Originally posted by Mindship
I guess the general question would be, Can an omnipotent entity make itself not omnipotent?
Well, it is not quite the same. Making yourself not omnipotent...and creating something that you can not have power over.
Like, the one seems to add something and the other to subtract. So, I figure, it is in a way similar. But the paradox comes from something being added I think.
Originally posted by Bardock42But if you do "not have power" over something, doesn't that mean you're no longer omnipotent? I'm trying to state the general case.
Well, it is not quite the same. Making yourself not omnipotent...and creating something that you can not have power over.
Like, the one seems to add something and the other to subtract. So, I figure, it is in a way similar. But the paradox comes from something being added I think.I look at it as the juxtaposition of opposites. I mean, if one's gonna set up a paradox, make it as logically impossible as possible.
Originally posted by Mindship
But if you do "not have power" over something, doesn't that mean you're no longer omnipotent? I'm trying to state the general case.
Yes, I figure it means that by definition.
Originally posted by Mindship
I look at it as the juxtaposition of opposites. I mean, if one's gonna set up a paradox, make it as logically impossible as possible.
But it's not a paradox if he just steps down and says. Yo, hey, I was omnipotent...now I am not anymore. Fair deal?
Of course an omnipotent being could seal his own power away.
Through choice of not using his power.
Say he rewrites the laws of the universe to make Bardock's question possible in the slightest, since the Earth itself is composed of smaller things. Simply using the universe s is he could create an object that would bind itself to either the dirt of the ground or the water of the sea. lift it up and it would not seperate.
He could then limit himself so that an attempt made to seperate even by himself would fail.
Then part of the paradox would be solved. then simply turning it off he'd beable to seperate it and the second part would be solved.
There's nothing in the question that states he couldn't try again later. and if you did then you would be asking if an omnipotent being could end its own omnipotence.
Originally posted by Bardock42Then would it be that trying to come up with an actual paradox against omnipotence is itself a logical imposability?
Yes, I figure it means that by definition.But it's not a paradox if he just steps down and says. Yo, hey, I was omnipotent...now I am not anymore. Fair deal?
Originally posted by Creshosk
Of course an omnipotent being could seal his own power away.Through choice of not using his power.
Say he rewrites the laws of the universe to make Bardock's question possible in the slightest, since the Earth itself is composed of smaller things. Simply using the universe s is he could create an object that would bind itself to either the dirt of the ground or the water of the sea. lift it up and it would not seperate.
He could then limit himself so that an attempt made to seperate even by himself would fail.
Then part of the paradox would be solved. then simply turning it off he'd beable to seperate it and the second part would be solved.
There's nothing in the question that states he couldn't try again later. and if you did then you would be asking if an omnipotent being could end its own omnipotence.
Okay, you are absolutely right with that one. So let me adjust the question again.
Could he create an item (or two) that are so strongly connected that he could never separate them without giving up his omnipotence?
Originally posted by Bardock42I don't see why not. Just create a single unit of the most basic substance that makes up both matter and energy.
Okay, you are absolutely right with that one. So let me adjust the question again.Could he create an item (or two) that are so strongly connected that he could never separate them without giving up his omnipotence?
And then to seperate it wouldn't really be seperating but it'd rather just be duplicating it. Which the being could do.
Originally posted by Creshosk
I don't see why not. Just create a single unit of the most basic substance that makes up both matter and energy.And then to seperate it wouldn't really be seperating but it'd rather just be duplicating it. Which the being could do.
Woah, no no. Duplicating is very different from separating. And what if the question stated that he can neither separate nor duplicate it?
Originally posted by Bardock42One word: Mitosis.
Woah, no no. Duplicating is very different from separating.
Originally posted by Bardock42Then you'd be imposing more limits again.
And what if the question stated that he can neither separate nor duplicate it?
If you'd like I could start becoming more facetous, though right in a technical sense by saying "Yes, because he has the power to." And if you say he doesn't then you've removed power(s) from the "all power" being. Which YOU would not be able to do logically otherwise you'd be talking about a different being than the "all power" one.
Originally posted by Creshosk
One word: Mitosis.Then you'd be imposing more limits again.
If you'd like I could start becoming more facetous, though right in a technical sense by saying "Yes, because he has the power to." And if you say he doesn't then you've removed power(s) from the "all power" being. Which YOU would not be able to do logically otherwise you'd be talking about a different being than the "all power" one.
Look, but that's basically the thing. You have two terms here: "Omnipotence" and "impossible". They are mutually exclusive, if there is something truly impossible there is no omnipotence and if there is something omnipotent then there is nothing impossible.
But the definition of omnipotence includes the power to have something impossible (because it is the power to do anything), that's why it is a paradox.
Originally posted by Bardock42Then I'll just go with the old saying "Anything's possible."
Look, but that's basically the thing. You have two terms here: "Omnipotence" and "impossible". They are mutually exclusive, if there is something truly impossible there is no omnipotence and if there is something omnipotent then there is nothing impossible.But the definition of omnipotence includes the power to have something impossible (because it is the power to do anything), that's why it is a paradox.
Under the right circumstances anything is possible. But then it just gets to be clever word play from theis point on.. hence the semantics. Just puns, nothing more.
Originally posted by CreshoskNo, not semantics. Logical paradoxes. That's what it is about. That's what it is.
Then I'll just go with the old addim "Anything's possible."Under the right circumstances anything is possible. But then it just gets to be clever word play from theis point on.. hence the semantics. Just puns, nothing more.
I am not saying that omnipotence is impossible or that it doesn't exist, I am saying it is a logical paradox. Do you disagree with that? And if yes, why?
Originally posted by Bardock42Well under those terms I'm inclined to agree with you.
No, not semantics. Logical paradoxes. That's what it is about. That's what it is.I am not saying that omnipotence is impossible or that it doesn't exist, I am saying it is a logical paradox. Do you disagree with that? And if yes, why?
Originally posted by Bardock42I see what you're saying. Perhaps that particular wording is too open.
But it's not a paradox if he just steps down and says. Yo, hey, I was omnipotent...now I am not anymore. Fair deal?
How about this (I'm still looking for the general case): Can an omnipotent entity set up a task it can't perform?
Originally posted by Creshosk
Yes.
It can create a rock too large to lift. 😖hifty:
Thought we went over that. mwahaha
I'm thinking along these lines: God is so truly infinite, in every way imaginable and unimaginable, that He includes His own limitations. If He didn't include these limitations, then there would be something "outside" this so-called infinity, which, then, wouldn't be truly infinite.
Can an omnipotent entity, unconditionally, be infinite and finite at the same time?
the concept of infinite is not part of logic.{after all, it is next to impossible to factor an infinite in an equation isnt it}. that is why when god mentions infinite anything. while still claiming to DO finite acts{creating universe/manipulating the laws of the universe} and having finite CHARACTERISTICS like choice, preferance, desires etc as he/she claims in many scriptures. then the question applies since the entity itself claims its mutually SELF exclusiveness.
the paradox of omnipotence had NUTHING to do with semanticity. but to do with the actual CONCEPT being discussed. linguistic definitions can never address that paradox in the content being portrayed. people shud understand that.