The Paradox of omnipotence

[TheFearmonger]

Infinity =/= number
Infinity = awkward concept

Or

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

I see no paradox here...

 

[Durakken]

I don't find the whole Is god powerful enough to create a rock god can't lift as valid as in my opinion you need to become a bit more liberal in thinking about things like omnipotence and such and maintain a stricter definition. Basically, to be omnipotent in the strictest sense of the word god must be EVERYTHING. If god is everything then from some perspective god can lift something while from another god can't using the strictest definitions and least interpretation of the question.

But then a counter argument to that would be that "Can god create an unliftable rock that god can not lift using any and all of gods powers?" And that requires a more clear definition of god, lift, and rock. This may be semantics, but semantics in this case becomes important in getting to exactly what someone means. for example, it is logically impossible to lift a planet which is technically a rock. But that rock can be put on a bigger rock and we can judge from there... but to do that means that the bigger rock by definition would have more gravity and be more unliftable than the smaller rock...But then there are ways around that and it just keeps getting more semantical...

And then there is the argument of what is omnipotence...Is it to be able to do anything or to do anything that is logically possible

 

[borrofburi]

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

It's because of top gear... Speaking of which, I'm a few episodes behind...

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.

Yes, it does end in him no longer being omnipotent. Basically, in Doc's OP the interaction goes like this: "hey god, can you make a rock so you can't lift it?" "sure" "now can you lift it?" "err, no, you asked for a rock I couldn't lift, so by definition I can't lift it" "but then you're not omnipotent!" "well of course I'm no longer omnipotent... :facepalm: that's what you asked for...".

What you're doing is: "hey god, can you make a rock so you can't lift it, and then lift it anyway?" "err no, that's a logical impossibility" "well then you're not truly omnipotent because there's something you can't do!", and this gets in to Squawk's discussion on what, precisely, is the definition of "omnipotence".

 

[Doc.]

I thought of several points but i forgot most of them or they appeared a paradox themselves =/

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.

you missed the line where i say "and also make myself lose a power of becoming omnipotent again." I said that god would not be able to regain his omnipotence.

So the only way that God can show his omnipotence is to lose his omnipotence.

yes, if he does lose omnipotence then it will mean that god was omnipotent but no longer is... so god can not show his omnipotence therefore he is not omnipotent, but this also means that god could have been omnipotent before he tried to prove it... but since he could never prove it then he has never been omnipotent... does this work? my head hurts. I ran into another paradox.

edit: so yeah i guess that does it, omnipotence is a paradox. unless you define omnipotence as

2. God is subject to logical impossibilities.

by the way one idealist philosopher lately said that god is not bound by logic, that he is "beyond" logic.

 

[5810Singer]

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

It's because of top gear... Speaking of which, I'm a few episodes behind...

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.

Yes, it does end in him no longer being omnipotent. Basically, in Doc's OP the interaction goes like this: "hey god, can you make a rock so you can't lift it?" "sure" "now can you lift it?" "err, no, you asked for a rock I couldn't lift, so by definition I can't lift it" "but then you're not omnipotent!" "well of course I'm no longer omnipotent... :facepalm: that's what you asked for...".

What you're doing is: "hey god, can you make a rock so you can't lift it, and then lift it anyway?" "err no, that's a logical impossibility" "well then you're not truly omnipotent because there's something you can't do!", and this gets in to Squawk's discussion on what, precisely, is the definition of "omnipotence".

Omnipotence: From the Latin "omni potens" = "all power", meaning: all powerful, of unlimited power.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=omnipotent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent

http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/diction.htm


Next,...it's the concept of omnipotence that presents the logical impossibility, not my interpretation of it.

I'm going to paraphrase the example you've just given to illustrate my point:

"hey god, can you make a rock so you can't lift it, and then lift it anyway?"
"err yea,"
"but that's a logical impossibility, how can you have created something immovable if you can still move it? well then you're not truly omnipotent because if you can move the object then you failed to make it immovable!"

I don't see any problem with the above.
BTW, you seem to be suggesting that the paradox is dependent on a logical impossibility,....fine......what's the problem exactly?
I agree, omnipotence is logically impossible, that's why the concept of omnipotence throws up these paradoxes.

 

[nemesiss]

thats why i think the "sword and shield" contradiction is better then the rock argument.
mostly because you can apply it on a human level.
then, when you apply it to a diety, its still the same problem.

 

[Doc.]

it's clear now. the omnipotence paradox is fast and easy way of screwing up the theists, perfect

 

[Durakken]

I prefer the problem of purpose...

If only ones creator can give meaning and only entities with meaning can give meaning then how can anything have meaning?

 

[borrofburi]

I don't see any problem with the above.
BTW, you seem to be suggesting that the paradox is dependent on a logical impossibility

I see a problem... First, theists never play by your rules. Second, most theists (at least any who have thought about this) will quickly point out to you that omnipotence doesn't mean "able to do the logically impossible, that's absurd" OR "so you're tying to use logic to prove that god is subject to logic?".

Second, it's a bit like saying "hey god, can you make A to be both B and not-B?", the logical impossibility is inherent in the question itself. It's a bit like asking me if I can drive you to the store without using any energy, and then saying "AHA! this proves you can't drive!", when all it really shows is that I'm subject to thermodynamics (now that's on oblique analogy...). The problem is that you are wrapping the paradox in the question itself, and the only thing it really shows is that according to logic god is bound by logic.

 

[DeistPaladin]

The Biblical god is not omnipotent.

He needs to take 6 days to create the universe and then needs to rest on the 7th. (Gen 1)

He is said to have the strength of a wild ox. (Num 23:22)

He can't defeat a people in a valley because they have chariots of iron. (Judges 1:19)

It isn't until the NT that Yahweh becomes omnipotent (Rev 19:6)

 

[5810Singer]

I don't see any problem with the above.
BTW, you seem to be suggesting that the paradox is dependent on a logical impossibility

I see a problem... First, theists never play by your rules. Second, most theists (at least any who have thought about this) will quickly point out to you that omnipotence doesn't mean "able to do the logically impossible, that's absurd" OR "so you're tying to use logic to prove that god is subject to logic?".

Second, it's a bit like saying "hey god, can you make A to be both B and not-B?", the logical impossibility is inherent in the question itself. It's a bit like asking me if I can drive you to the store without using any energy, and then saying "AHA! this proves you can't drive!", when all it really shows is that I'm subject to thermodynamics (now that's on oblique analogy...). The problem is that you are wrapping the paradox in the question itself, and the only thing it really shows is that according to logic god is bound by logic.

But we're not arguing with theists, and we're not discussing God, we're discussing the concept of omnipotence.
I used the word "God" as shorthand for "a being possessing the quality of omnipotence", which as you can see is a somewhat bulky phrase, and would be irritating to type/read over and over. So if my terminology is unclear I apologise.


Next, there's a problem with this: ""hey god, can you make A to be both B and not-B?", the logical impossibility is inherent in the question itself."

I'm afraid you're missing the point, the definition of omnipotence that you'll find in nearly every dictionary is "of unlimited power", the problem with that phrase is that it means that an omnipotent being should be able to "make A to be both B and not-B".
I'm not wrapping anything in anything else, omnipotence is logically impossible, the paradox is just an inevitable result of trying to apply logic to a logical impossibility....which is what nearly all paradoxes are IMO.


And this puzzles me: "It's a bit like asking me if I can drive you to the store without using any energy, and then saying "AHA! this proves you can't drive!", when all it really shows is that I'm subject to thermodynamics (now that's on oblique analogy...)."

Hmmm....the first time you used the "giving a friend a lift" analogy you appeared to be using it to show me that there was an implied element to the "omnipotence paradox challenge" that I hadn't considered, and I can accept the analogy when used in that context, although I disagreed with your conclusion.

But how are you using the analogy now?

Are you comparing your inability to defy thermodynamics to the abilities of an omnipotent being?
Yes it's logically impossible to drive your car without energy, and it would be illogical of me to assume you can't drive just because you can't defy thermodynamics, but it would be more accurate to say that my assertion that "You can't drive," would be erroneous rather than illogical, because all that I could say with certainty is that you can't drive your car without being subject to thermodynamics.

What has any of that got to do with omnipotence?
A being of unlimited power would be able to drive a car without energy, and would be able to defy thermodynamics,....that's implicit in the phrase "of unlimited power".

Again the paradox is merely a way of highlighting the inherent illogicality of the concept of omnipotence as it is most commonly defined.


And finally: "The problem is that you are wrapping the paradox in the question itself, and the only thing it really shows is that according to logic god is bound by logic."

I've adressed both parts of this statement before, but just to clarify: 1. The paradox is the logical result of trying to impose logic on a logical impossibility. 2. We're discussing the concept/paradox of omnipotence, not God.

 

[borrofburi]

In summary, you have defined omnipotence as logically impossible. However all this means is that logic says that omnipotence is bound by logic, which isn't as meaningful a statement as we'd like to think it is.

 

[5810Singer]

In summary, you have defined omnipotence as logically impossible. However all this means is that logic says that omnipotence is bound by logic, which isn't as meaningful a statement as we'd like to think it is.

I've been frowning at this statement for a little while now, and I have to say I find your use of language confusing.

"Logic says,"....I don't really know what that means, it bothers me because as far as I'm aware logic is both a mental skill, and an abstract concept, and as such it says nothing.
We are the ones who do the saying, which leads me to the second phrase that bothers me "omnipotence is bound by logic".

WE are the ones bound by logic, our mental process is bound by logic, because (in this instance) we have chosen logic as our tool for intellectually deconstructing the abstract concept of omnipotence.

As far as I'm aware the only bounds that our use of logic can set on an abstract concept, are the bounds of wether the concept is logical or not.
It appears that in this case we have revealed a logical impossibility within the definition of the concept of omnipotence, which makes the notion of "placing bounds on a concept" even more problematical as in most if not all cases when something is deemed impossible then it is also deemed not to exist.

How does one place bounds on a non existent phenomenon?



I'm not being cantankerous here, I genuinely have a problem understanding your meaning, because I read this "logic says that omnipotence is bound by logic", in exactly the same way as I would read this "the screwdriver says the fridge is bound by the screwdriver."

The screwdriver is the tool we use to dismantle the fridge and see what's wrong with it, and similarly logic is the tool we've used to dismantle the concept of omnipotence.

That's the way I see it, so from my frame of reference your statement makes no sense.

 

[Durakken]

How does one place bounds on a non existent phenomenon?

Magnetic fields!

 

[nasher168]

The problem here is that we are applying the laws of physics from our universe to a being which we are told is outside it.
Perhaps in some possible universes, you can add 1 to 1 and get 3. Maybe you can still make an un-liftable object and lift it.

 

[Durakken]

The problem here is that we are applying the laws of physics from our universe to a being which we are told is outside it.
Perhaps in some possible universes, you can add 1 to 1 and get 3. Maybe you can still make an un-liftable object and lift it.

I think it's pretty clear at least in the story of Satan's fall that the christian god doesn't play by the rules of logic.

God told all the Angels to only bow to god
God told all the Angels to bow to Adam
Satan saw that he could not adhere to both so followed the first command.
God saw this and tossed Satan out of heaven for disobeying him

 

[Doc.]

The problem here is that we are applying the laws of physics from our universe to a being which we are told is outside it.
Perhaps in some possible universes, you can add 1 to 1 and get 3. Maybe you can still make an un-liftable object and lift it.

wherever you are, within our universe or outside it logic is always present. there is no way consequences can appear without cause. Christians say that logic does not apply to god and that he is more powerful than logic itself, this statement includes absurd. Everything is bound to logic.

back to topic, here's what bothers me:

the only way god can show his omnipotence is to lose his omnipotence"

eer the rock example puts a challenge of losing omnipotence, and omnipotent creature (as we call it "god" in this thread) can do it. so if we rephrase the statement up there this is what we get

"the only way god can show his ability to lose his omnipotence (which we challenged him to do), thus proving his omnipotence, is to lose his omnipotence"

this challange includes paradox, i think this was borrofburi's point here

on the other hand 5810Singer says that by definition God should be able to "crush" "stay beyond" or "undo" the paradox.

 

[nasher168]

there is no way consequences can appear without cause.

But that's only necessarily in our universe. We cannot comprehend a reality in which things just happen because we are not evolved to be able to. The thing we are trying to imagine here is said to have originally thought up the concepts of cause and consequence and how they interact with each other.

 

[DeistPaladin]

I think it's pretty clear at least in the story of Satan's fall that the christian god doesn't play by the rules of logic.

God told all the Angels to only bow to god
God told all the Angels to bow to Adam
Satan saw that he could not adhere to both so followed the first command.
God saw this and tossed Satan out of heaven for disobeying him

That's actually the Muslim story of Satan's fall.

 

[borrofburi]

The problem here is that we are applying the laws of physics from our universe to a being which we are told is outside it.
Perhaps in some possible universes, you can add 1 to 1 and get 3. Maybe you can still make an un-liftable object and lift it.

wherever you are, within our universe or outside it logic is always present. there is no way consequences can appear without cause. Christians say that logic does not apply to god and that he is more powerful than logic itself, this statement includes absurd. Everything is bound to logic.

You're making a lot of unsubstantiated claims there. As nasher18 pointed out, just because we can't comprehend it doesn't mean that it isn't true.

In summary, you have defined omnipotence as logically impossible. However all this means is that logic says that omnipotence is bound by logic, which isn't as meaningful a statement as we'd like to think it is.

I've been frowning at this statement for a little while now, and I have to say I find your use of language confusing.

"Logic says,"....I don't really know what that means, it bothers me because as far as I'm aware logic is both a mental skill, and an abstract concept, and as such it says nothing.
We are the ones who do the saying, which leads me to the second phrase that bothers me "omnipotence is bound by logic".

WE are the ones bound by logic, our mental process is bound by logic, because (in this instance) we have chosen logic as our tool for intellectually deconstructing the abstract concept of omnipotence.

As far as I'm aware the only bounds that our use of logic can set on an abstract concept, are the bounds of wether the concept is logical or not.
It appears that in this case we have revealed a logical impossibility within the definition of the concept of omnipotence, which makes the notion of "placing bounds on a concept" even more problematical as in most if not all cases when something is deemed impossible then it is also deemed not to exist.

How does one place bounds on a non existent phenomenon?

Alright, let's see if I can do this better. It works kind of like this: either we define omnipotence to be within the bounds of the logically possible (which you would argue is not true omnipotence, though I disagree (I'd say it's one version or flavor)), or we define omnipotence to not be subject to the rules of logic, in which case it is by definition logically impossible. The problem I have here is that if we define omnipotence to be outside the bounds of logic, we can't then say "hey look it's outside the bounds of logic therefore impossible!" any more than we can say reversing the second law of thermo is outside the bounds of physics and therefore omnipotence is impossible, for we have by definition excluded omnipotence from those rules; and in the same manner the statement "logically impossible!" is no more interesting a statement than "physically impossible!", at least as objections to the concept of omnipotence (indeed you could perhaps say they are *qualities* of omnipotence, especially as you have defined omnipotence).