|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:26 pm
This is a simple debunking of an omnipotent being I reached through simple logic. I have spaced it out so it is as clear as possible. I used this lettering system in order to keep this concise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A: God is an omnipotent being, that is able to do everything, and nothing is impossible for him to do.
B: God attempts to create an object that he cannot lift. (His reason for doing this, as well as what the object is or what he does to it, is irrelevant. This is just an example.) There can be two possible results for his actions, C and D.
C: God succeeds in creating an object that he cannot lift, however, this means he does NOT possess the power to lift the object, thus proving A is false.
---OR---
D: God CANNOT create the object because he cannot lift it, which would prove him not to be omnipotent. HOWEVER, in his inability to create the object ALSO proves this, in effect, disproving A.
E: Since C and D are the only possible results of B, and C and D both disprove A, A is false, meaning either God is not omnipotent, or God does not exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have evaluated this thoroughly and have found it irrefutable. However, I'm not omnipotent either, and I can make mistakes. If you can disprove this irrefutably, please do so. Only logical corrections will be taken into account, however, I will discuss any thoughts on this if I feel like it and find it worth my time.
-Pyro.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:03 am
I am actually still sorting out my non-belief of God, but I think I might have an answer to your argument.
The logical proposition you pose ignores time. Assume that an omnipotent God creates an object he cannot lift. Then when God is finished with the example, God then grants himself the ability to lift it.
However, I think that the base question inside your argument is, "Can God create something more powerful than God?" where the word "powerful" is used to describe an ability to override the will of God. If God cannot, it proves that God has limitations and is therefore not omnipotent. If God can, then God has built a limitation and is therefore is once again shown not to be omnipotent.
Perhaps, in order for omnipotence to work a God would have to be not only all powerful, but simultaneously all impotent to power. This makes a sort of sense. Omnipotence does not mean capable of the best of things, but capable of all things . If this is the case, then my previous 'answer' would work. Not only would God be able to pick up everything, but God would also have to be incapable of picking up anything. If God could only pick everything up, God's powers would be limited to the highest tier of ability and be incapable of anything less.
I will have to noodle this question further to understand how God could live in contradiction of the word "omnipotent". Perhaps it would have something to do with opposites being human constructions? Hmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:09 am
Hmm, I think your version of my argument may be a little better worded than mine, then again, wording is my weak point when it comes to this kind of thing. In this context, since I'm going off of knowledge that humans already have, not making any assumptions that "God is beyond our understanding", God would not be able to have all powers and not have any all at once. Also, in the time issue you adressed, time came up as i thought this over and didn't come up as a major issue. When I say God cannot lift the objext, it means he cannot, and will never be able to lift it. This means he can't give himself the power later, and even if it did, he still would have had a period of NOT having the ability. Even if for an instant he doesn't have an ability, it means he is not omnipotent. Gaah, this makes my brain hurt. XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:36 pm
The answer to this.....forgive my bluntness here....rather childish Atheist paradox was actually take care of in logical formulation in the lat 13th century by St. Thomas Aquinas.
The refutation of your paradox goes like this:
Can God make a rock so big that he cannot move it? The answer is of course no.
How can I say this in the confidence that I am not at all limiting God's power in saying this? Thats simple. Watch.
Lets take them as seperate powers. Power "A" is the ability to move a rock of any size. Power "B" is the ability to make a rock of any size.
Now, imagine if you will that you have power A and I have power B.
If I challenge you to make a rock so big that I cannot move it. Could you do it? No. Why? Because the definition of "any" would be all encompassing. There is no such rock that I cannot move. Now does this limit your ability to make a rock? No. You can certainly make a rock of any size, does this limit my ability to move a rock? No I can still lift the rock even if it were of infinite size.
So you see. What you have is merely a confusion of terms. In logic we call it a category error. That means that Omnipotance does not include things that are logically inconsistant. In other words God who is Omnipotent can do all things that can be done.
This is logically consistant and the solution to your paradox. The definition of Omnipotant does in no way imply the ability to defy logic....nor act outside of one's own nature (IE: contridicting himself).
It is a logical limitation but not one that takes away from God's power of either rock building or rock moving.
In answer to Whynaut's question:
The same applies. God can quite obviously not make something more powerful than himself as he has all the powers that can be had. To do so would mean he didn't in fact have all the powers and therefore was not God. It falls under the same logic. If God truely is omnipotent then your question is non-existant. God cannot create something that has more power than he does....as he cannot create more than there is. It's a logical impossibility. That would be like saying there are all things +1.....but how can there be +1 of ALL things? There can only be what there is...there cannot be more than there is. That is a tautology.
Is this all understandable?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:30 am
(Heheh, it's been a while since I've felt like posting. I've gotta be in the mood for philosophy to mess around with it, and lately i haven't.)
Ah, old St. Thomas Aquinas. I didn't know much about him until recently, as I've been randomly coming across quotes by him quite frequently. He's probably one of the few defenders of Christianity that I actually respect, because he seems to be the only one who put serious thought into it and used his brain rather than faith. He's also the only religious defender to give me problems, heheh, however I've yet to find an argument from him good enough to stump me.
Anyways, I think I get where you're coming from. In your argument, omnipotence represents the ability to do all things that ARE possible, but one can still not do things which are NOT possible. Now, seeing as I've just woken up, my brain's still not working at full capacity. gonk Also, this is the best argument against my idea that I've seen so far, and it's gonna take some time for me to completely analyze it. For the time being, I have no counter-argument, but should I come up with one I'll post it as soon as I feel like it. mrgreen Seeing as I'm a VERY sporadic poster, there's no telling when I'll post my reply, but if I come to the conclusion that St. Tommy's beaten my argument, I'll make sure to admit defeat.
whee (YAAAAY, and actual CHALLENGE for once!) whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:42 am
OH, almost forgot, Niniva, 2 more things.
1. I'm not atheist. I'm agnostic. Atheists have the same fatal flaw as their opponents: blind faith that they are correct. Agnostics, on the other hand, won't back something as truth unless we know for sure. (Which is why I posted this, to have it evaluated so I can be sure of it, or drop it if someone debunks it.)
2. Childish? I don't know about that. I've heard a lot worse stuff than this, and I rarely hear better. But I digress, an argument's an argument until someone gives up and walks away, starts throwing insults instead of defending their side, or throws a punch. Now, I'm still tired, so coffee time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:38 am
Pyromidhead OH, almost forgot, Niniva, 2 more things. 1. I'm not atheist. I'm agnostic. Atheists have the same fatal flaw as their opponents: blind faith that they are correct. Agnostics, on the other hand, won't back something as truth unless we know for sure. (Which is why I posted this, to have it evaluated so I can be sure of it, or drop it if someone debunks it.) 2. Childish? I don't know about that. I've heard a lot worse stuff than this, and I rarely hear better. But I digress, an argument's an argument until someone gives up and walks away, starts throwing insults instead of defending their side, or throws a punch. Now, I'm still tired, so coffee time! In response. I didn't mean for you to take offense as the arguement you stated above is not orriginally yours but I'll be honest, if you think this arguement holds any water in the philosophical community as an agnostic or an atheist then I'd keep reading if I were you. And in response to number 2: Yes, childish...meaning that it's the "glorious paradox" that your typical trendy atheist who is just begining to think for themselves throws at your typical Christian who really doesn't think for themself at all. I will agree though, St. Thomas Acquinas is a great mind, one of the finest in the history of man in fact....interestingly enough thought his way to Christianity (which seems counterintuitive in these times), which is one of those thoughts that makes you stop and blink saying to yourself "hmmm, perhaps there might be something to this after all."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
