|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:30 pm
The question is can a omnipotent (all powerful) being create a stone that cannot be lifted even by the being itself? If it can than it ceases to be omnipotent because it cant lift the stone. If it cant then it ceases to be omnipotent because it could not create the stone. One philosopher (I cant remember the name) tries to solve this by saying the being can do anything as long as that thing was possible in reality thus it is still all powerful. And another uses this paradox to claim that it isnt possible to have a omnipotent being.
Opinions?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:55 am
the omnipotency its a paradox itself as it is something we can think of as perfect and since its perfect, exist, therefore the stone could be created as long as we could think of that stone as perfectly "un-liftable".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:26 am
He creates the stone then lifts it, at the time of creation of the stone he couldn't. Being omnipotent is just like anything else, it needs to improve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 1:51 pm
Britainian_Knight He creates the stone then lifts it, at the time of creation of the stone he couldn't. Being omnipotent is just like anything else, it needs to improve. How? there is no infinite plus one, there is just infinite, so please tell me how could omnipotency be improved?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:52 pm
Britainian_Knight He creates the stone then lifts it, at the time of creation of the stone he couldn't. Being omnipotent is just like anything else, it needs to improve. That's not the way it works. In this Paradox he can either create a stone that can't be lifted ALL THE TIME or he can't create a stone that can't be lifted ALL THE TIME. if he can lift it after the time of creation then it's not a stone that can't be lifted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:28 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:08 am
like it says, it's a paradox and the only way to truly analyze and solve the question is to question all aspects that you may relate to it. In this case it is merely thinking outside the box on how is this action possible by any means, mine merely presents the most obvious form. while omnipotent means being all powerful, why should that mean it cannot improve? many things that we once thought the pinnacle of creation have long since been passed over by something newer, so in order for anyone, or thing to avoid this fate it needs to continually improve for that is truly being all powerful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:43 pm
Britainian_Knight like it says, it's a paradox and the only way to truly analyze and solve the question is to question all aspects that you may relate to it. In this case it is merely thinking outside the box on how is this action possible by any means, mine merely presents the most obvious form. while omnipotent means being all powerful, why should that mean it cannot improve? many things that we once thought the pinnacle of creation have long since been passed over by something newer, so in order for anyone, or thing to avoid this fate it needs to continually improve for that is truly being all powerful. But if something is omnipotent then it is almighty and its power is infinite. If something is infinite, then you can't add on to it, which means it's possible for said omnipotent being to improve. so what you're saying, about it improving like everything else, isn't really possible. ( i think)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:38 pm
A being of infinite power would have ways of accomplishing this task that a human could not possibly conceive. Human logic only goes as far as human understanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:06 pm
Designer Genes A being of infinite power would have ways of accomplishing this task that a human could not possibly conceive. Human logic only goes as far as human understanding. Which is the same as relying on " can't be explained but it happens". That cannot be explained only means that it hasnt been explained yet, Like I said before, a paradigm can't be proven wrong whitin the same paradigm therefore if we assume that omnipotency exists then its impossible to deny that the stone can be created but if we conceive the stone as perfect as well the its impossible for it to be lifted, leaving as the only answer that perfection only exists as a concept of human logic, the ideal form or the perfect form can't exist in a multiverse of laws, since to exist it should break rules denying it existency, thus omnipotency can only be cosidered as real in a logic with no laws, in other words, omnipotency is as irrational as irrationality itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:30 pm
Please, no wall-o-text. It's called the enter key. Kagayaku Shirou Designer Genes A being of infinite power would have ways of accomplishing this task that a human could not possibly conceive. Human logic only goes as far as human understanding. Which is the same as relying on " can't be explained but it happens". That cannot be explained only means that it hasnt been explained yet, Like I said before, a paradigm can't be proven wrong whitin the same paradigm therefore if we assume that omnipotency exists then its impossible to deny that the stone can be created but if we conceive the stone as perfect as well the its impossible for it to be lifted, leaving as the only answer that perfection only exists as a concept of human logic, the ideal form or the perfect form can't exist in a multiverse of laws, since to exist it should break rules denying it existency, thus omnipotency can only be cosidered as real in a logic with no laws, in other words, omnipotency is as irrational as irrationality itself. Okay. Assume for a moment that God works within human logic, and has power over all non-logical rules. (God cannot make 2 = 5, essentially.) So, therefore, God can do anything to something that would not make a logical fallacy, but cannot affect logic. In other words, God can change the natural parameters, but he cannot make them contradict themselves. So, the stone. Here are our premises: 1. God has power over all things, providing he does not violate logic.
2. Creating a stone so large that God cannot lift it would be illogical, if God is all-powerful.
3. Therefore, God cannot do this.The success of the argument hinges on premises one and two. Premise 1. God has power over all things, providing he does not violate logic.This premise implies first that God exists. This is a subjective matter, and will be skipped. (Why? Because you probably don't believe in God. Neither do I. But I don't care if you believe in him or not, you can run OS X on a Windows machine if you run it virtually, so do the equivalent here. Moreover, lack of evidence for God's existence does not equate to evidence that he does not exist.) The secondary implication is that God is all-powerful. All holy texts say that god is all-powerful. I see no problem here. The third and final implication is that while God holds all logical powers, he holds no illogical power. God cannot make 2 = 5. God can, however, alter the density of water so it can be walked upon. (Jesus, anyone?) If God were to make 2 =5, that would be illogical by definition. Therefore, it cannot happen. But, by the same token, it does not need to. God does not need to make 2 = 5, for he can create three more. 2 +3 = 5. Therefore, the first premise succeeds. Premise 2. Creating a stone so large that God cannot lift it would be illogical, if God is all-powerful.Premise one holds that God is, in fact, all-powerful. Creating the stone would be illogical, for if God cannot lift it, it violates the first premise, and the first premise succeeds. However, if God is not able to create a stone so big he cannot lift it, that does not violate the first premise. God cannot be illogical. Creating the stone that is too big is illogical, for God can affect anything. Therefore, much like God cannot make 2 = 5, God cannot make the stone that is too big. Premise 2 succeeds. You spend a lot of time talking about how creating or not creating the stone is a logical fallacy, and you are right for putting an emphasis on logic, but you mistakenly refuse to think in a creative way. Essentially, you're blinded by your own bias against the existence of God. That's cool that you don't believe, but if you must take part in a discussion of whether or not God can do something, work from the premise that God exists. After all, the discussion here is not "Does God exist?" The discussion is, instead, "Can God create a stone so big that he himself cannot lift it?" Moreover, omnipotence is not irrational. Omnipotence as defined by the argument that God can do anything that is not a logical contradiction is not an irrational thing. Please, refrain from harking down on the irrationality of omnipotence, if you are going to irrationally refuse to accept a secondary definition of the term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:43 am
Ok, sorry for wall-o-text I was in a hurry.
For my argument about the matter wheter god can or cannot do something I quite sure I did the same or at least equal process you did.
About the supossed(sp?) bias of wheter god exists of not I asure you that I did not let it affect my logic.
Omnipotency has no limits therefore if there it is something it can do it is no longer omnipotency thus not allowing the existency of god as an omnipotent being, leaving as only result that inside logic god cannot exists.
It may still do not sound as I wish, the language barrier is still kind of bothersome when it comes down to more elocuent(sp?) conversations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:25 pm
Kagayaku Shirou
Ok, sorry for wall-o-text I was in a hurry.
For my argument about the matter wheter god can or cannot do something I quite sure I did the same or at least equal process you did.
About the supossed(sp?) bias of wheter god exists of not I asure you that I did not let it affect my logic.
Omnipotency has no limits therefore if there it is something it can do it is no longer omnipotency thus not allowing the existency of god as an omnipotent being, leaving as only result that inside logic god cannot exists.
It may still do not sound as I wish, the language barrier is still kind of bothersome when it comes down to more elocuent(sp?) conversations.
It's quite alright, I wasn't angry or upset. (Though I do have a talent for coming off that way.) What I'm suggesting is that what we call "Omnipotence" is not an accurate term, if we are going to take it in the literal sense. Literally, "omnipotence" means "all-powerful". You know this, and show a strong grasp of the term. However, perhaps "omnipotence" is too strong a term for what God has. Perhaps -- instead of being quite literally all-powerful, and having control over logic -- God has power only over natural and physical parameters, and has a kind of "omnipotence" within those realms. Sort of how like a very good programmer can have a complete and intimate grasp of one programming language, but is completely incompetent in a new, or foreign programming language. If this were the case, and God only has this omnipotence in natural or physical things, then his "omnipotence" could logically exist. I'd like to point out your fourth line of text: Quote: Omnipotency has no limits therefore if there it is something it can do it is no longer omnipotency thus not allowing the existency of god as an omnipotent being, leaving as only result that inside logic god cannot exists. Well, you're right that the common definition of "omnipotence" cannot logically exist. However, that does not make the only result that God cannot logically exist, for the above alternative meaning of "omnipotence" would allow the logical (theoretical) existence of God. ((You mentioned a language barrier, and, out of curiosity, what is your native language?))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:35 pm
((Its spanish, am Chilean))
I would like to correct myself for that lines you quoted, I meant to say "can't" rather than "can" anyways I believe I made my point clear.
About the logical existence of god, I got to that answer a few years ago during highschool, and it is completely right, if we alterate the concept of god making it less imperfectible and more logical it would be right to assume that a being within those characteristics(sp?) could exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
