The Paradox of Omnipotence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2012, 11:30 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
Hey, Starcrash.

I think the mistake that you're making is that you're assuming that I'm arguing FOR God. I'm doing nothing of the sort. I make absolutely zero assertions that God does in fact exist and absolutely zero assertions that God does not in fact exist. My argument is purely logical.

IF God is omnipotent THEN God can do anything. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

The reason I posted Kaplan's quote is because I would agree that if God is the creator of the universe, then God created all of the limitations in the universe and is himself beyond them; beyond space, beyond time, beyond distance, beyond speed, beyond gravity, beyond entropy, beyond finite, beyond infinite, beyond linearity and beyond paradox. The paradox "gotchya" of the heavy stone only works if God is subject to the limitations of paradox, which by definition he is not, therefore, it's not a gotchya, it's pissing in the wind Cool

Throw onto that the very definition of supernatural. A supernatural phenomenon or entity is, by the definition of the word, above or beyond the natural. That means that every supernatural phenomenon is impossible based on the limitations of the natural universe. So 1+1 can = 3, time can flow in reverse, time can stop, my penis can turn into a blue whale, John Cleese can turn into a newt (and get better), a child can give birth to her mother and a paradox can occur.

So it's simple, the possible is not a limitation that an omnipotent being needs to concern themselves with. An omnipotent being does not need to concern themselves with any limitation because being omnipotent means being beyond limitation.

So if you begin with the premise that God is omnipotent and then ask if God can do (insert literally any possibility here) then the answer is yes.

This is just logic.

And this is an entirely different question than "does God exist?" I have no idea if he does or not. I just know what his minimum requirements must be if he does exist.

As for my assertions, the reason I believe that God is supernatural is because only a supernatural being could create the natural universe. A natural being could no more create their universe than Super Mario could program the game he is a part of. The Big Bang doesn't have to be supernatural because that's considered to have a natural explanation (for the most part). So if the starting point is, God is the creator of the universe, then God MUST be supernatural. The only non-supernatural explanation I've ever heard for a creator of the universe is this:





I didn't say that logic was a natural phenomenon (although it is) I said (obliquely) that paradox is a limitation of the natural universe. An omnipotent being is beyond limitation and thus beyond the control of paradox. Logic is a function of the mind. The mind is natural, therefore, sure, logic is a function of the natural universe. I can't imagine an argument that would explain why it isn't.

Quote: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?

Again, this is a completely separate concern.

Not only that, but I don't believe anything over any other explanation.

I would say that if God is the creator of the universe and God is omnipotent then the probability of being able to create paradox is 100%.

Quote: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?

Like I said, I'm not doing anything of the sort.

I understand Shermer's position better now. Thank you. I still don't agree with it though.

Quote:God can't have unlimited power after setting limits on his own power.

Sure he can. He's omnipotent. He's not prettydamnpotent. He's not reallyreallypotent. He's omnipotent. Without limit. No caveats. None.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 11:33 AM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2012 11:57 AM by Vosur.)
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 11:26 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  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.
Can you start making some sense, please? Illogical, self-contradicting ideas are obviously not nothing, because they exist.

(22-08-2012 11:26 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I still need adequate sources supporting your idea that "nothing" is, in fact, included in "everything".
You're resorting to use the strawman fallacy this early on? Interesting. Consider

Show me where I specifically said that "nothing" is included in "everything".

Edit: If you haven't done so already, I suggest you to also read the two posts Ghost made in this thread. I think he raises a few good points that are up for you to refute.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 01:24 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(21-08-2012 09:36 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?"

If it is mental masturbation, your omniscient being is probably perplexed that you feel a need to resort to belittlement by inferring impotency. For this paradox you will surely smoke a turd or two in purgatory. But hey - it's your omnipotent being.

If it's not mental masturbation, define "lift". Dodgy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kim's post
22-08-2012, 02:42 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 11:26 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  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.

As far as your logic is concerned, there is nothing to debate about. We'd have to subscribe to your redefinition of God's attributes, acting as though it has some credibility.

(22-08-2012 11:26 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  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.

Isn't that what you are doing? You are attempting to redefine your deity's attributes so it makes more sense to you.

(22-08-2012 11:26 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Every day, many of you prove that you're no better than the Theist you claim cannot have a logical conversation.Dodgy

This is not a logical conversation, and that is the problem. The only reason we are saying you are wrong is because you are. Go back to the old drawing board my friend. Drinking Beverage

[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, 03:06 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 11:33 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Can you start making some sense, please? Illogical, self-contradicting ideas are obviously not nothing, because they exist.

Alright, so here you're making a claim.
The claim is that illogical, self-contradicting ideas exist.

Since you're making this claim, please provide proof of an illogical, self-contradicting idea.

If an illogical, self-contradicting idea does not actually exist, then it is - Nothing

If an illogical, self-contradicting idea is nothing, then you essentially claim that "everything" includes "nothing".

(22-08-2012 11:33 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You're resorting to use the strawman fallacy this early on? Interesting. Consider

Show me where I specifically said that "nothing" is included in "everything".

See above.


(22-08-2012 11:33 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Edit: If you haven't done so already, I suggest you to also read the two posts Ghost made in this thread. I think he raises a few good points that are up for you to refute.

I read a couple of them already, but not the latest one. I'll check it out.

“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, 03:14 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2012 03:24 PM by Vosur.)
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 03:06 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Alright, so here you're making a claim.
The claim is that illogical, self-contradicting ideas exist.

Since you're making this claim, please provide proof of an illogical, self-contradicting idea.
Have you never heard of an oxymoron? Furthermore, ideas exist only in the human mind. They can be as crazy as they want.

(22-08-2012 03:06 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  If an illogical, self-contradicting idea is nothing, then you essentially claim that "everything" includes "nothing".
Jokes on you, you made the claim before I even wrote the post you are basing it on.

Edit: Fixed some typos.

[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, 03:21 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
Ok, I read Ghosts posts...

I don't really find anything to refute. At least not in his last post.
It makes sense to a degree, but even then, if omnipotence is not bound by the laws of logic, then you cannot use logic to discuss omnipotence in the first place. I don't take that approach for that reason. It seems like a dead end.

Furthermore, Vosur, it looks like instead that you may have some points of his to refute lol

“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, 03:23 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 03:21 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Furthermore, Vosur, it looks like instead that you may have some points of his to refute lol
How so? As far as I see it, we actually agree for the most part.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 03:26 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 03:21 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I don't really find anything to refute. At least not in his last post.
It makes sense to a degree, but even then, if omnipotence is not bound by the laws of logic, then you cannot use logic to discuss omnipotence in the first place. I don't take that approach for that reason. It seems like a dead end.

It is a dead end anyway you look at it, because the claim is illogical. You either make the illogical claim that your deity is omnipotent, or you make the logical claim that it isn't.

[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, 03:28 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 03:26 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It is a dead end anyway you look at it, because the claim is illogical. You either make the illogical claim that your deity is omnipotent, or you make the logical claim that it isn't.

That omnipotence is illogical, is your claim.

“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: