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?

[jim360]

Ah, back to Aristotle-kissing again, are we, Khandro?

But anyway. Naomi may or may not be correct that the Biblical God isn't omnipotent. But then again, as the paradox is basically related to the precise definition of omnipotence, how sure can you be about that in the first place?

[naomi24]

Jim, //Naomi may or may not be correct that the Biblical God isn't omnipotent.//

Disregarding the distinct probability that he doesn’t and never did exist, my conclusions are founded upon the only ‘evidence’ we have so there’s no question of them being incorrect. It's there in black and white. And there’s me thinking you were big on evidence.

I'll leave you to your paradoxes.

[jim360]

It's the quality of evidence that bothers me in this case. It seems to me that you are relying on a textual interpretation that is disputable rather than solid. This anyway wouldn't be the first time that this is so with the evidence you've provided, so the last point is a bit bizarre.

The paradox still matters, though, either because it is wider than about the Biblical God or because it shows that we can't even agree on what the property of omnipotence is anyway. If you assert that God, assuming he's real, isn't omnipotent, what do you mean by that? And please don't answer "that he isn't all-powerful", because that just restates the problem of woolly definition in two words rather than one.

Paradoxes like this are important, no matter what you or Khandro think.

[naomi24]

Jim, //you are relying on a textual interpretation that is disputable //

How is it disputable? It says what it says and it's quite clear.

[naomi24]

//Paradoxes like this are important, no matter what you or Khandro think.//

I haven't entered the discussion on paradoxes. You have no idea what I think.

[Khandro]

jim; Precisely, that's why I say the premises are unclear. If the first premise of the argument began, "God is omnipotent ... ", then one might proceed using logical means to analyse it.
I could reword the argument, but it's too boring. If God was truly omnipotent and was in the business of making and lifting stones, he could make a stone any size he wanted and make himself strong enough to lift it.

[jim360]

The thing is though that either: you think that language is always subject to interpretation, particularly when it's been translated, either due to your own perceptions or because the original writer could have been clearer after all or omitted something; or you are wrong. I'm not a great fan of relying on textual sources as definitive evidence for this reason. Heck, don't we have a history of reading things that aren't there into each other's posts, or of writing things that can be misinterpreted? But I never set out to mislead people in what I'm writing when I'm involved in a debate.

So it can be as black-and-white as you like in the text but it's simply not enough to provide, to my mind, definitive evidence of anything. Which, by the by, is why I'm an atheist.

But anyway. Unless you can define a quality, you can't assign a lack of it to God, either the one of the Bible or any other.

[naomi24]

Jim, God flooded the earth in order to destroy most of his creation because he was disappointed with the result. That needs no interpretation. He didn't envisage the outcome and admitted he'd made a mistake.

[Khandro]

jim; Isn't being an atheist adopting a position where you positively reject something which you really don't know if it exists or not? Are you sure you are not an agnostic?

[ichkeria]

The particular paradox mentioned here could apply to any person or thing deemed 'omnipotent'. It only takes on a religious dimension if that person or thing is God, but it just as easily apply to Doctor Who, the Man from UNCLE, the man from Del Monte etc etc
I'm still somewhat staggered by the idea that all paradoxes are 'jokes' :-)
If indeed that was the suggestion ...

[Khandro]

fender; ^^ I used to think that you were a pain in the neck, now I have a much lower opinion of you.

[naomi24]

Khandro, if you disagree with fender62 offer your argument. Your post at 23:27 does your intellect a disservice.

[Khandro]

birdie; Poetry, sacred texts, the bible, can excite serene meditation and transcendent bliss, reductionism I leave to the simple-minded and those lacking inspiration, - join them if you will.

[naomi24]

//I leave to the simple-minded and those lacking inspiration//

AKA the rational.

[mibn2cweus]

To ask more of the mind than that which the mind is capable is to invite disaster.

[beso]

//Poetry, sacred texts, the bible, can excite serene meditation and transcendent bliss, //

Many people can find such a state without artifices.

The Bible and other holy texts have often incited extremely violent thoughts and behaviours.