The Paradox of Omnipotence
The Paradox of Omnipotence
Can God make a boulder heavier than he can lift?
If he can make a boulder heavier than he can lift than he is not all powerful, but if he cannot lift the boulder than he is not all-powerful.
Another one which i would like to no more about is, Does the universe exist when nobody is looking? I read this in a magazine and it incoporates the idea of Quantum Mechanics, for how do you know that your living room exists when nobody is in there?
Re: The Paradox of Omnipotence
Originally posted by mattrab
The Paradox of OmnipotenceCan God make a boulder heavier than he can lift?
If he can make a boulder heavier than he can lift than he is not all powerful, but if he cannot lift the boulder than he is not all-powerful.
-anthropomorphising
-"Humans cannot comprehend God"
Originally posted by mattrab
Another one which i would like to no more about is, Does the universe exist when nobody is looking? I read this in a magazine and it incoporates the idea of Quantum Mechanics, for how do you know that your living room exists when nobody is in there?
Total, utter, absolute nonsense.
Re: The Paradox of Omnipotence
Originally posted by mattrab
The Paradox of OmnipotenceCan God make a boulder heavier than he can lift?
If he can make a boulder heavier than he can lift than he is not all powerful, but if he cannot lift the boulder than he is not all-powerful.
Another one which i would like to no more about is, Does the universe exist when nobody is looking? I read this in a magazine and it incoporates the idea of Quantum Mechanics, for how do you know that your living room exists when nobody is in there?
Your second theory is like Schrodingers cat something i barely understand as it is.
QUANTUM THEORY does NOT hold that things happen when you "look at them". Quantum theory holds that probability waves collapse with ANY interaction. In fact, to observe the very strange quantum phenomena that are described, scientists need to create situations that we as humans would never come accross in our environments.
NOT looking, interacting, and with anything. Quantum states are remarkably unstable.
Re: The Paradox of Omnipotence
Originally posted by mattrab
The Paradox of OmnipotenceCan God make a boulder heavier than he can lift?
If he can make a boulder heavier than he can lift than he is not all powerful, but if he cannot lift the boulder than he is not all-powerful.
Another one which i would like to no more about is, Does the universe exist when nobody is looking? I read this in a magazine and it incoporates the idea of Quantum Mechanics, for how do you know that your living room exists when nobody is in there?
when nobody is looking sounds ridiculous, but it could be very diffrent to other life forms other than humans, colours, shapes and sounds could be warped depending on what species of creature you are
Re: The Paradox of Omnipotence
Originally posted by mattrab
The Paradox of OmnipotenceCan God make a boulder heavier than he can lift?
If he can make a boulder heavier than he can lift than he is not all powerful, but if he cannot lift the boulder than he is not all-powerful.
Another one which i would like to no more about is, Does the universe exist when nobody is looking? I read this in a magazine and it incoporates the idea of Quantum Mechanics, for how do you know that your living room exists when nobody is in there?
God is transcending not omnipotent.
Please, all these arguments against omnipotenence are nothing more than symantics.
Yes, an omnipotant person could create a boulder larger than they could lift. Because in order to lift something you have to move it away from something else. Imagine creating a boulder the size of the universe. Now the only reason you can't lift that is by definition of lifting something. In order to do so you'd have to move its mass away from something else. Any attempt to do so would simply result in doing a headstand on that object.
As I said its all symantic arguments. There are others which are just as ridiculous.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Please, all these arguments against omnipotenence are nothing more than symantics.Yes, an omnipotant person could create a boulder larger than they could lift. Because in order to lift something you have to move it away from something else. Imagine creating a boulder the size of the universe. Now the only reason you can't lift that is by definition of lifting something. In order to do so you'd have to move its mass away from something else. Any attempt to do so would simply result in doing a headstand on that object.
As I said its all symantic arguments. There are others which are just as ridiculous.
Please tell us more. 😉
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonWell for starters, I'm agnostic so this has nothing to do with "god" or any veiled attacks on any theist.
Please tell us more. 😉
But alot of the challenges that are presented are nothing more than word play and how things are defined.
For example creating things that don't exist or would fall under the definition of something else.
Like creating a "square circle" is another popular dig at omnipotence. Well that one is actually easy to make Just draw a square with rounded corners. Now after that you'd have the one who posed the challenge, challenge the results. But they'd have to go off of definition. A square has for corners and a corner is a 90 degree angle... basically like a "no true scotsman" onthological argument.
There are other challenges but I can't remember them all right now.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Well for starters, I'm agnostic so this has nothing to do with "god" or any veiled attacks on any theist.But alot of the challenges that are presented are nothing more than word play and how things are defined.
For example creating things that don't exist or would fall under the definition of something else.
Like creating a "square circle" is another popular dig at omnipotence. Well that one is actually easy to make Just draw a square with rounded corners. Now after that you'd have the one who posed the challenge, challenge the results. But they'd have to go off of definition. A square has for corners and a corner is a 90 degree angle... basically like a "no true scotsman" onthological argument.
There are other challenges but I can't remember them all right now.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that there are more then semantic problems other then omnipotence.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonSorry, no. There are other examples, however every argument I've come across is nothing more than a semantic argument.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that there are more then semantic problems other then omnipotence.
Like in the humorous play on the "rock too big" with the "burrito too hot".
It's not the omnipotence that's the paradox, its the burrito. The burrito cannot exist because beyond a certain point it'd be vaporized before it got to the point of being too hot for an omnipotant person being able to eat it.