I'm sure God would be able to create a rock so big, that he couldn't lift it, but he could probably make himself strong enough to. There is no answer to this kind of question. To me, it's a question that you should ask a christian so they question their faith.

How about: If God is so powerful, does he have the strength to kill himself?

Nobody should have to prove that the human idea of logic and understanding completely and accurately explains the inner workings of omnipotence and the afterlife, because we've made no attempt to logically explain any of that from the start.

An object being too heavy to lift is a normal everyday circumstance that can easily be logically explained. The entity trying to lift it isn't strong enough to lift the mass. There, logically explained.

Throwing God into an otherwise ordinary situation to try to disprove a concept we can't possibly understand is like trying to divide by zero in an otherwise normal mathematical formula. Or better yet, trying to throw it in a formula from pre-9th century mathematics before the concept of zero as a digit was even considered.

I'm not saying our logic is flawed, I'm saying our logic doesn't completely explain what's still obviously unexplainable. It's beyond our mortal comprehension to try and explain the concepts of an omnipotent being's powers. We do it by using our language and the definitions we affix to it, and nobody should have to prove to anyone that our primitive languages and logic can even come close to explaining something as vastly complex as God, especially because any kind of proof lies under the same guidelines of "beyond our comprehension".

Quote from Arch-Angel

I'm sure God would be able to create a rock so big, that he couldn't lift it, but he could probably make himself strong enough to. There is no answer to this kind of question. To me, it's a question that you should ask a christian so they question their faith.

How about: If God is so powerful, does he have the strength to kill himself?

That's a bit easier
God is apparently just immortal not invulnerable.

lol yeah.
Okay, if God is so powerful, then who created God?

Quote from Arch-Angel

How about: If God is so powerful, does he have the strength to kill himself?

See, thats pretty must asking the same thing, "Can god surmount the insurmountable?", "Can god out-do himself?" etc.

Quote from Arch-Angel

lol yeah.
Okay, if God is so powerful, then who created God?

Stay on topic. This is why religion debates get a bad name.

Quote from Exilement

Nobody should have to prove that the human idea of logic and understanding completely and accurately explains the inner workings of omnipotence and the afterlife, because we've made no attempt to logically explain any of that from the start.

An object being too heavy to lift is a normal everyday circumstance that can easily be logically explained. The entity trying to lift it isn't strong enough to lift the mass. There, logically explained.

Throwing God into an otherwise ordinary situation to try to disprove a concept we can't possibly understand is like trying to divide by zero in an otherwise normal mathematical formula. Or better yet, trying to throw it in a formula from pre-9th century mathematics before the concept of zero as a digit was even considered.

I'm not saying our logic is flawed, I'm saying our logic doesn't completely explain what's still obviously unexplainable. It's beyond our mortal comprehension to try and explain the concepts of an omnipotent being's powers. We do it by using our language and the definitions we affix to it, and nobody should have to prove to anyone that our primitive languages and logic can even come close to explaining something as vastly complex as God, especially because any kind of proof lies under the same guidelines of "beyond our comprehension".

So in 100, or 1000, or 10000 years we might be able to explain what we now find illogical, logically?

Cool beans.

Quote from Exilement

Nobody should have to prove that the human idea of logic and understanding completely and accurately explains the inner workings of omnipotence and the afterlife, because we've made no attempt to logically explain any of that from the start.

An object being too heavy to lift is a normal everyday circumstance that can easily be logically explained. The entity trying to lift it isn't strong enough to lift the mass. There, logically explained.

Throwing God into an otherwise ordinary situation to try to disprove a concept we can't possibly understand is like trying to divide by zero in an otherwise normal mathematical formula. Or better yet, trying to throw it in a formula from pre-9th century mathematics before the concept of zero as a digit was even considered.

I'm not saying our logic is flawed, I'm saying our logic doesn't completely explain what's still obviously unexplainable. It's beyond our mortal comprehension to try and explain the concepts of an omnipotent being's powers. We do it by using our language and the definitions we affix to it, and nobody should have to prove to anyone that our primitive languages and logic can even come close to explaining something as vastly complex as God, especially because any kind of proof lies under the same guidelines of "beyond our comprehension".

You are asserting that we are simply unable to understand omnipotence without actually demonstrating that this is the case. I have a fairly good understanding of omnipotence, I'd say. I may not be able to fathom it, to properly grasp it, but I understand very well what it is.

Just because we are incapable of fathoming something doesn't mean we can't use them in thought. I am unable to grasp astronomical or quantum sizes, but I can still apply logic and math to them.

There's two thing in life we can never be sure of.
If something is at it's maximum we can always ask:
Can he out do the maximum?

The other is when it is at its lowest point:
Can he make it even less?

Quote from Exilement

Stay on topic. This is why religion debates get a bad name.

My point is. Why debate about something that cannot have an absolute fact or if it even matters? To me, debates like this just determine who is christian and who isn't.

Obviously if God exists, he probably could create a rock so big, that he couldn't lift it. Then again, he could make the rock very large, but make it weigh one pound. If God could create life, then why would he care about something like this? If he could make a rock that he could not pick up, then I'm sure that he could just make himself stronger or much taller.

If God created every star and planet, then gravity would probably come into effect. If there is a planet or a star bigger than our solar system, it would most likely float in it's own gravitational pull or one of something else.

Quote from Wtf

There's two thing in life we can never be sure of.
If something is at it's maximum we can always ask:
Can he out do the maximum?

The other is when it is at its lowest point:
Can he make it even less?

Wrong, we can always be sure of these things. The maximum is our name for that which can not be overreached. If what we think is the maximum is overreached, then it wasn't the maximum to begin with. It's also possible that there simply is not a maximum.


On topic: The point of this debate is to get out of the way the idea of a god which is subject to the laws of logic which we have observed. The fact remains that if one defines god as being subject to the laws of logic, then that god is impossible.

Quote from Ash

You are asserting that we are simply unable to understand omnipotence without actually demonstrating that this is the case.

On topic: The point of this debate is to get out of the way the idea of a god which is subject to the laws of logic which we have observed. The fact remains that if one defines god as being subject to the laws of logic, then that god is impossible.

Wouldn't that assertion on it's own basically be proof? It seems like a demonstration on it's own to look at a question and say "I can't logically answer that question"

edit: About the second part, who ever said anything about there being a god who's power is within logic?

Quote from Ash

You are asserting that we are simply unable to understand omnipotence without actually demonstrating that this is the case. I have a fairly good understanding of omnipotence, I'd say. I may not be able to fathom it, to properly grasp it, but I understand very well what it is.

You yourself are demonstrating that it's the case by proposing a question as ridiculous as this. Absolute omnipotence means there is no limit to your power. Which means your question makes absolutely no sense, because it implies a weakness, or an incapability, which directly contradicts what omnipotence is.

It's also such an easy argument to be in favor of. You can rely on our current form of logic that seems to disprove it, but any time someone tries to argue against it, they need to do so by acknowledging that humans are intellectually not equipped to understand something this vast. That's simply what I'm saying, yet you're looking for proof of this? In what form?

Quote from Fr0zEnPh0eNiX

Wouldn't that assertion on it's own basically be proof? It seems like a demonstration on it's own to look at a question and say "I can't logically answer that question"

No, that's not proof. Being unable to answer an illogical question isn't a failing of logic, it's a failing of the question. The rsponsibility of logic here is to show that the question is illogical, and when we discuss an illogical question, by definition logic has succeeded in showing that it is an illogical question.

Quote from Exilement

You yourself are demonstrating that it's the case by proposing a question as ridiculous as this. Absolute omnipotence means there is no limit to your power. Which means your question makes absolutely no sense, because it implies a weakness, or an incapability, which directly contradicts what omnipotence is.

The question is only ridiculous is omnipotence itself is a flawed concept. If omnipotence was not flawed, then it could stand up against this question. This question demonstrates that an omnipotent being is logically impossible by showing that, being omnipotent, it can create anything that is not internally logically contradictory, and there is no internal logical contradiction to a rock being heavy, or, to avoid semantics, a bar of metal being difficult to bend. It's only when you introduce omnipotence into the equation that the problem arises, meaning that omnipotence is itself a flawed concept.

It's also such an easy argument to be in favor of. You can rely on our current form of logic that seems to disprove it, but any time someone tries to argue against it, they need to do so by acknowledging that humans are intellectually not equipped to understand something this vast. That's simply what I'm saying, yet you're looking for proof of this? In what form?

By providing an example of something which contradicts currently known logic.

To start with, how can we even assume that God can't or can lift a rock if we don't believe.
Because you are ignoring it, but believing in good in this matter is important to answer the question.

I also think that the title-question is just a good mask for another over talked religious thread.
I do like reading and discussing it with all of you, tough.

Also Ash, your response to my post and my post are the same thing