Fallacy of "can God make a rock not even he can lift?"

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Mephistopheles

First off, I just want to say this is the first subforum I've been browsing around in since I joined here, and I'm absolutely astounded by the intelligence of people here. I am honestly impressed. I have been to many forums and I haven't found anything with such high quality.

That being said, the highest mathematics course I've taken is trigonometry/algebra II. I also don't know if this has been said before. But I do have a grasp of basic logic to make the following assertion:

A common scenario is thus: can God make a rock not even he can lift?

There's two conclusions I've come to. One, ∞<x =/=. Nothing can exceed infinity by the very nature of infinity. Thus, this question is invalid because it uses illogic to try to come to a "logical" conclusion which obviously means the whole scenario is corrupt. However, the second simultaneous conclusion is that indeed, if there is a God, he has limitations. Personally I'm an atheist, but it's still something to consider.

Assuming reality is material.

Just thought this might interest some of you.

God cannot, b/c He is not omnipotent, ie can do anything. Rather, God is maximally powerful, ie can do anything that can be done. God cannot create square circles, make 2+2=5, etc. Your question pits His power against itself, and it is a fallacy. I believe someone else w/ a greater grasp of theology and philosophy than mine can explain this better.

[Holiday20310401]

Protoman, You are specifying that God is restricted by logical possibilities.

Irrationality cannot construe with God nor therefore God's will, just as God's will must be morally equitable, and rational. However, being that God is omnipotent I don't see how its possible to have a most rational action out of possibilities for a given cause. God would not have a cause. God is not a conclusion nor can it be discerned by any premises to make it real because anything real is a figment of something that can't be perfect.

So not only can God not create square circles, but God can't create, and doesn't really have a purpose when defined as 'perfection'. So God is not real.

But one can say that God only exists through an unbiased take on it, being that rationality itself must not equate to its being, (my opinion, so if it stinks tell me). So either God is everything or God is nothing, or God is singular so as to not allow itself to have relative perspectives, or perceptions to be compared to. So God can be a product of introspect.

But what is the use anymore of trying to define what makes God, when God is imply whatever you want it to be because it can only exist fundamentally, or rather, God does not essentially exist.

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Protoman, You are specifying that God is restricted by logical possibilities.

Irrationality cannot construe with God nor therefore God's will, just as God's will must be morally equitable, and rational. However, being that God is omnipotent I don't see how its possible to have a most rational action out of possibilities for a given cause. God would not have a cause. God is not a conclusion nor can it be discerned by any premises to make it real because anything real is a figment of something that can't be perfect.

So not only can God not create square circles, but God can't create, and doesn't really have a purpose when defined as 'perfection'. So God is not real.

But one can say that God only exists through an unbiased take on it, being that rationality itself must not equate to its being, (my opinion, so if it stinks tell me). So either God is everything or God is nothing, or God is singular so as to not allow itself to have relative perspectives, or perceptions to be compared to. So God can be a product of introspect.

But what is the use anymore of trying to define what makes God, when God is imply whatever you want it to be because it can only exist fundamentally, or rather, God does not essentially exist.

Yes, God is restricted by logic. Creation ex nihilo is not illogical. And God's purpose is not perfection --how is that a purpose, anyway?!--, it is to create and maintain this universe; actually a self-existent being cannot have a purpose, b/c that would imply a cause, and self-exist beings ipso facto do not have causes.

Would anyone else like attack or defend me and the existence and attributes of God?

[Holiday20310401]

God's not about perfection, but about striving for perfection, thats my view on life, so my view on God if it were to every symbolize a purpose for the least.

Perfection is not a purpose because something that is perfect can't exist, some may not agree with that, but it is true. That's something I want to here a counter to.

God does not maintain the universe, why should it when it would know how to abandon it?

Perhaps cause and effect are non-negotiable with God, because I doubt the self-existent being would have cause and effect placed upon itself, cause and effect implies that there is imperfection, sort of, being also that free will as Boagie views it, is non-existent with reactions. God would have created a reality for perception of cause and effect I think, and thus implying that whatever created God was by randomness, but thats simply absurd so God must have either always existed or doesn't exist.

I did not say that God's purpose was for perfection, simply that people view it to be of that nature, which is believing in something false to their own nature, which God would not choose for you to ignore in your quest for God.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by Protoman2050

...attack or defend me and the existence and attributes of God

Are you identifying yourself, somehow, with the "existence and attributes of God", that you would consider a 'difference of opinion/Perspective' on this 'god' as a 'personal attack'? (common egoic identification with the object of a 'belief'?)

Isn't 'existence' also considered 'creation' (by most of the 'goddists')? If so, therefore, the 'Creator' cannot be 'demoted' to the 'Creation'. From that Perspective, anyway, 'god' cannot 'exist' (in the duality/context that is necessary for 'existence')...

'God' has no attributes but in ignorant people's minds, who 'create 'it' in their own egoic image. Giving a 'god', such as the Judeo/Xtian version, 'attributes' is considered 'idolatry', an 'image' on the altar of your mind (even if nowhere else).

(I'm neither 'attacking or defending' your 'opinions', I'm offering food for thought.)

[midas77]

Perhaps cause and effect are non-negotiable with God, because I doubt the self-existent being would have cause and effect placed upon itself, cause and effect implies that there is imperfection.

Cause and effect relationship requires a relation of perfection and imperfection. Perfection on the part of cause and imperfection on the the part of the effect. The existence of the cause must not be derived from the existence of the effect. If in ways an effect is imperfect it does not mean that the cause suffers from the same imperfection.

[Holiday20310401]

I am obviously not stating that I am God, lol. I just wouldn't believe in the God other people have thought of it as, so I rationalize or at least view it under my perspective.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by midas77

Cause and effect relationship requires a relation of perfection and imperfection.

If I have a perfect square and I cut it in half, I will have two perfect right triangles.

[socrato]

Originally Posted by Mephistopheles

can God make a rock not even he can lift?

There's two conclusions I've come to. One, ∞<x =/=. Nothing can exceed infinity by the very nature of infinity. Thus, this question is invalid because it uses illogic to try to come to a "logical" conclusion which obviously means the whole scenario is corrupt. However, the second simultaneous conclusion is that indeed, if there is a God, he has limitations. Personally I'm an atheist, but it's still something to consider.

God can do anything! So he, oh I get it now. I asked the paster this question and he says why would God want to. He enver answers my questions with a yes or no answer.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by socrato

He enver answers my questions with a yes or no answer.

When it comes down to it, how many questions really are as simple as a yes/no answer?