The rock God can't lift.

[Tiberius]

I don't see that as a loaded question.

It is one. There are two questions combined into one:

1) Can God create a rock?
2) Can God fail at lifting that rock?

It's like the question that Violet alluded to: have you stopped beating your wife? If you answer "yes", it means you are admitting to wife-beating. If you answer "no", it means you are still beating her. The problem with these questions is that there are other valid answers, and sometimes a "yes or no" doesn't cut it. For instance, a perfectly valid answer to the wife-beating question would be "I have never beaten my wife."

Likewise, a perfectly valid answer to the question about God and rocks is "God can always lift the rocks he creates."

"Can god lie"
"Can god make a square circle"
"Is god capable of murder"

Any one of those examples creates a contradiction.

No they don't. Only the second one makes a contradiction with logic. It is perfectly possible for a God to lie, or a God to murder, since lying and murdering are both logically possible tasks. Creating a square circle is not.

If he can lie, then you could never know if he is good or bad or anything about his intent. If he cant lie, then he is not all powerful.

There is nothing in any definition of omnipotence that has anything to do with intent. You are confusing the issues by making this about a specific God. For the purposes of logical evaluation, it is not. Rather, it applies generally to the concept of Gods.

"Capable of murder"

If he can, then he cannot be considered moral. (murder, meaning criminal, not self defense). Murdering out of jealousy seems to be the OT God and Revelation character's motif.

If he cannot murder out of jeolousy, for example, again, you could not call him all powerful.

Again, we are not talking about the God of the OT. We're talking about actions that are logically possible.

All of those are examples of why, as a concept, as a claim, not as a real thing, but as a claim, makes the idea of "all powerful" as an atribute an absurd claim.

No, it makes it an absurd claim for Christians, as you've demonstrated, but not many Christians (at least, not many thinking Christians) make the claim that their God is "all powerful". Rather, they claim he is all powerful apart from aspects which god against his nature as a "perfect" moral being. Indeed, ask most intelligent Christians if there is anything they can do that God can't, and they'll give a one word answer: sin.

Being "all powerful" in the sense that you can do anything logically possible is a valid concept. It just doesn't apply to the Christian god, but I was never talking about the Christian god.

"all" in "all powerful" means can do anything and everything. That includes being illogical. I like my explinations to reality to be logical not illogical.

There are multiple meanings to the word "omnipotence". Likewise, there are multiple meanings to the concept of "all powerful". In a very narrow view, it means exactly as you state...that any all-powerful being can do everything, including those things that are logically impossible. I have yet to meet a single theist who subscribes to this view, and until I do (or until one shows up here) it is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The more common meanings are that an all-powerful being can do everything that is logically possible, or that they can do everything that is logically possible except things that go against its nature.

[Psykhronic]

maybe you should ask him. lol but more seriously as i'm not God I can only speculate God made man different from the Angels and was meant for a different kind of relationship with God than the Angels as part of that different relationship God wanted us to Grow towards loving him with our freewill rather than an instant choice as the Angels made as they had the full picture at start. So in order to grow we had to live in Gods will as we grew. He couldn't just eliminate the possibility of us acting against his will as the essence of free will is the choice to do evil or good. In the second Universe only those who have made the choice to love God so therefore capable of living in a universe that reflects God without disturbing it will be left. The others by their own choice to choose other than God, (and as to why people would make that choice I don't know the answer) , will be sent to a place where God does not exist as they have rejected God.

So God is just sort of fucking around? Make a creature that has to choose between God and Not God, throw away those who reject God, create a new place for the 'chosen' to chill. Just because angels get boring.

[Shell B]

Not talking to you, Brian.

[Mark 13:13]

maybe you should ask him. lol but more seriously as i'm not God I can only speculate God made man different from the Angels and was meant for a different kind of relationship with God than the Angels as part of that different relationship God wanted us to Grow towards loving him with our freewill rather than an instant choice as the Angels made as they had the full picture at start. So in order to grow we had to live in Gods will as we grew. He couldn't just eliminate the possibility of us acting against his will as the essence of free will is the choice to do evil or good. In the second Universe only those who have made the choice to love God so therefore capable of living in a universe that reflects God without disturbing it will be left. The others by their own choice to choose other than God, (and as to why people would make that choice I don't know the answer) , will be sent to a place where God does not exist as they have rejected God.

So God is just sort of fucking around? Make a creature that has to choose between God and Not God, throw away those who reject God, create a new place for the 'chosen' to chill. Just because angels get boring.

No wanting a different relationship to the one with the angels does not mean God valued the angels less ,( is a mother only capable of loving fully one child type) what can GOD do if the reject him , go against their free will and force them into something they rejected by their own choice.

[Brian37]

So God is just sort of fucking around? Make a creature that has to choose between God and Not God, throw away those who reject God, create a new place for the 'chosen' to chill. Just because angels get boring.

No wanting a different relationship to the one with the angels does not mean God valued the angels less ,( is a mother only capable of loving fully one child type) what can GOD do if the reject him , go against their free will and force them into something they rejected by their own choice.

According to that bloodthirsty violent comic book you buy as fact, dissent is not met with kindly by your fictional super hero.

The end of the book would be like a Dad sticking Bowie knives in the hands of his kids and saying "Ok, stab each other and the last one standing gets to hang out with me".

[Psykhronic]

Yeah, God is kinda douchey about people who reject him.

[Mark 13:13]

Yeah, God is kinda douchey about people who reject him.

Well if you mean in the description of HELL. Well the primary element that makes hell and the greatest distress is defined by the awareness that the person has permanently seperated themselves from GOD everything else in the description of hell is just a means of giving us some human concept of how terrible this is which is hard as we can't even comprehend the full Pleasure associated with being in the presence of GOD in heaven.Its not God but the person that does this, some would say this choice is made after death but that saying no to God becomes a learned pattern in the soul just as patterns are laid down in the brain with practice and although God will forgive even at the latest of points he can only do this if the person will ask with their free will but the deeper the groove in the soul the harder that person finds to ask.

[Brian37]

I don't see that as a loaded question.

It is one. There are two questions combined into one:

1) Can God create a rock?
2) Can God fail at lifting that rock?

It's like the question that Violet alluded to: have you stopped beating your wife? If you answer "yes", it means you are admitting to wife-beating. If you answer "no", it means you are still beating her. The problem with these questions is that there are other valid answers, and sometimes a "yes or no" doesn't cut it. For instance, a perfectly valid answer to the wife-beating question would be "I have never beaten my wife."

Likewise, a perfectly valid answer to the question about God and rocks is "God can always lift the rocks he creates."

"Can god lie"
"Can god make a square circle"
"Is god capable of murder"

Any one of those examples creates a contradiction.

No they don't. Only the second one makes a contradiction with logic. It is perfectly possible for a God to lie, or a God to murder, since lying and murdering are both logically possible tasks. Creating a square circle is not.

If he can lie, then you could never know if he is good or bad or anything about his intent. If he cant lie, then he is not all powerful.

There is nothing in any definition of omnipotence that has anything to do with intent. You are confusing the issues by making this about a specific God. For the purposes of logical evaluation, it is not. Rather, it applies generally to the concept of Gods.

"Capable of murder"

If he can, then he cannot be considered moral. (murder, meaning criminal, not self defense). Murdering out of jealousy seems to be the OT God and Revelation character's motif.

If he cannot murder out of jeolousy, for example, again, you could not call him all powerful.

Again, we are not talking about the God of the OT. We're talking about actions that are logically possible.

All of those are examples of why, as a concept, as a claim, not as a real thing, but as a claim, makes the idea of "all powerful" as an atribute an absurd claim.

No, it makes it an absurd claim for Christians, as you've demonstrated, but not many Christians (at least, not many thinking Christians) make the claim that their God is "all powerful". Rather, they claim he is all powerful apart from aspects which god against his nature as a "perfect" moral being. Indeed, ask most intelligent Christians if there is anything they can do that God can't, and they'll give a one word answer: sin.

Being "all powerful" in the sense that you can do anything logically possible is a valid concept. It just doesn't apply to the Christian god, but I was never talking about the Christian god.

"all" in "all powerful" means can do anything and everything. That includes being illogical. I like my explinations to reality to be logical not illogical.

There are multiple meanings to the word "omnipotence". Likewise, there are multiple meanings to the concept of "all powerful". In a very narrow view, it means exactly as you state...that any all-powerful being can do everything, including those things that are logically impossible. I have yet to meet a single theist who subscribes to this view, and until I do (or until one shows up here) it is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The more common meanings are that an all-powerful being can do everything that is logically possible, or that they can do everything that is logically possible except things that go against its nature.

All you are doing is explaing the dodges Christians use to get arround their inconsistancies. When you say that you have not met one Christian that buys into my version what you mean is that you have't met one willing to be honest with you. It's called back peddling. Moving the goal posts. Catch them in a logical inconsistency and they imediatly say "Thats not what I mean".

You just said the same thing I did
"any all powerful being can do everything logically possible"

That sets a limit on the god claim. If it can do something illogical, then it is not all powerful. If it can, then it is not perfect and no reson to call it "all powerful'. It cannot be all powerful without the ability to be logical and illogical. If it is then it is a broken concept.

"exept things that go against it's nature"

There again, "exept sets a perameter, a limit" which negates the concept "all powerful". It must have the power to go against it's nature otherwise by semantic definition it cannot be called "all powerful". If it can go against it's nature, then there is no way of knowing it's morality or intent.

And again I too am NOT adressing a specific god, just the concept of "all powerful" .

If he can always lift the rocks he creates then he cannot make one he cant lift thus limiting his power.

And even just the issue of his powers is a contradiction.

Can god give up his powers? If he can he is flawed. If he cant, he is not all powerful.

Of course there are multiple meanings to "all powerful", that is how the theist dodges contradictions "thats not what I meant, I meant this". Then when they give you another one, you find a flaw in that, then they give you another one.

Again the reason "all powerful" can dodge the inconsistencies we present them is because YOU gave them muliple choices. And the way they dodge the issue is because they start with the presuposition that "God can do what he wants"

Well yea he can as soon as they swallow that tripe they can use all those dodges by re defining anything about their god to avoid inconsistencies. Including re defining "all powerful".

[Mark 13:13]

It is one. There are two questions combined into one:

1) Can God create a rock?
2) Can God fail at lifting that rock?

It's like the question that Violet alluded to: have you stopped beating your wife? If you answer "yes", it means you are admitting to wife-beating. If you answer "no", it means you are still beating her. The problem with these questions is that there are other valid answers, and sometimes a "yes or no" doesn't cut it. For instance, a perfectly valid answer to the wife-beating question would be "I have never beaten my wife."

Likewise, a perfectly valid answer to the question about God and rocks is "God can always lift the rocks he creates."

No they don't. Only the second one makes a contradiction with logic. It is perfectly possible for a God to lie, or a God to murder, since lying and murdering are both logically possible tasks. Creating a square circle is not.

There is nothing in any definition of omnipotence that has anything to do with intent. You are confusing the issues by making this about a specific God. For the purposes of logical evaluation, it is not. Rather, it applies generally to the concept of Gods.

Again, we are not talking about the God of the OT. We're talking about actions that are logically possible.

No, it makes it an absurd claim for Christians, as you've demonstrated, but not many Christians (at least, not many thinking Christians) make the claim that their God is "all powerful". Rather, they claim he is all powerful apart from aspects which god against his nature as a "perfect" moral being. Indeed, ask most intelligent Christians if there is anything they can do that God can't, and they'll give a one word answer: sin.

Being "all powerful" in the sense that you can do anything logically possible is a valid concept. It just doesn't apply to the Christian god, but I was never talking about the Christian god.

There are multiple meanings to the word "omnipotence". Likewise, there are multiple meanings to the concept of "all powerful". In a very narrow view, it means exactly as you state...that any all-powerful being can do everything, including those things that are logically impossible. I have yet to meet a single theist who subscribes to this view, and until I do (or until one shows up here) it is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The more common meanings are that an all-powerful being can do everything that is logically possible, or that they can do everything that is logically possible except things that go against its nature.

All you are doing is explaing the dodges Christians use to get arround their inconsistancies. When you say that you have not met one Christian that buys into my version what you mean is that you have't met one willing to be honest with you. It's called back peddling. Moving the goal posts. Catch them in a logical inconsistency and they imediatly say "Thats not what I mean".

You just said the same thing I did
"any all powerful being can do everything logically possible"

That sets a limit on the god claim. If it can do something illogical, then it is not all powerful. If it can, then it is not perfect and no reson to call it "all powerful'. It cannot be all powerful without the ability to be logical and illogical. If it is then it is a broken concept.

"exept things that go against it's nature"

There again, "exept sets a perameter, a limit" which negates the concept "all powerful". It must have the power to go against it's nature otherwise by semantic definition it cannot be called "all powerful". If it can go against it's nature, then there is no way of knowing it's morality or intent.

And again I too am NOT adressing a specific god, just the concept of "all powerful" .

If he can always lift the rocks he creates then he cannot make one he cant lift thus limiting his power.

And even just the issue of his powers is a contradiction.

Can god give up his powers? If he can he is flawed. If he cant, he is not all powerful.

Of course there are multiple meanings to "all powerful", that is how the theist dodges contradictions "thats not what I meant, I meant this". Then when they give you another one, you find a flaw in that, then they give you another one.

Again the reason "all powerful" can dodge the inconsistencies we present them is because YOU gave them muliple choices. And the way they dodge the issue is because they start with the presuposition that "God can do what he wants"

Well yea he can as soon as they swallow that tripe they can use all those dodges by re defining anything about their god to avoid inconsistencies. Including re defining "all powerful".

NO hes actually displaying a better knowledge of philosophy than either of us hence why I gave his answer a thumbs up as he resisted the temptation to take the discussion away from the philosophical points he was making.

[Tiberius]

All you are doing is explaing the dodges Christians use to get arround their inconsistancies. When you say that you have not met one Christian that buys into my version what you mean is that you have't met one willing to be honest with you. It's called back peddling. Moving the goal posts. Catch them in a logical inconsistency and they imediatly say "Thats not what I mean".

No. I haven't met a Christian who buys into your version because your version doesn't represent the omnipotence described by Christianity. The Bible specifically limits God in what he can do, which means that he is not "all powerful" in the sense that he can do everything (both logical and illogical). If a Christian argues that he is all powerful, then they are either being scripturally inaccurate, or using another definition of omnipotence.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence#Meanings

You just said the same thing I did
"any all powerful being can do everything logically possible"

That sets a limit on the god claim. If it can do something illogical, then it is not all powerful. If it can, then it is not perfect and no reson to call it "all powerful'. It cannot be all powerful without the ability to be logical and illogical. If it is then it is a broken concept.

I don't think it does set a limit. Without logic, things do not make any sense. It goes against reason to think that it would ever be possible for any being to do the logically impossible, since that would immediately make that event logically possible, and not logically impossible. In other words, to say that a being can do the logically impossible is to admit that whatever was thought to be logically impossible is actually logically possible. The concept of "all powerful" in this sense is in itself, illogical, and thus cannot (and should not) be brought up unless someone actively tries to argue for it. Rather, the concept of "all powerful" should mean what I said it means: the ability to everything that is logically possible.

"exept things that go against it's nature"

There again, "exept sets a perameter, a limit" which negates the concept "all powerful". It must have the power to go against it's nature otherwise by semantic definition it cannot be called "all powerful". If it can go against it's nature, then there is no way of knowing it's morality or intent.

It doesn't negate the concept of all powerful; it merely alters the meaning of it. As I've demonstrated, the concept of "all powerful" or omnipotence has many different meanings in philosophy. If you don't understand these meanings, there is no point continuing the discussion with you.

Again, there is no stipulation in the concept of omnipotence that we need to know its morality or intent. I'm not sure where you are getting that idea. Morality and intent has absolutely nothing to do with omnipotence.

And again I too am NOT adressing a specific god, just the concept of "all powerful" .

If he can always lift the rocks he creates then he cannot make one he cant lift thus limiting his power.

...and by the same logic, he cannot make a square circle. The concept of omnipotence means many different things; this rock example does not negate omnipotence as a concept, nor does it negate the Christian God's omnipotence.

The Christian God is by definition, the greatest thing in existence. If he were able to create a rock that he could not lift, he would be creating something that was greater than himself, which would negate his own existence. That's not something he can do, by his nature.

And even just the issue of his powers is a contradiction.

Can god give up his powers? If he can he is flawed. If he cant, he is not all powerful.

Why is he flawed if he can give up his powers? Being flawed has nothing to do with being all powerful.

Of course there are multiple meanings to "all powerful", that is how the theist dodges contradictions "thats not what I meant, I meant this". Then when they give you another one, you find a flaw in that, then they give you another one.

Again the reason "all powerful" can dodge the inconsistencies we present them is because YOU gave them muliple choices. And the way they dodge the issue is because they start with the presuposition that "God can do what he wants"

Well yea he can as soon as they swallow that tripe they can use all those dodges by re defining anything about their god to avoid inconsistencies. Including re defining "all powerful".

No, there are multiple meanings to "all powerful" because over the centuries philosophers have realised that the concept itself is flawed in the absolute sense, and so in order to rationalize the concept, it has to branch out and be applied in different ways.

I don't deny that some Christians may dodge issues by switching the meaning of "all powerful", but that does not mean that there is not a definition of all powerful which contradicts Christianity. Indeed, the one which I find most intelligent Christians using is "God can do anything that is logically possible and does not go against his nature". God's nature is perfect, so despite it being logically possible to lie or sin, God cannot lie or sin.