The Paradox of Omnipotence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2012, 03:54 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 03:28 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(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.

Quote:il·log·i·cal (-lj-kl)
adj.
1. Contradicting or disregarding the principles of logic.
2. Without logic; senseless.

Quote:par·a·dox/ˈparəˌdäks/
Noun:
A statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that...
A seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.

Omnipotence paradox.

[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, 03:59 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 03:54 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 03:28 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  That omnipotence is illogical, is your claim.

Quote:il·log·i·cal (-lj-kl)
adj.
1. Contradicting or disregarding the principles of logic.
2. Without logic; senseless.

Quote:par·a·dox/ˈparəˌdäks/
Noun:
A statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that...
A seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.

Omnipotence paradox.

Exactly, you just outlined your claim.

Now, go ahead and explain your 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, 04:19 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 03:59 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 03:54 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Omnipotence paradox.

Exactly, you just outlined your claim.

Now, go ahead and explain your argument.

I have already done so. It is up to you to refute it.

Quote:om·nip·o·tent (m-np-tnt)
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

Nowhere does this support your redefinition.

[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, 04:39 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 04:19 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I have already done so. It is up to you to refute it.

Already refuted your claim. Omnipotence seems to support neither claim on the literal definition.
You claim that all-powerful includes things that only exist in human thought, such as illogical self-contradictions.
I claim that non-existing ideas are not included in all-powerful.

Neither claim is supported by a definition.
Just blurting out that it does not support my claim, is not a sufficient argument.
It equally does not support your claim.

Now, if the definitions said something like -
"Everything": All things, including non-existing ideas, imaginations or self-contradicting state of affairs.
OR
"Everything": All things, but not including non-existing ideas, imaginations or self-contradiction state of affairs.

Then, it would be silly to argue against something that elaborates on it's implication.
If we are arguing the implications of definitions, then we can go along this argument for as long as we can breathe.

By looking at those definitions, I am pretty sure that the group that came to create such words as "Omnipotent", "everything", "All-powerful" and so on, did not logically come to define them as including things that don't even exist, or as including nonsensical, incoherent nonsense.

I am trying to argue the point using logic.
Your claim is that omnipotence is illogical.
And it is illogical only if you add illogical nonsense to definitions that do not state that they include non-existing boundaries or illogical situations.

(22-08-2012 04:19 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
Quote:om·nip·o·tent (m-np-tnt)
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

Nowhere does this support your redefinition.

Likewise, nowhere does this support yours.

“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, 04:51 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2012 04:56 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 04:39 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Likewise, nowhere does this support yours.

The definition states that the power has no boundary or limitation. Both natural laws and logic are limitations, no where does it specifically exclude those two. That is why omnipotence is not possible. Saying, "God is limited in his omnipotence," makes no logical sense. You can claim God is all-powerful within the realm of the natural world, but that is not the word you are using. This is why I am accusing you of attempting to redefine the word to fit your argument.

Your argument is based off of semantics, and that is why Vosur and I would both love for you to produce some shred of evidence. 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
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
22-08-2012, 05:05 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 04:51 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Your argument is based off of semantics, and that is why Vosur and I would both love for you to produce some shred of evidence. You are making the positive claim.

Alright, well please explain further what you're looking for.
When you say you're waiting for "evidence", what are you referring to?
Evidence that Omnipotence only includes logically possible tasks?
Or evidence of a being that is omnipotent?

“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, 05:17 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 05:05 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 04:51 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Your argument is based off of semantics, and that is why Vosur and I would both love for you to produce some shred of evidence. You are making the positive claim.

Alright, well please explain further what you're looking for.
When you say you're waiting for "evidence", what are you referring to?
Evidence that Omnipotence only includes logically possible tasks?
Or evidence of a being that is omnipotent?

Why don't you go back to the first page and see for yourself? You constantly accused us of side-stepping when we blatantly asked for any evidence to support your argument. When you replied, you said you have none. So what exactly are you here for? There is nothing to be debated on this thread, unless you think that the illogic of a limited omnipotence will fit into the world's shelf of logic.

[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, 05:39 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 05:17 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Why don't you go back to the first page and see for yourself? You constantly accused us of side-stepping when we blatantly asked for any evidence to support your argument. When you replied, you said you have none. So what exactly are you here for? There is nothing to be debated on this thread, unless you think that the illogic of a limited omnipotence will fit into the world's shelf of logic.

I don't see anyone asking for evidence to support my argument.
I do see Vosur asking for a source for which I was getting my argument.

If you want evidence of something, just let me know what it is you want evidence of specifically.

Are you upset that I accused you of not having a counter-argument, and instead insisting that I provide sources for what I was saying?
It's ok to ask for sources, and it's ok to have a counter-argument and so on..
But I still stand un-refuted on the subject since all you are doing is implying that the definitions in question only support your specific view.
Whether you like it or not, you are making a claim as well.

Just because you and your Atheist buds have this pact where you constantly avoid providing counter-arguments with "We want EVIDENCEAARRRKKGAAAHKKENPOO!!!!!"
Doesn't mean you stand in a more logical stance.
Looking back in this thread, I am still seeing plenty of reasoning on my side, and very little on yours.
Throwing definitions and "Where's da evadance brah?" is simply avoidance.

“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, 05:44 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
Who said I was ever upset? I was more along the lines of, "What the fuck is this shit?"

Because I demand evidence does not mean I am side-stepping. If you are pulling things out of your ass, it is okay to admit it.

[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, 05:46 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(21-08-2012 09:36 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Here's the paradox -

"Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?"

The argument is that if the being can create this self-contradicting state of affairs, the being ceases to be omnipotent since it is unable to do something. Namely, lifting the heavy stone.
on the other hand, if it cannot create this stone that is too heavy for it to lift, then that thereby is something it cannot do.

I've been discussing this with some, like A2 and Vosur, and (of course) have come to yet another disagreement.

The argument for the against goes something like this -

Om·nip·o·tent
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
n.
1. One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
2. Omnipotent God.

Most all definitions will say basically the same thing; "All powerfull", "Unlimited power".

In order for something to be "Omnipotent", it must have the power to do "all" things, including creating self-contradicting state of affairs (e.g. Creating a stone it cannot lift).
Since it is nonsensical that a being could ever do such a thing, a being cannot ever be omnipotent.

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.

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.

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.
One understanding of "logically impossible tasks" is that they are simply nonsensical tasks to begin with.
For instance, if I asked "could God hypersuffohockinate?"
You would think that the question was ridiculous. That's because it is.
It's a nonsensical notion that I just created in my mind.
I can make up any notion, and apply it to the paradox.

Another example could be an example from the "Chomsky Sentence": "God dreams colorless green ideas furiously"
Or something like that.

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.

I give your interpretation of "omnipotence" more credence as the other side seems like pure wordplay.

However, my problem with the whole discussion is that there is no evidence of any omnipotent beings, regardless of definition.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: