The rock question

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Then the definition of God, or at least your definition of God, is illogical.

God is omnipotent is illogical?

Originally posted by Coletti
If God can move from a state of omnipotence to non-omnipotence, then God would no longer be God by definition. So then the argument, "God can create a rock he can not lift," requires God to be God to create the rock and non-God to be unable to lift the rock. Or God is not omnipotent to start, because a non-omnipotent being might be able to create somethi ...[text shortened]... us by equivocation. Regardless of God being logical or not, the argument itself is illogical.

Definitions of omnipotence: noun:
the state of being omnipotent; having unlimited power

Definitions of God:
noun: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions

the definition of omnipotence is absolute , but the definition of God is one of conception.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Definitions of omnipotence: noun:
the state of being omnipotent; having unlimited power

Definitions of God:
noun: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions

the definition of omnipotence is absolute , but the definition of God is one of conception.

That does not follow from the definitions you provided, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Originally posted by Coletti
If God can move from a state of omnipotence to non-omnipotence, then God would no longer be God by definition. So then the argument, "God can create a rock he can not lift," requires God to be God to create the rock and non-God to be unable to lift the rock. Or God is not omnipotent to start, because a non-omnipotent being might be able to create somethi ...[text shortened]... us by equivocation. Regardless of God being logical or not, the argument itself is illogical.

If God can move from a state of omnipotence to non-omnipotence, then God would no longer be God by definition.

First of all, you conflated "can" and "does." Merely possessing the ability to become impotent does not make God impotent.

In fact, if it is logically possible to move from omnipotence to impotence, then it actually completes God's omnipotence.

Originally posted by Coletti
That does not follow from the definitions you provided, so I'm not sure what your point is.

one definition is contingent of the words "conceived as", there is no such limitations on the other one , so it follows that it's the conceptual one that that must give way.

Originally posted by telerion
[b]If God can move from a state of omnipotence to non-omnipotence, then God would no longer be God by definition.

First of all, you conflated "can" and "does." Merely possessing the ability to become impotent does not make God impotent.

In fact, if it is logically possible to move from omnipotence to impotence, then it actually completes God's omnipotence.
[/b]

You miss the point. The question is "if God is omnipotent, can he create a rock the he can not lift." The second half of the argument requires an non-omnipotent God, and that is a contradiction of the first part of the question which says God is omnipotent. Therefore the question itself is illogical, not the definition of God which the argument presents. If God can not lift a rock he is not omnipotent, which means it is not the God in the first part of the question.

It helps to rephrase the question as a proposition.

An omnipotent God can create a rock that he can not lift.

or

An omnipotent God can not create a rock he can not lift.

The first proposition equivocates on God because he would not be omnipotent in the second half.

The second proposition contradicts the definition of omnipotents.

Originally posted by frogstomp
one definition is contingent of the words "conceived as", there is no such limitations on the other one , so it follows that it's the conceptual one that that must give way.

I see what you are saying now. The definition of God you gave uses "conceived as" because the definition of God it provides is not universal. Some people have different conceptions of God. But then "conceived as" does not mean God in not absolute, only that some people think he is not omnipotent, or he has other characteristics then omnipotents. But if one accepts the definition of God being omnipotent, then by that definition God is absolute by definition of omnipotents.

Originally posted by dj2becker
If God is all-powerful, can He create a rock so big that He can't lift it?

i think the rock question is clearly rubbish, and it is asked only by those who do not understand the proper definition of omnipotence. as i understand it, omnipotence asserts that one can do anything that is logically possible -- it does not extend to being able to do the logically impossible. if we were to define omnipotence as being able to do anything (including the logically impossible), then it would be logically impossible for any being to be omnipotent, for one cannot do something that is logically impossible by definition. therefore, i think that under any appropriate defintion of omnipotence, the rock question is clearly meaningless.

the rock question is a waste of time on all fronts. since the question is meaningless to begin with, asking the rock question is a waste of time, and logically disarming the rock question is a waste of time. good thing i have a lot of time on my hands to waste.

Originally posted by Coletti
You miss the point. The question is "if God is omnipotent, can he create a rock the he can not lift." The second half of the argument requires an non-omnipotent God, and that is a contradiction of the first part of the question which says God is omnipotent. Therefore the question itself is illogical, not the definition of God which the argument presents ...[text shortened]... otent in the second half.

The second proposition contradicts the definition of omnipotents.

I did not miss the point. I am well aware of the rock problem in this thread. I was addressing Pal's idea that about whether an omnipotent being must possess the ability to make itself non-omnipotent.

As far as I can tell, if it is logically possible to move from a state of omnipotence to one of non-omnipotence, then an omnipotent being must be able to do so.

Now as for the rock. I don't think this idea works because as far as I can tell it requires that the rock creator/lifter be both omnipotent and non-omnipotent.

Originally posted by LemonJello
i think the rock question is clearly rubbish, and it is asked only by those who do not understand the proper definition of omnipotence. as i understand it, omnipotence asserts that one can do anything that is logically possible -- it doe ...[text shortened]... te of time. good thing i have a lot of time on my hands to waste.

I don't know - it is good to do some pointless mental exercises every once in a while. Just figuring out the the question is rubbish takes a fair amount of brain strain for many people. It's kind of like chess that way. 😉

Originally posted by Coletti
God is omnipotent is illogical?

Obviously. God cannot be both God and not God at the same time, but that is what you are saying is required for omnipotence.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Obviously. God cannot be both God and not God at the same time, but that is what you are saying is required for omnipotence.

No, that is what is required by the question.

Originally posted by Coletti
No, that is what is required by the question.

What are you saying here then?

If God can move from a state of omnipotence to non-omnipotence, then God would no longer be God by definition. So then the argument, "God can create a rock he can not lift," requires God to be God to create the rock and non-God to be unable to lift the rock. Or God is not omnipotent to start, because a non-omnipotent being might be able to create something he could not lift. In either case, the "he" that can not lift the rock in not God because he is not omnipotent. The argument is either a contradiction, or is fallacious by equivocation. Regardless of God being logical or not, the argument itself is illogical.


It seems that you state the illogical qualities of God's omnipotence quite clearly.

Originally posted by telerion
Now as for the rock. I don't think this idea works because as far as I can tell it requires that the rock creator/lifter be both omnipotent and non-omnipotent.

Colleti, you said something similar, so this is also addressed to you.

According to my view of the Christian God, it is God who defines omnipotence, not omnipotence that defines God.

Therefore omnipotence is a state that is achievable only by God, but God is not omnipotence as he is an entity (spiritual, material or both) and omnipotence is merely a characteristic that God possesses.

From here comes that if God decided to lose his omnipotence temporarily he would not cease to be God, but merely to cease being omnipotent. (he loses one of his characteristics) because he willed it.

If God is omnipotent he can have no limit, even if that includes setting himself limits, thus losing his omnipotence but not ceasing to exist.