Yes. The power to do literally anything would allow one to do this.
Can he create a stone that is not liftable and then proceed to lift it?
Unironically the question by witch many Christian faiths differ: does God needs abide to the rules of logic or not?
For the Roman Catholic, yes, for Calvinists and a bunch other (ok, many other but I'm not an expert), no.
Answer: whatever causes the person you're arguing with to throw their hands up and storm off more exasperated..
No, not really, it's mostly a matter of power.
The Church itself is rooted in the idea that there are autorities on matter of faith and they adopted the Platonical Agostinean idea that faith is empowered by reason.
Reason being a valid tool means you have experts that reasoned a lot about religion and people that know less and needs to be taught, ultimately by the Pope.
The "other" side tends to reject authorities, and take the words of the bible as sobjected to personal interpretation or, to an extent, make it into some sort of magical object that the faithfull subjects itself to, without questions. Accepting the contradictions, the illogal parts, are what that kind of faith is about because to question (throught reasoning) God is a Sin.
Ah theologians. When we invented agriculture so that not everyone had to work on gathering food, this enabled some of us to specialize in advanced skills. But theology, wow. What a waste of time. Get those dudes out in the fields.
Back in the days they were just philosophers aka scientists.
“aka scientists?”
Not sure what that means.
Also known as scientists.
I can understand calling theologians philosophers but being a philosopher does not make you a scientist.
Nothing "makes" you anything. Questioning and exploring existence can look very different in different ages.
Okay you haven’t been very explanatory about your statement that theologians were scientists. But it seems you are using the term extremely loosely to mean anyone who explores questions.
This is not my definition at all. Science is a method of exploring questions that involves hypotheses and tests and building principles from observed results. Theologians do none of that and never did. They made shit up. That is not science.
I'll clearify my concept. If you could possibly take a midle age theologist and teleport him to the current age, they'd be total nerds and not priests.
Clergy back then was studying, and studying and studying and exploring reality in a framework that gave for granted that God exixts. You can call it whatever you want but I think it's a bit silly to reduct it to "those dumb fucks belong to the mines", while in reality it through their efforts that, unwillingly (?), we pursued knowledge to the point of refining modern science methodology.
If it’s reductive to say they were all morons, it’s fabulist to say they could step into the modern era and be nerds.
I get your point that curious people had no other outlet then, and that the clergy was just where they went. But there is one problem with that: science did in fact develop as a discipline. We did crawl out of the dark ages. We did discover we are not the center of the universe. And mostly it wasn’t the clergy who did that. There are notable exceptions like Gregor Mendel and Pope Gregory 13. But not enough to characterize the whole institution by. And in fact that same institution was a force for anti-curiosity quite a bit, as when they imprisoned Galileo, which is hardly the only example of them quashing open questioning as heresy.
If perhaps we focused only on theologians who were not part of the clergy, that could turn up slightly differently. I don’t know enough there to guess.
I'm ateist just to be clear, but it's undeniable that the path that lead to science stems from academia and univirsities rules and funded by clergy.
Leibniz was a fervent (or rather, average for the time) believer and bended backward to include God in each and any of his hypothesis about the world (so much so that in front of the logical necessities of motion he posited that God planned it all in advance, incuding some funny stuff about each of us being already alive in the ballsacks of our ancestors, to go around the fact that I wouldn't be "godlike" to just spawn new souls every couple of seconds).
He invented calculus and mechanical calculators and the likes.
Newton was basically an astrologer.
Bruno hypotized the existence of multiple worlds in space and, to him, that was cool because it meant the domain of God was even wider than previously thought. The Church of the Earth did not like that idea.
On the other hand, Saint Thomas and Saint Agustine both brought back the (relatively) modern approaches of Aristotles and Plato respectively, with a focus on reason as a driving force.
I could agree to disagree but I assume we'd both hate that.
Edit: I guess you stressed the point of "clergy" rather than "fervent believer". I guess? I don't find it that relevant since the members of the clergy, monks mostly, were doing their own thing and there was no centralyzed clergy research plan. You think something too weird and too popular, and the pope comes for you.
Calvanists the ones that say since god is all powerful there can be no free will/everything is decided don’t apply logic?
That's the one, funnily enough in a perverted twist, they tend to see wealth as a sign that God has picked them as favourites (graced them) and they storically gravitated toward seeing poor people as, well, sinners, even thought their principles state that anyone could be graced or not no matter the more evident aspects of life.
This isn't Calvinism. This is prosperity theology, which is it's own thing.
Your comment made me think of this scene from American Dad
I interpreted this as "having the basic ability to take as actions would allow you to do this", which is also true, I can ferment wine and then gradually make it more concentrated
Yes. The power to do literally anything would allow one to do this.
Can he create a stone that is not liftable and then proceed to lift it?
Unironically the question by witch many Christian faiths differ: does God needs abide to the rules of logic or not?
For the Roman Catholic, yes, for Calvinists and a bunch other (ok, many other but I'm not an expert), no.
Answer: whatever causes the person you're arguing with to throw their hands up and storm off more exasperated..
No, not really, it's mostly a matter of power.
The Church itself is rooted in the idea that there are autorities on matter of faith and they adopted the Platonical Agostinean idea that faith is empowered by reason. Reason being a valid tool means you have experts that reasoned a lot about religion and people that know less and needs to be taught, ultimately by the Pope.
The "other" side tends to reject authorities, and take the words of the bible as sobjected to personal interpretation or, to an extent, make it into some sort of magical object that the faithfull subjects itself to, without questions. Accepting the contradictions, the illogal parts, are what that kind of faith is about because to question (throught reasoning) God is a Sin.
Ah theologians. When we invented agriculture so that not everyone had to work on gathering food, this enabled some of us to specialize in advanced skills. But theology, wow. What a waste of time. Get those dudes out in the fields.
Back in the days they were just philosophers aka scientists.
“aka scientists?”
Not sure what that means.
Also known as scientists.
I can understand calling theologians philosophers but being a philosopher does not make you a scientist.
Nothing "makes" you anything. Questioning and exploring existence can look very different in different ages.
Okay you haven’t been very explanatory about your statement that theologians were scientists. But it seems you are using the term extremely loosely to mean anyone who explores questions.
This is not my definition at all. Science is a method of exploring questions that involves hypotheses and tests and building principles from observed results. Theologians do none of that and never did. They made shit up. That is not science.
I'll clearify my concept. If you could possibly take a midle age theologist and teleport him to the current age, they'd be total nerds and not priests.
Clergy back then was studying, and studying and studying and exploring reality in a framework that gave for granted that God exixts. You can call it whatever you want but I think it's a bit silly to reduct it to "those dumb fucks belong to the mines", while in reality it through their efforts that, unwillingly (?), we pursued knowledge to the point of refining modern science methodology.
If it’s reductive to say they were all morons, it’s fabulist to say they could step into the modern era and be nerds.
I get your point that curious people had no other outlet then, and that the clergy was just where they went. But there is one problem with that: science did in fact develop as a discipline. We did crawl out of the dark ages. We did discover we are not the center of the universe. And mostly it wasn’t the clergy who did that. There are notable exceptions like Gregor Mendel and Pope Gregory 13. But not enough to characterize the whole institution by. And in fact that same institution was a force for anti-curiosity quite a bit, as when they imprisoned Galileo, which is hardly the only example of them quashing open questioning as heresy.
If perhaps we focused only on theologians who were not part of the clergy, that could turn up slightly differently. I don’t know enough there to guess.
I'm ateist just to be clear, but it's undeniable that the path that lead to science stems from academia and univirsities rules and funded by clergy.
Leibniz was a fervent (or rather, average for the time) believer and bended backward to include God in each and any of his hypothesis about the world (so much so that in front of the logical necessities of motion he posited that God planned it all in advance, incuding some funny stuff about each of us being already alive in the ballsacks of our ancestors, to go around the fact that I wouldn't be "godlike" to just spawn new souls every couple of seconds). He invented calculus and mechanical calculators and the likes.
Newton was basically an astrologer.
Bruno hypotized the existence of multiple worlds in space and, to him, that was cool because it meant the domain of God was even wider than previously thought. The Church of the Earth did not like that idea.
On the other hand, Saint Thomas and Saint Agustine both brought back the (relatively) modern approaches of Aristotles and Plato respectively, with a focus on reason as a driving force.
I could agree to disagree but I assume we'd both hate that.
Edit: I guess you stressed the point of "clergy" rather than "fervent believer". I guess? I don't find it that relevant since the members of the clergy, monks mostly, were doing their own thing and there was no centralyzed clergy research plan. You think something too weird and too popular, and the pope comes for you.
There's a reason the French beheaded the clergy alongside the nobility.
Calvanists the ones that say since god is all powerful there can be no free will/everything is decided don’t apply logic?
That's the one, funnily enough in a perverted twist, they tend to see wealth as a sign that God has picked them as favourites (graced them) and they storically gravitated toward seeing poor people as, well, sinners, even thought their principles state that anyone could be graced or not no matter the more evident aspects of life.
This isn't Calvinism. This is prosperity theology, which is it's own thing.
The easiest answer to this is yes, he could create a stone he couldn't lift. And then he could lift it anyway.
Actually the easiest answer is "no" because it doesn't require cognitive dissonance.
There's no cognitive dissonance in negating a false negative
What false negative? If he can lift it then he didn't create a stone he can't lift. Can he make one plus one equal anything other than two?
Well Jesus, yes. Because Jesus let Himself die as well.
But then he respawned
Mhm
Your comment made me think of this scene from American Dad
I interpreted this as "having the basic ability to take as actions would allow you to do this", which is also true, I can ferment wine and then gradually make it more concentrated