Omnipotence is logically impossible

If God exists, has always existed, and is agreeably defined to be omnipotant, what is is about His inability to make another omnipotant being that causes Him to lose His omnipotant status?
To begin with, who is defining the rules of logic? Certainly humans cannot expect to hold God to any kind of a definition anyway. God defines reality...the very meaning and purpose of words...not humans.
If God could not do two things, He would still be omnipotant according to our definition of the word.
The two things that God cannot do are to cease to exist and to lie.Who are we to define God by our own intellects?Who are we to "prove" or disprove Him?All that we can really do is believe or disbelieve. If we disbelieve, I suppose that our human wisdom becomes the penultimate authority and we can then pontificate endlessly on what a god could or could not do.

---

It's not about how much you know, but what you do with what you know.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Convictions are very different from intentions. Convictions are something God gives us that we have to do. Intentions are things that we ought to do, but we never follow through with them.

You know, you could have saved an awful lot of to-ing and fro-ing had you just explained why you think that it isn't a tautology otherwise we'll end up with 'is, isn't, is, isn't' which is pointless.An entity that abides by the rules of logic, abides by the rules of logic.
Being unable to break the rules of logic, our entity abides by the rules of logic.
Not being forbidden by logic, our entity is not forbidden by logic.Our entity abides by the rules of logic. Our entity does not break the rules of logic.if P is abides by the rules of logic and !P is not abides by the rules logic our entity P=!(!P)I'm fairly sure that P=!(!P) is tautological.Care to explain why the argument isn't tautological? This is how it goes:An omnipotent being can do the logically impossible, therefore omnipotence is logically impossible.Counter: An omnipotent being can be omnipotent but be limited to only acheiving that which is logically possible. Thus, it not logically impossible.Each argument defines itself as being true, and so is always true.This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 23-August-2005 04:24 PM

A tautology is a tautology because the conclusion is part of the definition not the derivation. If we take omnipotent as limited to logically possible; this does not define that omnipotence itself as logically possible - indeed, it does not demonstrate that it is so.

Omnipotence is defined as the power to do anything as long as it is logically possible.If, for some reason, some condition of omnipotency would render it logically not possible, then we have erred in identifying omnipotency.Omnipotence is not logically impossible.Omnipotence is logically possible.An omnipotent being must be logically possible if it is to obey the rules of logic. If it wasn't logically possible then it wouldn't be logically possible, which it must be in order to obey the rules of logic. An omnipotent being cannot allow its existence to defy the laws of logic, so it is logically possible. It is logically possible that a being can exist that can do anything that is logically possible (omnipotency).If an omnipotent being is logically possible then omnipotency is.I understand your point now, which is something, but I disagree with it.

Modulous, if I may?This is completely fictional and is very over simplified. It is from the book FlatlandLet's say we live in a 2 demensional world. You are a square. You only see 1 demension, but your percieve the 2d based on experience; much like 3 demensional creatures only see 2 demensions, but percieve the 3d based on experience.As a 2 demensional creature, do you have any idea what a sphere looks like? Of course not. It isn't logical. Would you have any idea what a human would like? Of course not. Does the human still exist? Sure.Very good book.

---

Tired of the opposite sex? Want to turn your favorite football player into a raging homsexual? Then purchase your Gay-Gene Cattle Prod! One Zap from the GGCP will turn the Gay Gene off or on at your whim. So if you want your wife to get some hot girl on girl action, the Gay-Gene Cattle Prod is for you! *not intended for use on children*

Flatland is a great book. However I disagree. The idea of a sphere might be incomprehensible but it isn't illogical, I can almost get to grips with four dimensional space time, but there are more dimensions than that, its just our mind cannot comprehend themI do vaguely agree with your theme though - a being that can break the rules of logic might still exist.

Good verbage. We know the cross section of an oversphere (4th demension) would, logically, be a sphere in this dimension. But it is incomprehensible.I figured incomprehensible would equal illogical, but I guess not.

---

Tired of the opposite sex? Want to turn your favorite football player into a raging homsexual? Then purchase your Gay-Gene Cattle Prod! One Zap from the GGCP will turn the Gay Gene off or on at your whim. So if you want your wife to get some hot girl on girl action, the Gay-Gene Cattle Prod is for you! *not intended for use on children*

No, that doesn't follow. We're not defining "an omnipotent being that is logically possible", we're defining omnipotent as "capable of doing anything that is logically possible". I'm confused by your use of 'allow' here, can you rephrase?

Doing anything includes existing in a logical consistent manner. Our entity must obey the rules of logic. If by existing he is breaking the rules of logic he is not obeying the rules of logic. As above really. An omnipotent being must obey the rules of logic. It cannot break the rules of logic by existing, since the being must obey those laws.

And that would be the contradiction Parasomnium was looking for in the OP. But it is not part of the definition of Omnipotence, we've only specified that it can "do anything that doesn't break the rules of logic" not "it doesn't break the rules of logic".Still not a tautology.

Omnipotent entity springs into existence.If continuing to exist would present a logical paradox of some kind it would either:a) Instantly have to cease existing
b) Have to downgrade its powers to prevent the logical paradox.

As soon as you place a limit on omnipotence, such as limiting it to the logically possible, you're no longer talking about omnipotence but something really close instead. you forgot one:
c)coexist with the logical paradox.A classic example of the argument in the OP Yes, it can be too hot and he is able to eat it.

quote:

---

how?

---

I have no idea, but if the being is omnipotent then I can do anything, including that which is logically impossible, or just doesn't make any sense.My point is that if you limit omnipotence to the logical, then its no longer omnipotence because you placing limits on it.

That is a matter under dispute by others. What I am saying is that if we define it as being limited to the logically possible, then it is self-defined as being an entity that is not logically prohibited. Conversely, if we define the entity as being able to ignore logical constraints, then the entity is self-defined not logically possible. If it coexisted with the logical paradox, it would not be a being limited to obeying the rules of logic. It would be our second possibility, a being defined as a being capable of existing as a logical paradox, which by defintion would be logically impossible.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Can God microwave a burrito so hot that he cannot eat it?

---

Yes, it can be too hot and he is able to eat it.

---

The question, "Can God create a logical paradox?", or "Can God make the the statement P=!P be true" is irrelevant. If God can betray the rules of logic, then He is defined as being logically impossible. If we define God as having to obey the laws of logic then he is logically possible. Which of course is the tautology I'm referring to. You have defined an omnipotent being as being able to breach the rules of logic, then the the omnipotent being is logically impossible.

I didn't really know what logically possible means for real, I've looked it up and basically it means its not a contradiction.So, omnipotence that allows for a contradiction is 'logically impossible' by definition of logically impossible.Therefore, logical possibility is meaningless with reference to omnipotence and this is pointless.

I think that has approximately been my point.