Evidence for God from Science

Athiest often argue that the Christian God could not possibly exist, since it is omnipotent.

om·nip·o·tent (m-np-tnt)
adj.
"Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful"

They claim the word omni-potent is a self contradictory term.

They usually use trick questions to support their reasonings.

For example:

Can God create an object that he cannot lift?


My arguement was:

"God cannot do the logically impossible, any more than He can act out of character with Himself. God cannot, for instance, create a square circle, stop being good, or cease being God. God can do everything that is possible to do, which includes those acts for which there may be no simple, immediate, apparent, human explanation."


The response is:

"It is logically possible, because I can do it. Give me some rocks and some super glue and about 2 hours."


My response:

No where in the bible does it state that God is omnipotent. The bible states the God is "almighty" which in English happens to mean the same thing as omnipotent.

However, The original language of the bible says that God is Shaddai in the place of where it says "almighty" in English bibles.

The word Shaddai is Hebrew for "most powerful."

The only reason we continue to say "god is almighty," is because there are millions of the English version of the bible that use the word almighty as a synonym for the word shaddai.

My guess is that the translators could not find a word in the English language that means “most powerful.” Is there such a word?

Therefore, the biblical word "almighty" does not actually mean the same thing as the American dictionaries define the word as, because the word in the bible is being used in place of shaddai, not the word all-powerful in Hebrew.


Opponents response:

Are you telling me that the following verses were translated incorrectly and should have put the word "most" in place of the word "all"?

"I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted." Job 42:2

"Ah Lord Yahueh! It is you who made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you." Jer. 32:17

"But Jesus looked at them and said, 'For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.'" Matt. 19:26

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, 'All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.'" Matt. 28:18



Are all those verses translated incorrectly? Or does any one know a logical way to defeat his tricky question?

I'm pretty much small-fry on this board, but I'll take a look.

purelyironic wrote:They claim the word omni-potent is a self contradictory term.

In what ways, exactly?

"It is logically possible, because I can do it. Give me some rocks and some super glue and about 2 hours."

That's taking it out of conetext already. A man has limited power, it's obvious that a man can slap together a rock he can't lift. Note that a man is sticking rocks together, versus creating. In short, the context is all wrong.

Your response about God's nature was good. He "can't", say, through his own power make himself cease to exist, not because his power is limited, but because his nature, which is inherently tied to his power, doesn't "allow it".

No where in the bible does it state that God is omnipotent. The bible states the God is "almighty" which in English happens to mean the same thing as omnipotent.

However, The original language of the bible says that God is Shaddai in the place of where it says "almighty" in English bibles.

The word Shaddai is Hebrew for "most powerful."

The only reason we continue to say "god is almighty," is because there are millions of the English version of the bible that use the word almighty as a synonym for the word shaddai.

My guess is that the translators could not find a word in the English language that means “most powerful.” Is there such a word?

Therefore, the biblical word "almighty" does not actually mean the same thing as the American dictionaries define the word as, because the word in the bible is being used in place of shaddai, not the word all-powerful in Hebrew.


Opponents response:

Are you telling me that the following verses were translated incorrectly and should have put the word "most" in place of the word "all"?

"I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted." Job 42:2

"Ah Lord Yahueh! It is you who made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you." Jer. 32:17

"But Jesus looked at them and said, 'For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.'" Matt. 19:26

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, 'All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.'" Matt. 28:18



Are all those verses translated incorrectly? Or does any one know a logical way to defeat his tricky question?

Okaydokee... the opponent is now diverting from God's existence and is distracting you with scripture. Force the person to go back to logical possibilities of God, and then you're golden.

purelyironic wrote:Athiest often argue that the Christian God could not possibly exist, since it is omnipotent.

om·nip·o·tent (m-np-tnt)
adj.
"Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful"

They claim the word omni-potent is a self contradictory term.

They usually use trick questions to support their reasonings.

For example:

Can God create an object that he cannot lift?


My arguement was:

"God cannot do the logically impossible, any more than He can act out of character with Himself. God cannot, for instance, create a square circle, stop being good, or cease being God. God can do everything that is possible to do, which includes those acts for which there may be no simple, immediate, apparent, human explanation."


The response is:

"It is logically possible, because I can do it. Give me some rocks and some super glue and about 2 hours."

Hi purelyironic,

You were on the right path with your first answer, but you let the atheists get away with something too easily.

Their premise in their answer that they can make a rock so big that they can't lift it is wrong. They are humans, with a finite presence. they therefore want to apply human logic to an omnnipotent God. God cannot violate His own nature, like you correctly stated. But since part of His omnipotent nature is to be everywhere, i.e. infinitely big, it would imply that He would have to make an object larger than infintely big, which is logical nonsense, you cannot make any finite thing to be bigger than infinitely big.

Omnipotence is not the ability to anything conceivable, but to do things that are consistent with His universal power, will and presence.

Don't allow the atheists to change the rules of the game. They cannot logically compare God's power to their own.

Also, I would ask them where they get their concept of God's omnipotence from? They cannot selectively appeal to what the Bible says about God. Either they grant all of it for the sake of argument, or they have to appeal to an external source. In both cases, they fail.

The host site of this board has more:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rock.html

First let me introduce myself, and clarify some issues. I'm the guy who was debating PurelyIronic. Simply put, my claim is that if you assign the adjective "omnipotent" to a being, it is a logical fallacy because 'omnipotent' falls victim to infinite recursion, and is therefore, an impossibility (much like a square circle).

Here is my 'proof' to demonstrate its impossibility:
Simply ask, does this all-powerful being have the power to assemble something (using any tools and methods he desires) so heavy that he does not have the power to lift it? Give me a hammer, some nails, and 2X4's and I can complete this task in under an hour. Can this omnipotent being do it? Because if he can assemble such a thing and cannot lift it, he's not all-powerful. If he does not have the power to assemble such a thing, then is also not all-powerful.

The paradox of being "all-powerful" comes from the fact that you can define your success in one thing by your failure in another. There's nothing illogical about that. This is not an attack on the Christian god, but simply an attack on the attribute "omnipotent" or "all powerful".

Forge wrote:I'm pretty much small-fry on this board, but I'll take a look.

purelyironic wrote:They claim the word omni-potent is a self contradictory term.

In what ways, exactly?

...as described above.

"It is logically possible, because I can do it. Give me some rocks and some super glue and about 2 hours."

That's taking it out of conetext already. A man has limited power, it's obvious that a man can slap together a rock he can't lift. Note that a man is sticking rocks together, versus creating. In short, the context is all wrong.

Good point. I have changed the wording to "assemble" but the underlying paradox still exists.

Your response about God's nature was good. He "can't", say, through his own power make himself cease to exist, not because his power is limited, but because his nature, which is inherently tied to his power, doesn't "allow it".

This is a poor analogy because it is something that is illogical (like a square circle). It is impossible in ALL possible situations. My example is different because the question can ALWAYS be answered until you try to say the being that is doing the tasks cannot fail. Adding in that requirement is the fallacy, not the question.

No where in the bible does it state that God is omnipotent. The bible states the God is "almighty" which in English happens to mean the same thing as omnipotent.

However, The original language of the bible says that God is Shaddai in the place of where it says "almighty" in English bibles.

The word Shaddai is Hebrew for "most powerful."

The only reason we continue to say "god is almighty," is because there are millions of the English version of the bible that use the word almighty as a synonym for the word shaddai.

My guess is that the translators could not find a word in the English language that means “most powerful.” Is there such a word?

Therefore, the biblical word "almighty" does not actually mean the same thing as the American dictionaries define the word as, because the word in the bible is being used in place of shaddai, not the word all-powerful in Hebrew.

This is why my claim is not necessarily an attack on the Christian god. It is only an attack on him if someone tries to say he is "omnipotent" or "all powerful", which as I have shown are illogical attributes.

Opponents response:

Are you telling me that the following verses were translated incorrectly and should have put the word "most" in place of the word "all"?

"I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted." Job 42:2

"Ah Lord Yahueh! It is you who made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you." Jer. 32:17

"But Jesus looked at them and said, 'For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.'" Matt. 19:26

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, 'All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.'" Matt. 28:18



Are all those verses translated incorrectly? Or does any one know a logical way to defeat his tricky question?

Okaydokee... the opponent is now diverting from God's existence and is distracting you with scripture. Force the person to go back to logical possibilities of God, and then you're golden.

Those questions on the verses did not come from me, but I think they are fair to ask. Basic logic can show that to be 'omnipotent'/'all powerful' is an impossible attribute, so the translation history of these verses should be clarified, as some Bible versions have this inherent contradiction in them in many places.

August wrote:Their premise in their answer that they can make a rock so big that they can't lift it is wrong. They are humans, with a finite presence. they therefore want to apply human logic to an omnnipotent God.

Not sure what you mean by "human logic". If something contradicts logic, then it is considered a fallacy. If this is the "God and Science" message board, we should have no problem agreeing that the existence of God should not violate logic.

God cannot violate His own nature, like you correctly stated. But since part of His omnipotent nature is to be everywhere, i.e. infinitely big, it would imply that He would have to make an object larger than infintely big, which is logical nonsense, you cannot make any finite thing to be bigger than infinitely big.

My example made no implications of the size of the structure the being would assemble. It's asking a question: "Can he assemble such a structure that he would be unable to lift?". The only implication of my question is that he has the ability to interact once with the object to assemble it and once to try to lift it.

Omnipotence is not the ability to anything conceivable, but to do things that are consistent with His universal power, will and presence.

So you would disagree with dictionary's definition of the term "omnipotence"? Wouldn't it be more rational to say "Omnipotent is bad adjective for the Christian god. Instead, it should be 'most powerful'."?

Don't allow the atheists to change the rules of the game. They cannot logically compare God's power to their own.

I am not, I am matching his power against HIS own. This is why "all-powerful" falls victim to infinite recursion.

Also, I would ask them where they get their concept of God's omnipotence from? They cannot selectively appeal to what the Bible says about God. Either they grant all of it for the sake of argument, or they have to appeal to an external source. In both cases, they fail.

I do not have the concept that God has omnipotence. My position is that the very term "omnipotence" is a self contradiction, and therefore, logically bankrupt and meaningless.

The host site of this board has more:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rock.html

Regarding that link... here is the main problem I have with the write up... The author says "However, there are some things that even an all-powerful being cannot do.". I would say, it makes sense that there are some things He cannot do, but in which case, you can call Him "almost all-powerful" or "most powerful"; but NOT "all-powerful".

cc5k wrote:

August wrote:Their premise in their answer that they can make a rock so big that they can't lift it is wrong. They are humans, with a finite presence. they therefore want to apply human logic to an omnnipotent God.

Not sure what you mean by "human logic". If something contradicts logic, then it is considered a fallacy. If this is the "God and Science" message board, we should have no problem agreeing that the existence of God should not violate logic.

Do you know everything there is to know, i.e. every conceivable premise and conclusion, everywhere? What do you mean by logic? Do you mena those things that are described by the laws of logic?

My example made no implications of the size of the structure the being would assemble. It's asking a question: "Can he assemble such a structure that he would be unable to lift?". The only implication of my question is that he has the ability to interact once with the object to assemble it and once to try to lift it.

No that is not true. You repeatedly say that your "proof" is your ability to construct something so big that you cannot lift it. No-one is disputing that. That implies however that there is finite size to the structure, from your finite point of view, since you cannot construct something infinitely big, no matter how many rocks and superglue you use. However, in the process, you equate yourself with an all-powerful, omnipresent, infinite being when you say that God should not be able to do something because you can't. You cannot construct something bigger/heavier than infinity. That defies logic, does it not? So your argument rests on the fact that you want God to construct something bigger/heavier than His infinite presence, and then fail to lift it, and as a result conclude that He is not all-powerful and therefore not God.

So you would disagree with dictionary's definition of the term "omnipotence"? Wouldn't it be more rational to say "Omnipotent is bad adjective for the Christian god. Instead, it should be 'most powerful'."?

Why would I disagree with that? According to Websters, omnipotent means the same as almighty:
1. Main Entry: 1om·nip·o·tent
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin omnipotent-, omnipotens, from omni- + potent-, potens potent
1 often capitalized : ALMIGHTY 1
2 : having virtually unlimited authority or influence

2. Main Entry: 1al·mighty
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English ealmihtig, from eall all + mihtig mighty
1 often capitalized : having absolute power over all <Almighty God>
2 : relatively unlimited in power
3 : great in magnitude or seriousness

There is nothing in those definitions that is contrary to the nature of God, in fact, they even invoke God to give meaning to those words.

You yourself stated that the laws of logic are immutable, so the fact that you can conceive of something illogical does not mean that it can be done. Everyone can do what is in their nature to do, not what they wish to do, or can conceive of doing. You cannot lift a heavy object, why not? You have limits to your power, due to your human nature. Can an elephant lift something you can't? Sure it can. In the same vein, God cannot do nonsensical things, but He still has have absolute power over all.

I am not, I am matching his power against HIS own. This is why "all-powerful" falls victim to infinite recursion.

No, you are creating a strawman based on what you think His power should be, based on your proof that you can make something so heavy you can't lift it. You do not seem to understand God's nature. Maybe you should share your definition.

I do not have the concept that God has omnipotence. My position is that the very term "omnipotence" is a self contradiction, and therefore, logically bankrupt and meaningless.

Why did you start the discussion in the first place? What were your starting premises? If you do not have the concept that God is omnipotent, on what basis do you then level any contra-argument? Surely before you can argue against something you must have a concept of what it is you are trying to argue against? How do you define omnipotence as self-contradictory if you do not have a concept of the manifestation of omnipotence? Where do your supposedly seperate concepts of God and omnipotence come from? You keep on referring to the Christian God, also in this message, and you wish to assign adjectives to Him, that are contra to omnipotent, so don't try to deny that this is what you meant.

This is not an attack on the Christian god,

Sure it is. If the Christian God is not omnipotent, He is not God, because it implies that there can conceivably be something more powerful, which would mean God is not God.

This is not an attack on the Christian god,

Sure it is. If the Christian God is not omnipotent, He is not God, because it implies that there can conceivably be something more powerful, which would mean God is not God.[/quote]

Quote from my first post.

"No where in the bible does it state that God is omnipotent. The bible states the God is "almighty" which in English happens to mean the same thing as omnipotent.

However, The original language of the bible says that God is Shaddai in the place of where it says "almighty" in English bibles.

The word Shaddai is Hebrew for "most powerful."

The only reason we continue to say "god is almighty," is because there are millions of the English version of the bible that use the word almighty as a synonym for the word shaddai.

My guess is that the translators could not find a word in the English language that means “most powerful.” Is there such a word?

Therefore, the biblical word "almighty" does not actually mean the same thing as the American dictionaries define the word as, because the word in the bible is being used in place of shaddai, not the word all-powerful in Hebrew."


Now back to your statement. How can there be something more powerful than the Christian God if the Christian God is "most powerful" like the original Hebrew version of the bible states.

August wrote:Do you know everything there is to know, i.e. every conceivable premise and conclusion, everywhere? What do you mean by logic? Do you mena those things that are described by the laws of logic?

Of course I don't. I mean "valid reasoning" when I say "logic".

My example made no implications of the size of the structure the being would assemble. It's asking a question: "Can he assemble such a structure that he would be unable to lift?". The only implication of my question is that he has the ability to interact once with the object to assemble it and once to try to lift it.

No that is not true. You repeatedly say that your "proof" is your ability to construct something so big that you cannot lift it. No-one is disputing that. That implies however that there is finite size to the structure, from your finite point of view, since you cannot construct something infinitely big, no matter how many rocks and superglue you use. However, in the process, you equate yourself with an all-powerful, omnipresent, infinite being when you say that God should not be able to do something because you can't. You cannot construct something bigger/heavier than infinity. That defies logic, does it not? So your argument rests on the fact that you want God to construct something bigger/heavier than His infinite presence, and then fail to lift it, and as a result conclude that He is not all-powerful and therefore not God.

I am not equating myself with an all-powerful being. In fact, I'm claiming no such being can exist! Let me clean up my logic so it does not rest on weight or size: "Can the being assemble something that he would be unable to lift?" I don't care the means of which this is attempted or whether or not it succeeds or fails. The point is that regardless of the answer it has shown that the concept of "omnipotence" to be an illogical one.

You yourself stated that the laws of logic are immutable, so the fact that you can conceive of something illogical does not mean that it can be done. Everyone can do what is in their nature to do, not what they wish to do, or can conceive of doing. You cannot lift a heavy object, why not? You have limits to your power, due to your human nature. Can an elephant lift something you can't? Sure it can. In the same vein, God cannot do nonsensical things, but He still has have absolute power over all.

I agree with all of this, but I'm not positive at the end. If by "absolute power" you mean the "most power" or even "the most possible power", I agree, but if you mean "infinite power" I say it is a fallacy.

I am not, I am matching his power against HIS own. This is why "all-powerful" falls victim to infinite recursion.

No, you are creating a strawman based on what you think His power should be, based on your proof that you can make something so heavy you can't lift it. You do not seem to understand God's nature. Maybe you should share your definition.

There is no straw man. The only thing I think His power should be is something that is possible. I'm not making claims about God's nature. I'm just showing what we know cannot be part of His nature if he truly exists.

I do not have the concept that God has omnipotence. My position is that the very term "omnipotence" is a self contradiction, and therefore, logically bankrupt and meaningless.

Why did you start the discussion in the first place? What were your starting premises? If you do not have the concept that God is omnipotent, on what basis do you then level any contra-argument? Surely before you can argue against something you must have a concept of what it is you are trying to argue against? How do you define omnipotence as self-contradictory if you do not have a concept of the manifestation of omnipotence? Where do your supposedly seperate concepts of God and omnipotence come from? You keep on referring to the Christian God, also in this message, and you wish to assign adjectives to Him, that are contra to omnipotent, so don't try to deny that this is what you meant.

PurelyIronic claimed that his goal was to prove that it was at least a possibility that an omnipotent being exists. My response was that I can prove it's not possible based on the definition of "omnipotent".

This is not an attack on the Christian god,

Sure it is. If the Christian God is not omnipotent, He is not God, because it implies that there can conceivably be something more powerful, which would mean God is not God.

If you say your god is and always will be the "most powerful", then you are wrong. In which case, He is not being labeled by an illogical attribute and there cannot conceivably be something with more power.

"No where in the bible does it state that God is omnipotent. The bible states the God is "almighty" which in English happens to mean the same thing as omnipotent.

However, The original language of the bible says that God is Shaddai in the place of where it says "almighty" in English bibles.

The word Shaddai is Hebrew for "most powerful."

The only reason we continue to say "god is almighty," is because there are millions of the English version of the bible that use the word almighty as a synonym for the word shaddai.

My guess is that the translators could not find a word in the English language that means “most powerful.” Is there such a word?

Therefore, the biblical word "almighty" does not actually mean the same thing as the American dictionaries define the word as, because the word in the bible is being used in place of shaddai, not the word all-powerful in Hebrew."


Now back to your statement. How can there be something more powerful than the Christian God if the Christian God is "most powerful" like the original Hebrew version of the bible states.

Before I get to the original languages, I want to make another point. If we belive that the true meaning of the Bible is going missing in translation then we have a big problem. Being almighty is one of the key characteristics of God, and has implications on His power to save sinners if He is not. We therefore have to trust the translation, or else we have cause to to doubt many things for the sake of translation.

On to the translations:

As you say, Almighty in the OT from Hebrew is translated from "shadday". The root of that word is "shadad", which means powerful. In the context where it is used, it can be said as "all powerful", or interestingly when used as "El Shadday" it means "He who suffices".

In the NT, from the Greek, almighty/omnipotent is translated from "pantokrator", with the roots from "pas", meaning all, and "kratos", a primary word meaning dominion, power, strength, might, great.

If we then compare almighty to omnipotent to all powerful, I think we are pretty safe to say that they all mean the same thing, a two-part word that encompasses all (omni), and power (might, potence).

cc5k wrote:

August wrote:Do you know everything there is to know, i.e. every conceivable premise and conclusion, everywhere? What do you mean by logic? Do you mena those things that are described by the laws of logic?

Of course I don't. I mean "valid reasoning" when I say "logic".

So then you agree your "valid reasoning" is bound by your finite experience? Who or what defines valid reasoning? Where does it come from?

I am not equating myself with an all-powerful being. In fact, I'm claiming no such being can exist! Let me clean up my logic so it does not rest on weight or size: "Can the being assemble something that he would be unable to lift?" I don't care the means of which this is attempted or whether or not it succeeds or fails. The point is that regardless of the answer it has shown that the concept of "omnipotence" to be an illogical one.

I am glad you refer to logic and valid reasoning. There are many problems with your question. I have tried to point out before that your question is fallacious, but let me try it another way, since you insist on rephrasing the question, which does not make it any less fallacious.

Your question assumes a contradictory definition. The object of the question, that which an all-powerful being cannot lift, be it a rock or whatever, is a nonsensical object. The logic about the object of the question is thus:
1. An all-powerful being can lift anything
2. The object in question cannot be lifted by the all-powerful being
3. Therefore, the object is something that cannot be lifted by an all-powerful being

The minor premise is false, since no such object can exist, and therefore the conclusion is false. The definition of the object is therefore nonsense, since it is self-contradictory and illogical. Such an object cannot exist, not even in theory.

A circle with 4 corners does not exist, and not only that, it can by definition never exist. Talking about it is meaningless, the words don't mean anything.

If you then want to object that if God is omnipotent, and should therefore be able to create such an object, then you are the one who refuses to use logic and sound reasoning. The object in question is an inherently self-contradictory, nonsensical and illogical construct, which cannot be created any more than a circle with 4 corners.

If you want to talk about God and his nature in a meaningful way, then the language has to make sense.

If by "absolute power" you mean the "most power" or even "the most possible power", I agree, but if you mean "infinite power" I say it is a fallacy.

That is for you to prove. So far, you have not done so, since you have inserted a false premise in your proof.

There is no straw man. The only thing I think His power should be is something that is possible. I'm not making claims about God's nature. I'm just showing what we know cannot be part of His nature if he truly exists.

When you say, "His power should be something that is possible", then you are making a claim about His nature, and that claim is a strawman, since you do not use provide evidence of what the source is of your concept of what that power should be. On what basis do you presume to know what God's power "should be", if not by your own extrapolation? Then you say "what we know cannot be part of His nature", but that is also limited by your personal sphere of knowledge and experience, as you described above. For example, do you know how life came into existence? If not, does that mean you don't believe in life? That would be pretty silly, since we assume we are alive. The keywords are "what we know", or more specifically, what you know. Do you know in what ways God's omnipotence necessarily manifest?

PurelyIronic claimed that his goal was to prove that it was at least a possibility that an omnipotent being exists. My response was that I can prove it's not possible based on the definition of "omnipotent".

That is only an answer to my first question. And the problem remains, where did you get your concept of an omnipotent being from so that you can attempt to disprove it? Because you claim to dispute the existence of an omnipotent being, you have to define and understand both "omnipotent" and "being" if your goal is trying to refute it. I have to add that my concern is with the Christian God, and I could not care less about some hypothetical being.

If you say your god is and always will be the "most powerful", then you are wrong.

That is for you to prove.

In which case, He is not being labeled by an illogical attribute and there cannot conceivably be something with more power.

No, you have come to the conclusion that it is an illogical attribute by inserting a nonsensical premise.

August wrote:So then you agree your "valid reasoning" is bound by your finite experience? Who or what defines valid reasoning? Where does it come from?

As long as we agree on what 'valid reasoning' is, then we can hold each other to it. Let's do that instead of getting off topic.

I am glad you refer to logic and valid reasoning. There are many problems with your question. I have tried to point out before that your question is fallacious, but let me try it another way, since you insist on rephrasing the question, which does not make it any less fallacious.

Your question assumes a contradictory definition. The object of the question, that which an all-powerful being cannot lift, be it a rock or whatever, is a nonsensical object. The logic about the object of the question is thus:
1. An all-powerful being can lift anything
2. The object in question cannot be lifted by the all-powerful being
3. Therefore, the object is something that cannot be lifted by an all-powerful being

The minor premise is false, since no such object can exist, and therefore the conclusion is false. The definition of the object is therefore nonsense, since it is self-contradictory and illogical. Such an object cannot exist, not even in theory.

It's not that no such object can ever exist. Such an object exists for me, and for you. In fact, this question can be answered and make perfect sense to anyone and anything until they try to slap on the label "omnipotent" to whomever is attempting it. THAT is when it becomes illogical. I pose this question to demonstrate that it can always be answered and make perfect sense UNTIL you use the word "omnipotent". That is where the nonsense enters. Not from the question itself.

If you then want to object that if God is omnipotent, and should therefore be able to create such an object, then you are the one who refuses to use logic and sound reasoning. The object in question is an inherently self-contradictory, nonsensical and illogical construct, which cannot be created any more than a circle with 4 corners.

He may or may not be able to create such an object, and I'm not concerned with the outcome. But the construct is not self contradictory if I ask "can being x create it". The contradictory part is when you say, "can being x (who is omnipotent) create it". I realize it's impossible to answer the question, but that's because of the definition YOU are applying to the subject that would attempt it.

If by "absolute power" you mean the "most power" or even "the most possible power", I agree, but if you mean "infinite power" I say it is a fallacy.

That is for you to prove. So far, you have not done so, since you have inserted a false premise in your proof.

There is a false premise, but it is the 'omnipotent' part, and that's my point. That is the "proof".

When you say, "His power should be something that is possible", then you are making a claim about His nature, and that claim is a strawman, since you do not use provide evidence of what the source is of your concept of what that power should be. On what basis do you presume to know what God's power "should be", if not by your own extrapolation? Then you say "what we know cannot be part of His nature", but that is also limited by your personal sphere of knowledge and experience, as you described above. For example, do you know how life came into existence? If not, does that mean you don't believe in life? That would be pretty silly, since we assume we are alive. The keywords are "what we know", or more specifically, what you know. Do you know in what ways God's omnipotence necessarily manifest?

Some of this is tricky because you're asking me to define the attributes of something I am claiming cannot exist. I'll try my best... My assumption is that any 'being' that I am posing my question to should, at least in theory, be able to interact with the structure two independent times (once to build a structure and once to lift it). That is all. That is the setup for the "competition" for the being to essentially compete against himself.

PurelyIronic claimed that his goal was to prove that it was at least a possibility that an omnipotent being exists. My response was that I can prove it's not possible based on the definition of "omnipotent".

That is only an answer to my first question. And the problem remains, where did you get your concept of an omnipotent being from so that you can attempt to disprove it? Because you claim to dispute the existence of an omnipotent being, you have to define and understand both "omnipotent" and "being" if your goal is trying to refute it. I have to add that my concern is with the Christian God, and I could not care less about some hypothetical being.

I got the definition from dictionary.com, but I will gladly use the dictionary of your choice. Well, perhaps this debate should be over now then. I'm not saying the Christian God is omnipotent, and this debate did not stem from the Christian God.

If you say your god is and always will be the "most powerful", then you are wrong.

That is for you to prove.

Sorry, this was a major typo and I realize it made no sense! It was suppose to say this:

This is not an attack on the Christian god

Sure it is. If the Christian God is not omnipotent, He is not God, because it implies that there can conceivably be something more powerful, which would mean God is not God.

If you say the Christian God is and always will be the "most powerful", then there cannot possibly be anything more powerful AND you are not using the term 'omnipotent'. In which case, He is not being labeled by an illogical attribute and there cannot conceivably be something with more power.

Make sense?

No, you have come to the conclusion that it is an illogical attribute by inserting a nonsensical premise.

If I say no shapes are both round and have corners, and my "proof" is "will your shape roll smoothly?" there is not a nonsensical premise. IF you try to say my shape is a square circle THEN the question can no longer be answered, it is your fault for your definition of your shape, not my fault for the original question.


Edited for typos... and there are probably more.

cc5k, why should we take your reasoning and logic as a valid starting point? Also, while I'm at it, why should we take your reasoning and logic to be valid? How are your rules binding on us? Why must we follow them? Transcendence? Anyone?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:cc5k, why should we take your reasoning and logic as a valid starting point? Also, while I'm at it, why should we take your reasoning and logic to be valid? How are your rules binding on us? Why must we follow them? Transcendence? Anyone?

It's not MY reasoning and logic. It's the reasoning and logic that (I thought) all humans agreed on and relied upon to effectively communicate with each other. If there is an issue with the logic I have used that you would wish to address, I'm open to hearing what you have to say.

cc5k wrote:

August wrote:So then you agree your "valid reasoning" is bound by your finite experience? Who or what defines valid reasoning? Where does it come from?

As long as we agree on what 'valid reasoning' is, then we can hold each other to it. Let's do that instead of getting off topic.

No, it is not off-topic, it is the logical pre-condition for you to make any argument that makes sense.

It's not that no such object can ever exist. Such an object exists for me, and for you.

What are you talking about? How can an object that is too big for an all-powerful being to lift exist? I already agreed it does not exist for you and me, but we are not all-powerful beings, and it is fallacious to equivocate such. You have not pointed out the flaw in my logic, you have merely asserted the contrary. If such an object can exist, then logically prove it.

In fact, the answer to this question can be answered ...

Huh?

...and make perfect sense to anyone and anything until they try to slap on the label "omnipotent" to whomever is attempting it.

You just confirmed what I said, the question is nonsense, because the object of the question is nonsense. The subject of the question, an omnipotent God is assumed, (it is the subject being proved or disproved by the argument) so you have to prove that something that cannot be lifted by such a God can exist.

THAT is when it becomes illogical. I pose this question to demonstrate that it can always be answered and make perfect sense UNTIL you use the word "omnipotent". That is where the nonsense enters. Not from the question itself.

So we agree the question is nonsense. If the question is nonsense, then why ask it? And why expect that there can be an answer to a question that is nonsense? But the question is nonsense because you try to insert a nonsensical object, that which is not logically possible to exist.

He may or may not be able to create such an object, and I'm not concerned with the outcome. But the construct is not self contradictory if I ask "can being x create it". The contradictory part is when you say, "can being x (who is omnipotent) create it". I realize it's impossible to answer the question, but that's because of the definition YOU are applying to the subject that would attempt it.

C'mon, I have asked you a few times to define your concept of an omnipotent being and the source of your concept, now you are telling me that I am applying an ad-hoc definition. YOU are the one who refuses to identify the subject that YOU are trying to disprove. You started the discussion speaking about omnipotence and omnipotent beings, I am merely pointing out your logical flaws.

Still, you admit your question is logically flawed, it is impossible to answer. It is your question, not mine, so don't try to make it look as if it's my illogic when it is yours.

There is a false premise, but it is the 'omnipotent' part, and that's my point. That is the "proof".

That is an assertion, not a proof. I thought you knew something about logic? The omnipotence is the major term of the syllogism, not the minor, like the object in question, so it logically cannot be a case of the illicit minor like you are inferring. For you to use that as a proof, you have to make the object the major.

Some of this is tricky because you're asking me to define the attributes of something I am claiming cannot exist.

Fair enough, but you cannot try and prove that "nothing" does not exist, that would an extraordinary waste of time . So you have to define at least what it is that you are trying to disprove.

I'll try my best... My assumption is that any 'being' that I am posing my question to should, at least in theory, be able to interact with the structure two independent times (once to build a structure and once to lift it). That is all. That is the setup for the "competition" for the beint to essentially compete against himself.

Bu the competition makes no sense if what you are asking the being to create is logically impossible. Also, this is not a definition of an omnipotent being that you are trying to refute, it is merely a loose description of the setup, as you said.

I got the definition from dictionary.com, but I will gladly use the dictionary of your choice. According to this reasoning

I assume there is a part missing here?

If you say the Christian God is and always will be the "most powerful", then there cannot possibly be anything more powerful AND you are not using the term 'omnipotent'. In which case, He is not being labeled by an illogical attribute and there cannot conceivably be something with more power.

Ok, what is the difference between being the most powerful, and being omnipotent? Omni=all, potent=powerful....or is it about the difference between "all" and "most"?

If I say no shapes are either round or have corners, and my "proof" is "will your shape roll smoothly?" there is not a nonsensical premise. IF you try to say my shape is a square circle THEN the question can no longer be answered, it is your fault for your definition of your shape, not my fault for the original question.

What are you talking about? How does that relate to your original question:

Can God create an object that he cannot lift?

The object is clearly defined in the question, it is something that God cannot lift. It is not a shapeless indeterminate object like you now want to claim. I did not insert anything, I proved that such an object is nonsensical. If you want to prove the contrary, that such an object can logically exist, then go ahead, but don't try to deny what you asked.

August wrote:

cc5k wrote:

August wrote:So then you agree your "valid reasoning" is bound by your finite experience? Who or what defines valid reasoning? Where does it come from?

As long as we agree on what 'valid reasoning' is, then we can hold each other to it. Let's do that instead of getting off topic.

No, it is not off-topic, it is the logical pre-condition for you to make any argument that makes sense.

See my most recent post.

It's not that no such object can ever exist. Such an object exists for me, and for you.

What are you talking about? How can an object that is too big for an all-powerful being to lift exist? I already agreed it does not exist for you and me, but we are not all-powerful beings, and it is fallacious to equivocate such. You have not pointed out the flaw in my logic, you have merely asserted the contrary. If such an object can exist, then logically prove it.

I'm saying such an object will always exist UNTIL you say the being is "omnipotent", in which case the question is no longer answerable.

In fact, the answer to this question can be answered ...

Huh?

Hit 'submit' instead of 'preview' on accident and then went to a meeting. Didn't see it til I got back.

...and make perfect sense to anyone and anything until they try to slap on the label "omnipotent" to whomever is attempting it.

You just confirmed what I said, the question is nonsense, because the object of the question is nonsense. The subject of the question, an omnipotent God is assumed, (it is the subject being proved or disproved by the argument) so you have to prove that something that cannot be lifted by such a God can exist.

The question is not nonsense until you use the term "omnipotent". That is my point. Same thing as my example of does your shape roll. As soon as you say your shape to test is a "square circle" the question no longer makes sense. That's your fault for imagining up an illogical subject to be tested.

THAT is when it becomes illogical. I pose this question to demonstrate that it can always be answered and make perfect sense UNTIL you use the word "omnipotent". That is where the nonsense enters. Not from the question itself.

So we agree the question is nonsense. If the question is nonsense, then why ask it? And why expect that there can be an answer to a question that is nonsense? But the question is nonsense because you try to insert a nonsensical object, that which is not logically possible to exist.

Why, you ask? It's asked for someone who saying "an omnipotent being can possibly exist", just like my question for the shape is asked for the person saying "a square circle can possibly exist". It's to provide a simple mental exercise to the person to demonstrate the paradox in the object they have claimed to be possible.

He may or may not be able to create such an object, and I'm not concerned with the outcome. But the construct is not self contradictory if I ask "can being x create it". The contradictory part is when you say, "can being x (who is omnipotent) create it". I realize it's impossible to answer the question, but that's because of the definition YOU are applying to the subject that would attempt it.

C'mon, I have asked you a few times to define your concept of an omnipotent being and the source of your concept, now you are telling me that I am applying an ad-hoc definition. YOU are the one who refuses to identify the subject that YOU are trying to disprove. You started the discussion speaking about omnipotence and omnipotent beings, I am merely pointing out your logical flaws.

I don't have a concept of it that makes sense because I'm saying it does not make sense. I used the definition from the dictionary, and I told you that.

Still, you admit your question is logically flawed, it is impossible to answer. It is your question, not mine, so don't try to make it look as if it's my illogic when it is yours.

It is my question but your 'omnipotent' being that we are applying my question to. My point is that the illogical part comes from what you bring to the table, not me.

There is a false premise, but it is the 'omnipotent' part, and that's my point. That is the "proof".

That is an assertion, not a proof. I thought you knew something about logic? The omnipotence is the major term of the syllogism, not the minor, like the object in question, so it logically cannot be a case of the illicit minor like you are inferring. For you to use that as a proof, you have to make the object the major.

My misuse of terms does not change the fact that the 'omnipotent' part is the fallacy, and no other part of the question. You seem to be ignoring that.

Some of this is tricky because you're asking me to define the attributes of something I am claiming cannot exist.

Fair enough, but you cannot try and prove that "nothing" does not exist, that would an extraordinary waste of time . So you have to define at least what it is that you are trying to disprove.

I'm trying to disprove that an 'omnipotent' being can exist. This is a similar exercise as disproving that a 'square circle' can exist.

I'll try my best... My assumption is that any 'being' that I am posing my question to should, at least in theory, be able to interact with the structure two independent times (once to build a structure and once to lift it). That is all. That is the setup for the "competition" for the beint to essentially compete against himself.

Bu the competition makes no sense if what you are asking the being to create is logically impossible. Also, this is not a definition of an omnipotent being that you are trying to refute, it is merely a loose description of the setup, as you said.

My point exactly. It's logically impossible because it's a logically impossible being that we're asking this task to.

I got the definition from dictionary.com, but I will gladly use the dictionary of your choice. According to this reasoning

I assume there is a part missing here?

Yep, from the same accidental submittal. I have updated my post. My apologies.

If you say the Christian God is and always will be the "most powerful", then there cannot possibly be anything more powerful AND you are not using the term 'omnipotent'. In which case, He is not being labeled by an illogical attribute and there cannot conceivably be something with more power.

Ok, what is the difference between being the most powerful, and being omnipotent? Omni=all, potent=powerful....or is it about the difference between "all" and "most"?

Most powerful means there is nothing with more power. All powerful has no meaning because it is a self contradiction.

If I say no shapes are either round or have corners, and my "proof" is "will your shape roll smoothly?" there is not a nonsensical premise. IF you try to say my shape is a square circle THEN the question can no longer be answered, it is your fault for your definition of your shape, not my fault for the original question.

What are you talking about? How does that relate to your original question:

Can God create an object that he cannot lift?

The object is clearly defined in the question, it is something that God cannot lift. It is not a shapeless indeterminate object like you now want to claim. I did not insert anything, I proved that such an object is nonsensical. If you want to prove the contrary, that such an object can logically exist, then go ahead, but don't try to deny what you asked.

I made no claims of whether or not the object could be lifted. That is determined by the being's abilities.

The object in question will always exist. The part that never exists is the omnipotent being, and that's my point.