Do You Believe Your God To Be Omnipotent?

[Quizproquo]

I was looking at paradoxes today and one came up about god. I assume it applies to the Abrahamic god but I'm sure it applies to many others.
In the bible god is omnipotent. He has total power and control over everything and his power knows no bounds, so here is the paradox:

Can god make a stone so huge and great that even he is unable to lift it?

If he can make such a stone, he cannot lift it and is therefore limited in his power, so is not omnipotent.
If he can lift the stone, then he cannot make one too heavy for himself to lift and is therefore not omnipotent

This is a seemingly reasonable analogy/metaphor so if you believe god to be all powerful, how do you square this?

[Baldric]

Yes, but a belieber, surely not?

[jim360]

Just to be clear Naomi, I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you that the God of the Bible wasn't omnipotent (or, indeed, anything else); more that the question posed by quizproquo could still be discussed anyway.

[Khandro]

jim; //the question posed by quizproquo could still be discussed anyway.//
The so-called paradox is infantile and doesn't warrant an answer, but the title question might, but little chance.

[ichkeria]

Surely the fact that he cannot make one too heavy for himself to lift is a further sign of his omnipotence if it exists. It's one of those paradoxes that is really to do with the difficulty we have with handling infinite stuff. Maybe a bit like Zeno's paradox, where we get obsessed with the idea of an infinite halving of distances

[jim360]

I'm not sure that any of the leading philosophers of the last 1000-odd years would agree with Khandro's "infantile" assessment...

It can't be used on its own to dismiss the existence of a God, omnipotent or otherwise, but it's still an important paradox to think about, if only because it exposes the inherent imprecision in language.

[Bazile]

Ichkeria
They were discussing paradoxes , on 'in our time' , with Melvin Bragg , on Radio 4 this morning .

One example was an atom being in more than one place at a time .
I am sure that bloke Zeno was mentioned

[jim360]

Yes, it was about the Zeno paradoxes, Achilles and the Tortoise being the particularly famous one I remember. No doubt that's also infantile... ?

[ichkeria]

Many of the paradoxes are intriguing because we know that something must give. For example: we know that I will reach the end of my journey despite the idea that I can't possibly ever do so.
Then there's the paradox of the twins which we (well not me certainly!) can scientifically show is not a paradox at all

The 'omnipotent God' one is a bit different because no one knows for sure if God exists or not, or if he really is omnipotent. As Jim indicates, that's more to do with words and philosophy I'd say than religion - or science

[naomi24]

Jim at 10.13, you asked me a question – I answered it. The question posed by quizproquo relates specifically to the Abrahamic god. The only source of information we have demonstrates without doubt that he wasn’t omnipotent. Therefore there can be no discussion, philosophical or otherwise.

[jim360]

Well if you want to tie it specifically to the biblical God, I'm not sure I agree that it's as unequivocal as you say. Eg the Garden of Eden, with God apparently unable to see Adam and Eve hiding -- as literally stated then yes it looks odd, but you could fudge it as acting the role he knew he had to play, assuming omniscience. So I'm sure there's a way out of there, although I'm not so sure it's convincing.

Or the "chariots made of iron" one, where the link I posted provided a few resolutions with God's incredible power, eg that the translation is mistakenly ascribing to God would should be given to Judah, or some such.

Not really sure why God regretted creating man demonstrates omnipotence, but it's in the eye of the beholder perhaps.

But anyway, all this is irrelevant since a question can be made wider than in the OP, and often is on AB. No reason to object to it this time.

[ichkeria]

This isn't really a question of religion: if God exists, it's fair to assume that if he's pretty powerful. "Omnipotent" plainly cannot mean "capable of performing every task he's given" but that's a problem with our own idea of what "omnipotent" means.

Just imagine though ...
Suppose God exists, and he's sat at his desk when an atheist or sceptic comes knocking at the door. We'll pass over the short interlude as the visitor gets over the shock of hearing the word "Enter" ( :-) )

"So", says the sceptic/atheist, "you're God. And it says here you're all powerful."
"I am that" agrees God
"Any task?"
"Any"
"Ok: lift this really heavy stone"
God lifts the stone
"Now", grins the atheist "Make me a stone you can't lift"
"Done" obliges God
"Now, lift the stone"
God lifts the stone
"Aha" laughs the atheist: "You failed in your task to make a stone you couldn't lift"
"Ah," replies God, "but how do you know that's the same stone ..."
"And anyway, what matters is that I exist so you can stick your paradox where the sun don't shine. Luckily for you, my sun is, er "omnipotent" and shines everywhere :-)

[Samuraisan]

Well one day we will find out if the religious have been wasting their time, or the non-believers made a bit of a mistake.

[naomi24]

Jim, //Well if you want to tie it specifically to the biblical God//

The question is tied specifically to the biblical god. I’m simply reporting his alleged record. You can't change it because it doesn't suit you.

[wildwood]

Is this an explanation for the moving stones in Death valley?

I'll get my coat.........

[Khandro]

jim;//I'm not sure that any of the leading philosophers of the last 1000-odd years would agree with Khandro's "infantile" assessment..//

Are you suggesting that any of these so-called paradoxes have ever been "taken seriously" by "leading philosophers"? They are just fun jokes for the nursery, and have no bearing on either philosophical or theological thought whatsoever.

[Zacs-Master]

Well,said Khandro.

[agchristie]

Khandro > They are just fun jokes for the nursery...

They have to go on a creche course to study them!

[ichkeria]

Are you serious?
Zeno, Aristotle, Plato for example?
Hempel???
Etc

[mibn2cweus]

'Omniscience' and 'omnipotence' (like 'god') are not even objectively valid concepts . . . they do not refer to properties of (let alone entities which exist within) reality.

[Khandro]

ichkeria; An argument, as Aristotle would tell us, can have false premises and still be logically valid. The paradox is a joke based on unclear premises and I think would not occupy much of his time pondering it.