The Paradox of Omnipotence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2012, 04:55 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
Acausal logic avoids paradox. Omnipotent is congruent with zero entropy, leading to deism, personification of Void; which can only be principle and not hypothesis.

Causal logic builds from one, and assumes zero as the taking away; assumes entropy without telling you, leading to paradox.

Pure creation would, at the very least, be where every state was null-entropic. A universe for every glyph you see for you would not have to remember. And we ain't talking to that god. I'll just love my Gwynnies, and you can watch this monkey dance.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
22-08-2012, 05:05 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(21-08-2012 02:06 PM)Ghost Wrote:  God, by definition, is supernatural. God's powers are super, or above, the natural. If they were not, God would be a natural being/phenomenon, subject to all of the natural laws of the universe. A being that is subject to the natural laws of the universe could not have created them. Therefore, in order to be considered the creator of the universe, God must have dominion over it and everything in it.

An omnipotent being can do anything, by definition. The only possible answer to "can he..." is yes. There are no caveats. If God cannot do certain things, then he is not omnipotent.

Being able to do anything includes being able to create paradox. In fact, any phenomenon that is supernatural is by definition impossible; not in the sense that it cannot occur, but in the sense that it shouldn't be able to occur despite it having just done so. So can God create something so heavy that he can't lift it? Yes. The fact that it's a paradox and that it's impossible is irrelevant. He's omnipotent (assuming of course that he actually exists and is in fact omnipotent).

To put it another way, a paradox is a restriction. Not only do omnipotent beings live outside of restriction, they created the restriction.

Quote:If we define existence as that which God has, because the one thing we can say about God is that he exists, he is, he has a state… he exists in a state of absolute isness, in Hebrew that’s called Yeshut, isness, by in no way shape or form can I define myself relative to those terms. Meaning that’s a level of reality that is completely beyond time, completely beyond space, completely even beyond finite or infinite. God isn’t even infinite, he creates infinite reality and he creates finite reality. He’s beyond both. Which helps solve the problem how…. the philosophers asked how can it be that an infinite God creates finite reality. Judaism doesn’t see a problem whatsoever because God’s not infinite. God’s completely beyond limitation. Infinite reality itself is limited by virtue of the fact that it can’t express itself in a finite way. Finite reality is limited to the extent that it exists within the context of some sort of finite space, finite time. God is beyond both.
- Rabbi Boruch Kaplan

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

See, this misses the point entirely. The OP wants you to consider what this actually means, not to hide behind "yes, and it's mysterious".

As Michael Shermer said in The Believing Brain, he had a girlfriend who claimed to have psychic powers. She said she could simply fly any time she wanted to. Michael said "OK, you do that and I'll believe you" and she'd answer "I don't feel like it". His argument was that she couldn't do it, not that she wouldn't, because her own will would be a limitation on this power (assuming the silly notion that she even had it).

So in addition to not throwing paradoxical rocks, God can't sin... not won't, can't. His own will is a limiting factor, if not his own nature or whatever objection a theist might use to explain why he or she is certain that God isn't sinning right this moment. God can't impose on human free will. Again, it's claimed to be a rule that He has put on himself, but nonetheless He can't do it.

We don't have to invoke paradoxes in order to prove that there are things God can't do. The idea of omnipotence is silly, and has never been demonstrated -- not even in theory.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 05:06 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 01:07 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You're making the claim that "all powerful" does not include performing illogical/paradoxical tasks, therefore you have the burden of proof. Drinking Beverage

I gave pretty sufficient reasoning to my argument in the OP, staying within the four principles of logic.

You, good sir, are just avoiding a counter-argument.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 05:10 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 05:06 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 01:07 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You're making the claim that "all powerful" does not include performing illogical/paradoxical tasks, therefore you have the burden of proof. Drinking Beverage

I gave pretty sufficient reasoning to my argument in the OP, staying within the four principles of logic.

You, good sir, are just avoiding a counter-argument.

Not at all. You are making a generalized claim concerning how people perceive the concept of omnipotence. Additionally, just because your position seems logical does not mean it is, or it doesn't require proof. The multiverse hypothesis is logical, but has no proof.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
22-08-2012, 05:26 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 05:10 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 05:06 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I gave pretty sufficient reasoning to my argument in the OP, staying within the four principles of logic.

You, good sir, are just avoiding a counter-argument.

Not at all. You are making a generalized claim concerning how people perceive the concept of omnipotence. Additionally, just because your position seems logical does not mean it is, or it doesn't require proof. The multiverse hypothesis is logical, but has no proof.

So, the philosophy of omnipotence requires proof in order for you to believe that it does not include self-contradicting state of affairs? Huh

Since when does philosophy require proof and outlaw logic?
When did we start dodging counter-arguments by requiring people to show "proof" of principles?
Did I miss a memo or something?

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 05:52 AM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2012 05:58 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 05:26 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 05:10 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Not at all. You are making a generalized claim concerning how people perceive the concept of omnipotence. Additionally, just because your position seems logical does not mean it is, or it doesn't require proof. The multiverse hypothesis is logical, but has no proof.

So, the philosophy of omnipotence requires proof in order for you to believe that it does not include self-contradicting state of affairs? Huh

Since when does philosophy require proof and outlaw logic?
When did we start dodging counter-arguments by requiring people to show "proof" of principles?
Did I miss a memo or something?

You have yet to prove that it doesn't have any self-contradicting values. You're basing the paradox on the assumption that everyone thinks the same as you.

You apply characteristics to this acorn, but it doesn't seem to match your characteristics.

Quote:p·ti·cism noun \ˈskep-tə-ˌsi-zəm\

Definition of SKEPTICISM

1
: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2
a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3
: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)

You made an assertion, I demand proof. I fail to see as how that is side-stepping.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Logica Humano's post
22-08-2012, 06:08 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
Hey, Starcrash.

1 - I don't see why you quoted me. You didn't offer a counter-argument, you just rattled off something you think that has nothing to do whatsoever with what I wrote. That's fine. I just ask that if you quote and dismiss me that you offer a reason why.

2 - I didn't miss the point. I offered a reasoned argument about the nature of God and omnipotence. If you don't like it, speak to it, don't just dismiss it.

3 - I am most certainly not hiding behind, "Yes and it's mysterious." I challenge you to show me where in my post I did anything like that. I challenge you to show me anywhere in any of my posts I've done that. Offering a reasoned and detailed explanation of my position is not hiding behind anything.

4 - Just to offer a slight critique of what you're saying, just because a being IS omnipotent does not mean that they need to EXERCISE their power. Know what I mean? I could have all the power in the world, use it to create an essentially automated system and then just sit by and watch it work without intervening, or I could intervene intermittently, or I could intervene every moment of every day. But there's nothing inherent in BEING omnipotent that impels me to behave in any one of those ways.

5 - Shermer's argument sounds like, "Decisions are permanent. Once you make them, you can never change them." So if I say, "I don't like crullers," then I CAN'T eat them. If that is what he's saying, that sounds silly to me. And again, just because I've decided to not eat doughnuts, it in no way means that I can't. The ability is there. The power to devour tasty sugar slathered fried dough is there, I just choose not to exercise it. The paradox argument isn't about preference, it's about naked possibility. Is it possible for an omnipotent being to do something paradoxical? Yes. Because paradox is a limitation and omnipotent beings are beyond limitation. None of this of course means that there is a God or that he is omnipotent, just that the paradox as proof against omnipotence argument is baseless.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 06:49 AM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2012 06:53 AM by Vosur.)
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 05:06 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  You, good sir, are just avoiding a counter-argument.
What are you talking about? I already provided you with a counter-argument last time we spoke to each other. Maybe you'll get it this time.

1.a.
Omnipotent means all-powerful, not infinite power.

1.b.
omnipotent - pronunciation: /ämˈnipətənt/
adjective
(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.

2.
unlimited - pronunciation: /ˌənˈlimitid/
adjective
not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent

3.a.
restricted - pronunciation: /riˈstriktid/
adjective
[attributive]
limited in extent, number, scope, or action

3.b.
limited - pronunciation: /ˈlimitid/
adjective
restricted in size, amount, or extent; few, small, or short

Other definitions:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unlimited
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/restricted
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/limited

These are external sources. This is evidence. Now it's your turn.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
22-08-2012, 07:08 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(21-08-2012 09:36 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  My argument goes something like this -

The assumption that a being that cannot do things that are incoherent is therefore not omnipotent, is a faulty assumption.
It's assuming that omnipotence includes things that fail to be coherent and fall outside the realm of existing and possible things.
Omnipotence includes every imaginable and unimagineable task (previous post). There is no need for me to assume any of the above, because I can back up my point of view with a plethora of external sources. You have yet to provide me with a single source stating that omnipotence only includes logically possible tasks. If you're not able to validate your claim with anything but your own opinion, why even bother?

(21-08-2012 09:36 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  The argument of the paradox is an absurd argument that leads to contradictions. An argument of this form is called a "reductio ad absurdum", meaning reduction the absurd. The idea is that an assumption or group of assumptions leads to contradictions and should therefore be rejected.
See above.

(21-08-2012 09:36 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  A clearer understanding of my argument is that when someone says "all powerful being" they are essentially referring to a being that is capable of performing all logically possible tasks but not necessarily a being that can perform logically impossible tasks.
This is an unfounded claim. You can't speak for anyone but yourself, especially when it comes to what someone refers to when he says X. So far, it's only you who refers to limited power when he uses the word for unlimited power.

(21-08-2012 09:36 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  The idea that "all powerful" and "unlimited" does not necessarily mean that said being can "goopadorntaman".
But rather that being can perform "all" tasks that are possible to be performed.
This is yet another unfounded claim. The definition clearly states that the word refers to a being that is able to do anything.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
22-08-2012, 07:15 AM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2012 07:19 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
@ideaonscribe Furthermore, I find it odd how this is your logical conclusion. Professional theologians have been struggling in explaining this problem for years, so if the answer were as easy as to say that God was limited to that of which is logical to us, I am sure they would have resorted to it. Do you think you are better than a professional?

@Vosur Woah, 666 likes.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: