The Paradox of Omnipotence

Originally posted by Creshosk
Not in the slightest.

It more a limitation on the words used in the original problem.

It's sort of like another paradox that is usually presented:

Can an omnipotent being make a circle with three corners and only consisting of three straight lines?

Yes, but its called a triangle. Triangles existed before the word triangle did. By creating something to your specifications it becomes a triangle. You can give it the propername of Circle if it makes you feel better but it doesn't change the way things are. Just the words you use to describe events concepts and things.

again you misunderstand. when they say what u say. what is being ASKED of god {the question} is that can his omnipotence SURPASS the seeming contradiction that exists between a triangle and circle as geometric shapes and create a circle which is ALSO a triangle.{your post seems to suggest that god's power is limited by the very ideas he is supposed to have created. in other words if he ends up NOT making a circle than the CONTRADICTION, which is in itself an idea, has greater power than him and can LIMIT his ABILITY to do ANYTHING. which includes making paradoxical things which can not be made}

Originally posted by leonheartmm
huh? but u obviously dont get what im saying. the whole THING is a paradox and thats what the posters were referring to, your wrongly interpreting the paradox that they are pointing at. also, the question you answered wasnt the question posed to begin with. i thought that was the SUBJECT matter of my last post. 😕 😕

The only way to prove that the whole thing is a paradox is to come up with examples of paradoxes to support the concept. If each paradox is dealt with the there will be nothing to support the claim that the whole thing is a paradox.

People are so single minded that they can't comprehend things. If we bring fourth dimensionality we can see more to these paradoxes than people are allowing themselves to see.

Its like you guys want very badly for this to be the way you think it is you refuse to try and think of it in a different way to see how it really is.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Not in the slightest.

It more a limitation on the words used in the original problem.

It's sort of like another paradox that is usually presented:

Can an omnipotent being make a circle with three corners and only consisting of three straight lines?

Yes, but its called a triangle. Triangles existed before the word triangle did. By creating something to your specifications it becomes a triangle. You can give it the propername of Circle if it makes you feel better but it doesn't change the way things are. Just the words you use to describe events concepts and things.

Alright, assuming your solution is sound.

What if the question is adjusted, so that is ruled out, in a way Victor Von Doom did, is that not paradox then?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
again you misunderstand. when they say what u say. what is being ASKED of god {the question} is that can his omnipotence SURPASS the seeming contradiction that exists between a triangle and circle as geometric shapes and create a circle which is ALSO a triangle.{your post seems to suggest that god's power is limited by the very ideas he is supposed to have created. in other words if he ends up NOT making a circle than the CONTRADICTION, which is in itself an idea, has greater power than him and can LIMIT his ABILITY to do ANYTHING. which includes making paradoxical things which can not be made}

Am I supposed to be trying to answer these within the confines of logic or should I just surpass logic and answer illogically?

This has nothing to do with "God" or "god" or whatever, this is just the idea of omnipotence itself. By mentioning "what he created" you restrict the premise to an individual being that obviously humans don't have a clear concept of to begin with. I'm trying to simply remain with an omnipotent being who may or may not have created things to begin with.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Alright, assuming your solution is sound.

What if the question is adjusted, so that is ruled out, in a way Victor Von Doom did, is that not paradox then?

I'll explian:

What VVD did was joke. So to as you say "ruled out, in a way Victor Von Doom did" It'd simply be joking. Since he was.

Originally posted by Creshosk
The only way to prove that the whole thing is a paradox is to come up with examples of paradoxes to support the concept. If each paradox is dealt with the there will be nothing to support the claim that the whole thing is a paradox.

People are so single minded that they can't comprehend things. If we bring fourth dimensionality we can see more to these paradoxes than people are allowing themselves to see.

Its like you guys want very badly for this to be the way you think it is you refuse to try and think of it in a different way to see how it really is.

wrong answer. the poster is referring to only ONE paradox concerning the entire system as a single entity. your bringing in evidences to state how each CONSTITUENT of the system can not POSSIBLE be aligned in a way to give rise to the paradoxical system to begin with.

you are using that as evidence to suggest that there is sumthing wrong with the question to begin with. but thats a fallacy.

GOD claimed omnipotence, and omnipotence id being questioned here. HE claimed a paradoxical system and we are trying to verify if it can exist or not. in a way, if you realise, your posts about how it is IMPOSSIBLE for things to come together to BUILD that system to begin with. are actually the ANSWER to the question and YOU have already proven that god's CLAIM of omnipotence is self contradictory as such a system CANT exist.

the axiom being tested was omnipotence and immediate implications. you proved that its logically impossible. your CONCLUSION was right that such a system is impossible but the other part wasnt. since the axiom is CHRISTIAN based, hence an omnipotent god cant exist. thanx for saving others the trouble.

actually fuggit. lets simplify things. if god is omnipotent, can he create a BEING more powerful than himself????? no physical/geometrical contradictions. answer please.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm not joking. So I don't see how things are changed.

I'll explian:

What VVD did was joke. So to as you say "ruled out, in a way Victor Von Doom did" It'd simply be joking. Since he was.

But I am not. I take it as a serious question. How do you explain it?

"Could he...create a rock so big it cannot lift it, and then subsequently still be able to lift it, despite it being so big it cannot lift it. All the while the rock is still so big that it cannot lift it, but the omnipotent being can still lift it, while, keeping the rock small enough to lift, subsequently not being able to lift said rock, despite it being perfectly liftable- notwithstanding the fact that he still couldn't lift it?"

Or to state it the way I like it:

Could he create an item (or two) that are so strongly connected that he could not separate them?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
wrong answer. the poster is referring to only ONE paradox concerning the entire system as a single entity. your bringing in evidences to state how each CONSTITUENT of the system can not POSSIBLE be aligned in a way to give rise to the paradoxical system to begin with.

Or maybe the original poster is your sock?

I think you're interpreting facts to fit your preconcieved ideas. I'm addressing what they literally posted. You're adding more information that's not there.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
you are using that as evidence to suggest that there is sumthing wrong with the question to begin with. but thats a fallacy.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
GOD claimed omnipotence, and omnipotence id being questioned here. HE claimed a paradoxical system and we are trying to verify if it can exist or not. in a way, if you realise, your posts about how it is IMPOSSIBLE for things to come together to BUILD that system to begin with. are actually the ANSWER to the question and YOU have already proven that god's CLAIM of omnipotence is self contradictory as such a system CANT exist.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the axiom being tested was omnipotence and immediate implications. you proved that its logically impossible. your CONCLUSION was right that such a system is impossible but the other part wasnt. since the axiom is CHRISTIAN based, hence an omnipotent god cant exist. thanx for saving others the trouble.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
actually fuggit. lets simplify things. if god is omnipotent, can he create a BEING more powerful than himself????? no physical/geometrical contradictions. answer please.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Would you stop with the double standard?

Am I supposed to be trying to answer these within the confines of logic or should I just surpass logic and answer illogically?

This has nothing to do with "God" or "god" or whatever, this is just the idea of omnipotence itself. By mentioning "what he created" you restrict the premise to an individual being that obviously humans don't have a clear concept of to begin with. I'm trying to simply remain with an omnipotent being who may or may not have created things to begin with.

lol. and THAT. ladies and gents. was the point of teh question. it was partially rhetorical.

to make you understand. it was MEANT to display how such concepts are not reconcileable with logic. you can NEVER remain in the confines of logic and try and answer such an illogical self contradictory{by the rules of logic} proposition.

and to that last part. i am merely BRINGING{not limiting} his claim into a REALM that we can asses the claim on. which{if you wud forgive me} will UNDOUBTEDLY will have elements of concepts fundamental to the exioms of the world in our perspective.

my defence for this. the very WORDS used have semantic/content logic used since without logic we wouldnt be able to UNDERSTAND the concept being described. two words all/ultimate/limitless POWER/ability/skill. that is OMNI POTENCE. the SHORTCOMING of this is that it CAN be analised on a logical plain. if you were to simply make the claim "god is TRANCENDANT" than i wudnt ask u anything or try and find a logical contradiction. but christianity claims, he is ALL POWERFUL which is NOT trancendance from logic in full. just say he is trancendant and ill shut up right now{ofcourse u cant since christianity makes the claim and gives us TRAITS of his and ACTS of his which are not found in a TRANCENDANT being.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But I am not. I take it as a serious question. How do you explain it?

"Could he...create a rock so big it cannot lift it, and then subsequently still be able to lift it, despite it being so big it cannot lift it. All the while the rock is still so big that it cannot lift it, but the omnipotent being can still lift it, while, keeping the rock small enough to lift, subsequently not being able to lift said rock, despite it being perfectly liftable- notwithstanding the fact that he still couldn't lift it?"

Or to state it the way I like it:

Could he create an item (or two) that are so strongly connected that he could not separate them?

I'll wait until that's satisfied before moving on to new grounds. I suspect it is hence the wanting to change the original problem into a new different one.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
lol. and THAT. ladies and gents. was the point of teh question. it was partially rhetorical.

to make you understand. it was MEANT to display how such concepts are not reconcileable with logic. you can NEVER remain in the confines of logic and try and answer such an illogical self contradictory{by the rules of logic} proposition.

and to that last part. i am merely BRINGING{not limiting} his claim into a REALM that we can asses the claim on. which{if you wud forgive me} will UNDOUBTEDLY will have elements of concepts fundamental to the exioms of the world in our perspective.

my defence for this. the very WORDS used have semantic/content logic used since without logic we wouldnt be able to UNDERSTAND the concept being described. two words all/ultimate/limitless POWER/ability/skill. that is OMNI POTENCE. the SHORTCOMING of this is that it CAN be analised on a logical plain. if you were to simply make the claim "god is TRANCENDANT" than i wudnt ask u anything or try and find a logical contradiction. but christianity claims, he is ALL POWERFUL which is NOT trancendance from logic in full. just say he is trancendant and ill shut up right now{ofcourse u cant since christianity makes the claim and gives us TRAITS of his and ACTS of his which are not found in a TRANCENDANT being.

"So you're a mind reader now? 😕 "

nope. common sense. when a friend says, how are you fealing in a club, i dont start going on about how each and every cell of mine is medically doing or describe to him my entire medical and psychological history.

"Or maybe the original poster is your sock?"

hmmmm

"I think you're interpreting facts to fit your preconcieved ideas. I'm addressing what they literally posted. You're adding more information that's not there."

no you are fragmenting the query and answering each part. that is not literal. and even in literal some imagination and knowhow of traditional usage is necerssary

"Whats the fallacy? I'm answering the question they posed, had they meant more why not present more?"

they did, but it takes imagination to see it

"Technically its the humans that claim he has omnipotence. Heh.. can I see some proof of God claiming omnipotence?"

lmao. repeat the definition of linguistic axioms with me. "speculative statements which are taken to be true for the sake of hypothetical arguemtns"

"Looks like you're still adding in more than which is there. Hell this time it wasn't even phrased as "can the christian god" etc... You got some sort of agenda? I'm trying to answer the question."

sigh, im sure your aware that omnipotence is the slaim of a judeo christian god. that axiom/hypothesis was being analysed

"First you'll have to prove to me he exists, otherwise I'll simply refer you to Marvel comics"

nope it was a concordist approach where the axiom/hypothesis was taken to be true and then the implications were being looked at for inconcistancies. you are referring to the conflict approach.

Originally posted by Creshosk
First off, in your eyes does my solution answer the one paradox posed in the original post of the thread?

I'll wait until that's satisfied before moving on to new grounds. I suspect it is hence the wanting to change the original problem into a new different one.

No.

I believe your solution does not relate to the question at hand, in fact it fails the most fundamental start, you say "Okay, by making it so there is nothing to lift the rock from", but that's not part of the question. If he makes it so there is nothing to lift the rock from he does not avoid the question in circumstances where there is something to lift from. In fact it is a special case where he as well can not lift it due to the limitations of the word lift, but it does not save him from situations where something is possible to lift (which are the situations asked in that question).

So you add a specific situation, which might or might not make the question invalid, but there are still all the situations where he could still lift it (which is what is really asked of him)

Originally posted by Creshosk
If you'd been reading my posts properly, though I didn't use the word I was saying that an omnipotent being would be transcendent. To say other wise would be limiting to the concepts of lgic and thus not all power. Because part of "all power" would include the ability to do things that defy logic.

and THAT is where you make the mistake. POWER, is a TRAIT. just like strength or humility. POTENCE means POWER. it is a logical trait which has a definition and way to measure and a knowhow of its affects. just because you say ALL POWERFUL does NOT mean trancendant. what if an ALL POWERFUL being couldnt be ALL WEAK, or WEAK. that is ALSO a trait. what if an ALL POWERFUL being was not ALL LOVING. loving is also a trait. and distinct from POWER. even if you have INFINTE power doesnt not really imply at all that you have INFINITE love or humility or anu other distinct traits

TRANCENDING on the other hand means going BEYOND "ALL"{power/humility /love etc etc} CONCEPTS. INCLUDING "INFINITE" itself. THAT is the problem ur not realising with ur argument. trancendance and omnipotence are different things.

and the more reasoneable answer for you point about power to do ANYTHING being power to surpass logic is that. it is vastly more likely that omnipotence is NOT logically sumthing that has to surpass logic to exist. but is simply a WRONG connection of words which propose a SELF contradictory process as opposed to logically trancending concept. like saying EMPTY FULLNESS. instead of saying such a thing exists and it surpasses logic. its LOGICAL to say that such a thing does NOT exists and it doesn NOT hence surpass logic.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
"So you're a mind reader now? 😕 "

nope. common sense. when a friend says, how are you fealing in a club, i dont start going on about how each and every cell of mine is medically doing or describe to him my entire medical and psychological history.

"Or maybe the original poster is your sock?"

hmmmm

"I think you're interpreting facts to fit your preconcieved ideas. I'm addressing what they literally posted. You're adding more information that's not there."

no you are fragmenting the query and answering each part. that is not literal. and even in literal some imagination and knowhow of traditional usage is necerssary

"Whats the fallacy? I'm answering the question they posed, had they meant more why not present more?"

they did, but it takes imagination to see it

Thanks for proving my point that you were seeing that which is not there.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
"Technically its the humans that claim he has omnipotence. Heh.. can I see some proof of God claiming omnipotence?"

lmao. repeat the definition of linguistic axioms with me. "speculative statements which are taken to be true for the sake of hypothetical arguemtns"

"Looks like you're still adding in more than which is there. Hell this time it wasn't even phrased as "can the christian god" etc... You got some sort of agenda? I'm trying to answer the question."

sigh, im sure your aware that omnipotence is the slaim of a judeo christian god. that axiom/hypothesis was being analysed

Originally posted by leonheartmm
"First you'll have to prove to me he exists, otherwise I'll simply refer you to Marvel comics"

nope it was a concordist approach where the axiom/hypothesis was taken to be true and then the implications were being looked at for inconcistancies. you are referring to the conflict approach.

Gee that leaves it wide open for discussion doesn't it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
No.

I believe your solution does not relate to the question at hand, in fact it fails the most fundamental start, you say "Okay, by making it so there is nothing to lift the rock from", but that's not part of the question.

Once again changing the problem to make the solution wrong.

1+1=?

sorry, "2" is not part of the question so you can't answer with 2/two.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If he makes it so there is nothing to lift the rock from he does not avoid the question in circumstances where there is something to lift from.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In fact it is a special case where he as well can not lift it due to the limitations of the word lift, but it does not save him from situations where something is possible to lift (which are the situations asked in that question).

Originally posted by Bardock42
So you add a specific situation, which might or might not make the question invalid, but there are still all the situations where he could still lift it (which is what is really asked of him)

Originally posted by Creshosk
Imagination allows us to see whats not there.. I could yuse my imagination and see that they were talking about how much they love cats, or the best ways to kill little kids.

Thanks for proving my point that you were seeing that which is not there.

Heh. Would you care to prove its his claim and not that of random people who believe in him?

So I'm supposed to just assume what you're saying is true?

Gee that leaves it wide open for discussion doesn't it?

sigh. how about you ask the person that POSTED the topic as well as most people who wrote in the thread whether my ASSUMPTIONS had any reality to them or not.

and to the wrest of that. grow a darn bain and READ before replying no BAKA!

why dont we leave all that stuff and simply answer a much easier question. can god create an entity stronger than itself?

{oh n btw, the lifting of the rock problem has been around for ages and has been analysed by MANY formal logitions, logical analysts and many other type of philosophers. if bertrand russel, john dewey, hegel and noam chomsky dont find anything wrong with the concept, your claims of there being sumthing wrong with its stating and not int the content of what its addressing is a lil silly}

Originally posted by Creshosk
So you're going to change the question to make it part of it and restrict it so that I can't make there nothing else present? Here I thought we were talking about an omnipotent being.. but onsce more we're talking about a limited one.

Once again changing the problem to make the solution wrong.

1+1=?

sorry, "2" is not part of the question so you can't answer with 2/two.

The question didn't say that there had to be something for it to lift from. Again limiting the being then we're not talking about an omnipotent being.

Nope, you're changing the question. where in the original question does it say that there are things to lift it from?

No, it was asked if he could make a rock too heavy to lift. The answer is yes, and to prove it you only need to show one circumstance where its true.

Okay, you totally convinced me, wow, I always thought it was a paradox, but it's not. That was really great of you, I wonder how you solve the following question, since you absolutely did with the first one:

Could an omnipotent god create an item the size of Earth in the Universe we live in that is so strongly connected that he could not separate it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Could he create an item (or two) that are so strongly connected that he could not separate them?