Show me that Science proves there is no god

[Henners]

It throws up red flags.

How did anyone ever get to your age without seeing how promotion works?

Red flags? Keep 'em flying.

[scotth]

Hi Skeptigirl,

I appreciate your ideas and posts so this isn't meant as anything towards you. But, I don't care what topic a documentary is about, if the first statement I read on the website is:

Bowling for Columbine did it to the gun culture.

Super Size Me did it to fast food.

Now The God Who Wasn't There does it to religion.


It throws up red flags. But that's just me. I'm sure that movie was interesting but hardly a neutral look into anything. That said -- I did find both Bowling for Columbine and Super Size Me as highly entertaining and a good study on filmmaking and how to edit and bend facts to make your point. Now The God Who Wasn't There sounds like it could be entertaining as well.

Regardless of how it is marketed, it is the content you should be examining. And, if you don't want it packaged in a flashy video that was made by an ex-evangelical for evangelicals, then you should pick up "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" (Robert Price) and/or "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty. Both are appropriately scholarly (and drawn on heavily in the video).

[A Christian Sceptic]

Regardless of how it is marketed, it is the content you should be examining. And, if you don't want it packaged in a flashy video that was made by an ex-evangelical for evangelicals, then you should pick up "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" (Robert Price) and/or "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty. Both are appropriately scholarly (and drawn on heavily in the video).

It's not how it's packaged that's the issue - it's the comparison. They compare themselves to two docu-drama's that both have very questionable representations of the facts to make their political points (even if the points themselves are agreeable or true). By simply making that comparison (regardless of how worthy the third movie is) I'm not going to give it much credibility. I really don't feel like debating Bowling For Columbine or Super Size Me - but I'd hope people here would be very sceptical of those two movies too. Because if you're not than you are doing exactly what many Christians do - looking for people to reaffirm what you believe so you can feel good about what you believe (or don't believe in - however you want to look at it.)

[A Christian Sceptic]

Regardless of how it is marketed, it is the content you should be examining. And, if you don't want it packaged in a flashy video that was made by an ex-evangelical for evangelicals, then you should pick up "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" (Robert Price) and/or "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty. Both are appropriately scholarly (and drawn on heavily in the video).

Was that movie made for evangelicals or Christians? Because I'm not an evangelical and pretty much disagree with them on most things.

[Henners]

They compare themselves to two docu-drama's that both have very questionable representations of the facts to make their political points (even if the points themselves are agreeable or true).

Is it within your capabilities to sense-check what you write and punctuate it?

[scotth]

It's not how it's packaged that's the issue - it's the comparison. They compare themselves to two docu-drama's that both have very questionable representations of the facts to make their political points (even if the points themselves are agreeable or true). By simply making that comparison (regardless of how worthy the third movie is) I'm not going to give it much credibility. I really don't feel like debating Bowling For Columbine or Super Size Me - but I'd hope people here would be very sceptical of those two movies too. Because if you're not than you are doing exactly what many Christians do - looking for people to reaffirm what you believe so you can feel good about what you believe (or don't believe in - however you want to look at it.)

Is market fluff. Like I said, it is the content that matters. Get over that comparision. There are some valid comparisions between the 3 shows, but accuracy isn't really one of them.

[scotth]

Was that movie made for evangelicals or Christians? Because I'm not an evangelical and pretty much disagree with them on most things.

You might already disagree with some of the doctrinal messages that he counters, and thus those bits wouldn't apply.... But the history of Christianity and the examination of the Gospel record would be applicable and worth knowing for any Christian.

ETA: It is worth noting that the main documentary feature is styled for the perceived attention span of the target audience. IMHO, the bits that are truly worthwhile are all the extras. Basically, those extras (which exceed the duration of the main feature) provide all the footnotes (factual backing) that are not included in the actually documentary for style and flow reasons.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Is it within your capabilities to sense-check what you write and punctuate it?


Yes. I think it might be. Should I stop participating?


I do think comparisons matter.

__________________

Would you take this seriously? -

Shakespeare did it for Julius Ceasar.

Dante did it for hell.

Now AChristianSceptic does it for Jesus.

__________________

I hope not.

[A Christian Sceptic]

You might already disagree with some of the doctrinal messages that he counters, and thus those bits wouldn't apply.... But the history of Christianity and the examination of the Gospel record would be applicable and worth knowing for any Christian.


Agreed.

[Egg]

I agree that saying, "C.S. Lewis used that argument, therefore that argument is false," would be an ad hominem argument with a hidden premise (it is an implied premise that anything C.S. Lewis says is false).

What I was saying however was not that anything C.S. Lewis said was false, but instead that C.S. Lewis is known to have used a great number of faulty or fallacious arguments. This thread isn't really the place to get into a discussion on the details of that particular premise, but it does importantly change it from being an ad hominem argument to a valid inductive argument: Most of the arguments used by C.S. Lewis were incorrect; That argument [that you have used] was an argument used by C.S. Lewis; Therefore it is highly likely that that argument is incorrect.
True, that's not an ad hom in that case, but that would leave you to examine everything he ever argued (or at least a significant, scattered portion) to determine how much can be objectively proven to be correct/incorrect. Assuming that such a thing was even possible to do, we could then have a basis to say that a quote picked at random is has x% chance of being incorrect. Since I chose the particular quote because I considered it to be correct and not at random, you then have another factor to account for (in fact a whole load more) before you can decide the likelihood of the argument being incorrect. If I made sure that the argument which I selected was correct, it wouldn't matter if he was only ever correct once out of a million times.

Firstly, because it was not a heuristic device invented by Occam. Secondly, because the device is reasonably well defined in and of itself - it doesn't matter what we call it, we just happen to call it "Occam's Razor". Thirdly, there is nothing wrong in pointing out inconsistencies in a philosophical system - in order to justify his belief in the Christian god, Occam added a section to the device stating that anything proclaimed by a valid authority (i.e. The Church, the Bible, the Pope, etc.) was to be believed. We now recognise this as a fallacious argument from authority - but that doesn't mean the entire eponymous device needs to be thrown out with the isolated fallacy.

I think we may have lost track of the point of why I mentioned Occam in the first place. Your last point here makes the point I was trying to get across, which is basically that of disagreeing with one point someone said (whether original or not) doesn't necessarily mean other things they said are wrong.



Ah, I see where the disagreement is here. You view the omnipotence paradox as asking, "Can god create x, where x = ~x?" (Correct me if I'm incorrect in that interpretation, but it seems to be what you have written.)

I don't think that is the question at all. The question to me starts out with the general case: "Can an entity create an object that limits the entity's power?" I would argue that the answer to this is yes - humans can create objects too heavy for them to lift, or anchor themselves in place with handcuffs or some rope, thus demonstrating that this is a possibility in the general case.

The case then becomes specific: "Can an omnipotent entity create an object that limits that entity's power?" We have already established that this is possible in the general case - as such, this should be well within the power of an omnipotent entity. However, if it is within the power of that entity then it means there is a theoretical limit to the power of the entity, and the entity is therefore not omnipotent.

Because of this contradiction, the concept of an omnipotent entity is self-defeating: If you posit an omnipotent entity you must also logically be positing a limit to the power of that entity (as per above), and therefore the entity is not omnipotent. Douglas Adams would probably say that such an entity would, upon hearing of this paradox, disappear in a puff of logic, and I am more than happy to steal that Babelfish inspired line from him. :)

I don't think your general case is relevant to the proposition because people are not omnipotent and different rules apply. Things that people cannot lift exist, but there is no such thing as something which an omnipotent entity cannot lift. That rock in itself cannot logically exist. The rock being proposed is both a rock that can be lifted by an omnipotent being (by definition of omnipotence) and a rock which cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being (as defined by the question). It is x and ~x.

I'll put it another way. The x in the "x and ~x" in this case is "omnipotent being". By proposing that an omnipotent being creates something that limits his power, we are proposing something that makes him not an omnipotent being while still being an omnipotent being. In other words, we are proposing he create something which makes him x and ~x (omnipotent and not omnipotent). The contradiction is in the question, ie the question is illogical.

We are then left with whether we define omnipotent as being constrained by logic or not if we wish to try to answer the question (see my earlier answer).

[scotth]

Shakespeare did it for Julius Ceasar.

Dante did it for hell.

Now AChristianSceptic does it for Jesus.


But see, that would be clever marketing. It would get people's interest. Hopefully they would be bright enough to not judge any further until AFTER they had checked out the product. You keep implying that you do otherwise, and that is disturbing.

[A Christian Sceptic]

But see, that would be clever marketing. It would get people's interest. Hopefully they would be bright enough to not judge any further until AFTER they had checked out the product. You keep implying that you do otherwise, and that is disturbing.

Unless I'm claiming a historical analysis of Jesus.

Than they should discount me based on my comparison to a drama and a poem. (Or rather a dramatist/playwright and a poet). Neither Shakespeare or Dante were historians. That's the only point. My impression is that the video makers want to be considered historians but they are comparing themselves to political filmmakers.

Just for the record - I discount Christian videos / writings the same way if they make comparisons like this. I understand people have agendas, etc. and can account for that. But I think at this point I'd consider anything from the History Channel as having more weight than that above linked video. (And that's not saying much. haha) I'll watch it though someday. It sounds interesting.

[Henners]

[QUOTE=A Christian Sceptic;3256296
Would you take this seriously? -

Shakespeare did it for Julius Ceasar.

Dante did it for hell.

Now AChristianSceptic does it for Jesus.

I hope not.[/QUOTE]

I haven't read Dante, but I do know that Shakespeare bumped off Caesar fairly early on.

Do it for Jesus by all means, but you might be a little late.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I haven't read Dante, but I do know that Shakespeare bumped off Caesar fairly early on.

Do it for Jesus by all means, but you might be a little late.

haha. Sorry - I only have a Minor in History so I doubt I'd be qualified. I'll let other unqualified people on both sides fight it out. :)

[scotth]

Just for the record - I discount Christian videos / writings the same way if they make comparisons like this.

Then you are discounting the content based on marketing fluff (that often isn't even written or approved by the original content creator).

"Don't judge a book by its cover" leaps to mind.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Then you are discounting the content based on marketing fluff (that often isn't even written or approved by the original content creator).

"Don't judge a book by its cover" leaps to mind.

Well - I always judge a book by it's cover. What else do I have to go on?

But in this case - I'll take your word that their website is mis-marketing it, that it is a historical production, and I'll keep an open mind. But the moment they place an opinion on something not based on historical evidence or mock someone (I'm once again judging the DVD by their website here - since they refer to their DVD as "often hilarious") I'll discount it all since I know no historian who wants to be taken seriously would do that. Would that be fair?

[Furi]

Well - I always judge a book by it's cover. What else do I have to go on?

But in this case - I'll take your word that their website is mis-marketing it, that it is a historical production, and I'll keep an open mind. But the moment they place an opinion on something not based on historical evidence or mock someone (I'm once again judging the DVD by their website here - since they refer to their DVD as "often hilarious") I'll discount it all since I know no historian who wants to be taken seriously would do that. Would that be fair?

I tend to judge books, by reading the foreword, along with peer recommendations,

as for Hilarious quotes in factual books, why do historians have to be immune to humour, it can be used constructively to convey factual info accross especially if somone is studying it, Humour can also assist in making previously serious ideals more accessible to people who may be pre-programmed to a specific idea,

If the Humour offends you, then the question you should ask yourself is whether it was the style of humour that offended, the subject matter, or the fact that someone [I]dared[I] made light of a specific subject.

A catholic, A protestant, and an atheist walk into a pub,
and by the exageration of a stereotypical belief about one of those factions
mirth is obtained.

[scotth]

Well - I always judge a book by it's cover. What else do I have to go on?

If you are going to actually judge it, it better by the contents. The contents are what you have to go on.

Do you mean choose rather than judge? If so, that is a pretty big gaff in meaning.

[scotth]

But the moment they place an opinion on something not based on historical evidence or mock someone (I'm once again judging the DVD by their website here - since they refer to their DVD as "often hilarious") I'll discount it all since I know no historian who wants to be taken seriously would do that. Would that be fair?

Depending on your threshold, you could reasonably consider a few situations as mocking. Why don't you try to judge it on its factual basis and the validity of its logical inferences. And I would encourage you to withhold judgment until after you've watched all the extras. As I've mentioned elsewhere, that is where the factual documentation is concentrated.

[A Christian Sceptic]

If you are going to actually judge it, it better by the contents. The contents are what you have to go on.

Do you mean choose rather than judge? If so, that is a pretty big gaff in meaning.

No - I mean judge - as in judge whether to even read it. I take other considerations in addition - who recommended it? Have I read something by them before? Is the writing appropriate for what I'm looking for? I'll then read it if I want. I won't judge the meaning of the book by it's cover though if I can help it. But if the cover (or the location in the bookstore) tells me it's a comedy and it's really a horror - then, well, I'll probably be pretty confused. Not that that is anything new.:confused:

[scotth]

Delete - partial/duplicate

[scotth]

A Christian Sceptic, just making sure you noticed that my post over in your "Dragon in the garage" thread was relevant to this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3251719#post3251719

[scotth]

No - I mean judge - as in judge whether to even read it.
Then you do mean choose. Judging is something you would do after you've read/viewed it.

"Judge", as a single word is far different than "judge whether to even read it".

[Beth]

Oops. Posted in wrong thread

[rocketdodger]

We are then left with whether we define omnipotent as being constrained by logic or not if we wish to try to answer the question (see my earlier answer).

You don't need to throw away logic. Simply define omnipotence as the ability to do anything logically possible. For an omnipotent being, creating a rock too heavy to lift is logically impossible. Thus, the inability to do it does not remove the omnipotence.

FYI this is the textbook solution that all 200 level philosophy of religion classes arrive at.

[Furi]

You don't need to throw away logic. Simply define omnipotence as the ability to do anything logically possible. For an omnipotent being, creating a rock too heavy to lift is logically impossible. Thus, the inability to do it does not remove the omnipotence.

FYI this is the textbook solution that all 200 level philosophy of religion classes arrive at.

So would that also include the creation of the mass/energy by an act of will or word power as a limit of his omniness

[Belz...]

Well - I always judge a book by it's cover. What else do I have to go on?

How about what's inside the book ?

[Belz...]

Oops. Posted in wrong thread

Well, at least you're in the right forum ! :p

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hi Skeptigirl,

I appreciate your ideas and posts so this isn't meant as anything towards you. But, I don't care what topic a documentary is about, if the first statement I read on the website is:

Bowling for Columbine did it to the gun culture.

Super Size Me did it to fast food.

Now The God Who Wasn't There does it to religion.


It throws up red flags. But that's just me. I'm sure that movie was interesting but hardly a neutral look into anything. That said -- I did find both Bowling for Columbine and Super Size Me as highly entertaining and a good study on filmmaking and how to edit and bend facts to make your point. Now The God Who Wasn't There sounds like it could be entertaining as well.
Red flags are fine, but they should alert you to look deeper or with an extra dose of skepticism in this case, not to dismiss all the evidence outright. Everything Michael Moore presents in his documentaries is one sided, but in no way is most of it false. And I don't know about the guy in Supersize Me's lab tests but certainly he brought attention to some unhealthy aspects of the fast food industry.

I had previously assumed there must be evidence a real non-god person Jesus existed. I figured the Old Testament wasn't too reliable as far as historical facts go, but the New Testament was developed after written language so there should have been more actual history in it. There are modern equivalents of prophets such as Joesph Smith, and there are certainly charlatans who can convince people they perform miracles, examples are everywhere. And I had heard there was some evidence of Jesus in other historical documents. So I had no reason to question the actual existence of a Jesus. I didn't even bother with the past threads asking if Jesus were a real person. (Though I may resurrect one, one of these days.)

However, the movie, "The God Who Wasn't There", laid out the evidence piece by piece against a real Jesus having existed, and provided a fair amount of evidence the concept of a Jesus was made up. While I do not claim the movie, nor the evidence proves no real person, Jesus, existed, I am no longer convinced he was a real person. And you will notice I use "suggests" or "possibly" or similar language when referring to the subject. Regardless of the evidence for and against, none is conclusive one way or the other.

But it is a moot point. If he existed, there is still no evidence from what is written about Jesus that he was any more than a mortal man.

BTW, in regards to, "this isn't meant as anything towards you", I'm not offended in the least by having a source challenged. For that matter, that's one of the benefits of the discussion. (See sig.)

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's not how it's packaged that's the issue - it's the comparison. They compare themselves to two docu-drama's that both have very questionable representations of the facts to make their political points (even if the points themselves are agreeable or true). By simply making that comparison (regardless of how worthy the third movie is) I'm not going to give it much credibility. I really don't feel like debating Bowling For Columbine or Super Size Me - but I'd hope people here would be very sceptical of those two movies too. Because if you're not than you are doing exactly what many Christians do - looking for people to reaffirm what you believe so you can feel good about what you believe (or don't believe in - however you want to look at it.)[off topic]I just want to point out that the attacks on Moore's documentaries do not present valid evidence themselves and in fact the Right Wing put on a Talking Points blitz just like the Swift Boat attacks assuring those who don't actually look at Moore's 'facts' for themselves could come away with the assumption Moore's works are more fiction than fact. I have looked at those supposed 59 deceits (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/18/173312/462) one by one in Moore's 911 documentary, for example, and it appears it is the criticisms which are false, not the facts in the documentary. Yes the documentary is one sided, that's what it was supposed to be. But it was, for the most part, factual. And I might add, revisit those claims Moore was wrong now. There is a lot more evidence proving he was not wrong which has come out since the movie.[/off topic]

[cyborg]

Completeness. Consistency. Soundness.

Pick two.

You don't need to throw away logic. Simply define omnipotence as the ability to do anything logically possible. For an omnipotent being, creating a rock too heavy to lift is logically impossible. Thus, the inability to do it does not remove the omnipotence.

FYI this is the textbook solution that all 200 level philosophy of religion classes arrive at.

The problem is that now a finite being can create a rock he cannot lift - thus achieving something the omnipotent cannot achieve: failure.

[Skeptic Ginger]

And once again, if you cannot support the belief, fudge the definitions. Or in other words, if you can't answer the question, make up your own that you can answer.

[danielk]

Here we go again, evil right wingers bashing poor Michael Moore... Bah, this isn't the politics subforum.

[CapelDodger]

Don't you find it interesting that nobody, out of all those hundreds of millions, has yet come up with a reasonable explanation?

Have you checked out the Trinity? That alone puts Mandelbrot to shame, and it's central to many Christians' belief. Very many. Catholic and Orthodox for starters, and those are big hitters in the numbers game.

Of course, those guys have been at this very successfully for many centuries. They've survived, whereas the Elmer Gantry revivalists and creationists with the Bible as a text-book make the mistake of defining their god - it's there in the textbook - which can then be demolished. Not to believers' satisfaction of course, but to ours :).

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here we go again, evil right wingers bashing poor Michael Moore... Bah, this isn't the politics subforum.I said it was OT. But if you insist on replying, then yes, as a matter of fact, there was a concerted campaign to discredit Moore, because Moore threatens the right wing's position. It's all marketing, however, no evil needed.

My issue is people's failure to think for themselves or to actually investigate claims and counterclaims. That's why people like Kevin Trudeau (http://www.talkingtree.com/blog/index.cfm/2005/7/7/KevinTrudeauFraud) are millionaires. Marketing is successful because people fall for it.

[Mobyseven]

True, that's not an ad hom in that case, but that would leave you to examine everything he ever argued (or at least a significant, scattered portion) to determine how much can be objectively proven to be correct/incorrect. Assuming that such a thing was even possible to do, we could then have a basis to say that a quote picked at random is has x% chance of being incorrect. Since I chose the particular quote because I considered it to be correct and not at random, you then have another factor to account for (in fact a whole load more) before you can decide the likelihood of the argument being incorrect. If I made sure that the argument which I selected was correct, it wouldn't matter if he was only ever correct once out of a million times.

My bad - I came into this particular conversation late, and didn't realise you had been talking about a specific quote. I thought it was a discussion on Lewis in general.

I think we may have lost track of the point of why I mentioned Occam in the first place. Your last point here makes the point I was trying to get across, which is basically that of disagreeing with one point someone said (whether original or not) doesn't necessarily mean other things they said are wrong.

Then we're actually in agreement. Goodo.

I don't think your general case is relevant to the proposition because people are not omnipotent and different rules apply. Things that people cannot lift exist, but there is no such thing as something which an omnipotent entity cannot lift. That rock in itself cannot logically exist. The rock being proposed is both a rock that can be lifted by an omnipotent being (by definition of omnipotence) and a rock which cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being (as defined by the question). It is x and ~x.

I'll put it another way. The x in the "x and ~x" in this case is "omnipotent being". By proposing that an omnipotent being creates something that limits his power, we are proposing something that makes him not an omnipotent being while still being an omnipotent being. In other words, we are proposing he create something which makes him x and ~x (omnipotent and not omnipotent). The contradiction is in the question, ie the question is illogical.

We are then left with whether we define omnipotent as being constrained by logic or not if we wish to try to answer the question (see my earlier answer).

I would say that the fact that you end up in a contradiction would make the entity a nonsense entity, rather than the question being a nonsense question.

[Robin]

Completeness. Consistency. Soundness.

Pick two.



The problem is that now a finite being can create a rock he cannot lift - thus achieving something the omnipotent cannot achieve: failure.
You miss the point of the example (which was devised by theologists to illustrate one of the characteristics of omnipotence).

An omnipotent being can create an unliftable rock but can't lift it. Or he could never create an unliftable rock in which case he could lift any rock.

But he can't do both since it is logically impossible, so an omnipotent being is still able to do anything that is logically possible.

[bduddy]

Considering there have already been *checks* 286 posts, I'm sure of two things:

-Someone has already said this.
-No one will pay any attention.

However, for those brave few that are paying attention: There is, by definition, no way to disprove the existence of an omnipotent being. Anyone who claims there is such a way is a moron. If you don't understand why, this topic may not be for you.

Thank you.

[danielk]

There is, by definition, no way to disprove the existence of an omnipotent being.
Generally, I agree. However, said being is often also assigned other properties besides omnipotence. There's the rub.

[pgwenthold]

There is, by definition, no way to disprove the existence of an omnipotent being.


Unless, of course, the supposed omnipotent being decides that it wants its existence to be disproven, right?

[Belz...]

You miss the point of the example (which was devised by theologists to illustrate one of the characteristics of omnipotence).

An omnipotent being can create an unliftable rock but can't lift it. Or he could never create an unliftable rock in which case he could lift any rock.

But he can't do both since it is logically impossible, so an omnipotent being is still able to do anything that is logically possible.

But that's not omnipotence, Robin. By definition, he MUST be able to create any rock AND lift any rock.

[cyborg]

But he can't do both since it is logically impossible, so an omnipotent being is still able to do anything that is logically possible.

Both are logically possible.

Pick one. Fail the other.

Completeness fails.

[Egg]

But that's not omnipotence, Robin. By definition, he MUST be able to create any rock AND lift any rock.

How are you defining omnipotence, Belz?

[Egg]

Both are logically possible.


Do you mean both are logically possible together (ie. it's logically possible to do both)?

[Zalbik]

Both are logically possible.

Pick one. Fail the other.

Completeness fails.

The typical response to the "Could God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?" is "Yes, if he wanted to"

You seem to want him to be able to:
a) Create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it
AND
b) Lift it.

This is obviously a logical impossibility.

It really comes down to how you define omnipotence. If you define it as "able to do anything logically possible", then there is no issue with the above.

If you define it as "able to do anything (including the logically impossible)", then there is no point in attempting to discuss it logically as such a being is by definition, beyond logic.

[Belz...]

How are you defining omnipotence, Belz?

I define omnipotence as a logical impossibility: the ability to do anything.

The problem is, some of those "things" are mutually exclusive.

Even if we define omnipotence to mean "the ability to do anything possible", well, that raises two serious questions:

1) How is that godly or divine, since the various processes of the universe can pretty much do anything possible ?

2) How about the "rock he can't lift" paradox ? We have to pick which one of the two choices we prefer, really. Does it make more sense to say that he can create a rock he can't lift, or that he can't create it ? Ultimately, it's an arbitrary decision, so it doesn't really solve the issue.

[volatile]

2) How about the "rock he can't lift" paradox ? We have to pick which one of the two choices we prefer, really. Does it make more sense to say that he can create a rock he can't lift, or that he can't create it ? Ultimately, it's an arbitrary decision, so it doesn't really solve the issue.

Indeed. And as someone (you?) pointed out earlier, if it's the latter, it makes God less powerful than humans, because we can create objects too heavy for us to lift, which makes no sense when considering omnipotence.

[stanleywinthrop]

Why does Stephen Jay Gould (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocks_of_Ages_%28book%29) get so little play here?

[cyborg]

Do you mean both are logically possible together (ie. it's logically possible to do both)?

As you will see below I mean both are logically possible on their own. It is the joining that is the problem - an irreconcilable one if you wish to be logically consistent, complete and sound.

The typical response to the "Could God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?" is "Yes, if he wanted to"

You seem to want him to be able to:
a) Create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it
AND
b) Lift it.

This is obviously a logical impossibility.

This is not about what I want - this is about the consequences of how you define these things.

It really comes down to how you define omnipotence. If you define it as "able to do anything logically possible", then there is no issue with the above.

If omnipotence is defined as, "the ability to do anything logically possible," and the problem area is, "you cannot create an entity which defies your ability to manipulate it," then either:

1) You are omnipotent if you can create any entity
2) You are omnipotent if you can manipulate any entity

And then you can retain, "the ability to do anything logically possible," but you can't do both for all cases - and the choice of which one you drop is arbitrary.

Hence you are incomplete in your omnipotence either way you slice it - we could have a god that can create rocks too heavy to move and another god who can't create them but can move the - but they cannot be the same god and be a consistent god.

If you define it as "able to do anything (including the logically impossible)", then there is no point in attempting to discuss it logically as such a being is by definition, beyond logic.

Or simply inconsistent - yesterday he could create a rock heavier than he could lift, today he can lift that rock.

[Beth]

I never found the who 'rock so heavy he couldn't lift it" question to be very difficult. If god created the earth and put it in place circling the sun, obviously there isn't going to be any rock on earth god couldn't lift. If we go outside the earth, then 'weight' is variable and the word 'lift' becomes meaningless. Did god create black holes? Could god lift a black hole? What would it mean to 'lift' a black hole?

[cyborg]

I never found the who 'rock so heavy he couldn't lift it" question to be very difficult. If god created the earth and put it in place circling the sun, obviously there isn't going to be any rock on earth god couldn't lift.

That belies some rather simplistic thinking - it's an abstract concept that demands an abstract answer.

[Belz...]

I never found the who 'rock so heavy he couldn't lift it" question to be very difficult. If god created the earth and put it in place circling the sun, obviously there isn't going to be any rock on earth god couldn't lift. If we go outside the earth, then 'weight' is variable and the word 'lift' becomes meaningless. Did god create black holes? Could god lift a black hole? What would it mean to 'lift' a black hole?

If there was a prize for the person who misses the point by the greatest distance, you'd win.

[Egg]

Personally, I quite liked Beth's answer. I think it's often good to approach something from another angle.

Anyway, if we're going with omnipotence being defined as able to do anything logically possible, I'm really not seeing the difficulty here.

Can a rock have the attribute: cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being? No, all rocks, however big they may be, can be lifted by an omnipotent being.
Can an omnipotent being be not an omnipotent being? No, x cannot be ~x.

So clearly we can say that an omnipotent being cannot make a logically impossible object and cannot logically not be omnipotent and be omnipotent.

So all the question is asking is: "can an omnipotent being do something logically impossible?". Our definition answers the question: no.

There's nothing inconsistent happening. We may as well ask if an omnipotent being can create a square circle or an apple which is not an apple. So long as out definition is "able to do anything logically possible", then we're not proposing any incompleteness.

So can a finite being therefore do something an omnipotent being cannot do?

In a way, yes, but only because he can't. It's just a semantic issue.

The finite being can be not omnipotent. The finite being can possess limits of being a finite being.

Again, if omnipotence is defined as able to do anything logically possible, this is not a problem in terms of completeness or consistency, as logically an omnipotent being can't be not omnipotent and logically can't possess limits of being a finite being. It's just part of the definition we've used.

If we turn the original question around, it makes it clearer.

Can a finite being lift the heaviest rock he can make? No
Can an omnipotent being lift the heaviest rock he can make? Yes

So, other than being able to not be omnipotent, what is it that we saying that the finite being can do which the omnipotent being can't?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Beth's example justs twists the answer until it is unrecognizable. It's nonsense. The point is there are any number of examples of mutually exclusive events or tasks. The rock is only one of them.