My take on one of the arguments about omnipotence

[ShinyCrystals]

---

Well, I have seen some arguments for and agianst omnipotence, and I want to talk about one of them.

http://stoneparadox.org/cgcp.html

This is the Circular God Counter Paradox, which deals with the "can god create a stone so heavy even he can't lift it" paradox. Here, it says something like god can lift it if he is simultaneously on two planes, one with the heavy rock he is trying to lift and the other that he us under at the same time and lifting. That should neutralize the stone paradox.

But this argument talks about the plane, as in surface that the rock and one god is on. It did not say this: what kind of plane is it? It is also called a surface in one of the images. Assuming it is a rather materialistic surface, I would like to take this further. Now, with the surface following the laws of solid mechanics, it has to break under a specific amount of force, or in this case, weight. Plus, there is the strength to weight ratio, which deals with weight increasing by the cubed power, and the strength of the object being increased by the square power, if you know what I mean, the plane has to be strong enough to carry the stone and god that the second god is lifting. Let's assume the plane/surface has little to no weight and infinite strength. Now...

Could god create a plane/surface so strong that it does not break and the stone yields to it, despite its weight?

If no, god is not omnipotent because he cannot create it.

If yes, the rock moves, so the plane can support it and the stone moves, despite being very heavy to the point god can lift it.

But the stone will only move when the plane moves. What about god himself, on both planes?

I mean, if the second god below the plane the first god and the rock are on is lifting the plane that he can lift, it is still the plane he is holding that is supporting the rock and the first god. Judging by the images in this site, god on the plane with the rock already has a hard time moving the stone himself. Like I said, they never said what plane or surface it is that god is carrying. If the plane itself is just as heavy as the rock, I do not see how god can lift the plane to begin with.

This also goes with the self-contained universes in the Infinite Expansion of the Circular God Counter-Paradox. I believe.

Not that I am trying to disprove the Circular God Counter-Paradox, as this is just a take, but also, the Infinite Expansion has another question.

Can God stop at anytime in the Infinte Expansion and take a break from lifting these universes and rocks?

If not, he cannot break out of it and is not onmipotent.

If yes, he is not doing it forever, so it is not infinite and thus he is not omnipotent.

Plus, if god is all possibilities as some claim, that Circular God Counter-Paradox is just one way of doing something like lifting a heavy rock, and God should have an infinite amount of ways to do this. With the stone paradox itself saying god is not omnipotent either way, I can safely say true omnipotence does not exist...but you all knew that.

And that is not even counting the paradox between an immovable object and the irresistible force, with god and the plane/surface being irresistible and the rock, and maybe the self-contained universes in the infinite expansion of the counter-paradox being the immovable object. There is logical explanation that the irresistible force and immovable object cannot exist together, as they would not be what they are if they came in contact with each other.

Now, about the plane or surface the second god is holding that carries the first god and the heavy rock, if it were not strong enough to carry the rock, at all, the surface would break, and that, god would not be carrying both the plane and the rock at once. Plus, with what I said about the strength to weight ratio, again, without the right strength to carry the first god and the rock that is heavy, the plane/surface the second god holds would collapse.

So, if the plane, or surface has no or little weight but is able to support the rock god cannot lift, and god can lift the plane or surface with the first two entities, then god is most likely not doing the work. This applys to any other weight of the plane/surface as well that god is carrying except for if the surface is of a weight even he cannot lift.

I welcome any counter-arguments or the pointing out of any of the flaws this post might have, but still, what do you all think of this?

---

[no one]

Even if the wish granting, magic sky despot could create an object that heavy, the story told would reflect how godiboi found an enchanted can of miracle spinach and all the glory is restored.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

By its nature, you can’t actually refute a paradox. A common theological answer to the stone thing is that omnipotence does not extend into logical absurdities.

There are plenty of things God can’t do, either because they’re absurd or because they’re definitionally impossible. God can’t make 1+1=3 or create a square with five sides or create a being more powerful than himself. This doesn’t mean that God is not omnipotent in a theological sense.

Boru

[ShinyCrystals]

By its nature, you can’t actually refute a paradox. A common theological answer to the stone thing is that omnipotence does not extend into logical absurdities.

There are plenty of things God can’t do, either because they’re absurd or because they’re definitionally impossible. God can’t make 1+1=3 or create a square with five sides or create a being more powerful than himself. This doesn’t mean that God is not omnipotent in a theological sense.

Boru

I know. I just wanted to point out a little something I noted. No actual refuting there, despite how it seems. Just food for thought, that is all.

[Anomalocaris]

omnipotence, omniscience, or the most ridiculously Omnibenevolence seem to me to be things used by people who cannot even count up to all the fingers on one hand, to try to overawe each other with a fictional quantity so ginormous that it might take even more than the fingers on both hands to count

[ShinyCrystals]

omnipotence, omniscience, or the most ridiculously Omnibenevolence seem to me to be things used by people who cannot even count up to all the fingers on one hand, to try to overawe each other with a fictional quantity so ginormous that it might take even more than the fingers on both hands to count

Yeah, of course.

That said, omnipotence itself is a heavily flawed concept, as well as the other Omni traits god has. Plus, given that omnipotence has things against it, and how paradoxical it may be; if god did exist somehow, he would be insane, especially since he is more human like as I described on another thread.

[Anomalocaris]

it was never formulated as a cohesive concept. It was crafted by intellectual caveman, who wants to beat each other over the head with sticks that says my God is bigger than yours.

once my God is bigger than any other conceivable God becomes taken as dogma outside of which there is no salvation, people who are not quite caveman, but still not far from it, then try to make lemonade out of lemon by trying to explain away what omnipotent could possibly mean.

[LinuxGal]

I welcome any counter-arguments or the pointing out of any of the flaws this post might have, but still, what do you all think of this?

Take God out of the equation for a moment and consider a similar question: What happens when an irresistible force encounters an immovable body?

If there is an irresistible force then by definition there are no immovable bodies.

If there is an immovable body then by definition there is not an irresistible force.

You can't entertain the logic of such a situation while language itself is under assault by the premises.

[ShinyCrystals]

I welcome any counter-arguments or the pointing out of any of the flaws this post might have, but still, what do you all think of this?

Take God out of the equation for a moment and consider a similar question: What happens when an irresistible force encounters an immovable body?

If there is an irresistible force then by definition there are no immovable bodies.

If there is an immovable body then by definition there is not an irresistible force.

You can't entertain the logic of such a situation while language itself is under assault by the premises.

Yeah, I see that. I just needed to get something off my chest, that is all.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

In an interesting - and blatantly desperate - attempt to get round the omnipotence problem, some theologians claim that God’s omnipotence applies only to things that are not-God.

Special plead much, fellas? 

Boru