Ah, I read LG's post #42 and he said circle.
Oops, we're at cross-purposes.
I missed that one too.
Agreed, it is somewhat off-topic.
The omnipotence paradox
- Thread starter TFL
- Start date
Oops, we're at cross-purposes.
Agreed, it is somewhat off-topic.
It requires an object of inference.
For instance the directive "make an observation" is meaningless unless one can answer "of what?".
Since computers cannot independently answer the "of what?" q, they have no scope for thinking
through assessment with values ... which is another thing hard drives can't do independently
(BTW when I say independently, I mean that any scope they have for doing these things is simply a reflection of the directives and values of the operator).
Think of potency as having recourse to intelligence, strength, wealth, fame, renunciation and beauty.
Its kind of like asking how much of this would it take to make a round square.
(the answer being "none", since the issue of an object being round or square has nothing to do with potency and everything to do with logic or definitions of terms)
hehe
love is funny like that
? Where did this "control" stipulation come from?
That's not an aspect of the typical proposals about the nature of God that I've encountered.
Which is precisely what the post I was replying to did, thank you very much.
That's great, but your post there is the only instance I've seen of such a "controller" defintion of God. Everyone else seems to have made space for free will somewhere.
How about the example that you already provided: alter the rules of logic.
And why can't God be illogical? Is it outside of God's power to alter her own nature? What sort of weak "omnipotence" is that?
The issue wasn't consistency with what we see, but self-consistency of the concept of "all-powerful." That God can't create a stone so heavy that God can't lift it isn't a practical problem unless God actually attempts that.
But it is a practical problem for people who want to include both "all powerful" and "logically consistent" in the definition of God. You have to pick one or the other, or you're liable to end up like LG.
If I wanted to actually prove that God doesn't exist, based on what we see in the world, I'd first adopt a more realistic, accurate definition of God: a very powerful (who cares about the "all-," really) supernatural entity that is amenable to prayer. That leaves me with no good answer to the problem of evil, and so I'm done.
Oh, I see and I have heard this before. A square is 2D. A round square would need to be 2D
Yes, but how does it happen. I mean, what is the processes that "make an observation"?
Yes, same question, how does "assessment" happen in the real world? That is, where is "assessment" physically taking place.
There is no process since it is the direct consequence of consciousness.
IOW to be conscious (or to have life) is to make an observation. It carries with us through the three states of wakefulness, dream and deep dreamless sleep.
It is processed through information received from the senses. You can say that the senses are physical, but the location of its assessment (as you put it) is not.
Assuming it's an omnipotent being, it would simply create a stone massive it could not lift it...and then lift it. Since it's an omnipotent being, it could do everything, even things that would be logically contradictory. By definition, an omnipotent being can bend or break reality at will.
Of course, this assumes that god is omnipotent. I disagree with such pigeonholing.
Of course, this assumes that god is omnipotent. I disagree with such pigeonholing.
OK, information about the outside world is received from sense organs, eyes, ears, nose, tongue, touch, yes, I'm with you there and THEN what happens?
Where is it processed?
what can an eyeball (or a limbic system or a frontal lobe or whatever) do without consciousness?
Hi, first time I've been welcomed here. I have to say compared to the rest of the internet, it's not too bad here. Should I post an introduction post thingy on that about the members page? I thought it might have been a little pompous.Welcome to Sciforums tfrxsis
A zero-radius circle is round, and also happens to be the exact same size and shape as a zero width and height square. And as this is isomorphic to a 0-dimensional point, I can project it onto a 2-dimensional space.
The only way a god could do better is if he forcibly stimulated the portions of your brain that experiences 'round' and 'square' simultaneously. "The Supreme Controller" is typically a part of the definition of God, as far as I have seen.
And so do you.
I'm not excluding free will, but it appears we propose very different ranges for human free will. You seem to be operating with the notion that human free will is unlimited, but I am operating with the notion that human free will is limited (in the sense that we cannot provide the options we choose from, and that whether we will be able to act on a chosen option depends on God).
But it is still us, humans, who judge whether a concept is self-consistent or not.
The matter isn't resolved "objectively, on its own".
Unless, of course, we are fully sure our powers of reasoning are completely accurate and in line with "how things really are". Which is rather arrogant, IMO.
How do you know God hasn't done this?
Inasmuch can a criteriium like "logically consistent" be applied to a person?
Can humans be considered "logically consistent"?
Mathematical systems can be "logically consistent". But is God, or are humans, mathematical systems?
That's allright, but I think you are including a very limited scope of information here.
We see all kinds of things in the world, and if we are to make any judgments about God, based on this world, then we have to include everything we can see (hear, smell, taste, touch, think of) in this world. Which is a lot of things, including all religious scriptures, buildings, activities etc. for example.
This seems to suggest that the whole omnipotence paradox quandary comes from seeing God as some kind of impersonal, mathematical system that is either supposed to be logically consistent (and whatever other criteria they have for systems to be valid), or it doesn't exist.
Actually thats something paramedics do to determine whether a person is alive or not (IOW an eyeball without consciousness doesn't dilate)
processed means that it is processed according to the values of an individual (their needs, interests and concerns) .... and since something like a computer doesn't have these things, they cannot process it in the same said fashion (even though it may have a sense many times more powerful than a human)
I don't follow how being able to surmount logic makes for a more personal conception
I don't follow your logic, which is probably because you haven't constructed a logical reason why omnipotence requires that you should be able to do something inherently nonsensical, such as create a round square. As far as I am concerned, the concept of a round square is meaningless. In the end however, I guess it all comes down to your definition of what omnipotence is. This has always been a matter of debate.
I personally don't accept that God's so called inability to do something illogical limits His power. His power isn't restricted by logic. It is logic. Logic is the ultimate and only reality. Illogic is, in my opinion, always an error that we make. I don't see how you can insist that it is real.