ahahah :grin:
funny but true.

:up:

.

If he can do all things, then he can lift something while not lifting it, what is the problem? — whollyrolling

No problem, that's the point I'm trying to make.

dumbly throw exclusivist terminology at people — whollyrolling

You think using philosophical terminology on a philosophy forum is "elitist"?

.

It is my opinion that academic language is generated from thin air, while existing words are sufficient to explain the same concepts — whollyrolling

You have never studied anything nor have you learned a trade it seems. May I ask how old you are?

.

May I ask how old you are? — ArmChairPhilosopher

That's the wrong question. Ask what his IQ is.

That's the wrong question. Ask what his IQ is. — Agent Smith

I didn't have to. Read his non answer, he tells it all.

I didn't have to. Read his non answer, he tells it all. — ArmChairPhilosopher

:snicker:

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 — ArmChairPhilosopher

:fire:

“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?” — ArmChairPhilosopher

I think the answer is #2:
"Is he both able and willing"

So the question is "Then where does evil come from?"

“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 — ArmChairPhilosopher

Cannot argue with that.

.

I think the answer is #2:
"Is he both able and willing"

So the question is "Then where does evil come from?" — SpaceDweller

Why is it so hard to give up on the arbitrarily invented traits of an imagined entity, even, or especially, when they have been shown to be impossible? It's not even in your book.

Why is it so hard to give up on the arbitrarily invented traits of an imagined entity, even, or especially, when they have been shown to be impossible? It's not even in your book. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Giving up is not satisfactory solution.
AFAIK, there is no argument showing God impossible.

If you want to know where does evil come from, I suggest following book:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35168559-the-mystery-of-evil

there is no argument showing God impossible. — SpaceDweller

Perhaps. But who guides their life by what is not impossible?

Giving up is not satisfactory — SpaceDweller

So you are just a sore loser?

Perhaps. But who guides their life by what is not impossible? — Jackson

Not all that is not impossible projects moral guide.

So you are just a sore loser? — ArmChairPhilosopher

looser eh :meh:
I'm not looser, I seek answers you're afraid of.

I seek answers you're afraid of. — SpaceDweller

And I give answers you are afraid of.

AFAIK, there is no argument showing God impossible

Agreed. I think what convinced me of this was a version of Plantinga’s free will defense, which follows in the lines of Augustine and Aquinas.

In fact, I think atheists and theists alike would do well reading Mackie and Plantinga.

And I give answers you are afraid of. — ArmChairPhilosopher

You said I'm sore looser, how is that an answer to the answer I proposed?

If your sole goal is to insult then go ahead and insult as much as you wish, I'm fine with that, but please don't confuse insults for answers, maybe I'm indeed looser but I'm not that stupid.

This is a paradox one might come across if they consider God's omnipotence. If the answer is yes, then there is one thing he can't do (lift a heavy enough rock), which contradicts the definition of omnipotence (being able to do anything). The same applies if the answer is no. How would you solve this paradox? — Cidat

Well, and I'm sure there's a fancy term for this but something created with omnipotence is outside of "everything", at least everything created. You can go back and forth but compare it to a computer game. You can just keep creating or "uncreating" a thing or non-thing because.. you can. It is a major tenet of most religions that there is a supreme being that can do something you cannot, typically, anything or just about. A logician would call this "moving goal posts" and not a philosophical discussion.

Sancta Trinitas, Unus Deus

The Father will create the stone.

The Son will lift it!

There's no contradiction because The Father $\neq$ The Son!

The Holy Ghost is simply an extra hand. You know, just in case!

Didn't God make that rock five or six threads ago?

The Holy Ghost is simply an extra hand. — Agent Smith

Didn't Vatican II ascertain (so let it be written! so let it be done!) that the Holy Ghost has no hands?

Didn't Vatican II ascertain (so let it be written! so let it be done!) that the Holy Ghost has no hands? — ZzzoneiroCosm

You have to pay attention to details. The Holy Ghost is a one-armed cripple! :joke:

Yeah, but neither "The Father" nor "The Son" is god. So god didn't create the stone nor did it lift it.

Yeah, but neither "The Father" nor "The Son" is god. So god didn't create the stone nor did it lift it. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Oh, but I thought they are God! :chin: