The Paradox of Omnipotence

simply put. is it in the REALMS of omnipotent power to create a being more powerful than its ownself?

if it is than the original being would never have been omnipotent to begin with{people forget that omnipotence can not be chronologically turned on or off. it either IS or is NOT, time has nuthing to do with it} as there always was a possibility of a being more powerful than the original.

on the other hand if god/initial omnipotent can NOT create another more powerful being, than it is not omnipotent to begin with as "NOT BEING ABLE TO" is sumthing that takes away your omnipotence.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
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

Originally posted by leonheartmm
simply put. is it in the REALMS of omnipotent power to create a being more powerful than its ownself?

actually, id have to disagree. if you put limits, on the mathematical transformation, then and only THEN can you work with infinite as a constant or logical term. on the other hand, without limits it becomes impossible to dea;l with infinite. infinite is a true variable in my oppinion{mathe,matically} since 1/infinite=10000000/infinite. technically if we cancel out the denominater{putting as u have that its a logical constant in both which can be worked with} the final equation would be 1=10000000. which is ofcourse ridiculous. with limits, it works. without em, it cant be quantified or used in equations.

Originally posted by Mindship
I see what you're saying. Perhaps that particular wording is too open.

How about this (I'm still looking for the general case): Can an omnipotent entity set up a task it can't perform?

Well, I guess the abstract would be. Can an omnipotent being overcome logical paradoxes.

and the problem with the second question is. if it already HAD the additional power, then the BEING it would have created which surpassed itself would not BE omnipotent as that power was actually part of the first being and the first being was still greater than the second as it had THAT POWER and its own initial power. the contradiction still remains.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
actually, id have to disagree. if you put limits, on the mathematical transformation, then and only THEN can you work with infinite as a constant or logical term. on the other hand, without limits it becomes impossible to dea;l with infinite. infinite is a true variable in my oppinion{mathe,matically} since 1/infinite=10000000/infinite. technically if we cancel out the denominater{putting as u have that its a logical constant in both which can be worked with} the final equation would be 1=10000000. which is ofcourse ridiculous. with limits, it works. without em, it cant be quantified or used in equations.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I guess the abstract would be. Can an omnipotent being overcome logical paradoxes.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and the problem with the second question is. if it already HAD the additional power, then the BEING it would have created which surpassed itself would not BE omnipotent as that power was actually part of the first being and the first being was still greater than the second as it had THAT POWER and its own initial power. the contradiction still remains.

actually were forgetting. by definition an omnipotent entity can do anything. but by definition, the universal set [anything] contains an element in itself which nullifies OMNIPOTENCE or destroyes the criteria for an element to qualify to be described as part of the universal set [omnipotence]. therefore omnipotence {even though its a single WORD} signifies ideas{content} and extrapolations which are by their nature contradictory{omnipotence is a mixture of many implications and attributes, linguistically its a word, but CONTENT wise its more than one. one we understand that, the problem is solved}.

hence omnipotence is a fallacy.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
actually were forgetting. by definition an omnipotent entity can do anything. but by definition, the universal set [anything] contains an element in itself which nullifies OMNIPOTENCE

therefore omnipotence {even though its a single WORD} signifies ideas{content} and extrapolations which are by their nature contradictory{omnipotence is a mixture of many implications and attributes, linguistically its a word, but CONTENT wise its more than one. one we understand that, the problem is solved}.
hence omnipotence is a fallacy.

At the moment, I'm looking at something akin to quantum superposition for an acceptable, if not necessarily comprehensible solution.

Originally posted by Creshosk
No, you haven't. You simply dodge:

Like so. and If I were to ask why you'd give me your usual lame ass reply about the size of the stone I picked and the word lift.

I've already explained. If there is nothing to elevate, raise or transport it from. then "by definition" it's not being elevated, raised or transported.

Your suppresed evidence fallacy is not a valid argument and does not properly address mine.

No, I've been pointing out how you were wrong. More surpressed evidence fallacy, is not a valid argument.

Then am I wrong?

Not really. You redefine to problem to avoid addressing the argument. You change the parameters of the problem inorder to make my answer wrong.

The no true scotsman fallacy again.

So you're going to redefine the problem to say that I can't pick that size... again?

The no true scotsman fallacy again.

I didn't say it needed to either. But please continue dodging by saying I can't pick that size through clever wordplay like:
"Thereby multiplying entities unecesissarily."

I object because its dodging the fact that addressed the one "logical paradox" presented by the original poster of the threadby committing the "no true scotsman fallacy".

Again with your supressed evidence fallacy?

Ignoreing what has been said is another dodge. Is that all you're truly capable of? Dodging and evading?

Should I try to debate like you by sticking my fingers in my ears and go "lalalala"?

You don't do exactly that but it'd be just as good wouldn't it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Creshy...you should just understand that your solution is not a solution, but dodging of the question.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
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.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
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 leonheartmm
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 Mindship
Lemme tell ya: I think your interpretation is very clever, but my feeling is it's not directly addressing the intent of this thought experiment.

Originally posted by Mindship
Which brings us back to the question: Does the paradox prove omnipotence can not exist, or that logic/language is limited?

The paradox illustrates the limitations of omnipotence, i.e. that omnipotence is not the ability to do all things, but the ability to do all things that are possible to do. This begs the question whether this definition of omnipotence truly qualifies as omnipotence.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The paradox illustrates the limitations of omnipotence, i.e. that omnipotence is not the ability to do all things, but the ability to do all things that are possible to do. This begs the question whether this definition of omnipotence truly qualifies as omnipotence.

Returning for the moment to (unconditional) omnipotence (I was about to post this at large, prior to seeing your post):

1. By definition, an Omnipotent Entity can do anything.
2. Can it create a rock too heavy for it to lift?
3. If yes, omnipotence is compromised because it can't lift the rock (lift failure).
4. If not, omnipotence is compromised because it can't create said rock (creation failure).
5. Either state, by itself, negates omnipotence.
6. However: what if the OE can lift any rock it creates (negating lift failure), and at the same time create an unliftable rock (negating creation failure)? The OE does this by existing simultaneously in both states (superposition).
7. How can #6 be? Because an OE can do anything.

What's wrong with this picture? (I have an idea, but I don't want to lead any witnesses, so to speak.)

whats wrong with the picture is that were not asking mr impotent omnipotent to create an UNLIFTABLE ROCK. were asking him to create a rock that "HE" specifically can not lift. unless the rock passes that test, it isnt what we asked for and he wasnt able to create it. simple. paradox as fresh as ever.

It's a cop out. That's what it is.

I gave a reason for the why that was within the confines of logic and didn't need to negate said omnipotence.

I'm not dodging anything. I'm actually stepping up t odeal with the problem that others have given up on.

He can create a rock that he cannot lift. He creates the rock and then cannot lift it. Why? That's the part that people don't want to answer. They just get to the "he cannot lift it" and then are satisfied that he's not omnipotent.

But I gave a reason that was within the confines of logic and did not negate the omnipotence.

Originally posted by Mindship
A nicely phrased argument for "conditional" omnipotence, though now I have to ask, What determines the set of all things that are possible to do? Logic? If so, why does logic hold such pre-eminence?

Returning for the moment to (unconditional) omnipotence (I was about to post this at large, prior to seeing your post):

1. By definition, an Omnipotent Entity can do anything.
2. Can it create a rock too heavy for it to lift?
3. If yes, omnipotence is compromised because it can't lift the rock (lift failure).
4. If not, omnipotence is compromised because it can't create said rock (creation failure).
5. Either state, by itself, negates omnipotence.
6. However: what if the OE can lift any rock it creates (negating lift failure), and at the same time create an unliftable rock (negating creation failure)? The OE does this by existing simultaneously in both states (superposition).
7. How can #6 be? Because an OE can do anything.

What's wrong with this picture? (I have an idea, but I don't want to lead any witnesses, so to speak.)

The problem is really easy actually.

We have two definition:

Omnipotence: Ability to do anything
Impossible: Something that can not be done

The question is "Can an omnipotent being do something impossible"?

You can't really get around the question, because every solution you could possibly conceive of will destroy the impossibleness of the action.

Because it is a question asked in the realms of logic that must be the absolute in there too.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
whats wrong with the picture is that were not asking mr impotent omnipotent to create an UNLIFTABLE ROCK. were asking him to create a rock that "HE" specifically can not lift.

2. Can it create a rock too heavy for it to lift?

Originally posted by Creshosk
It's a cop out.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The problem is really easy actually.
We have two definition:
Omnipotence: Ability to do anything
Impossible: Something that can not be done
The question is "Can an omnipotent being do something impossible"?
You can't really get around the question, because every solution you could possibly conceive of will destroy the impossibleness of the action.

Originally posted by Mindship

Why? The omnipotent entity has negated both the lift failure and the creation failure, thus remaining omnipotent.

He has lifted it though, which means that it could be lifted by him, which is against the question's terms.

Why? The omnipotent entity has negated both the lift failure and the creation failure, thus remaining omnipotent.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He has lifted it though, which means that it could be lifted by him, which is against the question's terms.

What if we worded the problem this way:
If condition A exists, then condition B can't exist.
If condition B exists, then condition A can't exist.

Can an omnipotent entity simultaneously have both A and B? Superposition would suggest, Yes: two otherwise mutually exclusive conditions can exist at the same time.

However, if we simplify even further (with the way you've worded the problem, which may be the best expression): Can a being which can do anything do something impossible?
If we say yes, we compromise "impossible."
If we say no, we compromise "omnipotent."

Either way, here clearly we are compromising the question's terms...which again brings us back to the follow-up question: What does this mean for "logic" and "omnipotence"? Certainly the compelling conclusion (though not necessarily proving) is that omnipotence can not exist unconditionally.

Sorry if I was rambling a bit, but I'm finding this whole thought experiment good mental exercise.

Originally posted by Mindship
Why? The omnipotent entity has negated both the lift failure and the creation failure, thus remaining omnipotent.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Not you.

------------------------------------------------------

While I'm here...

If we word this problem as follows:
"Omnipotence: Ability to do anything
"Impossible: Something that can not be done
"The question is 'Can an omnipotent being do something impossible?'"
...I'm reminded of the Irresistible Force / Immovable Object question. It's another example of deliberately putting opposing meanings against one another, seeing what one gets, and speculating on how the answer and its meaning relate (if at all) to the physical world and possible transcendent world.

✅ Omnipotence by itself is not a logical paradox.

Just as the irresistible force by itself is not a logical paradox and neither is the immovable object.

It takes two parts to complete a logical paradox.

Even when combined into a single sentence.

"This statement is false." you have both the statement and the assertion of truth about it.