YojuLojuWindow:

I am against you tying the Omnipotence paradox
in other words the original question "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?" with God

and a paradox also results in "He can" or "He cannot", so if the latter is chosen then it contradicts the omnipotency
You are just as stubborn as a mule in not willing to agree that God retains his omnipotence
as God will continually all over again, be lifting each stone, created heavy enough earlier thought He cant lift

Facepalm. You are right, you did first, give the definition. Must have hsd a blurred vision and missed it when I earlier read it. Sorry about that amigo.

The "disadvantage" my friend, is that "senseless, logically unacceptable, self-contradictory" suits a "He cannot" answer
but in this we have an undecided answer because the task keeps repeating itself unendingly, in a Sisyphean manner if you like

Exactly DProDG, believe this, we both are familiar with this logic
which is why we are saying you can have fun with the logic
but it really has got nothing on God

The Sisyphean Task is the reality spicing up the logic

Yes, as the proof of the pudding is in the eating
so God creates a stone, thought He cant lift but bingo, He lifted it
now an endless cycle of creating and lifting ensues to find the answer to the question

No, just saying an "undecided answer" is not self contradicting yet, as this is an ongoing task nowhere near to contradicting an Omnipotent

I dont do "religious implications" DProDG.
Go out on a limb DProDG, try something different, try faith sometime,
when you do try faith, you'll be in a good & positive way delightfully surprised...

Dont put words in my mouth
I know what I wrote. I said "Bottom line, a lot of things about GOD are illogical"
and didnt say the concept of 'God' is itself "illogical".

Well the irony is that there are quite a lot of things about GOD we humans find illogical
For example, giving birth after menopause, immaculate conception, etc

For the umpteenth time, this isnt about arguing
but rather it's about putting a 12 century record straight that the paradox doesnt gel with God

You need a change of mind more than I do
Practice what you preach to loosen up the straitjacket you're strapped into

Ready to help. Ready and willing to serve you
This is one example of a paradox for your comparison:
"If you didn't get this message, call me."

To avoid excessive repetition, I'm gonna try to be concise.

Basically, you argument is that the concept of omnipotence does not create a paradox and the reason given is...

There is no binary answer to that question. No "Yes He can" or "No he cant".
It's a Jury-Is-Out undecided answer. Inconclusive!

The only difference is that you wrongly use the words 'inconclusive' rather than 'illogical'. I don't know why, especially since you concede that the concept of your God is illogical [If an entity contains/depends on as much as one illogical attribute, the whole is in essence illogical. #logic101]. And just to clarify, 'inconclusive' assumes that a logical choice can emerge after prolonged consideration.

In addition, you have constantly equated such to a Sisyphean Task which does not involve any logical deduction whatsoever nor follows the second premise, ie, creating an immovable stone.

And finally, although you did say you are not holding on to this position based on the religious implications, you went on to say "the paradox doesn't gel with God"; which is oxymoronic because it is almost as if you acknowledge the paradox but exclude your god from logical bounds and at the same time insist there is no paradox in the first place. So which is it?

By the way, your example, though paradoxical, cannot produce a premise nor conclusion so comparison is impossible.

Kay17:


Except logical absurdities of course.

Sure. Logical absurdities are as good as nothing.

ihedinobi2:

Look, just explain what you meant. What are you talking about with language context?

I don't know any examples of logical paradoxes.

Basically, as I've said several times before, we are on the same page when it comes to the question, except, you do not want to acknowledge omnipotence as a 'paradox', hence illogical.

I'm referring to the conventional context in everyday sentences which you brought up to counter my examples of paradoxes. It is on par with bringing up context in say, math problems....

"Yemi buys 52 apples and eats 20. How many apples does he have left?"

Questions like "is it possible to eat 20 apples in a go?", "how big were the apples?" etc are considered totally irrelevant in such cases. Only the statement is acknowledged.

Excuse my poor analogy but I hope you get the point.

As for the example of paradoxes, I gave 2 classic ones. I emphasize on "classic" simply because those are generally accepted and probably what you will expect whenever you look up an example.

ihedinobi2:


I actually took a whole minute to understand what you said here and I still don't understand it very well. I don't know if you are upset that I used the definition you offered to make a point. Or if you think I cheated by drawing out the full meaning of the "paradoxes" you offered. In either case I honestly fail to see what the hypocrisy is and how language has nothing to do with philosophy.

Nor do I see why logical paradoxes are unquestionable reality.

My apologies for (sorta) calling you a hypocrite, I totally misread you statement

In any case, even the meaning of paradox does not do you good.

And just to be recap my stance(this 'argument' is somewhat confusing now)... just like the question revealed, the concept of 'omnipotence' itself, is illogical. You can choose to insist, just like YojuLojuWindow did, that it is an attribute of your God, but there is no honest way of asserting that it is(logical).

ihedinobi2:


You don't understand what I'm asking, do you? I'm asking this: would I have an example if logical paradoxes don't exist? Why the assumption that they do?

Just so you do not misunderstand me, I am a christian. I just do not understand how you argue dishonestly to defend the faith.



Logical paradoxes show that some situations are not possible to solve.

I believe that God is above all situations and as such, a paradox is beneath Him.



To argue that paradoxes do not exist is the height of dishonesty.

DProDG:
To avoid excessive repetition, I'm gonna try to be concise.

Basically, you argument is that the concept of omnipotence does not create a paradox and the reason given is...

I never did say it does not create a paradox. I think I said, dont tie God in with it. Anyway, other than the reason given and because it is DOA

DProDG:
The only difference is that you wrongly use the words 'inconclusive' rather than 'illogical'.

I beg to differ, sorry 'inconclusive' and 'illogical' are not interchangeable words
the former is undecided, the latter is senseless

DProDG:
I don't know why, especially since you concede that the concept of your God is illogical If an entity contains/depends on as much as one illogical attribute, the whole is in essence illogical. #logic101

I have corrected you before on what I said.
Why you insist, again, in putting words in my mouth, I dont know why
I know what I wrote. I said "Bottom line, a lot of things about GOD are illogical"
and NEVER SAID the concept of 'God' is itself "illogical".
I DID NOT concede that the idea of God is illogical
That is a wholly chimerical thought you allowed played out in your mind

Reiterating, well the irony is that there are quite a lot of things about GOD, we humans find illogical
For example, giving birth after menopause, immaculate conception, etc

DProDG:
And just to clarify, 'inconclusive' assumes that a logical choice can emerge after prolonged consideration.

You assume too much my friend
'Inconclusive' is 'inconclusive' period,
inconclusive means unable to reach a decision or an answer cannot be made
as in this case, God is hypothetically lifting mountains, earlier thought He cant lift

DProDG:
In addition, you have constantly equated such to a Sisyphean Task which does not involve any logical deduction whatsoever nor follows the second premise, ie, creating an immovable stone.

Yes I did, my hands are up.
I did and do so because the Sisyphean Task is the reality spicing up the "logic" or the Omnipotence paradox

DProDG:
And finally, although you did say you are not holding on to this position based on the religious implications, you went on to say "the paradox doesn't gel with God"; which is oxymoronic because it is almost as if you acknowledge the paradox but exclude your god from logical bounds and at the same time insist there is no paradox in the first place. So which is it?

You have a lot to catch up with, if you dont realise that from the onset and to start with, the Omnipotence paradox, tying God in it is oxymoronic and pointedly foolish

DProDG:
By the way, your example, though paradoxical, cannot produce a premise nor conclusion so comparison is impossible.

That is exactly the point am trying to get your attention to.
The example given is the reality that exposes your logic and Omnipotence paradox to be pointedly foolish or wise
I beg to differ that "comparison is impossible", as we hypothetically did compare Him not able to lift a mountain when He did lift it and so had to create another one and have us watch to see Him lift or not lift it

Remember:
The cycle or repetition, goes on, constantly repeating over and over again, indefinitely as in on to infinity
Soon realise this is a never ending task
and you wont get an answer to your question because it is an unending and futile task asked off God by OP

The question of God creating something He cant move, is unnecessary,
as there is no outcome capable of producing any useful answer or response the OP anticipates

DProDG:
And just to be recap my stance(this 'argument' is somewhat confusing now)... just like the question revealed, the concept of 'omnipotence' itself, is illogical. You can choose to insist, just like YojuLojuWindow did, that it is an attribute of your God, but there is no honest way of asserting that it is (logical).

cc ihedinobi2, AllNaijaBlogger
The honest way will be to hypothetically put God to the test,
hypothetically let Him create a mountain He cant lift and wait for the outcome
and this we did with the ever going on example

This time for real, I've unfollowed this thread. We can only agree to disagree DProDG.

AllNaijaBlogger:


Just so you do not misunderstand me, I am a christian. I just do not understand how you argue dishonestly to defend the faith.



Logical paradoxes show that some situations are not possible to solve.

I believe that God is above all situations and as such, a paradox is beneath Him.



To argue that paradoxes do not exist is the height of dishonesty.

I don't know that logical paradoxes exist. I have never seen one. That is not dishonesty. And it is not the same as arguing that they don't exist. I simply asked why their existence is taken for granted here. Obviously because I don't know any. The examples that have been supplied here have been practically forced down my throat. And logical reasoning does not permit that. Why should I accept that a statement like "I am lying" is a logical paradox when it obviously says nothing complete? Is it because some old names or new names think it should be?

I'm afraid I am not much impressed by bold lettering.

ihedinobi2:


I don't know that logical paradoxes exist. I have never seen one. That is not dishonesty. And it is not the same as arguing that they don't exist. I simply asked why their existence is taken for granted here. Obviously because I don't know any. The examples that have been supplied here have been practically forced down my throat. And logical reasoning does not permit that. Why should I accept that a statement like "I am lying" is a logical paradox when it obviously says nothing complete? Is it because some old names or new names think it should be?

I'm afraid I am not much impressed by bold lettering.

You might as well reject logic and math

YojuLojuWindow:
I never did say it does not create a paradox. I think I said, dont tie God in with it. Anyway, other than the reason given and because it is DOA

I beg to differ, sorry 'inconclusive' and 'illogical' are not interchangeable words
the former is undecided, the latter is senseless

I have corrected you before on what I said.
Why you insist, again, in putting words in my mouth, I dont know why
I know what I wrote. I said "Bottom line, a lot of things about GOD are illogical"
and NEVER SAID the concept of 'God' is itself "illogical".
I DID NOT concede that the idea of God is illogical
That is a wholly chimerical thought you allowed played out in your mind

Reiterating, well the irony is that there are quite a lot of things about GOD, we humans find illogical
For example, giving birth after menopause, immaculate conception, etc

You assume too much my friend
'Inconclusive' is 'inconclusive' period,
inconclusive means unable to reach a decision or an answer cannot be made
as in this case, God is hypothetically lifting mountains, earlier thought He cant lift

Yes I did, my hands are up.
I did and do so because the Sisyphean Task is the reality spicing up the "logic" or the Omnipotence paradox

You have a lot to catch up with, if you dont realise that from the onset and to start with, the Omnipotence paradox, tying God in it is oxymoronic and pointedly foolish

That is exactly the point am trying to get your attention to.
The example given is the reality that exposes your logic and Omnipotence paradox to be pointedly foolish or wise
I beg to differ that "comparison is impossible", as we hypothetically did compare Him not able to lift a mountain when He did lift it and so had to create another one and have us watch to see Him lift or not lift it

Remember:
The cycle or repetition, goes on, constantly repeating over and over again, indefinitely as in on to infinity
Soon realise this is a never ending task
and you wont get an answer to your question because it is an unending and futile task asked off God by OP

The question of God creating something He cant move, is unnecessary,
as there is no outcome capable of producing any useful answer or response the OP anticipates


cc ihedinobi2, AllNaijaBlogger
The honest way will be to hypothetically put God to the test,
hypothetically let Him create a mountain He cant lift and wait for the outcome
and this we did with the ever going on example

This time for real, I've unfollowed this thread. We can only agree to disagree DProDG.

This is the epitome of illogical and dishonest.

ihedinobi2:


I don't know that logical paradoxes exist. I have never seen one. That is not dishonesty. And it is not the same as arguing that they don't exist. I simply asked why their existence is taken for granted here. Obviously because I don't know any. The examples that have been supplied here have been practically forced down my throat. And logical reasoning does not permit that. Why should I accept that a statement like "I am lying" is a logical paradox when it obviously says nothing complete? Is it because some old names or new names think it should be?

I'm afraid I am not much impressed by bold lettering.

Example:
=The only way for a healthy airforce pilot to escape pilot duty during war is to accept in written form that he/she is crazy. However, only a sane man will be able to fill the form and admit that he is crazy: a crazy man wouldn't know he is crazy and neither will he both with a form.



The above is a catch 22 paradox. It is an unsolvable situation for a healthy airforce pilot.



The same is what these unbelievers are saying about God. However, of God can create and bend our universe, why can't He bend logic? Why would He be held down by human logic or reasoning?


Sir, paradoxical situations exist. There are things that are impossible to the human mind.


What came first, the chicken or the egg? No one can solve it because it is a paradox of infinity. A never ending circle. A chicken comes from an egg but the egg must comes from a chicken.

DProDG:


My apologies for (sorta) calling you a hypocrite, I totally misread you statement

And just to be recap my stance(this 'argument' is somewhat confusing now)... just like the question revealed, the concept of 'omnipotence' itself, is illogical. You can choose to insist, just like YojuLojuWindow did, that it is an attribute of your God, but there is no honest way of asserting that it is(logical).

I have made my argument. Refute it if you like. My argument is that the question makes no sense.

ihedinobi2:


I have made my argument. Refute it if you like. My argument is that the question makes no sense.

Did u miss my reply above? Oh well. Thread has ended anyway.

ihedinobi2:


My friend, justice is about giving to everyone what they deserve, their exact due, nothing more and nothing less. It is neither a rehabilitation system nor a punitive measure. Under justice, if you take a life you must give back a life. If you steal two naira you must give back two naira. The time that you are punished is when you cannot give back what you took. At that time, you must suffer the loss or inconvenience that you caused. Let us not confuse matters here, please.

We can hardly settle that question unless we agree on what justice and mercy both are.

You need to read up on the topic of justice.

We don't have to be in exact agreement about what justice is. Like I said earlier, different people, like the both of us, have different ideas about it. What we need is a working definition, or to simply state how justice should be achieved for each scenario we consider.

I already explained. I said that a world where humans have and exercise free will and where there is also no pain and suffering is one where humans have learned to use their free will toward good and not evil. Therefore, a world such as the one we live in would necessarily precede it.

No. You see, you haven't stated the necessity of this knowledge of how not to use free will. Why is it so necessary that even God cannot dispense with it? You didn't really explain how almighty God could not simply cause his underlings to know either, without having them experience the fiasco first. You also haven't taken into account the existence of gratuitious evil.

Affect? I said that logic is what we use to establish the consistency of ideas with reality. And reality can be normally good or normally evil. When you examine ideas logically in a good world, you would be attempting to establish that they agree with all that is good. The converse is also true assuming that evil even permits argument and examination.

Good and evil are value judgments. Logic precedes value judgments. Good world or evil world, logic will always precede a value judgment. In the interest of clarity, could you use an example, perhaps the law of non contradiction, to demonstrate the "agreement with all that is good"?

AllNaijaBlogger:





Did u miss my reply above? Oh well. Thread has ended anyway.

No I did not. I was going to reply you later. But if you're through with the discourse I can hold my horses.

DProDG:


This is the epitome of illogical and dishonest.

Fyi, you're 'debating' one that freely admits to obfuscating when things go wrong. One quite strong in the ways of dissonance.

As for Ihe, well.. At least he's a good sport

I do enjoy uyis tantrums though

finofaya:



You need to read up on the topic of justice.

We don't have to be in exact agreement about what justice is. Like I said earlier, different people, like the both of us, have different ideas about it. What we need is a working definition, or to simply state how justice should be achieved for each scenario we consider.




No. You see, you haven't stated the necessity of this knowledge of how not to use free will. Why is it so necessary that even God cannot dispense with it? You didn't really explain how almighty God could not simply cause his underlings to know either, without having them experience the fiasco first. You also haven't taken into account the existence of gratuitious evil.



Good and evil are value judgments. Logic precedes value judgments. Good world or evil world, logic will always precede a value judgment. In the interest of clarity, could you use an example, perhaps the law of non contradiction, to demonstrate the "agreement with all that is good"?

Lol. We just need to agree on a working definition? Please, let's stop wasting time. We haven't agreed in all this time and you think we should keep trying? Forget that discussion, please. We'll just agree to disagree on it.


My friend, definitions are logical. Free will means that a person can do anything they please and learn as they go along. If God programmed us so that we would never experiment and learn for ourselves we would not have free will. You can now ask me why we must have free will at all.


I'll pass on this. My point will probably made in the course of the above discussion. I'm rather tired of the discourse already and I have more on my mind now than I did before.

wiegraf:


Fyi, you're 'debating' one that freely admits to obfuscating when things go wrong. One quite strong in the ways of dissonance.

As for Ihe, well.. At least he's a good sport

I do enjoy uyis tantrums though

Wiegraf, my man, long time! How body nau?

ihedinobi2:


Wiegraf, my man, long time! How body nau?

Is goot, is goot brah. And you?

Your aniki anony, u still in touch with him?

wiegraf:


Is goot, is goot brah. And you?

Your aniki anony, u still in touch with him?

I'm doing fine, my brother. Yes, I am. He's alright. Good to see you still around, man.

@AllNaijaBlogger, at first I thought you offered a bad example. But maybe there is some sense in it. You see, I don't close loops like that myself. I wondered how you could call it a paradox if a man who isn't crazy wants to make an insanity claim. He's not crazy obviously so what was the paradox? But when I thought about it some more I figured that the real question was how he could avoid going to war. When I look at it like that I can see the paradox. But I also see that he cannot avoid service based on the insanity claim that he cannot make.

I hope you can follow my thinking on this. Having argued on various sides of different matters at different times I'm acutely aware of the fact that even the best-intentioned can sub- or un-consciously employ deceit to win their point. And they often need to be called to order to preserve the integrity of whatever idea they are defending. For that I am very grateful that you tried to prevent me from acting like Job's friends who lied (perhaps unwittingly too) in a bid to preserve God's integrity.

But it's a two-edged sword. You see, I admit my arrogance in that idea that I held that I can answer all questions that unbelievers could come up with to confound the faith of the Christian. Because of your input I can shed that idea now. I can make my peace with a failure to provide every last answer demanded especially considering that Paul said that we only know and see in part here as if we were looking into a dark or smoky mirror. But I think that you should not assume that every time a believer dares to take on these questions and discounts the existence of philosophical difficulties like these logical paradoxes that he is being deceitful. He may only be mistaken. Or he may really have a good reason for disagreeing that they exist. Much of what constitutes authority today in knowledge was once speculation and wonder in a human mind. It can still be questioned and may even be found false despite its long years or centuries of endurance and wide acceptance.



Now, regarding this matter of omnipotence, I will make the Bible's argument as well as I know it. I took time to think hard about it and correct my own position especially with AllNaijaBlogger's help.

The Bible does not define Jehovah's omnipotence as the ability to do any and every thing. This is borne out in a number of statements that indicate not what he would not do (as I used to argue in the past) but what he CAN NOT do. For instance, God cannot lie. For another, God cannot deny himself.

What the Bible does say is that what God wants to accomplish can never be opposed. There is no power capable of preventing God from accomplishing his full will. The Bible holds that Jehovah is totally supreme and arbitrary in power. Nobody can shackle him or dictate to him. He does exactly as he pleases and cannot be stopped from accomplishing whatever he wants to.

Now, for people lost in the maze of non-contextual philosophical explorations, the question would arise, "if he wanted to, can he create a mountain (or stone) that he cannot move (or lift)"? But before you give this question merit, consider that God cannot lie. If he cannot, is it because he does not want to or because he cannot even want to?

Jehovah as God is an arbitrary being. His is the only truly free will. He is not given options to work with by anyone. He does exactly whatever he pleases. But the Bible shows that He is not a whimsical God for all that. That suggests that even with His total command of all power in existence He has, well, limits. But what defines them? The Bible says that it is his nature. What he is prevents him from doing some things and drives him to do others.

Therefore, for a question regarding his ability to make sense it must embrace the context in which he exercises it. According to the Bible, Jehovah knows no equals and no rivals. That is all the Bible has to say regarding the extent of his power. At least as far as I can understand. It does not tell me if God has the power to confound absurdities like the "paradox" in question here. At least, it's an absurdity to me.

CC: finofaya

Hmm, nice arguments @ihedinobi2, I have been following your posts, and I must say, I'm impressed with the validity and veracity of your arguments, especially concerning those pertaining to the Christian faith, thanks for the good work to the body of Christ. Your sound logic will sway even the most ardent non-theist, provided they are open minded, and at least truthful.