|
Author
|
Topic: Omnipotence is logically impossible
|
Parasomnium
Member Posts: 2224 Joined: 07-15-2003
|
|
Message 1 of 68 (234729)
08-19-2005 6:02 AM
|
|
|
Omnipotence is logically impossible. Here's how: Suppose an omnipotent being A exists. In that case, there cannot be another omnipotent being B, because B may want to do something A definitely doesn't want to happen. If B succeeds, then apparently A was not able to stop B and is therefore clearly not omnipotent. But if B is stopped by A, then clearly it's B who is not omnipotent. Either way, the conclusion is that there can be only one omnipotent being. But if there can be only one omnipotent being, then that being is never able to create another being like it. So there is something this being cannot do. This means that it is not omnipotent after all. Very powerful, maybe. But not omnipotent. It's logically impossible.
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
But if there can be only one omnipotent being, then that being is never able to create another being like it. not so. there's a whole in your logic. being a could, concievably, create an omnipotent being b if being a would then cease to be omnipotent.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2005 6:02 AM | | Parasomnium has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 7 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2005 7:55 AM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: 06-16-2005
|
Nice one. However, I think we have a major problem with this concept of omnipotence. I certainly believe that God is omnipotent with respect to physical reality; this is obvious. Give me a computer in which to build my creation, and I am omnipotent too. Omnipotence is a human approximation in trying to understand God. Trying to use this approximation as a basis of proof is a bit too Oolon Coluphid for me 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2005 6:02 AM | | Parasomnium has replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 4 of 68 (234734)
08-19-2005 6:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by cavediver
08-19-2005 6:38 AM
|
|
Oolon Coluphid where DID god go wrong?
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by cavediver, posted 08-19-2005 6:38 AM | | cavediver has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 5 by cavediver, posted 08-19-2005 7:05 AM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: 06-16-2005
|
Well, one improvement would be if Genesis 1 actually said In the beginning, God said "Believe me, you wouldn't understand a word of this creation-business if I tell it you straight... so here's a simplified version for you all..."
|
Dr Jack
Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: 07-14-2003 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Another rehash of the ol' can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy it can't lift it argument and the answers are the same: 1. The omnipotent being can do it, it just stops being omnipotent when it does. 2. Omnipotence only allows the logically possible. Take your pick, I prefer 1.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2005 6:02 AM | | Parasomnium has replied |
|
Parasomnium
Member Posts: 2224 Joined: 07-15-2003
|
Stopping the whole
arachnophilia writes: not so. there's a whole in your logic. being a could, concievably, create an omnipotent being b if being a would then cease to be omnipotent. Ah, but then being B would not be a being like being A, would it? Here's what I said (note the emphasis):
quote:
[...] if there can be only one omnipotent being, then that being is never able to create another being like it.
Besides, the way you put it, being A would only be able to create being B under a certain provision. That's not omnipotence, at least not in my book.
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
|
Parasomnium
Member Posts: 2224 Joined: 07-15-2003
|
|
|
Message 8 of 68 (234743)
08-19-2005 7:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by cavediver
08-19-2005 6:38 AM
|
|
The light at the end of the tunnel is the BSOD?
cavediver writes: Give me a computer in which to build my creation, and I am omnipotent too. Not if it's a Windows computer. Having said that, I guess it means that our's is a Microsoft universe.
Omnipotence is a human approximation in trying to understand God. Trying to use this approximation as a basis of proof is a bit too Oolon Coluphid for me I'm not using omnipotence as a basis for proof. I'm disproving it. Who's this Oolon Coluphid person anyway? This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 19-Aug-2005 12:56 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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by cavediver, posted 08-19-2005 6:38 AM | | cavediver has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 9 by cavediver, posted 08-19-2005 8:02 AM | | Parasomnium has replied |
|
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: 06-16-2005
|
Re: The light at the end of the tunnel is the BSOD?
I'm not using omnipotence as a basis for proof. I'm disproving it. Yes, but I think your definition (or most if not all definitions) of omnipotence is ill-defined.
Who's this Oolon Coluphid person anyway? Oh, Oolan's just this guy, you know...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2005 7:56 AM | | Parasomnium has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 12 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2005 8:20 AM | | cavediver has not replied | | | Message 27 by jar, posted 08-19-2005 12:39 PM | | cavediver has replied |
|
Dr Jack
Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: 07-14-2003 Member Rating: 8.3
|
And, it could create another omnipotent being but within that beings omnipotence is the ability to stop the first one being omnipotent.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2005 6:02 AM | | Parasomnium has replied |
|
Parasomnium
Member Posts: 2224 Joined: 07-15-2003
|
|
|
Message 11 of 68 (234749)
08-19-2005 8:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Dr Jack
08-19-2005 7:52 AM
|
|
Rocks and such
Mr Jack writes: 1. The omnipotent being can do it, it just stops being omnipotent when it does. Dealt with that.
2. Omnipotence only allows the logically possible. Well, that sort of takes the bite out of the 'omni' part, doesn't it? Anyway, if that's true, then omnipotence, being logically impossible, doesn't allow itself.
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by Dr Jack, posted 08-19-2005 7:52 AM | | Dr Jack has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 16 by Dr Jack, posted 08-19-2005 8:52 AM | | Parasomnium has not replied |
|
Parasomnium
Member Posts: 2224 Joined: 07-15-2003
|
|
|
Message 12 of 68 (234751)
08-19-2005 8:20 AM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by cavediver
08-19-2005 8:02 AM
|
|
Re: The light at the end of the tunnel is the BSOD?
cavediver writes: [...] your definition (or most if not all definitions) of omnipotence is ill-defined. Maybe that's because you can't really 'well-define' a logically impossible concept.
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by cavediver, posted 08-19-2005 8:02 AM | | cavediver has not replied |
|
Parasomnium
Member Posts: 2224 Joined: 07-15-2003
|
|
|
Message 13 of 68 (234753)
08-19-2005 8:25 AM
|
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Jack
08-19-2005 8:13 AM
|
|
Same thing
Mr Jack writes: And, it could create another omnipotent being but within that beings omnipotence is the ability to stop the first one being omnipotent. My initial argument already deals with this situation (B may want to do something A definitely doesn't want to happen).
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by Dr Jack, posted 08-19-2005 8:13 AM | | Dr Jack has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 15 by Dr Jack, posted 08-19-2005 8:50 AM | | Parasomnium has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Almighty or Omnipotent
IMO, the authors of the OT weren't presenting a God with unlimited power, but presented their God as the most powerful among the Gods. In the NT "almighty" only shows up in Revelations and means nothing more than he who holds sway over all things, the ruler of all. Not necessarily unlimited power. Besides, just because we address senators as "The Honorable" does not mean that they are.
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2005 6:02 AM | | Parasomnium has replied |
|
Dr Jack
Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: 07-14-2003 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Re: Same thing
My initial argument already deals with this situation (B may want to do something A definitely doesn't want to happen). Yes? And? B using its omnipotence makes A not omnipotent anymore. This isn't a limit on As omnipotence but a later consequence of its actions.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by Parasomnium, posted 08-19-2005 8:25 AM | | Parasomnium has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2