The Paradox of Omnipotence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2012, 08:14 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(23-08-2012 08:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 07:50 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  So, still under the assumption, how would ideaonscribe's God be confined to our logic? I am arguing against his logic.

Again, my point is that arguing that 'omnipotence' must logically include the man-made paradox of creating a stone too heavy to lift is simply word games, man-made.

Yes, and so is God, evidently. The point is that omnipotence cannot be limited by only what is logically possible. And this "word game" is a logical inconsistency in the attributions of God. Again, explain to me how a deity that can do the logically impossible somehow be limited by what is logically possible. You seem to be avoiding the fact that God has already broken the laws of nature.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 08:19 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(23-08-2012 08:14 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The point is that omnipotence cannot be limited by only what is logically possible.

Of course it can. I just defined it that way. I'm sorry you seem unable to.

Quote:And this "word game" is a logical inconsistency in the attributions of God. Again, explain to me how a deity that can do the logically impossible somehow be limited by what is logically possible. You seem to be avoiding the fact that God has already broken the laws of nature.

The laws of nature and the rules of logic are not the same things, so your logic is flawed.

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
23-08-2012, 08:26 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(23-08-2012 08:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  Of course it can. I just defined it that way. I'm sorry you seem unable to.

You cannot redefine a word in order to fit a definition that contradicts the original meaning. That would be like me taking the word homosexual and implying that it means a person who is exclusively sexually attracted to the opposite sex.


(23-08-2012 08:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  The laws of nature and the rules of logic are not the same things, so your logic is flawed.

God has done the logically impossible as well, so no, my logic isn't flawed.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 09:02 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(23-08-2012 08:26 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 08:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  Of course it can. I just defined it that way. I'm sorry you seem unable to.

You cannot redefine a word in order to fit a definition that contradicts the original meaning. That would be like me taking the word homosexual and implying that it means a person who is exclusively sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

No, I didn't change its meaning, I stripped out logical inconsistency. The parallel would be that 'homosexual' is limited to same sex and same species.

Quote:
(23-08-2012 08:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  The laws of nature and the rules of logic are not the same things, so your logic is flawed.

God has done the logically impossible as well, so no, my logic isn't flawed.

What has God done that is logically impossible?

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
23-08-2012, 09:13 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(22-08-2012 05:49 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The debate is about whether or not ideaonscribe's illogic proves God's omnipotence.

What god? Undecided

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
[+] 3 users Like kim's post
23-08-2012, 09:16 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(23-08-2012 09:13 AM)kim Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 05:49 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The debate is about whether or not ideaonscribe's illogic proves God's omnipotence.

What god? Undecided

Wow. I just got terse-slapped. Bowing

I said it earlier:
Quote:The whole discussion of omnipotence presupposes the existence of the being for which there is no evidence. Mental masturbation.
You said it terser.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-08-2012, 09:35 AM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2012 09:46 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(23-08-2012 09:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, I didn't change its meaning, I stripped out logical inconsistency.

Therefore changing the definition of the word. Omnipotence is not limited if it is defined as unlimited. You are both attempting to use a word that defines unlimited power to describe a limited amount of power.

(23-08-2012 09:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  What has God done that is logically impossible?

The problem of evil is one logical inconsistency in the realm of God. Or the fact that he supposedly created the universe, thereby creating his own limitations. Or his Jewish zombie son.

(23-08-2012 09:13 AM)kim Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 05:49 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The debate is about whether or not ideaonscribe's illogic proves God's omnipotence.

What god? Undecided

Ideaonscribe's.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 09:44 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(23-08-2012 08:07 AM)Vosur Wrote:  ideasonscribe, have you missed my rebuttal of your claim that illogical ideas cannot exist?

I did not miss your rebuttal. You said something about oxymorons and such.
I don't see any evidence for the existence of any "idea" of any kind. Ideas are just thoughts, and thoughts don't have an actual existence. So, I just disagree for now.

(23-08-2012 08:07 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Furthermore, you still need to refute what Ghost said. Contrary to your statement, his position actually contradicts yours. He asserts that an omnipotent god can do everything he wants to, including illogical and incoherent tasks, because he is omnipotent. You asserted that omnipotence does not cover these tasks and yet you claim that there is nothing in his post for you to refute.

I don't see his position contradicting mine.
In essence, in his argument, you can say that if omnipotence did include things such as illogical self-contradictions, then there still seems to be no problem with Gods omnipotence.
I just don't take the same approach as him because I am trying to stay within the bounds of logic. I don't have to stay there, because what we are talking about transverses logic. But I am staying there for now. It's just not contradicted by what Ghost is saying.
Basically, his approach is just another way to look at it.

(23-08-2012 08:07 AM)Vosur Wrote:  That being said, I feel like we're going in circles. I don't see why it's so hard for you to grasp such a simple concept. Omnipotence is an attribute of an entity whose power is without any limitations and boundaries. As Ghost stated previously, the question "Can god do X?" can't be answered with anything but "Yes". By saying that god cannot do something, you are putting limitations on his omnipotence. Omnipotence, by definition, cannot be limited.

Agreed.

(23-08-2012 08:07 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You don't even realize just how weak this argument is, do you? The definition of "everything" does not specifically include or exclude anything. Do you know why that is? It's because the term is used to describe all there is. Nothing is excluded from it.

Right, and since these definitions do not include or exclude anything, then they do not ponder to what we want them to mean.
All I try to do is make sense of what we do have.

(23-08-2012 08:07 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Say, how much value do you think does such a statement have when it's coming from someone who believes blindly without any evidence?

Reasoning is not the same as believing. What I ultimately believe is not the same as what I reason. Reasoning can bring me to the conclusion of my belief, but not the other way around. (Or it shouldn't anyway)

“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
23-08-2012, 10:14 AM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2012 10:17 AM by Vosur.)
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(23-08-2012 09:44 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I did not miss your rebuttal. You said something about oxymorons and such.
I don't see any evidence for the existence of any "idea" of any kind. Ideas are just thoughts, and thoughts don't have an actual existence. So, I just disagree for now.
Sorry, but I'm not interested in further word-playing. If you don't know the definition of the term exist/existence, that's your problem, not mine. Ideas do exist in our brain, whether you like it or not. Do your research.

(23-08-2012 09:44 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I don't see his position contradicting mine.
In essence, in his argument, you can say that if omnipotence did include things such as illogical self-contradictions, then there still seems to be no problem with Gods omnipotence.
I just don't take the same approach as him because I am trying to stay within the bounds of logic. I don't have to stay there, because what we are talking about transverses logic. But I am staying there for now. It's just not contradicted by what Ghost is saying.
Basically, his approach is just another way to look at it.
There's no "if". Omnipotence includes both (logically) possible and impossible tasks. It's not a matter of opinion or your point of view, it's a matter of the word's definition.

(23-08-2012 09:44 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Right, and since these definitions do not include or exclude anything, then they do not ponder to what we want them to mean.
All I try to do is make sense of what we do have.

(23-08-2012 08:07 AM)Vosur Wrote:  The definition of "everything" does not specifically include or exclude anything.

Specifically, not generally. Rolleyes

(23-08-2012 09:44 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Reasoning is not the same as believing. What I ultimately believe is not the same as what I reason. Reasoning can bring me to the conclusion of my belief, but not the other way around. (Or it shouldn't anyway)
I have a good example of the contrary. You claim that the Bible is valid evidence for the resurrection, without being able to provide any evidence other than your belief.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
23-08-2012, 10:39 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(23-08-2012 10:14 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 09:44 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I don't see his position contradicting mine.
In essence, in his argument, you can say that if omnipotence did include things such as illogical self-contradictions, then there still seems to be no problem with Gods omnipotence.
I just don't take the same approach as him because I am trying to stay within the bounds of logic. I don't have to stay there, because what we are talking about transverses logic. But I am staying there for now. It's just not contradicted by what Ghost is saying.
Basically, his approach is just another way to look at it.
There's no "if". Omnipotence includes both (logically) possible and impossible tasks. It's not a matter of opinion or your point of view, it's a matter of the word's definition.

Well, no. There is not just one definition.
Omnipotence Paradox

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: