The Paradox of omnipotence

[Doc.]

I couldn't find any threads on this particular topic so I decided to open it, if there is one link it please.


So, can somebody say why is omnipotence (or omniscience) is a paradox? there is a famous example of a God and a rock, which says that if god is omnipotent let him create a rock he cannot move around.

here is why I can't see this working.

I am a God, and i have a rock on my desk, size of a fist. you put a challenge in front of me to make this rock immovable(right word?) for me, meaning you want me to become non-omnipotent, and therefore you want me to make myself something else than a god. Can i do that? why not? I use my superpowers and make this stone immovable for me and also make myself lose a power of becoming omnipotent again.

Squak said this lately, that one (say, "god") can't be omniscient because he will know all the actions he will make and thus will not be able to change his decisions. this just means that omniscient being can't change it's decisions but not that omniscience is impossible.

where is a paradox here?

 

[scalyblue]

If god is proven to not be omnipotenent/omniscient, the universe will unravel. This is proven beyond any doubt in a documentary I saw, I think it was narrated by Kevin Smith

 

[5810Singer]

I couldn't find any threads on this particular topic so I decided to open it, if there is one link it please.


So, can somebody say why is omnipotence (or omniscience) is a paradox? there is a famous example of a God and a rock, which says that if god is omnipotent let him create a rock he cannot move around.

here is why I can't see this working.

I am a God, and i have a rock on my desk, size of a fist. you put a challenge in front of me to make this rock immovable(right word?) for me, meaning you want me to become non-omnipotent, and therefore you want me to make myself something else than a god. Can i do that? why not? I use my superpowers and make this stone immovable for me and also make myself lose a power of becoming omnipotent again.

Squak said this lately, that one (say, "god") can't be omniscient because he will know all the actions he will make and thus will not be able to change his decisions. this just means that omniscient being can't change it's decisions but not that omniscience is impossible.

where is a paradox here?

I was the person who proposed the paradox, and you've reworded it quite heavily.

I'll reframe it so that it's closer to the original meaning.

If God is omnipotent then God can do anything, and God can create anything, so can God create an object that is too large/heavy for himself to move?
God isn't asked to sacrifice any power in the above scenario, and God's omnipotence is framed in it's classically accepted sense.

I'll concede that if I impose your subjective and selective reframing of my original idea then you might have a point, but I can't see any logical reason to do that so I'm not going to.

In my view classical omnipotence is self contradictory, and is a fudging simplification of a concept that human beings can only dimly imagine the full implications of.

 

[ExeFBM]

In your example, Doc, you allow God to be able to remove some of his powers, but as long as he has the ability to reinstate those powers, he is still omnipotent, he has just chosen not to do it. Even tho he removes his omnipotence temporarily he has the potential to reinstate it and pick up the rock. Kinda like how I could get a beer out of the fridge, but only if I chose to get out of my chair. The potential for me to get the beer is always present, and the steps I would have to take to do so are all achievable, but me choosing to limit myself to staying in the chair doesn't mean that I have lost the ability to get the beer.

 

[Doc.]

I couldn't find any threads on this particular topic so I decided to open it, if there is one link it please.


So, can somebody say why is omnipotence (or omniscience) is a paradox? there is a famous example of a God and a rock, which says that if god is omnipotent let him create a rock he cannot move around.

here is why I can't see this working.

I am a God, and i have a rock on my desk, size of a fist. you put a challenge in front of me to make this rock immovable(right word?) for me, meaning you want me to become non-omnipotent, and therefore you want me to make myself something else than a god. Can i do that? why not? I use my superpowers and make this stone immovable for me and also make myself lose a power of becoming omnipotent again.

Squak said this lately, that one (say, "god") can't be omniscient because he will know all the actions he will make and thus will not be able to change his decisions. this just means that omniscient being can't change it's decisions but not that omniscience is impossible.

where is a paradox here?

I was the person who proposed the paradox, and you've reworded it quite heavily.

I'll reframe it so that it's closer to the original meaning.

If God is omnipotent then God can do anything, and God can create anything, so can God create an object that is too large/heavy for himself to move?
God isn't asked to sacrifice any power in the above scenario, and God's omnipotence is framed in it's classically accepted sense.

I'll concede that if I impose your subjective and selective reframing of my original idea then you might have a point, but I can't see any logical reason to do that so I'm not going to.

In my view classical omnipotence is self contradictory, and is a fudging simplification of a concept that human beings can only dimly imagine the full implications of.

actually i have heard that long before you posted. i gtg right now respond later.

 

[DeistPaladin]

I can solve this riddle.

God has Strength: Infinite.

God creates a rock that requires (STR: Infinite + 2) in order to lift.

God casts "Bull's Strength" on Itself (2nd level Cleric Spell), raising It's STR score to Infinite + 4.

God lifts the rock.

 

[AndromedasWake]

^ :lol:

Moved this topic to Atheism/Theism section as it more directly relates to deities and not religions.

 

[5810Singer]

actually i have heard that long before you posted. i gtg right now respond later.

I unintentionally implied that the notion was my original concept, I apologise for that, it was merely due to my sloppy wording.
I'm aware that the paradox is not a new proposition, but I was the one who raised it in the recent debate, that was all that I was trying to get at.

 

[MRaverz]

Omnipotence issues are so good for proving the illogical nature of gods.

Another good example would be 'Is God so powerful that he could make it so that he never existed?'. Which provides some interesting conclusions such as 'If God doesn't exist, he must be omnipotent and exist'

 

[Aught3]

In your example, Doc, you allow God to be able to remove some of his powers, but as long as he has the ability to reinstate those powers, he is still omnipotent, he has just chosen not to do it. Even tho he removes his omnipotence temporarily he has the potential to reinstate it and pick up the rock. Kinda like how I could get a beer out of the fridge, but only if I chose to get out of my chair. The potential for me to get the beer is always present, and the steps I would have to take to do so are all achievable, but me choosing to limit myself to staying in the chair doesn't mean that I have lost the ability to get the beer.

But if he still has the potential to increase his powers and then lift the rock doesn't that mean he still *can* lift it, if he wants to?

 

[nemesiss]

I can solve this riddle.

God has Strength: Infinite.

God creates a rock that requires (STR: Infinite + 2) in order to lift.

God casts "Bull's Strength" on Itself (2nd level Cleric Spell), raising It's STR score to Infinite + 4.

God lifts the rock.

you make one huge mistake:
infinite+2 = infinite
infinte+4 = infinite
infinite-2 = infinite
infinite-4 = infinite


actually i would ask him to create 2 items;
a shield that can block any sword and a sword that can pierce any shield.
then i ask him what would happen when these two items clash... and you got yourself a contradiction.

 

[DeistPaladin]

you make one huge mistake:
...

You made one huge mistake:

D&D reference = tongue in cheek.

 

[nemesiss]

you make one huge mistake:
...

You made one huge mistake:

D&D reference = tongue in cheek.

you should well enough that gods don't play D&D, they hate the D20

 

[TheFearmonger]

Doc., trust me. I'm omnipotent, and yet, I freely admit my contradictions, and I have to be careful not to make anything that would rip a hole in reality. For instance, I was doing party tricks(because what else is the use of omnipotence?), and someone wanted me to make Michael able to walk through any wall, and then, to make it interesting, to make a wall no one can walk through. Sadly, michael and the wall were sucked into oblivion. I then had to tell his parents, and since I knew they would be angry. However, I know a parent's love overcomes all, so I made an obstacle around me that nothing can overcome. His parents no longer exist, however, curiously, michael popped into existence(the wall has not reappeared, to the best of my knowledge) directly at the spot where they disappeared. So, you gotta be very careful with omnipotence. It really isn't much use, once you get right down to it...

 

[nemesiss]

Doc., trust me. I'm omnipotent, and yet, I freely admit my contradictions, and I have to be careful not to make anything that would rip a hole in reality. For instance, I was doing party tricks(because what else is the use of omnipotence?), and someone wanted me to make Michael able to walk through any wall, and then, to make it interesting, to make a wall no one can walk through. Sadly, michael and the wall were sucked into oblivion. I then had to tell his parents, and since I knew they would be angry. However, I know a parent's love overcomes all, so I made an obstacle around me that nothing can overcome. His parents no longer exist, however, curiously, michael popped into existence(the wall has not reappeared, to the best of my knowledge) directly at the spot where they disappeared. So, you gotta be very careful with omnipotence. It really isn't much use, once you get right down to it...

thats not a party tricks, thats the kind of things that happen when someone is dividing by zero.

 

[borrofburi]

so can God create an object that is too large/heavy for himself to move?

God isn't asked to sacrifice any power in the above scenario, and God's omnipotence is framed in it's classically accepted sense.

He's arguing that it's implied in the question. It's like asking "can you drive me to the store" and the answer is yes, if I sacrifice some energy, gasoline (petrol for you brits), in my gas tank. Oh certainly, the original question doesn't specifically ask me to sacrifice the energy in my gas tank, but it's implied.

Another good example would be 'Is God so powerful that he could make it so that he never existed?'. Which provides some interesting conclusions such as 'If God doesn't exist, he must be omnipotent and exist'

Your reasoning is backwards there, you're using the converse of a true statement and implying that it is true.

 

[Squawk]

There seem to be two different versions of omnipotence in operation.

1. God is not subject to logical imposibilities.
2. God is subject to logical impossibilities.

In the former the argument is that god can make a rock that is too heavy to lift, then lift it, and not have violated the laws of logic. I find this line of reasoning specious, so I tend to ignore it.

In the latter god is granted the ability to do that which is logically possible and is the version of omnipotence I tend to work with. This is actually possible if one does not consider omniciscience to be part of omnipotence.

Omnipotence and omniscience are a paradox. If it is possible to know everything that has ever and will ever happen, then it is impossible to change it to something that you didn't know would happen. As such your path through time is entirely contrained, and you are impotent to act.

I tend to simply dismiss omnipotence and omniscience since they are so trivially shown to be logically impossible. If you contend that god can defy logic we have gone beyond the realms of productive discussion.

 

[TheFearmonger]

thats not a party tricks, thats the kind of things that happen when someone is dividing by zero.

Well, I did it at a party... :|

 

[5810Singer]

so can God create an object that is too large/heavy for himself to move?

God isn't asked to sacrifice any power in the above scenario, and God's omnipotence is framed in it's classically accepted sense.

He's arguing that it's implied in the question. It's like asking "can you drive me to the store" and the answer is yes, if I sacrifice some energy, gasoline (petrol for you brits), in my gas tank. Oh certainly, the original question doesn't specifically ask me to sacrifice the energy in my gas tank, but it's implied..

Thank you for doing that old "gasoline/petrol" conversion there, it always confuses me.

I think your analogy is a little oblique, but I got it in the end.

In what sense is God's putative omnipotence limited by the conundrum?
If God can do anything, and create anything, blah, blah, blah........then the ultimate extension of that situation is that if God can't lift the object then he's not omnipotent, but if God does lift the object then he failed to make it heavy enough, and failure = not omnipotent.
God's putative omnipotence isn't limited by the terms of the challenge, and the challenge itself doesn't tell us how powerful God is, all that is described by the conundrum is the self contradictory nature of the concept of omnipotence.

EDIT: Going back to Doc's OP I'd just like to point out that God ends Doc's version of the challenge by not being omnipotent anymore, and never being able to regain his omnipotence......
So the only way that God can show his omnipotence is to lose his omnipotence.

At best all Doc's done is replace one paradox with another, although I think what he's actually done is unwittingly provided proof of the original paradox.

 

[MRaverz]

you make one huge mistake:
infinite+2 = infinite
infinte+4 = infinite
infinite-2 = infinite
infinite-4 = infinite

Infinity =/= number
Infinity = awkward concept

Or

Infinity = n(+/-(n)^+/-n)/n(+/-(n)^+/-n)
Where n = n subscript n, where n =/= n.
:lol: