Why omnipotent is a paradox.

Then you've gotten to the point that God isn't omnipotent. The term is very strict in it's definition.Here's a defintion:
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.So it's pretty black or white.If God isn't then, omnipotent, the interesting question, for those so inclinded, is where are His/Her limits? That'll keep them counting angels for years.

I assumed so. But I still don't see the fallacy. There is a contradiction between the two ideas that 1) God is omnipotent, and 2) God can create a rock too heavy for himself to lift. But what is the fallacy?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I wouldn't say that at all.

---

Of course you wouldn't.

quote:

---

What I mean? That's "imply." The way you take it? That's "infer."

---

Wow. Your arguments have now devolved to the level of paraphrasing old movies. That convincing.

quote:

---

Or perhaps you might consider being more careful. It wouldn't be the first time that many people are simply wrong.

---

God, that is arrogant!!! No wonder you are so clueless about communication. If there is a problem, it ain't Rh's fault. And this from the guy who couldn't figure out the difference between 'quickly becoming' and 'is.' LOL..... Climb a few pegs down that pedastal.

quote:

---

Oh really? And how does one determine Planck's constant in the example of a child by the cookie jar when he knows his mother is watching and when he doesn't?

---

It was a joke. But thanks for yet another example of your communication acumen.

quote:

---

Then what makes you think the Incompleteness Theorems apply?

---

Do you read these posts? Do you pay attention? I did not say the universe was an axiomatic system. What I said was that our descriptions of it are axiomatic systems ( or based on such ), and that that is where the uncertainty comes in. Why do you think that cuttin out the POINT OF THE PARAGRAPH is good argumentation? Why do you think quoting me in such a way as to imply I am arguing something I obviously am not, is a respectable debate tactic? Why do you think that utterly missing the point helps your case?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Let me be more explicit: This statement is not logically possible, because it's the same as creating a rock too heavy for god to lift, because "anyone" includes god. We established that god could be unable to make a rock so big god couldn't lift it and still be omnipotent (by saying that omnipotence doesn't have to include illogical actions), so this statement is not actually logically possible.Therefore this isn't true, either: Therefore, this is wrong, too. Ergo, God could not be able to make a non-liftable rock and still be omnipotent.Does that make sense?

I think that God could create a rock so big that it couldn't move, simply because the rock was so large it comprised the total volume of the universe - thus, there'd be no place for it to move to. (as well as no place to stand to lift it.)I don't see this as a failure of God but rather an inherent failure of universes and stones. I don't see that it makes god any less omnipotent that he can't do something specifically precluded by the inherent properties of whatever we're assuming he's trying to create.Anyway, I don't believe in an omnipotent god for other reasons. But this simplistic logic isn't one of them.

This topic seems to have become a "What happens when an irresistible force gos up against an immovable object" thing (Or perhaps, two infinately dense head beating against each other.This doesn't seem to have anything really to do with "Faith and Belief", or religion in general.I've seen enough - closing it down.If anyone has any complaints about this, send them to the "too fast closure of threads" topic.Adminnemooseus

I slapped Adminnemooseus up side the head, and got him to reopen this (lawyer infested?) topic.As I see it, a truely omnipotent creator would be able to further manipulate anything of her/his creation, regardless of the magnitude of the item.To the omnipotent God, no matter how large the rock, it can still be made larger, and it can always be moved.Thus the situation of God not being able to create of rock to large for her/him to move is a situation of God being omnipotent.I now await the reply from the lawyer(s).Moose

No. Assuming that God exists and can lift any rock, the statement might be inaccurate but it is still logically possible. What you are talking about is if it is actually possible. These are not the same thing.Does that make sense?------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Honestly, my own arguments don't make sense anymore. I think I'm done with this. Anyway I agree with you; god doesn't exist, omnipotent or not. I do remain of the position that an omnipotent god could exist, but I don't believe one does.So we're arguing at cross purposes for the same thing, I think.

I might be an atheist but I don't believe that God doesn't exist. I just don't have a good reason to think that he does. IOW I don't have a belief that God does exist. That depends on what is ment by 'omnipotent'. I think that if you use the definitions I used in my first post on this thread then you are wrong. However, I'm not going to bother arguing about it if you aren't really interested. It's not much fun when you aren't putting effort into your posts. ------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

quote:

---

This statement is not logically possible, because it's the same as creating a rock too heavy for god to lift, because "anyone" includes god.

---

Why is it not logically possible? I can create-- well, assemble-- something I cannot lift. Why is it not possible for God to do so?The problem is with the 'omnipotent' part. An omnipotent God could do anything-- no limits, but that means he must be capable of doing odd things like creating rocks he can't lift AND he also must be capable of lifting anything ( or he would be omnipotent ).------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Hmm i've been thinking some more on the subject... ill write some more on my first thoughts soon, havent got time now though I was most intressted in the concept of omnipotent as such, universally, but if one were to delve into the specifics of the christian god, the he certainly cannot be omnipotent since he, according to the bible created man with a free will.
Since there is such thing as a free will (according to the bible) god cannot forsee anything really. And hence is not omnipotent.
Its similar to the rock/lift rock argument.

There's a thread that was talking about free-will Vs.
omniscience elsewhere ... If someone can remember the
reference

What if the rock exists in a state such that it
both can and cannot be moved by God (simultaneously)?

This is a paradox and is kinda the point of this thread. Omnipotence leads to a paradox. A and ~A.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy