The Paradox of Omnipotence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2012, 07:19 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
Professional bullshitter theologian is such an amusing term. Big Grin

[Image: opforum1.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like frankiej's post
22-08-2012, 07:20 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 06:49 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(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.

Alright, well that's sort of what I'm saying.
I remember your argument, and I'm glad to have your sources now. But my argument is also a response to this.

You have the same sources I do. Only, you are saying that non-existing things are included in phrases such as "unlimited power", "not limited or restricted".
And what I am saying is that those phrases do not include such things because they are illogical and do not exist.

So, to put it in elementary terms, you say:

"Hypersoffohockinate" is included in "all" or "everything".

I say:

"Hypersoffohockinate" in not included in "all" or "everything".

If you want me to show you proof of why my made-up terms or words are not included in "all" or "everything", I want you to equally show me proof of why those incoherent terms are included.

“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, 07:24 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 07:19 AM)frankiej Wrote:  Professional bullshitter theologian is such an amusing term. Big Grin

Well, ideaonscribe is only an amateur.

[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, 07:59 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 07:20 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  You have the same sources I do.
Actually, I don't. None of the sources I quoted even barely supports your argument.

(22-08-2012 07:20 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  And what I am saying is that those phrases do not include such things because they are illogical and do not exist.
And your source for this is ... ?

(22-08-2012 07:20 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  YSo, to put it in elementary terms, you say:

"Hypersoffohockinate" is included in "all" or "everything".

I say:

"Hypersoffohockinate" in not included in "all" or "everything".

If you want me to show you proof of why my made-up terms or words are not included in "all" or "everything", I want you to equally show me proof of why those incoherent terms are included.
everything - pronunciation: /ˈevrēˌTHiNG/
pronoun
all things; all the things of a group or class:

all - pronunciation: /ôl/
predeterminer, determiner, pronoun
used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing

I gave you plenty of sources so far. Now, if you don't mind, I want you to do the same. Give me even a single source that supports your argument.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
22-08-2012, 09:27 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 07:59 AM)Vosur Wrote:  everything - pronunciation: /ˈevrēˌTHiNG/
pronoun
all things; all the things of a group or class:

all - pronunciation: /ôl/
predeterminer, determiner, pronoun
used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing

I gave you plenty of sources so far. Now, if you don't mind, I want you to do the same. Give me even a single source that supports your argument.

Your source equally does not support your argument. All you're doing is emphasizing different phrases within definitions to imply that the definition is implying what you're saying. I can do the exact same thing, but I don't consider that an adequate "source" for any argument.

Since your source still does not support your argument either, if you don't mind, please provide me with an adequate source supporting your argument that "all" includes non-things.

So far, your definition up there says "used to refer to the whole quantity (not more than) or extent of a particular group or thing ( hmm, don't see anything about a non-thing Consider )

“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, 09:38 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 09:27 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Your source equally does not support your argument. All you're doing is emphasizing different phrases within definitions to imply that the definition is implying what you're saying. I can do the exact same thing, but I don't consider that an adequate "source" for any argument.
Go ahead.

(22-08-2012 09:27 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Since your source still does not support your argument either, if you don't mind, please provide me with an adequate source supporting your argument that "all" includes non-things.

So far, your definition up there says "used to refer to the whole quantity (not more than) or extent of a particular group or thing ( hmm, don't see anything about a non-thing Consider )
Define 'non-thing'. Drinking Beverage

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
22-08-2012, 09:41 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 09:27 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Your source equally does not support your argument. All you're doing is emphasizing different phrases within definitions to imply that the definition is implying what you're saying. I can do the exact same thing, but I don't consider that an adequate "source" for any argument.

You have to provide the source, since you are making the positive claim.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 10:37 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

Ghost/Matt -

My answer this morning was disjointed. It was heavily edited because I was in a rush before going to work, and so if it doesn't seem to answer your post, it's quite likely because it didn't. I have a little more time now on my lunch break, so let me try to make better sense of my earlier thoughts.

The OP described a paradox, because for God to be able to do both actions would be mutually exclusive -- God can't be both limitless and able to set limits on himself. Your answer was basically "nuh uh", because you didn't explain how God could do these mutually exclusive things. Instead, you made assertions. You claimed that God is above and outside of "natural phenomena" with the implication that logic is such a natural phenomenon. Why assume that a philosophical idea is part of nature?

More importantly, why would we believe this over other explanations? Is it more probable that God is a being outside of logical paradoxes or that the humans that created the concept of God didn't put enough thought into it? And if you're willing to give God such incredible benefit of the doubt, can't a Muslim argue for Allah using the same reasoning and make Allah impossible to disprove? Why don't you believe in Allah if any contradictions in his nature are just assumed to be limits that we've imposed on a limitless being?

Michael Shermer was not using the story of his crazy ex-girlfriend who believed in magic to prove that self-limiting factors are no different than outside-limiting factors. I made a mistake. Instead, he was trying to describe how people can rationalize untenable beliefs. If I claim to have an ability but say that I don't "want" to prove that I have it, there's a good chance that I'm just trying to protect myself for humiliation when I can't pull it off. I listed examples of things that God can't do (sin, act against free will) and I believe the reason why Christians use excuses like free will is in order to say that God could get rid of all the evil, but he just doesn't want to. That's a lame defense. We don't believe Michael's ex-girlfriend when she makes such fantastic claims, nor do we believe God could just get rid of all those sins He hates but He just doesn't feel like it today.

You rebutted my claim that self-limiting factors aren't the same as outside-limiting factors just as I expected, despite the fact that -- if there's anything to salvage from my last post -- I already answered that. It's a paradox in the same way that the OP set up his paradox; God can't have unlimited power after setting limits on his own power.

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, 11:04 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(21-08-2012 04:03 PM)Thomas Wrote:  1 + 1 can equal 3 if you eliminate all even numbers. (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, ...)
1 + 3 = 5
1 + 5 = 7
3 + 5 = 9

Nice try, but all you've done is change the labels. Conceptually, 1 + 1 will always equal 2. Tongue

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 11:26 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 09:38 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Define 'non-thing'. Drinking Beverage

A "non-thing" is equivalent to "Nothing" or "no thing".
I'm referring (or not referring rather) to something that has no value or relevance.

"Nothing" as explained in Wikipedia -

Nothing is no thing, denoting the absence of something. Nothing is a pronoun associated with nothingness, as well as object as a concept in the Frege-Church ontology.

In nontechnical uses, nothing denotes things lacking importance, interest, value, relevance, or significance. Nothingness is the state of being nothing, the state of nonexistence of anything, or the property of having nothing.

You're wanting me to find indefinite source for supporting that the term "all" does not include "nothing" or "nothingness" which is exactly what illogical self-contradicting ideas are.
I still need adequate sources supporting your idea that "nothing" is, in fact, included in "everything".
Maybe you're right..
When I go to the store to buy some groceries today and I come back home to my wife asking me "Honey, did you get "everything"?" I should respond, "No honey, I forgot to get a contradiction."

Logica Humano Wrote:You have to provide the source, since you are making the positive claim.

Is this really the only reason you or Vosur will turn away from providing your own counter-argument?
And, just giving me definitions without giving your reasoning in those definitions, is not a sufficient counter-argument.
You're just disagreeing with me because you know I'm a Theist. Even if I held a completely logical view, your knowing of my conclusion seems to bias your response to every step I take.
It's quite interesting to take note of this.

I am giving a pretty sound argument as far as I can tell, and all Vosur is doing is giving me definitions and saying "Your turn" after my argument.

Every day, many of you prove that you're no better than the Theist you claim cannot have a logical conversation.Dodgy

“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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: