Omnipotence = Ability to do all things


Can God create a rock that he can not move?

1) Yes.
-able to create the rock
-unable to move the rock.................impotence. omnipotence debunked!


2) No.
-able to move all rocks
-unable to create the unmovable rock.............impotence

Omnipotence is a self-contradicting phenomena.


Omnipotence = ability to do all things

However, the ability to do all things would also require the ability not to be omnipotent!

I'll ask you a similar question:

"Does your mother know that you are stupi[i]d[/i]?"

If you say yes, then you are stupi[i]d[/i] and your mother knows it
If you say no, you are still stupi[i]d[/i] and your mother is too stupi[i]d[/i] recognize it
If you say you don't know, then you are too stupi[i]d[/i] to even understand the question
If you protest that the question is wrong or give an indirect answer, then you are an "artful dodger"
If you refuse to answer, then I have "debunked" you.

Mr_Anony: I'll ask you a similar question:

"Does your mother know that you are stupi[i]d[/i]?"

If you say yes, then you are stupi[i]d[/i] and your mother knows it
If you say no, you are still stupi[i]d[/i] and your mother is too stupi[i]d[/i] recognize it
If you say you don't know, then you are too stupi[i]d[/i] to even understand the question
If you protest that the question is wrong or give an indirect answer, then you are an "artful dodger"
If you refuse to answer, then I have "debunked" you.

I figure you've never looked after kids, because all parents know their kids are stupi[i]d[/i].

Mr_Anony: I'll ask you a similar question:

"Does your mother know that you are stupi[i]d[/i]?"

If you say yes, then you are stupi[i]d[/i] and your mother knows it
If you say no, you are still stupi[i]d[/i] and your mother is too stupi[i]d[/i] recognize it
If you say you don't know, then you are too stupi[i]d[/i] to even understand the question
If you protest that the question is wrong or give an indirect answer, then you are an "artful dodger"
If you refuse to answer, then I have "debunked" you.

Nairaland just keep getting nastier.
Gotta steel myself really.

Ki-Katanga:


I figure you've never looked after kids, because all parents know their kids are stupi[i]d[/i].

Avicenna:
Nairaland just keep getting nastier.
Gotta steel myself really.

You guys miss the point. The idea was to show him that there is something wrong with his question as it comes loaded with the presumption that there is a stone God cannot carry and then goes on to phrase his question in such a way that there cannot possibly be a right answer. So I asked a similar question phrased in such a way that no matter how he answers it, he would still be wrong.

You don't create something out of the blue and then test against it. It is like if I ask can you bleed "unbleedable" blood or drink water that cannot be swallowed etc
It is a silly question and all I'm doing is to try and show him the silliness of it.

He may as well ask "can God create huuekieiweiolloxx@$hdu# and make it drink milk?"

approaching this from a totally different standpoint.


the former question: "the question does your mother knows you are stupid" begs the latter question "are you stupid". the latter question already pre-supposes that "you are stupid". this is not a proper way of logical reasoning. the first thing is to determine the answer to this question: "are you stupid"

asking the former question is meaningless until the latter question has been answered and resolved.


in the same way, the question "can God create a rock that he can not move" begs these questions.

"who exactly is this God", is He the same thing that all religions point to or is He separate from them.

"What are the parameters/characteristics of omnipotence"

if these question cant be answered, understood and agreed upon, we will just keep going around in circles, arguing about different concepts, thinking that we are referring to the same thing.

cheers, everyone.

Mr_Anony: I'll ask you a similar question:

"Does your mother know that you are stupi[i]d[/i]?"

If you say yes, then you are stupi[i]d[/i] and your mother knows it
If you say no, you are still stupi[i]d[/i] and your mother is too stupi[i]d[/i] recognize it
If you say you don't know, then you are too stupi[i]d[/i] to even understand the question
If you protest that the question is wrong or give an indirect answer, then you are an "artful dodger"
If you refuse to answer, then I have "debunked" you.

Epic fail.


Your question assumes that I am stupid. By the way, you could have found a less abusive way to explain yor fallacious thinking.

My question assumes that God can create things- based on religious doctrine

Mr_Anony:

You guys miss the point. The idea was to show him that there is something wrong with his question as it comes loaded with the presumption that there is a stone God cannot carry and then goes on to phrase his question in such a way that there cannot possibly be a right answer. So I asked a similar question phrased in such a way that no matter how he answers it, he would still be wrong.

You don't create something out of the blue and then test against it. It is like if I ask can you bleed "unbleedable" blood or drink water that cannot be swallowed etc[b]
It is a silly question and all I'm doing is to try and show him the silliness of it.

He may as well ask "can God create huuekieiweiolloxx@$hdu# and make it drink milk?"[/b]

Nope.....epic fail


One can move a rock depending on the size of the rock and the person's ability.


Can God create a rock that he can not move?

@Cyrexx, good to see you using some logic, now please let us follow this in the same vien.

cyrexx: approaching this from a totally different standpoint.

the former question: "the question does your mother knows you are stupid" begs the latter question "are you stupid". the latter question already pre-supposes that "you are stupid". this is not a proper way of logical reasoning. the first thing is to determine the answer to this question: "are you stupid"

asking the former question is meaningless until the latter question has been answered and resolved.

Good so far

in the same way, the question "can God create a rock that he can not move" begs these questions.

"who exactly is this God", is He the same thing that all religions point to or is He separate from them.

"What are the parameters/characteristics of omnipotence"

No, this doesn't follow because in both cases both you and God are already known as well as the meaning of smartness and omnipotence...what follows here is "What exactly is a stone that cannot be carried?" This is what should first be addressed.

MacDaddy01:

Nope.....epic fail


One can move a rock depending on the size of the rock and the person's ability.


Can God create a rock that he can not move?

God can do everything and can move all rocks. Perhaps you want to tell us the exact characteristics of this rock that makes it immovable

Mr_Anony:

God can do everything and can move all rocks. Perhaps you want to tell us the exact characteristics of this rock that makes it immovable

If God can move all rocks then he can not create a rock that he can not move. He is not omnipotent.

Mr_Anony:


No, this doesn't follow because in both cases both you and God are already known as well as the meaning of smartness and omnipotence...what follows here is "What exactly is a stone that cannot be carried?" This is what should first be addressed.

A stone that can not be move is a stone beyond your ability to push it. Is that too hard for you to comprehend?

MacDaddy01:


Epic fail.

Your question assumes that I am stupid. By the way, you could have found a less abusive way to explain yor fallacious thinking.

My question assumes that God can create things- based on religious doctrine

Your question also assumes that there is such a thing as a rock that cannot be carried. Perhaps you may want to tell us exactly what this rock is and what makes it immovable.

By the way because you have protested the question, you are a "stupid artful dodger" .........and yeah.......epic fail!
(I'm just echoing your childishness)

MacDaddy01:

A stone that can not be move is a stone beyond your ability to push it. Is that too hard for you to comprehend?

The question is why is it beyond God's ability to move it?

MacDaddy01:

If God can move all rocks then he can not create a rock that he can not move. He is not omnipotent.

If you do not know if your mother knows that you are a fool then you are even more foolish than I thought and too foolish to understand the question

by MacDaddy01: 8:51am
Omnipotence is a self-contradicting phenomena.


Omnipotence = ability to do all things

However, the ability to do all things would also require the ability not to be omnipotent! lipsrsealed

there are people who say God has a son and or God has partners.

God in Islam responds to both in actually the same way, with best clarification each. The answer first: It does not befit the Majesty of God.

Clarification:
a]. If God were to take a son there are better beings [angel for example] than to chose a human son. What is less is not worth of choice over more.
b]. All that are in [heavens, earth, in between and beyond] are individually slave of God. Slave can not be partner.


In view of the above, to respond to the questioner, it is not befitting the Majesty of God to move, lift, carry or conduct duty in manual "labor"..
God conducts His Duty as the Creator by command "Kun" [Be].


What the questioner did not put into account because he is in a hurry to proof the supposed incapability of the Creator is that he has already rendered the rock in the creation category where it belongs. Creator is always The Master of the always subjected creation which the rock will be one of.

^^

that is exactly why i said earlier that this concept of God and omnipotence must be defined and agreed upon before any meaningful debate on this topic can happen.

cyrexx: ^^

that is exactly why i said earlier that this concept of God and omnipotence must be defined and agreed upon before any meaningful debate on this topic can happen.

In the same way the concept of macdaddy and smartness must be defined and agreed upon before any meaningful debate on this topic can happen

To all the non-sequiturs put forward by Anony and Sweetnecta


1) Omnipotent is defined as ability to do all things

2) God is defined as a creator and omnipotent in religions

3) The point is that an omnipotent God can not exist because omnipotence is a paradox and a self-contradictory concept.

Two examples are highlighted here;


3a) Omnipotence means the ability to do anything. However, that means there is nothing you are unable to do. Is God unable to die? But God has the ability of immortality!

3b) Can God create a rock that he can not move? If he can, the he is not omnipotent to move the rock. If he cant, then he is unable to create the rock.



You can call your God anything but the moment you call him "omnipotent" he ceases to exist because omnipotence is self-contradictory!

MacDaddy01:


3a) Omnipotence means the ability to do anything. However, that means there is nothing you are unable to do. Is God unable to die? But God has the ability of immortality!

Misconception: Omnipotence is not an ability, it is a nature, part of God's identity. Just like the fact that you are yourself is not an ability since you cannot switch your consciousness: You cannot 'unthink' your thoughts or 'unfeel' your feelings you are just you.

3b) Can God create a rock that he can not move? If he can, the he is not omnipotent to move the rock. If he cant, then he is unable to create the rock.

This question is so silly it doesn't deserve an answer

Mr_Anony:
Misconception: Omnipotence is not an ability, it is a nature, part of God's identity. Just like the fact that you are yourself is not an ability since you cannot switch your consciousness: You cannot 'unthink' your thoughts or 'unfeel' your feelings you are just you.

Huh? Who is stating that omnipotence is not part of God's nature? As long as God is omnipotent he is a fairytale because omnipotence can not exist.

Mr_Anony:
This question is so silly it doesn't deserve an answer

Not as silly as your failed answers on this same question above

Sweetnecta: there are people who say God has a son and or God has partners.

God in Islam responds to both in actually the same way, with best clarification each. The answer first: It does not befit the Majesty of God.

Clarification:
a]. If God were to take a son there are better beings [angel for example] than to chose a human son. What is less is not worth of choice over more.
b]. All that are in [heavens, earth, in between and beyond] are individually slave of God. Slave can not be partner.


In view of the above, to respond to the questioner, it is not befitting the Majesty of God to move, lift, carry or conduct duty in manual "labor"..
God conducts His Duty as the Creator by command "Kun" [Be].


What the questioner did not put into account because he is in a hurry to proof the supposed incapability of the Creator is that he has already rendered the rock in the creation category where it belongs. Creator is always The Master of the always subjected creation which the rock will be one of.

I am responding to you and not the topic which really is a Non-topic as the poster does not even seem to understand basic Grammar or the meanings of the words he uses.

If the ANGELS are indeed better beings why does the Quran claim they were all asked to bow to Adam.
If indeed God is able to do all things then "he" is indeed able to have a son a wife a brother or anything else that "he" chooses. The fundamental problem that Muslims and Christians have is the anthropomorphization of "GOD". God is a "HE" according to you and and so you attribute God with characters like humans :relenting,merciful and such like.You also ascribe Majesty and Goodness to God whatever majesty means. At the core of your belief system is that the Earth and therefore Man is at the center of creation.
Thus we are told God Created Heaven His home and Earth for man and when he is ready he will bring an end to earth And JUDGE us all the good go to heaven and the bad go to hell to drink boiling water and pus.
Sorry mate,all the evidence there is shows that the Earth and therefore Man are an insignificant speck in the cosmos.
Understanding all existence in the ever expanding universe and its workings need a brain that makes that of Man look like an Abacus beside a Quad Core processor. It really is important to ponder the limitations of Human brain power as well as the possibility of other worlds and beings who would make us look as smart as a fly.
To say all beings are slaves and slaves cannot be partners is an assumption. Ultimately apart from giving descriptive words like benevolent,merciful etc which merely decribe The Quran does not give any window into the Essence or nature of "GOD" .In this respect like Christianity it is Fundamentalist in its assumption that it is the only correct way to apprehending God and that everyone else is wrong. However when it comes to a discussion with unbelievers there really is no point you being on this thread if the refernce point will only be the Quran.This is pointless with someone who questions the authenticity of the Quran,Bible etc there is no way to move discussion forward.
Our work on this earth must be more than banging our head on the floor !1800 times a year why does God require this from us but not from goats? "because he has given us intelligence and free will" we say. But are we really that intelligent and is earth that important in the Universal scheme of things?? If all humans died out today would it be any different fro what happened to mammoths or dinosaurs?

Sweetnecta: there are people who say God has a son and or God has partners.

God in Islam responds to both in actually the same way, with best clarification each. The answer first: It does not befit the Majesty of God.

Clarification:
a]. If God were to take a son there are better beings [angel for example] than to chose a human son. What is less is not worth of choice over more.
b]. All that are in [heavens, earth, in between and beyond] are individually slave of God. Slave can not be partner.


In view of the above, to respond to the questioner, it is not befitting the Majesty of God to move, lift, carry or conduct duty in manual "labor"..
God conducts His Duty as the Creator by command "Kun" [Be].


What the questioner did not put into account because he is in a hurry to proof the supposed incapability of the Creator is that he has already rendered the rock in the creation category where it belongs. Creator is always The Master of the always subjected creation which the rock will be one of.

I am responding to you and not the topic which really is a Non-topic as the poster does not even seem to understand basic Grammar or the meanings of the words he uses.

If the ANGELS are indeed better beings why does the Quran claim they were all asked to bow to Adam.
If indeed God is able to do all things then "he" is indeed able to have a son a wife a brother or anything else that "he" chooses. The fundamental problem that Muslims and Christians have is the anthropomorphization of "GOD". God is a "HE" according to you and and so you attribute God with characters like humans :relenting,merciful and such like.You also ascribe Majesty and Goodness to God whatever majesty means. At the core of your belief system is that the Earth and therefore Man is at the center of creation.
Thus we are told God Created Heaven His home and Earth for man and when he is ready he will bring an end to earth And JUDGE us all the good go to heaven and the bad go to hell to drink boiling water and pus.
Sorry mate,all the evidence there is shows that the Earth and therefore Man are an insignificant speck in the cosmos.
Understanding all existence in the ever expanding universe and its workings need a brain that makes that of Man look like an Abacus beside a Quad Core processor. It really is important to ponder the limitations of Human brain power as well as the possibility of other worlds and beings who would make us look as smart as a fly.
To say all beings are slaves and slaves cannot be partners is an assumption. Ultimately apart from giving descriptive words like benevolent,merciful etc which merely decribe The Quran does not give any window into the Essence or nature of "GOD" .In this respect like Christianity it is Fundamentalist in its assumption that it is the only correct way to apprehending God and that everyone else is wrong. However when it comes to a discussion with unbelievers there really is no point you being on this thread if the refernce point will only be the Quran.This is pointless with someone who questions the authenticity of the Quran,Bible etc there is no way to move discussion forward.
Our work on this earth must be more than banging our head on the floor !1800 times a year why does God require this from us but not from goats? "because he has given us intelligence and free will" we say. But are we really that intelligent and is earth that important in the Universal scheme of things?? If all humans died out today would it be any different fro what happened to mammoths or dinosaurs?

MacDaddy01:

Huh? Who is stating that omnipotence is not part of God's nature? As long as God is omnipotent he is a fairytale because omnipotence can not exist.

Not as silly as your failed answers on this same question above

The day you start thinking properly, then I'll start giving you reasonable responses

aribisala0:

I am responding to you and not the topic which really is a Non-topic as the poster does not even seem to understand basic Grammar or the meanings of the words he uses.

Do you have some problems? You come on my thread and insult me then go ahead to post some inane and off topic nonsense

Mr_Anony:
The day you start thinking properly, then I'll start giving you reasonable responses

Mr Artful dodger doing what he does best!

MacDaddy01: To all the non-sequiturs put forward by Anony and Sweetnecta


1) Omnipotent is defined as ability to do all things

2) God is defined as a creator and omnipotent in religions

3) The point is that an omnipotent God can not exist because omnipotence is a paradox and a self-contradictory concept.

Two examples are highlighted here;


3a) Omnipotence means the ability to do anything. However, that means there is nothing you are unable to do. Is God unable to die? But God has the ability of immortality!

3b) Can God create a rock that he can not move? If he can, the he is not omnipotent to move the rock. If he cant, then he is unable to create the rock.



You can call your God anything but the moment you call him "omnipotent" he ceases to exist because omnipotence is self-contradictory!

Paradoxes are specifically science and msths based phenomena. They can be applied anywhere. The real paradox is assuming the omnipotence to be limitless. If there were limits to the omnipotence then we could compare certain aspects and avoid paradoxes. These paradoxes exist throughout religion. The idea of a god in itself is a paradox.

MacDaddy01:


Mr Artful dodger doing what he does best!

lol you are really lacking in intelligence: "Does your mother know that you are an i[i]d[/i]iot? Debunking Logicboy"

Atheist:-D:


Paradoxes are specifically science and msths based phenomena. They can be applied anywhere. The real paradox is assuming the omnipotence to be limitless. If there were limits to the omnipotence then we could compare certain aspects and avoid paradoxes. These paradoxes exist throughout religion. The idea of a god in itself is a paradox.

Omnipotence can hardly have limits given its definition. However, I agree with you.

Mr_Anony:
lol you are really lacking in intelligence: "Does your mother know that you are an i[i]d[/i]iot? Debunking Logicboy"

Remember that you are supposed to be a christian with morals.

MacDaddy01:


Omnipotence can hardly have limits given its definition. However, I agree with you.

If we said omnipotence was limitless due to the fact that we could not measure or ascertain the limits then we could draw conclusions. Say for instance the omnipotence is i, we could say deity a with an omnipotency of i is greater than another deity b with an omnipotency of y by an amount known as x:

This is of course not true omnipotency however one could argue that if it is beyond our measuring or comprehension it is omnipotent.