Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: September 22, 2024, 4:36 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The rock God can't lift.
#51
RE: The rock God can't lift.
I'm all about having the absolute power to do illogical things. So much retarded fun stuff you can do Tiger
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
#52
RE: The rock God can't lift.
(January 6, 2013 at 5:40 am)Tiberius Wrote: Do they mean that literally, or do they mean within the limits of what he can already do. This appears to be a problem in this thread; everyone takes things too literally.

I mean, you can apply the phrase "he does what he wants" to humans too, but we never mean it literally. We mean, "he does what he wants...when he can".

So the question is, when a theist says that their God can do what he wants, do they mean it literally, or are they talking figuratively in order to express the power their God supposedly has.

The question then, in the context of scripture, if I understand this correctly, would be "does "jesus" mean what he says?". Surely you can see why proposing that he doesn't leaves one with very little to assert (if one wishes to maintain "jesus" anyway). If we're willing to entertain endless excuses then there's no reason to include what "jesus" says at all, since whatever he is supposed to have said is going to take a back seat to whatever we are about to say. In this case, that the lord of the cosmos was the victim of linguistic idiosyncrasies - while he was attempting to explain some portion of the cosmos. How unfortunate for him, for us, and for his explanation.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#53
RE: The rock God can't lift.



Do you even lift?


With all due respect, Tibbs, I think this God constrained by logical possibility is an invention created to fix a broken concept. There are plenty of people currently and historically who believe in the concept without any awareness of these fixes, nor even positive knowledge that the concept itself needs fixing. This is a lot like the "Hell is separation from God" concept that is floating around in Christendom now; it's an attempt to redefine something in order to escape the problems with the original concept. And there, as well as with omnipotence, there are many current and past who didn't get the memo to revise their understanding. (And many who wouldn't revise their understanding of either even if the problem were pointed out to them.) So, your claim that some people have a more sophisticated concept of omnipotence does nothing to ameliorate the fact that most believers don't have such a nuanced concept. Moreover, your attempting to substitute the understanding of a few for the understanding of the many appears fallacious (though it's not clear what the specific fallacy is).

Beyond that, there are a few details specific to the question. First, if "God" is transcendental in the way Mark suggests, the logically possible is only a relevant limit if the logically possible is transcendant as well. If He stands outside time and existence, and logically possible only applies to time and existence, then the latter need not constrain the former. Plus, there are a couple of details. The ability to lift or not lift an object refers to one's ability to supply enough force to overcome gravity (I'm not going to relativize this). However if God possesses unlimited force, there can be no rock that he cannot lift (I think) because there is no place where there is infinite gravity. (Relativizing this to a black hole or a singularity takes me beyond what I can competently speak about.) Moreover, in order to lift a rock, there has to be a place to lift that rock toward. If God/god were to abolish the universe, and replace all of existence with a single rock, then he couldn't lift it as there would be no place to lift it to. This is not a limit upon his omnipotence in any way.


[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#54
RE: The rock God can't lift.
(January 6, 2013 at 5:40 am)Tiberius Wrote:
(January 5, 2013 at 11:25 pm)Minimalist Wrote: http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/2002...-Were-Not/
Do they mean that literally, or do they mean within the limits of what he can already do. This appears to be a problem in this thread; everyone takes things too literally.

I mean, you can apply the phrase "he does what he wants" to humans too, but we never mean it literally. We mean, "he does what he wants...when he can".

So the question is, when a theist says that their God can do what he wants, do they mean it literally, or are they talking figuratively in order to express the power their God supposedly has.


I submit that the guy who wrote that piece means "literally." You are a great guy, boss, but you live in a civilized country that doesn't have a whole lot of crazy jesus freaks handling snakes and rolling around on the floor.



Reply
#55
RE: The rock God can't lift.
Mark 13 has thoroughly amused me with this thread

"... and for that, we thank you."




Don't care if god makes rocks he can't lift, I would just prefer that he doesn't crush my skull with it just because I hold to the practice of not worshiping people I've never met.Undecided

[Image: Godslove_zps1478e4d4.jpg]
[Image: Evolution.png]

Reply
#56
RE: The rock God can't lift.
(January 6, 2013 at 12:29 pm)apophenia Wrote:


Do you even lift?


With all due respect, Tibbs, I think this God constrained by logical possibility is an invention created to fix a broken concept. There are plenty of people currently and historically who believe in the concept without any awareness of these fixes, nor even positive knowledge that the concept itself needs fixing. This is a lot like the "Hell is separation from God" concept that is floating around in Christendom now; it's an attempt to redefine something in order to escape the problems with the original concept. And there, as well as with omnipotence, there are many current and past who didn't get the memo to revise their understanding. (And many who wouldn't revise their understanding of either even if the problem were pointed out to them.) So, your claim that some people have a more sophisticated concept of omnipotence does nothing to ameliorate the fact that most believers don't have such a nuanced concept. Moreover, your attempting to substitute the understanding of a few for the understanding of the many appears fallacious (though it's not clear what the specific fallacy is).

Beyond that, there are a few details specific to the question. First, if "God" is transcendental in the way Mark suggests, the logically possible is only a relevant limit if the logically possible is transcendant as well. If He stands outside time and existence, and logically possible only applies to time and existence, then the latter need not constrain the former. Plus, there are a couple of details. The ability to lift or not lift an object refers to one's ability to supply enough force to overcome gravity (I'm not going to relativize this). However if God possesses unlimited force, there can be no rock that he cannot lift (I think) because there is no place where there is infinite gravity. (Relativizing this to a black hole or a singularity takes me beyond what I can competently speak about.) Moreover, in order to lift a rock, there has to be a place to lift that rock toward. If God/god were to abolish the universe, and replace all of existence with a single rock, then he couldn't lift it as there would be no place to lift it to. This is not a limit upon his omnipotence in any way.


the fact that Christians can continue to gain more and greater refinement in there understanding of GOD over time seems very similar to how science moves from one theory to another but then we seem again to have some double standards here ?
Reply
#57
RE: The rock God can't lift.
(January 6, 2013 at 6:59 am)Brian37 Wrote: Again, once they swallow "God can do what he wants", then they can move the goal posts, so in that context, sure it does work.
My point was, in any context it works. The set of logically possible things must exist, given that we can name items that it contains. We can also name things in the set that are logically possible, but which humans cannot perform. It stands to reason, then, that there could exist a being that was able to perform every item in the set.

I'm not saying such a being exists; just that there is no reason why such a being could not.
Quote:It doesn't matter.

"When he can" if taken literally, makes no sense because he is all powerful which would mean "all the time or whenever he feels like it", not limited to "when he can".
It does matter, and you're doing it again...applying one specific definition of omnipotence to another one, pointing out that they aren't the same, and concluding that your definition is the only one around. It's not. There are many definitions, one of which is that omnipotence is the ability to perform everything that is logically possible to perform. One is the same thing, but with the additional caveat that such a being is limited by its own nature, which is essentially stating that a being cannot perform two contradictory actions. In the context of the Christian God, if it is a perfect moral being (the action of being a perfect moral being), it cannot also lie (the action of lying), since if it were to lie, it would cease to be a perfect moral being. This is essentially a statement that one cannot violate laws of logic; if one is performing the action A, it cannot simultaneously perform the action ¬A, or any subset of actions which contains ¬A.

Quote:"When he can" if only taken metaphorically would also mean nothing because it does nothing to go to empirical evidence.
Why on earth are you bringing up empirical evidence for? We're talking about philosophy and logic, not science.

Quote:In the end both are part of the same tactic, when it doesn't work switch.
I'm not discussing tactics with you, I'm discussing the validity of various definitions of omnipotence. I've asked you what would happen if they switched (or even started with) a logically valid definition, such as the one I have suggested. You have yet to respond on that point.

Quote:Neither of these do anything to make such a claim definable to testable degree and are merely the imaginations of those who invent such concepts.
It does not matter if it is testable. A lot of things in philosophy are not testable. Being untestable does not mean something is logically invalid.

(January 6, 2013 at 1:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I submit that the guy who wrote that piece means "literally." You are a great guy, boss, but you live in a civilized country that doesn't have a whole lot of crazy jesus freaks handling snakes and rolling around on the floor.
I was talking generally. As in, do you accept that this is a valid explanation of omnipotence if meant in a non-literal way.

(January 6, 2013 at 12:29 pm)apophenia Wrote: With all due respect, Tibbs, I think this God constrained by logical possibility is an invention created to fix a broken concept.
Granted, it may well be, but if it fixes it, why do you dismiss it? Can you point out why such a definition of omnipotence is logically invalid?
Quote:There are plenty of people currently and historically who believe in the concept without any awareness of these fixes, nor even positive knowledge that the concept itself needs fixing.
Irrelevant. We're talking about the concept that has been fixed, not if people know the original was full of flaws or not.
Quote:So, your claim that some people have a more sophisticated concept of omnipotence does nothing to ameliorate the fact that most believers don't have such a nuanced concept. Moreover, your attempting to substitute the understanding of a few for the understanding of the many appears fallacious (though it's not clear what the specific fallacy is).
I'm aware it does nothing to ameliorate the fact that most believers don't have such a nuanced concept. I've never said any differently. My entry into this debate was when someone (Brian) tried to disprove God's omnipotence by using the invalid concept that we're all talking about.

Demonstrating that a concept like absolute omnipotence is invalid is easy. However, when someone comes along and points to another (valid) definition of the concept, you can't just keep going back to the invalid version and trying to use that the new concept is invalid. It doesn't work like that.

Brian is stuck in his mindset that the only version of omnipotence that exists in Christianity is the absolute kind. That is factually and scriptually inaccurate. I've pointed it out to him numerous times.

It's like the following argument:

A: All four sided objects are squares.
B: But a rhombus has four sides and is not a square.
A: Ok, all four sided objects that have four right-angles are squares.
B: But a rectangle has four sides and four right-angles and is not a square.
A: Ok, all four sided objects that have four right-angles and all sides the same length are squares.
B: You're just moving the goal posts! You started with one definition and now you're changing it when I come up with contradictions!

Does it matter that they are switching definitions when contradictions arise? Certainly, it shows that their initial premise was ill-thought out. However, it also matters than through the process of noticing contradictions and fixing them, they came to a valid definition for a square. A definition or a concept doesn't lose its validity just because someone had to go through a load of invalid ones to get to one that was valid. It's a sign of poor debate skills, but nothing else.
Reply
#58
RE: The rock God can't lift.
Quote:I was talking generally. As in, do you accept that this is a valid explanation of omnipotence if meant in a non-literal way.

Um...I don't accept the concept of omnipotence. As for what he meant, I think there are times when you have to take people at their word. There are some really, really, strange fuckers out there walking around unsupervised.

Quote:omnipotent

om·nip·o·tent
[om-nip-uh-tuh nt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2.
having very great or unlimited authority or power.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotent?s=t

I'm pretty sure he meant definition #1.
Reply
#59
RE: The rock God can't lift.
(January 6, 2013 at 3:18 pm)Cinjin Wrote: Mark 13 has thoroughly amused me with this thread

"... and for that, we thank you."




Don't care if god makes rocks he can't lift, I would just prefer that he doesn't crush my skull with it just because I hold to the practice of not worshiping people I've never met.Undecided

[Image: Godslove_zps1478e4d4.jpg]

Does someone watch Tosh.O?

Quote:My point was, in any context it works.

Right, and that is called imagination. Which is why it is a broken concept. No standards. Make shit up to suit one's own desires.
Reply
#60
RE: The rock God can't lift.
(January 6, 2013 at 12:29 pm)apophenia Wrote: Do you even lift?

Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What is the difference between me and a rock? Omni314 19 6880 June 17, 2012 at 5:49 am
Last Post: Tempus



Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)