Omnipotence paradox

File: terk.jpg (25KB, 252x276px)

25KB, 252x276px

>>3030094
Maybe he can't lift the rock in this reality but in another she can.

>>3030094
Omnipotence is a logical impossibility.

Can Allah create an another Allah, with another name, which he cannot kill?

>>3030122
>ywn get a 5th part of the desert trilogy where hod makes another god and they fight it out.

>>3030094
It depends on how you define 'God'.

File: Mary.jpg (291KB, 640x1001px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 640x1001px

>>3030094
Jew here, Christians are complete idiots with their false Messiah and ridiculous theology. Obviously G*d is not omnipotent, that is a completely nonsense concept as your question adequately shows.

>>3030159
If you would like to define God and answer OP's question then go ahead.

Yes, and then he would lift it

>>3030168
jews are LARPers. going around with their "we wuz hebrews an shieeet".

>>3030177
Then he can't create a rock that he cannot lift.

>>3030094
Yes. Then, He can lift it.

>>3030194
Yes he can, and then he would lift it

>>3030188
Says the Christian LARPing as one of G*d's chosen.

>>3030168
What do you mean? YHWH is also omnipotent according to jews.

>>3030199
>>3030203
That doesn't make sense.

>>3030207
Not true.

>>3030204
Israel is one big amusement park.
>revive nearly dead language, because why not?
>actually call your money shekels
>most of the jews are ethnically european/turk/med

>>3030094
>What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?

What if... listen to me... what if rather than omnipotence meaning "do whatever the fuck I want", we define omnipotence as "do whatever is possible within the rules I imposed"?

Think on football. Omnipotence wouldn't mean "score a goal by running around the world, through Japan, Europe and back to America, so fast nobody would follow me", it would mean "scoring a goal by kicking the ball so hard it goes from one goal to another". The first is against the rules, because you're leaving the field, but the later is perfectly within the rules, as the whole point of the game is to score goals without touching the ball with your hands.

Therefore, breaking the rules for the sake of it isn't omnipotence, is plain dickery. So to answer the OP question, we have to define first the rules about this particular question. And given the things, I tend to believe God wouldn't do something that he couldn't retroactively undo, therefore, no, He can't create a rock that He can't lift, because that would be something beyond His own strength. However, that doesn't mean He isn't omnipotent, is just that the current set of rules doesn't allow that thing to happen, ever.

Back to the starting question I quote, the irresistible force paradox, the answer is simply and similar: in a universe where one can exists, the other can't, therefore is a moot point.

>>3030111
>omnipotence
>bound by logic
Isn't this like, contradictory?

>>3030094
Yes, because he is god.
People still don't get it that the rules of logic don't apply to god, because he is god.

File: Aishwarya_Rai.jpg (59KB, 431x604px)

59KB, 431x604px

>>3030216
I'm not clear what your point or problem is, goy. Try not speaking in random greentext.

File: kutt.jpg (40KB, 600x593px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x593px

>>3030168
>Obviously G*d is not omnipotent, that is a completely nonsense concept as your question adequately shows.
But my towns Rabbi told me he was.

And is Omnipresent.

And is Omniscient

And is Eternal

And has Nanite Manipulation powers

And can use Monotheistic Deity Physiology

And knows Waterbending

>>3030227
It is like Pinoys claiming the Vatican is their ancestral homeland. simply because they happen to be catholic. then italians starting decades of terrorism across italy and the western world to remove the Pinoys.

>>3030223
Hmm so you mean the idea of god isn't logical. In a universe that is completely dictated by logic.

thinking face

>>3030173
Well if you take a pantheistic view, and consider God and the Universe as the same thing, he would not be able to. God would be able to do anything possible within the universe, but to go above that would be to go above himself. Although in this sense, God might not have a personality,so he might not have the will to do it in the first place.

Weight and strength are only concepts in the physical universe, and not necessarily in the spiritual world. So a god may be able to create a rock, and if he had an identity he couldn't be able to move it, but because he is also the universe he would have the power to move it at the same time. This is basically some kind of bastardization that uses trinitarian concepts to merge a Pantheistic God and a Christian one. I personally don't believe my God is all-powerful.

>>3030208
God is bigger than what your mind can understand

God don't useful. Very hard get something useful from him

>>3030241
>In a universe that is completely dictated by logic.
>

>>3030244
So the answer to OP's question in your view is 'no'. That's all you had to say.

>>3030250
That's another way of saying "I can't answer OP's question".

>>3030239
I still have no idea what the hell you are on about, although in fairness Flip politics and history isn't my strong point. Would you mind properly explaining.

File: frodo.png (325KB, 560x559px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 560x559px

>>3030234
Did he now? How you got some citations about this being a mainstream Jewish concept rather than you randomly claiming a local Rabbi said something?

>>3030275
name one (1) thing in the universe that doesn't follow logical progression and follow strict logical rules.

>>3030340
Women.

File: 1488666041970.jpg (672KB, 2139x3029px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 2139x3029px

No he cannot, in the Christian religion omnipotence does not extend to logical impossibilities. While the Deity can violate the laws of physics or chains of causality, he cannot create real contradictions. This is not a question of power, but of sense.

God can throw a galaxy like a discus, because while there is a thousand physics reasons that is impossible, there is not a single logical reason it can't be done. There is no contradiction in the idea of a galaxy, and the idea of its being thrown.

However the idea of making perfectly free slaves, square circles, or so on, that is to say true contradictions [and ignoring the possibility of using weird-logic so that they no longer contradict, such as making 'square circles' using non-Euclid bullshit or something], he can't do that.

People who try and make God "above" basic logic in reality accomplish nothing but making him below it. And as to those who will say that "The ability to perform any logically-coherent action or manifest any logically-coherent phenomena" doesn't count as 'Omnipotence', I will simply state that is how I am defining it for my conception of Deity, and note that the alternative conception "The ability to do absolutely anything no matter how absurd" is, well, absurd.

File: i_know_allah.jpg (190KB, 730x1095px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 730x1095px

>>3030094
Obviously he does. God creates the rock he cannot lift and then just lifts it because he is omnipotent.

God here.

I can't but only bc I don't even want to try

Can God kill Satan?

File: keity.jpg (64KB, 600x593px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x593px

>>3030303
>How you got some citations about this being a mainstream Jewish concept rather than you randomly claiming a local Rabbi said something?
The other towns Rabbi said something similar.

But I don't trust him since he's a Haredi and known to dabble in the Dark arts.

File: article-0-0A697ADB000005DC-177_306x423.jpg (23KB, 306x423px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 306x423px

>>3030373
He sounds like a Palestinian, mate.

File: joos.jpg (176KB, 1200x797px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1200x797px

>>3030393
Aren't they all?

File: slave.png (767KB, 803x528px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 803x528px

>>3030404
You make a good pint.

What's your position on slave girls? I'm personally all for it.

File: succturk.jpg (36KB, 443x380px)

36KB, 443x380px

>>3030435
In this modern age it is considered taboo since the slut goods are usually used more times than they are worth to trade rather than the pure christian virgings you can get from the balkans.

That and Internet porn exists.

If God is infinite in His very nature, then to create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift, God would have to create something greater than Himself - who is infinite - which is impossible. But not only that, God would have to deal with physical realities that simply make the proposition in our universe impossible.
Firstly, God cannot create a physical rock of infinite mass, because no such matter can exist on our plane of existence. Matter is, by its very nature, finite.
Secondly, we have to look at what it means to "lift" something to begin with. To "lift" means to elevate something against the current predominant gravitational field. Newton's law of universal gravitation suggests that the gravitational pull between two objects is directly proportional to their masses. So not only would God have to create something of infinite mass, but He would have to create a plane of existence where there is an infinite force of gravity acting against Him to lift the mass, but the plane of existence would also have to act in such a way that its gravity was somehow greater than the infinite mass.
So, if God were to fundamentally alter the gravitational coefficient, the laws of gravity, or the definition of lift - and thus cause the physical universe as we know it to cease - then yes, He could create something of so great a mass that He could not lift it, thus causing the end of all things. But, as we see, this is simply impossible.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem exists, yet mathematics is still useful, and the universe exists.

The world is full of paradoxes, but they are non-breaking paradoxes, my friend.

File: omomom.png (12KB, 1024x768px)

12KB, 1024x768px

>>3030492
> God would have to create something greater than Himself - who is infinite - which is impossible.
Nice meme. Recently mathematics discovered that there are infinities far greater than the common one. Nothing stops God from creating Super God, except, maybe the fact that Super God already exists (and this si from where God came to be at the first place).

>>3030122
No. Liebniz's Law.

>>3030241
>In a universe that is completely dictated by logic.

But he created that universe and all its logical laws from nothing. What makes you think he can't warp them in ways that would seem impossible for us to understand?

>>3030168

fuck off khazar

>>3030340
Name 1 thing thay actually does and show me the complete proof.

>>3030345
Where in the bible you can get those convenient set of rules?

>>3031824
Ah yes, the pop-sci retards have arrived.

>>3030094
An omnipotent beeing can do anything, even take away its own omnipotence.
So yes, God could create a rock he cannot lift, but then he would stop beeing omnipotent

>>3030094
using some form of realitvity he probably could. he could create a rock that is too heavy to life from the point of view of one observer, but the same rock is being lifted by another observer.

>>3030094

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQaQvUhnc_M

>>3030168
>Jew here,

Stop LARPing and go back to Poland, Kazimierz.

Yes. This rock is Allah who is stronger than Jesus.

>>3030094
You have simply worded the question wrong.

You are asking if there is something an omnipotent being can not do and the answer to that is always no, because the being can do everything.

So a proper wording of the question would be "Can God create a rock with eternal mass and still lift it" and the answer to that is yes.

Youre wrong wording is "Cant God create a rock with eternal mass and still lift it" and the answer to that is no.

>>3032028
>hurr durr the bible is the only piece of canon and i read some cherry picked verses from the old testament once so i know what im talknig about

>>3030094
you fail to realize that time exists making anything possible

>>3032251
Well, that gos can't work outside logic is a pretty good answer, but I really cant2 rap my mind how it could possibly have a theological basia of the philosophical basis isn't even that clear cut.

>>3031996
Because he didn't create the universe. The Wise Lord, Ahura Mazda did.

>>3030094
He can't. If he can't then he can't and if he can then he can't because ex falso quodlibet.

>>3030094
He doesn't exist, so no.

>>3030223
Claims about omnipotence are logical claims.

yes but he can also lift it

doesn't make sense? that's because it is beyond your understanding.

Such a rock doesn't exist. Thus, he can't lift it, since it doesn't exist.

Once he creates it, it exists, so he can lift it.

>>3030094
He should be able to add and remove that property at will.

Religions reference it the other way around. They don't define what omnipotence is, and then measure if God can live up to it. Instead they define God himself as omnipotent, therefore everything god can do is the definition of omnipotency. Or in other words, God holds all the powers an entity can hold, and if there is something that cant be done by God, it cant be done by anyone or anything.

>>3032390
> if there is something that cant be done by God, it cant be done by anyone or anything
Does it mean that God can sin?

>>3030168
They're idiots? Obviously believing in talking snakes, that bacon is not delicious but evil, a distortion of ancient historical facts and a megalomaniacle viewpoint in which you declare yourself to be better than the rest is better, right? I'm pretty sure that the Nazi's tought the same about themselves. It's a good thing that they found zero evidence for Moses, but it's a shame that you guys still hold on to your disproven beliefs, because you're still stuck believing in a fictional past.

>>3030250
Shit I don't think this guy's trolling

>>3032393
Since sin in defintion are acts that Gods deem bad, of course God himself can just change that definition and whatever he does immediately becomes a non-sin. Like for example when he killed millions of people although he said himself killing people is a sin.

File: 1496621375699.jpg (26KB, 500x407px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x407px

>>3030199
>>3030203
>>3030250
I used to think it was just edginess when people compared faith with mental disorder.

>>3032405
*tib* *tib* *inserts banana* *dies alone*

>>3030345
I like it. I'm not really a theist but this seems coherent.

Would then logic not supercede divinity, given that it binds Creator and created? God and creation thus being a consequence of nature?

This seems similar to the moral paradox - is it good because God wills it, or does God will it because it is good. Your conception of deity seems to suggest the latter, no?

>>3031824
Christ

>>3032433
God is logic or something like that is your best bet. if you don't want God to be the absurd entity that is above it.

>>3032433
Maybe we are what one day will be the supergod and all this is just the process of creation like an embryo growing in the womb of the mother.

File: 0013-1399114657995.jpg (123KB, 725x756px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 725x756px

>>3030094
Omnipotence means that god can do everything
Nowhere does it say that paradoxes created from human languages apply to him

>>3032493
Omnipotence is human language term if the language doesn't apply to God that means we don't know anything about him.

>>3032474
This. Super-God is a most logical theory of them all. If there is God, why there can't be God's God who is even beyond God's realm?

>>3030221
>Let's redefine omnipotence to something other than omnipotence so that we can still claim that god has that characteristic-the post

>>3032497
What's the problem with admitting that we don't know anything about him ?

>>3032431
Alrighty then

>>3032443
God in the traditional theistic sense cannot be logic, however nature can be (which is why I used them interchangablely). The type of God theists tend to talk about is personal and conscious. Logic may be a quality of "His," but given that logic itself is an abstraction, as may be nature, it cannot used interchangeably unless we equate God and nature in a Spinozan fashion, but again we would then no longer be talking about a creator person which this kind of discussion is focused on.

>>3032474
>>3032502
That's another way of saying there is no God. It's a pretty intellectually dishonest way of going about it imo unless you're not even talking about the same type of God in which case is just intellectually lacking

He can make it so heavy he cannot lift it but the minute he wants to lift it he can. The omnipotence of wanting to lift it overrides the omnipotence of making it so heavy he cannot lift it.

Think of it crassly like this:
You are omnipotent.
You cause all ice cream to be forever entirely strawberry flavored instantly the universe over.
You then decide to make all ice cream to be forever entirely vanilla flavored instantly the universe over.

If you cannot revert the omnipotence of making all ice cream strawberry flavored then you are not omnipotent. If you can revert your omnipotence it does not mean you were not omnipotent, it just means all-encompassing power you wish to apply at that moment is replacing the all encompassing power you wished to apply earlier.

Now yeah if God thinks "I want to make a rock I cannot lift and lift it" he's got a shitty paradox, except by the chronology of that thought his last thought is "I want to lift it". So that is the omnipotent expression.

If it's some "I want to make this rock I both cannot and can lift at the exact same time" then God is a right cheeky cunt for making such a paradox.

>>3030345

I'd rescind what I said >>3032547 and just agree with what you said. If he wanted to create a universe or a capacity to pull some of that non-euclid bullshit then he could. But by the laws of his creation he cannot. The omnipotence is that he could go and create some non-euclid bullshit, but he didn't. Arguing if he could or couldn't is like arguing why didn't God create the color [insert some jibberish zalgo text]. It's immaterial.

I for one am glad god didn't create a universe that resembles the fucking warp of 40k.

>>3030168
Do you seriously think your shitty religion is any better kek

Yes. Then he lifts it with the other arm.

>>3030094
he would give us an answer we can never comprehend

>>3032583
You seem to comprehend that pretty well there

>>3032535
> That's another way of saying there is no God.
It isn't. God is one thing. Super-God is another, much greater one. Both exist and important for their respective roles in the universe.

>>3032512
There is no problem, except most people wouldn't admit that they don't know anything about God.

>>3030111

the sum of all powers simultaneously is omnipotence, its just not a someone

File: 1496360854270.png (82KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 300x250px

>>3032028
>>3032433
>>3032556
The mere fact of the Deity being one thing means by necessity He is not other contradictory things.

If the Deity is Courageous that means by definition He is not a coward. If He is Honest then He, by utmost necessity, is not a liar. Ignorant laymen running in and trying to bolster His reputation by saying "He is above courage and cowardice!" are saying nothing of value, they're just trying to imply a transcendent quality where none even theoretically exists.

The basic principles of logic mean that if a thing is a thing, it is that thing. It is identical to itself. God is God, that means whatever He is, He isn't not-God. God being all powerful doesn't mean He can perform contradictions because performing a contradiction isn't a question of power but of logic. Trying to make Him above such a thing merely puts Him below it, and makes Him the laughing stock of the unbeliever.

And that is without getting into the theodicy side of this argument, namely that most of the arguments against the problem of Evil [such as free will] vanish like smoke if you assume God can do the blatantly impossible such as create perfectly obedient beings with liberty.

do the jews believe in the cosmic and earthly face of God? Is the trinity like an upgrade of that?

>>3030094
Omnipotence in and of itself requires a being not confined in the medium of time and space, on the contrary omnipotence necessitates a transcendent position.
From a position transcendent of space, materiality can be manipulated, and...
From a position transcendent of time, the law of identity in logic no longer applies (because it consists in a closed system) and therefore the rock can be in many conditions at once, hence simultaneously possible and impossible to lift.

It's a lot like Schrodinger's cat.

>>3030094
Can he not both not lift and lift the rock at the same time? He can do literally anything

yeah

but he can make it liftable as soon as he wishes to

therefore it is liftable

>>3032493

So god can't make human languages paradox-less?

Why are you assuming God is bound by logical rules?

Logic is literally a creation of human beings. Why would he be subject to it?

>>3035646

Um. So god isn't powerful enough to create logic and the rules associated with that?

That our reasoning was created by evolution?

Or are you saying God is just an irrational being that doesn't play rules he sets forth?

I'm pretty sure that most Renaissance theologians were pretty much on the agreement that God was logical. Try not to project.

>>3035676
>So god isn't powerful enough to create logic

Humans created logic. Not God. Just like humans created mathematics, science and a whole host of other things.

>I'm pretty sure that most Renaissance theologians were pretty much on the agreement that God was logical.

No, they tried to defend their faith by using logic. That's not the same as claiming God is logical.

>>3035684

So god is ignorant on the maths and sciences and general human thought process?

I mean if he were omnipotent, he'd be aware that by creating man a certain way and creating rules of nature and science that math and various other logical thought processes would emerge.

Unless you believe all that shit is made up by Satan.

>>3030094
Can humans create weighs they cannot lift, but lift later on?

>>3030221
Gee, what happens when you irradiate a static object?

Retarded meme is retarded.

>>3030094
Sure, God isn't restrained by logic.

>>3030168
>>3030094
Maybe....

And bear with me for a second here......

Just maybe....

God isn't real.

>>3035695
Look, why would an agent be subject to the rules of something, when he is the source of the rules in the first place?

>>3030366
Yes. Even an angel can kill satan

Mathematically this would be translated to "Can a set that contains everything contain itself ?".

>>3035717

"Do as I say. Not as I do."

Is God irrational? If he isn't logical or abides by his promises then what then?

He created us in his image. Sooooo.... Is that not true? If he did not give us the ability understand greater concepts then ourselves, then don't we have imperfect information? Ergo we have no free will because we don't understand the choices we make?

>>3035775
God in the traditional sense, is the transcendent creator of everything in the universe.

Even if you don't agree that it's true, it seems facetious to argue that a Being conceived as such would be constrained by rules that only apply to human beings.

>>3030094
Yes, he can just create a rock and then decide to not ever lift it.

>>3030250
But you can understand it, and discuss how he would do it. Sure.
Face it, your "You can't comprehend god" argument is stupid since believers are the ones always going about how or why he would do and judge things.

>>3030094
A rock that cannot be lifted is a nonsensical concept, it's like asking if God can make a triangle with four angles. The question itself is logically flawed, not God's omnipotence.

>>3030168
>Jew here
Stopped reading.

>>3030094
Look, here's the thing.


Omnipotence is beyond our logic. If God existed, he wouldn't be even understandable for our limited minds because (for example) He wouldn't be like spirit-body or something like this like us humans. It would be a single unity (like a supreme monad of Leibniz, for example) and His immense willing would show itself within the bounds of the "self " of God.
It's like something irrational and illogic and infinite could be understood by individuals with finite possibilities and means. As Kant teaches us with his critique to the proof of existence of God of Anselm of Canterbury, there's no way to jump from the rational level of our brains to an irrational one.


Whichever God you may think of, that wouldn't exist, because it's a creation of yours.
No God can create a rock he can't lift because the idea of the logic paradox can't be applied to him.

This is also a reason for which all the religions are false.
sorry for any mistakes

File: helping-the-retarded.jpg (30KB, 318x475px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 318x475px

>>3037668
Lets start with the idea thing.

The notion of an 'illogical' entity, or a being 'beyond' logic is just an ignorant statement made by people who want to make God even more transcendent then He already is, but in reality just ends up turning a completely coherent conception of Divinity into a ridiculous mess.

Yes God is above the petty laws of created Nature.

No God is not above the simple laws of coherence, the relation between statements, and the basic principles of logic. The argument in favor of the logical God is obvious, a God who wasn't logical [in this basic sense of not possessing contradictory attributes] would be absurd and therefore not real. The argument in favor of the illogical God is simply an appeal to transcendence. God is big, therefore he must be "bigger" then everything.

Such an argument taken to its end conclusion ends in a pointlessly stupid God.

God cannot be All-Benevolent, he must be 'above' benevolence and malice.

God cannot be All-Knowing, he must know everything and nothing.

God cannot be Good, he must be 'above' Good and Evil.

God cannot be anything or described in any terms whatsoever because he is 'above' any possible dichotomy positive or negative, instead possessing both to the uttermost in a contradictory fashion.

Such a ridiculous Monad of nonsense may well be posited, but it is not the God of Theology who, while infinitely complex and of whom knowledge is all too often approximate, is nonetheless logical, coherent, possessing of clear attributes and lacking certain others, and readily comprehended by human beings, if not necessarily in full.

>>3030100

This is the ONLY correct answer in this shitty thread.

The omnipotence paradox can easily be solved by the many worlds theory in quantum mechanics. God can do virtually anything - and nothing at the same time.

>>3039176
Have you considered that coherence and logic emanate from God?
That such concepts came into being out of god's own will in establishing an order, and likewise formed into aspects of god's own character?
Just because something enforces a law does not mean it is indifferent to it.

The way you describe the 'basic principles of logic' make them out to be something grander than god himself.

>>3037668
>Omnipotence is beyond our logic.

So God is beyond logic? You agree then that nothing meaningful can be said of God, then?

>>3039359
Meaning as per the common human conception has no objective meaning. The God, as it exists, is above all human and earthly conception.
It can only be understood to be, and little else. As for omnipotence, it may in fact only be arbitrarily powerful.

>>3039176
>A God who wasn't logical would be absurd
Ok
>and therefore not real
wrong lol

File: 1481492537839.png (147KB, 745x814px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 745x814px

>>3039352
>>3039392
No, logic and coherence are not creations of God. If God has definite traits, if God is subject to even approximate description, if He is some things and isn't some other things, then that means there is an entire network of abstract concepts that would describe the Deity even if there was no Creation at all.

The question could be viewed like this. Would God still be compassionate if no universe existed? That is, does that trait have real existence in the mind of the Almighty, or is it merely a mask He adopted after bringing the universe into being and only applicable when viewed from said universe?

The same can be said of all descriptions of Him. If He possesses real traits in His own mind, viewed as He views it, then there is a network of concepts that co-exist with the Divine and are not His creations but rather things that have pre-existence. Either because such terms are good approximate descriptors for the actual reality of God, or because they have real pre-existence in the mind of God.

Some ancient theologians went so far as to say that all the designs and concepts of the cosmos find their archetype in the mind of God, and all things that possess a certain trait do so by imitating its presence in the mind of the God of Heaven. I personally do not think I agree with such Platonic notions, but they are far closer to the truth then the idea that God created all abstract qualities when he created the universe, and Himself has no absolute descriptors.

Reductionism is cancer

>>3039389
If God is above any human understanding we should not pretend that we understand anything about him. Could as well not exist.

>>3039641
Yes, but failing to recognize the God's existence is false, and falsehood is evil. Worshipping the God is unnecessary, but not acknowledging it is false.

>>3030239

kek. in what universe??? this is completely untrue and unheard of, until today. retard.

File: Hard Question.jpg (10KB, 300x299px)

10KB, 300x299px

>>3039661
Can you really acknowledge what is truly unknowable?

>>3039746
Of course moron, people acknowledge concepts they don't know all the time.

>>3030094
>Why doesn't the god I built of straw follow lazy assumptions humans made about the nature of contradiction?

Really, really, REALLY makes you think.

>>3030340
How can the universe be logical if nothing can come from nothing?
Logic dictates everything has a beginning but it also says to create something you need something

>>3030094
Is not being able to not be able to do everything preclude omnipotence?

>>3039903
/thread

>>3030094
Yes and No.

God has a physical body which is Jesus Christ, even though he can perform miracles he is still constrained by his physical body so in a way there are many rocks that he can't lift without a miracle.

And then there's the fact that's he's fucking God so he can pretty do whatever he wants, so yes he can make a rock that he cannot lift, even though it is paradoxical to us.

>>3039903
What incorrect assumptions about god are being made in that post?

Why doesn't god intervene anymore in the world? Why am I supposed to blindly believe a concept coined in a book written by people who had a far kesser knowledge of thibgs that I do?

Yes he can. What would define God not being able to lift a rock? A chronological order. I am currently not able to lift a weight above 100 kg. If I train I can become strong enough to do so. God can create a rock and then become strong enough to lift it. But wait, wouldn't that be an endless loop of rock too light-rock too heavy-rock too light? Sure in our chronologically bound brains yes. But god has no problem with existing in a quantum state in which he both can and cannot lift the rock. He is simultaneously able to not only lift the rock but be in every possible state he could have towards that rock. What we usually confer with omnipotence is that state of his many planes of existence in which he holds ultimate power above all things, we often forget that true omnipotence and omnipresence (which isnt limited to the spacial plane of existence) also means that there simultaneously is a state of god in which he is literally incapable of doing anything.

Not even a christian, but your understanding of what this supposed god would be like is simply too limited to let it stand. Read up nigguhs.

God and rocks is not even relevant, because in God's shoes there are no rocks.

>>3030221
Fits with pop theology (I.e. Simulation theory)

>>3030094
>omnipotence paradox
Why would God create an unliftable stone in the first place?

>>3030221
This is the only sensible definition of omnipotence.

>>3040449
Logic doesn't dictate everything has a beginning. That's just brainlet fantasy. What "logic" are you referring to?