A thought on the omnipotence paradox.

Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
A thought on the omnipotence paradox.

I was debating at the FTT forum and I came up with this (I don't know if this has already been brought up before):

The old question: can an omnipotent god create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Most theists will say that god cannot do things that are impossible, and that his omnipotence only applies to things that are logically possible.

The problem here is that this is an attempt to make god fit into the realms of logic, but a lot of theists also claim that god is outside or beyond logic.

If god is within the realms of logic, then he is limited. Logic is superior to god.

If god is beyond logic, then he should be able to do things that are beyond logic, including creating a rock so heavy he cannot lift it. When the theist claims that god's omnipotence applies to only logically possible things, then the theist is saying that god is limited to logic. Which means that logic is superior to god.


If logic comes from our minds, then are these "limits" on god's omnipotence limited to our heads also?

I have a feeling that there is a flaw here.


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
The easy answer comes from

The easy answer comes from Descartes:

 

*God creates rock so heavy he cannot lift it.

 God lifts rock.*

 

In other words:  They're not playing on the same ball-field.

 

The better position is to not assume that they know what they're talking about to begin with, imo.   The "transcendental" "God" can transcend ANYTHING, not just logic; it's just another god-of-the-gaps--in this particular case, the gap between human logic and and the logic of reality.  What is "god," is what I'd like to know.  Barring a satisfactory demonstration of such, it is pointless.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
As Laker-Taker pointed out,

As Laker-Taker pointed out, there may be a misunderstanding of the definition of omnipotence. If an omnipotent creature wanted to do something, they could do it. Create a rock so heavy they can't lift? Sure! Then afterwards, he could become able to lift it, or something. (Alter the nature of reality so he can't lift it yet still be omnipotent or something.) Create a three-sided square? Sure! And if he showed it to you, your head might explode trying to figure it out. Nothing is outside its ability.

Omnipotence is omnipotence is omnipotence.

-Triften


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
noor wrote: Most theists

noor wrote:


Most theists will say that god cannot do things that are impossible, and that his omnipotence only applies to things that are logically possible.
 

Then ask them: Who created this limit in your theology?

If they say: 'god', then they are refuted.

If they say "not god" then they are refuted

if they say 'logic is part of god's nature'

Then

1) Ontological error: something beyond nature cannot have a nature.

2) Epistemological blunder: logic refers to arguments, to symbols, not referents

3) Logical - to say that it is 'part of god's nature' does nothing to sovle the problem, it still remains: can 'god' change his 'nature'?

If yes, then return to problem 1 above.

If no, return to problem number 2 above.

When the theist whines like a bitch over this, keep repeating it until they stop posting.

Quote:
 

 If god is within the realms of logic, then he is limited. Logic is superior to god.

If god is beyond logic, then he should be able to do things that are beyond logic, including creating a rock so heavy he cannot lift it.

Right.

Quote:
 

When the theist claims that god's omnipotence applies to only logically possible things, then the theist is saying that god is limited to logic. Which means that logic is superior to god.

If logic comes from our minds, then are these "limits" on god's omnipotence limited to our heads also?

I have a feeling that there is a flaw here.

You've made nothing but good points. You've got them nailed to the wall.  

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Thanks, I wasn't too sure if

Thanks, I wasn't too sure if that was right. I'm definitely gonna grill them this time. Laughing out loud


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The interesting thing about

The interesting thing about omnipotence is that by definition you would not HAVE to be omnipotent. An omnipotent god could create a rock he could not lift merely by removing his own omnipotence. But then he's not omnipotent anymore, and could not regain that omnipotence without being omnipotent.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
noor wrote: Thanks, I

noor wrote:
Thanks, I wasn't too sure if that was right. I'm definitely gonna grill them this time. Laughing out loud

I can't wait! I'll be at the FTT forum.

Smiling 


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Some of you know my opinion

Some of you know my opinion of the rock paradox.
I personally see it as cheap sophistry, in the same class as proofs for theism no less! Eye-wink

The object God is supposed to create is a 'rock God can't lift'
The definition is self contradictory and therefore fails to describe an object. 'rock God can't lift' is meaningless in the context of describing an object.
"Can God make a rock he cannot lift?" basically means the same as:
"Can God make a iosdhgosdihgoashf?"

A meaningless proposition that is neither true or false.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: A

Strafio wrote:


A meaningless proposition that is neither true or false.

So the answer is "mu"?

 

-Triften 


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
That's the answer Zen
That's the answer Zen Buddhists gave...
I prefer "wtf?!?" Innocent

(Have you read Zen and the Art of Motorcyle Maintenence then? It's a great book, isn't it!)

Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Todangst - Special request

Todangst - Special request for you. I put forward this judgement:

 

We accept the premise that God is omnipotent and omniscient. I am about to ask: can God choose to die? ("die" meaning to not exist)

a) no - God is not omnipotent, as there is a condition that God cannot control and that is not against logic or nature, which contradicts his omnipotent nature, so:

b) yes - God chooses to die

 

Taking point b, I go further to ask: under this circumstance, is God outside of time?

a) yes - that would mean that God would not be there in moment 0, the moment of our creation; therefore we would not exist. But we do exist, so:

b) no - God is temporal and, from, let's say, year 2007, 28th February, he chooses to die

 

Again, the only logical point is b. We go on: under these circumstances, is God omnipresent?

a) yes - that would mean the whole creation would "not exist" with him starting that moment

or

b) no

 

Both points seem valid. So: taking point a, if the whole world would crash to nothingness, would our souls still survive?

a) yes - that would mean that we are independent of our creator, thus denying God's omnipresence, which is an accepted premise for this question

b) no - that means that God lied when he promised us eternal life (be it in Heaven of Hell)

 

Taking point b, we ask: under these circumstances, since he is not omnipresent, and therefore not conscious of everything, is there an external conditioning that renders him omniscient?

a) yes - that means God is subject to an external condition, thus denying his omnipotence, so the only logical answer would be:

b) no - that means that the conditioning of being omniscient is internal to God

 

If the omniscient condition is internal to God, can God change it?

a) no - that means that God is unable to do something which isn't above logic, thus denying his omnipotent nature, so the only logical answer would be:

b) yes, he can.

 

If he can choose to change his omniscient status, then we have the following situation: God, being omniscient, knows everything about past, present and future. So he already knows what will happen even after he changes his omniscient status. Can he choose to alter his omniscient status, but retain his memories on the future?

a) yes - but then he hasn't changed anything in his omniscient status

b) no - so there is something which is not above logic which God cannot do, thus denying his status as omnipotent.

 

That would be the rock paradox translated to a version that should be immune to the "God is bound to common logic" argument. A simple question that goes like "Can God commit suicide?"

 

I am sure that many theists will attempt to find errors in it, once it goes public. So Todangst - special request for you to check this chain of yes/no questions and see what the weak spots are. If you have the necessary time, a response or a private message will do.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Pee Dung responded to my

Pee Dung responded to my posts at FTT with this:

Quote:
There was no creation of this limit. It has always been around. Impossible things have always been impossible, unless you want to show me that it was once possible to make 2+2=5.

It doesn’t take a mind equivalent to God to recognize that something is inconsistent with his nature. The Bible, for one, says that God can’t lie. Why? Because he can’t contradict his perfect nature by doing something imperfect. Perfect things can’t be imperfect. God can’t answer two contradicting prayers at once. Why? Because it’s impossible for, say, the Colts and the Bears to win the Super Bowl. It simply cannot happen.

Quote:
Quote:
If you say that "logic is part of god's nature" then:

1. Ontological error: something beyond nature cannot have a nature.


Firstly, this is a classic example of the fallacy of equivocation. You’re using “nature” twice in the same sentence with different meanings, but implying that you mean the same when you do. That’s logically fallacious.

Secondly, that doesn’t follow at all. All you’re doing is giving me an assertion without any evidence on your part. I’ve asked you to do this before…Why should I believe you when you say that something outside of “nature” can’t have a “nature” or that something outside of the universe can’t act within it, or whatever sort of nonsense you’re putting forth? You can’t merely state it and give no reasons for me to think it logically follows.

His entire reply is here


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Bump.

Bump.


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
I should be able to

I should be able to dismantle a lot of his arguments, they aren't that strong as he thinks. I'll admit that logic isn't exactly my field though. Still, he completely ignored the excerpt from The Atheism of Astronomy that I gave him.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Did he also ignore the one

Did he also ignore the one about Paul?

Also, when JP Holding makes fun of someone, he uses the time Jesus bashed the Pharisees for his reason to make insults.

But he's not Jesus, right? Tongue out

So everyone at TheologyWeb listens to him and they obviously prove that Christianity does nothing to make you a better person.

 

I don't think Jesus actually taught people to insult and treat others with disrespect. He said to love your enemies. (Luke 6:27)

And of course, "Love thy neighbor as thyself" (Leviticus 19:18)

Stupid morons.

I brought that up because I see that Pee Dung made a few insults in his post, and so did I on this post. But I don't need Jesus to do that. Cool

 


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Here's what he said about

Here's what he said about Paul:

Quote:
And there was a linguistic difference here. The word Paul used in Galatians was anoetos. In the other, aphros, not moros, which has a more of a connotation of “unbeliever” rather than “stupidity.” So this fails as well.

Yeah, they just pull out that convo and go all, "Hooo-hooo! Jesus said some harsh things to the Pharisees, look at him! I believe in Jesus, therefore I am like Jesus and can insult you as much as I want!"


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Quote: And there was a

Quote:
And there was a linguistic difference here. The word Paul used in Galatians was anoetos. In the other, aphros, not moros, which has a more of a connotation of “unbeliever” rather than “stupidity.” So this fails as well.

 

Wait a minute, didn't Pee Dung call you "stupid"? He called me a moron in a few posts. But the word we were talking about is "fool", which Pee Dung isn't using. So why is Pee Dung using the part where Jesus cussed out the Pharisees?

I think Pee Dung is on drugs.


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
He's also been doing his

He's also been doing his best to show that I'm assuming everything, using horrible logic in most cases.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Indeed. Fundy logic

Indeed. Fundy logic sucks.

Bump. 


jackson123 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
you do relise most of u are

you do relise most of u are begging the question

when a proposition requires proof is assumed without proof

also others are appling to ignorance another fallcy

ps i konw i cant spell but if somone uses that adainst this post thats the poisioning the well fallcy

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jackson123 wrote:you do

jackson123 wrote:

you do relise most of u are begging the question

when a proposition requires proof is assumed without proof

also others are appling to ignorance another fallcy

ps i konw i cant spell but if somone uses that adainst this post thats the poisioning the well fallcy

 

Hi. who are you talking to?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Noor wrote:If logic comes

Blah.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
jackson123 wrote:you do

jackson123 wrote:

you do relise most of u are begging the question

when a proposition requires proof is assumed without proof

also others are appling to ignorance another fallcy

ps i konw i cant spell but if somone uses that adainst this post thats the poisioning the well fallcy

 

 

You are guilty of the irrelevance fallacy. Wherein you type a bunch of semi formed words and apply them vaguely and indirectly to....well...nothing. Hence your irrelevance. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Interesting discussion

Hi all!  I was reading a little bit of the discussion you had and it was very interesting. I haven't had enough time to surf here and read much more about what all the members of the squad know, but I hope I could do it soon to learn more. The paradox is a good way to think very well why is impossible to believe in the idea of a god full of contradictions.

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The problem with any "omni"

The problem with any "omni" god claim is that as soon as the claimant assigns an attribute to it, it fails.

Is god capable of rape? If he is, he is a monster. If he isn't then he is not all powerful.

"all" is what "omni" means in "no limits". So as soon as a believer tries to claim "all powerful" they loose because this same god has to be "all evil" and "all bad" at the same time they want to claim he is all good.

"all powerful" isn't a real thing. It is merely the wishful thinking of those who invent fictional super heros in an attempt to avoid their own death, which is impossible.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The problem

Brian37 wrote:

The problem with any "omni" god claim is that as soon as the claimant assigns an attribute to it, it fails.

Is god capable of rape? If he is, he is a monster. If he isn't then he is not all powerful.

"

 

I think its kind of like Nixon's position on the watergate Break-ins... "When the president does it, it's not illegal".... so when God forcibly impregnates a Virgin... it's not *really* Rape... even though she was underage, and  cute as a button.

 

I am also sure that James Van Pragh's childhood recollection of the almighty's late night annointing of special psychic powers via his hand reaching down and "touching him" in his sleep, is actually more like a supressed memory of the whiskey breathed trusted family friend who drove his clammy, razor stubbled chin into the nape of his neck and promised to kill his puppy should he ever utter a word about their special "friendship"...