Explain this

I have an answer to this paradox that I personally find very satisfying. For me it comes down to an issue of semantics. The paradox is rephrasing Gods inability as an ability.

Instead of saying
>"Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it"
We can rephrase it as
>"Can God not lift a thing he's created"

We know that God is ominpotent and we can define omnipotence, for the sake of this discussion, as the ability to create infinitely heavy things and the ability to lift infinitely heavy things.

So what we can again rephrase the paradox as

>Can God create an infinitely heavy thing and then not lift it?
The answer to which is yes, he can choose not to lift things

or

>Can God lack the ability to lift an infinitely heavy thing?
The answer to which is no, he can lift infinitely heavy things.

>>9257552
>modal fallacy
There's a reason no serious philosopher has used this argument for decades, OP.

>>9257663

Can you explain how the argument uses a modal fallacy?

>>9257552
btfo'd 1600 years ago by Augustine

>For we do not put the life of God or the foreknowledge of God under necessity if we should say that it is necessary that God should live forever, and foreknow all things; as neither is His power diminished when we say that He cannot die or fall into error,—for this is in such a way impossible to Him, that if it were possible for Him, He would be of less power. But assuredly He is rightly called omnipotent, though He can neither die nor fall into error. For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.

>>9257720
>he can do anything
>but he can't do some things because he can do anything

>>9257683
Can I google that for you?
...okay
http://www.iep.utm.edu/omnipote/
http://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/modal_fallacy.htm

>>9257720
>For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills
So either he wills us to suffer, in which case he is malicious, or he doesn't, in which case he isn't omnipotent. To say that God can't force e.g. human suffering because of his omnipotence is a contradiction in terms.
>omnipotence doesn't apply to our free will
Then he's still not omnipotent, because in certain cases a human will is more powerful than the will of God

File: The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled.gif (998KB, 498x210px) Image search: [Google]

998KB, 498x210px

>>9257855
Welcome to gnosticism.

>>9257855
>So either he wills us to suffer, in which case he is malicious, or he doesn't, in which case he isn't omnipotent.

there is no evil, only the absence of good. God is the supreme good. It is our nature to cleave to him, and a perversion to turn away. We are created good (although of a lesser order than God), but endowed with free choice.

When we choose not to partake in him, we lose our grasp on the good and suffer 'evils' as a result

>>9257855
>in certain cases a human will is more powerful than the will of God
example?

File: GMA 3972.jpg (64KB, 540x423px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 540x423px

>>9257552
You can do anything in fiction.

File: christiain.png (3MB, 2560x2739px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2560x2739px

>>9257720

Yea, I'm a huge Augustine fan but this is not a very good quote.

There's two ways to look at god's omnipotence in reference to OPs challenge:

A) God has the ability to give himself an inability

B) Play the Faith card: God's omnipotence is above our understanding as humans and any attempt to fully comprehend it is just silly.

>>9257644
So God can not make a rock so heavy he lacks the ability to lift it?

>>9258552
>A) God has the ability to give himself an inability
But that brings up a paradox, if God is omnipotent, he should have the ability to give himself inability, but if he has the inability to do something, how is he still omnipotent, since now there are things he can't do? This paradox in my opinion makes omnipotence seem impossible.
B) Play the Faith card: God's omnipotence is above our understanding as humans and any attempt to fully comprehend it is just silly.
Why not just play the Faith card the other way and say there is no God?

>>9258647

>Why not just play the Faith card the other way and say there is no God?

Right, you're totally free to do that. I however really do believe in god and the trinity. Atheism, in that sense, is faith as well. Christianity is more welcoming to atheists than most think though, see Paul who was a non-believer and persecutor and later became one of the highest authorities in Christendom.

>but if he has the inability to do something, how is he still omnipotent?

Because he decided to not be able to do the task in question. In the next moment he could reverse it if he pleased to.

>>9257855
Or suffering isn't actually evil.
>>9257959
>example?
That time when Moses tells God not to be a silly fuck on top of the mountain.

That time when Israel wrestles with God and forces him to bless him.