Or the omnipotent being is over and above any logical impossibilities, and both eats and does not eat the kebab at the same time (that is, is both A and not-A at the same time).
Either way, this is hardly a good argument against the existance of a god.
Who says that a god has to be omnipotent? Thor, Tyr and Freyr were not omnipotent, yet they were/are gods, and the same applies to Zeus, Ares and Appolo.
That doesn’t make a lot of sense.
What isn’t?
Theists and standard theism do.
No, maybe not to us humans. But if omnipotence is actually being able to do things that are contrary to the laws of logic (such as the law that A and not-A cannot be true at the same time) then human understanding or human making-sense is not required.
That since an omnipotent god cannot create a kebab so big that it cannot eat it, it doesn’t exist.
Either “omnipotence” means that whoever is omnipotent is able to do anything as long as it doesn’t include a contradiction/something logically impossible:
or that “omnipotence” means that whoever/whatever is omnipotent can do even what is logically impossible, such as being both A and not-A (btw, what’s the logical sign for negation here, and how do you type it? I’m used to ~, but I gather that that may not be the use elsewhere).
Good for them. Why do they say that?
Does nothing strike you as odd about that? That is simply what omnipotence does not mean. An omnipotent being could not bring about or change necessary truths. A being beyond logical rules would be meaningless.
It isn’t intended to be.
It’s initially based on the major religious depictions of God. And arguably, omnipotence is a necessary property of something definable as God.
Yes, maybe of “God” (with capital g), but not of “a god” (indefinite article and lower-case g). Two different things, you know?
It seemed to be intended that way in the original post:
If god is not god, then I’d say it’s fair to assume that god doesn’t exist - at least not as a god. Of course, if “god” is the name of some being (it isn’t, though), then the sentence makes perfect sense, just as “John isn’t John - he’s Paul!” or “The fellow we thought was John wasn’t John but Paul!”. But, since “god” is not the name of anything, then if we say “God is not god” then we are saying something similar to “A horse is not a horse”, and I understand that as saying that there is no such thing as a horse, that is: Horses don’t exist.
I agree that omnipotence does not mean that, and that is in fact something that I’ve sometimes had to argue for for far too long elsewhere. But if it did not mean what it does mean, but rather that something onmipotent could do anything, no matter how illogical or beyond logical rules, then the question of whether or not it could make a kebab so big it could not eat it would make just as little sense.
Yep, although there’s not much we could ever say about "god"s in general. Part of the amenability of God is the absolute nature. And part of the worship-worthiness is the perfection.
I guess so, although I didn’t and I don’t think it should be, in part at least because it’s so difficult to define, and we don’t have more than vague intuition that it is incoherent. We can say a thing or two about its entailments, though, and a more worthwhile atheological argument would work from these (such as the creation-immutability argument).
What I’m suggesting is that it makes no sense to think there could be a being matching that description. It’s as incoherent as anything could be, and there is nothing we could say about it.
Its no fun now that bob is out of the game.
With out Bob it feels like the search for god has no meaning.
What kind of kabab? shrimp or beef lol
i can’t believe this debate about God and a Kebab has gone on for two pages.
and who says philosophy is a big pile of useless shit to the world?
Doner kebab. The ultimate
In that case, the real question is: could God make a doner kebab that doesn’t give him food poisoning?
i prefer chicken.
personally i’ve gone off kebabs ever since my mate found a cat’s tooth in his
Even the almighty couldn’t manage that!
well, the issue of eating the kebab i think is answered by the fact that god doesnt need to eat, so why would he have to a eat a giant kebab? another thing is there is no kebab that is too big to be eaten, it would just take a long time.
Not exactly the point, though.
However, your second point is certainly relevant - there’s no biggest kebab. This is important when taking into account the fact that “God cannot create a kebab too big for him to eat” means “for any kebab God can make, he can eat it.”
The concept of an omnipotent god (or anything else) is an oxymoron
Omnipotence, n, unlimited or infinite power
Power, n. Energy or force available for application to work
For god to be omnipotent he would have to posses all energy (and all mass since mass = energy) in the Universe and there would be no way for a kabob or anything else to exist independently of god. Omnipotence both necessitates a god existent within duality and precludes it. Force must be applied by something ( some “thing’”) onto something else. So god and the kabob must exist independently of each other within a medium (presumably space-time). In this scenario god would have to be one of at least two objects and therefore finite. The question itself has a purely objective frame of reference. That there is god (object) one place and a kabob (object) another place and god applies energy(object) onto the kabob to lift it, destroy it , consume it or whatever.
God is not of duality, duality is of god.
Hey Rex_B, where can I get the rest of that movie?
Why should he? You’re applying naturalistic terms to a supernatural entity which in this context does not make a lot of sense. God’s power is not construed as equivalent to the energy per unit time definition of power we use.