.

Only if gods don't exist, which can't be demonstrated. — whollyrolling

Only the "undefined, vague" ... Define "gods" in such a way that distinguishes them by their predicates as existing from not existing, then apply such a definition and observe what it entails for facts of the matter which are irrational to deny.

To attempt to prove by reasoning; — whollyrolling

One who accepts a contradiction has forfeited reason.

.

.

Now you are talking to yourself...?

Completely incoherent — whollyrolling

Genuflect and give praise, little lamb. :pray:

.

Which contradiction? — whollyrolling

This one:

An omnipotent god can both lift the rock and not lift the rock while existing and not existing while rocks exist and don't exist.

Omnipotence assumes a paradox from scratch. — whollyrolling

Assume (p & ~p); anything follows.

Logic, and rationality, are rendered null, further discussion is void.

But still, the posts continue.

.

No, it's true because from a contradiction anything follows.

But you have not grasped this core piece of logic.

But still, the posts continue. — Banno

.

You have not grasped that omnipotence may defy logic — whollyrolling

Oh, yes I have. The point is that if this is what you think, then you can conjure anything from your arguments. They cease to be reasonable; they cease to serve to say what can or cannot be.

You have stoped reasoning and are now dependent only on faith. You have stoped doing philosophy.

You have breached the line demarcating philosophy from nonsense.

Here:
Principle of explosion
Dialetheism
Omnipotence
Paraconsistent Logic

Go do a bit of reading.

See you when you have misunderstood enough of this stuff to think you know what you are talking about.

.

.

After all, at least according to the Christian doctrine, they are already three persons in the Trinity, and they all love each other; what’s the problem with making everybody God? We would be all happy, all loving each other, maybe even all being one God, like the Trinity is considered. — Angelo Cannata

Trinity is one and same God (one sprit) revealed in 3 persons, but we each represent our self and we are all individual spirits. (many spirits)

So the paradox becomes: has God the power to make all of us Gods as well? — Angelo Cannata

That's indeed paradox but already solved one, do you know Jesus said "you are Gods"? :wink:

Go do a bit of reading, eh...that's pretty arrogant. — whollyrolling

Only to the willfully, incorrigibly, ignorant like yourself.

.

Where exactly do you see the fault in the logic? I don't see it. — ArmChairPhilosopher

The question of heavy stone demands God to degrade it's power:

1. God is superior being.
2. Superior being means there is no grater or more powerful being.
3. If God degrades it's power (with heavy stone) this would make him inferior being.
4. If God is inferior being this means it's not God, instead true God is some other God that is superior to God that degrade it's power.
5. If there is superior God to God that degrade it's power then the question is directed toward wrong God.
6. If question is directed toward wrong God this begs the question "Who is God"?
7. God is according to definition a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent.
8. If God is omnibenevolent then God doesn't harm anyone including itself.
9. If God doesn't harm itself then it would not degrade it's power.
10. Therefore God would not make such a stone because it's contradictory to it's nature.

This obviously doesn't make God not omnipotent because God isn't only about omnipotence, all properties of a God must be taken into account for correct answer.

The question of heavy stone demands God to degrade it's power: — SpaceDweller

Nope. It only questions the ability to degrade it's power. And, according to your attempt at logic, god doesn't have that ability. Thus it isn't omnipotent.

Am I omnipotent when I refuse to make a stone so heavy I can't lift it?
Am I omniscient when I refuse to let you in to my superior knowledge?

This obviously doesn't make God not omnipotent because God isn't only about omnipotence, all properties of a God must be taken into account for correct answer. — SpaceDweller

You know that adding properties does make your god even more impossible? The impossibility of an omnipotent, omni benevolent god has been show 2300 years ago:


“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus

I can't solve it as a paradox, but I can as a sophism! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

:up:

Assume (p & ~p); anything follows.

Logic, and rationality, are rendered null, further discussion is void.

But still, the posts continue. — Banno

:rofl: :up:

The impossibility of an omnipotent, omni benevolent god has been show 2300 years ago:

Epicurus's quote does nothing to suggest an omnipotent, omni benevolent god (or a God as in the Abrahamic religions) couldn't logically exist. Especially the 3rd point, where there have been thousands of years of theodicity since then.

As one poster has already remarked, the question is balderdash.

Suppose God can create a stone He can't lift, is God omnipotent or not? Since if He couldn't the argument claims He is not omnipotent, that He can implies He is omnipotent. The tale doesn't end there though as now because God can't lift the stone, He's now labeled not omnipotent. You can't have it both ways - the person who came up with the omnipotence argument is being self-contradictory (Ominpotent if God can create such a stone and not ominpotent because he now can't lift the stone He created).

Nope. It only questions the ability to degrade it's power. And, according to your attempt at logic, god doesn't have that ability. Thus it isn't omnipotent. — ArmChairPhilosopher

No, that's not the logic I was presenting.

Here is an example:
1. I'm able to kill myself
2. I love myself therefore I will not kill myself
3. Does that make me unable to kill myself?

A:) No it doesn't, I'm still able to kill myself, I hold that power.

Now apply same logic to God degrading it's power.
Omnibenevolence doesn't mean reduction or lack of omnipotence.

Assume (p & ~p); anything follows.

Logic, and rationality, are rendered null, further discussion is void. — Banno

Your formula does not apply:

(Virtual particles pop into existence & ~Virtual particles pop out of existence) = virtual particles do not exist = false

Logic, and rationality, are rendered null, further discussion is void.

But still, the posts continue. — Banno

What can we do?

Assume an unfaithful interlocutor and put them on ignore immediately?

That goes against Hanlon's Razor.

So we try to teach them logic 101, trace our arguments back to first principles before we are sure that we have a malicious interlocutor or are sure that they won't understand logic ever.

Then we put them on ignore.

Can God create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it?

Either He can or He cannot.

If He cannot, He's not omnipotent.

That means if He can, He is omnipotent¹.

But then the argument goes,

He can implies He is not omnipotent² (He can't lift the stone).

Vide 1 & 2. A contradiction.

There's the alternative response of laughing at them and walking away.

The sad thing is that there would be an excellent thread in the topic. The SEP article I cited above has some interesting variations on the rock: Might an omnipotent being bring it about that Parmenides lectures for the first time? That Plato freely decides to write a dialogue?

I don't think @whollyrolling an unfaithful interlocutor, just ignorant and ill-equiped. A competent thinker might have thrown dialetheism back at me without hesitation.

I hold that power. — SpaceDweller

:up: