he?"
If god is real and all knowing then he wouldn't just know the future, he'd know Anything that will, can, and has happened meaning that He knows every future even the ones that won't happen because he did something to change them into a future that won't happen.
Well.. You are not arguing for Omniscience. You are arguing for a "being/God" that knows all possible futures, not what the actual future will be for a specific place in space and time.
If God changes the future(or is able to change the future) he didn't known in the first place which one of the plausible possibilities would eventually happen in that specific place in time.
Withint logic omniscience and omnipotence can't be stacked without limitations
Well your logic bounds god to the laws of the universe. Therefore God is subdued to the laws of the universe, and well it is hard to imagine that he created it.
So the laws of the universe defines what is possible and impossible. Well if God is allpowerful within what is possible, then I assume God cannot exceed the speed of light either?
Or can you pick and choose which laws are possible to him and which are not?
God is not defined, or bound to his own laws, so he is not bound by logic, because everything has a logical answer IN THIS UNIVERSE, not in his "life". If he created this, can't he bend it's laws? being omnipotent, so, final concustion, there is no such thing
If God is not bound or defined by logic, then there is nothing logical to say about Him. Nothing can be said of His nature or will, as we have no words or concepts for them.
No, I don't think I do. Propositions such as 'God exists', 'God doesn't exist', 'God is forgiving', 'God is not bound by logic' have logical form. They become senseless when applied to an entity who is not Him/Herself bound by logic. There is simply no way of speaking of Him in logical terms.
Wouldn't you be assuming that an entity that surpasses must deny logic? Anyways, the whole metaphysics is not nearly as important as really the crux of Christianity, or theism.
Please take a look at this site, I hope you are blessed by it.
An entity which 'surpasses' logic, might indeed deny logic. Or confirm logic, and in the next moment, turn logic into an elephant, or a blancmange. Can I assume we are talking about the Biblical God here? If I we are, then what can we make of the ten commandments? How can we rely on their logical stability? They might not mean what they say at all. They might mean their exact opposite. We have no way of knowing.
Ok, so an omnipotent being is free only to do what he wants or is in his nature. That would mean he is constrained by his very nature, as any being is. So the laws that define and prescribe that nature cannot be under his control. That 'than which no greater could be concieved' would not be a supreme being, but the laws which he is governed by.
Didn't the writers of the Old Testement? God created 'man in his own image'. I hope I'm not being dangerous and illogical. I appreciate you may be telliing me I am mistaken in trying to translate something unfathomable into more understanable terms, but how then are any of us any to talk about 'God'? Does it make ay sense at all to talk about HIs 'Will' for example?
Right sorry. I think I should I should start again, and please don't think I'm trying to be irreverent, I just want to explore the points you made. If I understood correctly you've presented us with two possible responses to this 'paradox'. One is that God 'can do anything' ,including that which contradict s (human) logic, the other is that God can do anything 'possible' within the bounderies of his nature. Is that about right?
Hence...Not being able to lift the Rock would be Inabilitly... which is not omnipotence. Rather than splitting hairs to try and answer the question, simply reverse the question. "Can God lift any Rock he creates?" The answer is yes. Then that means that there is no Rock that God Can't lift.
Then if God cannot create a rock bigger then what he can lift, means he is not omnipotent. If you can't create anything, literally anything, then your aren't omnipotent.
Can god create a rock he cannot lift? Yes
Can god create a rock that he cannot lift? Yes
Can these rocks both be the same one? Yes
Can he lift and not lift both? Yes
If he in any way causes any argument above to become false, then he is not god. A better question is, why?
A god that knows all means he knows ALL. That means he knows what it's like to be a child molester, a rapist, a serial killer, homosexual, and even Satan himself. Otherwise, he's not God. But after all of that he still chooses to save certain people.
That's the second part of my rebuttal. I refute the fallacious arguments in two different ways, one from an open view (as the question is supposedly open) and one from a closed view.
You'll need to dig in the video again, or just read some of the above comments.
**fixed. Btw I quote you: "He would only be omnipotent in whatever He (nice caps) is willing to do." Leads me to assume your saying he just doesnt want to lift the rock.
There is no fallacy in this paradox, and it makes perfect sense. The fact that god wouldn't want to lift the rock doesn't negate the fact of whether or not he is able to. However, I do believe there is some solution to this paradox. In this universe that we live in, there are laws. "God" created these laws of physics and what not and everything in this universe must abide by them.
So that leaves only two places for god to be. Either 1) he is a part of our universe, and therefore must abide by these laws he set which would then render him not omnipotent, or 2) he is outside of this universe in some other realm and cannot interact with this universe or the laws that govern it.
I believe in the latter, the second possibility of gods place. He put us all here but I don't think he is around to interact. Either that or he just doesn't give a ****, which could explain all the evils of the world that he would have designed also, world hunger, war, pollution, etc. So there you have it.
I (and many others) debunked this simple argument, it is debunked, then dismissed.
Present your argument for the omniscience "paradox"
If you want to see validation and divinity of the bible, research it. Get your head out of comedy central.
And finally, please research Christianity. It's divine history and inspiration is proof that if God wants to get us to know him in any way, he's doing it through Christianity.
Plesae don't point me to heavily debunked films such as Zeitgeist etc.
The only thing this video really proves is that the entire concept of omnipotence is stupid. It does not disprove the paradox. In general, the idea of dealing with complete absolutes is messy and a bad habit of humans.
TheEmperorGulcasa 1 hour ago
As for the first proposal, that god can make faulty logic work, because he can do anything (first of all, that's a cop-out, but that aside), well, why didn't he then? He allowed this paradox to exist, so I guess he failed to make the faulty logic work. So I have debunked both your proposals then. Bua ha ha ha. I am victorious.
medexamtoolsdotcom 1 week ago
I can certainly give you a flaw in your second proposal, beginning at 2:34. And that is, put simply, the ROCK also meets your definition of god! Sure, its abilities may be limited, but it doesn't WANT anything. Therefore, it can do anything it WANTS to do. This demonstrates that the ability to do anything you WANT is nothing special. It is attained by every unambitious aimless simpleton on Earth. Your standard for god needs to be a little higher, I think. You're setting the bar pretty darn low.
medexamtoolsdotcom 1 week ago
Paradox: Jesus is said to be God, yet the Bible says Jesus doesn't know when he will return to Earth for the second coming.
How can God keep knowledge from himself?
HighCardWins 2 weeks ago
The basic premise of this video is flawed. No one, especially atheists, is trying to disprove god. Everyone knows you can't. In light of this, all the "atheists" are trying to do is answer the question. They aren't trying to "disprove god", just prove that he cannot be omnipotent. That's all. Because if he's not omnipotent, there's no reason to even call him a god, in the sense most people think of. Also, the argument from "nature" is silly. I'm omnipotent if i can do all things within my nature
ItsEasyIfYouThink 2 months ago
Your next fallacy is the fallacy ad baculum. The appeal to fear. When you say "This line of thinking atheists use is actually very dangerous to do so." That doesn't make the given question false. You are also appealing to emotion when you label people by putting a bad stink on 'atheists'.
Lastly, at 4:04 you are implying that God exists without question. Nobody can know for certain that God exists. At the same time nobody can know for certain that God doesn't exist.
tutorialdude333 3 months ago
There are claims in your refute that are fallacious. You are implying that because a God doesn't have the intention of achieving X makes it irrelevant. That is false. The fact that a God doesn't want to achieve something doesn't change the fact that he/she can't achieve it. Nowhere in the definition of omnipotence does it say that said omnipotence must be the of one's intention. Also, how is this stone question fallacious? You don't explain why it is. It's a general logical question.
tutorialdude333 3 months ago
note on the end of your video. if God is my creator he is the instiller of the doubt within me as my brain is a part of the physical world and governed by physical laws that god would have then created. so if there is a god that would punish me for doubting him when he is the cause of my doubt i do not wish to worship him.
mattybain09 4 months ago
so i stab you. you tell me you feel pain. i tell you no you are feeling joy. why? because god has in this instant changed the laws of logic and now pain is joy so i have done something nice for you :D
mattybain09 4 months ago
Wow, really elaborate guesswork!
Can I now have a guess at what happens beyond 4 billion lightyears from the world?
You just go ahead and guess away at what this god character can or cannot do, I say you should write a book about it, but be carefull to place it in the fiction section!
ImaginaryMdA 4 months ago
You don't let people show if they like or don't like your video. So I write it: I don't like your video. And since you don't let people show by thumbs, I'm not only one
Kissimirri22 4 months ago
Your fear of God is very amusing to me, or rather the fact that you vigorously defend that which threatens you. It reminds me of the soldiers of North Korea fighting not against their oppressor but for him, who btw is dead but still ruling the country - much like jesus.
And to threaten even thinking about such things shows religions true and sinister nature that goes beyond North Korea - thought-crime.
Lets hope you don't dream about it without wanting to. Because that means hell.
neuromatiker 5 months ago
Comment removed
Davotheledge 6 months ago
The paradox states that if a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task it is unable to perform, and hence, it cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if it cannot create a task it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.
But what if he creates something he can not do, then he creates a skill with witch he could do it.
One more thing.
Lets say that we have infinity
infinity has a double nature.
It is itself and it is not itself.
AlekSensej 6 months ago
Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it? Yes, because the being is omnipotent.
MrNomSauce 7 months ago
@MrNomSauce Wrong because if he cant lift it then that means he can't do everything and therefore he is not omnipotent. Omnipotent beings can do ANYTHING even if they cant do one thing, they cease to be omnipotent.
trueChaos23 6 months ago
@trueChaos23 Being able to do something is the same as being able to not do something, because he is ABLE to not do something; therefore the omnipotent being that cannot lift the stone is still able to do everything.
MrNomSauce 6 months ago
@MrNomSauce "Being able to do something is the same as being able to not do something" what? that makes no sense you are either able to do something or not I am either able to run or not they are not equal that is a bigger logical fallacy then when people say atheism requires faith, its incorrect. Just because he is able to not do something doesn't refute the fact that if he created a rock that he WOULDN'T be able to lift he would cease to be omnipotent that is the point.
trueChaos23 6 months ago
@trueChaos23 Dammit you don't get it. Why does no-one get it?
MrNomSauce 6 months ago
@MrNomSauce There are lots of things I am not able to do. Does that mean I am able to do anything, because I am able to not be able to do some things?
snuju1 6 months ago
Thing is, the argument that God can do the logically impossible simply compounds the problem of evil because he would be able to give us free will in world without evil.
jake1flavell 8 months ago
I refute your refuting. The Omnipotence Paradox sets a clearly defined boundary, one that God could only be one side of. He can make the stone, or he can lift it. This has nothing to do with God 'contradicting' himself, this is about God being unable to do one or the other. It is a logical outline of the inherent limits against any being in Creation, divine or otherwise. As for God's willingness to do one or the other, the paradox isn't about what he wants, it's about what he can do.
DarthBismarck 9 months ago
@DarthBismarck And as for throwing Deuteronomy 6:16 in our faces: do you really think that's going to sway any atheists out there?
DarthBismarck 9 months ago
This is nonsense. The whole point of the Omnipotence Paradox is to show that omnipotence requires belief in logical contradictions. To say "God can do anything, logical or illogical" does nothing to refute the point. The point is that we have to reject logic to believe in God.
QuatFax 10 months ago
Stop quoting the bible if youre trying to make up an intelligent discussion. You state your point and then quote the bible telling us to stfu.
You surely also broke that law btw (-> youll burn in hell forever).
You dont disprove anything in this video.
The easiest way would be to say that god isnt able to break logical laws.
He would still be quite omnipotent.
Saying he can break logical laws somehow defines the problem away.
And your nature/want thing is nonsense, many words, no substance.
Todestuete 1 year ago
If you or no one has any speculative traits of God, then why argue what he can or can't do? That just means all arguements are aimless. No one on Earth can fathom omnipotence. The answer is just that; God can do all things."
Rsalmond83 1 year ago
well someone may have already brought this up i have not sifted through the comments but if your first premise if god can do the logically contradictory and still be logical he could say he's an all loving god and be evil or say only christians go to heaven and send them to hell if you go with that premise there's no reason to trust anything the bible which is the "word of god" says since it can be a lie and still be true...
xMarchx31stx 1 year ago
...bullshit, bullshit, get real, we are in the 21st century, time for humanity to grow out of this stage of mental retardation and refusal of actuall truth that can be proven scientifically. you need to get laid sir, or lady or whatever the fuck you're supposed to be. spending your life trying to prove the existence of some magical sky daddy from a 2000 year old fairy tale only makes you look silly.
shaququ 1 year ago
@shaququ when will we be able to say yes we have reached the truth? even with all the scientific breakthroughs heralding revelations of the universe, for all the questions answered two questions emerge. The truth is a very subtle thing, though all pervasive and all encompassing. The truth transcends our limited brains I study science but i still have to accept that
nejileesansenpai 1 year ago
@nejileesansenpai lol, when i look at someones page and the first thing i see is "eminem" i cannot take them seriously, and please, dont try to convince me you know anything about science as it is very well known that there are fewer believers among scientist that in any other community. most scientists experience complete disbelief in gods, religions, souls and supernatural concepts in general; and im talking about America. Wait till you come here to Europe (where Christianity originated).
shaququ 1 year ago
@shaququ are you so fickle minded? and your logic is skewed.eminem is a good rapper, I like rap. I also like philosophy and science. I am not going to try to convince you I know anything about science as that would be a digression from the subject. Yes it might be that there are fewer believers among scientists than any other community but have you ever thought that I might be a part of that few?more and more science is unearthing evidence that there is a more fundamental truth than mere atoms
nejileesansenpai 1 year ago
@nejileesansenpai "more and more science is unearthing -evidence- that there is a more fundamental truth than mere atoms"
really? i didnt know that. what evidence? oh, you mean LHC?
shaququ 1 year ago
um, if i'm correct about this, then i might be a genius. God being omnipotent can create a being that's beyond being omnipotent. therefore if he/she/variable being who then create a stone that cannot be lifted by said God, then the being he created would lift it. therefore to conclude, He/ She/ Variable being would still then created the object and subjected to the rules of that object, while in the same time having the power to lift it, by not lifting it but the created being.
firefrostpeacemaker 1 year ago
@firefrostpeacemaker it is impossible to go beyond being omnipotent since the definition of the word is an entity which is able to do ALL things, but i see what u are getting at though, very insightful
nejileesansenpai 1 year ago
@nejileesansenpai thx. well maybe an omnipotent being will take pity on us and tell us already!
firefrostpeacemaker 1 year ago
why doesnt god just fuckin show up if he wants us to believe in him so bad
realitities 1 year ago
Comment removed
firefrostpeacemaker 1 year ago
@realitities if God appeared how would you know? do you expect him to announce his presence with a booming "I AM GOD" would he perform miracles to prove he is God? with my very limited knowledge. I know that this seeming boastfulness would not be an attribute of God.
nejileesansenpai 1 year ago
@nejileesansenpai is it boastful for scientists to produce evidence for their theories? i think not...if god showed up and turned my gatorade into wine i think i would be thinking "holy shit its god." not "this god character is a show off". i didnt say god should come down and perform a magic show. with his all powerfulness im sure he could come up with some non-show offish, but definitive, proof of his power
realitities 1 year ago
@realitities fair enough but,scientists posit theories not a definitive declaration that what they are saying is right, so they actually need to produce evidence to support their viewpoint. But God knows all things so he does not have produce evidence, actually the fact that there is something in the universe rather than nothing is evidence .It seems you think that God is a person sitting in the heavens on a throne-thats fantasy, I think God is an intelligent being who permeates all things
nejileesansenpai 1 year ago
@nolobede Please read my channel on commenting policies. It's one thing to have a conversation, but another to just be rude and mock the channel host.
By the channel disclaimer I have no choice but to block you.
Look to Jesus Christ, your heart is deep in sin. Life is a vapor, there is no assurance your children would remember you, and it would not benefit you if they did. You are offered everlasting life by Christ, how can you neglect such a great salvation?
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@nolobede You are living for this live, but don't you know this life means nothing?
No one will remember you after you die, except God. You should be concerned on how you stand before God. Jesus says, unless you REPENT, you will surely perish because of your sins.
My friend you are deceived, go ahead mock me but you need Jesus Christ. You can mock Christ but that will only be for your downfall.
Also, please do not be rude, or you will be blocked. (read it on my channel)
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SalvationEternity777
"You are living for this live, but don't you know this life means nothing?"
Wrong, this life means everything because it is the one I know that I have.. I live for my children, THAT is the meaning.
"No one will remember you after you die, except God"
-And After I die, I won't be there to care, but my children will remember and live by my gifts of intellect and consideration of others.
nolobede 1 year ago
nolobede 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nolobede For some reason my post didn't appear. I post it again:
Wait, are you or are you not asserting that ¨Existence of a god completely conflicts with reality"? If you are, as it seems to be the case (e.g. "it should be evident by my reply, that I profess reality rather than imagination") then you do have a burden of proof.
SonoPortoricano 1 year ago
Such rhetorical irrelevant drivel There need be no disproving of god... Waste of electricity and drivespace. Prove god, then we can have a conversation.
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede are you a professing Christian?
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777
It should be evident by my reply, that I profess reality rather than imagination.
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede you have no proof though
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777
Only those that make an assertion of a god need proof...
Existence of a god completely conflicts with reality.
I make no such preposterous assertion
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede God's divine nature and presence is obvious. It is like you are denying math!
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777
"God's divine nature and presence is obvious"
-Only to those too weak to accept what is truly obvious.
"It is like you are denying math!"
No, if a god could fit into any mathematical equation, there would be a thread of evidence... Math, is truth. God is incongruent to any equation ever posed.
It is you who are in denial of all that is proven.
Self denial.
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede prove math is truth
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777
Prove god is true.
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede God is true, it's so obvious, you must be blind my friend.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777
Hahahaha... Could there be a more lame answer? Unlikely.
God is true because you say so?...
You, are truly the blind one my friend.
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede You need Jesus Christ, you are blinded and deceived. It's obvious to me the truths of God.
can you prove math is true?
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777
...and I have no need to prove math. It proves itself everyday, every time, unquestioningly and unfailingly.
What's the success ratio for prayer?
nolobede 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nolobede Wait, are you or are you not asserting that "Existence of a god completely conflicts with reality."? If you are, then you do have a burden of proof.
SonoPortoricano 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nolobede For some reason my post didn't appear. I post it again:
Wait, are you or are you not asserting that ¨Existence of a god completely conflicts with reality"? If you are, as it seems to be the case (e.g. "it should be evident by my reply, that I profess reality rather than imagination") then you do have a burden of proof.
SonoPortoricano 1 year ago
@fidesquaerensintel89 Right on point with the reference. Excellent paper, and probably the best analysis of omnipotence thus far. For those who do not know, just type "alfred freddoso maximal power" on the google serach bar.
SonoPortoricano 1 year ago
I'm afraid that this doesn't quite pass muster. First, there are many things that I might not want to do, which I am nevertheless *able* to do. There are many things a cat or an ox might not want to do, yet might be able to do. So what a given being might want is not at all a measure of what it is *able* to do.
God might not *want* to flood the earth, yet since he did it he clearly must have the *power* to do it again, were he to want to.
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) He might not want to destroy the earth with fire. Yet would you dispute that he would have the *power* to do it, were circumstances to cause him to desire it?
Also, that "tempting" business works both ways. Neither you nor I have any business placing limits on what God might conceivably desire nor for what purpose, as his purposes, after all, surpasseth understanding.
So it is not a fallacy -- as you suggest.
Nevetheless, I believe that it is a false argument.
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) I think that one must conclude that, if we accept the premise of a God that is all-powerful, it must be restricted *only* to mean that God can accomplish anything that is not *logically* impossible.
And all of these paradoxical challenges are exactly that. They amount, in all sorts of variations to demanding of God that he cause X and Not X to exist at the same time and in the same place.
That God can't do, any more than he can make A<B and A=B at the same time.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Yes if you go by this "restriction", there is no contradiction.
But even if you don't, there still is no contradiction.
On all accounts, there is no contradiction.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 I think there's a lot of confusion here. I don't have space for everything. I'll just comment that the aim of the paradox is not to show that God is not omnipotent (this is a consequence), but rather that the concept of omnipotence itself is logically inconsistent, i.e. that it cannot be consistently applied or predicated of any being whatsoever (God or anything else). If so, then the existence of an omnipotent agent is logically impossible. ------> continue
SonoPortoricano 1 year ago
Comment removed
SonoPortoricano 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 So whomever assumes that if God exists then He is (necessarily or contingently) omnipotent is begging the question. For we can't solve the paradox by saying that on the assumption that God (or anything else) is omnipotent it simply fails when what's really at stake is whether or not we can even coherently assume (predicate) the property of omnipotence of anything. I do think the paradox fails, however, but its solution cannot follow the reasoning you've given. God bless.
SonoPortoricano 1 year ago
@SonoPortoricano I am saying the argument that omnipotence is impossible is fallacious.
What basis do you give that someone cannot assume omnipotence? I see God's Almighty demonstrated clearly through His creation.
Do you have clear logical reason for it, or is that merely your opinion?
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 Begging the question is a logical fallacy. Roughly, it is when you assume the proposition which is to be proved. So you assume that
(A) God is omnipotent.
such that
(B) It is possible that some being is omnipotent.
But of course, what's at issue with the paradox is precisely whether or not (B) is true. So whomever assumes (A) is (necessarily) true is already assuming that (B) is true, and thus is begging the question to the paradoxical argument. I hope is clearer now.
SonoPortoricano 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 If you are saying if anyone can be omnipotent on the basis of the question of the paradox, then what I've said offers a clear defense.
If the question is can someone possess omnipotency even if we disregard the points made in the "paradox", then the question I would ask is; can you give me a reason in light of all we see as the work and divine signature of God that someone cannot?
God bless, peace to you.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 But what you've said begs the question, so it fails as a defense. That's the point. You can't assume that some being is omnipotent in order to show that it is possible for some being to be omnipotent. And this is exactly what you do. For you "refute" the argument that it is not possible that something is omnipotent from the assumption that something is omnipotent. And this, of course, is logically fallacious. So the paradox is immune to your "refutation". That's the point.
SonoPortoricano 1 year ago
@SonoPortoricano Where did I exactly refute the "paradox" BY assuming directly that we know something to be omnipotent in the first place?
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 Hi. I don't think I understand your question. But I didn't say you refuted the argument, rather that you didn't because your argument against the paradoxical argument begs the question. If your interested in the paradox of the stone you should, at least, check out the papers by J. L. Mackie, B. Mayo, G. I. Mavrodes, G. B. Keene, J. L. Cowan, C. Wade Savage, R. Swinburne, etc. There are much more, but these are good introductions to the analytic debate. God bless.
SonoPortoricano 1 year ago
@SonoPortoricano "...And this is exactly what you do..."
Can you precisely quote my exact words?
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 "This is exactly what you do", not "this is exactly what you say". And what you do is beg the question. I don't understand what you don't grasp about the fallacy of begging the question. You assume that something is necessarily omnipotent in order to show that the "paradox's" conclusion that "it is impossible that something be omnipotent" is false. Do you not see the fallacy here?
SonoPortoricano 1 year ago
@SonoPortoricano
Do you not understand my reply?
I will say it again. Where did I beg the question?
If I did not say so implicitly, then I didn't do it either.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 Oh my. I've already told you where you beg the question. Let me see if this will work for you. This is the essence of the dilemma. Let S stand for any being:
(D) Either S can create something which S cannot lift, or S cannot create something which S cannot lift.
The argument you put forward to show that (D) fails to prove the impossibility of S being omnipotent is viable only on the prior assumption that S is necessarily omnipotent. See, now, where you beg the question?
SonoPortoricano 1 year ago
@SonoPortoricano S already assumes omnipotency, and attempts to show that this is impossible.
I operate under the assumptions given by S, and show S is self-contradictory.
I did not assume anything S did not assume. There is no begging the question.
Second, what you said only is valid if the systems we're investigate are themselves indeterminate and in unproven form. The fact that God's nature is the starting pointing in all logic negates "begging the question" when merely appealing to Him.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 Where does S assume omnipotence? It does not. Since S stands for any being, (D) concludes by mere logical form that there is at least something S cannot perform (either create or lift the something in question). And this entails that any concept which predicates of something the power to do anything is self-contradictory, and thus logically impossible. So if you assume it, you've failed to prove that the self-contradiction is not due to the concept of omnipotence itself.
SonoPortoricano 1 year ago
@SonoPortoricano If S does not assume it and already regards it as untrue, there is no need of a paradox. If S only assumes the possibility, then the subset possibility of the entire assumption in itself is the assumption, and what I said therefore remains.
Reading your new comment, I don't think you understand my refutation of the actual paradox.
"...something the power to do anything is self-contradictory, and thus logically impossible"
You've not understood the crux of my rebuttal.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 I do understand it. The fact is that I find them erroneous. For instance, the ability to do logically impossible tasks has some unwelcoming theological consequences, for it allows that God have the power to make it true that He exists and that He does not exist simultaneously, that He is omnipotent and not omnipotent simultaneously, and so on. There's a lot to be said about this and 500 word is not enough. If you want, we can continue this by private messages. God Bless.
SonoPortoricano 1 year ago
@SonoPortoricano I am wondering though,
Do you profess faith in Jesus Christ?
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 Yes I do, very much. Why do you ask? Nothing I've said thus far goes against that.
SonoPortoricano 1 year ago
@SonoPortoricano I know. It is completely unrelated.
But our philosophical discussions can only go so far. I've heard it said; You can argue with an argument, but not with a changed life.
I value pointing people to Jesus Christ much more than arguing about often trivial concepts with them.
So please check this out. It is unrelated to what we discussed.
tinyurl(.)com/9ps5ve
Peace to you.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SonoPortoricano
Can God create a round triangle?
Is God required to the logically impossible?
wolf4lifepsl 1 year ago
@wolf4lifepsl No, no one is required to make possible what by definition isn't.
SonoPortoricano 1 year ago
@SonoPortoricano atheism is gay. refute that you bum.
wolf4lifepsl 1 year ago
@wolf4lifepsl lol why would I? I'm no atheist lol
SonoPortoricano 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 After all, the task of "creating a stone which its creator cannot lift" is a most certainly logically possible task. As C. Wade Savage states, "What the paradox of the stone really seeks to prove is that the notion of an omnipotent being is logically inconsistent... The essence of the argument is that an omnipotent being must be able to perform this task and yet cannot perform the task." (1967, p. 76). So to assume the omnipotence of some being is begging the question.
SonoPortoricano 1 year ago
Hello
How about if language cannot be applied to God, then this omnipotent paradox is irrelevant.
Maybe language cannot be applied to God in the same way that natural laws, such as space and time, cannot be applied to God. As God is both timeless and spaceless, then too perhaps language cannot be applied to Him.
If this is the case, the paradox simply would not refute His existence for words cannot describe Him.
HappyTinker 1 year ago
you are an idiot and do not understand the omnipotence paradox
squishycunt 1 year ago
@squishycunt No slander and pejorative comments please. You've been cautioned.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
Again, please recant your comment slandering God, as I've warned you. If you repeat the offense I will block you, without question.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@JoePalin1 If omnipotence means it could contradict anything, then it can also exist while contradicting everything, and therefore omnipotence exists.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
(cont 1)... Christ came to save sinners like you and I, wretched sinners. If you would believe upon His name, He will grant you forgiveness because He died in the place of believers, so that they are justified and forgiven.
Secondly, the God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament, and the living God.
He advocates and endorses NONE of what you mentioned, and therefore I charge your second comment. Either make a case, recant, or you will be blocked upon repeating the offense.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 Give me one shred of evidence Christ was the son of God and your claims take this seriously. Im not going to pretend Im perfect- of course I've lied, but Hitler was a catholic, did his aceptance of Jesus and God save him from hell? Why should I believe in the Judeo-Christian God Yahweh rather than; Zeus, Apollo, Wotan, Allah, Jupiter, Osiris, Brahma, Vishnu, Flying Spaghetti monster, Santa Clause or most likely of all- none of them?
JoePalin1 1 year ago 4
@JoePalin1 Jesus affirms from His own words that He is the Son of God in Mt 26:63-64.
I'm glad you acknowledge you are not perfect, and that you have lied. Moreover you also have stolen, lusted, disobeyed, self-righteous and self-exalting. You therefore deserve punishment. You should believe upon Jesus Christ because He is the only one that can cleanse you from this sin. None of those idols you mentioned can cleanse sin, only the blood of Jesus' can, therefore that is the perfect reason.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 the god of the old testement did advocate all of the mentioned offenses and Censoring me will do no good to your cause as it is a weak defence of any argument. If you want evidence and references either read the bible or watch this video (watch?v=hCovYF51qHE)
JoePalin1 1 year ago
@JoePalin1 I asked for a defense or recantation of what you said, not a video link.
You slandered and broke channel rules, blocking you is not censoring.
Don't you see your need to come to Christ to be forgiven?
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 I'm afraid there is far too much for me to say to settle with a comment. If you would allow it, I will post a video response to this video retalliating to all of your comments, and of course if you wish to comment on my response video, vote it down, reply with a video response, or anything else I will not block or Censor you.
JoePalin1 1 year ago
@JoePalin1 Do as you like, I'm unsure if I will comment too much. Ask me anything here.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@JoePalin1 Indeed you are sinful. Not only is rejection of God's promises a sin, but lying, stealing, adultery, disobedience to God's perfect laws are also sinful.
This is because God has provided you a life through His providence, and you have used it selfishly for your own pleasure, rather than glorifying God with it. Therefore by the word of God, you are sinful, and deserve the just punishment of a sinner against God, eternal punishment.
But see that's where Christ comes in... (cont 1)
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@JoePalin1 All powerfulness is not impossible.
We thank our God that He is omnipotent, all powerful, and all merciful as well.
He's not just omnipotent, He's merciful. Offering you mercy today that you would repent of your sins and believe upon Him, which grants you salvation.
Now is the time to believe.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 You failed to explain at all why all powerfulness is not impossible. Why do I need to believe in him to have the salvation you mention granted for me, seeing as you said he is infinitely merciful anyway (and has provided me no evidence of himself) . Lastly, if your god is perfect none of his judgements can be imperfect meaning he cannot be both all powerful and perfect simultaneously (regardless of whether he wants to be perfect, the issue is whether he is able not to be)
JoePalin1 1 year ago 3
@JoePalin1 You're shifting the burden of proof. Omnipotence of a being is given and not the end, there is no burden upon the one who proposes this to prove it. You have to disprove it.
You need it granted to you because you have sinned and broken God's law. You deserve punishment, and only Christ's death as a substitute for you can save you.
If you define omnipotence literally as 'all-powerful', then it must include the ability to do contradictory things, so your arguments are rendered.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
God can do illogical things.
wolf4lifepsl 1 year ago
@wolf4lifepsl
not necessarily, that comment is very broad andreally lacks specificity
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777
1. Omniscient beings are capable of doing anything
2. Omniscient beings are not bound by logic
therefore, omniscient beings are capable of doing illogical things
is this wrong?
wolf4lifepsl 1 year ago
@wolf4lifepsl
If we go with your proposal, then we can say God is bound by logic, and all conclusions are logical no matter how seemingly illogical they seem, and thus the theistic position is true by default...
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 All is logical, though it may seem illogical. All is perfect though it may seem faulty. Black is white despite apperances to the contrary. You're right. If you can accept this then the theistic position is unassailable.
snuju1 1 year ago
maybe the omnipotence of God is of such power he can contradict himself ,and he has powers that can work outside of logic beyond ways we understand?
shamwowftl 1 year ago
God can do anything even stuuff that is completly immposable he is not bound by his won laws hell he even turned himself into his own creation man in the form of Jesus Christ God can do anything with accorance to his will. so lets not even attempt to think we can expalin God he will revel that to us one day if that be his will
christlover3000 1 year ago
there are things he "cannot do" in the sense that our language presents it like that - he cannot fail, he cannot be unjust, he cannot be unable to lift a rock. He can choose NOT to lift a rock though, which accomplishes whatever goal not lifting the rock accomplishes, and he can lift it when he desires. so he is always able to accomplish his will.
Dadutta 1 year ago
I can't resist asking this again: Is creation a success or failure? Is mankind a success or failure?
snuju1 1 year ago
@snuju1 Creation was a success of course.
God's work is perfect, mind you, in His way and not yours or mine.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 Really? Was humanity, a success, or a big dissapointment? What does scripture say about this? Why the flood? Why the need of a redeemer? Do you believe in the doctrine of hell?
snuju1 1 year ago
No, God can not create a rock so heavy even God cannot lift it - because creating such a thing would be a failure, whereas always being able to lift is a success.
It is exactly like saying "are you capable of achieving the success of losing every match?" - you frame losing every match as a success falsely, while maintaining that it is damaging, and present the alternative of winning every match as a negative falsely.
God is incapable of failure, such as being unable to lift a rock.
Dadutta 2 years ago
He can't fail, so he can't do everything. He doesn't know what it is to fail, so he doesn't know everything. Round and round we go. Hey, do you think creation was a success?
snuju1 1 year ago
I don't understand your comment. If you proceed with an argument based on contradiction of terms, then I can simply argue with the exact same premise yet declare a much more rational conclusion.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
Well, it's quite an old question. Does god know what it's like to be human, when to ere is human.? What would your same premise argument be?
snuju1 1 year ago
'to err is human' I mean.
snuju1 1 year ago
If god created a rock so heavy that even he couldn't lift it, it would be because he wanted to. And if anything god wants he can create than once he wanted to lift the rock he would make it possible, and it would happen. Thus Making the rock liftable and unliftable because if gods power is infinite then he has the power to solve unsolvable paradoxes, even in ways unimaginable by humans.
zulok1337 2 years ago
"if gods power is infinite then he has the power to solve unsolvable paradoxes, even in ways unimaginable by humans."
Then God is not bound by logic, and there is no reason for us to speak about him.
Without logic God exists and does not exist at the same time. He also exists as a black and pink unicorn on mars and he exists as zulok1337 dressed in a colour not known in this universe, actually he is dressed by three more than infinitive of these colours, and God is not God he is the Devil. Etc
Serethen 2 years ago
"Thus Making the rock liftable and unliftable because if gods power is infinite then he has the power to solve unsolvable paradoxes, even in ways unimaginable by humans."
Well, I need to quote the rest of it.. so there are no misunderstandings.
Serethen 2 years ago
Yup, i wasn't trying to prove his existence or non existence.
zulok1337 2 years ago
A better one then the rock argument.
If God Knows ALL/omniscient, then he knows the future.
But God is omnipotent, and he can change the future, but then he didnt really know the future in the first place did he?
Serethen 2 years ago
TO: Serethen
If god can see the future then it would be the reality before he changed it. And by changing it to make the future different than what he saw then he wouldn't be seeing the future at all but an alternate reality. Thus, meaning that he can still feasably see into the future but just didn't.
zulok1337 2 years ago
Zulok1337
"Thus, meaning that he can still feasably see into the future but just didn't."
A would be possible future is not THE future.
The future is yet to be reality. The future is not present. If I saved a child of some trainway lines I can't claim that I saw the future simply because I had a vision of a kid killed by a train, because the future never happend. I was wrong about what was going to happen because I saved the child.
In the same way God would be wrong in the first place.
Serethen 2 years ago
To: Serethen
"If God Knows ALL/omniscient, then he knows the future.
But God is omnipotent, and he can change the future, but then he didnt really know the future in the first place did he?"
If god is real and all knowing then he wouldn't just know the future, he'd know Anything that will, can, and has happened meaning that He knows every future even the ones that won't happen because he did something to change them into a future that won't happen.
zulok1337 2 years ago
Zulok1337
Well.. You are not arguing for Omniscience. You are arguing for a "being/God" that knows all possible futures, not what the actual future will be for a specific place in space and time.
If God changes the future(or is able to change the future) he didn't known in the first place which one of the plausible possibilities would eventually happen in that specific place in time.
Withint logic omniscience and omnipotence can't be stacked without limitations
Serethen 2 years ago
Omniscience and Omnipotence are without limitations, per definition.
Dadutta 1 year ago
The definition is so yes. The traits given by the definition are inplausable, which is the point of my comment. What is your point exactly?
that religious definition = reality?
Serethen 1 year ago
Well your logic bounds god to the laws of the universe. Therefore God is subdued to the laws of the universe, and well it is hard to imagine that he created it.
So the laws of the universe defines what is possible and impossible. Well if God is allpowerful within what is possible, then I assume God cannot exceed the speed of light either?
Or can you pick and choose which laws are possible to him and which are not?
Serethen 2 years ago
Please bring only comments that have a form of logical argumentation, not insults. Thanks.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
God is not defined, or bound to his own laws, so he is not bound by logic, because everything has a logical answer IN THIS UNIVERSE, not in his "life". If he created this, can't he bend it's laws? being omnipotent, so, final concustion, there is no such thing
sscienceboy 2 years ago 2
If God is not bound or defined by logic, then there is nothing logical to say about Him. Nothing can be said of His nature or will, as we have no words or concepts for them.
snuju1 2 years ago
First you have to demonstrate that logic is the foremost basis the level of dimension God is in.
If you cannot, or are unsure, then either way you respond to the first given can be a confident and concrete response.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
No, I don't think I do. Propositions such as 'God exists', 'God doesn't exist', 'God is forgiving', 'God is not bound by logic' have logical form. They become senseless when applied to an entity who is not Him/Herself bound by logic. There is simply no way of speaking of Him in logical terms.
snuju1 2 years ago 2
Wouldn't you be assuming that an entity that surpasses must deny logic? Anyways, the whole metaphysics is not nearly as important as really the crux of Christianity, or theism.
Please take a look at this site, I hope you are blessed by it.
acrm(.)webs(.)com
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
An entity which 'surpasses' logic, might indeed deny logic. Or confirm logic, and in the next moment, turn logic into an elephant, or a blancmange. Can I assume we are talking about the Biblical God here? If I we are, then what can we make of the ten commandments? How can we rely on their logical stability? They might not mean what they say at all. They might mean their exact opposite. We have no way of knowing.
snuju1 2 years ago
Of course Christianity or theism doesn't pivot on this point. I am responding to the point you have raised in your video.
snuju1 2 years ago
Ok, so an omnipotent being is free only to do what he wants or is in his nature. That would mean he is constrained by his very nature, as any being is. So the laws that define and prescribe that nature cannot be under his control. That 'than which no greater could be concieved' would not be a supreme being, but the laws which he is governed by.
beetlebones1 2 years ago
p.s. I'm not an atheist
beetlebones1 2 years ago
Aren't you assuming God to be like His creation?
That's dangerous, and illogical...
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
Didn't the writers of the Old Testement? God created 'man in his own image'. I hope I'm not being dangerous and illogical. I appreciate you may be telliing me I am mistaken in trying to translate something unfathomable into more understanable terms, but how then are any of us any to talk about 'God'? Does it make ay sense at all to talk about HIs 'Will' for example?
beetlebones1 2 years ago
In the image of God indeed but not that we can bind whatever limitations on man, unto God.
Consider this psalm:
"These things you have done and I kept silent; you thought I was altogether like you. But I will rebuke you and accuse you to your face. "
(Psalm 50:21)
Furthermore, I said creation, which is not limited to man.
It's dangerous to limit God to what we are limited by, it ignores the concept who exactly God is, the eternal creator, the Lord Jesus Christ.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
Right sorry. I think I should I should start again, and please don't think I'm trying to be irreverent, I just want to explore the points you made. If I understood correctly you've presented us with two possible responses to this 'paradox'. One is that God 'can do anything' ,including that which contradict s (human) logic, the other is that God can do anything 'possible' within the bounderies of his nature. Is that about right?
beetlebones1 2 years ago
I present the first one because that's what the question demands. You're about right. God bless.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
God cannot be confined by logic?
beetlebones1 2 years ago
Well, i'll leave it there. You've probably heard the objections to that argument, so I won't bore you with it again. Thanks for the responses.
beetlebones1 2 years ago
Alright, God bless,
Take a look at this site by the way;
acrm(.)webs(.)com
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
the thing is, it doesnt matter whether he can lift it or not, its about why it is that way
velocityeleven 2 years ago
My simple answer is...
You CANNOT prove omnipotence with inabilty.
Hence...Not being able to lift the Rock would be Inabilitly... which is not omnipotence. Rather than splitting hairs to try and answer the question, simply reverse the question. "Can God lift any Rock he creates?" The answer is yes. Then that means that there is no Rock that God Can't lift.
Stacey3030 3 years ago
Then if God cannot create a rock bigger then what he can lift, means he is not omnipotent. If you can't create anything, literally anything, then your aren't omnipotent.
Can god create a rock he cannot lift? Yes
Can god create a rock that he cannot lift? Yes
Can these rocks both be the same one? Yes
Can he lift and not lift both? Yes
If he in any way causes any argument above to become false, then he is not god. A better question is, why?
blasphimus 3 years ago
A god that knows all means he knows ALL. That means he knows what it's like to be a child molester, a rapist, a serial killer, homosexual, and even Satan himself. Otherwise, he's not God. But after all of that he still chooses to save certain people.
blasphimus 3 years ago
That's the second part of my rebuttal. I refute the fallacious arguments in two different ways, one from an open view (as the question is supposedly open) and one from a closed view.
You'll need to dig in the video again, or just read some of the above comments.
SalvationEternity777 3 years ago
I deleted your last comment, I do not allow profanity, you will be blocked if you don't abide my simple rules on posting.
Also, I never exactly put it that "God doesn't want to" in the video. You need to watch the video rather than assume it's material.
Good day, also, slow down on the straw mens, your last post (which I blocked) was full of them.
SalvationEternity777 3 years ago
**fixed. Btw I quote you: "He would only be omnipotent in whatever He (nice caps) is willing to do." Leads me to assume your saying he just doesnt want to lift the rock.
sonsprinter 3 years ago
There is no fallacy in this paradox, and it makes perfect sense. The fact that god wouldn't want to lift the rock doesn't negate the fact of whether or not he is able to. However, I do believe there is some solution to this paradox. In this universe that we live in, there are laws. "God" created these laws of physics and what not and everything in this universe must abide by them.
sonsprinter 3 years ago
So that leaves only two places for god to be. Either 1) he is a part of our universe, and therefore must abide by these laws he set which would then render him not omnipotent, or 2) he is outside of this universe in some other realm and cannot interact with this universe or the laws that govern it.
sonsprinter 3 years ago
I believe in the latter, the second possibility of gods place. He put us all here but I don't think he is around to interact. Either that or he just doesn't give a ****, which could explain all the evils of the world that he would have designed also, world hunger, war, pollution, etc. So there you have it.
sonsprinter 3 years ago
I (and many others) debunked this simple argument, it is debunked, then dismissed.
Present your argument for the omniscience "paradox"
If you want to see validation and divinity of the bible, research it. Get your head out of comedy central.
And finally, please research Christianity. It's divine history and inspiration is proof that if God wants to get us to know him in any way, he's doing it through Christianity.
Plesae don't point me to heavily debunked films such as Zeitgeist etc.
SalvationEternity777 3 years ago