The paradox of the stone heavily relies on Thomas Aquinas’s understanding of gods omnipotence. Aquinas proposes that Omnipotence is the power to do everything that is possible, not just to do anything. Aquinas breaks it down into two forms of possibilities; Relative possibility and Absolute possibility that will be discussed first in order to understand the paradox of the stone argument.
Relative possibility is a power that lies within some beings, but not within others. For instance, a fish can swim under water but a person cannot. This wouldn’t apply to god because the concept that god can do everything that god can do does not rationally explain what god can do. Absolute possibility applies to whatever can be done that is logically possible
…show more content…
Mavrodes explains that if god is omnipotent, then the stone question is a contradiction in and of itself. His reasoning makes logical sense because if one agrees that god is an all powerful entity, then there is no realm in which god can create something that he cannot lift. As Mavrodes articulates, the crux of the question is its built in attempt to imply that god is not omnipotent. And, if one believes that God is not omnipotent, then it follows that of course god would not be able to lift the stone, or would not be able to create a stone heavy enough to lift thus rendering him non-omnipotent. And, if one believes that god is omnipotent, then this question is irrelevant because this question is a contradiction. Because, if gods omnipotent then there is no stone too heavy for him to lift. Thus, depending upon what one believes about god, the answer to this paradox is different.
All in all, the paradox of the stone is an interesting though experiment in debating gods omnipotence. The roots to Aquinas were key in the creation of this argument. Mavrodes did a great job of responding to this argument in an argument that elaborated that there is no logical discrepancy with god lifting a stone and gods
In this chapter Taylor goes on to say what she thinks a miracle. “It reminded me of that Bible story where somebody or other struck a rock and the water poured out. Only this was better, flowers out of bare dirt. The Miracle of Dog Doo Park” (152).Taylor starts to recall of what she thought was a miracle. How a rock was able to pour out water.
Kristen Jakupak Epistemology Philosophy Paper October 5, 2015 Within Plato’s The Allegory of the Cave, and Descartes Meditation I, there are multiple similarities and differences in them. Reality is questionable within both of these stories. There is skepticism in them on whether they are truly living, and if it is real, or if it is controlled by something else entirely. In both stories, they also wanted to leave what they understood to be reality, to find what they thought and sensed to be the true reality.
If one took the time to explain to the fool what he believes one might understand the meaning behind his words and then will later believe in god. Basically the first reason is that the person needs to be educated on the idea of god, if he isn’t he wont understand god and he wont believe he exist. The second reason to think this way is the idea that the fool does understand the meaning of “that, than which no grater can be conceived”. This reason is basically the idea that the fool did manage to think of something greater even though it cannot be conceived, so the idea of the fool is that he thought of something greater so god doesn’t
However, how does God play into this argument? Because He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent – how does that reconcile with our free will? One of the ways that free will and God’s omniscience coexist is through our ability to sin. As human beings, we are sinful.
Why does not the all-powerful God answer? The faith Weisel had shown be viewed as commendable no matter how small as that is what kept him going from day to
(Miller, 1953, p. 15). Because God is supposed to be the ultimate leader setting a basis
From this we can understand, his belief is omnipotent—God is unconditional—he cannot live without that
Transcendence: Basis of Biblical Here the author drives home his point when it comes down to defending monotheism between the Old Testament and Israel’s neighbors. According to history Israel was taught to believe in the One God. In the Ten Commandments God forbid them of making any graven images of things in heaven or earth to worship.
Schellenbergs argument on divine hiddenness, ‘If there were an omniGod, there would be no non-culpable disbelief’. Those in favour of Schellenbergs argument on divine hiddenness argue that if an omniGod exists then that omniGod would let everyone open to the idea of him, know of his existence, the reason he would do this is so he would have more believers. Therefore anyone who is open to the idea of an omniGod who isn't actively disputing an omniGod would believe in him because he would make it easy for him or her to believe. Therefore if God is hidden he cannot
The definition of God is the greatest being. A thought of something that exists is greater than a thought of something that does not exist. That means if God is just a thought that does not exist, there must be a being greater than Him. This would contradict the definition of God. Therefore, God must exist so that the definition would be true.
The claim of God being one means that God is independent of any other being. He lacks nothing and does not require anything else to help or to complete himself. The act of being One is a Claim to supremacy, as the only entity responsible for all other existence. In the sense that he is a simple composite of himself only and not made of anything more. He first must exist so His earlier argument for whether god has existence trumps the doubt of God’s existence.
If we think god is perfect and superior than everything we know then anything greater than god can’t be imagined. If we think god as not
So, we end up getting the point that one can conceive or imagine a being which is greater than God. But the conclusion of this whole process leads to a contradiction because the basic assumption is that God is a being which nothing greater can be conceived. So we cannot imagine something which is greater than
Secondly, the lack of complete understanding of a God that is greater than any other is the basis of Anselm’s argument. In other words, one needs not understand how it is that no other greater God exists, because it is not possible to do that. It is the concept of understanding that such a being exists that is important. As long as it is possible to have such a state, then the definition given by Anselm is
The scripture tells us that God is God from all eternity. Before anything, He was there Richard of Saint Victor reminds us, “Everything which is or can be either has being from eternity or begins to be in time, and again, everything which is or can be either has being from itself or it has being from something other than itself... it has been established that what holds the highest place in this universe of things cannot receive what it itself is from its inferior. Therefore some substance must exist which both holds the highest place and is from