tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post5120921258433521780..comments2024-03-16T21:32:23.088-04:00Comments on A Sure Word: Because there cannot be a married bachelor, there is no God. Um... what?RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-13083406676449029262018-03-05T08:29:49.463-05:002018-03-05T08:29:49.463-05:00I've heard an interesting argument that I didn...I've heard an interesting argument that I didn't explore in my post but it may be worth mentioning now. Jesus is the Word Who created everything as described in John 1. During His incarnation, we might assume He had the physical strength of a normal man yet was still God (fully human, fully God). So in a sense, Jesus did create rocks (in the beginning) so big that He couldn't lift them (during His incarnation).<br /><br />Of course, that wouldn't apply to other logically invalid scenarios like creating a square circle.<br /><br />Thank you both for your comments. God bless!!<br /><br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-40121836252686871842018-02-28T17:20:20.278-05:002018-02-28T17:20:20.278-05:00Here is the best response I've seen to this qu...Here is the best response I've seen to this question: "Can God create a rock so heavy He cannot lift it?"<br /><br />Omnipotence means being able to do anything which is logically valid. A rock so heavy that an omnipotent God could't lift is a logically invalid thing and so it is coherent to say "no".<br /><br />However, if your definition of omnipotence dictates that God should be able to do that which is logically invalid, then the answer is "yes, God could create such a rock and then He would have no trouble in lifting it". If you complain that it is logically invalid to say that God has no trouble lifting a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift, then I would simply refer you to your definition of omnipotence.Randynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-65837090520873102272018-02-18T18:33:46.240-05:002018-02-18T18:33:46.240-05:00I agree with you on this.
I think that part of th...I agree with you on this.<br /><br />I think that part of the problem is a language problem: we indicate that someone or something has an ability by saying that "he/she/it can do X," and then carelessly assume that every statement that takes that form denotes an ability. So we say that, e.g. a new smart phone can store so many megabytes of data (an ability), and that it can explode if the battery malfunctions (not something the store will list among its abilities in the sales brochure), and do not regard the upgraded, non-explosive version as having lost the ability to explode.<br /><br />Thus, "can God create a stone so heavy He can't lift it" conflates two different senses of "can."<br /><br />While you won't find it in a dictionary, omnipotence has classically been regarded by theologians as something like "the ability to create any logically possible state of affairs."<br /><br />Now, this might seem to leave us with a paradox, since "create a stone so heavy one can't lift it" and "able to lift stones of any size" are both logically possible states of affairs, but contradictory states of affairs. <br /><br />But some states of affairs that are logically possible with regard to some entities are not logically possible with regard to God: e.g. since He is defined as being perfect and supremely content in His own perfection, it is not logically possible for Him to desire to die (even if dying, itself, were not contradictory to other attributes traditionally ascribed to Him), even if that is a logically possible, and even a real, state of affairs for many finite, fallible humans. <br /><br />Thus for God, "being able to die" is not really an "ability," or the lack of it a limitation, any more than being able to explode is an "ability" for a smart phone. And so forth, <i>mutatis mutandis</i>, for various other things God cannot do.<br /><br />Anselm of Canterbury carried this idea further: some abilities that occur in humans (e.g. having 20/20 vision) are not relevant to God, Whose omnipotence need not be mediated through animal senses. So there are things we can do that God (leaving the incarnation aside) "cannot" do because He can achieve the function of these abilities without resort to them.Steven J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.com