Rock and God

sid_galt

I have often seen arguments like these
by people who claim that they have disproved the existence of God. Either answer would mean that God is not omnipotent and therefore cannot exist.

Now I am an atheist. Is there any merit to the above argument?

matthyaouw

Proving that God cannot be omnipotent is not the same thing as proving God does not exist. Perhaps all that proves is that omnipotence is an imaginary/flawed concept.

heartless

I think this statement above is without meaning and sense. It would translate to, Is God so powerful that he can put a limit on himself? Who would be powerful and then use his powers to lower himself? This example can also apply to our human reality. Suppose you can lift 400kilograms, everyone is amazed by your strength, and then I come and say, are you so powerful that you can't lift 20kilograms? First of all, why negative would show your might, and second of all, if you can lift 400kilograms it's impossible for you not to lift 20kilograms, because these 20 is a subset of much bigger set, in this case 400kilograms. Now, if God's powers are more powerful that you can even imagine, than such *rock that he cannot lift* would be a subset of a higher set just unimaginable. Then it comes aspect of infinity. Here many people won't agree with me, it's just a matter of interpretation of the Bible. (We don't truly understand the Bible, but only interpret it the way we think) I think that in John 1, he explains that everything that God creates becomes a part of God. Lifting is a human thing, if universe is a part of God, then he doesn't have anything to lift since it's part of him. It's already carried within his body/matter/whatever. Then such rock impossible to lift created by God would become a part of him, bringing it into steady whole. These are just my thoughts

JasonRox

I stopped questionning the existence of God because I always found that those who are "proud" to be Atheist come up with bad/lame arguments to prove the non-existence of God.

Also, most of them claim that not believing in God requires no faith because faith is bad somehow. That's ironic because by not believing in God you are putting some faith in what is presented to you.

Whether or not God exists should be irrelevant to how we live. We should live the good life regardless of the existence of God. Do it for the sake of being good.

If I had to choose between the existence of God or not, I choose a proof showing that the existence of God can not be proven or disproven. This would eliminate egos, and whatever non-sense feelings humans get for being right by pure chance and not neccessarily knowledge.

mattmns

I agree with Jason here. I personally think being an atheist is just as silly as being a monotheist. Atheist have no proof that God does not exist, and therefore they have to go to some outside source, or faith if you will, in their belief, and are then just like monotheist who have faith that God exist.

This is why I have become agnostic

edit... hmm it seems like I just regurgitated what Jason said, either way those are my thoughts

Cyrus

! As opposed to all the good arguments made in favor of god (i.e see arldino's thread about the god in bananas!)

Dawguard

That isn't the point, nor is it relative to the topic, nor is it a logical argument for anything.

Gokul43201

Sid, this thread, in its present form violates the Religious posting part of the Guidelines.

However the question of whether or not it is possible to construct an axiomatic framework where something amounting to 'omnipotence' would not be a logical fallacy would be acceptable to the Logic subforum.

Schrodinger's Dog

There is a distinction strong ahteists which believe absolutely God cannot exist, a belief in itself akin but opposite to religion, and weak atheist who say god cannot exist but they cannot or are not interested in proving it or simply don't care. Also called implicit and explicit atheism. Same with Agnosticism there are some who believe that gods existence cannot ever be proven and others who say they simply don't know, again a form of strong and weak agnosticism; I don't know personally so I'm a weak agnostic.

As to the argument of Gods omnipotence, it's unanswerable, it's far easier to cope with the concept of free will and omniscience(or at least disprove God is omniscience by logic in a philosophical argument, God cannot lie - seriously it's impossible for him to lie - and he tells us we have freewill, but with knowledge of all possible futures and the fate of all men how can freewill exist?) Don't worry you'll find it hard to answer this question, theologians have been throwing this one about for well over a thousand years, and no ones happy with the answers. Of course in the old testament it appears that God is not omniscient or is somehwhat all knowing but hazy on detail, by later times he has become truly omniscient, regardless of this being logically possible and free will existant. In one particularly old Archeological freeze God is depicted with a wife as well(heretics perhaps?) Religions change with time.

Still though: you crazy Christians have so little insight into God you have to resort to logical paradoxes to explain him. How drole

What's interesting is if as some people maintain the future does not exist then of course free will springs back into existence, it's my answer to the question but then I'm sure I'm not the first to think of it, I suspect it might of been Einstein but who believes in science?

How can you ask a question as silly as can God lift such and such a rock, what's he going to do come down and show you he can?

Evo

I concur with Gokul's assessment.