"God cannot create a square circle"

[Syed]

Some days, I have to agree with igtheism.

The problem here, of course, is the definition of omnipotent. It's fucking incoherent nonsense that leaves itself open to childish nonsense like this. God can't create a square circle? Then he's not omnipotent. God can't create a married bachelor? Then he's not omnipotent. God can't create a rock so big that even god can't lift it? No matter how the question gets answered, he's not omnipotent.

Some of the other attributes of god become contradictory when combined with other attributes, but omnipotence creates contradictions all by itself.

Why do they even claim such a stupid property for their magic, imaginary friend? I'm assuming it was so that they could claim that their god could beat up everyone else's god like 8 year old nerds arguing about which comic book character would win in a fight. By making him omnipotent, then no one else can possibly think of a god more powerful than theirs.

you just misunderstood definition of omnipotent

we dont say god can die or god can have sex with ant

Wait. Why can't God have sex with an ant? That seems fairly trivial next to creating an entire universe.

sex does not apply to god, sun. star, galaxy, earth etc

 

[Syed]

god cannot create a human without brain etc

I actually saw a kid born without a brain. He was in the NICU next to my premature twins. He just wasn't there for long... Very sad.
So you're saying he wasn't human?

he didnt lives long because of he had no brain

 

[Syed]

Some days, I have to agree with igtheism.

The problem here, of course, is the definition of omnipotent. It's fucking incoherent nonsense that leaves itself open to childish nonsense like this. God can't create a square circle? Then he's not omnipotent. God can't create a married bachelor? Then he's not omnipotent. God can't create a rock so big that even god can't lift it? No matter how the question gets answered, he's not omnipotent.

Some of the other attributes of god become contradictory when combined with other attributes, but omnipotence creates contradictions all by itself.

Why do they even claim such a stupid property for their magic, imaginary friend? I'm assuming it was so that they could claim that their god could beat up everyone else's god like 8 year old nerds arguing about which comic book character would win in a fight. By making him omnipotent, then no one else can possibly think of a god more powerful than theirs.

you just misunderstood definition of omnipotent

we dont say god can die or god can have sex with ant

If there are things god can't do, then we are lying when we say god can do anything imaginable, hence you do not believe that god is omnipotent.

i dont believe god can do every thing, god is like an engineer NOT like magician

 

[fta]

God can't create a square circle? Then he's not omnipotent. God can't create a married bachelor? Then he's not omnipotent. God can't create a rock so big that even god can't lift it? No matter how the question gets answered, he's not omnipotent.

Apologists would say that God can do everything that's "logically possible" but square circles, married bachelors, and theistic atheists are not "logically possible".

 

[Eric H]

Jesus supposedly can walk on water, That's pretty much saying 2+2=5, which would pretty much be just like creating a "square circle". Yet, he cannot create a square circle? What would be so difficult about that?

What would be the greater miracle to a bunch of fishermen, Jesus walking on water, or showing them the party trick of a square circle, if that's possible?

What would stand the test of time?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Jesus supposedly can walk on water, That's pretty much saying 2+2=5, which would pretty much be just like creating a "square circle". Yet, he cannot create a square circle? What would be so difficult about that?

What would be the greater miracle to a bunch of fishermen, Jesus walking on water, or showing them the party trick of a square circle, if that's possible?

What would stand the test of time?

So, God COULD have made a square circle, or squared a circle, but his omnipotence is limited by how much glory he gets out of the miracle?
What a showboat your god is, Eric.

 

[dockeen]

God can't create a square circle? Then he's not omnipotent. God can't create a married bachelor? Then he's not omnipotent. God can't create a rock so big that even god can't lift it? No matter how the question gets answered, he's not omnipotent.

Apologists would say that God can do everything that's "logically possible" but square circles, married bachelors, and theistic atheists are not "logically possible".

As are various theological problems like forgiving sin without human sacrifice, or creating men with free will that will not require an eternal roaster.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Apologists would say that God can do everything that's "logically possible" but square circles, married bachelors, and theistic atheists are not "logically possible".

But then, the same people will often say 'before time began' or 'outside of the universe' and think they're making a point.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

we dont say god can die or god can have sex with ant

Wait. Why can't God have sex with an ant? That seems fairly trivial next to creating an entire universe.

sex does not apply to god, sun. star, galaxy, earth etc

But stars and galaxies aren't sentient entities. Are you saying that the definition of omnipotence excludes the ability to change one's form if one wants to? I don't see how any possible definition of the term excludes the ability to have sex with an ant if he chose to.

That's not saying that he'd ever want to, simply that he has the ability to do so.

 

[dockeen]

we dont say god can die or god can have sex with ant

Wait. Why can't God have sex with an ant? That seems fairly trivial next to creating an entire universe.

sex does not apply to god, sun. star, galaxy, earth etc

But stars and galaxies aren't sentient entities. Are you saying that the definition of omnipotence excludes the ability to change one's form if one wants to? I don't see how any possible definition of the term excludes the ability to have sex with an ant if he chose to.

That's not saying that he'd ever want to, simply that he has the ability to do so.

Syed has made a couple of things clearish.

His god is not omnipotent.

He did not even create all, he just worked with materials at hand.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Syed has made a couple of things clearish.

His god is not omnipotent.

He did not even create all, he just worked with materials at hand.

But the ability to change one's form into an ant seems like a fairly trivial ability which would only need power levels which are far below that of omnipotence. I can't see any way that a being would merit the term "god" and not be powerful enough to do a bit of shapeshifting.

 

[dockeen]

Syed has made a couple of things clearish.

His god is not omnipotent.

He did not even create all, he just worked with materials at hand.

But the ability to change one's form into an ant seems like a fairly trivial ability which would only need power levels which are far below that of omnipotence. I can't see any way that a being would merit the term "god" and not be powerful enough to do a bit of shapeshifting.

In discussions in the past, it sure looked like the ant thing was almost a figure of speach, one of those images that is supposed to convey ridiculous impossibility, with overtones of some ick elements.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

This all is part of what I call the problem of super-omnipotence. If God cannot make 2+2=5 or any other state of affairs God desires,God is then obviously limited by a natural existing state of reality that exists trancedentally to God who then obviously does not create the laws, rules, laws or metaphysical necessities of the Universe. A God that does and is good can create a Universe without moral evil, creating man with a god-like good nature and a god-like free will who never does moral evil. We don't have such a world.
This then indicates a world where naturalism and its rules exists and is responsible for things being as they are. God is not needed for anything, and need not exist, naturalism is capable of doing all that actually is as it is.
This eliminates any TAG arguments, Plantinga's anti-naturalism arguments,and belief in God as basic arguments and more. God is not necessary as per theists.

The problem of the nature of omnipotence is a rather serious problem for theism. Naturalism seems to be impossible to argue away.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This all is part of what I call the problem of super-omnipotence. If God cannot make 2+2=5 or any other state of affairs God desires,God is then obviously limited by a natural existing state of reality that exists trancedentally to God who then obviously does not create the laws, rules, laws or metaphysical necessities of the Universe.

Well, not really. One could easily say that making 2+2=5 would be a nonsense statement and is as irrelevant to his being classified as omnipotent as someone who says "God can't suralfsa a olinagsd, so he's not omnipotent". It's fine calling someone omnipotent if he can do anything that's not nonsense.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This all is part of what I call the problem of super-omnipotence. If God cannot make 2+2=5 or any other state of affairs God desires,God is then obviously limited by a natural existing state of reality that exists trancedentally to God who then obviously does not create the laws, rules, laws or metaphysical necessities of the Universe.

Well, not really. One could easily say that making 2+2=5 would be a nonsense statement

But god made 2 fish and a bag of pitas feed 5000. If God can't make 2+2 = 5 every time, he should at least be capable of making making two and two add up to five one time as a discrete miracle.
Like when kids pray that their math test is correct....

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

This all is part of what I call the problem of super-omnipotence. If God cannot make 2+2=5 or any other state of affairs God desires,God is then obviously limited by a natural existing state of reality that exists trancedentally to God who then obviously does not create the laws, rules, laws or metaphysical necessities of the Universe.

Well, not really. One could easily say that making 2+2=5 would be a nonsense statement and is as irrelevant to his being classified as omnipotent as someone who says "God can't suralfsa a olinagsd, so he's not omnipotent". It's fine calling someone omnipotent if he can do anything that's not nonsense.

No. If 2 + 2 = 4, then why? If not because of God, nor can God change that, Then there must be a reason that has nothing to do with God. Naturalism, the basic laws and metaphysical necessities of the Universe. God has nothing to do with any of this, and as a necessary entity disappears. The natural laws cannot be argued away to make room for God. THAT is the point. This naturalism must exist, God does not. Nor is there a special logic that applies to God but nobody else to save God from logical paradoxes. No mystery reasons for why things are as they are when discussing God.

Now, how far does this necessary naturalism extend into reality? You will not find theists investigating that. This problem sucks all the air out of the room for theism. Naturalism and its logic and laws must exist, God does not.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This all is part of what I call the problem of super-omnipotence. If God cannot make 2+2=5 or any other state of affairs God desires,God is then obviously limited by a natural existing state of reality that exists trancedentally to God who then obviously does not create the laws, rules, laws or metaphysical necessities of the Universe.

Well, not really. One could easily say that making 2+2=5 would be a nonsense statement and is as irrelevant to his being classified as omnipotent as someone who says "God can't suralfsa a olinagsd, so he's not omnipotent". It's fine calling someone omnipotent if he can do anything that's not nonsense.

No. If 2 + 2 = 4, then why? If not because of God, nor can God change that, Then there must be a reason that has nothing to do
with God.Naturalism, the basic laws and metaphysical necessities of the Universe. God has nothing to do with any of this, and as a necessary entity disappears. The natural laws cannot be argued away to make room for God. THAT is the point. This naturalism must exist, God does not. Nor is there a special logic that applies to God but nobody else to save God from logical paradoxes. No mystery reasons for why things are as they are when discussing God.

Now, how far does this necessary naturalism extend into reality? You will not find theists investigating that. This problem sucks all the air out of the room for theism. Naturalism and its logic and laws must exist, God does not.

2+2=4 is just a description of something - that's all math is. Sort of like how a bachelor is a description of a man who isn't married. Creating a married bachelor is the same as creating a oasldnkasdf. God doesn't become less omnipotent by lack of ability to produce the results of nonsense statements. Four is simply a description we've given to the number of objects one ends up with when we add two sets of two objects together.

Saying that God is less than omnipotent because he can't make 2+2=5 is an example of you saying "Hey, look at me! I have the ability to use clever wordplay!". It's not an example of you making any reference to limitations on omnipotence.

 

[Wayne Delia]

Creating a square circle is a doddle.

Well, God is omnipotent.

I'd be impressed if he could give the Leafs a decent season.

God isn't that omnipotent.

 

[Syed]

we dont say god can die or god can have sex with ant

Wait. Why can't God have sex with an ant? That seems fairly trivial next to creating an entire universe.

sex does not apply to god, sun. star, galaxy, earth etc

But stars and galaxies aren't sentient entities. Are you saying that the definition of omnipotence excludes the ability to change one's form if one wants to? I don't see how any possible definition of the term excludes the ability to have sex with an ant if he chose to.

That's not saying that he'd ever want to, simply that he has the ability to do so.

god is changeable, he cant became human, he cant became ant

god also bond by nature, so he can not create a human without brain

that my understanding

 

[jonJ]

Jesus supposedly can walk on water, That's pretty much saying 2+2=5, which would pretty much be just like creating a "square circle". Yet, he cannot create a square circle? What would be so difficult about that?

What would be the greater miracle to a bunch of fishermen, Jesus walking on water, or showing them the party trick of a square circle, if that's possible?

What would stand the test of time?

A square circle, obviously, if he stick it on top of a mountain somewhere in an unbreakable case. How come your God's miracles never last any longer than, say, a magic act?

- - - Updated - - -

But the ability to change one's form into an ant seems like a fairly trivial ability which would only need power levels which are far below that of omnipotence. I can't see any way that a being would merit the term "god" and not be powerful enough to do a bit of shapeshifting.

Rather than turning into an ant, he could just take over an ant for his ant-sexing purposes. We could call it an 'avatant'.