I believe that humans exist and we’re created with the faculty of reason (in God’s image) are necessary truths because it is the purpose of creation to have rational creatures. I’m agnostic about rational creatures living elsewhere in the universe, but it is possible that they do exist and are also created in God’s image as they would also be of the purpose for the universe. Therefore, there must be some necessary truths regarding our conduct.

The stone paradox rests on something God cannot do viz. either his inability to lift the stone or inability to create one.

My point is we begin by defining Him as omnipotent and therefore the only person he ''competes'' with is Himself. That means God, despite his ''inability'' do something, can't be made non-omnipotent.

Imagine there's only one man in a competition. Whatever he achieves will be a record. Now the next time he competes (with himself) he could break his record or not. Either way he's still first. In the same way God would still be omnipotent whether he creates the stone he can't lift or he can't do so.

What if he can create the stone but doesn't? — Michael

''Can't'' assumes priority over ''doesn't''. Without a choice will doesn't matter.

''Can't'' assumes priority over ''doesn't''. Without a choice will doesn't matter. — TheMadFool

I don't know what you mean by this. If God can create such a stone but doesn't create such a stone then is he omnipotent?

The stone paradox rests on something God cannot do viz. either his inability to lift the stone or inability to create one. — TheMadFool

When you mention omnipotency, it negates inability in any and every way. So, why and how do you arrive at a stone that can't be lifted? If God is omnipotent, then He exists in a realm where His power is absolute. Any contrary conditions and they do not refer to an omnipotent God.

Here's a somewhat odd approach to the odd problem that I'm not really sure I endorse, but anyway...

Is it at all possible to do any of the following:

Can one define omnipotent (almighty or infinite in power) by placing omnipotent into context?

If the omnipotent is infinite, how exactly does one define it or place it into a context that is finite?

Would not any attempt to speak of a finite definition or context for something that is infinite be incorherent?

---------------------------------------------

Other worthless nonsense I'd toss into the frey regarding my thoughts about such a matter:

- Our understanding of a stone is in terms of natural sciences and moving a stone in terms of physics. Facts and conclusions are of an empirical nature bound/checked by scientific method.

- Our understanding of an omnipotent god is in terms of supernatural notions and in terms of metaphysics. Truths and comclusions are of an anecdotal nature held together/controlled by religious faith.

Perhaps it's just me, but I feel the standards of measure do not match up well enough to speak in any way cosistantly and coherently about the issue.

Why do I have the feeling that this sort of line of question is on the level of calculating the drag coefficient of tassels on flying carpets?

Meow!

G

When you mention omnipotency, it negates inability in any and every way. So, why and how do you arrive at a stone that can't be lifted? If God is omnipotent, then He exists in a realm where His power is absolute. Any contrary conditions and they do not refer to an omnipotent God. — BrianW

Yes omnipotency negates all inability and that's what the stone paradox is about. Omnipotency is impossible. What I meant to show was that God's ability/inability to do something, anything, has relevance only to himself. A single competitor in a game is ALWAYS first.

Omnipotency is impossible. — TheMadFool

How and why?

I don't know what you mean by this. If God can create such a stone but doesn't create such a stone then is he omnipotent? — Michael

If I can't kill you then what is the value of me saying ''I won't kill you.''

''God doesn't'' implies an ability to choose but the stone paradox demonstrates his inability i.e. ''God can't"

God doesn’t have muscles. He’s a Spirit. He can lift any object of any weight through the gravity that He created. This is silliness.

''God doesn't'' implies an ability to choose but the stone paradox demonstrates his inability i.e. ''God can't" — TheMadFool

You speak as if the stone paradox is fact. God's abilities are just as speculative as God's inabilities. How can there be any definite conclusions about them?

agree - and to me a more important philosophical paradox is between the Principle of Credulity, and CORNEA

The Principle of Credulity: - It is basic to human knowledge of the world that we believe things are as they seem to be in the absence of positive evidence to the contrary

Or

CORNEA - Condition Of ReasoNable Epistemic Access.

On the basis of cognized situation s, human H is entitled to claim ‘It appears that p’ only if it is reasonable for H to believe that, given her cognitive faculties and the use she has made of them, if p were not the case, s would likely be different than it is in some way discernible by her. The key idea behind CORNEA is a proposed test for whether some alleged evidence E seriously ‘supports’… some hypothesis H

Interesting application of CORNEA.

I usually see it associated with the "problem of evil" in term of skeptical theism (Wykstra), but I imagine it could be applied here as well.

If anyone needs this for context: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skeptical-theism/

Meow!

G

You speak as if the stone paradox is fact. God's abilities are just as speculative as God's inabilities. How can there be any definite conclusions about them? — BrianW

The stone paradox may be considered a thought experiment. It's a rational argument against the concept of omnipotence. An argument needn't necessarily be about the concrete. Even abstract ideas may be argued upon.

Anyway, the stone paradox demonstrates that omnipotence, if one considers it logically, is self-refuting. Isn't that what the paradox brings to light?

What I'm suggesting is a counter-dilemma. That's all. What do you think?

How and why? — BrianW

The stone paradox:brow:

The stone paradox may be considered a thought experiment. It's a rational argument against the concept of omnipotence. — TheMadFool

It refers to omnipotence from human perspective. It is not about if God is omnipotent or not, but whether we (humans) can understand omnipotence. And, furthermore, it is not strictly logical, in the sense that, it does not define its parameters distinctly, making it like a layman's argument. Like I said, if the argument is about an omnipotent God, then, inability would not be a factor. To have an absolute aspect represented relatively is fallacious to the definition of the terms themselves.

Also, sidebar, paradox implies deviation from logic.

rational argument — TheMadFool

The argument is rational, it is just based on premises that are unsupported.

There is no rational support for us to believe we can say anything with any truth value at all about the nature of such a thing as "God"

That does not mean that such discussions are without merit or purpose, it just means the foundation of all such arguments are faith based. As reasonable and logical as the arguments are, if they entail a proposition about the nature of God, it is important to acknowledge that such propositions are unsupportable.

If I can't kill you then what is the value of me saying ''I won't kill you.''

''God doesn't'' implies an ability to choose but the stone paradox demonstrates his inability i.e. ''God can't" — TheMadFool

I'm saying that God can create the stone but doesn't. Where's the problem for omnipotence here?

The argument is rational, it is just based on premises that are unsupported. — Rank Amateur

The argument is based on the definition of omnipotence and, ergo, needs no sub-arguments.

I'm saying that God can create the stone but doesn't. Where's the problem for omnipotence here? — Michael

If God can create a stone that he can't lift then He's not omnipotent because now there's something He can't do viz. lift that stone.

You say God doesn't create such a stone, implying a choice that God makes in order to get around this, to put it mildly, "difficulty". The point is He made that choice because He can't because if He did He wouldn't be omnipotent.

In short, God doesn't create such a stone because He can't.

If God can create a stone that he can't lift then He's not omnipotent because now there's something He can't do viz. lift that stone. — TheMadFool

This is like saying that if I can break my legs then I can't walk. That's wrong. If I can break my legs but don't break my legs then I can still walk.

If God can create the stone but doesn't create the stone then there isn't a stone that he cannot lift.

That he would lose his omnipotence if he creates the stone isn't that he isn't omnipotent before creating the stone.

This is like saying that if I can break my legs then I can't walk. That's wrong. If I can break my legs but don't break my legs then I can still walk. — Michael

I think we see the situation quite differently. In terms of hierarchy of importance my list looks like this:

1. Possibility
2. Choice

First there has to be a possibility and only then can anyone, even God, claim to having chosen one.

In the case of the stone paradox, God can't create such a stone as if He did then he would be rendered non-omnipotent. So your saying God doesn't do such a thing is moot since there is no possibility in the first place and, hence, no choice. That's what I mean.

If I were to assign any value to a decision of mine then I should own it, so to speak, and that can't be done if I had no choice either to act or not to. This point I'm making pertains to the stone paradox where God can't create such a stone unless He wants to knock himself down from the pedestal of omnipotence and, ergo, saying He doesn't matters naught.

In the case of the stone paradox, God can't create such a stone as if He did then he would be rendered non-omnipotent. — TheMadFool

That doesn’t follow. God can, if he chooses, render himself non-omnipotent by creating the stone. But he doesn’t, and so he remains omnipotent.

That doesn’t follow. God can, if he chooses, render himself non-omnipotent by creating the stone. But he doesn’t, and so he remains omnipotent. — Michael

Omnipotency, or even plain potency, is about what can/cannot be done. Doesn't is not about power and the limits of power. It's simply the act of choosing.

Another angle:

When you say God doesn't create such a stone what do you mean?

1. God can but chooses not to create such a stone

Or

2. God cannot but chooses not to create such a stone

If it is 2 then he's not omnipotent because he cannot create such a stone.

If it is 1 then you said creating such a stone would be tantamount to God not being omnipotent (that's why God doesn't) and that means God can't do it. God is not omnipotent.

The stone paradox can't be ''solved'' by saying ''God doesn't create such a stone''.

If the starting premise is that God is omnipotent, then it can't be followed up by an if "he creates a stone he can't lift." Because the second premise is contrary to the assertion of the first. However, if the premise begins with 'there's a stone that God can't lift', regardless of how the stone came into existence, then that God is not omnipotent.

The problem with this argument is that it asserts an omnipotent God, whose omnipotence then declines into doubt in relation to a supposedly immovable stone without showing how or why God's power changed or the stone was imbued with an absolute quality. Unless, of course, there's another influence that can lift the stone.

My second query is with the definition of 'create' employed. Does it imply create in the human sense that the raw materials are already available or in the absolute sense that the object is made distinct within God's being as a relative existence. In the first case, that God is not omnipotent; in the second, that God is omnipotent and has absolute ability including the capacity to lift the stone.

Omnipotency is only about what can be done. Any other option and it fails to define omnipotency.

I believe the stone paradox, as with all paradoxes, to be founded on faulty premises.

If it is 1 then you said creating such a stone would be tantamount to God not being omnipotent (that's why God doesn't) and that means God can't do it. — TheMadFool

That doesn't follow. If God creates the stone then he will lose his omnipotence, just as if I break my legs then I will lose my ability to walk. But I am currently able to walk because I haven't broken my legs, and God is currently omnipotent because he hasn't created the stone.

You seem to be saying that if God can make it such that he isn't omnipotent tomorrow then he isn't omnipotent today, but that's a non sequitur.

The reasoning behind the stone paradox is:

1. If there is a stone that God cannot lift then he is not omnipotent
2. If God can create a stone that he cannot lift then there is a stone that he cannot lift
3. Therefore if God can create a stone that he cannot lift then he is not omnipotent
4. If God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift then he is not omnipotent

The problem here is 2. It's a false conditional. The antecedent doesn't entail the consequent. That he can create such a stone isn't that there is such a stone. Because 2 is false 3 is unsupported and the paradox fails.

That doesn't follow. If God creates the stone then he will lose his omnipotence, just as if I break my legs then I will lose my ability to walk. But I am currently able to walk because I haven't broken my legs, and God is currently omnipotent because he hasn't created the stone.

You seem to be saying that if God can make it such that he isn't omnipotent tomorrow then he isn't omnipotent today, but that's a non sequitur. — Michael

When someone talks about omnipotency it's my understanding that we're discussing about what someone/something can/can't do.

Your defense that God doesn't create such a stone is existentially dependent on God being unable to do so. If God could've created such a stone without any problem you wouldn't have to bring in the doesn't - defense in the first place. That's what I'm trying to show. God doesn't because God can't and that makes him NOT omnipotent.

The argument is rational, it is just based on premises that are unsupported.
— Rank Amateur

The argument is based on the definition of omnipotence and, ergo, needs no sub-arguments.
6 hours ago ReplyOptions — TheMadFool

The argument is based on assigning the human understanding of the world omnipotence to the nature of God, and anything we say about the nature of God is unsupported, ergo your proposition about the nature of God is unsupported and fails.

Your defense that God doesn't create such a stone is existentially dependent on God being unable to do so. — TheMadFool

No, I'm saying that God is able to, but because he doesn't, there isn't a stone that he cannot lift, and so he remains omnipotent.

Your mistake is in saying that if God can create the stone then there is a stone that he cannot lift. That doesn't follow.

I'll try another explanation:

A virgin can have sex, and if he does then he will lose his virginity, but if he doesn't then he remains a virgin.

God can create a stone that he cannot lift, and if he does then he will lose his omnipotence, but if he doesn't then he remains omnipotent.