{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
3/25/2014 12:15:39 AM
14
-
Essentially, omnipotence is bound by itself in that one cannot step outside it. This does not invalidate omnipotence but is simply a determinant in defining it. Your challenge is only a paradox in and of itself because it cannot apply to true omnipotence to begin with.
-
[quote]but is simply a determinant in defining it.[/quote] You've finally given me the words that I've been looking for in this particular paradoxical argument. Thanks :D
-
See the bait, you scientifically took it...[spoiler]no cookie >:([/spoiler]
-
Edited by Pendulate: 3/26/2014 4:07:12 AMMy post is out there for others to read. I lose nothing by sharing information with people.
-
This is the argument of those of little intellect. Good try though.
-
I don't remember his name but a Christian scholar answered this question by saying "Yes he could but he won't because he's preparing Hell for people who asked that question" lol
-
Yes, but after creating a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, he makes himself stronger so that he can lift it. :)))))
-
Sounds like it should be an image macro/meme...
-
Thus makig him unable to make a rock so heavy he cant lift [quote]Your arguement is invalid[/quote]
-
I think it's a completely valid argument, because you never stated how long the rock was to remain unliftable. He can create a rock that He cannot lift, but if he needs to lift it He could. :)
-
The arguement was can God make a rock so heavy he cant lift [spoiler]rock >God[/spoiler], for this statement to remain true then God could never lift it [spoiler]Rock < God would make Rock > God untrue[/spoiler] [spoiler]Your arguement to and invalid arguement is invalid[/spoiler]
-
This question was dealt with centuries ago, yet it persists. The question itself is flawed. I'll provide a quote tomorrow when I wake up if you're actually curious.
-
I kinda' am.
-
To be fair, it's not the exact same question being asked over the centuries/millennia, but it's all tackling the same concept. I'll explain after the quote: [i]"But I did not know that other reality which truly is; and through my own sharpness I let myself be taken in by fools, who deceived me with such questions as: Whence comes evil? And is God bounded by a bodily shape? ... I did not even know that God is a spirit, having no parts extended in length and breadth, to whose being bulk does not belong, for bulk is less in its part than in its whole. And if it be infinite, it is less in the part circumscribed by a certain space than in its infinity, and so could not be wholly itself in every place, as a spirit is, as God is."[/i] When one asks "Can God make something so heavy he can't lift it?", we're placing God inside the universe. Rocks, boulders, items exist within the universe. They are finite. The question doesn't just require an impossibly heavy object, but that God exist within our universe. The quote above, from Augustine's [I]Confessions[/I], deals with that last requirement. God does not exist within our universe. Infinity can't be limited, but to have a corporeal form would be to do so. Therefore the question is flawed, as long as God doesn't desire to break the laws that were established to govern the universe. I've explained this idea better before. I apologize.
