It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Proof that logically God cannot be omnipotent..

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on May, 23 2016 @ 03:34 AM

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: chr0naut

Nope God created evil according to scripture.

Isaiah 45:17
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Firstly, I think you need to check the reference you gave.

But, Isaiah 45:7 says: "I form light and create darkness, I make peace (the word used is shalom) and create adversity. I am the Lord, who does all these things".

Your quote is also from the King James Version which incorrectly translates the Hebrew word רָעָה (ra'ah), which when used in its feminine form, as in this passage, means: adversity, affliction, calamity or displeasure. Not "evil" as a noun but "adversity", 'contention" or "calamity" as an adjective. If the word was intended to mean "evil" as a noun, they would have used the masculine form, which is: רָע (rah).

It is also obvious from the text that opposites are being spoken about. The contrasting of opposites is a standard feature of Hebrew poetry (Isaiah is exceptionally poetic and formalized in Hebrew).

"Evil" (as a noun, i.e: the name of an object) is not the opposite of "peace" (shalom), but adversity/contention is, so, "light/dark" and "peace/adversity" are obviously the intended reading.

The use of the word "evil" as a translation in the passage is out of context with the content of the passage and is an obvious mistranslation of the gendered word.

The same feminine form of the word is also used in Amos 3:6 and again, the context of the passage agrees with the fact that the word should not be translated as "evil".

edit on 23/5/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 23 2016 @ 01:35 PM
a reply to: Willtell The stone so heavy..... "Infinity" is ultimately the answer, to avoid a paradox, you must have resolution after resolution in an infinite fashion, the stone corrects the ability, the ability corrects the stone logically... But I don't think it's that easily explained away.

To comprehend God, I would be necessary to think so far out as to stretch the imagination, while trying to formulate your mental faculties as so to understand basics such as The Unified Field Theory... and picturing and comprehending that there may be at least ten dimensions. We are familiar with three, four if you add time, beyond that visualizing becomes something one can not count on their mind to produce accurate representations of.

I think were you to touch the Devine, it would all be moot as to any paradox one might conceive. And there you have my take on it. I can think to four dimensions and possibly one or two more if coached by someone like Sagan or Hawking.

I guess in a round-about way, I take issue with the 'Stone" paradox, it can have no practical use beyond vocabulary mouthboogie.

posted on May, 23 2016 @ 01:43 PM
a reply to: Willtell I guess I failed to convey agreement with your assessment ..

oh yea, and this part :

“Whatever implies being and nonbeing simultaneously is incompatible with the absolute possibility which falls under divine omnipotence. Such a contradiction is not subject to it, not from any impotence in God, but because it simply does not have the nature of being feasible or possible. Whatever, then, does not involve a contradiction is in the realm of the possible with respect to which God is omnipotent. Whatever involves a contradiction is not within the scope of omnipotence because it cannot qualify for possibility. Better, however, to say that it cannot be done, rather than God cannot do it.” (T. Aquinas Summa Theologica p. 163-164 , Volume I, ques. 15 ans. 3)
edit on 23-5-2016 by Plotus because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 24 2016 @ 01:39 PM

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: TommyD1966
That is, um, really really old.

It's been debated for hundreds of years.

There is a reason it has been debated for centuries, it's an interesting logic puzzle..

There is actually no reason why it is debated for centuries. It just happens to be when an individual's experience of "God" is compared to the Objective Reality we hold to be true on the concept of "God" which normally don't coincide ( just like Objective and Subjective Reality)

edit on 24-5-2016 by Summer7 because: typo

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 12:05 AM

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
To quote the only good line in batman vs. superman...

" if God is all powerful than he cannot be all good, but if God is all good, then he cannot be all powerful."

This "dilemma" doesn't work in Islam. We believe are lives on Earth are simply a series of spiritual tests. And the purpose is to see whether we'll respond to those tests righteously, wickedly, or somewhere in between. Our scriptures guide us on the "correct" ways to deal with our tests. Then eventually, all souls will be held accountable for their actions and inactions (aka "Judgment Day").

So our belief is that God is all powerful and pure good, but He allows many things to happen as tests and for reasons we don't even perceive. He also intervenes at times, though many times we either don't perceive it or we perceive it but then dismiss it as coincidence, luck, flukes, premonitions, fate, destiny, etc.

So could God create a boulder that is to big even for him to lift??

If he can't make a boulder that big, he can't do something..

If there is a boulder too big for him to lift, then he can't do something....

Making it logically impossible for God to be omnipotent..or at least he is less omnipotent than the human imagination...

I've always laughed when I heard these types of "dilemmas" because they're so stupid. I'm not aiming that at you in particular, just at the concept. You might as well ask if God can kill Himself. How would any human know the answers to these?

Besides, what's the creation of a large boulder to an interdimensional being? Not a being that can move between dimensions, but a being that exists in or beyond the 7th dimension? The conditions of 7th dimensional existences are so beyond our limited understanding that it makes questions like this laughable. To my limited understanding, I think humans can "tap into" the 5th dimension through creativity and imagination. But we can't even truly fathom the 6th dimension as it may literally require completely new laws of Nature. As in, the laws of physics and elemental properties and relationships could work completely differently in that dimension. So how could we ask about the limitations of a being that exists beyond a dimension we can't even understand? Of course, this is all assuming the theories of 10 or 11 dimensions are even real lol.

top topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in