The Paradox of Omnipotence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2012, 05:49 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2012 05:54 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 05:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(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.

I am confused as to what you mean by your first point, but I agree with the latter.

The debate is about whether or not ideaonscribe's illogic proves God's omnipotence. Because his redefinition of omnipotence is contradictory to what omnipotence is, I am saying no. It is like trying to limit how much infinity something can have. I also enjoy how he conveniently avoids my points.

[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, 05:50 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 05:44 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  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.

Where is the claim that "everything" and "all" includes incoherent Self-contradictions coming out of?

Smells kind of funny as well..

“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, 05:53 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 05:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

Right, and I'm not trying to argue for anythings existence, so realistically, this whole argument is sort of strange..

I just see two different sides of what's going on here, and I just see less logic in the other side. I'm sure that's what's going on over there as well..

“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, 05:57 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 05:50 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 05:44 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  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.

Where is the claim that "everything" and "all" includes incoherent Self-contradictions coming out of?

Smells kind of funny as well..

Nice strawman, bro. Drinking Beverage

Again, how is it that one can have limited omnipotence?

[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, 06:09 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 05:57 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Again, how is it that one can have limited omnipotence?

Depends, limited omnipotence is a contradiction whereas omnipotence is without limits.

Saying that not being able to do non-existing or incoherent things is a limit, is incoherent itself.

In order for there to be a limit, there has to be something existing and coherent in which it cannot do.

“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, 06:22 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 06:09 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 05:57 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Again, how is it that one can have limited omnipotence?

Depends, limited omnipotence is a contradiction whereas omnipotence is without limits.

Saying that not being able to do non-existing or incoherent things is a limit, is incoherent itself.

In order for there to be a limit, there has to be something existing and coherent in which it cannot do.

The omnipotence is limited by the impossibility of said factors. The idea of omnipotence is contradictory, either way one looks at it. That is why the only idea that one can fall back on is that God is not governed by the natural laws of the Universe, which is special pleading.

[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, 07:23 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 05:49 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 05:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

I am confused as to what you mean by your first point, but I agree with the latter.

The debate is about whether or not ideaonscribe's illogic proves God's omnipotence. Because his redefinition of omnipotence is contradictory to what omnipotence is, I am saying no. It is like trying to limit how much infinity something can have. I also enjoy how he conveniently avoids my points.

You are stuck on your definition of omnipotence and he on his.

My point is that it is perfectly acceptable to rule out logical impossibility when defining omnipotence. The too-big-a-fucking-stone example is thereby ruled out because it is logical nonsense. It's just word games.

In play, however, are violations of natural law.

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
22-08-2012, 07:26 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 05:53 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 05:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

Right, and I'm not trying to argue for anythings existence, so realistically, this whole argument is sort of strange..

I just see two different sides of what's going on here, and I just see less logic in the other side. I'm sure that's what's going on over there as well..

I will now return to our regularly scheduled grumpiness and say that before we can usefully discuss the attributes of said arguably omnipotent being, show me the fucking evidence that it exists.

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
22-08-2012, 07:48 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(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 unnecessary.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 08:21 PM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 07:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 05:49 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I am confused as to what you mean by your first point, but I agree with the latter.

The debate is about whether or not ideaonscribe's illogic proves God's omnipotence. Because his redefinition of omnipotence is contradictory to what omnipotence is, I am saying no. It is like trying to limit how much infinity something can have. I also enjoy how he conveniently avoids my points.

You are stuck on your definition of omnipotence and he on his.

My point is that it is perfectly acceptable to rule out logical impossibility when defining omnipotence. The too-big-a-fucking-stone example is thereby ruled out because it is logical nonsense. It's just word games.

In play, however, are violations of natural law.

I would disagree when one believes that God is the creator of the Universe.

[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: