Re: USAGE: "omnipotence" (was: Re: USAGE: "racism" )

Steg, the difficulty is that if the deity *could* create a boulder so
big that it couldn't lift it, then its omnipotence would be flawed by
its inability to lift the (as yet nonexistent but potentially
existent) boulder.  Whereas if the deity *couldn't* create a boulder
so big that couldn't lift it, then its omnipotence would be limited by
its inability to create the boulder in the first place.

So the boulder doesn't actually have to exist to be a problem.

But yeah, it's all about how carefully you define "omnipotent."  The
paradox is only really a problem if you define "omnipotent" to mean
"for any possible verb phrase X, the sentence 'God can X' is true."

(Of course, there are those who would say that God did indeed create
a boulder so big he couldn't lift it -- the human will.  And that is
why people have the potential to reject God; God can not override
their choice to do so.  But that's another topic for another list or
private email...  Like racism isn't enough of a
list-discussion-monstrosity; one has to add theology to it!)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
                       edheil@postmark.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bill Gates is a white Persian cat and a monocle away from becoming
another James Bond villain. 'No Mr Bond, I expect you to upgrade.'"
                                           --Dennis Miller
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Steg Belsky wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:35:38 -0600 Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
> writes:
> > * This reminds me of an argument on metaphysics I was once involved
> > in in highschool.  The discussion centered around whether God can be
> > omnipotent, and someone made the comment that how could God be
> > omnipotent if he can't make a boulder so large he himself cannot
> > lift it.
> > Naturally, the response was:  "You're confused about the meaning
> > of 'omnipotent'.  'Omnipotent' is better defined as 'being able to
> > do anything not in itself self-contradictory'."
>
> > ===========================================
> > Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
> .
>
> Well, i've always answered those kind of arguments with a "yes, an
> Omnipotent Deity *can* create a boulder that s/he can't lift.  They just
> choose not to."  Possibility is not the same as Actuality.  Just because
> someone *can* do something doesn't mean that they *do* do it.  I can kill
> myself, but that doesn't make me dead as i'm writing this email.
>
>
> -Stephen (Steg)
>  "amô, ê amo.  amâmu, ê nô maçtâmû."