A commonly used "proof" against god's existence

[mrdevious]

I actually don't believe in god, at least not in a literal form of a being (for my own reasons). though ones interpretation of god, such as existence itself, is always arguable. anywhoo though, I still stick to critical thinking and don't like hearing a theory that is totally flawed in logic, regardless of it being in my favour.

an atheistic argument against omnipitence is the good 'ol "can god create a rock so heavy, even he can't lift it", taking issue with the fact that if he's omnipitant he can do it, yet if he can't lift it, he can't be omnipitent, canceling itself out.

frankly though, this is a stupid argument. I'm seeing a growing number of theories on both sides, proving or disproving with literary paradoxes, which is all the examples like the one above are. to say "can god create a rock so heavy he can't lift it" is nothing more than a twisted version of "is god so infinately powerfull he can't be infinately powerfull". to say he can't do anything because he can't not have infinite power is moot. if not being able to not be omnipitant is the only limitation of power, omnipitance is all that remains. hence, the argument is pointless.

p.s. I'm stoned, so I'll see if I wrote this coherently tomorrow.

mrdevious Reviewed by mrdevious on 03-31-2005. A commonly used "proof" against god's existence I actually don't believe in god, at least not in a literal form of a being (for my own reasons). though ones interpretation of god, such as existence itself, is always arguable. anywhoo though, I still stick to critical thinking and don't like hearing a theory that is totally flawed in logic, regardless of it being in my favour. an atheistic argument against omnipitence is the good 'ol "can god create a rock so heavy, even he can't lift it", taking issue with the fact that if he's Rating: 5

[Stedric]

You make a valid point, although I believe that saying still has value. Perhaps not as a statement meant to "prove" anything, but it helps show that absolutes do not exist. "There is nothing God can not do" is an absolute, but it doesn't work. If there is nothing God can't do, than God cannot do "nothing". This would make more sense if I wasn't stoned.

Anyways, the problem with this is...if nothing is an absolute...isn't that an absolute? Another paradox.

[mrdevious]

You make a valid point, although I believe that saying still has value. Perhaps not as a statement meant to "prove" anything, but it helps show that absolutes do not exist. "There is nothing God can not do" is an absolute, but it doesn't work. If there is nothing God can't do, than God cannot do "nothing". This would make more sense if I wasn't stoned.

Anyways, the problem with this is...if nothing is an absolute...isn't that an absolute? Another paradox.

but once again, like so many, only a literary paradox, not one applicable to reality. if the only absolute is nothing being absolute, absoluteness still doesn't exist.

though I totally agree with the innitial theory, I've always said nothing's written in stone.

[Looker]

Hey some people say I can do anything....

I keep tellin em I cant but they wont listen to me....

[A Foo Says]

are you darth maul?