Why omnipotent is a paradox.

But doesn't your logic prove that reason cannot be exhaustive? That there must exist things in the universe beyond reason?As you say, a system cannot be fully described within itself. But what is reason but an attempt to understand the system of reality? Ergo, reason can never fully succeed.Now, the problem for me is, I don't know how to know anything beyond reason. Maybe that's a property of humanity; maybe that's just me. Personally I don't think there's a another way to know something beyond reason. Certainly not a better way, as far as I know.Therefore, what can't be known by reason can't be known. So why bother with it? That's how I solve that problem. Your milage may vary.

What if "omnipotent" is not defined as "knowing everything" but rather "knowing all that can be known"?Ultimate description of the universe may very well be impossible. But the possibility of a being that knows all that can be known about the universe is not logically inconsistent.I'm not saying there's a god; just saying that to come to the conclusion that there isn't one isn't a matter of funny logic; all you have to do is observe the world we live in.

That's the word I couldn't remember.So, the title of the topic is wrong, right? Cuz what we're talking about is an all-knowing god. Nobody's made statements about an all-powerful one, yet.

Clearly the book you're looking for is "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hofstadter. He's obsessed with self-reference, but it's a very interesting read about logical systems and human intelligence. It can be a hard book to find in your local bookstore - it's legendary for being mis-categorised - but it's generally in the "Science" section of Barnes and Noble.

Actually, Truthlover, I think you'd like that book, too. I know I really enjoyed it. It doesn't have much (if anything) to say about God or evolution or whatever, but I do find it a very interesting look at what conciousness really might be.To tell the truth, it's a hard book to summarize because it's about too many things. But it's a really good read. I'd reccomend it to anybody who does a lot of thinking about thinking.

I'm by no means the expert here, but if I recall what I've read, the systems that this does apply to are the ones that are able to self-reference. ("Model number theory" was another/the same requirement, I believe.)Clearly the universe is able to model number theory. Ergo, Godels proof might apply to it. Certainly it applies to any arithmetic in general, practical human use.

I think he resists because Godel's proof drops a big hole right in the middle of his perfect mathematics, I suspect. That may be why he continually downplays the significance of the proof.Now, I did read "Godel, Escher Bach", and went through a phase where I thought that proof was like the key to existence, or something - but I'm over that now. Nonetheless it's significance can't simply be dismissed by saying "Well, it doesn't apply to all arithmetic." Because it does apply, by definition, to any arithmetic robust enough to be generally useful.

This is the same statement as "God creating a rock too heavy for himself to lift". Therefore it's not logical. Your proof, therefore, rests on a fallacy. Or so it seems to me.Clearly there's some things an all-powerful god couldn't create because the universe is finite. There's no room for a rock of infinite size. I don't see that that's a restriction on gods power that's anything but a consequence of god's own actions.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Let me be more explicit: This statement is not logically possible, because it's the same as creating a rock too heavy for god to lift, because "anyone" includes god. We established that god could be unable to make a rock so big god couldn't lift it and still be omnipotent (by saying that omnipotence doesn't have to include illogical actions), so this statement is not actually logically possible.Therefore this isn't true, either: Therefore, this is wrong, too. Ergo, God could not be able to make a non-liftable rock and still be omnipotent.Does that make sense?

I think that God could create a rock so big that it couldn't move, simply because the rock was so large it comprised the total volume of the universe - thus, there'd be no place for it to move to. (as well as no place to stand to lift it.)I don't see this as a failure of God but rather an inherent failure of universes and stones. I don't see that it makes god any less omnipotent that he can't do something specifically precluded by the inherent properties of whatever we're assuming he's trying to create.Anyway, I don't believe in an omnipotent god for other reasons. But this simplistic logic isn't one of them.

Honestly, my own arguments don't make sense anymore. I think I'm done with this. Anyway I agree with you; god doesn't exist, omnipotent or not. I do remain of the position that an omnipotent god could exist, but I don't believe one does.So we're arguing at cross purposes for the same thing, I think.