|
Room4Shroom
Registered: 01/15/03
Posts: 1,195
|
Can God... *DELETED*
#6165017 - 10/13/06 08:50 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by Room4Shroom
Reason for deletion: N/A
|
brainlessjon
Stranger
Registered: 09/29/06
Posts: 55
Loc: Missouri
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
|
|
I'm sure that depends on who's god you are asking about.
|
Room4Shroom
Registered: 01/15/03
Posts: 1,195
|
|
Post deleted by Room4ShroomReason for deletion: Because
|
Room4Shroom
Registered: 01/15/03
Posts: 1,195
|
|
by the way - brainlessjon...is your avatar from the Wheel of Time series??
|
brainlessjon
Stranger
Registered: 09/29/06
Posts: 55
Loc: Missouri
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
|
|
Yeah its the wheel of time series. I just started reading the 3rd book.
|
Asante
Omnicyclion prophet
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,296
|
|
Can God choose to decrease his strength? Ofcourse he can! Can he undo that? Why, yes! Can he Deicide himself? Probably not.
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
Ravus
Not an EggshellWalker
Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
|
|
God can't do anything besides that which is accomplished from the realm of human imagination.
-------------------- So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.
|
BIGSWANG
oakridge gang, beotch
Registered: 02/18/02
Posts: 19,397
Loc: Iwishanigga woods
|
Re: Can God... [Re: Ravus]
#6165178 - 10/13/06 09:59 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
prove it
-------------------- Admin Edit: Your signiture is inappropriate and has been removed. Do not harass other members in your signiture. Also refrain from posting links to scat pornography. If I see anything like that here again, you will be banned.
|
supercollider
superconducting
Registered: 10/13/00
Posts: 1,234
Loc: Waxahachie
|
|
Well it would have to be a pretty damn heavy rock. But then he'd need another even larger rock to exert the gravity on the first rock and give him something to lift it away from, wouldn't he? Since God, in the Judeo-Christian dogma, created all stars and planets, I assume we're talking about some seriously massive rocks here, heavier than neutron stars.
So I can't answer the question, but I assert that if the answer is yes, it follows that he must make another rock even heavier.
Here's another facet to the question: Can God directly create rocks, or does he have to wait for the heavy elements to be fused in stars? Maybe it's all like a divine-cosmic cooking project.
-------------------- Supercollider? I just met her!
|
Geneephurr
Amazing
Registered: 09/25/06
Posts: 253
Loc: Bore-bank.
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
|
"Can god do what god cannot do?"
I hope you're not trying to proove anything with this question.
Of, course, doesn't that lead one to infer that god acts as a human, lifting and all that? Isn't god beyond human interaction or some such business? God is an idea, is he not? To believe or question if he can or would or should interact in the same way that our human bodies would...isn't that a cheapning of the ideal of what god is and what he is not?
-------------------- "Man's real life is happy, chiefly because he is ever expecting that it soon will be so." - Edgar Allan Poe
Edited by Geneephurr (10/13/06 10:44 AM)
|
Hank, FTW
Looking for the Answer
Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
|
|
The egg came first, something chicken like, laid a chicken egg, FTW.
-------------------- Capliberty: "I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "
|
BIGSWANG
oakridge gang, beotch
Registered: 02/18/02
Posts: 19,397
Loc: Iwishanigga woods
|
|
prove it
-------------------- Admin Edit: Your signiture is inappropriate and has been removed. Do not harass other members in your signiture. Also refrain from posting links to scat pornography. If I see anything like that here again, you will be banned.
|
Lost_
Lost on AbbeyRoad
Registered: 09/08/06
Posts: 45
Loc: Lost again
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: Can God... [Re: BIGSWANG]
#6165463 - 10/13/06 11:16 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
the rock is god LOST
-------------------- The mind must be wide open in order to function freely in thought. For a limited mind cannot think freely. -Bruce Lee RIP Syd
|
Hank, FTW
Looking for the Answer
Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
|
Re: Can God... [Re: BIGSWANG]
#6165542 - 10/13/06 11:39 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Evolution, LOL.
-------------------- Capliberty: "I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
|
|
I thought the title stood on its own "Can God" Fire the fucker!
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
CaptainH13
Scum
Registered: 10/29/04
Posts: 10,287
|
|
Ahem.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_Paradox
Quote:
The omnipotence paradox is actually a family of related paradoxes having to do with the question of what an omnipotent being can do, especially whether or not a being that is able to perform all actions can perform an action that would limit its own ability to perform actions. If the being can perform such actions, then it can limit its own ability to perform actions and hence it cannot perform all actions. If it cannot limit its own actions, then it could never have performed all actions.[2] This paradox is often formulated in terms of the God of the Abrahamic religions, though this is not a requirement. One version of omnipotence paradox is the so-called paradox of the stone: "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?" If so, then it seems that the being could cease to be omnipotent; if not, it seems that the being was not omnipotent to begin with.[3]
Some philosophers, such as J. L Cowan, see this paradox as a reason to reject the possibility of any absolutely omnipotent entity.[4] Others, such as Aquinas, assert that the paradox arises from a misunderstanding of the concept of omnipotence[5]. The paradox can indeed be viewed as a straightforward logical impossibility, in that it frames an inability ("cannot lift it") as an attribute of total ability (omnipotence), rather than its absence or negation.
Still others, such as Descartes, argue that God is absolutely omnipotent, despite the apparent problem.[6] In addition, some philosophers have considered the assumption that a being is either omnipotent or non-omnipotent to be a false dilemma, as it neglects the possibility of varying degrees of omnipotence.[7] Some modern approaches to the problem have involved semantic debates over whether language — and therefore philosophy — can meaningfully address the concept of omnipotence itself.[8]
To analyze the omnipotence paradox rigorously, a precise definition of omnipotence must be established. The common definition, "all powerful", is not specific enough to deal with the issues raised by the paradox. Several other versions of the paradox have been advanced besides the "heavy stone," which has problems with respect to modern physics.
Overview
A common modern version of the omnipotence paradox is expressed in the question: "Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?" This question generates a dilemma. The being can either create a stone which it cannot lift, or it cannot create a stone which it cannot lift. If the being can create a stone that it cannot lift, then it seems that it can cease to be omnipotent. If the being cannot create a stone which it cannot lift, then it seems it is already not omnipotent.
The problem is similar to another classic paradox, the irresistible force paradox: What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? One response to this paradox is that if a force is irresistible, then by definition there is no truly immovable object; conversely, if an immovable object were to exist, then no force could be defined as being truly irresistible. But this way out is not possible in the omnipotence case, because the purpose is to ask if the being's omnipotence makes its own omnipotence impossible. In legal contexts, the paradox of omnipotence is sometimes phrased in terms of parliamentary, legislative, or sovereign omnipotence: the power to make any law at any time.[2]
In order to analyze the omnipotence paradox in a rigorous way, one of several definitions of omnipotence must be established as in use. For example, P. T. Geach describes four different kinds of omnipotence and distinguishes all of them from the notion of being "almighty."[9]
Types of omnipotence
Main article: Omnipotence
Geach describes and rejects four levels of omnipotence. He also defines and defends a lesser notion of the "almightiness" of God.
1) Y is (Absolutely) omnipotent means - Y "can do everything absolutely. Everything that can be expressed in a string of words that make sense, even if that sense can be shown to be self-contradictory," Y "is not bound in action, as we are in thought by the laws of logic." [9] This position is advanced by Descartes. It has the theological advantage of making God prior to the laws of logic, but the theological disadvantage of making God's promises suspect. On this account, the omnipotence paradox is a genuine paradox, but genuine paradoxes might nonetheless be so.
2) Y is omnipotent means "Y can do X" is true if and only if X is a logically consistent description of a state of affairs. This is advocated (in one place) by Thomas Aquinas.[10] This defintion of omnipotence solves some of the paradoxes associated with omnipotence, but some modern formulations of the paradox still work against this defintion. Let X = "to make something that its maker cannot lift". As Mavrodes points out there is nothing logically contradictory about this; a man could, for example, make a boat which he could not lift.[11] It would be strange if humans could accomplish this feat, but an omnipotent being could not. Additionally, this definition has problems when X is morally or physically untenable for a being like God. Can God lie? Murder? Dance? Play baseball?
3) Y is omnipotent means "Y can do X" is true if and only if "Y does X" is logically consistent. Here the idea is to exclude actions which would be inconsistent for Y to do but might be consistent for others. Again sometimes it looks as if Aquinas takes this position.[12] Here Mavrodes' worry about X= "to make something its maker cannot lift" will no longer be a problem because "God does X" is not logically consistent. However, this account may still have problems with moral issues like X = "tells a lie" or temporal issues like X = "brings it about that Rome was never founded."[9]
4) Y is omnipotent means whenever "Y will bring about X" is logically possible, then "Y can bring about X" is true. This sense, also does not allow the paradox of omnipotence to arise, and unlike definition #3 avoids any temporal worries about whether or not an omnipotent being could change the past. However, Geach criticizes even this sense of omnipotence as misunderstanding the nature of God's promises.[9]
5) Y is almighty means that Y is not just more powerful than any creature; no creature can compete with Y in power, even unsuccessfully.[9] In this account nothing like the omnipotence paradox arises, but perhaps that is because God is not taken to be in any sense omnipotent. On the other hand, Anselm of Canterbury seems to think that almightiness is one of the things that makes God count as omnipotent.[13]
The notion of omnipotence can also be applied to an entity in different ways. An essentially omnipotent being is an entity that is necessarily omnipotent. In contrast, an accidentally omnipotent being is an entity that can be omnipotent for a temporary period of time, and then becomes non-omnipotent. The omnipotence paradox can be applied differently to each type of being.[14]
Philosophical responses
Without redefining omnipotence, the paradox can be refuted as a self-contradicting formulation. It can be helpful to re-state the paradox in this way: "Does total ability include disability?", or even, "Is the total lack of disability itself a disability?" Viewed in this light, a simple answer of "No" to the classical formulation of the question ("Can an omnipotent being create a stone...") involves no contradiction, no paradox and requires no re-definition of omnipotence. Other responses may require a nuancing of the notion of omnipotence.
One can attempt to resolve the paradox by asserting a kind of omnipotence that does not demand that a being must be able to do all things at all times. According to this line of reasoning, the being can create a stone which it cannot lift at the moment of creation. Being omnipotent, however, the being can always alter the stone later so that it can lift it. Therefore the being is still in some sense omnipotent.
This is roughly the view espoused by Matthew Harrison Brady, a character in Inherit the Wind loosely based upon William Jennings Bryan. In the climactic scene of the 1960s movie version, Brady argues, "Natural law was born in the mind of the Creator. He can change it—cancel it—use it as He pleases!" But this solution merely pushes the problem back a step; one may ask whether an omnipotent being can create a stone so immutable that the being itself cannot later alter it.
In a 1955 article published in the philosophy journal Mind, J.L. Mackie attempted to resolve the paradox by distinguishing between first-order omnipotence (unlimited power to act) and second-order omnipotence (unlimited power to determine what powers to act things shall have).[15] An omnipotent being with both first and second-order omnipotence at a particular time might restrict its own power to act and, henceforth, cease to be omnipotent in either sense. There has been considerable philosophical dispute since Mackie, as to the best way to formulate the paradox of omnipotence in formal logic. [16]
Another common response to the omnipotence paradox is to try to define omnipotence to mean something weaker than absolute omnipotence, such as definition 3 or 4 above. The paradox can be resolved by simply stipulating that omnipotence does not require the being to have abilities which are logically impossible, but only to be able to do anything which conforms to the laws of logic. A good example of a modern defender of this line of reasoning is George Mavrodes.[11]
If a being is accidentally omnipotent, then it can resolve the paradox by creating a stone which it cannot lift and thereby becoming non-omnipotent. Unlike essentially omnipotent entities, it is possible for an accidentally omnipotent being to be non-omnipotent. This raises the question, however, of whether or not the being was ever truly omnipotent, or just capable of great power.[14] On the otherhand, the ability to voluntarily give up great power is often thought of as central to the notion of the Christian Incarnation.[17]
If a being is essentially omnipotent, then it can also resolve the paradox (as long as we take omnipotence not to require absolute omnipotence). The omnipotent being is essentially omnipotent, and therefore it is impossible for it to be non-omnipotent. Further, the omnipotent being cannot do what is logically impossible. The creation of a stone which the omnipotent being cannot lift would be an impossibility, and therefore the omnipotent being is not required to do such a thing. The omnipotent being cannot create such a stone, but nevertheless retains its omnipotence. This solution works even with definition 2, as long as we also know the being is essentially omnipotent rather than accidentally so.
This was essentially the position taken by Augustine of Hippo in his City of God:
For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent. [18]
Thus Augustine argued that God could not do anything or create any situation that would in effect make God not God.
Some philosophers maintain that the paradox can be resolved if the definition of omnipotence includes Descartes' view that an omnipotent being can do the logically impossible. In this scenario, the omnipotent being could create a stone which it cannot lift, but could also then lift the stone anyway. Presumably, such a being could also make the sum 2 + 2 = 5 become mathematically possible or create a square triangle. This attempt to resolve the paradox is problematic in that the definition itself forgoes logical consistency. The paradox may be solved, but at the expense of making the logic a paraconsistent logic. This might not seem like a problem if one is already committed to dialetheism or some other form of logical transcendence. [edit]
Language and omnipotence
The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein is often interpreted as arguing that language is not up to the task of describing the kind of power an omnipotent being would have. In his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus he stays generally within the realm of logical positivism, until claim 6.4, but at 6.41 and following the succeeding propositions argue that ethics and several other issues are "transcendental" subjects which we cannot examine with language. Wittgenstein also mentions the will, life after death, and God; arguing that "When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words".[19]
Wittgenstein's work makes the omnipotence paradox a problem in semantics, the study of how symbols are given meaning. (The retort "That's only semantics" is a way of saying that a statement only concerns the definitions of words, instead of anything important in the physical world.) According to the Tractatus, then, even attempting to formulate the omnipotence paradox is futile, since language cannot refer to the entities the paradox considers. The final proposition of the Tractatus gives Wittgenstein's dictum for these circumstances: "What we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence."[20] Wittgenstein's approach to these problems is influential among other 20th century religious thinkers such as D. Z. Phillips. [21] But in his later years, Wittgenstein wrote works which are often interpreted as conflicting with his positions in the Tractatus.[22]Philosophical responses
Without redefining omnipotence, the paradox can be refuted as a self-contradicting formulation. It can be helpful to re-state the paradox in this way: "Does total ability include disability?", or even, "Is the total lack of disability itself a disability?" Viewed in this light, a simple answer of "No" to the classical formulation of the question ("Can an omnipotent being create a stone...") involves no contradiction, no paradox and requires no re-definition of omnipotence. Other responses may require a nuancing of the notion of omnipotence.
One can attempt to resolve the paradox by asserting a kind of omnipotence that does not demand that a being must be able to do all things at all times. According to this line of reasoning, the being can create a stone which it cannot lift at the moment of creation. Being omnipotent, however, the being can always alter the stone later so that it can lift it. Therefore the being is still in some sense omnipotent.
This is roughly the view espoused by Matthew Harrison Brady, a character in Inherit the Wind loosely based upon William Jennings Bryan. In the climactic scene of the 1960s movie version, Brady argues, "Natural law was born in the mind of the Creator. He can change it—cancel it—use it as He pleases!" But this solution merely pushes the problem back a step; one may ask whether an omnipotent being can create a stone so immutable that the being itself cannot later alter it.
In a 1955 article published in the philosophy journal Mind, J.L. Mackie attempted to resolve the paradox by distinguishing between first-order omnipotence (unlimited power to act) and second-order omnipotence (unlimited power to determine what powers to act things shall have).[15] An omnipotent being with both first and second-order omnipotence at a particular time might restrict its own power to act and, henceforth, cease to be omnipotent in either sense. There has been considerable philosophical dispute since Mackie, as to the best way to formulate the paradox of omnipotence in formal logic. [16]
Another common response to the omnipotence paradox is to try to define omnipotence to mean something weaker than absolute omnipotence, such as definition 3 or 4 above. The paradox can be resolved by simply stipulating that omnipotence does not require the being to have abilities which are logically impossible, but only to be able to do anything which conforms to the laws of logic. A good example of a modern defender of this line of reasoning is George Mavrodes.[11]
If a being is accidentally omnipotent, then it can resolve the paradox by creating a stone which it cannot lift and thereby becoming non-omnipotent. Unlike essentially omnipotent entities, it is possible for an accidentally omnipotent being to be non-omnipotent. This raises the question, however, of whether or not the being was ever truly omnipotent, or just capable of great power.[14] On the otherhand, the ability to voluntarily give up great power is often thought of as central to the notion of the Christian Incarnation.[17]
If a being is essentially omnipotent, then it can also resolve the paradox (as long as we take omnipotence not to require absolute omnipotence). The omnipotent being is essentially omnipotent, and therefore it is impossible for it to be non-omnipotent. Further, the omnipotent being cannot do what is logically impossible. The creation of a stone which the omnipotent being cannot lift would be an impossibility, and therefore the omnipotent being is not required to do such a thing. The omnipotent being cannot create such a stone, but nevertheless retains its omnipotence. This solution works even with definition 2, as long as we also know the being is essentially omnipotent rather than accidentally so.
This was essentially the position taken by Augustine of Hippo in his City of God:
For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent. [18]
Thus Augustine argued that God could not do anything or create any situation that would in effect make God not God.
Some philosophers maintain that the paradox can be resolved if the definition of omnipotence includes Descartes' view that an omnipotent being can do the logically impossible. In this scenario, the omnipotent being could create a stone which it cannot lift, but could also then lift the stone anyway. Presumably, such a being could also make the sum 2 + 2 = 5 become mathematically possible or create a square triangle. This attempt to resolve the paradox is problematic in that the definition itself forgoes logical consistency. The paradox may be solved, but at the expense of making the logic a paraconsistent logic. This might not seem like a problem if one is already committed to dialetheism or some other form of logical transcendence. [edit]
Language and omnipotence
The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein is often interpreted as arguing that language is not up to the task of describing the kind of power an omnipotent being would have. In his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus he stays generally within the realm of logical positivism, until claim 6.4, but at 6.41 and following the succeeding propositions argue that ethics and several other issues are "transcendental" subjects which we cannot examine with language. Wittgenstein also mentions the will, life after death, and God; arguing that "When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words".[19]
Wittgenstein's work makes the omnipotence paradox a problem in semantics, the study of how symbols are given meaning. (The retort "That's only semantics" is a way of saying that a statement only concerns the definitions of words, instead of anything important in the physical world.) According to the Tractatus, then, even attempting to formulate the omnipotence paradox is futile, since language cannot refer to the entities the paradox considers. The final proposition of the Tractatus gives Wittgenstein's dictum for these circumstances: "What we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence."[20] Wittgenstein's approach to these problems is influential among other 20th century religious thinkers such as D. Z. Phillips. [21] But in his later years, Wittgenstein wrote works which are often interpreted as conflicting with his positions in the Tractatus.[22]
--------------------
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR
Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
|
Quote:
Geneephurr said: "Can god do what god cannot do?"
I hope you're not trying to proove anything with this question.
I was going to post the exact same thing. It's an illogical question, one without a meaning. It is not the same as a "which came first" question because this one is incoherent, and a meaningless question doesn't have an answer.
|
unbeliever
Yo Daddy!
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 15 years, 21 days
|
|
Better than the rock thing:
If (the Christian) god is omniscient, then when he created the spirit of, say, Ghengis Khan, he knew the evil that Khan would commit. Thus knowing that Khan would wind up in eternal agony and suffering. This obviously applies to any/all evil people who, according to christianity, will burn in hell.
Isn't the act of creating a living sentient being, knowing that they are doomed to an eternity of torture (that you devised), an evil act itself? Does this not make god evil?
-------------------- Happiness is a warm gun...
|
WakeboardrB
Pepe Silvia
Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 13,678
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
|
Can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cannot eat it?
-------------------- Same thing happened to me when I played Neil Armstrong in Moonshot. They found me in an alley in Burbank trying to re-enter the earth's atmosphere in an old refrigerator box.
Edited by WakeboardrB (10/13/06 08:34 PM)
|
nakors_junk_bag
Lobster Bisque
Registered: 11/23/04
Posts: 2,415
Loc: ethereality
Last seen: 15 years, 11 months
|
|
Can God make satan love him?
-------------------- Asshole
|
|