Recommended Posts

At some point or another, I presume most if not all of us have heard the purposefully thought provoking question, "Can God create an immovable rock?"

Humor me here, the idea the question is intended to purport is that if God can create a rock that he himself cannot move then he is lacking in power because he then can't move it.  On the other hand, if he is unable to create such a rock then he is lacking in power because of his inability to create it.

There is an inherent flaw in this logic.  The common logic adhered to in this exercise assumes that God's power must include anything that can be conceived in the mind, any possible thought that could come from the vast expanse of human imagination.  But is that really what it means to be Omnipotent?

The short answer is: NO.

In order to keep this post somewhat short, suffice it to say that omnipotent in its most true form from the original Greek means "all powerful".  The key word here being all.  The "all" in all powerful in reality represents "every real thing".  If something is not real it is not included with all.  If there is something for which the power to accomplish does not exist then that thing is not a "real thing" and therefore it cannot be factored in to a definition of omnipotence.

To further illustrate this point the Guide to the Scriptures identifies Omnipotent as:  The divine trait of having all power .  Notice all power rather than every conceivable power, or unlimited power as many people consider the word to mean.

I think this is very important to understand because even our fellow Christian brethren often have a complete misconception of Omnipotence which is why they accept the concept of creation ex-nihilo, which from an LDS perspective we understand to be false due to the fact that it is impossible.  If we can correctly convey the true meaning of omnipotence to others we can better communicate doctrinal differences in a meaningful way.

I could go on and on but in conclusion:

1) God is omnipotent because he has the power to do every thing that can possibly be done (all power).

2) God can not create an immovable rock, because the ability to do such does not exist, and since such a task can not be accomplished ever, it has no bearing on God's omnipotence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just kind of jokingly thought that if the question were poised as "Could God create a rock that he himself could not move?" then the answer would have to be yes, because it is asking specifically if God could not move it, not that no being in existence could move it.  So if God created a gigantic rock the size of the earth for example, and then made a choice that would result in 'God ceasing to be God' then he would no longer be able to move the rock, but that would not impede another omnipotent being from being able to move it.  So interestingly while God can not create an immovable rock, he could theoretically create a rock that he himself would be unable to move! :eek:

Edited by lds_person_0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lds_person_0 said:

At some point or another, I presume most if not all of us have heard the purposefully thought provoking question, "Can God create an immovable rock?"

Humor me here, the idea the question is intended to purport is that if God can create a rock that he himself cannot move then he is lacking in power because he then can't move it.  On the other hand, if he is unable to create such a rock then he is lacking in power because of his inability to create it.

There is an inherent flaw in this logic.  The common logic adhered to in this exercise assumes that God's power must include anything that can be conceived in the mind, any possible thought that could come from the vast expanse of human imagination.  But is that really what it means to be Omnipotent?

The short answer is: NO.

In order to keep this post somewhat short, suffice it to say that omnipotent in its most true form from the original Greek means "all powerful".  The key word here being all.  The "all" in all powerful in reality represents "every real thing".  If something is not real it is not included with all.  If there is something for which the power to accomplish does not exist then that thing is not a "real thing" and therefore it cannot be factored in to a definition of omnipotence.

To further illustrate this point the Guide to the Scriptures identifies Omnipotent as:  The divine trait of having all power .  Notice all power rather than every conceivable power, or unlimited power as many people consider the word to mean.

I think this is very important to understand because even our fellow Christian brethren often have a complete misconception of Omnipotence which is why they accept the concept of creation ex-nihilo, which from an LDS perspective we understand to be false due to the fact that it is impossible.  If we can correctly convey the true meaning of omnipotence to others we can better communicate doctrinal differences in a meaningful way.

I could go on and on but in conclusion:

1) God is omnipotent because he has the power to do every thing that can possibly be done (all power).

2) God can not create an immovable rock, because the ability to do such does not exist, and since such a task can not be accomplished ever, it has no bearing on God's omnipotence.

 

I would put forth a different opinion.  I do not believe that G-d is omnipotent.  What’s more, I do not even think he wants or intends to be omnipotent.  Part of my view comes from my work – I work with industrial artificial intelligence.  The hard reality is that the super brilliant single source intelligence is inferior to the distributed, lesser brilliant, multiple sources of individual intelligences working together.

The more I understand of G-d the more I am impressed in his distribution of his sacred divine power that through modern revelation we understand as the “Priesthood”.  In fact, G-d promises that we (his covenant children) will inherit all “His” power along with everything else he has.  G-d simply does not keep power (omnipotence) all to himself.  Firstly, his grants all his children the power to control and choose their own destiny.  We have the power of our own destiny.  Since we have that power – G-d cannot have all power.  Some will argue that G-d can “take back” his power anytime he wants.  I do not believe that is a very correct belief, understanding nor faith in G-d and I believe he has suffered greatly because we have abused and misused the power he gave us and yet we keep the power of our own destiny and he does not take away the agency of man. 

Again, an omnipotent being could not be caused to suffer because of others.  Rather I believe G-d is much more about love, kindness, compassion and sacrifice than he is about omnipotence.  I also believe that there is a being that is all about power and omnipotence – his name was Lucifer and I believe that those that want to worship a being that is all about power and omnipotence – He is your man (g-d) for the that job.

 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Traveler said:

G-d simply does not keep power (omnipotence) all to himself.

I do not comprehend this idea that in order for one being to have all power, all other beings must have no power.  That's like saying in order for one being to have all knowledge, all other beings must have no knowledge.  Power is not a limited resource (a material object of which there is a finite amount and thus to have all everyone else must have none) any more than knowledge is.  The logic doesn't follow.  If I have the power to pick up a rock, that doesn't mean no one else can.  We can all have the power to pick up a rock without any of us being diminished.  I believe it is not possible to be omniscient without also being omnipotent.  I believe omnipotent means you have the power to do all that can be done, and that it is a logical consequence of being omniscient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zil said:

I do not comprehend this idea that in order for one being to have all power, all other beings must have no power.  That's like saying in order for one being to have all knowledge, all other beings must have no knowledge.  Power is not a limited resource (a material object of which there is a finite amount and thus to have all everyone else must have none) any more than knowledge is.  The logic doesn't follow.  If I have the power to pick up a rock, that doesn't mean no one else can.  We can all have the power to pick up a rock without any of us being diminished.  I believe it is not possible to be omniscient without also being omnipotent.  I believe omnipotent means you have the power to do all that can be done, and that it is a logical consequence of being omniscient.

I agree with your logic and example.  But I believe your example is incomplete and does not pertain to the power to control one's destiny which is very different than the power to pick up a rock.  I cannot have power to choose my destiny if someone else has that power.  If I have power to actually choose something - then no one else can have that power.  If I have to power to choose the Terrestrial Kingdom then no one has the power to override my choice and force me into the Celestial Kingdom.  If I have a power that G-d does not - then he is not omnipotent.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Again, an omnipotent being could not be caused to suffer because of others.

I don't understand this thought. Just because somebody has a power doesn't mean they must use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @zil.  Or it appears that he agree's with me on this one.

6 minutes ago, Traveler said:

If I have a power that G-d does not - then he is not omnipotent.

If you go back to my original definition in the OP, all powerful accounts for the fact that there are some things which the power to accomplish does not exist, these things are excluded while maintaining the intent of the word/attribute "omnipotent".  The fact that each person (God included) has agency is evidence of our potential for omnipotence that we can inherit.  I appreciate your perspective, but I think your initial response as Zil said indicates a mentality of limited power that must be "shared".  I believe that there can be an infinite number of omnipotent beings.

Quote

The hard reality is that the super brilliant single source intelligence is inferior to the distributed, lesser brilliant, multiple sources of individual intelligences working together.

I see no reason why God can not work on both these principles, he could be an omnipotent and omniscient intelligence himself while still accomplishing his work using a collaboration of multiple intelligences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Again, an omnipotent being could not be caused to suffer because of others.

24 minutes ago, SilentOne said:

I don't understand this thought. Just because somebody has a power doesn't mean they must use it.

 

I agree.  Christ was not caused to suffer because of others, he chose to suffer.  There is a huge difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, lds_person_0 said:

At some point or another, I presume most if not all of us have heard the purposefully thought provoking question, "Can God create an immovable rock?"

Humor me here, the idea the question is intended to purport is that if God can create a rock that he himself cannot move then he is lacking in power because he then can't move it.  On the other hand, if he is unable to create such a rock then he is lacking in power because of his inability to create it.

There is an inherent flaw in this logic.  The common logic adhered to in this exercise assumes that God's power must include anything that can be conceived in the mind, any possible thought that could come from the vast expanse of human imagination.  But is that really what it means to be Omnipotent?

The short answer is: NO.

In order to keep this post somewhat short, suffice it to say that omnipotent in its most true form from the original Greek means "all powerful".  The key word here being all.  The "all" in all powerful in reality represents "every real thing".  If something is not real it is not included with all.  If there is something for which the power to accomplish does not exist then that thing is not a "real thing" and therefore it cannot be factored in to a definition of omnipotence.

To further illustrate this point the Guide to the Scriptures identifies Omnipotent as:  The divine trait of having all power .  Notice all power rather than every conceivable power, or unlimited power as many people consider the word to mean.

I think this is very important to understand because even our fellow Christian brethren often have a complete misconception of Omnipotence which is why they accept the concept of creation ex-nihilo, which from an LDS perspective we understand to be false due to the fact that it is impossible.  If we can correctly convey the true meaning of omnipotence to others we can better communicate doctrinal differences in a meaningful way.

I could go on and on but in conclusion:

1) God is omnipotent because he has the power to do every thing that can possibly be done (all power).

2) God can not create an immovable rock, because the ability to do such does not exist, and since such a task can not be accomplished ever, it has no bearing on God's omnipotence.

I agree with you. There is another way to phrase your logic above:

It is possible to construct a semantically valid expression that nevertheless has no meaning. These sound like sentences that carry actual meaning, but they are actually devoid of meaning. Your example of whether God can "create a rock so big he can't lift it" (to use the standard phrasing) is an example. The Book of Mormon itself gives us another sterling example of a semantically correct yet meaningless arrangement of words: "Salvation in sin". Another example is "sinful God". Or "Satanic charity". We could play this game all day. The dangerous part is that people think that, since the words parse in a semantically valid manner, they must actually mean something.

In my view, this has been one of Satan's great tools throughout human history: To create a self-negating turn of phrase, then insist that it actually means something real and build a philosophy atop literally nothing.

But why do we fall for such cheap and easy tricks? How stupid are we, really? The answer is not stupidity per se. I see two things that explain our seeming stupidity:

  1. Innocent ignorance. The teachings of the gospel ask us to accept a lot of things that we have no direct experience with, and that may sound pretty vacuous at first. For example, "premortal existence" sound like "non-existent existence" to many or most people. This is the common condition of humanity. How many scientific principles are we asked or even expected to accept without really understanding them? Even when they appear counterintuitive? So we have learned to suspend our disbelief; otherwise, we would never be able to learn new things. But this very trait of accepting the seemingly unreasonable can (obviously) come back to bite us.
  2. Willful ignorance. This is a consequence of the natural man. How many religious people have justified themselves in sin by saying, explicitly or implicitly, "It's OK, because I can always repent later"? How much easier is it to justify eating that greaseburger or sleeping with that hot girl because you really, really want to? And thus Satan binds us with flaxen cords until we have lost our freedom and are at his mercy -- a non-existent mercy when dealing with such an utterly ruthless being.
Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lds_person_0 said:

At some point or another, I presume most if not all of us have heard the purposefully thought provoking question, "Can God create an immovable rock?"

Humor me here, the idea the question is intended to purport is that if God can create a rock that he himself cannot move then he is lacking in power because he then can't move it.  On the other hand, if he is unable to create such a rock then he is lacking in power because of his inability to create it.

There is an inherent flaw in this logic.  The common logic adhered to in this exercise assumes that God's power must include anything that can be conceived in the mind, any possible thought that could come from the vast expanse of human imagination.  But is that really what it means to be Omnipotent?

The short answer is: NO.

In order to keep this post somewhat short, suffice it to say that omnipotent in its most true form from the original Greek means "all powerful".  The key word here being all.  The "all" in all powerful in reality represents "every real thing".  If something is not real it is not included with all.  If there is something for which the power to accomplish does not exist then that thing is not a "real thing" and therefore it cannot be factored in to a definition of omnipotence.

To further illustrate this point the Guide to the Scriptures identifies Omnipotent as:  The divine trait of having all power .  Notice all power rather than every conceivable power, or unlimited power as many people consider the word to mean.

I think this is very important to understand because even our fellow Christian brethren often have a complete misconception of Omnipotence which is why they accept the concept of creation ex-nihilo, which from an LDS perspective we understand to be false due to the fact that it is impossible.  If we can correctly convey the true meaning of omnipotence to others we can better communicate doctrinal differences in a meaningful way.

I could go on and on but in conclusion:

1) God is omnipotent because he has the power to do every thing that can possibly be done (all power).

2) God can not create an immovable rock, because the ability to do such does not exist, and since such a task can not be accomplished ever, it has no bearing on God's omnipotence.

if we were to hive an infinitisemally small reality in which the configurations A, B, C, D, were the only existing elements a being who was omniscient in said universe would know of A,B,C,D with every possibly combination, mix, and form of said variables... a being who was omnipotent would be able to act upon and/or cause change to said variables in every combination.

to be able to first make an immovable rock, that has to be one of the possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize in advance that I am usually not a very tactful person.  I believe your logic is contradictory:

2 minutes ago, Blackmarch said:

... a being who was omnipotent would be able to act upon and/or cause change to said variables in every combination.

to be able to first make an immovable rock, that has to be one of the possibilities.

The statement "every combination" implies limits, which is completely acceptable to the proposed definition of omnipotence being representative of all possible things, excluding impossible things.  To be able to make an immovable rock does not have to be one of the possibilities, but mainstream societal thought has led people to believe that anything conceivable in the mind must be accomplish-able to an omnipotent being.

Suppose one of the changes the omnipotent being wants to make in your example is to completely erase the existence of one of the 4 elements.  Matter can not be created nor destroyed, it is an impossibility verified by scripture "the elements are eternal", therefore your assumption of omnipotence working like this does not hold up in all circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lds_person_0 said:

I apologize in advance that I am usually not a very tactful person.  I believe your logic is contradictory:

The statement "every combination" implies limits, which is completely acceptable to the proposed definition of omnipotence being representative of all possible things, excluding impossible things.  To be able to make an immovable rock does not have to be one of the possibilities, but mainstream societal thought has led people to believe that anything conceivable in the mind must be accomplish-able to an omnipotent being.

Suppose one of the changes the omnipotent being wants to make in your example is to completely erase the existence of one of the 4 elements.  Matter can not be created nor destroyed, it is an impossibility verified by scripture "the elements are eternal", therefore your assumption of omnipotence working like this does not hold up in all circumstances.

being able to erase a variable in itself would be another variable. to be able to do so it would have to be part of the set.

Edited by Blackmarch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

omnisciince means to know all, omnipotent means to be able to do all, if all things are only ABCD then the terms for both omni's have been satisfied.

Edited by Blackmarch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blackmarch said:

omnisciince means to know all, omnipotent means to be able to do all, if all things are only ABCD then the terms for both omni's have been satisfied.

So which one of the ABCD involves creating an immovable rock?  And even if that were the case in the theoretical world, in the real world for God to create an immovable rock is not within the 'set' of real possibilities so it wouldn't matter because it's still not possible for any being to accomplish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Blackmarch said:

being able to erase a variable in itself would be another variable. to be able to do so it would have to be part of the set.

In science fiction, philosophical discussion and video games, etc, this may well be a possibility.  However, in our true existence the ability to permanently erase anything from existence does not exist. An object's state of physical existence can be altered, but it can not be destroyed, nor created from nothing.

In a theoretical problem set you could include creation ex-nihilo as one of the variables within the set.  That is all fine and dandy for fun and games but it does not translate to reality as an actual event that is possible to occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Blackmarch I think I misread your initial response.  If your intention was to convey that in order for the immovable rock to be a possibility it would need to be within the realm of possibilities then we are in complete agreement and I apologise for thinking you were saying that the reality of the immovable rock is real and required regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Traveler said:

I agree with your logic and example.  But I believe your example is incomplete and does not pertain to the power to control one's destiny which is very different than the power to pick up a rock.  I cannot have power to choose my destiny if someone else has that power.  If I have power to actually choose something - then no one else can have that power.  If I have to power to choose the Terrestrial Kingdom then no one has the power to override my choice and force me into the Celestial Kingdom.  If I have a power that G-d does not - then he is not omnipotent.

I need to ponder more, but I think what Vort said, and what @lds_person_0 (who I suspect must be a programmer, because only programmers number things starting with zero) has said, are relevant: does the power to force (in any way) another sentient being actually exist?  I'm not convinced it does.  More explicitly, is it possible to force a person into the Celestial Kingdom when that is not a geographical place into which content can be placed, but rather it is a state of being, a choice to learn and live by Celestial principles?

We (us physical, mortal beings) can shove each other around, and certainly God could too, but this forcibly moving a physical object is not the same as the eternal ability to choose.  You can force my body around all you want, but you cannot force my thoughts, and the degree to which you can influence them decreases as I draw nearer to God.

Anywho, I don't expect to fully understand all this in mortality, but instinctively, and because scripture tells me so, I believe that God is indeed omnipotent, independent of whoever else is or is not omnipotent.

8 hours ago, lds_person_0 said:

The statement "every combination" implies limits

Unless the combinations are unlimited, in which case, it's like saying "eternity" or "infinity" - a limited string of characters used to describe something limitless. :)

8 hours ago, lds_person_0 said:

...mainstream societal thought has led people to believe that anything conceivable in the mind must be accomplish-able to an omnipotent being...

But can the mind actually conceive of an immovable rock, as opposed to stringing the words together?  I mean we can say it, but can we actually figure out how to do it, even conceptually?  What would make it immovable?  What does immovable mean in this case?  Is it "too heavy"?  For what?  Is it "to firmly affixed to something else"?  What is "something else"?  In short, the words are meaningless and the idea has not really been conceived - words have been strung together in a meaningless way.  (Thanks, @Vort for providing a way to verbalize the distinction.)

9 hours ago, lds_person_0 said:

I agree with @zil.  Or it appears that he agree's with me on this one.

PS: zil is a she. :)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, zil said:

PS: zil is a she. :)  

I'm new here, I'll try and remember next time :)

I'm not a programmer by profession, but I enjoy the logic of programming and have written a couple of basic utility apps in the google play store.  I haven't programmed a single line of code in over 6 months though :eek: need to develop my talents!

Quote

Unless the combinations are unlimited

I was going to say that but i figured someone else would anyway :)! However, the combinations can only be unlimited if the variables are also unlimited.

As for the rest, well, I pretty much agree with your entire post.

I also agree that @Traveler makes a compelling point, but (without going into a ton of details since i'm at work) if you take into consideration the idea that our agency is in actuality a gift from God, then there is still no bearing upon his omnipotence.  Do all of God's creations have agency?  If he gives us the ability to choose does that actually make him any less powerful or does it mean that he is so powerful that he has the ability to create something which is capable of disobeying him?  If once you give agency to a creation the ability to force that creation to choose something does not exist, then is there really a power which you are lacking?  If you are not lacking in any existing power then are you not all powerful?  I think most of what makes the argument of agency = God is not omnipotent is a similar construct to the immovable rock conundrum, albeit very astute!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SilentOne said:

I don't understand this thought. Just because somebody has a power doesn't mean they must use it.

 

It is my opinion that you are on the right track – or at least almost on the correct track.  It is my personal belief that there is something else (perhaps more than a single something else) at play that may not be understood or considered.  The scripture hint to this something else when Nephi was asked the question – Know you not the condescension of G-d?  There is a paradox – in order to save us from our sins, omnipotence would have had to be advocated – he would, of necessity be under powers that would be over him – he would have to “descend” far below omnipotence.

There is also an interesting thought presented in the Book of Moses where G-d said – This is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  This tells us that there are others that G-d depends on.  I would agree that omnipotence is achieved when all unite and become one with G-d and each other.  But I do not believe that divine omnipotence can reside in a single individual.  The power and glory that is Celestial requires what is the new and everlasting covenant – which includes the divine covenant of marriage.  Not even the Father in Heaven could be Celestial without the new and everlasting Covenant of marriage.  I do not believe the omnipotence of G-d is singular.   In fact, I believe the doctrine that omnipotence could be held by an individual is the intent of Satan.

Anyway, my view of the omnipotence of G-d is a little different.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

It is my opinion that you are on the right track – or at least almost on the correct track.  It is my personal belief that there is something else (perhaps more than a single something else) at play that may not be understood or considered.  The scripture hint to this something else when Nephi was asked the question – Know you not the condescension of G-d?  There is a paradox – in order to save us from our sins, omnipotence would have had to be advocated – he would, of necessity be under powers that would be over him – he would have to “descend” far below omnipotence.

There is also an interesting thought presented in the Book of Moses where G-d said – This is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  This tells us that there are others that G-d depends on.  I would agree that omnipotence is achieved when all unite and become one with G-d and each other.  But I do not believe that divine omnipotence can reside in a single individual.  The power and glory that is Celestial requires what is the new and everlasting covenant – which includes the divine covenant of marriage.  Not even the Father in Heaven could be Celestial without the new and everlasting Covenant of marriage.  I do not believe the omnipotence of G-d is singular.   In fact, I believe the doctrine that omnipotence could be held by an individual is the intent of Satan.

Anyway, my view of the omnipotence of G-d is a little different.

 

The Traveler

I also think the usefulness of the word "omnipotence" is limited by our ability to understand what it means, especially when one "dictates" what it means! I think compared to us, He is omnipotent, but like you say, He is not alone. I've always liked this quote: "In God’s eternal plan, salvation is an individual matter; exaltation is a family matter."

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/04/salvation-and-exaltation?lang=eng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Traveler said:

I agree with your logic and example.  But I believe your example is incomplete and does not pertain to the power to control one's destiny which is very different than the power to pick up a rock.  I cannot have power to choose my destiny if someone else has that power.  If I have power to actually choose something - then no one else can have that power.  If I have to power to choose the Terrestrial Kingdom then no one has the power to override my choice and force me into the Celestial Kingdom.  If I have a power that G-d does not - then he is not omnipotent.

 

The Traveler

But we do believe that God can experience your experience and therefore obtain the same power which was exerted.  We believe that Christ experienced all our sins and suffered for them and we can experience them too.  That ability makes it so that there is no loss when one being experiences something that the other didn't do.  So, one of our core beliefs as Christians is that it is possible to experience something someone else experienced in the same way they did.  Christ gives all his glory to God and in the end we all can have all that God has.  The omnipotent ability comes from sharing experiences, the only way to share experiences it to have the love of Christ, pure charity.  The result of all the things you said God is all about (love, kindness, compassion ...) is that it gives Him the power to "live" vicariously and obtain glory vicariously.  This is our goal as well.

Whether it is His hand or the hand of His servants it is the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, lds_person_0 said:

So which one of the ABCD involves creating an immovable rock?  And even if that were the case in the theoretical world, in the real world for God to create an immovable rock is not within the 'set' of real possibilities so it wouldn't matter because it's still not possible for any being to accomplish.

Sorry my internet died so ihevnt been able to get back till now.

Doesnt matter it can be or it can can not be. Youre free to choose one, or none, or you can add as many variables as you want.. What each variable represents does not matter.  you can have an infinite set upon an infinite set to the in finite power and never come across a possibility of having an absolutely unchangeable force, or you could have a similar set where everybpossibility involves such. The point is that for it to be able to be done in our reality the possibility of it has to exist first- and the less support one can build for something, the more into the realm of wordplay and philosophy pandering it gets... And thats kind of the crux is with the whole immoveable rock deal is that there is little beyond "its possible because we dont know everything yet" to anchor it to reality or give it plausibility and so it ends up being no more than a word game (in this case a logic paradox loop) hypothetical.

 

As for me personally while i would not rule against it 100% i would go 99.9999..... Repeating for a lot of decimal places.

 

------ edit just saw your last reply to me..... This doesnt really add anything new then, other than maybe stating that infinity is not absolute and can be approached in different ways or can be subjective.

 

 

Edited by Blackmarch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2017 at 9:43 PM, lds_person_0 said:

At some point or another, I presume most if not all of us have heard the purposefully thought provoking question, "Can God create an immovable rock?"

He is as omnipotent as He is omniscient, and in the same way, under the same conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Eydis said:

But we do believe that God can experience your experience and therefore obtain the same power which was exerted.  We believe that Christ experienced all our sins and suffered for them and we can experience them too.  That ability makes it so that there is no loss when one being experiences something that the other didn't do.  So, one of our core beliefs as Christians is that it is possible to experience something someone else experienced in the same way they did.  Christ gives all his glory to God and in the end we all can have all that God has.  The omnipotent ability comes from sharing experiences, the only way to share experiences it to have the love of Christ, pure charity.  The result of all the things you said God is all about (love, kindness, compassion ...) is that it gives Him the power to "live" vicariously and obtain glory vicariously.  This is our goal as well.

Whether it is His hand or the hand of His servants it is the same.

Were you SeminarySnoozer in a previous life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now