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
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.
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?
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.
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.
@@claytonveno3710This is known as the *omnipotence paradox*, and it raises questions about the nature of omnipotence, or all-powerfulness. One way to resolve the paradox is to understand omnipotence not as the ability to do the logically impossible, but as the power to do all that is logically possible. For example, creating a rock so heavy that God can't lift it is a self-contradictory idea. It's like asking, "Can God create a square circle?" or "Can God make 2+2=5?" Such tasks aren't a limitation on God's power, but a recognition that nonsense actions aren't meaningful tasks. In this view, being all-powerful doesn't mean doing the logically impossible; it means having the power to do anything that can be done. Thus, God remains all-powerful within the realm of what is logically possible.
@@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.
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.
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”.
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_* ...
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?
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)
@@PhilosophyVibe Allah Is Above His Power, But His Power Is Above Everything, So His Power Can Do Anything Even Impossible Things Like Creating a Square Circle Or Creating a Married Bachelor Or Creating a Four Sided Triangle, But His Power Cannot Create Another God Or Create a Heavy Rock That He Cannot Lift Or Make Allah Into Un-God Or Make Him a Human Or Kill Him, As Allah's Power Is Not Above Him, But His Power Is Still Above Everything, So His Power Can Do Anything Even Impossible Things, As His Power Created The Universe From Nothingness, Which Is a Impossible Thing To Do, So His Power Can Do Impossible Things, But His Power Cannot Make Something More Powerful Then Him, As He Is Above His Power, So The Answer Is That His Power Can Do Anything Even Impossible Things, But His Power Cannot Make Him Weak, As Allah's Power Is Not Above Allah.
@@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. ❤️🔥
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".
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.
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
I dont get the Euthyphro Dilemma isn't god himself considered the true logos. I dont get why you either put him above or below logic isnt he the logic himself?
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.
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.
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
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Allah Is Above His Power, But His Power Is Above Everything, So His Power Can Do Anything Even Impossible Things Like Creating a Square Circle Or Creating a Married Bachelor Or Creating a Four Sided Triangle, But His Power Cannot Create Another God Or Create a Heavy Rock That He Cannot Lift Or Make Allah Into Un-God Or Make Him a Human Or Kill Him, As Allah's Power Is Not Above Him, But His Power Is Still Above Everything, So His Power Can Do Anything Even Impossible Things, As His Power Created The Universe From Nothingness, Which Is a Impossible Thing To Do, So His Power Can Do Impossible Things, But His Power Cannot Make Something More Powerful Then Him, As He Is Above His Power, So The Answer Is That His Power Can Do Anything Even Impossible Things, But His Power Cannot Make Him Weak, As Allah's Power Is Not Above Him.
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
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.
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.
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
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 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?
(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.
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
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 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
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?
True Omnipotence Is The Capacity To Possess Unlimited Power That Enables One To Perform Any Conceivable Action Without Altering One's Own Attribute Of Logic. This Form Of Omnipotence Grants The Ability To Alter The Logic Governing Everything Other Than One's Own Attribute Of Logic. For Instance, It Allows The Creation Of Paradoxical Concepts Like a Square Circle. However, It Precludes The Ability To Relinquish Or Alter One's Own Omnipotent Status, As That Would Necessitate a Change In One's Own Attribute Of Logic, So It Also Precludes The Ability To Make Something More Powerful Than One's Own Self, As There Can Be Nothing More Powerful Than One's Own Omnipotent Status, As That Would Necessitate a Change In One's Own Attribute Of Logic. Fake Omnipotence, On The Other Hand, Presents The Illusion Of Unlimited Power, Permitting The Individual To Seemingly Accomplish Anything. However, It Inherently Contains The Flaw Of Allowing The Individual To Remove Their State Of Omnipotence. This Inherent Ability To Become Un-Omnipotent Signifies The Falseness Of This Claimed Omnipotence. Consequently, True Omnipotence Is Distinct, As It Does Not Contain The Possibility Of Becoming Un-Omnipotent, Affirming Its Authenticity.
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.
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.
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.
Im an atheist but I have a problem with asking about weight of a thing like a stone and think that would make any difference to an omnipotent being. It's kind of assuming that an omnipotent being uses energy. That they would use a bit more energy to lift a heavier stone than a lighter stone. God needs to eat food and do workout before doing something? All tasks are the same energy effort if you are omnipotent, they take zero energy from you all the time. The paradox can be simplified with the question "can God fail?" and I guess the answer is no. There is a lot of stones that he is unable to lift and the reason is cause he don't wanna.
Just strange to assume tasks have different difficulty levels for an omnipotent being. Believe what you want about my beliefs. Kind of even hope you believe I believe in a god.
what I don't understand is if god can step outside the human logic that he created then nothing in the bible makes sense... cuz if we know god have the ability to step outside of the human logic... then no humans can understand what god is REALLY saying in the bible because we don't know in that instance (when god created the bible) if god is using human logic or not. for example, god said he created the stars but this could mean many other different things. we as humans interpret it as stars due to our human logic but since god can step outside of that logic then how do we know if we have the correct interpretation of the bible? since we are not god then there is no way we can know if we are actually getting the message the correct way since we have to follow human logic. in this stone example we are not supposed to follow human logic and god can create a squared circle but in certain places, we do (ex reading the bible) so then which is it then? we can't just pick and choose to either follow human logic or not follow human logic because it's too inconsistent which means we can never be able to understand the Bible. then does that just means the bible is useless?
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.
This is easily solved. 'God' is not of this world, he is the creator of it. As a player of a simulation game that we live in - he can create a stone as big as he wish (or the game world allows) - and he can lift it no problem. Because he does not actually "lift" it - just as much as I don't lift an item when playing Sims. So the assumption that is wrong is that 'God' (aka the player) is bound by our laws of physics - that he is not.
@@Falkite - of course the player can shuffle around things as he sees fit in our world. Just like you can in a computer game. But we're not the only planet that is being played with, so maybe every few thousands years (of our time - which can be a minute of his), he might pop by to answer some prayers, put in some prophets and do general adjustments.
I always preferred the, "Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even He can't eat it?" version of the paradox. It's more fun. Would it be possible to get a follow-up on this topic? How would the classical Theist respond to the new epistemic issue that this creates? If God is fundamentally "different" (i.e. unknowable and unbound to anything that governs human reasoning), how could someone come to know or understand God beyond any given condescension He grants (i.e., this would mean that the only way to know anything about God would be for Him to use language we can understand and tell us directly, and even this has clear limitations)? How does one even accept the second horn of the dilemma with respect to the mutability of God? If God is immutable, then He couldn't logically "decide" upon the laws He chooses to govern with. If He's omniscient, He also wouldn't have had to deliberate. He'd already know. Plus if you factor in Him being actually outside of the physical bounds of time, then there exists no "time" with which to deliberate such a conclusion. This seems to be trying to avoid the hyper-imposition of human language and limitations onto God by hyper-imposing human language and limitations onto God. I'd love to see more discussion on that topic. Or potentially a third horn.
