rsl12

The issue of a circular square is interesting. Let me ask a similar question. Can god could make 1+1 = 3? If you ask me, the answer is yes, because he has all sorts of methods at his disposal (changing the history of arabic writing so that "3" represents two objects, changing the definition of the plus sign, etc etc.)

but wanting 1 + 1 = 3 is a very abstract wish. if you ask me, he just can't say, "i want 1 + 1 =3." He has to say," I want the symbol "3" to mean 2." if god decides to "make all the world to live in harmony", do you think that wish should come true? if you ask me, it shouldn't, because god needs to be more specific about what he wants exactly (ie, plutonium to have a shorter half life, people to stop producing adrenalin, people and animals to become dumb and drugged, etc, etc). being able to wish for unspecific things, like a circular square, seems a cop out, simply because the wish is not specific enough. after all, you can easily make a circular square in a non-euclidean space (and, by the way, a lot of people theorize that the universe is a non-euclidean space).

however, i think that the "rock too heavy to lift" is plenty specific. and therefore a more reasonable question to consider.

and I believe that the rock issue is not a paradox. it's only paradox if you expect that omnipotence must be a power you keep forever, and you can't will your omnipotence away. one might as well ask, "if you're omnipotent, can you make yourself not omnipotent?" if you can't do it, that means there's something you can't do and you're not omnipotent. if you can do it, then as soon as you do it you are no longer omnipotent, and there is no contradiction. therefore, you can do it. no paradox.

the paradoxial question is "if you're ETERNALLY omnipotent, can you make yourself not omnipotent?"

so as someone was saying above, the contradiction is in the definition. Not in the definition of omnipotence, but in the definition of ETERNAL omnipotence.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.