The Paradox of Omnipotence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2012, 10:44 AM
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(23-08-2012 10:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  Well, no. There is not just one definition.
Omnipotence Paradox
What's your point? Huh

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 10:45 AM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2012 10:54 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: The Paradox of Omnipotence
(23-08-2012 10:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 10:14 AM)Vosur Wrote:  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

Quote:"Y is omnipotent" means "Y can do X" is true if and only if X is a logically consistent description of a state of affairs. This position was once advocated by Thomas Aquinas.[4] This definition of omnipotence solves some of the paradoxes associated with omnipotence, but some modern formulations of the paradox still work against this definition. Let X = "to make something that its maker cannot lift". As Mavrodes points out there is nothing logically contradictory about this; a man could, for example, make a boat which he could not lift.[5] It would be strange if humans could accomplish this feat, but an omnipotent being could not. Additionally, this definition has problems when X is morally or physically untenable for a being like God.

What is the point of this?

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: