A Paradox

[triple6fistdestructionsoulhammer 0]

Being that there seems to be some opinions regarding religion here, I was curious to see how this paradox could be approached. To put it metaphorically: Could a divine being create a rock so heavy that even the divine being itself could not lift it?

[truefusion 3]

Here's a quote that might be able to make more sense of this so-called paradox:

Can God create a rock He cannot lift? Since an all-powerful being will always be able to accomplish whatever He sets out to do, it is impossible for an all-powerful being to fail. The above atheistic argument is arguing that since God is all-powerful He can do anything--even fail. This is like saying that since God is all-powerful He can be not all-powerful. Obviously, this is absurd. An all-powerful being cannot fail. Therefore, God can create a rock of tremendous size, but, since He is all-powerful, He will always be able to lift it. The ability to fail is not a part of omnipotence.

[triple6fistdestructionsoulhammer 0]

Here's a quote that might be able to make more sense of this so-called paradox:

I don't fully understand why an all powerful being can not fail. What if this being, of all power, does in fact decide to fail at some point in time? This leads to the possibility of willed-failure. There is no absurdity here at all my friend. This paradox can be as complicated as one should decide to make it and this quote over simplifies it. An all powerful being can fail. The ability to not fail is failing at failing. Therefore, casuing a degree of faliure. Omnipotence does imply unlimited power, so why not the power to fail? Explaine this to me if you will. If the ability to fail is not a part of omnipotence, then this diety is not compltely omnipotent.

[truefusion 3]

The ability to not fail is failing at failing. Therefore, casuing a degree of faliure. Omnipotence does imply unlimited power, so why not the power to fail?

It seems like we'll just keep repeating ourselves--is what to be expected from paradoxes.According to dictionary.com, "power" is the

ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something.

Thus, again, not being able to fail at what they set out to do. God, or a Supreme Being would not set out to fail, lest they'd ruin their Holiness or Godliness. So, techniqually, they're not failing at failing, cause they didn't even try to fail. It is extremely unlikely for God, or a Supreme Being to even think about trying to fail. There's a common phrase that goes, "When God acts, who can stop Him?".

[triple6fistdestructionsoulhammer 0]

It seems like we'll just keep repeating ourselves--is what to be expected from paradoxes.
According to dictionary.com, "power" is the
Thus, again, not being able to fail at what they set out to do. God, or a Supreme Being would not set out to fail, lest they'd ruin their Holiness or Godliness. So, techniqually, they're not failing at failing, cause they didn't even try to fail. It is extremely unlikely for God, or a Supreme Being to even think about trying to fail. There's a common phrase that goes, "When God acts, who can stop Him?".

There is no repeating after the period. This is not a hard concept to comprehend. To fail at failing is failing, simply put. Why wouldn't a God set out to fail? What in your logic infers this? To fail would not deminish their assumed holiness if they willed to do so. You point at that it is unlikely for a God to ponder failure, but that does not eliminate all possibility. That phrase is indeed apt, assuming God is what you seem to think he or it may be. It seems you are falling victim to a catagory mistake with omnipotence here.

[truefusion 3]

To be Holy is to be good, just, and/or perfect. You cannot be these things if you fail. To fail would contradict God's, or a Supreme Being's nature. When something fails to do what it is supposed to do, it is no longer itself, but just worthless, and it gets tossed away, unless it is capable of being fixed. If it is capable of being fixed, it is not perfect.

God, or a Supreme Being would not set out to fail...

This should have ceased all continuing thoughts. You cannot fail in something if you don't even try to do something.

 

This is not a hard concept to comprehend.

Then why all the questions? You should have gotten it to make sense by now. I think what's going on here is that you keep reverting to the, "failure to fail is failure" thought. Doing so will cause confusion, because you seem to just stick to that and forget everything else that is mentioned.

 

It seems you are falling victim to a catagory mistake with omnipotence here.

Oh? How so? Not sure where you're going at with this.

 

And are you sure we're not repeating ourselves, just with different words?

[triple6fistdestructionsoulhammer 0]

To be Holy is to be good, just, and/or perfect. You cannot be these things if you fail. To fail would contradict God's, or a Supreme Being's nature. When something fails to do what it is supposed to do, it is no longer itself, but just worthless, and it gets tossed away, unless it is capable of being fixed. If it is capable of being fixed, it is not perfect. This should have ceased all continuing thoughts. You cannot fail in something if you don't even try to do something.

Then why all the questions? You should have gotten it to make sense by now. I think what's going on here is that you keep reverting to the, "failure to fail is failure" thought. Doing so will cause confusion, because you seem to just stick to that and forget everything else that is mentioned.

Oh? How so? Not sure where you're going at with this.

 

And are you sure we're not repeating ourselves, just with different words?

 

I'm not sure a human being can fully fathom the concept of God, if there is one. Shame on me for going into such a debate. Agree to disagree? The fact is, when it's all done and said, you will still have your ideas, and myself mine.

[DarkPsycho 0]

No matter how big the rock is, God will always be able to lift it. It is simply impossible for even an all-powerful being to create something that defies himself. So he is not failing in being able to create a rock heavy enough for him to fail, he is succeeding in being able to lift any rock that he creates.

[Galahad 0]

I like that idea of "failure to fail is failure"...But I have a question? How all-mighty is this Supreme Being? Perhaps he "seems" all powerfull in out eyes, since we don't ahve that level of power... Humans seem all powerfull to ants, do they not? And you would agree, that humans can very well create things they can't lift... So, why can't god create a rock, he can't lift?And another question: Who created the creator?

[truefusion 3]

And you would agree, that humans can very well create things they can't lift...

I would not agree, because we humans do not create things. We simply just manipulate whatever we can to our advantage. So, techniqually, it's not create, but "create".

 

And you would agree, that humans can very well create things they can't lift... So, why can't god create a rock, he can't lift?

To put God on our level would just confuse things.

 

Who created the creator?

If only God had been created, this question would be valid. Since we ourselves are creation, most of us have trouble comprehending the fact that God is not creation. He, simply, just is--that is, has always been. But like mentioned above, placing God in our level just confuses things.