Omnipotent?
-
if u explain this in science, and u belif in god, god creation of the world and how the universe was form clash.Originally posted by ObiterDicta:Ok lah, for your benefit, here is a repost of the answer to this question:
------
What you have just written is a 'meaningless combination of words' (to quote C. S. Lewis).
There is no such thing as a stone that cannot be lifted by God.
- If a stone has infinite weight, then it would have infinite gravitational strength.
- This would mean that time stands still where the stone is, according to the theory of relativity.
- Lifting something is a motion, means implies a change in physical location relative to time.
- If time stands still, there can be no change, since change is a concept that has meaning only in time. And hence no motion is possible.
- Hence the question is meaningless.
-----
regards,
obiterdicta -
Now its my turn.
The omnipotence of god has intrinsic limitations, self imposed as it were. He is intentionally limited by his moral character. For example, though nothing is impossible with God, Hebrews 6:18 tells us 'it is impossible for God to lie," His omnipotence applies to inherent possibilities, not inherent impossibilities.
CS.Lewis has an answer for the rock question.
"nonsense is still nonsense", whether we are talking about sth or about God.
No questions?? MC? lau?? no questions at all??
K, so one posts solves it all. btw......I got this explanation from a book!! -
A mere post solves it all?
Ok. So tiring.... -
He is intentionally limited by his moral character
I thought I have posted a reply on it. Why is creating a rock have anything to do with moral character ? Nobody is asking him to lie or anything
-
the second sentance isnt refering to the first sentance. The third sentacne is refering to the second sentance.
Your question doesnt change or oppose anything. -
Omnipotence or Almightiness ?
Might be worthy to see a difference between the 2 ? -
good point!!
-
The omnipotence of god has intrinsic limitations, self imposed as it were. He is intentionally limited by his moral character. For example, though nothing is impossible with God, Hebrews 6:18 tells us 'it is impossible for God to lie," His omnipotence applies to inherent possibilities, not inherent impossibilities.
The second, third, fourth sentence is all about moral limitation. The first sentence only made sense, if the limitation is moral. Otherwise god is physically limited and thus not omnipotent.
And wat is the difference between omnipotent and almightiness ? According to dictionary they r the same -
ok, so you deliberately skipped the last line.nvm.tats fineOriginally posted by stupidissmart:The second, third, fourth sentence is all about moral limitation. The first sentence only made sense, if the limitation is moral. Otherwise god is physically limited and thus not omnipotent.
And wat is the difference between omnipotent and almightiness ? According to dictionary they r the same -
I thought the whole reply is because I wanna u to realise tat the statement means a lot since making a rock is never against moral conscience
-
How different?Originally posted by klydeer:Omnipotence or Almightiness ?
Might be worthy to see a difference between the 2 ?
Care to enlighten me? -
so easy .. Almightiness is not Omnipotence.Originally posted by M©+square:How different?
Care to enlighten me?
Bruce was almightly but he wasn't omnipotent. -
dude, you arent reading my post. Your just buildng up your own thoughts. The basic thing to debate with other ppl is to listen first.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I thought the whole reply is because I wanna u to realise tat the statement means a lot since making a rock is never against moral conscience
listen what they have to say b4 saying your side and make sure they oppose!
You know wads the difference between arguement and debate??
For arguement the two person keep shouting their own sides of views.
eg: SIS: you r an ashol
Dav: you bitcch!!
Debate wld be
Sis: you a ashol
Dav: why do you call me a ----do i look like one?
I already told you that the 3rd sentance is refering to the 2nd one and the last one is another point of the topic omnipotence. -
and its very strange why SIS is the only person zhao3 wo3 ma2 fan2??
do you ppl understand? -
I already told you that the 3rd sentance is refering to the 2nd one and the last one is another point of the topic omnipotence.
As said in my previous reply
The second, third, fourth sentence is all about moral limitation. The first sentence only made sense, if the limitation is moral. Otherwise god is physically limited and thus not omnipotent.
R u reading ? If it is not moral limitation, then it have to be physical limitation and it wouldn't be so called self imposed. Creating a rock is never a moral problem such as lying
Actually I think tat is it. U don't read up other people mail and u don't follow up other people reply I should follow on wat other people r doing, simply ignoring u -
Creating a riock is never a moral attribute. It refers to the last sentance. Can????
Why does it have to be so hard?
And you arent really opposing my statement at all. Theres no difference -
Almightiness IS NOT Ominpotence?Originally posted by Icemoon:so easy .. Almightiness is not Omnipotence.
Bruce was almightly but he wasn't omnipotent.
And your reference is the movie Bruce Almighty?
Let's have a better reference.
al·might·y (ôl-mt)
adj.
1. Having absolute power; all-powerful: almighty God.
2. Informal Great; extreme: an almighty din.
adv. Informal
Used as an intensive: almighty scared.
n. Almighty
God. Used with the.
[Middle English almighti, from Old English ealmihtig : eall, all; see all + mihtig, mighty (from miht, might; see might1).] -
O Mighty One!
-
-
Creating a riock is never a moral attribute. It refers to the last sentance. Can????
I have already answered your points, and it contradicts all your explanation tat god do not do things tat is aginst his moral conscience. Your point, which u cut and paste from somewhere, is all about moral conscience, tat god is not capable of lying because tat is against his moral conscience, and tat is not a sign of non- omnipotency. However creating a rock is never a moral issue, and your explanation never answer anything, and tat theoriginal conclusion tat the idea of omnipotency is impossible. Your whole point is refuted, and similarly to the suffering thread, u began to act blur and not answer to the point. U thought u have answered it when u don't even understand the main issue. -
His omnipotence applies to inherent possibilities, not inherent impossibilities.
for reference.
Someone did ask him the rock question.
'Nonsense is still nonsense' is what he said. -
Hi, please allow me to explain my personal thoughts...Originally posted by M©+square:Almightiness IS NOT Ominpotence?
And your reference is the movie Bruce Almighty?
Let's have a better reference.
al·might·y (ôl-mt)
adj.
1. Having absolute power; all-powerful: almighty God.
2. Informal Great; extreme: an almighty din.
adv. Informal
Used as an intensive: almighty scared.
n. Almighty
God. Used with the.
[Middle English almighti, from Old English ealmihtig : eall, all; see all + mihtig, mighty (from miht, might; see might1).]
Hrmm....how about the word: "Omnipotence" ? When this word is first created, according to an online etymology source - c.1314, from O.Fr. omnipotent (11c.), from L. omnipotentem (nom. omnipotens) "all-powerful, almighty," from omnis "all" (see omni-) + potens (gen. potentis) "powerful" (see potent). Strictly only of God or a deity; general sense of "having absolute power or authority" is attested from 1598.
However, when i look at Dictionary.Com today - it says:
–adjective
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.
–noun
3. an omnipotent being.
4. the Omnipotent, God.
[Origin: 1275–1325; ME < L omnipotent- (s. of omnipotēns), equiv. to omni- omni- + potent- (see potent1)]
My suspicions that "Almightiness" might not be equal to the "kind" of "Omnipotence" that some are relating to - arise from a thought that perhaps the word "Omnipotence" has over the years been incorrectly understood from its original intended meaning. Of an "Almighty" God, Power and Authority goes hand in hand, and the Authority is His Authority which we understand as a reflection of His Character.
The above Dictionary.com explanation has separated "power" and "authority" (see in bold). So is it suggesting that omnipotence can mean "brute power" ? If that is the case, the rock paradox seems easily created from this misunderstanding of the word "omnipotence. What i feel is that the "rock paradox" is thought in of within the paradigm of a secular understanding of omnipotency - in terms of brute power - without authority - without responsibility - without justice.
So if we can understand, as you have exhibited above - that Almightiness is Omnipotence strictly only of God - then the rock paradox is a non-problem.
The conclusion i would have, is that God cannot create a rock He cannot lift, because He is Almighty - He is All powerful with the Authority (of Justice, of Love, of Righteousness) to exhibit that form of power. -
Originally posted by klydeer:
It is clear that when you posted on Almightiness and Omnipotence. It refers to God and nothing else, because this is a Christian forum. Until icemoon brought Bruce Almighty in the comparison scale...
Hi, please allow me to explain my personal thoughts...
Hrmm....how about the word: "Omnipotence" ? When this word is first created, according to an online etymology source - c.1314, from O.Fr. omnipotent (11c.), from L. omnipotentem (nom. omnipotens) "all-powerful, almighty," from omnis "all" (see omni-) + potens (gen. potentis) "powerful" (see potent). [b]Strictly only of God or a deity; general sense of "having absolute power or authority" is attested from 1598.
However, when i look at Dictionary.Com today - it says:
–adjective
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.
–noun
3. an omnipotent being.
4. the Omnipotent, God.
[Origin: 1275–1325; ME < L omnipotent- (s. of omnipotēns), equiv. to omni- omni- + potent- (see potent1)]
My suspicions that "Almightiness" might not be equal to the "kind" of "Omnipotence" that some are relating to - arise from a thought that perhaps the word "Omnipotence" has over the years been incorrectly understood from its original intended meaning. Of an "Almighty" God, Power and Authority goes hand in hand, and the Authority is His Authority which we understand as a reflection of His Character.
The above Dictionary.com explanation has separated "power" and "authority" (see in bold). So is it suggesting that omnipotence can mean "brute power" ? If that is the case, the rock paradox seems easily created from this misunderstanding of the word "omnipotence. What i feel is that the "rock paradox" is thought in of within the paradigm of a secular understanding of omnipotency - in terms of brute power - without authority - without responsibility - without justice.
So if we can understand, as you have exhibited above - that Almightiness is Omnipotence strictly only of God - then the rock paradox is a non-problem.
The conclusion i would have, is that God cannot create a rock He cannot lift, because He is Almighty - He is All powerful with the Authority (of Justice, of Love, of Righteousness) to exhibit that form of power.
[/b]
This paradox could be replaced with other issues and still remains debatable.
So let's close at this.
-
sure. my earlier question is actually raise to those who perhaps bought into the "secular logic" of the rock paradox.Originally posted by M©+square:It is clear that when you posted on Almightiness and Omnipotence. It refers to God and nothing else, because this is a Christian forum. Until icemoon brought Bruce Almighty in the comparison scale...
This paradox could be replaced with other issues and still remains debatable.
So let's close at this. -
Originally posted by klydeer:sure. my earlier question is actually raise to those who perhaps bought into the "secular logic" of the rock paradox. All because of Icemoon.