<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Your belief in something however does not effect it's own existence. > > However I have a new twist on this old issue. > > Given: God can do anything > Assume: God creates an object which "can do more things than God" > > Explain: Why this fallacy is a logical violation.
In the same move, he makes himself not omnipotent. If god created an uncrushable stone, he would in the same motion make himself not omnipotent. No contradiction is here. So, I could ask "Would God be dumb enough to create an uncrushable stone?". > Second new twist > Given: God can create anything > Assume: God creates an object having some property which makes God not be > able to do something or other to it. "An immovable object", "An > uncrushable > stone", etc > > Explain: Why God cannot simply change this property and *then* affect the > object. He would be a self-contradictory being, outside the bounds of logic. Note that he is doing two things. One is that he is creating something that he cannot do, and then contradicting himself by proving himself incapable of the first act. For omnipotence to mean "able to do any combination of things" is for omnipotence to be a self-contradictory word. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
