I am stating that there is something God cannot do, as you admit. That is: Remain God while not having one of the Os. He cannot do that. There is a thing he cannot do. — khaled
What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world. — Albert Einstein
I believe that you should include a few very important premises before #2: that God exists and is so and so and can do this and that, etc. Or, if he doesn't really exist, you must assume that he does, otherwise you have no "game". But I can overlook this because there are more important things: the "traps" or inconsistencies in these two introductory lines of your description:Premise 1: some things are pious while others are sin.
Premise 2: God decides which is pious or not because he is all knowing. — Vanbrainstorm
Is "God" free to commit suicide?God's omnipotent i.e. God can/does (?) (do) whatever He wants. Thus have I blown the lid off the (evil) nexus betwixt power & free will. — Agent Smith
Is "God" free to commit suicide?
Can "God" cease being "God"? — 180 Proof
Is "God" free to commit suicide? — 180 Proof
Can "God" cease being "God"? — 180 Proof
The fact of randomness (e.g. vacuum fluctations) precludes – negates – "theism", no? — 180 Proof
Is he free to make a rock too heavy for him to lift? Yes. — Bartricks
Yes, if he has decided to create it and to continue being omnipotent. — Bartricks
So god creates a rock so heavy he can't lift it?Then god lifts that rock? — ZzzoneiroCosm
Note: God can also make a rock too heavy for him to lift and be unable to lift it. He would not be God after having done so. But that's not a problem, for God has the power to divest himself of power. — Bartricks
He divests himself of power so that he's no longer god and therefore no longer omnipotent? Can he become god again? How does he become god if he isn't omnipotent. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Also, while god isn't god, what is he? — ZzzoneiroCosm
Most importantly: what makes you think you know so much about god? — ZzzoneiroCosm
The most charitable definition of "omnipotence" I've found is this: the ability of (a) being to do anything that is not impossible, or self-contradictory, to do instantly (i.e. just by thinking) and / or which no other being can do. So "no", (an) "omnipotent" being cannot make something "too heavy" for it to move if that something is moveable; it can, however, instantly move (with a thought) anything which is moveable.I guess I'm confused, but it doesn't bother me too much. — Agent Smith
You seem frightfully confused. — Bartricks
Reasoning. Try it.
Let me help you: an omnipotent being is able to do anything.
If someone is able to do anything, are they able to divest themselves of some power?
Yes. Why? Because...if...they...couldn't...do....that....there....would....be....something....they....could....not.....do. — Bartricks
What sort of a question is that? A person. A person who isn't omnipotent. Dur. — Bartricks
You sound preposterous to me - just truly ludicrously magnificently irrevocably confused. Enjoy! — ZzzoneiroCosm
That is how the wise seem to the ignorant. — Bartricks
↪GraveItty ↪SolarWind Don't engage it. Among other ridiculous claims, it believes that life on Earth is hell where the wicked are sentenced for punishment and that whatever happens to you here, you deserve it. It also believes that if you disagree with it its necessarily because you lack expertise, and goes around asking for qualifications without presenting any on its part. It also can't see the irony here:
When reality is at home?
— GraveItty
You can't answer a question with a question, can you?
— Bartricks
Engaging it is reserved for masochists. When you begin to get anywhere it will retreat to "dunning kruger" or "this is how it is present to my reason" but it will take you 70 posts to get to that point.
The only clever things that come out of its mouth are ad homs. Which I have to say are top notch. — khaled
The most charitable definition of "omnipotence" I've found is this: the ability of (a) being to do anything that is not impossible, or self-contradictory, to do instantly (i.e. just by thinking) and / or which no other being can do. — 180 Proof
However, does "omnipotence" include the ability 'to will what it wills'? (Schopenhauer) Does such (a) being even need 'to will' at all? By definition (above), the "omnipotent" cannot lack any thing and, therefore, 'willing' doesn't function as we understand 'willing' – except, perhaps, as a gratuitous [1]anthropomorphism (i.e. as mere superstition). — 180 Proof
Anyway, "omnipotence" conceived of this way, "God" (so attributed) is as categorically unworthy of worship as gravity. By contrast, the "God of Abraham", for instance, is merely an ultra-technologically advanced extraterrestrial compared to humanity – superhuman, not supernatural – which, on that account, is not worthy of being worshipped either, just as humanity is not worthy of being worshipped by insects. Is any "entity" worthy of worship? What would make any "entity" worthy of being worshipped by any other "entity"? What adaptable, indispensible, function does "worship" even serve – other than as ritualized "terror management" (E. Becker)? :eyes: :pray: :mask: — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.