This question is actually philosophicaly legitamate. I refer you to Philosophical Problems and Arguments, Cornma, Lehrer, and Pappas. p. 200. This is a section titled "The Supreme Being Is Omnipotent." At the bottom: "Consider a boulder so heavy that God does not have the ability to lift it. Does God have the ability to create such a rock or not? If he has this ability then there is something God cannot do, namely, lift the rock. But either he has the ability to create the bouldeer or he does not. Therefore there is something God does not have the ability to do: both create and lift a certain boulder. Therefore God is not omnipotent." How would you refute this?
I already did. God is not subject to issues of physical strength because God is not a physical entity. Are there things God cannot do? Yes. Can't be limited to physical space. Does this make God less powerful? Of course not. Being a physical being is a limitation. Now many people on this board will disagree with me about that. That's fine. And for them they will have a different answer.
How can god do a thing that is by definition impossible? How can the immovable be moved? How can a circular thing be square? A god could still be all powerful and not be able to do those things, because the phrase "circular square" and "moving the immovable" are senseless phrases, mere strings of words with no meaning. A god would know that and not be "worried" that it couldn't perform the impossible. This is why belief in gods irritates me. It just leads to irrationality on many levels.
The question assumes that god is subject to the limitations of man. the dauer sounds like a deluded beliver, but is right about this one.
No, to the limits of logic. It's like that site I posted said, just because you can string words together into a syntacticly correct question doesn't mean it's worth pondering. "can flowers run faster than rocks?" and "Do triangles like the taste of chicken soup?" are on the same level as "can the undoable be done?" Illogical questions (ones where the premises are contradictory) are not intelligible questions and do not need to be thought about. And if God isn't subject to our logic, then what is the point in even talking about him? We clearly can't know a damn thing about him if this is the case.
um...God? thing called the BIble? so anyways what they other person saia bout phisical attributes and out of time and space was, in my eyes, correct!!!!
First of all, "god" is everywhere, in all of us in everything, just the way water is in ever wave whether or not the wave acknowledges it. God is creation, beyond creation and through creation. One without the other. The question of god lifitng a boulder doesnt arise, because god is the boulder also. It is the same infinite supreme energy taking different forms, like different fingers of the same hand.
these sorts of questions have you starting with logical thinking, then move onto allowing your mind to wander... then you end up rocking back and forth in the corner of a darkened room! I still love em tho!!
yes, i guess he'd have to crush it into a fine powder, or he could make himself stronger, then he could lift it.
Chief cowpie "join me in creating a new God...the old one isn't doing too good of a job " Can i ask a question which may be off topic, but im just interested... If you create a new God who you percieve to be doing a better job, or even the best job... would that not still be God? Just thinking out loud.. if it doesnt make sense, just ignore me!
if god acts beyond logic,the question like this is meanigless; if god acts logically,it is presupposed that he is not omnipotent. what a stupid question.
God is just the position, not His/Her's name... it like the president of the u.s.a. where one becomes president and is both called by their name and their position... so yes, a new person can become God