EvC Forum: Why omnipotent is a paradox.

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Why omnipotent is a paradox.

compmage

Member (Idle past 5183 days)

Posts: 601

From: South Africa

Joined: 08-04-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 38 of 70 (42215)
06-06-2003 7:04 AM

Reply to: Message 37 by Peter
06-06-2003 5:54 AM

Peter writes:

...and so are unable to determine whether or not an omnipotent god is a possibility or not.

As far as I can reason, an omnipotent God is an impossiblity unless you are willing to embrase a paradox.

Can God create a rock to heavy for him to lift?

This question leads to a paradox. God can not be capable of both feats since they are mutually exclusive.

Some people subscribe to the idea that omnipotence means being able to to everything that is logically possible as opposed to everything at all and, they say, since the above is not logically possible it does not contradict God's omnipotence.

However, this question is actually the combination of two logically possible actions. These being:

1) Creating a rock to large for anyone to lift.
2) Lifting any possible rock.

Therefore a God capable of any logically possible action would be capable of both of these, which again leads to a paradox. Ergo, God can not be omnipotent without also being paradoxical.

------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This message is a reply to:
	Message 37 by Peter, posted 06-06-2003 5:54 AM		Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 39 by Peter, posted 06-06-2003 7:07 AM	compmage has not replied
	Message 40 by Gzus, posted 06-06-2003 9:54 AM	compmage has not replied
	Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 06-06-2003 10:55 AM	compmage has not replied

compmage

Member (Idle past 5183 days)

Posts: 601

From: South Africa

Joined: 08-04-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 53 of 70 (42485)
06-10-2003 3:08 AM

Reply to: Message 49 by crashfrog
06-08-2003 12:05 AM

crashfrog writes:

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.

No. Assuming that God exists and can lift any rock, the statement might be inaccurate but it is still logically possible. What you are talking about is if it is actually possible. These are not the same thing.

Does that make sense?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2003 12:05 AM		crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2003 3:36 AM		compmage has replied

compmage

Member (Idle past 5183 days)

Posts: 601

From: South Africa

Joined: 08-04-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 55 of 70 (42489)
06-10-2003 7:20 AM

Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
06-10-2003 3:36 AM

crashfrog writes:

Anyway I agree with you; god doesn't exist, omnipotent or not.

I might be an atheist but I don't believe that God doesn't exist. I just don't have a good reason to think that he does. IOW I don't have a belief that God does exist.

crashfrog writes:

I do remain of the position that an omnipotent god could exist, but I don't believe one does.

That depends on what is ment by 'omnipotent'. I think that if you use the definitions I used in my first post on this thread then you are wrong. However, I'm not going to bother arguing about it if you aren't really interested. It's not much fun when you aren't putting effort into your posts.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2003 3:36 AM		crashfrog has not replied

compmage

Member (Idle past 5183 days)

Posts: 601

From: South Africa

Joined: 08-04-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 60 of 70 (42873)
06-13-2003 10:46 AM

Reply to: Message 59 by Peter
06-13-2003 7:50 AM

Peter writes:

What if the rock exists in a state such that it
both can and cannot be moved by God (simultaneously)?

This is a paradox and is kinda the point of this thread. Omnipotence leads to a paradox. A and ~A.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 59 by Peter, posted 06-13-2003 7:50 AM		Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 61 by Peter, posted 06-14-2003 4:20 AM		compmage has replied

compmage

Member (Idle past 5183 days)

Posts: 601

From: South Africa

Joined: 08-04-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 62 of 70 (43053)
06-16-2003 5:29 PM

Reply to: Message 61 by Peter
06-14-2003 4:20 AM

Peter writes:

So if the universe was constructed in such a way that
paradoxes were possible then the problem wouldn't exist?

Yes.

Peter writes:

Have you read much on level IV multi-verses?

No, but I'll look it up. Do you have any references?

Peter writes:

I have to say at this point, however, that to me the Bible
tends to indicate that God is NOT omnipotent in any case.

I would argue that if God is omnibenevelant (sp?) then given the world we live in he can't be omnipotent.

Peter writes:

For instance, he never actually creates anything from scratch once his 'fiat lux' thing is done. After that he 'separates
light from dark' or 'earth from heaven', and he creates Adam, not
from nothing, but from the soil.

Even if he created everything for nothing, I'm not sure that would necessarily make him omnipotent.

Peter writes:

A question I have is does omnipotent mean that one can do the impossible, or does it mean that anything within the realms of
possibility is do-able?

I think that would depend on which theist you are speaking too.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 61 by Peter, posted 06-14-2003 4:20 AM		Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 63 by Peter, posted 06-18-2003 11:06 AM		compmage has replied

compmage

Member (Idle past 5183 days)

Posts: 601

From: South Africa

Joined: 08-04-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 65 of 70 (43330)
06-18-2003 3:53 PM

Reply to: Message 63 by Peter
06-18-2003 11:06 AM

Peter writes:

The leve IV multi-verse is the proposition that at every
instant that a decision can be made, all are made and spin off
(as it were) a new universe. There are other multi-verse ideas
about, but this one comes from quantum theory I think ... I've
only read a little myself after reading a recent New Scientist
article ...

Now that you have explained it I must admit that I have heard of it, I just didn't recognise the term, or should I say that I have encountered the concept before. Anyway, I'm not quite sure what this has to do with paradoxies (sp?).

This message is a reply to:
	Message 63 by Peter, posted 06-18-2003 11:06 AM		Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 66 by Peter, posted 06-18-2003 4:29 PM		compmage has replied

compmage

Member (Idle past 5183 days)

Posts: 601

From: South Africa

Joined: 08-04-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 67 of 70 (43372)
06-19-2003 3:00 AM

Reply to: Message 66 by Peter
06-18-2003 4:29 PM

Peter writes:

If such a multi-verse exists then it would be possible for
a rock to exist in a state such that it couldn't be moved
simultaneously with a state in which it could.

I don't think this solves the problem. This might get a little hairy but here goes.

The rock is created in this verse and is to large to be lifted. The way I understand it, all the spin-offs from this verse will contain this rock and in all of them it would not be possible to lift it. The same goes for a similiar rock, with the property that it can't be lifted, created in another verse. At the same time the action of creating the rock could have been performed in another verse, but in those instances the rock did not have the property of being unliftable, however the way I see it these are different rocks and you can't treat them as one rock with conflicting properties. They are after all in different verses. It is only when you have one rock in one first that has mutually exlusive properties that you actually have a paradox.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 66 by Peter, posted 06-18-2003 4:29 PM		Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 68 by Peter, posted 06-19-2003 10:05 AM		compmage has replied

compmage

Member (Idle past 5183 days)

Posts: 601

From: South Africa

Joined: 08-04-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 69 of 70 (43458)
06-20-2003 2:56 AM

Reply to: Message 68 by Peter
06-19-2003 10:05 AM

Peter writes:

If viewed from the outside the multi-verse is actually just
a single object, but each component has infinite facets.

I'm not going to drag this out since there is now way to decide which of us is more correct. Suffice it to say that I don't think you can view things in this manner.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 68 by Peter, posted 06-19-2003 10:05 AM		Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 70 by Peter, posted 06-20-2003 4:42 AM		compmage has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

3 online now:	AZPaul3, kjsimons, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus)
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0