The Paradox of Omnipotence

Originally posted by Creshosk
It's only impossible because you cannot conceive of it happening. I'm sorry but that's the truth.

Back in the middle ages, people thought that it was impossible to travel out into space. To have a horseless carriage, or any number of the things we take for granted today.

That's one of the major problems we face today. There are too many people that just sit down and go "Oh that's impossible." or they go off of only what they think they know.

Instead of daring to explore into what is "impossible" they set up shop and are content with what they think they know. Things that do not exist today, might someday exist or be discovered in the future for example.

Atoms for one thing, we had no evidence of their existence before their discovery. Certainly such a concept would be "impossible" back then. By the very definition of what the word Atom means certainly their composition or the fact that they were indeed made of things was "impossible".

Simply because a person cannot understand how something could be done, does not mean that it could not be done.

Your very post back to me was riddled with evidence of it being nothing more than semantics. "Defined", "Defenition", "word". Defining something in a given way so as to make it impossible is nothing more than semantics. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." It doesn't change the nature of what it is, simply to define or claim someing in a given way.

Again, that is nonsense.

Omnipotence is a logical paradox. Space Travel and Atoms never were. It is true I can not understand a logical paradox now and probably never will and we can think of hypotheticals where logic does not apply, though we can not really imagine it. But the matter of the fact is that by the rules of logic omnipotence is a paradox.

As for it being semantics because I use the word "definition", explain to me how the **** you can even think about something (anything, in this case omnipotence) without using the definition?

Theoretically an omnipotent being, in the sense of being capable of doing anything regardless of human perception of possibility, can 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.

That may not make logical sense, but it doesn't necessarily have to - seeing as the being is omnipotent.

I just gave myself a headache.

There's a better, imo, mutual exclusiveness between the existence of a precognitive omniscient infallible deity and the existence of free will.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Theoretically an omnipotent being, in the sense of being capable of doing anything regardless of human perception of possibility, can 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.

That may not make logical sense, but it doesn't necessarily have to - seeing as the being is omnipotent.

I just gave myself a headache.

There's a better, imo, mutual exclusiveness between the existence of a precognitive omniscient infallible deity and the existence of free will.

Well, it sure doesn't make logical or semantic sense.

Cause rocks that cannot be lifted are usually defined by not being able to be lifted, while a rock that would be lifted would not fit the most rudimentary criteria of such a rock.

I guess one way of looking at it is the fact that the being can choose not to be able to lift it still makes ominpotent and then it can choose to be able to lift it.

Originally posted by Alfheim
I guess one way of looking at it is the fact that the being can [B]choose not to be able to lift it still makes ominpotent and then it can choose to be able to lift it. [/B]

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. The question is can it create something it can NEVER lift.

Yes it can, even I can create something I can't lift, but then it's not omnipotent.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. The question is can it create something it can NEVER lift.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes it can, even I can create something I can't lift, but then it's not omnipotent.

Well, maybe it can also not create it. And it would still not be omnipotent.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, maybe it can also not create it. And it would still not be omnipotent.

Maybe it does not exist. The idea of an omnipotent god is just a way of impressing a bunch of sheep herders.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. The question is can it create something it can NEVER lift.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Yes. And yet it can still lift anything. It is after all, an omnipotent being.

Which is a paradox.

Meaning it can not logically do that, so it is outside of logic. Which is something we can not comprehend.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, that is nonsense.

Omnipotence is a logical paradox. Space Travel and Atoms never were. It is true I can not understand a logical paradox now and probably never will and we can think of hypotheticals where logic does not apply, though we can not really imagine it. But the matter of the fact is that by the rules of logic omnipotence is a paradox.

As for it being semantics because I use the word "definition", explain to me how the **** you can even think about something (anything, in this case omnipotence) without using the definition?

And the fact of the matter is still that it's not a logical paradox. And it is all symantics.

If you create a rock the size of the universe and its the only rock there then because its so massive the rest is destroyed.

Can you picture that much at least?

Now imagine ANYONE trying to lift it. From the perspective of the rock it won't be moved. If the omnipotant being were smaller than the rock (because they choose to be don't get nitpicky) and tried to use their hands it'd simply look like a hand stand. No different than a person on Earth trying to lift the Earth right?

Now if they tried to use some sort of energy to force, it away, from the perspective of the rock the rock still wouldn't move but the person would look like they were flying.

Based on your name I'm guessing you could pick up on the example of using chi/ki/qi/xi in DBZ to fly. they move away from the Earth, or in this case the rock. But from the rock's perspective it still hasn't moved.

Now even if theywere large enough to wrap a single hand around the rock, they still wouldn't be lifting it because there's nothing to lift it from. itd still look like the rock wasn't moving from its perspective. Much like a rock climber lowering himself down, the rock wouldn't move.

Originally posted by Bardock42
paradox...outside of logic...something we can not comprehend.

Originally posted by Creshosk
There's a difference between using the word definition andd just using a definition.

And the fact of the matter is still that it's not a logical paradox. And it is all symantics.

If you create a rock the size of the universe and its the only rock there then because its so massive the rest is destroyed.

Can you picture that much at least?

Now imagine ANYONE trying to lift it. From the perspective of the rock it won't be moved. If the omnipotant being were smaller than the rock (because they choose to be don't get nitpicky) and tried to use their hands it'd simply look like a hand stand. No different than a person on Earth trying to lift the Earth right?

Now if they tried to use some sort of energy to force, it away, from the perspective of the rock the rock still wouldn't move but the person would look like they were flying.

Based on your name I'm guessing you could pick up on the example of using chi/ki/qi/xi in DBZ to fly. they move away from the Earth, or in this case the rock. But from the rock's perspective it still hasn't moved.

Now even if theywere large enough to wrap a single hand around the rock, they still wouldn't be lifting it because there's nothing to lift it from. itd still look like the rock wasn't moving from its perspective. Much like a rock climber lowering himself down, the rock wouldn't move.

First. It is "semantics".

Second. What you are referring to is not "semantics", it is a flawed argument.

Third it is a logical paradox.

Fourth. "Omnipotence" means being able to do anything (everything there is). If something is omnipotent then this being must be able to create something that it can not to something about it (by the definition of omnipotence). But if it can do that then there can be something it is not able to do something about which means it can't be omnipotent. It is a very fundamental paradox.

Let me ask you something, do you understand the problem of "the set of all sets that don't contain themselves"? BEcause it is basically the same.

Originally posted by Bardock42
First. It is "semantics".[/b[]/quote] Sorry, typoed.

[QUOTE=9289457]Originally posted by Bardock42
[B]Second. What you are referring to is not "semantics", it is a flawed argument.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Third it is a logical paradox.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Fourth. "Omnipotence" means being able to do anything (everything there is). If something is omnipotent then this being must be able to create something that it can not to something about it (by the definition of omnipotence). But if it can do that then there can be something it is not able to do something about which means it can't be omnipotent. It is a very fundamental paradox.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Let me ask you something, do you understand the problem of "the set of all sets that don't contain themselves"? BEcause it is basically the same.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Point out how its flawed, if you please.

It isn't. I am just saying that if your point was true, which it isn't, it wouldn't be a point about semantics. It would just point out that the argument is flawed.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Not if it has a solution.

It does not though. Because it is a logical paradox. Because two thing would have to apply at the same time that are mutually exclusive. There are logically impossible things. Something can not exist and not exist for example. Which means that there are things in this universe at least even a very, very powerful being can not do. And because that applies there can not be omnipotence. I don't understand how you can not understand this most simple concept.

Originally posted by Creshosk
One of the abilities of being able to do anything would include being able to limit oneself. Simply because it's beyond one person's comprehension doesn't mean that it is beyond everyone's comprehension.

So the omnipotent person is not able to create such a thing without limiting itself? Does that mean it can't do everything? Doesn't that mean the person is not omnipotent after all?

You are just searching for flaws in the original question. Why? You can make it theoretical.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Word play really.

Are you crazy? The mathematical paradox of the set of all sets is word play to you. Jesus ****ing Christ, why do I humour you?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Theoretically an omnipotent being, in the sense of being capable of doing anything regardless of human perception of possibility, can 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.

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?

While ensuring that no rules of logic- as we understand them- are broken?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
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?

While ensuring that no rules of logic- as we understand them- are broken?

In answer to your question, yes - with the fact that the being is omnipotent as the sole necessary justification.

Well if he's so great how come no-one's heard of him?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
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, [b]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?

While ensuring that no rules of logic- as we understand them- are broken? [/B]

Awww, you took what I said and make it more understandable.

Like PVS does to you.

Does that mean I am your God? Now, I am not saying I am. That is for you to think about at home. But if I was....if I was...that's what would happen, isn't it?