Omnipotence is logically impossible

No, and no. On the first, 'omni' refers to all members of a given set. On the second, your proof fails according to the first.

Yes it would. It would be like A at the point of creation. Actions have logical consequences; omnipotent or no, those consequences still occur.

It is if A doesn't want B to take A's omnipotence away and A isn't able to stop B. Omnipotence means being able to do anything whatsoever. The logically possible is a subset of 'anything whatsoever'. So if you can do only the logically possible, then you're not omnipotent. Surely, an omnipotent being can circumvent logic twice before breakfast. Alright then: A would not be able to create a being just like it and stay omnipotent. Better?(Let me guess: no.)

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

What it says in the Bible isn't the issue. Today, some people claim that God is an omnipotent being and I just happen to think that's logically impossible. In the case of senators, you're probably right, but why call God something that he may not be? Why not use some other, less uncertain description? After all, he is supposed to be the Supreme Being, you don't want to invoke such a being's wrath by misrepresenting them.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

If you remove the limit of logic from omnipotence then you have no basis for your argument. The omnipotent A just has to change the universe so it's logically possible for it and B to exist at the same time. Bang. Done.You can only argue within the framework of logic for as long as you accept logic as a limit.

Very well, I concede. You've convinced me that omnipotence is limited by what is logically possible.But A and B can only co-exist as both omnipotent, as long as B doesn't want to go against A's wishes, or worse, wants to take away A's omnipotence. (Or vice versa.) As soon as that happens, a logical inconsistency occurs: either A or B will prove to be not omnipotent. And then the question arises: was A (or B) perhaps never omnipotent in the first place? In other words: was the situation perhaps logically impossible all along? {edited for spelling and punctuation}This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 19-Aug-2005 07:19 PM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I think most of the idea of God being a "perfect" being stems from pagan Greek ideas that were not necessarily indigenous to the Hebrews; sort of like the idea of the necessity of the sacrifice of the Christ-God.In the same way, the idea that God created everything, including space and time, ex nihilo stems from Augustine, I believe (but I can't remember where I read it). Before that, it was always assumed that the world was created from pre-existing matter.

quote:

---

After all, he is supposed to be the Supreme Being, you don't want to invoke such a being's wrath by misrepresenting them.

---

If you are going to misrepresent someone with more power than yourself, always do so in a good light.

quote:

---

Today, some people claim that God is an omnipotent being and I just happen to think that's logically impossible.

---

I agree. They've pushed the meaning to an extreme they can't, in reality, support with logic.Omnipotent - Unlimited power or authority 1&3. Can one have unlimited ability, great or otherwise, to do or act etc? Either you have the ability or you don't.4. Again either he has the ability or not to control others etc. God did seem to have this ability in the OT, but I don't see it today. I see people controlling others etc.6. Unlimited authority to do what? Judge and deal with people after they are dead? Seems limited.My question would be how does his omnipotence supposedly manifest itself in today's world for the common man?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

It's all relative. My dog thinks I'm omnipotent......maybe not, but he definitely thinks my wife is.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

So if God can do anything, logically possible or not, he could make it such that we have no choice, but we still have free will?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

He often said "Here's what we see. You don't like it? Tough. That's what we see. You don't understand it? Tough. Neither do I but that's what we see."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

After first learning about his book, The origin of the Universe while browsing the Tardis Library, I immediately had to run out to buy his other works.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi guys and gals! Its been a couple of years but some of you may remember me. I used to be #1 on the most frequent poster list. I still check in once in a long while. I probably shouldn't be posting because this forum is dangerously addicting and I should be writing a writing sample for a Grad. School application. (I am accepting letters of reference, by the way, for those who remember me. )Anyway...One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that a truly omnipotent being wouldn't care much about what was logically possible. If a being is bound by the logically possible, that being isn't omnipotent but just pretty close. An omnipotent being would, in essense, make up logic, and everything else, as he goes. The issue has been argued by theologians for ages. The issue also has serious consequences for epistemology as well. Such as, "If God makes things up as he goes, even logic, how can we have any certain knowledge?"

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

One week before I was to take what we colloquially called "the hardest maths exams in the world", I discovered that I shared my birthday with Feynman. That gave me a boost equivalent to 6 months solid revision

it would be like being a WAS. so if being a decides to make another exactly like itself at the point of that decision, it can. being a then changes to be not like being b. "and still retain omnipotence" was not clarified. but uh, this is another problem, isn't it? if omnipotence is defined (as you imply here) as "not having to deal with logical consequences" then it kind of shoots down your whole argument, doesn't it? if the definition of omnipotence is "defying logic" then no logic can concievably disprove it.

---

אָרַח