Are the Laws of Nature Immutable? Or does God get a Pass?

[_subgenius]

Yes it is the paradox of omnipotence. Now rather than point out the paradox, address it. Then you will have something.

no address needed...thus the "paradox"
again, when you propose a logical question you will merit a logical answer....otherwise you are stuck getting what you put into it....a reap what you sow sort of thing.

[_subgenius]

Then he is not omnipotent. The term omnipotent is rife with conundrum.

as if your "rock so heavy" example had not already exposed the inadequacy of your post, you drive it home here.
paradox is a more appropriate term than conundrum.

However, your question is illogical and yet you expect a logical answer.
Truthfully, one could answer "yes" or "no" and it would be a sufficient response.
Either way it reinforces that your post is without a fundamental understanding of God's character or the word omnipotent.
Theologically, the word omnipotence has never meant that God could do anything at all...but anything that is possible.
Your question about the 'heavy rock' is as much nonsense as asking if God could make 2+2=9.

Now, if we are to consider that logic is not a part of God's character, then obviously anything is possible and you have no argument against anything He may or may not be, has done, or can do.

BUMP for Steelhead

[_SteelHead]

Bump for subgenius.





The linguistically possible para nonsensical question is useful in demonstrating that the term omnipotent is paradoxical.

Nipper replies about doing what is in god's nature, which is a decent response but which seems to put bounds on omnipotence.

You respond that it is nonsense akin to asking god to make 1+1=3...........

Well could a truly omnipotent being not create a bailiwick in which 1+1 does in fact = 3?

Again it is nothing more than a thought experiment, there is no wrong or right answer.

It addresses the root question, can god do the truly supernatural or is he subject to natural law.


And as to 1+1 equaling 3......... (making that so would truly be supernatural)

I can make 1+1 = 10.

And I can count to 1023 on my fingers.

;)

[_subgenius]

And with that pronouncement..... can I throw out YEC, biblical inerrancy & literalism?

And yet the scripture I linked 20 versions of did not show man changing his/her/its collective rather it shows god changing his mind. How does a perfect all knowing being have to change his mind?

false dichotomy
you have yet to establish that changing one's mind is a necessary and non-exclusive characteristic of imperfection and limited knowledge.
I do not believe you will be able to establish that at all.

I do agree that God changes His mind...this is clear by His writing or deleting names from the Book of Life........

I think it may be accurate that you consider God to be some sort of fortune teller, which obviously disregards any concept of "free-agency".
Which makes one curious as to what your motivation is here.

[Guest]

My motivation is to show that the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient god is paradoxical, and suffers from poor and non universally accepted definitions of said concepts.

[_subgenius]

My motivation is to show that the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient god is paradoxical.

so when you post that His omnipotence is a "conundrum", then i suggest a more appropriate term would be "paradox", and you respond with "Now rather than point out the paradox, address it. Then you will have something".....
....

your motivation was simply to just point out the paradox??

i am unconvinced


i mean, i further addressed the paradox...by pointing out the obvious lack of any requirement for a logical response...thus allowing for the answer to be illogical...or rather that one could just as easily answer yes or no without consequence.

you sure there is not something else on your mind?

[_subgenius]

Bump for subgenius.





The linguistically possible para nonsensical question is useful in demonstrating that the term omnipotent is paradoxical.

agreed...but your expectation of receiving a logical reply is contrary to the question. If you were simply trying to illuminate the rather fundamental nature of the paradox of omnipotence, which is mostly considered a given, then why does it appear that your motivation was anything but that?

Nipper replies about doing what is in god's nature, which is a decent response but which seems to put bounds on omnipotence.

The bounds are already there when one considers that omnipotence, as defined by humans, is already limited...we have no means to discern the actual capacity of God.
Again, the definition of omnipotence is already bound by 'logic'.
Otherwise the term can "mean" anything that anyone wants it to mean...correct?

You respond that it is nonsense akin to asking god to make 1+1=3...........

Well could a truly omnipotent being not create a bailiwick in which 1+1 does in fact = 3?

No. there is no reason to consider that, because then the same would apply, because 1+1 would, in fact, equal 3.

Again it is nothing more than a thought experiment, there is no wrong or right answer.

It addresses the root question, can god do the truly supernatural or is he subject to natural law.

which has been answered with neither refutation or rebuttal being offered.

[_SteelHead]

Is a refutation or rebuttal necessary?

In our universe Pi is the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference. It is an irrational value. Is that necessarily the case for all universes? Are there other universes with different sets of physical rules? Where the ratio is not irrational?

All interesting questions, but not necessarily demanding an answer as the answers are pretty much pure conjecture.

I ask questions in order to incite thought.

[_subgenius]

Is a refutation or rebuttal necessary?

kinda, since the "root question" has been shown to be illogical, and since the question was answered and you seem to, now, act as if it never was.

In our universe Pi is the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference. It is an irrational value. Is that necessarily the case for all universes? Are there other universes with different sets of physical rules? Where the ratio is not irrational?

All interesting questions, but not necessarily demanding an answer as the answers are pretty much pure conjecture.

you seem to be backpedaling

I ask questions in order to incite thought.

arguable...granted your questions are intended to incite, but i am not convinced that it is "thought" which is your motivation.