Can god imagine something hes not capable of doing?

>this level of mental gymnastics

potent, potency, a gradation of power

being powerful enough to do anything logically possible is not being powerful enough to do something self contradictory

you don't start working out and get so big you can be in two places at once, right?

In the Logical sense...not really. But barely anything can do anything at all in that sense anyway. In the Rational sense, yes. Think Pleroma-Kenoma, moreover, the fact that the imagine-do or make-lift parameters themselves make little sense in the spirit of your question; and, most importantly, the paradox of him making the stone that he cannot lift is not a curiosity, but fundamental to him making any stone at all.

Attached: fuchs01[1].jpg (1100x792, 289K)

Yeah no faggot the trick for god to create a rock he cant lift is that he needs to create a constraint that goes beyond his own power not within his own power, he shouldn't be able to break it because he shouldn't be able to create one in the first place and therefore god is limited not by power but by definition

I'm god and I can lift a rock I can't lift because I've got a can-do attitude (:

Christianity is fundamentally incorrect about our relationship with God, painting god as a creator, a Heavenly Father. The divine is divine to the world, not the creator of it, the sexual partner to all things. Life is an unfolding romance between you and life personified as god which isn't singular or multiple. The history of the Judeo-Christian world is the history of turbo-incest.

yes you begome orthodox
no if you're thomist

Human language is just one small piece of God's own creation, how could it possibly limit him in any way? I mean seriously, do you really think a being capable of creating the universe and determining everything that happens therein for all time would reach their limit at your ability to understand them?

Here's WLC's response to this:
youtube.com/watch?v=69dbNQ7QVJw

Attached: William Lane Craig.jpg (480x360, 15K)

I mean, I'm an atheist but I have to admit that if a god existed it would be able to produce paradoxical phenomena because it wouldn't be bound by a semiotic understanding of the universe like we are. So a god could in fact produce a married bachelor or a square circle or a rock so heavy he can't lift it while still being able to.
It's similar to how you wouldn't be able to escape the view of a 4-dimensional being no matter where you hid. Just because our extremely narrow bandwidth of perception doesn't allow for it or resolves the situation to be paradoxical doesn't mean it couldn't be produced outside of ourselves.

>Brainlet wojak
>Retarded comment
Like clockwork

Let me break this down Barney-style for you:
If you're omnipotent, by definition you can do anything; willing it automatically makes it true. Asking if he can make a rock he can't lift is dumb because it's saying
>If an omnipotent being is not NOT omnipotent, then he's not omnipotent
Or in analytical reasoning
>If X = X, then X =/= X
This argument is total nonsense; it's just written in a way that confuses unintelligent people. Falling for this sophistry is clear proof of being a dimwit.

I was going to watch it then i saw comments being disabled and i ain't going to bother someone called his bullshit as bullshit and he went full sjw disabling comments

this is why you need apophatic theology

Just watch it.

Wouldn't it be more correct to formulate it as "if an omnipotent being does not have the ability not to be omnipotent, then he's not omnipotent"?

They would be fully able to not choose to perform that action. But if they wanted to they could displace any amount of mass.
Omnipotent is literally all-powerful. It means you can do anything (or more accurately, cause anything to happen). It does NOT mean that you have to BE anything. An omnipotent being "can't" be nonomnipotent, but that's not a contradiction because being nonomnipotent is not an action, it's a state of not being able to do something.
Again, this """argument""' only "works" if you're confused by the way people say it in English. Things like this are the reason I believe that people who think in words are retarded subhimans.

>Inb4 you spelled a word wrong so you're wrong
Don't bother, although it is ironic it was at the part I was calling other people dumb

Basically:

1. Omnipotence doesn't necessarily entail Logical contradiction.

2. Logical contradiction is nevertheless congruent with omnipotence.

God could imagine something he was incapable of.
Then he could do it anyway, despite not being capable of doing it.
I don't expect you to understand.

But it is beyond the scope of our language, it is impossible to discuss it or reason about it, by your own admission. And yet here you are, trying to discuss it and reason about it. Any proof for or against God necessarily has to be intelligible to a human being, you can't just say "well he's God so fuck logic" and expect that to be a satisfactory account of his omnipotence. Better to say nothing at all.

What does anybody gain from engaging in this argument ?

>What they are really worshipping is the void
The argument doesn't even attempt to disprove god, just its omnipotence

Sin

God works in paradoxes, so he can be omnipotent and not at the same time, among other things that are unfathomable in our lowly 3D universe.

Theres already quantum physics. Reality is already ontologically incomplete.

What we worship depends on imagination, not on facts of any matter. What we admire may, or may not, have more to do with what we know objectively, depending mostly on how divided one's psyche is--the more severely the more naive one is about kinds and conditions of being.

Attached: mandelbox scale -0022.jpg (3840x2160, 2.73M)

Logic is a universal construct, God is extra universal and bound by nothing

>This argument is total nonsense
>what is a proof by contradiction
>lectures people on logic
>doesn't even know about modus tollens
gtfo of here you brainlet

Well, again I'm not trying to argue for the existence of a god, as I don't believe in a god. However
>Any proof for or against God necessarily has to be intelligible to a human being
I don't agree with this point.
I agree with this point if we're talking about arguments between other humans. For example if someone were to try to convince someone else of the existence of a god and had no logical/reasonable argument they wouldn't be doing a very good job.
The reason I disagree with your statement though, is because the existence of something has nothing to do with its ability to be conveyed as information from one human to another. Such an anthropocentric view fails to take into account the enormity of things that are already accepted factually. A simple example is the size of the universe, which no one can accurately convey to you, even though we have reliable systems of getting general measurements. Do you think a being which is capable of doing all things would be as easily conveyed?
>...and expect that to be a satisfactory account of his omnipotence.
I don't expect a satisfactory account because I understand that my limited human intelligence could not possibly comprehend such a thing. That was part of my point that you seem to have missed.

stop SAYING this you RETARDS

>the existence of something has nothing to do with its ability to be conveyed as information from one human to another
Of course it does. Things only exist for humans according to the forms of perception inherent in the human mind. The universality of these is what makes perceptions communicable, ideas correspond to perceptions, and language in general possible. As if something could have objective reality and not be communicable in language. Absolute claptrap

>Of course it does.
I doubt it.
>Things only exist for humans according to the forms of perception inherent in the human mind.
That's fine, but all kinds of things still exist regardless of our inability to perceive them. Right now there are sterile planets floating in voids of space, untouched by light, that will never be perceived by a living organism, yet they still exist.
>As if something could have objective reality and not be communicable in language.
Yeah, it can. Language is a tool through which operators (in our case, humans) interact with, and describe reality. It is a layer placed atop an objective reality, not reality itself.
Humans are entirely alienated from objective reality and language is an ok-ish tool. Since a god would work far beyond the bounds of reality how could we expect a mediocre tool to not only describe but completely encapsulate the notion of a god.
You want to talk claptrap, you severely overestimate the computational abilities of humans brains.

Attached: 1549499404762.jpg (1080x1080, 76K)

Yeah man, you can’t even like, comprehend this shit maaaaaaaan

Satan is the god of this world.

12 year old atheist thinks god is a bearded sky daddy

he is omnipotent in the sense that all power is an aspect of him

you are a portion of god; you are not capable of doing everything; god imagined himself as you and he wasnt capable of doing everything as you; god is still omnipotent

That's not what a form of perception is, you fucking mongoloid. Simply because something is directly perceived, that doesn't make it "beyond the limits of perception." You may as well say that causality is a complete and baseless fraud (not what Hume said, by the way, regarding the baselessness), that extrapolating any past event is impossible because it isn't directly accessible by our sense organs. You may as well say that the computer you're currently posting from ceases to exist when you aren't directly perceiving it. That you do not perceive something does not make you "unable" to perceive it. And despite that a living thing will never witness the motion of these planets with its eyes, we have nevertheless already perceived many of them with the aid of measuring devices, and are perceiving more daily. And the ones we don't we still could, we aren't physically unable to perceive them just because we haven't. As long as it abides by space and time, we can perceive it with the senses.

I never said language "is" objective reality, that's a complete misunderstanding of my point. What does it mean to "have objective reality"? The thing exists in the physical world (objective), and demonstrably so (reality). That the physical world that humans perceive is subordinate to the human forms of perception does nothing to undercut objective reality; on the contrary, conformity to these forms is a guarantor of it. Objects must be situated in space and time in order to be properly called "objects," and in order to be called "real objects" the copula must be fully applied to them, i.e. one must be able to say with certainty "this object exists." To say that a thing can have objective reality and not be communicable in language is analogous to saying that something can have deductive certainty and be an invalid logical construction at the same time. Have you read a book of philosophy in your life? I'm astounded you even know how to use the internet.

Attached: no.gif (286x204, 844K)

>To say that a thing can have objective reality and not be communicable in language is analogous to saying that something can have deductive certainty and be an invalid logical construction at the same time.
articulate qualia precisely in language right now without any vague wording lol

>qualia
>having OBJECTIVE reality
Do you know what the word "qualia" means?

how does the qualia of others not have objective reality in your view?

>Can god imagine something hes not capable of doing?
>If yes then hes not really omnipotent
>If not then hes also not really omnipotent
He is omnipotent, but He forgot the details, so learning of something He is not capable of doing is discovering a new aspect of His own omnipotence.

No. I said, "If it has objective reality, it is communicable in language," not, "If it is communicable in language, it has objective reality." Qualia is necessarily subjective, you can communicate internal experiences (emotions, ideas, physical sensations), not the incommunicable subjective aspect, the basic thing doing these observations, which is the thing that is supposed to experience qualia. I don't think qualia is a fruitful concept, anyway.

Literally true

Also, the communicability is key. Many things in language masquerade as meaning, unrecognized language games. "Qualia" doesn't really communicate anything other than the limit of language, the place where our ability to describe things generally breaks down, in negative.

>You may as well say that the computer you're currently posting from ceases to exist when you aren't directly perceiving it.
I never said that and I don't think you understood my post.
>That you do not perceive something does not make you "unable" to perceive it.
I never said that and I don't think you understood my post.
>That you do not perceive something does not make you "unable" to perceive it. And despite that a living thing will never witness the motion of these planets with its eyes, we have nevertheless already perceived many of them with the aid of measuring devices, and are perceiving more daily.
I know that. You're completely supporting my points. For someone who criticizes my reading comprehension yours seems to be less than impressive.

>I never said language "is" objective reality
And I never said you did. Quoting you in >Things only exist for humans according to the forms of perception inherent in the human mind.
You use the qualifier "for humans" which I understood. Part of my point is that you're too anthropocentric when considering a god, but we can get to that later.
>To say that a thing can have objective reality and not be communicable in language is analogous to saying that something can have deductive certainty and be an invalid logical construction at the same time.
That's assuming that the language is describing the thing perfectly, which it can't. It can do a good job, but it can't describe a thing perfectly. There are plenty of phenomena that humans experience that don't translate into language very well. My point with this wormhole you dug yourself into is that language is imperfect at describing reality which then contributed to my greater point that a god could not be expected to be wholly understood through such a primitive tool.
>Have you read a book of philosophy in your life?
A fair amount, nothing impressive.
>I'm astounded you even know how to use the internet.
I'm astounded you get this upset when we agree on most things anyway.

Attached: 1552523245039.jpg (400x400, 31K)

your own qualia is subjective, but how is the qualia of others not objective?

a) you argued stars we have never seen have objective reality because we can potentially see them, do you accept the possibility that we may develop tools to view the qualia of others?
b) language that we hear from others is sensory evidence of their qualia, just because we cant see it doesnt mean its not an object (is there no objective reality for blind people?)

No, because qualia is necessarily subjective. That is the limit of the object. We assume the qualia because they use language, we extrapolate it, but we can never know it in the way we know an object in the world. That would imply that we became the other person, that our subjectivities were crossed and yet we somehow each retained our individual subjectivity. Objective reality is evident to blind people through touch. A person without touch or sight would be lost in a sea of frequency, having access only to time, sounds would be unintelligible and it would be impossible to determine the distance from the sound since this person would have no spatial frame of reference. I don't know if there has ever been such a human being, but if there were, they would be nothing but fearful, gibbering subjectivity.

>No, because qualia is necessarily subjective
are you broken?
a) can you guarantee with reasonable certainty that we will never be able to use technology to accurately simulate (and therefore by your own criteria observe) the qualia-experience of another person? if so, why would the qualia of others not be objectively real?
b) a blind person cannot touch a star, does this mean the star is not objectively real?

and we can literally never know an object in the world, how are images our brain decodes from retinal information any more evidence of objects than language is of qualia? there are barriers between "us" and "the object" in both cases, and in both cases there is sensory evidence (albeit in different forms)

To experience the qualia of another person, i.e. their subjectivity as it perceives, you would have to inhabit their subjectivity. This means that you would have to have experienced everything they have ever experienced as they experienced it, with nothing extraneous. You would have to become them: "you" would cease to exist, and therefore also the "you" recording the perception, and there would only be the other subjectivity, the qualia of the other person. It is impossible to measure it with tools like an object, this is what the word means, that's why I say "qualia is necessarily subjective," pig-fuck.

A blind person can understand language, the existence of stars can be communicated to them, and they can understand this communication because they have a spatial referent in the form of touch. A person born blind can very well understand the idea of a star at a given distance from the earth, and all those concomitant. Their idea of what it looks like might differ from those of us who have seen the sun.

the existence of the qualia of others can also be communicated to anyone you fucking imbecile - why is it not objectively real?

>It is impossible to measure it with tools like an object
do you think it will NEVER be possible or do you think there is a possibility it will one day be possible

We know that the forms of perception are inherent in the mind, and that these are the only things that give us access to objects in any form. The forms of perception were intended precisely to solve the problem of noumena. You couldn't receive the idea of space with sense information, that requires space. Space is therefore inherent in the human mind, and objects can be said to be objects when they exist in space. We will never have access to noumena, and to ask that we should is ridiculous. As if we could ever perceive an object without perceiving it

Now you are the broken one. I explained my argument for the impossibility of an objective subjectivity. Respond to it, or fuck off.

terrible self referential framework, see me after class

I'll send you a copy of the first Critique

i think it is possible that technology might allow us to experience the qualia of another person, i.e. their subjectivity as it perceives. This means that technology might allow us to have experienced everything they ever experienced as they experienced it, with nothing extraneous. I would, in this scenario, have to become them: "I" would cease to exist, and therefore also the "I" recording the perception (but not the technology) , and there would only be the other subjectivity, the qualia of the other person. After this, it is possible that the same technology might be able to return me to a state that i would accept as being "the original me" with an acceptable "memory" of the experience

How would this technology record their subjectivity to begin with? You would have to create an absolute copy, which is impossible, because the copy would have had to experienced the things the subject experienced at the exact same time as the subject, and formulated memories organically, not have the memories "implanted" to merely mimic memory. And that is precisely the distinction, before you say, "what if it looks exactly like an organic memory to the copy." The formulation of the memory organically as opposed to the simple appearance of organic memory formulation is necessary for subjectivity properly so called, i.e. the real, human subjectivity that we each experience to ourselves.

idk bro youre asking me to design the technology here which is quite outside the point im trying to make

lets say we grew a baby in an artificial room and were continuously mri scanning it from its gestation to create an accurate copy of its qualia-experience

You're the one who's harping on about technology, your "point" hinges on the possibility of this technology, I thought you'd have a better idea than this. This is no objection. As if MRI brain imaging is anything near qualia. And even if it were completely accurate, you still only have a baby whose internal experiences you can watch on a monitor. This is nothing like the absolute subjective cohabitation demanded by the idea of "experiencing another person's qualia."

you have really just made this discussion terrible on purpose and i dont want to have it anymore if it just consists of you deliberately interpreting "experiencing someone else's qualia technologically" in the most uncharitable nitpicky fashion and expecting me to predict the next 200 years of technology rather than just taking my argument for what it is. if stars we have never seen but can potentially see are objectively real, why is the qualia of others not objectively real by the same standard? im sure you are creative enough to sketch a rough outline of the technology required to do this in your head without expecting me to start drawing diagrams of how i would wire it.

>Can god imagine something hes not capable of doing?
Yes and no

Guys, are elves real?

Good. If valid criticism is to you "uncharitable nitpicking," I would rather not waste my energy. You have in no way demonstrated that we can "potentially see" qualia in any meaningful way, all you have done is repeat that it is possible over, and over, and over again, while occasionally mirroring my posts directly. You are an NPC with no subjectivity that any rational being could potentially inhabit.

Satan is a machine filled with purpose. He serves God in a very special way.

You have in no way demonstrated that we can "potentially see" stars that are 5 googol gigaparsecs away from earth in any meaningful way

Why do you guys care about God so much? He hasn't been relevant since Hegel

Funny thing is that there is a philosopher after Hegel who made god truly relevant again; Whitehead. And he literally answered the OP's question but nobody mentioned it despite how people in here shill about it. I only guess it's because it hurt their feeling.

> uses the God-Rock argument
> expects millennia of religious thinkers not to have an answer

This isn't your high school English class, get off this board.

god BTFO

>read whole thread
>still no objectively right answer
Whats the answer faggot, nobody here has given an answer but descriptions of what could and could not be according to their own idea of logic

The Father can make rock that Jesus can't lift (without going into miracle mode), thereby making a rock he can't lift.

See:

This. So the answer to the question is yet another Semantic distinction.

Can god create a problem he cannot solve?

Can god do something he cannot do?

Yes, if he is not himself.

Good bait.

Okay Epicurus, go back to your fedora collection now.

It's a shame you're 100% right and the responses are completely as expected for Yea Forums

The Abrahamic God isn’t omnipotent. Many followers of the Abrahamic faiths realize this. Google it.

Anyway. In making itself unable to do something, it would be decreasing it’s power. Thus it would cease being omnipotent.

Your notion is just wrong. I shouldn’t have to explain any further.

Attached: 88DCB7D3-C88C-43E9-8791-48CFB7274F51.jpg (578x476, 45K)

Look at this pseud who never heard of negative theology.

Our limited human sense of capability can never equal godly selfknowledge of divine capability. We'll aways linger in the dark when we ponder God because of our natural limitations when attempting to think beyond the humanly possible.

Suppose God asks Himself to imagine something He is not capable of doing and the answer is no, that seems to prove a limination to omnipotence because 'no' appears to us like an exclusion. Exactly because the answer's negative opens up possibilities that are literally unthinkable for us humans. Stop thinking negative = bad and self-defeating.

Why wouldn't God be able to imagine something he's not capable of doing? That still implies self-knowledge no human is capable of because whatever He cannot do, it's still practically an infinity beyond the ordinary human. Slightly less omnipotent than what we ideally want is still omnipotent. Can you imagine something God cannot do? Of course not. And if God can think it, then he can probably do it as well. The very fact 'yes' answers the question means it can be done because it can be thought of.

But are there unthinkable things for God? is just as meaningless. If the answer's yes, then he can also know what those things are, because His self-knowledge is absolute. Everything else follows from that axiom.

>why isn't reality a pseudo-Newtonian pinball game?
>must be ontologically invalid - no way we don't understand the world properly!

>you just cant understand god bro

Omnipotence is not defined as the ability to perform the logically absurd. Logical absurdities are not things, they are simply contradictory sequences of words. On the other hand, if you want to say that God can do the logically absurd, then he can make a rock too heavy for him to lift it -- and then he can lift it! You might say, "that's impossible; it's logically absurd!" but you are the one who defined omnipotence as the ability to do the logically absurd.

God doesnt imagine or think.

THere is a presupposition in your thesis. (That god cant do something)

So what if god is infinite in his power? Then there is no magically huh if yes then no go if no then no god

God can't stop me from what I'm going to do, so for the duration of my life God is powerless to do something.

Attached: 82246756756.jpg (210x299, 9K)

lol god is not just a word

I don't know, in general the idea of God acting is misleading, doesn't really focus on anything clearly. God can't be defined, god is everything... what's the idea behind god acting?
When answering this question we aren't looking at God himself, but at our explanation, our concept of him

Attached: o-GOD-facebook.jpg (1536x877, 236K)

I don't know, in general the idea of God acting is misleading, doesn't really focus on anything clearly. God can't be defined, god is everything. what's the idea behind god acting?
When answering this question we aren't looking at God himself, but at our explanation, our concept of him

Can god kill himself?
If so, then he most certainly has after seeing his chosen children fail him.

The god of the ever-present moment only bestows power if the future decides for it but in this case does the future dictate god who foresees? Or would a god choose to purposefully decide what the future will be based on actions or inactions. To observe something you know the results of makes it seem like we are a toy contraption for mindless entertainment.

Even if there is a god to decide objective morality it is still subjective to god. God can be both the most correct but also subjective in his estimations due to his value judgements.

Does god decide his own desires and wants or do his desires come born in. How does one decide if you should jazz on your own face if it tastes like shrimp pasta missing the sauce?

Yeah thats basically it

To perform a contradictory action would be a violation of his nature as the father of truth. You make it seem like there's some choice to be made in carrying out any action, but he was always to make the same decision because he's a perfect being who will carry out the perfect action. Any action is only contradictory because its he "decided" not to do it. I wouldn't consider not doing something against your nature to be a violation of omnipotence.
Also I view divinity as an immutable entity that exists outside of time so there is no changing of scenarios in which he'd change his mind.

Cont
Any argument that it is a violation of omnipotence is subjecting God to human words in that he absolutely must achieve the English definition of omnipotence. This completely ignores that are language is actually trying to imperfectly reach up to God and that the error, assuming you insist there is one, is merely because our words cast a slightly flawed net.

Attached: 1533362281136.png (468x70, 11K)

>implying the Absolute would "imagine" things the same way we do
>implying it would be bound by laws of logic created by insignificant retarded apes in their vain struggle to understand the Being It created

Attached: tired pepe.jpg (499x481, 28K)

>humans created the laws of logic