The God Rock
The God Rock is currently the second best weapon and tool in the game as of the Void Update, only surpassed by the Magnetite Stick. You can't drop it or sell it. Indian God Rock is a large boulder in the northwestern part of the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. Located near the unincorporated community of Brandon, it lies.
Mustard Seed Faith Concert is almost cancelled by a plot from Mini-Bot to steal all of the band's instruments. A high flying, action-packed finale proves what a little bit of faith and Chip's feisty rock-hound, Ruff, can do! Kids learn about Matthew The mystery of the missing pooch is assigned to Sherlock Splint and his trusted assistant Dr. Carb who, along with companions Chip and Gem, follow clues in this hilarious seek and find adventure.
Kids learn about Matthew 7: With just a few days remaining before Christmas, the town of Rocky Ridge is bustling with busy shoppers as Chip, Gem and the band rehearse little nuggets for the Christmas Eve concert.
Omnipotence paradox
But who will play the part of baby Jesus? The answer to this and the amazing story of Nana Rock-a-Bye and Little Star are told in this wonder-filled musical tale that reminds young and old of the true meaning of Christmas! Carb must escape from Butter-Blossom, the chief's daughter, and survive a test by fire before solving the island mystery!
The jacket has a strange effect on anyone who puts it on, resulting in a hilarious day of happenings with Gem, Carb and Splinter! Kids learn about Colossians 3: Concert, Previews and More! Full Color, 24 pages Temporarily Out of Print! Akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt, Retrieved November 6, District of Columbia Morocco. Retrieved from " https: Views Read Edit View history. Languages Cebuano Deutsch Edit links. This page was last edited on 17 December , at By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
One response to this paradox is to disallow its formulation, by saying that if a force is irresistible, then by definition there is no immovable object; or conversely, if an immovable object exists, then by definition no force can be irresistible.
Navigation menu
Some claim [ who? But this is not a way out, because an object cannot in principle be immovable if a force exists that can in principle move it, regardless of whether the force and the object actually meet. Peter Geach describes and rejects four levels of omnipotence. He also defines and defends a lesser notion of the "almightiness" of God.
- The GVO Story?
- Indian God Rock - Wikipedia.
- Nano/Microscale Heat Transfer (McGraw-Hill Nanoscience and Technology).
- A Simple Underground.
Augustine of Hippo in his City of God writes " God is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills" and thus proposes the definition that "Y is omnipotent " means "If Y wishes to do X then Y can and does do X". The notion of omnipotence can also be applied to an entity in different ways. An essentially omnipotent being is an entity that is necessarily omnipotent.
In contrast, an accidentally omnipotent being is an entity that can be omnipotent for a temporary period of time, and then becomes non-omnipotent.
The omnipotence paradox can be applied to each type of being differently. A common response from Christian philosophers, such as Norman Geisler or William Lane Craig , is that the paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, they say, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that's possible according to his nature.
The distinction is important. Likewise, God cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being. God is limited in his actions to his nature.
Franklin INDIAN GOD ROCK
The Bible supports this, they assert, in passages such as Hebrews 6: Another common response to the omnipotence paradox is to try to define omnipotence to mean something weaker than absolute omnipotence, such as definition 3 or 4 above. The paradox can be resolved by simply stipulating that omnipotence does not require that the being have abilities that are logically impossible, but only be able to do anything that conforms to the laws of logic.
A good example of a modern defender of this line of reasoning is George Mavrodes. Such a "task" is termed by him a "pseudo-task" as it is self-contradictory and inherently nonsense.
A good example of a modern defender of this line of reasoning is George Mavrodes. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Rock Art of the Upper Ohio Valley. If a being is accidentally omnipotent , it can resolve the paradox by creating a stone it cannot lift, thereby becoming non-omnipotent. Mackie tried to resolve the paradox by distinguishing between first-order omnipotence unlimited power to act and second-order omnipotence unlimited power to determine what powers to act things shall have. Anti-clericalism Antireligion Freethought Parody religion Post-theism. At this time, the rock was plainly invested with religious meaning; according to one member of the expedition, accompanying Native American guides "regarded the rock with superstitious reverence.
Harry Frankfurt —following from Descartes—has responded to this solution with a proposal of his own: For why should God not be able to perform the task in question? To be sure, it is a task—the task of lifting a stone which He cannot lift—whose description is self-contradictory. But if God is supposed capable of performing one task whose description is self-contradictory—that of creating the problematic stone in the first place—why should He not be supposed capable of performing another—that of lifting the stone? After all, is there any greater trick in performing two logically impossible tasks than there is in performing one?
If a being is accidentally omnipotent , it can resolve the paradox by creating a stone it cannot lift, thereby becoming non-omnipotent. Unlike essentially omnipotent entities, it is possible for an accidentally omnipotent being to be non-omnipotent. This raises the question, however, of whether or not the being was ever truly omnipotent, or just capable of great power.
If a being is essentially omnipotent , then it can also resolve the paradox as long as we take omnipotence not to require absolute omnipotence. The omnipotent being is essentially omnipotent, and therefore it is impossible for it to be non-omnipotent. Further, the omnipotent being can do what is logically impossible—just like the accidentally omnipotent—and have no limitations except the inability to become non-omnipotent.
The omnipotent being cannot create a stone it cannot lift. The omnipotent being cannot create such a stone because its power is equal to itself—thus, removing the omnipotence, for there can only be one omnipotent being, but it nevertheless retains its omnipotence. This solution works even with definition 2—as long as we also know the being is essentially omnipotent rather than accidentally so. However, it is possible for non-omnipotent beings to compromise their own powers, which presents the paradox that non-omnipotent beings can do something to themselves which an essentially omnipotent being cannot do to itself.
For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent. Thus Augustine argued that God could not do anything or create any situation that would, in effect, make God not God. In a article in the philosophy journal Mind , J. Mackie tried to resolve the paradox by distinguishing between first-order omnipotence unlimited power to act and second-order omnipotence unlimited power to determine what powers to act things shall have.
There has been considerable philosophical dispute since Mackie, as to the best way to formulate the paradox of omnipotence in formal logic. Although the most common translation of the noun "Logos" is "Word" other translations have been used. Gordon Clark — , a Calvinist theologian and expert on pre-Socratic philosophy, famously translated Logos as "Logic": God obeys the laws of logic because God is eternally logical in the same way that God does not perform evil actions because God is eternally good.
So, God, by nature logical and unable to violate the laws of logic, cannot make a boulder so heavy he cannot lift it because that would violate the law of non contradiction by creating an immovable object and an unstoppable force. This raises the question, similar to the Euthyphro Dilemma , of where this law of logic, which God is bound to obey, comes from.
According to these theologians Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig , this law is not a law above God that he assents to but, rather, logic is an eternal part of God's nature, like his omniscience or omnibenevolence. Another common response is that since God is supposedly omnipotent, the phrase "could not lift" does not make sense and the paradox is meaningless.