profile | register | search
|Forums | |||Post Reply||Send Topic To a Friend|
|simcha613||Posted - 18 June 2007 13:10
I'm sure this question is posted somewhere else on this website, but I'm just not sure where to find it, so I'll ask it myself.
how would one answer the question, attacking the omnipotence of G-d: can G-d create a stone so heavy that even G-d can't lift it?
where would the answer be here?
|taon||Posted - 18 June 2007 16:05
found this. does it help?
"MODERATOR Posted - 24 November 2000 14:25 I will, IY"H elaborate on this in a future post, but in the meantime the following should suffice.
There are certain things that not being able to do them has nothing to do with the characteristics of the doer, but rather with the characteristics of the thing.
For instance: Can G-d make a "mxyzptlk"?
There is no such thing as a mxyzptlk. But can G-d make it?
Of course not! There is no such thing.
But does this mean that G-d is limited because He cannot make a mxyzptlk? Of course not! Since there is no such thing, the request to make one is a jumble of words, that don't mean anything.
There are more such things. Can G-d make something that is "dangerous" but not "perilous"?
Here, too, the answer is no, because we're just playing with words, not expressing ideas. Danger without peril is just a meaningless, oymoronic combination of words, but has zero connotation. The whole sentence is meaningless.
Can G-d be be the only G-d but also have another G-d with Him?
Same thing. The whole concept is meaningless, and of course G-d cannot do that. the same way he cannot make danger without peril.
To ask Can G-d make other G-ds is the same thing. "G-d" by definition means perfect. So what the question really means is:
Can G-d be perfect and imperfect at the same time?
Nope. Of course not. But since "perfect and imperfect" is conceptually meaningless, it's the same as asking if G-d can create danger that's not dangerous.
So to ask can G-d make other G-ds, or can G-d kill Himself, or something like that, all entails a play on words, because G-d by definition is eternal. So what you are asking is "Can G-d be eternal and not eternal at the same time?"
So the idea is not that G-d has one limit, that He cannot limit Himself. That's not the idea. Rather, G-d can do anything. But it has to be any THING, not something that has no meaning. Like a mxyzpltlk. Or an all-powerful weakling. Or a unique copy.
|depressedAngel||Posted - 19 June 2007 23:16
wow that was explained really well. i never really chapped the whole thing so thanx so much
|RuvenYisrael||Posted - 20 December 2010 1:42
This reminds me of the claim that G-d is "3 and 1"
Click Here To Close Thread, Administrators & Moderators Only.
Show All Forums | Post Reply