CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Can any being (such as God) be all powerful?
There is a famous paradox known as the Omnipotence Paradox which states that omnipotence is self-contradictory when you ask the question "Can God (omnipotent) create a rock that He Himself cannot lift?" This question arises a problem. If God could create such a rock then He would not be able to lift it making it so He would not be omnipotent. If God couldn't create such a rock then He would not be omnipotent because He would not be able to create such a rock. So, is an omnipotent being (such as God) possible?
The description is not actually a paradox. It is describing something that is impossible. Being all powerful doesn't mean being able to do the impossible. God cannot create a married bachelor either. A rock that an all powerful God can't lift is impossible.
And as I pointed out, it doesn't show that. Omnipotent doesn't mean being able to do what is impossible. An omnipotent being cannot make a triangle with 4 sides. An omnipotent being cannot make a square with unequal sides.
(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.
To me the definition of omnipotent; "able to do anything" would mean that the omnipotent being could do anything conceivable, though I suppose the definition is up to interpretation.
In what way have you conceived of a rock so large God can't lift it? Do you really think that say words in a given order means that you have actually conceived of the ideas those words represent?
The idea the words represent is God making something that He cannot overcome. It's an impossibility and the goal of this statement, at least in my mind, is to prove that an omnipotent being cannot do absolutely everything anyone has thought of unless they have the ability to alter logic (which they very well may have considering they would be all powerful).
What you are doing is saying that if God is omnipotent, He must be able to prove that He is not omnipotent. That's goofy, it only proves that you have squirrels running circles in your brain.
This is not a paradox, it is an absurdity. It is absurd to say that in order prove He is omnipotent, God must be able to do something proving He is not omnipotent.
Whoever told you that this kind of thinking is intelligent was lying, and if you think it is intelligent they have made you into a fool.....or you did it to yourself.
It is absurd to say that in order prove He is omnipotent, God must be able to do something proving He is not omnipotent.
This will most likely be my last post as I have said the same thing multiple times and still do not understand what it is you are missing or I am missing. The statement itself doesn't exactly make it so an omnipotent being is impossible, just not in the way that most people would think. If you were omnipotent you would be all powerful, which would mean that, at least in my understanding, you could do anything, even if it is contradictory. In my honest opinion the simplest answer for the side of "Yes" is to say that God is able to do everything, including things that are contradictory and still be omnipotent, but the means of such a feat are not understandable to humankind.
It is absurd to say that in order for God to be omnipotent he must be able to do something proving he is not omnipotent.
Your "thought experiment" is void of logic, it is non-thinking, it is absurd.
It is not a parodox, it is not "thinking", it is being absurd. When you do this, you are being absurd and by trying to portray yourself as intelligent in doing it you make a fool of yourself.
All you are doing is trying to say you do not believe God can be God, and that is absurd. God is God. God cannot do something which would prove He is not omnipotent. That is absurd.
False. If a man with the last name "Bachelor" got married, you'd be wrong. If God came into a body too weak to move the rock, noticed the inability to lift and then decided to lift the rock omnipotently, you'd be wrong again. Of course, what's new? Your brain can't think beyond your feet.
You don't believe in God. You believe in your ideology. The worst part of your ideology is that it involves you not thinking in any way. You really should update your ideology. It doesn't even match Christianity.
You believe in something doing the logically impossible. There is no logic from you. You are defending a paradox that shows God doesn't exist. Think about that for a second. Spend one second thinking about that. Just spend a single second thinking about that instead of thinking about how to wrap your mind around a worthless paradox.
You really should update your ideology. It doesn't even match Christianity
You didn't know Jesus was a Jew, that the Eden story is an allegory according to Ezekiel, and thought God gave the commandments from a whirlwind. I could say that Jesus was a space alien with 3 heads in the Bible, and you wouldn't know the difference. You know as much about the Bible as you do about having sex with a female.
Ok, you keep bringing this up, and it is just stupid for you. I didn't know why you said "race of Christ" instead of Jew. It had nothing to do with knowing anything about Jesus.
that the Eden story is an allegory according to Ezekiel,
I never discussed that with you.
and thought God gave the commandments from a whirlwind.
I didn't say anything like that.
I could say that Jesus was a space alien with 3 heads in the Bible,
Someone like you would.
and you wouldn't know the difference.
You can't even keep track of which people you are talking to.
You know as much about the Bible as you do about having sex with a female.
You believe in talking serpents you quote the words of Matt Damon and gush like a blushing girl at everything he says ; you didn't know Jesus was a Jew you didnt know Mary was the mother of Jesus , you thought the twelve disciples were a rap group ...
The only action you get stumpy is with your ol hand considering you have one of them that is and even at that I'd say you have quiet a job 👌👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏��👋👋👋👋👋👋👋
You believe that whales came from hooved hyenas that literally crawled into the water and gained 80,000 pounds, not to mention grew a fluked tail, lost their fur, and had 1 billion bodily changes in 100 million years. The nose turning into a blow hole is the truly mysterious part....
I don't and did, and you're so desperate for a rebuttal that you sent me emoticons. A clear sign of utter defeat. You have no rebuttals. You have no response to the whirlwind or the Ezekiel point because there is none. You were demonstrably wrong and I proved it. Thus? You have no response. You're done. You're cooked. You're finished in this debate. You lost... the end.
😂😂😂😂 yes your usual tactic you keep lifting your skirt like the girl you are and screeching" I won , I won " to anyone who asks you to defend your nonsense .
Go over to debate org and debate yourself again you loser 😉
How many times a day do I correct you , you've lost yet again 👋👋👋👋👋
The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, And the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished In whirlwind and storm is His way, And clouds are the dust beneath His feet.
You need to read your bible retard I told you I'm authority on it and I keep schooling you , here ya go open wide for your daily medicine .......
Loser 👋 Beaten again buddy 🙀🙀👋👋👋👋👋👋👋
On the third morning after Moses had talked to God, the Israelites where busy making their breakfast when all of a sudden there was a large rumble and a flash of light over the mountain. Anyone who was still sleeping were startled and woke up suddenly.
Everyone went out to look and just over the mountain there was lightning and thunder, and a very thick cloud hung over the mountain so you couldn't see the top. Even the mountain shook and the sound of trumpets could be heard getting louder and louder.
So Moses went up the mountain to hear from God once again. This time God told Moses, "Go down to the people and tell them not to follow you up the mountain, the mountain is a special place because I am here." So Moses warned the people not to touch or go to close to the mountain.
There is a famous paradox known as the Omnipotence Paradox which states that omnipotence is self-contradictory when you ask the question "Can God (omnipotent) create a rock that He Himself cannot lift?" This question arises a problem
Not really. If God chooses, He can jump in my body to see what mortal strength is like, not be able to lift the stone, then go back to His normal state and toss said stone into outer space like a frisbee.
Perhaps I was not clear enough with my wording. The rock that God would not be able to life would be with all of His godly strength, therefore the explanation of jumping into a mortal body would not work.
He can use any agent he wants to see what it is like to "not be able to lift" said stone, perhaps a simulation. I could use a virtual reality simulation to know what it's like to be pregnant. Am I pregnant? No. Can I be in reality? No. But I can simulate it. It's simply an ignorant concept that militant atheists came up with thinking it was smart to outwit theists with low or medium comprehension skills. If the theist is highly intelligent, they just scoff, give you ways around it and use it as an example to say atheists are mental midgets.
I still am apparently not clear enough with my wording. I presented the question unspecifically not going into too much detail. The real question would then be Could God, the omnipotent being He is, create a rock that he, as an omnipotent being and with all of His strength (not downgrading His strength so that He cannot lift the rock) create a rock that could not be lifted with His omnipotent strength? This then leads to the two problems presented with both answers while still considering God (or any omnipotent being) to be omnipotent.
You can be omnipotent and still go into a simulation. Your physical might never changes, but your simulated might does. You are never not omnipotent in the example.
I can also imagine not being able to lift 5 pounds, yet in this life I can lift much more. And if one wants to be a real pain in the butt, I could be ominoptent, make a rock, become the rock, and not be able to lift it because I AM the rock.Thus, the thing I cannot lift is myself, thus I am an omnipotent, unliftable rock.
You can be omnipotent and still go into a simulation. Your physical might never changes, but your simulated might does. You are never not omnipotent in the example.
It's true that you could change your own strength as an omnipotent being, but the question is could an omnipotent being with all of their might available to them create a rock that with all of their might available to them they cannot lift.
I'm sorry but that's simply not the question I'm asking. I think NowASaint puts it quite well; "the explanation of jumping into a mortal body does not work because if God is limited to a mortal body, He is not God....and so you would be left with your absurdity of God creating a rock so big He cannot lift it." although it would not be a rock so big He cannot lift it, but a rock so heavy.
Of course he can. He makes one version of himself unable to lift the rock while his other self can lift the rock. He's a hive minded being with collective consciousness in multiple agents.
the explanation of jumping into a mortal body does not work because if God is limited to a mortal body, He is not God....and so you would be left with your absurdity of God creating a rock so big He cannot lift it.
For a rock to be too big for God to lift, the rock would have to be bigger than God, and that is not possible since God is omnipresent. God cannot make Himself stop being God. You are trying to make God stop being God, you are being absurd, and you are losing against God.
If the rock is made of a ridiculously dense substance, made by God, the rock cannot be greater than God or God would not be omnipotent and would be a thing which is not God. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent eternally. There cannot be anything bigger than God. There cannot be anything more knowledgeable than God (including you). There cannot be anything that is everywhere as God is omnipresent.
Your question is absurd, the thing you are trying to prove is not God indeed is not God. God is the creator of all things. Your statements and questions here are void of reason other than that you do not want God to rule over you.
"If the rock is made of a ridiculously dense substance, made by God, the rock cannot be greater than God or God would not be omnipotent and would be a thing which is not God. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent eternally. There cannot be anything bigger than God. There cannot be anything more knowledgeable than God (including you). There cannot be anything that is everywhere as God is omnipresent."
Starting off I never claimed that I am more knowledgeable than God, and this is not an attack on your religion. If anything this is a thought experiment. According to the Bible, you are correct, but this statement proves God could not do the impossible unless you use the argument "Humans can't understand it." which I think is a fairly valid argument as we still do not understand a lot.
"Your question is absurd, the thing you are trying to prove is not God indeed is not God. God is the creator of all things. Your statements and questions here are void of reason other than that you do not want God to rule over you."
I have stated that it is simply a thought experiment through which you can determine that an omnipotent being who can do the impossible is impossible at least through our current understanding of logic. This again is not an attack on your beliefs/religion.
This is my last post as I have outlined all of my arguments. Thanks for debating.
You are not conducting a thought experiment, you are saying that in order for God to prove He is omnipotent, He must prove that he is not omnipotent.
You are not thinking, you are making an absurd statement and saying that because you can't understand your own absurdity, you are proving that God is not God. It's bats in your belfry.
So, is an omnipotent being (such as God) possible?
Absolutely. 3 schools of philosophical thought.
1) If reality is finite, he'd be the highest/most powerful possible being in said "finite reality".
2)If reality is infinite, he is the highest possible/powerful being in an infinite reality.
3)He is beyond comprehension, being from outside time and space. He is abstract, a consciousness, all things and concepts and data exist beyond our reality, and he is the highest possible being in said reality, nothing can "not exist" in said reality, thus He created our reality. This also explains why no one dies in God's eternal "beyond time" existance, explains why demons must be imprisoned eternally, and explains why reality is forever and eternal. He is simply the greatest possibility beyond space and time.
He could go to advanced weight lifting classes and take performance enhancing drugs such as anabolic steroids.
This strength building activity combined with his inherent might should mean that he could do bench press with Jupiter, the largest planet in our solar system while making love to Mrs, God.
Everyone, including the big shy silent man up there zooming around the heavens, can benefit by spending a little time at the gym, especially if there is a clutch of chicks in tight fitting leotards prancing around.
The hypothetical rock could be infinitely dense, so in this case size wouldn't matter. The rock would have to be so heavy that God cannot lift it, or if that is not possible, then God wouldn't be omnipotent. It is simply impossible and by presenting this problem some atheists believe that an omnipotent God who can do everything imaginable is not possible.
Except that making a finite creation with an infinite characteristic is a category mistake. Either the rock is completely finite or its infinite. Can't have both at the same time
The phrasing of the question uses a semantic deflection...
Define the terms....
Make=create? If so then...(if you disagree please explain)
Lift=(what is defined as lifting to peoples perceptions) example could be NASA using the term liftoff. That is essentially lifting an object from Earths surface to the moon. So the object was lifted , rockets lifted the objects in question2. Agree?!
So, God creates a rock and by definition the act of creating includes the ability to "uncreate". Agreed?
God creates the rock in texas
God "uncreates" the rock
God creates the same rock again, this time on the moon.
Simply removing the word lift, which plays a semantic role in the so called paradox, exposes the idiocy of the challenge.
So one concludes logically that create includes what humans perceive as lift as well as making the rock.
The paradox itself is a straw man of God because it defines God in human terms. A God doesn't need to "lift" things like people do so to assert that God lifts to achieve the same goal as humans contradicts what God is, hence the straw man.
I apologize if I offended you/your views in any way, but I was trying to word it so that it could be all inclusive to any omnipotent being one might believe in.
There can only be one omnipotent being. It is absurd to say there can be more than one omnipotent being. What you believe in is absurd. If you are offended it's your own fault.
It is an absurdity to ask if God can create a rock so big He cannot move it. That is like saying can a square be round. The intent of the question from the start is to deny that God is God. It is not possible for God to be absurd, the question is an absurdity.
"It is an absurdity to ask if God can create a rock so big He cannot move it."
This is true as it is an impossibility, but the goal of the question is to prove that an omnipotent being who can do anything and everything conceivable is illogical.
It is your question and statement which is illogical. God cannot be God if a thing can be more powerful than Him. To ask if a thing can be more powerful than God implies that God is not omnipotent. Your question and logic is absurd, i.e., nonsense.
The challenge doesn't expose an illogical idea in regards to the concept of omnipotence. The challenge itself is illogical. It treats God as if God were human...(that's a straw man)..I.e. That a god that can create a rock must also be limited to the human thing known as lifting.
It kind of sounds like Thor's hammer. Only He who is worthy can lift the rock. Since He is worthy, He would be able to lift the rock that other's can not.
I've always had a problem with the assertion that this is a paradox. The reason being that by asking a theoretically omnipotent being to create something they cannot lift is setting it against itself. In other words you are asking it to overcome it's own power. Since an omnipotent being can create an infinitely large rock and can lift an infinitely large rock they cannot make a rock so big that they cannot lift it.
Only God can be omnipotent. Asking if God can create a rock so big that He cannot move it is asking if God can stop being God. God cannot stop being God; don't be silly.
It is absurd to imply that in order to be omnipotent, God must be able to do things which prove He is not God; things which prove He is not omnipotent. The question is stupid, and if you think it logically disproves the reality of God, you have to be retarded or have a severe mental block learning problem.
But this paradox is easily solvable. Primarily, the greatest weight a rock can have is the weight of the earth itself. Beyond that, it will be the Earth going down rather than the rock going up. It's much like lifting the Earth while standing on, say, a plank of wood.
We're talking about the abilities of an omnipotent being, so the argument about Earth makes no sense. The lifting of the rock could happen on any plane with the same laws of weight (gravity). The question itself is if an omnipotent being could make a rock that they could not lift. The place is irrelevant to the question and your argument is flawed either way as Jupiter is heavier than Earth meaning that it could take place on a planet larger than Earth. The two rocks could be stacked to use as a place to lift the one of the rocks from.
That wasn't the hardest part, though. The solution was easy - separate two big rocks.
But gravitation will still be a finite force, no matter how massive the rocks might be. You failed to guess the solution far enough. Beyond some distance, the effects would be negligible.
This question is just an example of not understanding lifting stuff and gravitation.
The paradox does not go into detail about how the lifting of the rock would work. It is just assumed that if an omnipotent being were to create a rock they cannot lift then they would account for all of the factors in order to make a rock they cannot lift. If they are truly all powerful they could manipulate gravity so that they could make a rock they cannot lift.
There is a famous paradox known as the Omnipotence Paradox which states that omnipotence is self-contradictory when you ask the question "Can God (omnipotent) create a rock that He Himself cannot lift?" This question arises a problem. If God could create such a rock then He would not be able to lift it making it so He would not be omnipotent. If God couldn't create such a rock then He would not be omnipotent because He would not be able to create such a rock. So, is an omnipotent being (such as God) possible?
This isn't a true paradox; it's a semantic paradox. It's like saying if God can't create a black white then he isn't omnipotent. That would be false. But more to the point of the question:
Can (a) God be omnipotent?
Well, first of all, there is no evidence that a God exists, so any logical processes derived from the assumption are purely hypothetical and have no discernable basis in reality. Now that we've got that out of the way, we can play "what colour are the fairies?"
If it were even possible for an a transcendental being to exist, that being would by its definition defy the very laws of matter and energy that are fundamental to our universe as it is. I would cite the anthropic principle here. What doesn't exist within the constraints of existence, is irrelevant to existence, and the conceptual "nothing" is the ultimate misnomer.
But let's go further and assume a God exists. Is that God omnipotent? Well, according to the Bible, yes. The bible has been generally translated to say that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
To quote Epicurus:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Occam's Razor: the simplest solution is usually the best one.
It is overwhelmingly more likely that rather than there being an unfalsifiable, unprovable, untestable, invisible God of such monumental and irreconcilable contradictions, instead there is no God at all, and the Bible is nothing but a collection of myths passed down by ignorant ancients.
God doesn't prove anything. God is a metaphysical concept, the acceptance of which is based on nothing logical whatsoever, but rather pure speculation and thought abstract from any tangible relationship to testable reality.
God does not have to prove anything, the truth stands if you believe it or not. He will keep His word, and His word will be proved to you if the only way you will have that proof is to find yourself unable to die in the fire of Hell.
Prove it, big mouth. Go on and see if you have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell, and curse God when you find out that you do not have that right and see where you end up...idiot.
Sorry, but you are dumb and you need to be told for your own sake. I won't bother reading your stuff any more, it's just too dumb and I expect you to continue being proud of yourself and talking like a jack ass.
The question is "can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it". You would ask the question implying that in order to be omnipotent, God must prove that He is not omnipotent. It's dumb; just plain retarded. It is atheist who are void of logic and too stupid to listen to reason. If you think you have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell, go on trying to prove it and find out for yourself how stupid it is to say there is no God.
If you cannot create anything that you cannot do, then you are omnipotent because nothing can be created that you cannot do. It's a stupid argument because it doesn't even make sense. And some tortured definition of omnipotence doesn't make God magically disappear. Atheists have resorted in desperation to logical fallacies and emotional appeals, and they don't even know why.
Or just didn't have any desire to create things the way that you think work for you because he's seen every possible possibility infinite times, and will do what he wants whether atheists approve or not as if by magic...