Sorry if im using all the wrong words to describe something. Very noob! But to me if God is omnipotent then he must be maximally great. Creating another entity that is above him in whatever way would contradict his definition of being the greatest being. You can only have 1 greatest being. This is what I thought people meant when they say "asking God to create an entity bigger than himself is like asking him to create square circles." But it does strike me as circular?

You also have the sufficiently or necessary omnipotent semantics but as always I think Im just misunderstanding the entire thing :razz:

logical impossibilities — DoppyTheElv

Correct. Sorry, I missed that earlier.

If God creates that stone then he's not omnipotent.

If God can't create that stone then he's not omnipotent.

If God creates that stone then God creates a problem God can't solve. God beats himself. He's won AND lost (contradiction as you correctly pointed out)

If God can't create that stone then God can't create a problem that God can't solve. God beats himself, again. He's won AND lost (contradiction, again, as you correctly pointed out)

It isn't a sufficient fix, because if it is Panentheism it would also entail many other problems such as, is god matter? — Augustusea

You haven't defined matter so I do not know why this would be a problem given in this situation what ever aspects are to be defined as god gave rise to the universe and not vice versa.

and if the universe is a part of god, that still doesn't fix the problem of the Universe's creation, since I believe it would entail god also needing a cause since he would be material, if we assume the Kalam cosmological argument is correct (other arguments to prove Panentheism would be insufficient I believe) — Augustusea

I'd curious know to know what those arguments are but besides that because we're talking about panentheism (not pantheism) as well assuming a string of philosophical assumptions (or philosophical interpretations of spacetime) this is rather dubious a critique. At most this particular part of god temporally wasn't before at some point in time then after another point in time it was (the clay was an amorphous blob then it was sculpted into becoming davids statue but all throughout the process the clay still existed where clay = god).

the paradox arises from absolutes — Augustusea

Which I think is a mainly small viewpoint to take as there are other ways of approaching defining omnipotence that do not explicitly write into their definitions that they can perform impossible tasks which is a sort of low hanging philosophical fruit to me.

it is contradictory, thus impossible logically, that's the point.

it is contradictory, that's the point. — Augustusea

No, it's not. The stone paradox has as a conclusion the non-omnipotence of God. It doesn't employ contradiction to make that point. The contradictory nature of the stone paradox is what we discovered in this discussion.

You haven't defined matter so I do not know why this would be a problem given in this situation what ever aspects are to be defined as god gave rise to the universe and not vice versa. — substantivalism

everything, can be defined as matter.
nothing, as no matter

I — substantivalism

I'd curious know to know what those arguments are but besides that because we're talking about panentheism (not pantheism) as well assuming a string of philosophical assumptions (or philosophical interpretations of spacetime) this is rather dubious a critique. At most this particular part of god temporally wasn't before at some point in time then after another point in time it was (the clay was an amorphous blob then it was sculpted into becoming davids statue but all throughout the process the clay still existed where clay = god). — substantivalism

touche.

Which I think is a mainly small viewpoint to take as there are other ways of approaching defining omnipotence that do not explicitly write into their definitions that they can perform impossible tasks which is a sort of low hanging philosophical fruit to me. — substantivalism

well I didn't specify correctly, which was a fault at my part, I was mainly discussing the abrahamic god which has a set definition of omnipotence throughout holy scripture

No, it's not. The stone paradox has as a conclusion the non-omnipotence of God. It doesn't employ contradiction to make that point. The contradictory nature of the stone paradox is what we discovered in this discussion. — TheMadFool

I beg to differ,
you cannot have a green red, it is contradictory/illogical, thus impossible
it is a conclusion that can be extracted from the contradictory nature of the paradox.

I beg to differ,
you cannot have a green red, it is contradictory/illogical, thus impossible
it is a conclusion that can be extracted from the contradictory nature of the paradox. — Augustusea

Show me the contradiction is the stone paradox then.

god is both defeated and victorious over himself in this situation, a contradiction, thus illogical.
god can be both omnipotent and not omnipotent here,
he is powerful to create it, but by creating it he isn't powerful.

god is both defeated and victorious over himself in this situation, a contradiction, thus illogical.
god can be both omnipotent and not omnipotent here,
he is powerful to create it, but by creating it he isn't powerful. — Augustusea

That's not part of the stone paradox. That's something that came to light in our discussion.

god being powerful but not powerful is a part of it essentially.

god being powerful but not powerful is a part of it essentially. — Augustusea

Yes, as we discovered to be the case.

everything, can be defined as matter.
nothing, as no matter — Augustusea

I don't think that works if we keep in mind that there is energy or light. Some substances have no mass at all. Should you then call them matter? and well..That nothing is a negation in and of itself. So its not worth saying that it's not matter. It's not anything.

god is both defeated and victorious over himself in this situation, a contradiction, thus illogical.
god can be both omnipotent and not omnipotent here,
he is powerful to create it, but by creating it he isn't powerful. — Augustusea

So then is this a mistake on the definition of omnipotence or is this a mistake within the question "Can God create a stone he cannot lift?" ?

It seems to me that it's the same as asking 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'. As in that it's a wrongheaded question that leads us nowhere.

I don't think that works if we keep in mind that there is energy or light. Some substances have no mass at all. Should you then call them matter? and well..That nothing is a negation in and of itself. So its not worth saying that it's not matter. It's not anything. — DoppyTheElv

energy and light are made of photons, particles, things.

So then is this a mistake on the definition of omnipotence or is this a mistake within the question "Can God create a stone he cannot lift?" ? — DoppyTheElv

the definition of omnipotence.

For you to clear this dilemma, you must first understand how God’s law of evolution in the universe truly works. All beings in the universe are in the course of evolution towards the Highest namely God. God is not good but Good itself; not perfect but Perfection itself; not pure but Purity itself; not beauty but Beauty itself. He is the essence of all these.

Therefore, you beating a kitten to death would simply mean you have not yet developed or unfolded the pure qualities latent in your own being which would prevent you from doing such a heinous action and thus still on a relatively lower level on the ladder of evolution. I say relatively since there would still be those even lower you in evolution!

Moreover, Creation rightly understood means Manifestation. In each being, the Spirit of God lies within, like a seed in a field, and thus the potential prospect of being God, Perfect or Good is latent in all beings. Manifestation or Creation is simply the gradual unfoldment of this potential latent in all beings.

That the earth and all its inhabitants are not yet perfected by no means imply the creator isn’t good. It simply means the perfection and purging process is still ongoing and not yet ripe.

This is what Pantheism, the true hope and promise of salvation for all beings, means. God is in All beings and All beings are in God. In their joy He rejoices and in their afflictions He is afflicted!

I don't think that works if we keep in mind that there is energy or light. Some substances have no mass at all. Should you then call them matter? and well..That nothing is a negation in and of itself. So its not worth saying that it's not matter. It's not anything. — DoppyTheElv

Energy is a mathematically conserved quantity and the conservation of it comes only from time invariance mathematically. Light is would be matter then that lacks the monadic property of rest mass but photons still exist.

I say relatively since there would still be those even lower you in evolution! — Zack Beni

Reality is ever evolving and changing as few things remain forever. You never step into the same river twice and the previous river wasn't or isn't considered lesser than the later.

Energy is a mathematically conserved quantity and the conservation of it comes only from time invariance mathematically. Light is would be matter then that lacks the monadic property of rest mass but photons still exist. — substantivalism

Always nice to learn more. Thanks. I guess I got too caught up on the mass part!

That's why all the great faiths particularly those of the east like HInduism and Buddhism call Matter Illusory or Maya and thus not real since fundamentally all that which changes isn't real but illusory.

Therefore in the absolute sense, your use of the word "Reality" wouldn't be true since that which is Real is immutable. And according to these great faiths, only God is Real.

That's why all the great faiths particularly those of the east like HInduism and Buddhism call Matter Illusory or Maya and thus not real since fundamentally all that which changes isn't real but illusory.

Therefore in the absolute sense, your use of the word "Reality" wouldn't be true since that which is Real is immutable. And according to these great faiths, only God is Real. — Zack Beni

Well there are aspects of these things we call matter or the ideal that change. It's your burden of proof to assert beyond our experiences that the true inner nature of said experiences/matter is truly immutable or not. It's thusly not known nor ever be possible to argue fully that the world is heraclitean or parmenidian.

I hope you mean illusory by the idea that even though our interpretation of a mirage is incorrect (there are not trees or pools of water in the distance) those experiences in of themselves still exist. . . illusory only in the sense of an interpretational failure when analyzing said phenomenon with our limited list of human concepts. Our experiences and the matter they represent is very much real.

You also haven't defined god so much of what you said remains somewhat meaningless.

This is what Pantheism, the true hope and promise of salvation for all beings, means. God is in All beings and All beings are in God. In their joy He rejoices and in their afflictions He is afflicted! — Zack Beni

So could you actually define what god is?

Are you in favour of abandoning anthropomorphic renditions of god including giving him the human moral high ground or aesthetic perfection?

You also haven't defined god so much of what you said remains somewhat meaningless.

By God, I mean God is his dual mode namely Spirit and Substance which are also called Male and Female, Father and Mother, Will and Love, Energy and Space respectively. This substance is the essence of Matter. Matter is the result of motion and activity of Substance, the female part of God. But I add that the Matter I am referring to, is NOT limited to Physical Matter only recognised by materialists. In addition to this, there is also Astral matter,...

Thus It means that all that exists is the substance of God simply in different conditions so that all is in God and God is in all and thus everything is God but only differ in condition or state.

By this definition, it is evident that God didn't create anything by means outside Himself as some, in my opinion, unreasonably assert since there is NO THING outside Him but used Himself(God's Self) to create all. And from this comes His omnipresence.

By God, I mean God is his dual mode namely Spirit and Substance — Zack Beni

Now you need to define what a spirit is and what a substance is.

which are also called Male and Female, Father and Mother, — Zack Beni

Yes, biological indicators of the sexes, behaviors, and social rolls of many animals including ourselves.

Energy and Space respectively. — Zack Beni

Energy (as understood through physics) is a mathematical quantity that is only conserved when there is time translation invariance. Spacetime has its own history of philosophically rich interpretational issues that should be clear in the literature.

This substance is the essence of Matter. — Zack Beni

Haven't really much defined matter here.

Matter is the result of motion and activity of Substance, the female part of God. — Zack Beni

Still unclear given you haven't defined most of these terms nor made much of an argument for them.

But I add that the Matter I am referring to, is NOT limited to Physical Matter only recognised by materialists. In addition to this, there is also Astral matter,... — Zack Beni

What is physical matter? What is astral matter and how can we perform pragmatic epistemologically idealist investigations of its existence/influence on understanding the inner behavior/workings of our universe?

Thus It means that all that exists is the substance of God simply in different conditions so that all is in God and God is in all and thus everything is God but only differ in condition or state. — Zack Beni

Stuff is stuff is basically what you are saying but giving it the word god as a generalized word for it. . . sloppy and a wonderful example of equivocation but still seems lacking in argumentative substance. Nor does this tell us anything new about the reality that we reside within as it doesn't seem to give us the ability to better describe/predict how reality will behave.

By this definition, it is evident that God didn't create anything by means outside Himself as some, in my opinion, unreasonably assert since there is NO THING outside Him but used Himself(God's Self) to create all. And from this comes His omnipresence. — Zack Beni

Again, define god as you seemingly have failed to do aside from giving me rather poetic language that hasn't gotten me anywhere.

Are you in favour of abandoning anthropomorphic renditions of god including giving him the human moral high ground or aesthetic perfection? — substantivalism

God, in His true self, is the essence and the highest of all the qualities we can think of; be it Perfection, Beauty, Good, Purity,etc. God defines what is moral and ethical and only that which perfectly conforms to His will can be rightly termed ethical and moral.

You have to thoroughly muse into why humans adopt these anthropomorphic renditions. Humans are the closest and highest in manifesting God on earth; Christ being the true manifestation of God on earth.

Now since the God of Mind is a subjective one, and the highest of any quality the Mind of man can conceptualize is actually his God; Man in taking the highest qualities he can readily see, namely those found in his fellow men, he creates the God of his Mind by attributing to Him those highest qualities he has come across and can conceive.

Thus, I won't say I am really in disfavour of those renditions since it is simply a means of man going Godwards. The higher your conception of God, the closer you are to Him and are getting alike since Man is ever striving to create himself in the image of his God..

Again, define god as you seemingly have failed to do aside from giving me rather poetic language that hasn't gotten me anywhere. — substantivalism

The definition of God, well at least my conception of Him—which in all fairness might be different from yours— has really been given maybe you were just not satisfied. But I do agree some of the terms were not were explained and need some further elaboration.

Haven't really much defined matter here. — substantivalism

A simple definition of Matter, of course from the point of view of my conception, is all things whose particles are in movement, motion or vibration. I believe it is well established in science that every thing in the universe is in some sort of motion which I also called activity.

Substance is simply the essence of this matter. Matter is Substance in motion. When actvity shall cease in the universe, all matter shall resume its original condition spirit and be Substance. Here Spirit is used to mean a condition.

What is physical matter? What is astral matter and how can we perform pragmatic epistemologically idealist investigations of its existence/influence on understanding the inner behavior/workings of our universe? — substantivalism

Physical matter is referring to the tangible part or plane of our planet. I am afraid for the astral matter, I can't offer you any way to experiment with it unless you develop the corresponding senses to consciously experiment with that plane. On Astral matter and other non-physical matter, I can only direct you to those who did experiments on that plane and documented their scienfitic findings for you to judge whether they are credible or not per your own discretion.

The definition of God, well at least my conception of Him—which in all fairness might be different from yours— has really been given maybe you were just not satisfied. But I do agree some of the terms were not were explained and need some further elaboration. — Zack Beni

Yes it was all still vague.

A simple definition of Matter, of course from the point of view of my conception, is all things whose particles are in movement, motion or vibration. I believe it is well established in science that every thing in the universe is in some sort of motion which I also called activity. — Zack Beni

I'll stick with physicalists definitions of physical objects/material objects being those indispensable entities included in scientific theories or something similar.

Speaking more simply there is stuff that isn't you and that is. Both of these change so. . .

Substance is simply the essence of this matter. Matter is Substance in motion. When actvity shall cease in the universe, all matter shall resume its original condition spirit and be Substance. Here Spirit is used to mean a condition. — Zack Beni

Matter is just the stuff that gives rise to our experiences or ourselves. Due to philosophical skepticisms challenges you cannot actually know it's TRUE essence and so only its behavior/interactions possess importance.

Physical matter is referring to the tangible part or plane of our planet. I am afraid for the astral matter, I can't offer you any way to experiment with it unless you develop the corresponding senses to consciously experiment with that plane. On Astral matter and other non-physical matter, I can only direct you to those who did experiments on that plane and documented their scienfitic findings for you to judge whether they are credible or not per your own discretion. — Zack Beni

If you cannot apply a scientific methodology to rule in the use of "astral matter" and thusly also it's common absence as a useful concept for understanding our realities behavior then I fail to see how it isn't to be cast out of our models.

On the "tangible plane" you can only distinguish between waking experiences and abstractions from within (hallucinations, dreams, or our imagination) and to speak of things which are meant to be a part of waking experiences but clearly part of the latter makes me think this is doomed to fail.

God, in His true self, is the essence and the highest of all the qualities we can think of; be it Perfection, Beauty, Good, Purity,etc. God defines what is moral and ethical and only that which perfectly conforms to His will can be rightly termed ethical and moral. — Zack Beni

Morality is a human centered concept and it would be equivalent in my eyes to giving god qualities similar to zeus if we gave him this moral high ground or origin of said principles.

Humans are the closest and highest in manifesting God on earth; Christ being the true manifestation of God on earth. — Zack Beni

Now you have forced yourself into the possible burden of supporting evidentially the miracle/God-hood claims attributed to the character Jesus Christ from a collection of ancient writings that may have been about a real person. Separating the fact from fiction aspects of his personality in the bible would be next to impossible though.

The higher your conception of God, the closer you are to Him and are getting alike since Man is ever striving to create himself in the image of his God.. — Zack Beni

A claim you now have to support.

Now since the God of Mind is a subjective one, and the highest of any quality the Mind of man can conceptualize is actually his God; — Zack Beni

Yes, god is a vague mentally homeless concept that has had millions believe in it but either fail to define it, leave it in incoherence, or strip it as far from experience to the point that not even philosophy could rationalize belief in what cannot be deemed mere inner abstractions than a part of the clearly real world you experience.

He who conquers others is strong; he who conquers himself is mighty. — Lao Tzu/The Buddha

We need to bring the Occident and the Orient together. They seem to make up for each other's flaws.

God's Omnipotence is defined as god's ability to do everything, i.e. have immense power. — Augustusea

I consider this pure blasphemy! That's absolutely not what gods are. Its man's vanity talking here.