Why omnipotent is a paradox.

Omnipotent is totally powerful. Omniscient is all knowing.

That's the word I couldn't remember.So, the title of the topic is wrong, right? Cuz what we're talking about is an all-knowing god. Nobody's made statements about an all-powerful one, yet.

Excuse me for jumping in here without a lot of information and presenting a conclusion, but this whole topic sounds insane to me. Let's assume our omnipotent God is of the same system as the universe, because obviously we are talking about a God that interacts with the universe, and Technocore defines that as the same system.What, pray tell, stops God from knowing himself and the universe completely? TechnoCore says someone did some math to prove it. I'd like to know at least the reasoning behind this supposed math. I suspect that whoever pointed out that such math only applies to certain systems is exactly right, because math is not nonsensical.Anyway, I don't believe for a second that there's mathematical proof that an omnipotent/omniscient God is a contradiction. But, if there's something more than an assertion based on some vague math that exists out there somewhere, I'm willing to hear it.

I think you're right that applying Godels theorem out of place is silly. It applys to mathematical systems not universes as far as I know.

I can only argue for my first post, about that a system cannot be completly described within itself. It is something i've been thinking about for sometime. If anyone finds any texts or books written on the subject, please do tell.My point is that a system can't be described within itself, since where whould the information to describe it reside? There simply is no room for it. To fit in the description you must enlarge the system. When you do that the system is changed. Stating that you can fit the description inside without changing the system at all is to state a paradox. As simple as that.I just refered to Gdel's proof since it seemed a bit similar, even though it is about language and logic.

Clearly the book you're looking for is "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hofstadter. He's obsessed with self-reference, but it's a very interesting read about logical systems and human intelligence. It can be a hard book to find in your local bookstore - it's legendary for being mis-categorised - but it's generally in the "Science" section of Barnes and Noble.

quote:

---

My point is that a system can't be described within itself, since where whould the information to describe it reside? There simply is no room for it. To fit in the description you must enlarge the system. When you do that the system is changed.

---

So? So the system is changed. So the information to explain that system now has expanded the system? That doesn't make the explanation, which has now been added to the system, unknown.Even in a computer program, you can add a manual to the program nowadays, and that manual can describe everything, including the manual.The whole thing's silly, in my opinion. If an omniscient God knows the whole universe, his knowledge of the universe is not some addition to the universe that is beyond his knowledge, which is basically what you just said, if you are applying what you said to the universe and God.Anyway, maybe if you read that book Crash recommended, then you can come up with some incredible argument I'm missing, but this one just isn't working.

Actually, Truthlover, I think you'd like that book, too. I know I really enjoyed it. It doesn't have much (if anything) to say about God or evolution or whatever, but I do find it a very interesting look at what conciousness really might be.To tell the truth, it's a hard book to summarize because it's about too many things. But it's a really good read. I'd reccomend it to anybody who does a lot of thinking about thinking.

(How do I quote? Cant seem to find it)Yes, it does make the system unknown. Remember we talk about omniscient/omnipotent. The second you introduce the description into the system, the system is changed, and no more does your description accurately describe your current system. What differs is your description. Since the description is inside your system, it also affects it.You say:
"Even in a computer program, you can add a manual to the program nowadays, and that manual can describe everything, including the manual."Thats impossible. How could you possible describe something within itself? It cant be done. It is infinite recursion. You can describe A manual, but never THE manual within itself.One way to connect Gdel with omnipotent is through God's mind. Can any beeing perfectly understand itself with its own thought-process?
Using Gdel it can't. Since Gdel proved that to be able to prove every conceivable statement within a logical system, you must go outside that system. When you go outside that system, you are inside a larger system, in which you cannot prove every conceivable statement. And so it goes on. Forever.It has been taken to imply that you cant ever entirely understand yourself, since your mind beeing a closed system, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself.If a God cannot know himself completly, he is not omni-... in any way.[This message has been edited by TechnoCore, 05-27-2003]

Thanks Crashfrog.I've heard about that book before. Going down to the library now..

OK, first off we need to understand exactly what you
mean by 'system'. A cursory glance at systems literature
will show that this is not trivial.Any physical system can be controlled if one is able to
exert sufficient influence over the energies that enable
the system.In control engineering 'systems' are constantly being
created which control 'other systems' ... if they weren't we
would have a few more Chernobyl's on our hands.

Well, Techno, I guess we'll have to leave it at that. I don't really agree with what you said, but to answer I'd just say what I already said, because I didn't agree with your responses, no matter what you claim Goedel says.Since I don't know how to take that any further, I'll just drop it.

TechnoCore writes:

quote:

---

Since Gdel proved that to be able to prove every conceivable statement within a logical system, you must go outside that system.

---

No, he didn't.Instead, he showed that certain systems are incomplete. Not all systems fall within that category.Pressburger arithmetic, for example, is complete and consistent.The Incompleteness Theorems only apply to axiomatic systems of number theory.I am not sure the universe can be considered such a thing.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I'm by no means the expert here, but if I recall what I've read, the systems that this does apply to are the ones that are able to self-reference. ("Model number theory" was another/the same requirement, I believe.)Clearly the universe is able to model number theory. Ergo, Godels proof might apply to it. Certainly it applies to any arithmetic in general, practical human use.

quote:

---

One way to connect Gdel with omnipotent is through God's mind. Can any beeing perfectly understand itself with its own thought-process?
Using Gdel it can't. Since Gdel proved that to be able to prove every conceivable statement within a logical system, you must go outside that system. When you go outside that system, you are inside a larger system, in which you cannot prove every conceivable statement. And so it goes on. Forever.

---

Technocore has a point. Imagine trying to understand your own thought process while thinking. It's impossible, since in order to understand what you are thinking, you must think in order to do so, thus we can never understand our current chain of thought. Does this apply to 'God'?This is assuming that God is a time based entity ofcourse which is not at all necessary. God could simply be 'knowledge' and that does not require any sort of 'cause and effect' consciousness. However, when consiidering 'omnipotence', the idea of a conscious god seems to come into play, though the nature of that consciousness is anyone's guess.