A classical example goes as follows:

A classical example goes as follows:

"Can a deity create a rock so heavy that even the deity itself cannot lift it? If so, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting the deity's power. But if not, then the deity is still not omnipotent because it cannot create that rock."[17]
Augustine, in his City of God, argued, instead, that God could not do anything that would make God non-omnipotent:

"For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent."

what is meant by this

>for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent.
>Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent
Omnipotence(infinity) is a dimension whose compatibility with our own dimension is limited. Not many concepts translate over(especially mathematics) and an effort of applying that logic leaves one with contradictions, paradoxes, and "proofs" of a finite nature.
Take for example multidimensional geometry. The third dimension is the second dimension, plus one dimension, so it is the same, but more. We, being 3-dimensional, can calculate and simulate 2-dimensional concepts, but it's a one-way street.
If a 2nd dimensional being says "ah, well if the third dimension is all this or that, can it make a line so vast as to bisect the entire plane of existence in two?"

Obviously we can't, but that's because 2nd dimensional laws don't apply here. We can step over lines, but how do you explain a Z-plane to those only equipped to fathom the X and Y planes?

>Can God make a stone too heavy for himself to lift?
no. he can't.

I prefer "could God give someone a dick so big that even He could not suck it?"

>Can a deity create a rock so heavy that even the deity itself cannot lift it? If so, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting the deity's power
This premise is rejectable

The diety is limiting their own power, and can therefore unlimit it

This is also accepting some sort of binary state of nature. It's possible to create a rock that you both cannot and can lift

This paradox is always interesting because it always involves people thinking themselves into a hole which they could normally think themselves out of, much like what they're asking the diety to do

bump

The answers possible are as following:

The question is meaningless in the first place.
No, because logic comes from God's essence.

Yes, because we accept divine voluntarism like protestants and Muslims.

very good post

Embarrassing

The idea of a literally omnipotent deity is idiotic, and the attempts of later Christianity to assert their deity as omnipotent--which he clearly is not, in their own sacred writings--is perhaps the silliest thing about that faith. If God is absolutely omnipotent and omniscient, than nothing from prayer to the Devil makes any sense. But that's what happens when people try to use philosophy to do faith's job.

The problem has nothing to do with God's omnipotence.

Rather, the riddle itself is nonsensical.

Yes he could, but then he'd lift it anyway.

Ok, can he make a rock that he could never, ever lift?

>no. he can't
How do you reconcile the words "he can't" with the word "omnipotent"? Does omnipotence not cover all possible meanings of the verb "can"?

He can make a rock which he can and cannot at the same time lift. Assuming we take the premise that God is not bound by logic.

The point is the riddle is ridiculous.
Here's another example
>"I pulled a flower out of the earth - that means I am stronger than the earth"
or
>"If it take 10 minutes to dig a hole, how long does it take to dig half a hole?"
The riddle is much more useful in pointing out that the concept 'infinity' is incoherent

In other words, He cannot make a rock that he could never, ever lift. He cannot create a rock that is unliftable at all times. If we admit that the words "He cannot" may apply to God, even if only sometimes or even if only at the same time as the words "He can", does not exclude omnipotence as one of His attributes?

I'm not trying to be contrarian, I just don't know how to wrap my head around this.

It's a meaningless question in the first place because it requires a paradox.
The traditional answer of Aquinas and Augustine is that logic itself comes from the Being of God and hence he cannot make the impossible possible (square circle, make good evil).
The second answer, usually taken by protestant and Islamic theologians is that God is absolutely beyond our comprehension and logic is dependent on his whims so he can make the stone which he can and cannot lift at the same time because paradoxes are just a matter of his will, this position is called divine voluntarism.
Of course if the first question is assumed it means that omnipotence is not omnipotent in the definition usually taken by internet Sam Harris reading atheists, where they will should that God isn't actually omnipotent, which is in a way true, as it would not entail enabling of impossibilities.

First, you have to stop thinking of God as anthropomorphic. He isn't an old man in a beard.
Second, stop thinking of 'omnipotence' as 'being like a superhero'.

Let me show you;
"Can the magnetic force make matter so light gravity won't affect it?"
Huh? That makes no sense.
Like I said before, the riddle about the stone only proves that the concept of infinity is incoherent.
Or, think of it this way - God made the entire universe from nothing and maintains it by, essentially, paying attention to it. He could snuff it out of existence at will, create another entire universe, etc.
Why are you talking about rocks?

In my (untrained) mind, the question becomes this: Can God become not-God? Could He give up His omnipotence if He really wanted to? What about his omniscience? Could God stop knowing everything? Not just pretend to not know, but annul that knowledge? Could he stop knowing the future? Or, if He transcends time, could He, well, not transcend time anymore? Could God stop being entirely?

If the answer is no, then God is condemned to be God. Forever, almightily so. God has His limits after all and His infinity is His limit.

And if the answer is yes then, man, I don't know what to say. My puny mind breaks down.

>He could snuff it out of existence at will
Oh yeah? Well I dare God to snuff it all out, like right this fucking instance. Go on, Big Guy! You can do it, right? Do it, you Big Fat Fellow! I dare you. Right now.

...thought so.

Who else wants to try their (our) luck?

>anthropomorphic
but didnt he create man in his own image

>How do you reconcile the words "he can't" with the word "omnipotent"?
the unlimited cannot be constrained by the limited. If it could be, it wouldn't be unlimited.

If omnipotence could do something that it couldn't do, it wouldn't be omnipotent, just immeasurably powerful on a linear scale. It isn't like a computer with 8gb RAM can do anything a computer with 2gb can do and way more, God supersedes the whole system, so the rules of that system are beneath him.

you could consider the theophany of Jesus to be a way for Omnipotence to circumvent that limitation, being God in the flesh, walking as men walk and bound by the same laws that men are bound

That means that I am omnipotent too. I too avoid doing things that could make me look like I'm not omnipotent.

>a materialist trying to understand this

>Like you can order God around

We are made in His image insofar as we are capable of reason and moral decision making.

that couldn't have gone higher over your head if you were underground.

Though not in terms of figuring out good/evil. That was the last element.

>can God create a shape with 3 sides, equaling 180 degrees that is a circle?
>but that would be a triangle by definition, your question lacks understanding of God's infinite ability, by changing the definition of something you change what a word means, how we comprehend it, not what it is
>b-but you said God can do anything!