Omnipotence is logically impossible

well that's what the kabbalah is for! that and trying to score with madonna. (you know who you are, britney)

---

אָרַח

oh, well, that's fine. i actually agree. omnipotence kind of hinders anything ELSE having any-potence whatsoever.

---

אָרַח

I disagree. At that time, a change will occur and either A or B will cease to be omnipotent.

But what brings about this change? They're both omnipotent. What change can omnipotence cause that omnipotence isn't able to counter? If a change is possible that endangers omnipotence, then why call it 'omnipotence' in the first place?And what determines which of them will cease to be omnipotent? Either A loses its omnipotence because B wants to make it so and succeeds, or B loses it because A prevents B from taking A's omnipotence away. If they're both omnipotent to begin with, I don't see a logical way out of a stalemate, and thus out of this paradox, other than giving up on omnipotence as a logical possibility. {edited to add last phrase}This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 22-Aug-2005 02:20 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

Really, Para, I'm failing to see what the problem is here. There's two possibilities:1. An omnipotent being can change things so another omnipotent being is no longer omnipotent. Whoever so acting first would 'win'. I don't really see why this is presenting such a problem for you?2. Having two omnipotent beings really is logically impossible, in which case the first omnipotent being can't create another one without loosing it's own omnipotence. This isn't a contradiction on omnipotence since you've already accepted logic as a limit on omnipotence.

I think the problem is as follows.A creates B. They are both omnipotent. A uses its powers to create a shield which would prevent B from taking away its powers. B attempts to take away A's powers. Either B succeeds and therefore A is not omnipotent or B fails and B is not omnipotent.If A is not omnipotent but B is, then B performs the same experiment by creating C and a shield, we find ourselves at the same position...either B or C is not omnipotent.It is therefore impossible for an omnipotent being to create another omnipotent being without reducing its own status of omnipotency or imposing limitations on its creation (which is therefore not omnipotent).Conclusion: either A is limited in its omnipotency in that it must lose omnipotency if it creates another omnipotent being, or A is limited in that it cannot create another omnipotent being without imposing limits on its creation. Omnipotency with certain limits is not omnipotency.

I think you have missed another possibility.We could have a supernatural God, who is omnipotent with respect to the natural world, but not with respect to the supernatural world. That A cannot create B merely reflects on the lack of A's omnipotence with respect to the supernatural world.

That was the point I tried unsuccessfully to make humourously in post 24 on this thread. To our very finite minds that can't even successfully grapple with the 4d world we live in, or to understand infinity, the whole concept of omnipotence is beyond our grasp.Comparing my mind to the mind of God is somewhat parallel to comparing my dog's mind to Einstein's. That doesn't however mean that we shouldn't do everything that we can to discern what we can. It's much the same as the dog is constantly watching and listening to see what's going to happen next, and how it might affect him.This message has been edited by GDR, 08-22-2005 06:28 PM

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

If A creates such a shield it acts to remove Bs omnipotence by doing so. Before it does so A & B are omnipotent; after it does so B is not.We've already established that logic is a limit of omnipotence so if something is not logically possible then it can't be done by an omnipotent being so even if we accept your argument all you've demonstrated is that an omnipotent being can't create another one and remain omnipotent because it's logically impossible and since we've already accepted logic as a limit there's no problem here.

A creates an omnipotent being B. B tries to take away A's omnipotence. A is omnipotent, A is able to prevent B so B has his omnipotency taken away, B is able to prevent it, so A has his omnipotency taken away, A is able to prevent that... Indeed, I was just trying to establish the contrary point. If it is limited to the logically possibly then we are left with a tautology:A being which can do anything logically possible is logically possible.As opposed to the contra-tautology:A being which can do anything including the logically impossible is logically impossible.This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 23-August-2005 10:00 AM

I don't think that's a tautology.

I do.EDIT: If you want to word it more obviously:
A being which does not break the rules of logic, does not break the rules of logic.orA being which breaks the rules of logic, breaks the rules of logic.Seems fairly tautological to me.This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 23-August-2005 11:21 AM

But that's not the statement. The statement is "a being which can do anything that is not logically contradictory is not logically contradictory". That's not tautological, although it may be trivial.

The original statement was'A being which can do anything logically possible is logically possible'We can easily reword that to the more accurate'A being which can do anything that is not forbidden by logic is not forbidden by logic.'

As you wish. Still not a tautology.