The omnipotence paradox
- Thread starter TFL
- Start date
mehdefine potency and it's relationship to logic. For some reason I keep thinking of God with his almighty heavenly erection ...
(hope that wasn't too visual)
probably a clue where your mind's at.
As mentioned before no amount of potency can develop a square circle ... simply because its not logically possible.
so what do you make of misery that arises from not already knowing something?
and is that thinking?
I mean there are tons of processes that cumulatively build up on top of each other within the brain that don't require thinking about them
that says absolutely nothing about why it lies outside of omniscience
that's a load of bullshit since no one - and I mean absolutely no one (not even you) - pursues happiness in such a manner.
If happiness lies in reciprocation you not only have a clear case for want but also change (particularly if it involves other living entities with free will)
On the contrary, there are tons of scriptural quotes and commentaries that establish there is a constant competition between the act of providing service and having service rendered. In fact the entire material world is also built on that principle (except of course it falls on its arse since having every living entity try and usurp the position of god doesn't make for a room full of happy chums)
It has existed always and with all information. I'd probably refer to thing as the impersonal Universe, or reality, and leave it at that.
Interestingly enough, there is a discourse with a long long long long history in the vedas about this precise issue - namely whether the personal aspect of god is subservient to an impersonal feature or vice versa.
In short, the problem with your case is that there is no accounting for variety, particularly in terms of consciousness, if god is simply some uniform, radically homogenized thing.
Again you are reducing god to a virtual non-entity, I notice you do this a lot. God is a person, kind of like us in quality but a vastly superior quantity.Again, you are anthropomorphizing the God-drive again. I notice you do this a lot. It is a thing LG. It's not human, it's not biological, it doesn't have a brain, it's doesn't think at all. It exists in a state of all knowing (or maybe we should say, having all available knowledge? - you know, like, ummmm THE UNIVERSE!)
welll duh
if you insist on only giving credence to claims that make a issue sound evil, what do you expect?
You forget that the living entity is always attributed with the quality of eternality. Think of the material world like a virtual reality machine for us to play out all our sick fantasies without hurting anyone or even ourselves.
It requires a lack of envy in the participants ... which doesn't seem to be exactly what this world thrives on
I think I missed the part where you established that the act of a brain acquiring a memory can be reduced to some core chemical components or something
Ever observed a brain being "recharged" with consciousness?
(BTW what do you make of persons who can remember incidents from past lives - like for instance intricate historical details of an obscure village hundreds of years ago in some continent they have never set foot in?)
Information doesn't.
Knowledge is kind of like information that is assigned a value, which requires consciousness, the ability to make decisions etc
assuming that no one knows god
Am I to assume that its only your ignorance that prevents you from having a pointless existence?
means that there is no essential difference between biology and physics, since the language of physics is what is used to understand the field of biology.
My point is that a limbic system and anything else is simply a lump of dull matter when you remove consciousness. Kind of like going out to buy a bike and being sold 17kg of aluminium
:shrug:
In short, yes.
(But I don't think you h ave the patience to understand how that is so )
(Or perhaps I don't have the patience to explain it to you)
its a broad survey of things, and a prerequisite for feeling which later comes to be willing.
For instance, you've probably thought a bit about religion, which in turn leads you to favour some conclusions over others ("feel")and finally you adopt a course of action to implement your life around such values ("willing")
It usually arises from a perceived inefficiency (as opposed to low level of dopamine or something)
Paradox's do not exist in reality. They are always the result of inadequate information, incomplete understanding, flawed reasoning, or any number of other things I can't think of right now. If you ever encounter a paradox, it's a sure sign that something is wrong. You just don't know what it is yet.
Let's look at the question of whether or not God could create a rock so big that he couldn't move it. If we are talking rocks, then we are talking physics. A rock, by definition, is finite in size. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a rock. There is not necessarily any upper limit on the size of a rock that God could create, even if he had to create a new universe to do it, but it would still always have a finite size. Therefore God would always be able to move it. Consider this. Is there such a thing as an infinitely large number? The answer is no. There is no upper limit on how large a number could be, but all numbers are finite. Asking if God could create a rock that he couldn't move is like asking if God could think of a number that he couldn't count to. There is no such thing, therefore there is no paradox.
At the heart of all this of course is the difference between a relative impossibility and an absolute impossibility. For example, I probably couldn't push a car up a steep hill by myself. It's a relative impossibility for me, but it's not impossible, period. Some things are however, absolutely impossible, and such things are typically logical impossibilities. It is absolutely impossible, for example, to make a round square. The point here is that just because God can't do logically impossible things does not mean that there are limits to his power.
Of course, God might not actually even exist, in which case this was nothing more than a hypothetical paradox to begin with.
Let's look at the question of whether or not God could create a rock so big that he couldn't move it. If we are talking rocks, then we are talking physics. A rock, by definition, is finite in size. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a rock. There is not necessarily any upper limit on the size of a rock that God could create, even if he had to create a new universe to do it, but it would still always have a finite size. Therefore God would always be able to move it. Consider this. Is there such a thing as an infinitely large number? The answer is no. There is no upper limit on how large a number could be, but all numbers are finite. Asking if God could create a rock that he couldn't move is like asking if God could think of a number that he couldn't count to. There is no such thing, therefore there is no paradox.
At the heart of all this of course is the difference between a relative impossibility and an absolute impossibility. For example, I probably couldn't push a car up a steep hill by myself. It's a relative impossibility for me, but it's not impossible, period. Some things are however, absolutely impossible, and such things are typically logical impossibilities. It is absolutely impossible, for example, to make a round square. The point here is that just because God can't do logically impossible things does not mean that there are limits to his power.
Of course, God might not actually even exist, in which case this was nothing more than a hypothetical paradox to begin with.
Yes it does. It means exactly that logic limits God's power.
Which leaves you right back where you started: wasn't God supposed to have created the Universe and everything in it - including logic? But now we're told that logic somehow precedes or overrules God, which begs the question: where did the logic come from? Who created these limits on the power of God? And if God isn't powerful enough to overrule them, in what sense can he be called an omnipotent creator?
It's a demonstration that an omnipotent God cannot exist in a paradox-free reality. The paradoxes are contained in the definition of "omnipotent," so your only choices are to accept that paradoxes exist, or that an omnipotent God does not exist.
How does this "broad survey of things" take place?
How to the "perception" of inefficiency take place?
If we play reflexive criticism like that, then we also have to inquire:
If God created us and our abilities, including logical reasoning, and is in control of us - right this moment as we think and type - then the way we reason about logic and contradiction - right now - is also under God's control, and whatever refutation of God we might come up with, it doesn't necessarily mean anything.
That is only so if we already posit logic as apriori existing to God, or as superior to God, or as independent of God.
But as long as we operate with the definition that God is the Controller, Creator and Maintainer of the Universe and everything in it, including ourselves, it is a logical impossibility (yes!) for us to come up with independent means to prove or disprove God.
And as soon as we enter the business of proving or disproving God, we have to operate with some definition of God. If this definition is "God is the Controller, Creator and Maintainer of the Universe and everything in it, including ourselves", there is nothing that we could do or know by ourselves.
Paradoxes pertain to reasoning, to a person.
One problem with addressing paradoxes is that some people try to address them regardless of the person who is perceiving something as a paradox.
It is an observable fact that upon witnessing some situation or statement, some people say it is paradoxical, and some do not. We can only speculate why this is so, and whose estimations of "intelligent" and "plausible" count for more than others'.
How come you do not see this as proof that God is not omnipotent?
But this would mean that God is in a state of want, and someone who is in a state of want is imperfect, is it not so - and God should not be imperfect, if He is to be God?
But then again if God has the potency to give the souls love of God, then He is not eternally in a state of want.
But if there are infinite souls, going on eternally, then God's want is eternal too ... but so is the satisfaction of that want.
Strange ...
You might be right back where I started, but I'm not.
Maybe we can tackle this another way. Specific examples might be a good way to go. If you are so inclined, maybe you could provide an example of something that God can't do, and then we can examine it to see if there really are any inconsistencies. Such an examination is likely to be more fruitful than a more generalized philosophical discussion.
God can make a circle, and God can make a square. But they are two fundamentally different things. You might as well argue that God is not all powerful because she can't create something that exists and doesn't exist at the same time. God can do anything that is consistent with her nature, and the nature of God is such that everything in existence is God. It follows therefore that everything in existence is consistent with that nature. God is logical, and therefore everything is logical. You can't try to pull illogic from somewhere else, patch it onto God, and then yell "Paradox! God is a contradiction and therefore can't be real!" There is no somewhere else.
Besides, you wouldn't have to try anywhere near as hard to get me to admit that maybe God doesn't exist at all. I'll admit it right now. What I'm doing in this thread is simply pointing out that God is not necessarily a paradoxical concept that is inconsistent with her own nature. I can imagine an all powerful God that is perfectly consistent with what we see. The personal nature of God however, if God is indeed personal in any way, is a much bigger can of worms as far as I am concerned.
Hold on!
Obvious objection is that round happens to be an n-dimensional definition. Want a round n-cube? It's a point.
A married bachelor? Wouldn't know where to start there.
I can make a round square. Square is a two dimensional shape. Just make a three dimensional shape that is circular on the x-y axis, and square on the y-z axis.
Obvious objection is that round happens to be an n-dimensional definition. Want a round n-cube? It's a point.
A married bachelor? Wouldn't know where to start there.
Last edited:
No you can't.
That's a round (circle) AND a square, not a "round square".
I'm gonna have to agree with LG on this one.
A square circle is a logical impossibility: by the very definition of each of the components.
And even if he could WE wouldn't be able to perceive it as a round square.
Not even going to try? A round shape is where all points are equidistant from the center. This definition applies to circles, spheres and n-sphere by obviousness. As a point is the center of a zero-radius circle, all points zero-distance from the point are equidistant from the center.
Now you try, for n-cubes.
Now you try, for n-cubes.
Last edited:
Quite.
And?
How many of those are circles. 2D...
Cubes are NOT squares.
And, while we're on the subject, how does one perceive n-cubes?
Oops, we can't directly. Hence no square circles.
Granted you can have objects of more than 2 dimensions that can appear to either square or circular, depending how you look at them: but they won't appear as BOTH at the same time.
Okay, but 'round' is what he said.
They aren't. But the point is to devise some measure of regularity that matches 'round'.
I really think you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say.
Wait a while, fill your head with thoughts of other things. If you still think that this is a credible argument against me, take it to PM. It'd be rude of me to continue derailing a thread with this. It wasn't meant nearly as seriously as you're taking it, as you might have noticed from the married bachelor comment.