The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe - "Philosophy of Religion Part 1" eBook, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe1 It is also part of the Philosophy Vibe paperback Anthology - Vol 1 "Philosophy of Religion", a collection of all our Philosophy of Religion Scripts, available worldwide on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol1
Yes, but if Almighty God appears to ten faithful in a dream, he tells them to raise any stone as a sacrifice for him. Whatever weight the stone thrown by the faithful may be, this constitutes at the same time the heaviest and most immovable boulder that God could have ever created and moved. Of course, someone else moved it. But with the will of the lord. This makes us understand that freedom is an instrument of omnipotence
@@PhilosophyVibe i was one of your early fans. Keep the material coming. Create new material and unique material modern day philosophies. Become like a guru. Keep up the good work
Sometimes it seems like channels that discuss philosophy of religion focus more on the problems with theism and gloss over the the defences given by theist philosophers, but that’s not the case with this channel. Thanks for exploring both sides off the issues
I agree. Good argument. I would also argue that God could create a stone he could not lift based on the argument of God's freewill. If God wants to create a stone that he cannot lift then he can do that because God can do anything he wants to do. If God couldn't do whatever he wants to do then that would imply that God does not have freewill (and it would ultimately imply that God is not God because God is all-powerful and can exercise his will any way that God chooses).
Exactly.. the truth of the matter is God doesn't have to lift the stone he can move it by force or tell it to move than it will moved. God Almighty Absolute omnipotent powers isn't confusing for him a.k.a God, it's confusing on us Humans. Our ways and thought isn't God ways & thoughts.
Well it's kinda the not the thing about ur saying. God's omniscience has data of creating things outside his own omnipotence. Therefore there isn't a omnipotent being but an illusion.
If god so chooses to use his own omnipotence against him he can, and will make a stone he cannot lift. But he can also decide one day that he can lift the same stone.
@@engineergaming3830theists don’t use omnipotence to mean “to do everything” it’s to “do everything that is logically possible” Atheists don’t use the argument anymore because 1. They use the wrong definition 2. If they don’t accept that definition, and require the theist to use the ability to do everything, including the logically impossible then the argument falls apart because then God CAN make a stone so heavy he can’t lift, and still lift it If the atheist says that’s logically impossible, well that’s the definition they used, so God can make a stone so heavy he can’t lift, and still lift it because under the atheists definition he can do the logically impossible The fact that even atheists consider it a bad argument shows how terrible it is
@@alejandroayvar5305In this case God is omnipotent under the logical axioms, which means the human mind is capable of formulating things that are logically more powerful than God himself because of the existence of illogical axioms. What makes this even more insane is that illogical axioms still have some vestiges of logic because of subjectivity (i.e seeing fire in space makes sense to us even if it is physically impossible). We even have the ability to logically produce mathematical quantities that are beyond the limits of the universe itself. Why???? Why would we be the only beings in the universe to be able to come up with a concept like God, and if so, why would we then be able to create illogical axioms that strip God from his powers?
@@engineergaming3830I dont believe an Omnipotent being can create something else that is omnipotent. He can create something lesser. If he already has all power, he cant create something else that also has all power. Thats like asking him can he create himself. Thats logically impossible to ask someone to create himself if he already exists.
Then you have a deficient God. That which is logically possible is contingent on our universe and the "laws" that govern it. However, you first and foremost want your God to exist outside of the universe so as to have created it. That isn't logically possible, at the very least until such is demonstrated. You want your God to do miracles, create non-physical souls and transfer them to the afterlife. He is also a space less, timeless, self-sufficient, eternal consciousness. All of the above are logically and physically impossible. Thanks for disproving God.
@@Gxlto comparing God to a physical thing is a category error, your entire post is circular reasoning on the assumption that the physical universe is all that exists and not actually saying anything.
@@sonder152 No, you have missed the point. The original post defined omnipotence as doing all that is logically possible. I explained that logic and possibility only make sense in the physical world with physical, quantifiable laws and limits because... that's all we have ever observed. Until you demonstrate that there is such thing as a non-physical realm and redefine logic and possibility to include it then it's perfectly reasonable to assert that anything beyond this world is impossible. Examples: It is physically possible to be bald. Baldness exists. People exist. People can be bald, that's an empirical observation. It is physically possible to make a pile of rocks (or rock) that you (its original maker) cannot lift. Rocks exist and they occupy physical mass. People exist. People can lift up to some certain amount. People can make things they can't lift, that's an empirical observation. It is logically impossible to be a married bachelor. Bachelors exist. Married people exist. To say that one is a married bachelor is to say that one is an unmarried married man (P and Not P) which violates the axiom of non-contradiction. It is logically impossible for an omnipotent being to create a rock so heavy that it can't lift it. By definition that rock would be of infinite weight and would require an infinite force to lift it. However putting infinity against itself (or rather 2 infinites against each other) is an incoherent task so the action is impossible. It is physically impossible for a material being to react with the immaterial by definition. *The examples above illustrate some physical and logical limits which exist in our universe because of the laws that seemingly govern it and are flawless in the reliability (like non-contradiction, conservation of energy, thermodynamics, etc.). A God that can do all that is physically possible can do all that is in accordance with the universe because that's how we define possibility. If you want to define it differently please go ahead but first of all make sure it is coherent and even if you could we wouldn't be talking about the same argument anyway. The original comment argued for a deficient God who is bound by the same laws that we are and that's all I said.*
@@Gxlto if your question is limited to logical possibilities limited to what is only physically speculated to exist, then you must acknowledge the absurdity of putting such constraints on a thing which defines that categorization in the first place. You are not proving a point by placing the logical constraints of an assumed nature of reality (material universe) onto a thing you know is by it's incompatible with that category. The two don't mix. You are not proving a logical absurdity about the limits of God or the impossiblity of such a thing, rather you are merely demonstrating the limits of your own model of reality through applying a metaphysical thing in a literal-physical sense into your own speculative view of reality. And yes your assertions are fundamentally circular reasoning.
@@sonder152 There is no question. I simply replied to the original comment. The _"absurdity of putting such constraints on a thing which defines that categorization in the first place"_ is not MY mistake. I never defined God. I simply pointed out how naive the "logically possible" definition of omnipotence is. Christians will have you believe that this is what omnipotence REALLY means regardless just so they can avoid internal contradictions and paradoxes due to unrestricted comprehension. My position is that omnipotence is impossible and by extension the Abrahamic God. The original comment has just failed in its attempt to coherently define it. And I repeat, the ONLY meaning that "logical possibility" has is precisely what I described. This is how we understand and describe possible and impossible things. You coming along and saying _"well you don't REALLY know if it's impossible because you don't know if there's anything beyond the universe"_ is an embarrassing appeal to the infalsifiable. There's nothing circular here. The original comment said "logically possible" and I simply applied the criteria onto God. Until and unless you can demonstrate that there are things possible outside of our reach and knowledge, we can be certain beyond reasonable doubt that there aren't. That's just how we operate in our epistemology, by relying or reliable concepts which produce desirable outcomes like non-contradiction. I'm not claiming absolute truth or any silly philosophical nonsense of that sort, I'm simply reasoning based on what we reasonably know.
When someone asked me that years ago, I said, "I don't know. But a better question is: Is God powerful enough to judge you to eternal damnation in Hell?" I think the answer to that is yes. And so the Gospel message is unchanged. If someone else doesn't take the punishment for your sins, then you will need to make that payment. Thankfully, God became a Man, lived a perfect life, and died in my place on the cross to pay for my sins. All I need do is to believe that, and then he declares my debt cancelled, and he welcomes me warmly into Paradise with him. He will do the same for you if you believe in Jesus!
@@robertnagy3942 That's a great question! I think part of the answer is that we don't fully understand God, nor will we ever. In fact, if we could fully understand God, he wouldn't be God at all! But let me take a shot. The Westminster Divines summed it up this way: "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." That was their way of saying that scripture teaches that God is in no way responsible for sin, and yet there would be no sin were it not for the sovereign foreordination of God. That is something I can't wrap my head around. But it seems like an accurate summary of scripture. As for why God chose to suffer, well, that only makes sense in light of the Trinity. The Father, Son and Spirit are always seeking to glorify one another. The Son glorified the Father by taking on flesh, suffering obediently even unto death. The Father glorified the Son by making him the only way by which man can be saved. The Spirit glorifies the Father and Son by applying the outworking of the death and resurrection of Christ to fallen man, changing our hearts from stone to flesh, justifying us, and sanctifying us. Best I can do on a Friday morning. 🙂
@@BatMite19 but your god created everything that would also mean he made sin because your book says there's no sin i heaven we know he can stop it from happening whenever he wants to but doesn't
@@engineergaming3830 I don't have all the philosophical answers. I just know that he saved me and I love him, and his word instructs me how to live my life.
@down7747 The problem is that if you can't do what is logically impossible than by definition you aren't omnipotent. Furthermore The entire Bible is about God performing miracles many of which defy the laws of logic. So the notion that he can't do the logically impossible is silly and puts limits on his omnipotence.
This was very impressive, I would personally resolve it the same way one resolves euthyphro( Logic is part of God's nature or essence ).. but that ending was just amazing backslap.
It if you define it that way, wouldn’t you make god logical by definition? Logical, in my opinion, can’t be a predicate, because logic is something we want to apply ON something, same as existence. Of course, if you say god is essentially logical, then he is logical. But then we couldn’t have any reasonable discussion. Can logical be a predicate? Well, using Kants reasoning: If logical is predicate, then it enlarges an object. Take any object O, is O logical? No O can’t be, because if zo is logical, then it means O + logical is logical, so O itself cannot be logical.
6:33-7:27 *No.* This merely still _demonstrates_ that the very _notion_ of the 'Omni' 'God' is simply logically and ontologically *_incoherent,_* and therefore *_impossible_* ...
@@Muhammad_Abdullah_Arshad בשמו הקדוש של ישוע המשיח מנצרת שכל נשמה אבודה תראה את האמת. באמצעות חסדו האינסופי, תזכו לחוות את ישוע המשיח במלוא תפארתו. שום שד או רוח רעה לא יכולים לגבור עליך כפי שכתוב. בשמו של ישוע אנו מתפללים להסיר את כיסוי העיניים. ❤️🔥
we are using a self referential argument similar to "This statement is False". If the Statement is false, then it must be true. But if for it to be true, it must be false. It's not the omnipotence that is the issue, but self referential statements. We are using a flawd method.
Here’s the mathematical puzzle: Infinity - 1 = Infinity. The problem with the stone paradox, translated in math form, is basically the above equation. We have one half of the equation where it is Infinity (Omnipotence / The god who can lift the stone). The (-1) represents just less than Omnipotence (The god who cannot lift the stone). The common claim is that Infinity - 1 is still Infinity, that even the -1 is still Infinity (just a lesser version of it). So, in essence, any equation that has Infinity in it equals infinity, regardless of any other numbers in the equation itself (because any other number is just a lesser version of Infinity, therefore, it still is Infinity). However, this defies what the definition of infinity is: Math does not define numbers as a “lesser version” of infinity. While all numbers are in Infinity, the nature of Infinity is that it *has* all numbers. Once you take a number away, then it no longer is infinity by definition. Therefore, if you take an ability out (failure to lift the stone), it is no longer Omnipotent. This deduces, pure logically, that the god who fails to lift the stone no longer qualifies as Omnipotent, just like Infinity - 1 can no longer qualify as Infinity. If, by chance, you are attempting to counter the above equation with Infinity + 1 = Infinity, you are still faced with the same failure of definition. If you can add +1 to Infinity, then the initial use of the word Infinity is incorrect, therefore, the problem cannot possibly be solved, because it is incoherent. The only way to solve the Stone Paradox is to claim that Omnipotence *includes* the ability to not be Omnipotent, even if it was just for a nanosecond in time. However, to be accurate on the definition of Omnipotence, it would be impossible for the Being to be both Omnipotent and non-Omnipotent at the same time, based on our definitions of both terms. Therefore, there would have to be a moment in time, however brief, that the Being would lose its Omnipotence and fail to lift the stone while being able to create the stone at any other time. There is no other way, without losing both proper definitions established and structures in logic, that the Stone Paradox can be resolved.
Yeah i do agree with you i think the only logical conclusion that entails is that omnipotence is not possible,because by definition it is impossible to lose omnipotence,however brief it is because it is the representative of absolute power (by which no other power could influence it)
God can create a simulated "world" where the "rules" state an object called a "rock" cannot be lifted by an admin because no permission was programmed to provide that level of access. Meaning it's pointless to ask whether an architect of a program can access the program after it has been deployed with code that states no. All powerful means "do what you would like" not "do what is logical".
I bought one of your books first of all as a little thank you for so much information you provided for us, Charles. May God bless you! I will buy more.
Wait so an electron being at 2 places at the same time which is logically impossible but was proven to happen is something that god can’t do by your definition…
The concept of God naturally is a paradox. The solution to the problem is precisely that there is no solution. Omnipotence is a matter that is supposed to be logically unfeasible. Paradoxes are not meant to be solved. The fact that we can use logic to come up with illogical scenarios is ironic in itself
@@dzdawlatzwamel9795 No it doesn’t lead directly to believing that the world/universe is created by chance. And believing that the universe was created by chance is neither illogical nor irrational (which are two distinct notions). Watch the video of this channel “the teleological argument”.
Yep. If we accept than an omnipotent being has unlimited power and ability, then he cannot logically create something that limits himself. The inability to have an inability is a double negative and thus illogical and does not detract from omnipotence
It’s like saying if we but God in a box with a poison that could kill God and had a random timer that would release. Without opening the box God would be considered both alive and dead at the time. Thus Zombie God is both a wave and a particle at the same time. So by this logic if we spun the box clock wise and had another box with the same god in it, we would be able to communicate between galaxies faster then the speed of light. Okay people on 3 let’s capture this elusive leprechaun like creature. Ready 1…..2….. and nm I can’t to 3 because between the number two and three their is an infinite amount of decimals. Better luck next time folks see you on the Monty Hall Show where you have better odds
Theists say that "God cannot do a contradiction", such as make a square-circle, etc... But isn't God the one that made the rule that such contradictions cannot be done? He could have made a universe where such contradictions are totally possible. He was the one that decided that a square circle cannot exist -- he preceded all rules/laws of logic etc. He created logic!
It mean God created paradox to test your Faith omnipotent paradox does not come from humans brains it come from God he want to test our Faith with such of paradox questions so God does not got weak bcus this questions bcus God actually who make it
@@LilXancheXBut logic doesn't define God at all. But 9 outta 10 humans most of them use logic to solve most issue & problems. Just like God give human being's five senses & common sense. Nonetheless it's not human first nature nor second nature. A.k.A meaning we humans don't even used Common sense on a daily basis. So yeah God isn't Bound by Logic.
Logic is a necessary truth, I believe God could have created logical paradox’s but this would be counterintuitive to truth & nothing would be necessary I.e would be 2+2= 10 cause who could tell me otherwise
@@johnsean122 oh so instead of making something to show he exists he's just hiding and creating laws and things that disprove his existence as a some sort of twisted test?
The paradox is simple to answer, The unliftable rock can be created, however once the rock is attempted to be lifted it is possible by the said creator. The rock was created as part of the paradox satisfying it, however after the rock was created the all powerful can still lift it also satisfying it. Its easier for people to understand it like this.... a begginer weight lifter can put 400lbs on a bar that they cant lift to begin with however after time has passed they are able to lift it due to a change in the nature to the lifter. While it was true the bar was unliftable it is also true that he can lift it. The difference with the paradox to the example is the time it takes for the change to occur. Its instantaneous, the second the creator creates it tge creator can then lift it. Its not that its not possible rather outside viewers cant be given proof of the accomplishment.
Your example doesn't make any sense. Because your example relies on the fact that the lifter changes and becomes stronger. But God doesn't change. He remains the same. So if he creates a rock he cannot lift, he will not be able to lift it. Because he doesn't change.
@@a1uplift212 I would argue, assuming this is the christian "God" which my response is mostly based around, that the supreme in quedtion can and does change, its most noticable by reading stories of the Old Testemant and New. The responses of God are very different between the two despite being the same all knowing being. If that being was unchanging their conditions of entering heaven or serving faithfully would never change yet they do hence even that being is able to change. The simple idea they cant change would create another paradox the same as this one.
@@blackrook268 the way he thinks can be called into question with the way he thinks, but your original comment talks about him changing physically, which you still got a good point either way, and we don't really know at the end of the day. This simple question goes deeper and deeper until you get to a point you just believe what you believe. We won't know and if this God is real we could probably never know when it comes to his powerfulness. Either way, just looking at Adam and Eve makes one very critical about God's real power and intentions. He created humanity and then tested them. But if he was all knowing, he'd already know the outcome from the consequences of his actions, so the only way he could test them while still being all knowing would be that he chose willful ignorance. He chose not to see the future, which means he can activate his all knowingness, like it just isn't a part of his general knowledge which isn't what one sees at first. But anyway, if he chose ignorance, then he's not all loving. Because if he was all loving he would've cared enough to see how the consequences of his actions would've impacted his children, thus making him aware of the outcome, making there no reason to do the test, at that point he's just doing it for sh*ts and giggles. But then one might say "we don't know how to make a universe, so god has to make it a certain way, like how to make a paper airplane, you need paper, maybe it's something like that with God" that inevitably brings it right back to God operating underneath a power higher than him and out of his control making him not all powerful. There is simply no way an all powerful and all loving God can exist in this world or universe with the way it is. If God is real, he is either all powerful and malevolent, or he's imperfect and all loving.
@@a1uplift212 Not going to lie, i deffinitly dont consider the Christian God all loving as some very dick moves are made in Old Testemant. And God probably is meant to represent Nature or something beyond our understanding, hell even some super advanced form of life would make sense in the context of cavemen seeing universe travelling aliens. However aside from that yeah its all theoretical i just feel if a being can do anything it should be able to alter even its own capabilities at will. Honestly it could also be at that point its just the multiverse theory where forms exist who can do said thing and at the same time forms that cannot do said thing. Idk im not scholar Im just some idiot who thought he had a good idea 😂
@@a1uplift212I’m going to go with the last one. That’s my best bet. You’d think after all humanity has been through, killings and abuse for eons, god wouldn’t have stepped in at least once and said “hey guys, This is fucked up. Stop hurting each other” But nothing happens. Humans still continue hurting each other. Not once has he shown his power in person. Supposedly You have to die to actually see him
The word Logos in John 1:1 could show that God is logic so God transcends human logic but is logic himself greater than a finite beings logic, logic reflect God’s thinking; God has always existed and has always had thoughts therefore, laws of logic have always existed they are part of himself
The answer at the end is also my conclusion. Based on the observations seen in quantum physics. Where an area of existence can be 0, 1 and then both zero and one at the same time and perception alone can dictate the result in a state of existence.
quantum superposition does NOT mean that an object is in multiple independent states simultaneously. Only that it's behaviour can be mathematically approximated by the addition of multiple independent approximations simultaneously. The cat in schrodingers box is NOT dead and alive, only that it is mathematically convenient to describe the cat's state as such
Saw a Christian quote "if you think you understand God, you ain't God." And they were saying that to imply that you cannot understand God. But the quote itself literally makes no sense and contradicts itself. So if we think we understand God, we ain't God, we already know we're not God, therefore, we should be ABLE to understand him completely because of the fact that we are not God. I swear everything that comes about God just makes no sense in the long run and this therefore reinforces my belief that God is not perfect and perfection cannot exist because of the fact that good cannot exist without evil. And I feel like God tried to tell us how to live back then, and reason with us but then shi backfired and he saw the damage it created with the wars, the men manipulating it, and decided to back off from us. Cause if you think about it, Adam and Eve's story falls apart immediately when you think about it. God tested them to see if they'd remain faithful but an all knowing God would've already known the outcome thus there's no need for the test so if he had to test them to find out then he is not all knowing. But if, like some christians have said to me, god "chooses not to see our future" then that means God has the capability of being all knowing but chooses to be willfully ignorant therefore making him a god not worth worshipping because of the fact he makes himself ignorant and ultimately makes him responsible for all evil because he chose to be ignorant and test them anyway even tho he could've already seen the outcome before it even happened. If God is real, he is not all powerful. It all breaks apart Lil edit right here to show the paradox full circle: if God chose not to see the outcome, and tested humanity anyway. He is not all loving because an all loving God would care how the consequences of his actions would impact his creation, therefore he would tap into his all knowing and see the outcome, making there no need for a test in the first place. Edit again real quick before the Christians start rolling in, before you say "it's deeper than that, because God can see the future but he can see every possible outcome" well if he is all knowing he should know which outcome will happen from his actions, if he isn't able to know which outcome will happen out of all the possible ones, then he isn't all knowing. But not even that I mean why does evil exist in the first place? "Oh because of man's fall from grace" Wrong. Evil existed before man's fall from grace because SATAN went to the garden and deceived eve, creating the fall from grace. This can only mean this, either god created evil because he is not all loving or he created evil because good cannot exist without evil therefore God is not all powerful. If you read this far please let me know your standpoint because the more and more I think on this, the more I believe God isn't perfect Religion falls apart with this. An all loving God wouldn't allow hell to exist, but ignore that for a moment, think about the rapture. Every christian is going to be in heaven and the earth will become hell which not only wastes god's glorious creation (which is earth) it proves that after the rapture, free will, will no longer exist. Because there will be no more evil. Only good, so you will be going to heaven wanting to serve God but if you don't live exactly how you Christians portray he wants you to live, it won't matter. You won't be able to choose to live any different, you won't have the free will to make that choice. It'll literally be its own hell
the mere existence of something shows that God is above logic. How can something be created out of nothing? And if it has always been there, how did that happen? That is also a logical contradiction.
I think can still be limited but greater than the universe. Like a computer programmer. He’s a god of the computer but not of his surroundings. Though that doesn’t exactly give comfort to theists as it implies that this limited god can die or simply not do things we wish he could
One must remember that as humans, we are restricted to ideas and realities that we can understand. There is reality which we do not (yet) understand, such as cosmology. The construction of a black holes interior, for example. The black hole interior will exist regardless of our limited knowledge. God exists OUTSIDE our temporal universe. What if, in the heavenly realm, there exists "laws of the universe" which allow Him to perform the logically impossible? It would be wrong to confine God's abilities to our understanding of our temporal universe, having limited human knowledge and reasoning power.
What if God creates a stone he can lift in one universe but can't in another universe? Does God have to be a single being or entity? Can he be multiple things simultaneously? Finite minds can't understand infinity, so there are things our minds cannot penetrate. Postscript: I posted the above comment before seeing the last couple minutes of the video. Most of what I wrote was addressed.
Defining omnipotence leads to paradoxical Platonism. "Shad" in old Hebrew means "Breast" whereas "Her" means Mountain. If Shaddai means "Almighty" and is speculated to mean omnipotent, then this follows: -if god is omnipotent, god has everything (what he is, what he has is what he is) -if god has everything, god acquires nothing (How can you receive what you already have, everything if it is all there already? How can you add to yourself+ All powerful?) -if god acquires nothing, god does not desire (You don't desire what you already have, everything) -if god does not desire, god does not "will" things. (To go beyond yourself is to will, it is a faculty that you actualize) -if god does not will things, God is platonic. (Potential only) (deistic) -if god is platonic, then God is not omnipotent (which means being the greatest power, including that "willing" he does not) This is not like the omnipotence paradox which states, "Can God create a stone so heavy he cannot lift?" My version says he (Does not) not (cannot) given the property of omnipotence.
With an infinite universe the stone would grow forever never becoming too heavy for God to lift everyone would get bored watching God hold onto a stone it's as simple as that
Actually the solution of this paradox is defining what is god how he has such unlimited power , understanding what is he created from . Then everything will be easier to understand
Exactly, just by screaming “god cannot do illogical things because it doesn’t make sense” is ridiculous. If the interpretation of omnipotence as being unconditionally all powerful does not apply to god, then come up with a better definition of god, don’t say “god is logical by definition so any attempt to show he is illogical are dumb”.
(Seeing this video 3 years late.) Aristotle would have added another major point to this debate. God, as the first principle, is not just a being, but is being itself. So, the question of God creating a rock he can't lift is absurd on another level. All created things exist in God, but the question assumes that once God creates the rock, it exists outside of him, and he's trying to lift it as any other being would. That isn't the classical conception of God. But Aristotle's ideas shouldn't be confused with pantheism either - The universe isn't God, but it exists in him, and he's infinitely greater than it. Also in the classical and scholastic worldviews, God has no accidents. ("Accident" meaning "a property that is not of the essense"). All of his characteristics are essential. So: God doesn't just exist. He is existence. God isn't just logical. He is logic. God isn't just good. He is goodness. God isn't just beautiful. He is beauty. God isn't just true. He is truth. Also, God is pure act; God is immutable... and several other ideas that take some study. Those points would be part of the full response given by classical theists, from Aristotle to the scholastics to many classical theists today.
The answer is "yes". Then if someone responds, "Then God is not omnipotent because he cannot lift the stone", I say, "What stone?" God has not created it. I think the confusion is the word "can". Can God do it? Yes. Has he done it? No. Will he do it? I think not, but I agree that if he did then he would no longer be omnipotent and therefore no longer God. Just because someone can do something does not mean it has been done. Can I walk into the middle of a busy road and be killed by a car? Yes, I can, meaning my legs work so I can walk. But I won't because I don't want to. Another question: Can God create a being more powerful than himself? Yes, but he won't because he doesn't want to do it. Another question: Can God take a part of himself, have that part because a human, and die on a cross for our sins? Yes. Will he? Yes -- He already has done it.
An omnipotent being is not limited by laws of physics or time. An omnipotent being can create thousands of square circles as easy as you can lift up a feather.
Creating a stone & lifting the stone are 2 separate activities. (1) Creating the stone followed by (2) lifting the stone. God will first create an unliftable stone & then create strength greater than required to lift the stone.
Trying to solve the omnipotence paradox by saying that God is omnipotent by definition is like trying to solve the Gödel's incompleteness theorem by saying that mathematics are not incomplete by definition, don't you think?
A few arguments: 1. I believe that it is not at all contrqdictory for G-D to create a triangled circle. Just beacue it doesn't make sense to us, doesn't mean it's impossible. Don't try to "box" G-D into our narrow and limited human logic. 2. The question is a false question to begin with, as it sets itself in such a way the person answering would *have* to give one of two answers, with each one making it seem like he thinks less of G-D. Anyways, it's midnight and I'm tired.
The only explanation is that we are unable to comprehend the laws created by god. He can just create a state of existence and non existence. Similarly to how he can create a rock that is heavy and cannot be lifted but then lifts it in a way that fulfills both states at the same time. Imagine water as an example. It is in a state of liquid but can easily turned into a solid. Doesn't that seem like a paradox already to the people who don't understand it?
You should have addressed this paradox another way: god knows it's not gonna rain tomorrow , can he make it rain tomorrow, if yes , his prior knowledge is false if no he can't make it rain , and therefore he's not omnipotent
God created laws of logic & decided not to break them bcoz that was his one of his best creations & God loves his creation just like he loves each one of us
5:36 The Question is what is beyond logic? This concept is fundamentally self-contradiction there is nothing beyond logic , and the pattern of thinking of god is also logic , so the logic is the our thinking itself! And God Thought itself is logic , so logical laws are not created its self-contradiction claim , if the laws of logic created then there is a prior-logical law situation , and we ask what is prior logical situation? Then all answer is meaningless and lead to violation of law of-contradiction and actually any proposition that violate law of contradiction is meaningless and cannot give any positive or negative claim. We can theorize that our logic is came from God Mind , and we are the only creatures inside universe ( hypothetically ) have logic! And logic cannot be based upon materialism! And product of material universe because it lead to self-contradiction! Therefore our mind is grounded by logic and the mind must be abstract object that outside material realm! So this is abduction argument for thinking that our minds came from God. , there must be non-materialistic realm exist to survive in logical contradictions.
I think Plato said God is bound by the laws he created for His creation. So, we being created in the image of God, should be bound to these laws too. If you create anything in this world, after you begin you find yourself having to follow it's patterns (for it to work or be pleasing). It is in this sense that God is bound, because He is creating within his creation. However God is beyond what He creates, which a creator always is, but beyond this creation is beyond our possible understanding, as you said. However God is also called the Logos, which suggests God's nature is logical perhaps. Thanks for your channel.
It if you see it that way, wouldn’t you make god logical by definition? Logical, in my opinion, can’t be a predicate, because logic is something we want to apply ON something, same as existence. Of course, if you say god is essentially logical, then he is logical. But then we couldn’t have any reasonable discussion. Can logical be a predicate? Well, using Kants reasoning: If logical is predicate, then it enlarges an object. Take any object O, is O logical? No O can’t be, because if zo is logical, then it means O + logical is logical, so O itself cannot be logical.
The question as to whether God can create a rock he can't lift is asked in the material context by which it creates a contradiction. Why is it asked in such a context? Because the physics of rocks and the laws which govern the manner of their existence was created by God that they might exist as they do. All that exists materially is by definition limited or finite, delineable and quantifiable. What you're asking then is a question whose answer can only be outside of the finite material realm and so the contradiction arises. God created this materiality as he wished it to be and that it is finite precludes even the consideration of such questions. There is no indictment of God's omnipotence in this "paradox", just an abuse of the context in which and by which it is constrained.
He can't do it so he's not omnipotent, the laws of the universe don't matter to something with infinite power that can bring whatever he wants into and out of existence at will.
Hello people, Yes, God can lift a stone he cannot lift. Please find 2 ways below: 1. God acts on the environment not the stone itself God can maintain the stone while lowering the ground. From people on the ground, the stone would be lifted in the air even though it is not moving. 2. God can use a proxy God can create a being whose ability is to lift the stone (he is omnipotent, right). By lifting the guy (Héraclès) who can lift the stone, he can lift the stone. This being would not be stronger than god, he just has a hack. God inherit his hack by lifting him. Chatgpt seems to agree with me on that one 👍
Technically, the strongest being not being able to pick the most heavy object is still not a contradiction. The only way a contradiction can feasibly exist is to assume God could lift anything. If God can lift anything, it would be contradictory for him to create something he couldn't lift. But since omnipotence isn't limited to physical strength, I don't see how God creating a stone so heavy he can't lift it would necessarily entail a contradiction. The assumption that God is able to physically/spiritually LIFT anything that could potentially exist is required before there can actually be a contradiction. EDIT: if we're simply going to say "nothing can be greater than the greatest possible being", without recognizing there's a difference between weight and strength, we could then equally say that God cannot create an object heavier than himself? Since that would mean this object is "greater" than God in some respect. What about can God create an object that's better at breaking into a bank than he is? Or an object that's better at hacking software than he is? Or an object that's able to tell more lies than God? Or an object that's faster than God? Or an object that treats women better than God does? Since he's the greatest conceivable being, he's greater in EVERY respect. Therefore, the same logic that would apply to the omnipotence paradox would apply to all my scenarios. God cannot create such a being since creating such a being would require God to create a being greater in some capacity than the greatest possible being, which bring rise to the contradiction. If it's possible to be greater in some respects than the greatest possible being, then there can be no greatest possible being, only beings that are greater in certain regards but not all. There can exist no being that's greater than anything in every regard.
If we accept that he can do all that is logically possible then it still wouldn't mean he can.Lying for example is a logical possibility that is carried very well.Creating something greater than its maker is also a logical possibility in any world.I can make something greater than me at arithmetics.By this logic ,I am omnipotent because I can make ALL that is logically possible in my human way.
The paradox could also be expessed as "Can God unmake its omnipotence?" The answer is yes of course. But the more important question is why would God do that? Anyways, the omnipotence paradox actually proves God's omnipotence as God could create a situation making itself not omnipotent. The other way around this is by asking what we really mean by omnipotence? The third way would be to say that the stone question presumes God must be in corporeal form as ethereal God could lift any stone as likely as you can eat broth with a fork...
Edit: Based of this video, there is actually fourth one: The stone is question would have to have infinite mass and density and idk if that is possible...?
@@Tyuhd-gg46 Well, if you go that road atheist will beat you. God is infinite, stone is always finite no matter how big it. So God can't create unliftable stone, because there can not be an infinite stone. So God could create unliftable stone, if it was generally possible. But since it isn't for reasons, then God is still omnipotent. Also, creation is always lesser than creator, not equal or created, so there is that also
@@Tyuhd-gg46 What I meant was that in order to create the stone that God can not lift, the stone must be infinite stone, i.e. stone with infinite mass and density. This is because God is infinite. Because if God is finite, the obviously God can not be omnipotent. The problem is, stone with infinite mass and density can not possibly exist, even IF God could create one. And if God could create one, it would be bigger than anything, which would mean the stone would basically destory the whole universe. So even if God COULD create such a stone, there is on sense destroy anything. Yes, alledgedly God DID destroy humanity one time in the flood, but that is just a fable that doesn't count Another problem is that the stone should be both invisible and visible since God could take corporeal form. but is by default invisible. So basically God should create Schrodinger's stone, which God could do, but again why? Also that would be contradiction within contradiction XD P.S. I am not religious either, but just trying to show how made up these problems are. And made up I mean made up to end up in a conclusion that has already been decided by setting parameters in such a way that the paradox always results to the desired outcome, i.e. there is no God. Now, God is such a topic that we don't have enough parameters to prove or disprove God so claiming either position is basically a confimation bias :)
@@Tyuhd-gg46 Yeah, I kinda justify my position of God being too vague concept to say anyhting about. Omnipotence paradox has just one "variable" so it is easier to analyze its delibiate flaws. Epicurean paradox is harder to analyze having 3 "variables": Omnipotence, omniscience and all-goodness. I could say perhaps that I am probably a deist: I believe that there is some force greater than us humans, but it isn't bound to any religion/holy book, nor does "God"/that being dictate any moral codes etc. etc. There isn't any eternal damnation or paradise, but in after life you do go to a certain level based on how you have lived here so based on that it may FEEL eternal. I also believe in karma. Maybe some others believes too, but the point is I don't represent any particular religion, although living in Europe christianity is still the most dominant religion...formally.
I have a theory for this, the god itself is the universe or universe itself is god. All things in known universe is made by god by its power. When we say it is omnipotent so everything is a part of its power, also everything is a part of universe. If god wants to create somthing it comes from its power and some its power become lesser like that if you take one drop of water or a bucket of water out of the ocean it nothing campare to ocean but the water is lasser, so if the god wants to create some that he can't lift it is possible becouse its cames form its power or from god itself, so god the major part of gods power are gone the stone or anything he created. But he has the power on energy transfer or manipulate so he can create or take it back to him and both aspacts or proovan that he can create a thing that he also can't lift and also reduce it in itself
"Because my strength would always be a potentially infinite strength I could never create a stone that I could not lift. Even so, it's logically impossible that I could ever create a stone whose actual weight value was such that it was actually infinitely heavy." ~ GOD
Listen there is a video made by mercifulservant debunking that "god cannot lift the rock" paradox. the video name is: Can God Create a Rock That He Cannot Lift? (Flawed Questions)
So if god cannot do the logically impossible doesn't that mean he cannot do something as the very nature of all powerful means anything without any drawbacks
Doesn’t the theist commit to the same fallacy here as when he is using existence as a predicate in the ontological argument? He uses logical as predicate, god is defined as logical, therefore god is logical, same as “the maximally great being must exist otherwise it wouldn’t be maximally great”? I mean if you define god as logical, then every discussion whether god is logically consistent is shut down. Because you define god as logically consistent. And if you say god isn’t bound by the laws of logic, then asking whether he (can) exist is nonsensical because then god can exist and not exist at the same time.
I may not be educated enough to argue the theory’s and terms, but I have read Genesis and will use that as a reference. God created Adam and Eve in his image. God created a tree of fruit they CANNOT eat, but Eve still ate the apple from the tree. Cannot means to be unable or not allowed to. Good can create something He himself cannot lift whether too heavy or light. For example if it was 1lb, God can say He Himself cannot lift it, while physically and mentally having the ability to do so, instead creates someone to lift it for him.
Answer this though. How is GOD all loving, all knowing and all powerful at the same time? How can he love us and yet put us through suffering unless of course he is not all loving since he definitely knows (all knowing) there are suffering in this world or he is all loving but yet not all powerful to stop suffering.
God also doesn't stop those things because the world is fallen, the world needs to go through purification, it's our job to spread God's glory around the world so there is no more sin and evil.
The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe - "Philosophy of Religion Part 1" eBook, available on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe1
It is also part of the Philosophy Vibe paperback Anthology - Vol 1 "Philosophy of Religion", a collection of all our Philosophy of Religion Scripts, available worldwide on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol1
Duhh God created everything , so of course that would be omnikinesis , all of the force is everywhere that's fact
Yes, but if Almighty God appears to ten faithful in a dream, he tells them to raise any stone as a sacrifice for him. Whatever weight the stone thrown by the faithful may be, this constitutes at the same time the heaviest and most immovable boulder that God could have ever created and moved. Of course, someone else moved it. But with the will of the lord. This makes us understand that freedom is an instrument of omnipotence
This just kept getting deeper and deeper, I was so invested into it lol
So happy I found your channel! It's crazy how long you guys have been at it.
Thank you very much :)
You guys are great, thank you for your content!
You're welcome, thank you for watching.
@@PhilosophyVibe i was one of your early fans. Keep the material coming. Create new material and unique material modern day philosophies. Become like a guru. Keep up the good work
Thank you very much. There's a lot of plans for this channel so stay tuned. Thank you for your support :D
Another awesome subject I didn't even know I was interested in. Thanks guys keep up the great work
Glad you enjoyed :D thanks for watching.
Sometimes it seems like channels that discuss philosophy of religion focus more on the problems with theism and gloss over the the defences given by theist philosophers, but that’s not the case with this channel. Thanks for exploring both sides off the issues
Glad you enjoyed, thanks for watching.
Probably my favorite video addressing the omnipotence paradox.
Thank you!
I agree. Good argument. I would also argue that God could create a stone he could not lift based on the argument of God's freewill. If God wants to create a stone that he cannot lift then he can do that because God can do anything he wants to do. If God couldn't do whatever he wants to do then that would imply that God does not have freewill (and it would ultimately imply that God is not God because God is all-powerful and can exercise his will any way that God chooses).
Exactly.. the truth of the matter is God doesn't have to lift the stone he can move it by force or tell it to move than it will moved. God Almighty Absolute omnipotent powers isn't confusing for him a.k.a God, it's confusing on us Humans. Our ways and thought isn't God ways & thoughts.
So can God choose to not have free will? See it just goes on forever?
If God has free will and wants, doesn't it contradict with His Omniscience?
@@aarieffawwaz7984 Remember it also stated that God won't go against his own nature.
Knowing that GOD can do ALL THING'S.
He isn't like us humans.
Well it's kinda the not the thing about ur saying.
God's omniscience has data of creating things outside his own omnipotence.
Therefore there isn't a omnipotent being but an illusion.
Wow! You steel man both sides and made the most interesting video about God’s omnipotence on all of youtube. Outstanding video!
If god so chooses to use his own omnipotence against him he can, and will make a stone he cannot lift. But he can also decide one day that he can lift the same stone.
then he can lift the stone so he didn't make an unliftable stone
@@engineergaming3830theists don’t use omnipotence to mean “to do everything” it’s to “do everything that is logically possible”
Atheists don’t use the argument anymore because
1. They use the wrong definition
2. If they don’t accept that definition, and require the theist to use the ability to do everything, including the logically impossible then the argument falls apart because then God CAN make a stone so heavy he can’t lift, and still lift it
If the atheist says that’s logically impossible, well that’s the definition they used, so God can make a stone so heavy he can’t lift, and still lift it because under the atheists definition he can do the logically impossible
The fact that even atheists consider it a bad argument shows how terrible it is
Than he's not omnipotent than otherwise he wouldn't exist.
@@alejandroayvar5305In this case God is omnipotent under the logical axioms, which means the human mind is capable of formulating things that are logically more powerful than God himself because of the existence of illogical axioms. What makes this even more insane is that illogical axioms still have some vestiges of logic because of subjectivity (i.e seeing fire in space makes sense to us even if it is physically impossible). We even have the ability to logically produce mathematical quantities that are beyond the limits of the universe itself. Why???? Why would we be the only beings in the universe to be able to come up with a concept like God, and if so, why would we then be able to create illogical axioms that strip God from his powers?
@@engineergaming3830I dont believe an Omnipotent being can create something else that is omnipotent. He can create something lesser.
If he already has all power, he cant create something else that also has all power. Thats like asking him can he create himself. Thats logically impossible to ask someone to create himself if he already exists.
I am an atheist but that was some solid argument. Keep up the Great work.
And thanks for the information.
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
It wasn’t a solid argument
It’s like saying can god make a wjksnrnekdkdn
It makes 0 sense
That’s not a solid argument 💀
more like a liquid argument
@@engineergaming3830 🤣😅
First few seconds I’m like, “wait, he’s limited to what’s logically possible”, then…the rest of the video happened! 😂
Then you have a deficient God. That which is logically possible is contingent on our universe and the "laws" that govern it. However, you first and foremost want your God to exist outside of the universe so as to have created it. That isn't logically possible, at the very least until such is demonstrated. You want your God to do miracles, create non-physical souls and transfer them to the afterlife. He is also a space less, timeless, self-sufficient, eternal consciousness. All of the above are logically and physically impossible. Thanks for disproving God.
@@Gxlto comparing God to a physical thing is a category error, your entire post is circular reasoning on the assumption that the physical universe is all that exists and not actually saying anything.
@@sonder152
No, you have missed the point.
The original post defined omnipotence as doing all that is logically possible. I explained that logic and possibility only make sense in the physical world with physical, quantifiable laws and limits because... that's all we have ever observed.
Until you demonstrate that there is such thing as a non-physical realm and redefine logic and possibility to include it then it's perfectly reasonable to assert that anything beyond this world is impossible.
Examples:
It is physically possible to be bald. Baldness exists. People exist. People can be bald, that's an empirical observation.
It is physically possible to make a pile of rocks (or rock) that you (its original maker) cannot lift. Rocks exist and they occupy physical mass. People exist. People can lift up to some certain amount. People can make things they can't lift, that's an empirical observation.
It is logically impossible to be a married bachelor. Bachelors exist. Married people exist. To say that one is a married bachelor is to say that one is an unmarried married man (P and Not P) which violates the axiom of non-contradiction.
It is logically impossible for an omnipotent being to create a rock so heavy that it can't lift it. By definition that rock would be of infinite weight and would require an infinite force to lift it. However putting infinity against itself (or rather 2 infinites against each other) is an incoherent task so the action is impossible.
It is physically impossible for a material being to react with the immaterial by definition.
*The examples above illustrate some physical and logical limits which exist in our universe because of the laws that seemingly govern it and are flawless in the reliability (like non-contradiction, conservation of energy, thermodynamics, etc.). A God that can do all that is physically possible can do all that is in accordance with the universe because that's how we define possibility. If you want to define it differently please go ahead but first of all make sure it is coherent and even if you could we wouldn't be talking about the same argument anyway. The original comment argued for a deficient God who is bound by the same laws that we are and that's all I said.*
@@Gxlto if your question is limited to logical possibilities limited to what is only physically speculated to exist, then you must acknowledge the absurdity of putting such constraints on a thing which defines that categorization in the first place.
You are not proving a point by placing the logical constraints of an assumed nature of reality (material universe) onto a thing you know is by it's incompatible with that category.
The two don't mix.
You are not proving a logical absurdity about the limits of God or the impossiblity of such a thing, rather you are merely demonstrating the limits of your own model of reality through applying a metaphysical thing in a literal-physical sense into your own speculative view of reality.
And yes your assertions are fundamentally circular reasoning.
@@sonder152
There is no question. I simply replied to the original comment. The _"absurdity of putting such constraints on a thing which defines that categorization in the first place"_ is not MY mistake. I never defined God. I simply pointed out how naive the "logically possible" definition of omnipotence is. Christians will have you believe that this is what omnipotence REALLY means regardless just so they can avoid internal contradictions and paradoxes due to unrestricted comprehension.
My position is that omnipotence is impossible and by extension the Abrahamic God. The original comment has just failed in its attempt to coherently define it.
And I repeat, the ONLY meaning that "logical possibility" has is precisely what I described. This is how we understand and describe possible and impossible things. You coming along and saying _"well you don't REALLY know if it's impossible because you don't know if there's anything beyond the universe"_ is an embarrassing appeal to the infalsifiable. There's nothing circular here. The original comment said "logically possible" and I simply applied the criteria onto God.
Until and unless you can demonstrate that there are things possible outside of our reach and knowledge, we can be certain beyond reasonable doubt that there aren't. That's just how we operate in our epistemology, by relying or reliable concepts which produce desirable outcomes like non-contradiction. I'm not claiming absolute truth or any silly philosophical nonsense of that sort, I'm simply reasoning based on what we reasonably know.
When someone asked me that years ago, I said, "I don't know. But a better question is: Is God powerful enough to judge you to eternal damnation in Hell?"
I think the answer to that is yes. And so the Gospel message is unchanged. If someone else doesn't take the punishment for your sins, then you will need to make that payment. Thankfully, God became a Man, lived a perfect life, and died in my place on the cross to pay for my sins. All I need do is to believe that, and then he declares my debt cancelled, and he welcomes me warmly into Paradise with him.
He will do the same for you if you believe in Jesus!
But God created sin, why would he create something that's bad and then make HIMSELF suffer for his own creations?
@@robertnagy3942 That's a great question! I think part of the answer is that we don't fully understand God, nor will we ever. In fact, if we could fully understand God, he wouldn't be God at all! But let me take a shot.
The Westminster Divines summed it up this way: "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."
That was their way of saying that scripture teaches that God is in no way responsible for sin, and yet there would be no sin were it not for the sovereign foreordination of God. That is something I can't wrap my head around. But it seems like an accurate summary of scripture.
As for why God chose to suffer, well, that only makes sense in light of the Trinity. The Father, Son and Spirit are always seeking to glorify one another. The Son glorified the Father by taking on flesh, suffering obediently even unto death. The Father glorified the Son by making him the only way by which man can be saved. The Spirit glorifies the Father and Son by applying the outworking of the death and resurrection of Christ to fallen man, changing our hearts from stone to flesh, justifying us, and sanctifying us.
Best I can do on a Friday morning. 🙂
@@BatMite19 I appreciate the reply
@@BatMite19 but your god created everything that would also mean he made sin because your book says there's no sin i heaven we know he can stop it from happening whenever he wants to but doesn't
@@engineergaming3830 I don't have all the philosophical answers. I just know that he saved me and I love him, and his word instructs me how to live my life.
Yes he can create stone that he cannot lift and can lift it by naming himself he cannot.
Wow, this comment is mad genius 👏
That still doesn't follow because he didn't make it immovable if he can decide on a whim that he can lift it.
he can do at the same time@@claytonveno3710
@down7747 The problem is that if you can't do what is logically impossible than by definition you aren't omnipotent. Furthermore The entire Bible is about God performing miracles many of which defy the laws of logic. So the notion that he can't do the logically impossible is silly and puts limits on his omnipotence.
@@thedragon5870 Not really LOL!
good video, watched it twice and had a really fun read of the people arguing about faith in the comments
Thank you, glad you enjoyed.
I missed you guys.
Amazing video again!
Hey Pedro, thank you, glad you enjoyed!
This was very impressive, I would personally resolve it the same way one resolves euthyphro( Logic is part of God's nature or essence ).. but that ending was just amazing backslap.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed :)
It if you define it that way, wouldn’t you make god logical by definition? Logical, in my opinion, can’t be a predicate, because logic is something we want to apply ON something, same as existence. Of course, if you say god is essentially logical, then he is logical. But then we couldn’t have any reasonable discussion.
Can logical be a predicate? Well, using Kants reasoning:
If logical is predicate, then it enlarges an object. Take any object O, is O logical? No O can’t be, because if zo is logical, then it means O + logical is logical, so O itself cannot be logical.
thanks guys for helping me. it was difficult to understand it in my class but you have helped me a lot. thanks
Glad we could help :)
6:33-7:27 *No.* This merely still _demonstrates_ that the very _notion_ of the 'Omni' 'God' is simply logically and ontologically *_incoherent,_* and therefore *_impossible_* ...
Exactly, to believe God is illogical is to concede he even exists in the first place. Illogical things can’t be conceptualized, let alone actual.
Yo this channel is so underated
Luv it
Thank you :)
@@Muhammad_Abdullah_Arshad
בשמו הקדוש של ישוע המשיח מנצרת שכל נשמה אבודה תראה את האמת. באמצעות חסדו האינסופי, תזכו לחוות את ישוע המשיח במלוא תפארתו. שום שד או רוח רעה לא יכולים לגבור עליך כפי שכתוב. בשמו של ישוע אנו מתפללים להסיר את כיסוי העיניים. ❤️🔥
we are using a self referential argument similar to "This statement is False". If the Statement is false, then it must be true. But if for it to be true, it must be false.
It's not the omnipotence that is the issue, but self referential statements. We are using a flawd method.
This was a good meal, 🤗
Satisfied,⭐
How can we be sure that we can answer everything with logic?
Wow just wow, these 2 arguments are very very good.
Thank you.
Here’s the mathematical puzzle:
Infinity - 1 = Infinity.
The problem with the stone paradox, translated in math form, is basically the above equation. We have one half of the equation where it is Infinity (Omnipotence / The god who can lift the stone). The (-1) represents just less than Omnipotence (The god who cannot lift the stone).
The common claim is that Infinity - 1 is still Infinity, that even the -1 is still Infinity (just a lesser version of it). So, in essence, any equation that has Infinity in it equals infinity, regardless of any other numbers in the equation itself (because any other number is just a lesser version of Infinity, therefore, it still is Infinity).
However, this defies what the definition of infinity is: Math does not define numbers as a “lesser version” of infinity. While all numbers are in Infinity, the nature of Infinity is that it *has* all numbers. Once you take a number away, then it no longer is infinity by definition. Therefore, if you take an ability out (failure to lift the stone), it is no longer Omnipotent. This deduces, pure logically, that the god who fails to lift the stone no longer qualifies as Omnipotent, just like Infinity - 1 can no longer qualify as Infinity.
If, by chance, you are attempting to counter the above equation with Infinity + 1 = Infinity, you are still faced with the same failure of definition. If you can add +1 to Infinity, then the initial use of the word Infinity is incorrect, therefore, the problem cannot possibly be solved, because it is incoherent.
The only way to solve the Stone Paradox is to claim that Omnipotence *includes* the ability to not be Omnipotent, even if it was just for a nanosecond in time. However, to be accurate on the definition of Omnipotence, it would be impossible for the Being to be both Omnipotent and non-Omnipotent at the same time, based on our definitions of both terms. Therefore, there would have to be a moment in time, however brief, that the Being would lose its Omnipotence and fail to lift the stone while being able to create the stone at any other time.
There is no other way, without losing both proper definitions established and structures in logic, that the Stone Paradox can be resolved.
Yeah i do agree with you i think the only logical conclusion that entails is that omnipotence is not possible,because by definition it is impossible to lose omnipotence,however brief it is because it is the representative of absolute power (by which no other power could influence it)
God can create a simulated "world" where the "rules" state an object called a "rock" cannot be lifted by an admin because no permission was programmed to provide that level of access. Meaning it's pointless to ask whether an architect of a program can access the program after it has been deployed with code that states no. All powerful means "do what you would like" not "do what is logical".
By doing that means he is just relatively omnipotent not absolute.
I bought one of your books first of all as a little thank you for so much information you provided for us, Charles. May God bless you! I will buy more.
Thank you very much Rocio, it is much appreciated and I am glad you really like the content!
Wait so an electron being at 2 places at the same time which is logically impossible but was proven to happen is something that god can’t do by your definition…
The concept of God naturally is a paradox. The solution to the problem is precisely that there is no solution. Omnipotence is a matter that is supposed to be logically unfeasible. Paradoxes are not meant to be solved. The fact that we can use logic to come up with illogical scenarios is ironic in itself
Not believing in God will also lead to the illogical statement that the world is created by chance, which is irrational.
@@dzdawlatzwamel9795 No it doesn’t lead directly to believing that the world/universe is created by chance.
And believing that the universe was created by chance is neither illogical nor irrational (which are two distinct notions).
Watch the video of this channel “the teleological argument”.
Btw how we know that we can answer everything with logic?
My last 2 brain cells are trying to understand what the hell what these men are saying
I'm lucky to find this video, finally, it's answered
It is like saying can god be omnipotent and can not be omnipotent at the same time.
Yep. If we accept than an omnipotent being has unlimited power and ability, then he cannot logically create something that limits himself. The inability to have an inability is a double negative and thus illogical and does not detract from omnipotence
You're right. I didn't find it phrased like this.
Given that God is the creator of everything that would also mean that He also defines what is and isn’t logical
Which is why nothing is omnipotent. The idea is silly
It’s like saying if we but God in a box with a poison that could kill God and had a random timer that would release. Without opening the box God would be considered both alive and dead at the time. Thus Zombie God is both a wave and a particle at the same time. So by this logic if we spun the box clock wise and had another box with the same god in it, we would be able to communicate between galaxies faster then the speed of light. Okay people on 3 let’s capture this elusive leprechaun like creature. Ready 1…..2….. and nm I can’t to 3 because between the number two and three their is an infinite amount of decimals. Better luck next time folks see you on the Monty Hall Show where you have better odds
Theists say that "God cannot do a contradiction", such as make a square-circle, etc... But isn't God the one that made the rule that such contradictions cannot be done? He could have made a universe where such contradictions are totally possible. He was the one that decided that a square circle cannot exist -- he preceded all rules/laws of logic etc. He created logic!
It mean God created paradox to test your Faith
omnipotent paradox does not come from humans brains it come from God he want to test our Faith with such of paradox questions
so God does not got weak bcus this questions bcus God actually who make it
Why did he create logic in the first place?
@@LilXancheXBut logic doesn't define God at all. But 9 outta 10 humans most of them use logic to solve most issue & problems.
Just like God give human being's five senses & common sense.
Nonetheless it's not human first nature nor second nature. A.k.A meaning we humans don't even used Common sense on a daily basis. So yeah God isn't Bound by Logic.
Logic is a necessary truth, I believe God could have created logical paradox’s but this would be counterintuitive to truth & nothing would be necessary I.e would be 2+2= 10 cause who could tell me otherwise
@@johnsean122 oh so instead of making something to show he exists he's just hiding and creating laws and things that disprove his existence as a some sort of twisted test?
The paradox is simple to answer, The unliftable rock can be created, however once the rock is attempted to be lifted it is possible by the said creator. The rock was created as part of the paradox satisfying it, however after the rock was created the all powerful can still lift it also satisfying it.
Its easier for people to understand it like this.... a begginer weight lifter can put 400lbs on a bar that they cant lift to begin with however after time has passed they are able to lift it due to a change in the nature to the lifter. While it was true the bar was unliftable it is also true that he can lift it. The difference with the paradox to the example is the time it takes for the change to occur. Its instantaneous, the second the creator creates it tge creator can then lift it. Its not that its not possible rather outside viewers cant be given proof of the accomplishment.
Your example doesn't make any sense. Because your example relies on the fact that the lifter changes and becomes stronger. But God doesn't change. He remains the same. So if he creates a rock he cannot lift, he will not be able to lift it. Because he doesn't change.
@@a1uplift212 I would argue, assuming this is the christian "God" which my response is mostly based around, that the supreme in quedtion can and does change, its most noticable by reading stories of the Old Testemant and New. The responses of God are very different between the two despite being the same all knowing being. If that being was unchanging their conditions of entering heaven or serving faithfully would never change yet they do hence even that being is able to change. The simple idea they cant change would create another paradox the same as this one.
@@blackrook268 the way he thinks can be called into question with the way he thinks, but your original comment talks about him changing physically, which you still got a good point either way, and we don't really know at the end of the day. This simple question goes deeper and deeper until you get to a point you just believe what you believe. We won't know and if this God is real we could probably never know when it comes to his powerfulness. Either way, just looking at Adam and Eve makes one very critical about God's real power and intentions. He created humanity and then tested them. But if he was all knowing, he'd already know the outcome from the consequences of his actions, so the only way he could test them while still being all knowing would be that he chose willful ignorance. He chose not to see the future, which means he can activate his all knowingness, like it just isn't a part of his general knowledge which isn't what one sees at first. But anyway, if he chose ignorance, then he's not all loving. Because if he was all loving he would've cared enough to see how the consequences of his actions would've impacted his children, thus making him aware of the outcome, making there no reason to do the test, at that point he's just doing it for sh*ts and giggles. But then one might say "we don't know how to make a universe, so god has to make it a certain way, like how to make a paper airplane, you need paper, maybe it's something like that with God" that inevitably brings it right back to God operating underneath a power higher than him and out of his control making him not all powerful. There is simply no way an all powerful and all loving God can exist in this world or universe with the way it is. If God is real, he is either all powerful and malevolent, or he's imperfect and all loving.
@@a1uplift212 Not going to lie, i deffinitly dont consider the Christian God all loving as some very dick moves are made in Old Testemant. And God probably is meant to represent Nature or something beyond our understanding, hell even some super advanced form of life would make sense in the context of cavemen seeing universe travelling aliens. However aside from that yeah its all theoretical i just feel if a being can do anything it should be able to alter even its own capabilities at will. Honestly it could also be at that point its just the multiverse theory where forms exist who can do said thing and at the same time forms that cannot do said thing. Idk im not scholar Im just some idiot who thought he had a good idea 😂
@@a1uplift212I’m going to go with the last one. That’s my best bet. You’d think after all humanity has been through, killings and abuse for eons, god wouldn’t have stepped in at least once and said “hey guys, This is fucked up. Stop hurting each other”
But nothing happens. Humans still continue hurting each other.
Not once has he shown his power in person. Supposedly You have to die to actually see him
Truly amazing video, good work, very informative, proud of you. (:
Thank you very much!
@@PhilosophyVibe You're welcome. (:
The word Logos in John 1:1 could show that God is logic so God transcends human logic but is logic himself greater than a finite beings logic, logic reflect God’s thinking; God has always existed and has always had thoughts therefore, laws of logic have always existed they are part of himself
The answer at the end is also my conclusion. Based on the observations seen in quantum physics.
Where an area of existence can be 0, 1 and then both zero and one at the same time and perception alone can dictate the result in a state of existence.
quantum superposition does NOT mean that an object is in multiple independent states simultaneously. Only that it's behaviour can be mathematically approximated by the addition of multiple independent approximations simultaneously. The cat in schrodingers box is NOT dead and alive, only that it is mathematically convenient to describe the cat's state as such
Uhhh is it only me left all confused explain plz🙁
Brilliant 👏 thank you
Right this is a good video
Saw a Christian quote "if you think you understand God, you ain't God." And they were saying that to imply that you cannot understand God. But the quote itself literally makes no sense and contradicts itself. So if we think we understand God, we ain't God, we already know we're not God, therefore, we should be ABLE to understand him completely because of the fact that we are not God. I swear everything that comes about God just makes no sense in the long run and this therefore reinforces my belief that God is not perfect and perfection cannot exist because of the fact that good cannot exist without evil. And I feel like God tried to tell us how to live back then, and reason with us but then shi backfired and he saw the damage it created with the wars, the men manipulating it, and decided to back off from us. Cause if you think about it, Adam and Eve's story falls apart immediately when you think about it. God tested them to see if they'd remain faithful but an all knowing God would've already known the outcome thus there's no need for the test so if he had to test them to find out then he is not all knowing. But if, like some christians have said to me, god "chooses not to see our future" then that means God has the capability of being all knowing but chooses to be willfully ignorant therefore making him a god not worth worshipping because of the fact he makes himself ignorant and ultimately makes him responsible for all evil because he chose to be ignorant and test them anyway even tho he could've already seen the outcome before it even happened. If God is real, he is not all powerful. It all breaks apart
Lil edit right here to show the paradox full circle: if God chose not to see the outcome, and tested humanity anyway. He is not all loving because an all loving God would care how the consequences of his actions would impact his creation, therefore he would tap into his all knowing and see the outcome, making there no need for a test in the first place.
Edit again real quick before the Christians start rolling in, before you say "it's deeper than that, because God can see the future but he can see every possible outcome" well if he is all knowing he should know which outcome will happen from his actions, if he isn't able to know which outcome will happen out of all the possible ones, then he isn't all knowing. But not even that I mean why does evil exist in the first place? "Oh because of man's fall from grace" Wrong. Evil existed before man's fall from grace because SATAN went to the garden and deceived eve, creating the fall from grace. This can only mean this, either god created evil because he is not all loving or he created evil because good cannot exist without evil therefore God is not all powerful. If you read this far please let me know your standpoint because the more and more I think on this, the more I believe God isn't perfect
Religion falls apart with this. An all loving God wouldn't allow hell to exist, but ignore that for a moment, think about the rapture. Every christian is going to be in heaven and the earth will become hell which not only wastes god's glorious creation (which is earth) it proves that after the rapture, free will, will no longer exist. Because there will be no more evil. Only good, so you will be going to heaven wanting to serve God but if you don't live exactly how you Christians portray he wants you to live, it won't matter. You won't be able to choose to live any different, you won't have the free will to make that choice. It'll literally be its own hell
the mere existence of something shows that God is above logic. How can something be created out of nothing? And if it has always been there, how did that happen? That is also a logical contradiction.
"So, if God cannot be omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time, then He is not omnipotent."
He must find us so amusing sometimes.
What about the burning, not devouring, thornbush before Mozes, isn't that contradictory ?
Loved it!
Thank you :)
I think can still be limited but greater than the universe. Like a computer programmer. He’s a god of the computer but not of his surroundings.
Though that doesn’t exactly give comfort to theists as it implies that this limited god can die or simply not do things we wish he could
One must remember that as humans, we are restricted to ideas and realities that we can understand. There is reality which we do not (yet) understand, such as cosmology. The construction of a black holes interior, for example. The black hole interior will exist regardless of our limited knowledge. God exists OUTSIDE our temporal universe. What if, in the heavenly realm, there exists "laws of the universe" which allow Him to perform the logically impossible? It would be wrong to confine God's abilities to our understanding of our temporal universe, having limited human knowledge and reasoning power.
What if God creates a stone he can lift in one universe but can't in another universe? Does God have to be a single being or entity? Can he be multiple things simultaneously? Finite minds can't understand infinity, so there are things our minds cannot penetrate.
Postscript: I posted the above comment before seeing the last couple minutes of the video. Most of what I wrote was addressed.
This paradox can be solved if God turns into a rock (small or big).
This is circular reasoning, and thus a logical fallacy.
Nope
Thank you for making this video 😊😊.
You're welcome, glad you enjoyed.
How about: if God is omnipotent, can he create a pathogen that can kill him? If god is a god with purpose, what purpose would these examples serve?
Defining omnipotence leads to paradoxical Platonism.
"Shad" in old Hebrew means "Breast" whereas "Her" means Mountain. If Shaddai means "Almighty" and is speculated to mean omnipotent, then this follows:
-if god is omnipotent, god has everything (what he is, what he has is what he is)
-if god has everything, god acquires nothing (How can you receive what you already have, everything if it is all there already? How can you add to yourself+ All powerful?)
-if god acquires nothing, god does not desire (You don't desire what you already have, everything)
-if god does not desire, god does not "will" things. (To go beyond yourself is to will, it is a faculty that you actualize)
-if god does not will things, God is platonic. (Potential only) (deistic)
-if god is platonic, then God is not omnipotent (which means being the greatest power, including that "willing" he does not)
This is not like the omnipotence paradox which states, "Can God create a stone so heavy he cannot lift?"
My version says he (Does not) not (cannot) given the property of omnipotence.
Awesome solution
Everyone in the comments: "God exists" or "God doesn't exist".
Meanwhile God: "Look at these fools."
so ur also saying god exists
... what is a stone and lifting based on wich reference are the questions
Please do a video on Roko's Basilisk
Thanks for the recommendation, we will look into it.
With an infinite universe the stone would grow forever never becoming too heavy for God to lift everyone would get bored watching God hold onto a stone it's as simple as that
The last point summed up is basically, “humans don’t know, therefore God.”
argument from ignorance
My brain just exploded
He could always make a giant forklift, that way he could make someone that could lift it with him actually being the one lifting it
Can God say "I'm not omnipotent " ?
that's funny.
He can do both of them at same time split for two state one that lift and one who cant
Actually the solution of this paradox is defining what is god how he has such unlimited power , understanding what is he created from . Then everything will be easier to understand
If God is created, I don't think we can call it "God".
Exactly, just by screaming “god cannot do illogical things because it doesn’t make sense” is ridiculous. If the interpretation of omnipotence as being unconditionally all powerful does not apply to god, then come up with a better definition of god, don’t say “god is logical by definition so any attempt to show he is illogical are dumb”.
@@dzdawlatzwamel9795yes you can. You can still call him god, god is just a title. It doesn’t mean much
(Seeing this video 3 years late.) Aristotle would have added another major point to this debate. God, as the first principle, is not just a being, but is being itself. So, the question of God creating a rock he can't lift is absurd on another level. All created things exist in God, but the question assumes that once God creates the rock, it exists outside of him, and he's trying to lift it as any other being would. That isn't the classical conception of God.
But Aristotle's ideas shouldn't be confused with pantheism either - The universe isn't God, but it exists in him, and he's infinitely greater than it.
Also in the classical and scholastic worldviews, God has no accidents. ("Accident" meaning "a property that is not of the essense"). All of his characteristics are essential. So:
God doesn't just exist. He is existence.
God isn't just logical. He is logic.
God isn't just good. He is goodness.
God isn't just beautiful. He is beauty.
God isn't just true. He is truth.
Also, God is pure act; God is immutable... and several other ideas that take some study.
Those points would be part of the full response given by classical theists, from Aristotle to the scholastics to many classical theists today.
The answer is "yes". Then if someone responds, "Then God is not omnipotent because he cannot lift the stone", I say, "What stone?" God has not created it. I think the confusion is the word "can". Can God do it? Yes. Has he done it? No. Will he do it? I think not, but I agree that if he did then he would no longer be omnipotent and therefore no longer God. Just because someone can do something does not mean it has been done. Can I walk into the middle of a busy road and be killed by a car? Yes, I can, meaning my legs work so I can walk. But I won't because I don't want to. Another question: Can God create a being more powerful than himself? Yes, but he won't because he doesn't want to do it. Another question: Can God take a part of himself, have that part because a human, and die on a cross for our sins? Yes. Will he? Yes -- He already has done it.
meanwhile schrodinger, "hold my beer"
And if this is true and he is above logic that would mean god can make a world where Free will and goodness exists without any of the drawbacks.
hey there, really enjoyed the video - would love to get these as audio only, are you on audea?
Glad you enjoyed. Unfortunately our content is only on UA-cam right now.
An omnipotent being is not limited by laws of physics or time. An omnipotent being can create thousands of square circles as easy as you can lift up a feather.
It's a law of logic
@@pawgaming1225 your god created logic so he can change it
great video!
Thank you.
Last time I was this early, it was still "only two Weeks to flatten muh curve"
Creating a stone & lifting the stone are 2 separate activities. (1) Creating the stone followed by (2) lifting the stone. God will first create an unliftable stone & then create strength greater than required to lift the stone.
Aand yet again we fall back on "we cannot understand the ways of god defense"
Why is George and John cartoon characters with human voice?
Trying to solve the omnipotence paradox by saying that God is omnipotent by definition is like trying to solve the Gödel's incompleteness theorem by saying that mathematics are not incomplete by definition, don't you think?
That last point blew my mind - big win for God! 😂
Confirmation biased?
big win for the possibility of god you mean
It is not really a big win, because either god limited by some (quite strong) laws, or he is an absurd (in every sense of the word) concept.
@@LomuHabana of course God is limited to the laws that he came up with
@@FryedCat0 that means those laws (which are really laws of the our universe) transcend him in some sense.
A few arguments:
1. I believe that it is not at all contrqdictory for G-D to create a triangled circle. Just beacue it doesn't make sense to us, doesn't mean it's impossible. Don't try to "box" G-D into our narrow and limited human logic.
2. The question is a false question to begin with, as it sets itself in such a way the person answering would *have* to give one of two answers, with each one making it seem like he thinks less of G-D.
Anyways, it's midnight and I'm tired.
The only explanation is that we are unable to comprehend the laws created by god. He can just create a state of existence and non existence. Similarly to how he can create a rock that is heavy and cannot be lifted but then lifts it in a way that fulfills both states at the same time. Imagine water as an example. It is in a state of liquid but can easily turned into a solid. Doesn't that seem like a paradox already to the people who don't understand it?
You should have addressed this paradox another way: god knows it's not gonna rain tomorrow , can he make it rain tomorrow, if yes , his prior knowledge is false if no he can't make it rain , and therefore he's not omnipotent
so in the end, god cannot do something whether logical or not logical. Meaning god has limits
God created laws of logic & decided not to break them bcoz that was his one of his best creations & God loves his creation just like he loves each one of us
the paradox still stands
It’s not about his choice, but ability.
5:36
The Question is what is beyond logic? This concept is fundamentally self-contradiction there is nothing beyond logic , and the pattern of thinking of god is also logic , so the logic is the our thinking itself! And God Thought itself is logic , so logical laws are not created its self-contradiction claim , if the laws of logic created then there is a prior-logical law situation , and we ask what is prior logical situation? Then all answer is meaningless and lead to violation of law of-contradiction and actually any proposition that violate law of contradiction is meaningless and cannot give any positive or negative claim.
We can theorize that our logic is came from God Mind , and we are the only creatures inside universe ( hypothetically ) have logic! And logic cannot be based upon materialism! And product of material universe because it lead to self-contradiction! Therefore our mind is grounded by logic and the mind must be abstract object that outside material realm! So this is abduction argument for thinking that our minds came from God. , there must be non-materialistic realm exist to survive in logical contradictions.
I think Plato said God is bound by the laws he created for His creation. So, we being created in the image of God, should be bound to these laws too. If you create anything in this world, after you begin you find yourself having to follow it's patterns (for it to work or be pleasing). It is in this sense that God is bound, because He is creating within his creation. However God is beyond what He creates, which a creator always is, but beyond this creation is beyond our possible understanding, as you said. However God is also called the Logos, which suggests God's nature is logical perhaps. Thanks for your channel.
It if you see it that way, wouldn’t you make god logical by definition? Logical, in my opinion, can’t be a predicate, because logic is something we want to apply ON something, same as existence. Of course, if you say god is essentially logical, then he is logical. But then we couldn’t have any reasonable discussion.
Can logical be a predicate? Well, using Kants reasoning:
If logical is predicate, then it enlarges an object. Take any object O, is O logical? No O can’t be, because if zo is logical, then it means O + logical is logical, so O itself cannot be logical.
The question as to whether God can create a rock he can't lift is asked in the material context by which it creates a contradiction. Why is it asked in such a context? Because the physics of rocks and the laws which govern the manner of their existence was created by God that they might exist as they do. All that exists materially is by definition limited or finite, delineable and quantifiable. What you're asking then is a question whose answer can only be outside of the finite material realm and so the contradiction arises. God created this materiality as he wished it to be and that it is finite precludes even the consideration of such questions. There is no indictment of God's omnipotence in this "paradox", just an abuse of the context in which and by which it is constrained.
He can't do it so he's not omnipotent, the laws of the universe don't matter to something with infinite power that can bring whatever he wants into and out of existence at will.
This made me think of Shrodinger's Cat thought experiment.
Hello people,
Yes, God can lift a stone he cannot lift.
Please find 2 ways below:
1. God acts on the environment not the stone itself
God can maintain the stone while lowering the ground. From people on the ground, the stone would be lifted in the air even though it is not moving.
2. God can use a proxy
God can create a being whose ability is to lift the stone (he is omnipotent, right). By lifting the guy (Héraclès) who can lift the stone, he can lift the stone. This being would not be stronger than god, he just has a hack.
God inherit his hack by lifting him.
Chatgpt seems to agree with me on that one 👍
Technically, the strongest being not being able to pick the most heavy object is still not a contradiction. The only way a contradiction can feasibly exist is to assume God could lift anything. If God can lift anything, it would be contradictory for him to create something he couldn't lift. But since omnipotence isn't limited to physical strength, I don't see how God creating a stone so heavy he can't lift it would necessarily entail a contradiction. The assumption that God is able to physically/spiritually LIFT anything that could potentially exist is required before there can actually be a contradiction.
EDIT: if we're simply going to say "nothing can be greater than the greatest possible being", without recognizing there's a difference between weight and strength, we could then equally say that God cannot create an object heavier than himself? Since that would mean this object is "greater" than God in some respect. What about can God create an object that's better at breaking into a bank than he is? Or an object that's better at hacking software than he is? Or an object that's able to tell more lies than God? Or an object that's faster than God? Or an object that treats women better than God does? Since he's the greatest conceivable being, he's greater in EVERY respect. Therefore, the same logic that would apply to the omnipotence paradox would apply to all my scenarios. God cannot create such a being since creating such a being would require God to create a being greater in some capacity than the greatest possible being, which bring rise to the contradiction. If it's possible to be greater in some respects than the greatest possible being, then there can be no greatest possible being, only beings that are greater in certain regards but not all. There can exist no being that's greater than anything in every regard.
If we accept that he can do all that is logically possible then it still wouldn't mean he can.Lying for example is a logical possibility that is carried very well.Creating something greater than its maker is also a logical possibility in any world.I can make something greater than me at arithmetics.By this logic ,I am omnipotent because I can make ALL that is logically possible in my human way.
Great argument!
Can you explain more bec. I can't really understand what is the point of this argument
Great one
Thanks
The paradox could also be expessed as "Can God unmake its omnipotence?" The answer is yes of course. But the more important question is why would God do that? Anyways, the omnipotence paradox actually proves God's omnipotence as God could create a situation making itself not omnipotent. The other way around this is by asking what we really mean by omnipotence? The third way would be to say that the stone question presumes God must be in corporeal form as ethereal God could lift any stone as likely as you can eat broth with a fork...
Edit: Based of this video, there is actually fourth one: The stone is question would have to have infinite mass and density and idk if that is possible...?
@@Tyuhd-gg46 Well, if you go that road atheist will beat you. God is infinite, stone is always finite no matter how big it. So God can't create unliftable stone, because there can not be an infinite stone. So God could create unliftable stone, if it was generally possible. But since it isn't for reasons, then God is still omnipotent. Also, creation is always lesser than creator, not equal or created, so there is that also
@@Tyuhd-gg46 What I meant was that in order to create the stone that God can not lift, the stone must be infinite stone, i.e. stone with infinite mass and density. This is because God is infinite. Because if God is finite, the obviously God can not be omnipotent. The problem is, stone with infinite mass and density can not possibly exist, even IF God could create one. And if God could create one, it would be bigger than anything, which would mean the stone would basically destory the whole universe. So even if God COULD create such a stone, there is on sense destroy anything. Yes, alledgedly God DID destroy humanity one time in the flood, but that is just a fable that doesn't count
Another problem is that the stone should be both invisible and visible since God could take corporeal form. but is by default invisible. So basically God should create Schrodinger's stone, which God could do, but again why? Also that would be contradiction within contradiction XD
P.S. I am not religious either, but just trying to show how made up these problems are. And made up I mean made up to end up in a conclusion that has already been decided by setting parameters in such a way that the paradox always results to the desired outcome, i.e. there is no God. Now, God is such a topic that we don't have enough parameters to prove or disprove God so claiming either position is basically a confimation bias :)
@@Tyuhd-gg46 Yeah, I kinda justify my position of God being too vague concept to say anyhting about. Omnipotence paradox has just one "variable" so it is easier to analyze its delibiate flaws. Epicurean paradox is harder to analyze having 3 "variables": Omnipotence, omniscience and all-goodness.
I could say perhaps that I am probably a deist: I believe that there is some force greater than us humans, but it isn't bound to any religion/holy book, nor does "God"/that being dictate any moral codes etc. etc. There isn't any eternal damnation or paradise, but in after life you do go to a certain level based on how you have lived here so based on that it may FEEL eternal. I also believe in karma. Maybe some others believes too, but the point is I don't represent any particular religion, although living in Europe christianity is still the most dominant religion...formally.
I have a theory for this, the god itself is the universe or universe itself is god. All things in known universe is made by god by its power. When we say it is omnipotent so everything is a part of its power, also everything is a part of universe. If god wants to create somthing it comes from its power and some its power become lesser like that if you take one drop of water or a bucket of water out of the ocean it nothing campare to ocean but the water is lasser, so if the god wants to create some that he can't lift it is possible becouse its cames form its power or from god itself, so god the major part of gods power are gone the stone or anything he created. But he has the power on energy transfer or manipulate so he can create or take it back to him and both aspacts or proovan that he can create a thing that he also can't lift and also reduce it in itself
"Because my strength would always be a potentially infinite strength I could never create a stone that I could not lift. Even so, it's logically impossible that I could ever create a stone whose actual weight value was such that it was actually infinitely heavy." ~ GOD
whoa god said that? sweet
lol
Listen
there is a video made by mercifulservant debunking that "god cannot lift the rock" paradox.
the video name is: Can God Create a Rock That He Cannot Lift? (Flawed Questions)
You know god can ignore logic?
A truly Omnipotent being would be able to give logic the middle finger and create a rock that both can AND can't be lifted.
So if god cannot do the logically impossible doesn't that mean he cannot do something as the very nature of all powerful means anything without any drawbacks
Doesn’t the theist commit to the same fallacy here as when he is using existence as a predicate in the ontological argument?
He uses logical as predicate, god is defined as logical, therefore god is logical, same as “the maximally great being must exist otherwise it wouldn’t be maximally great”? I mean if you define god as logical, then every discussion whether god is logically consistent is shut down. Because you define god as logically consistent.
And if you say god isn’t bound by the laws of logic, then asking whether he (can) exist is nonsensical because then god can exist and not exist at the same time.
4:27 Ohh wait till you hear about the world of quantum physics
The personified God, that which is conditioned and qualified, is not the Absolute Divine, but a manifestation of it.
I may not be educated enough to argue the theory’s and terms, but I have read Genesis and will use that as a reference.
God created Adam and Eve in his image.
God created a tree of fruit they CANNOT eat, but Eve still ate the apple from the tree.
Cannot means to be unable or not allowed to.
Good can create something He himself cannot lift whether too heavy or light.
For example if it was 1lb, God can say He Himself cannot lift it, while physically and mentally having the ability to do so, instead creates someone to lift it for him.
2:58 so you just changed the meaning of all powerfull to be able to do anything that makes logical sense so that your argument works
Answer this though. How is GOD all loving, all knowing and all powerful at the same time? How can he love us and yet put us through suffering unless of course he is not all loving since he definitely knows (all knowing) there are suffering in this world or he is all loving but yet not all powerful to stop suffering.
God also doesn't stop those things because the world is fallen, the world needs to go through purification, it's our job to spread God's glory around the world so there is no more sin and evil.
God is not greater than himself, so God himself is the standard of what logic itself is which is why God is limited to what is logically possible.