The Omnipotence Paradox

[Coatsy]

Can God create a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift it? This question has never adequately been answered in my mind. So, I challenge any theist who thinks they're up to it, to give me an answer. And please, Francis, don't evade the issue; the question is very simple.

[Choobus]

I prefer "can jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he cannot eat it?"

[Coatsy]

So do I, but Francis would only attack the analogy, so I chose the most commonly used and accepted one. Though to not falsely classify god as anthropomorphic, my favourite is "Could got create something he couldn't control?"

[Choobus]

The chances of Francis responding are basically zero anyway. That troll/idiot hasn't responded to any direct questions as far as I can tell.

[Coatsy]

Sort of like a 'drive-by idiot'.

[Choobus]

yeah, but he's driving by in a steam roller and it seems like he'll never fuck off, and he crushes logic and common sense as he passes by

[thenormalyears]

Heres the best omnipotence paradox I can think of.

Can God kill himself?

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

You know how whenever a new movie comes out, some fast food restaurant always does joint advertising with it? Well I had this idea around the time Passion of the Christ came out:

"Can God create a burger so juicy and flame-broiled that not even God can resist eating it?

Burger King can!"

[FishFace]

Aquinas says it's a logical impossibility and so God can't do it, but it doesn't matter.

[Philboid Studge]

I prefer "can jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he cannot eat it?"
Aquinas: He can't violate laws of logic, but He's still omnipotent.

Descartes: I think He can, therefore He can.

G Gordon Liddy: He can, but then He'd have to kill you.

Ned Flanders: As melon-scratchers go, that's a honey of a doodle! [Homer's reply: Now you know what I've been going through!]

[FishFace]

Descartes: I think he's stupid, therefore he's stupid.

[evident_enigma]

Could an omnipotent being make itself non-omipotent?

edit- If so, how could it become omnipotent again?

E_E

[ocmpoma]

My favorite version of the omnipotence paradox is, "Can an omnipotent god create a being more powerful than itself?"

[FishFace]

Could an omnipotent being make itself non-omipotent?

edit- If so, how could it become omnipotent again?

E_E
If it still had the power to become omnipotent as a non-omnipotent being..? I mean, if it takes away from itself the ability to, say, turn bananas purple, but retains the ability to give itself the ability to turn bananas purple. :)

I prefer the ones related to omniscience, personally - can God surprise himself, mainly, and can he change his mind.

[benjaminbp18]

It's all simple really. Whereas such questions boil down to the inexistence of such beings, theists will continue to shit out resonses like "Ya jus gotta have faith!"

[calpurnpiso]

It's all simple really. Whereas such questions boil down to the inexistence of such beings, theists will continue to shit out resonses like "Ya jus gotta have faith!"
remember you can always come back at them with this response: Faith is always invresely proportional to knowledge and iformation of the person expriencing the faith. The more the faith the more the ignorance. Give children as an example. They have faith in the tooth fairy since they do not know who the tooth fairy is!..When they have the KNOWLEDGE the tooth fairy is a parent, the faith is gone!!

Exactly the samething happens in religious faith. Reason has been eroded and replace with delusions whiah are not much different than the schizophrenia and TLE sufferer.
..This will leave them speechless....then you can back up your statement by showing them schizophrenic conversations and obvious delusions which mimic those of people of "faith".....:)

[evident_enigma]

Could an omnipotent being make itself non-omipotent?

edit- If so, how could it become omnipotent again?

E_E
If it still had the power to become omnipotent as a non-omnipotent being..? I mean, if it takes away from itself the ability to, say, turn bananas purple, but retains the ability to give itself the ability to turn bananas purple. :)

I prefer the ones related to omniscience, personally - can God surprise himself, mainly, and can he change his mind.
That's too weak, dude.

It would still have the ability to turn bananas purple, it would just have to go through one extra step.

1. Give back the ability to turn bananas purple,
2. THEN doing it.

In that case, it never really let go of it's omnipotence, it just faked it..

What I'm talking about is it looses the ability to MAKE anything, including REMAKES of itself. In other words, could it make itself a permanent "non-maker" of anything and/or everything?

Still further, could it force a situation where it could never regain any of it's lost power?

If it couldn't, that would be yet another example of how insane the concept of omnipotence is and how limited a concept that it really is.

E_E

[anthonyjfuchs]

"Could got create something he couldn't control?"
According to Christian, God did just that, not once but twice:

First was Satan.

Then was Man.

Idiot fuckin God. I get he copied off of Athena and Aphrodite just to get through Deity College.

[FishFace]

Well, enigma, it's not really a contradiction for an omnipotent being to turn itself into an impotent one. If, as an impotent one, it can't turn itself back, there's nothing illogical - it's no longer omnipotent. The problem is, God is atemporal, so he can't "turn himself into" anything.

[benjaminbp18]

The more the faith the more the ignorance.
Nuh Uh, cuz my babble says that Jeebus wants me to have faith. Jeebus is the way, the light.

There's no reasoning with them Cal.

[Coatsy]

The more the faith the more the ignorance.
Nuh Uh, cuz my babble says that Jeebus wants me to have faith. Jeebus is the way, the light.

There's no reasoning with them Cal.
There is so long as they think they know they're right, but 'faith' is the knee-jerk reaction to proof God can't exist, in the Christian sense if we're referring to this argument.

EDIT: Italics

[Philboid Studge]

I've always found the omni- arguments the weakest of all vs. theism (as OC et al knows). Essentially you're insisting that the theist accept your definition of omni-whatever, and the one you insist on forces the paradox. Tautology, anyone? Coincidentally, Merriam-Web's Word of the Day today is 'omnipotent (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/mwwodarch.pl?Jun.11)' and the lexicographers nuance it rather nicely: "having virtually unlimited authority or influence." The key word being 'virtually.'

In a related theme, yesterday's WoD was 'warp speed': 'the highest possible speed.' Thus both omnipotence and warp speed are attainable -- by definition.

[FishFace]

Exactly, Phil. Absence of evidence (for non-positive atheism) and the problem of evil are both far better tacks.

[Demigod79]

Ah, the paradox of omnipotence. Still, I think people are pushing the definition of "omnipotence" a bit too much. The conclusion I came to with this was that god's omnipotence just means that he is able to do everything that is possible to do. This would obviously exclude contradictions and paradoxes (a god who is a contradiction cannot exist, and a being that doesn't exist is not all-powerful). God being all-powerful simply means that he has all the power that's available to be had. God's omniscience also means that he knows everything that could possibly be known. So the answer to the question would be no, god cannot create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it.

[Gathercole]

This may be off-topic, but could anyone point me to the passages in the OT (or NT) where God says he's omnipotent? I know I'm forgetting some important stuff, but all I can remember are specific passages where he does powerful things, or claims to be able to do them.

[Xander]

Here's a somewhat random question I have: Why is god considered to be male?

[thenormalyears]

Here's a somewhat random question I have: Why is god considered to be male?
because the bible was written in a male dominated society by males

[ninjaxlikewoah__]

Freaking sexist bastard, God is. More specifically, if it existed.

[Coatsy]

Coincidentally, Merriam-Web's Word of the Day today is 'omnipotent (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/mwwodarch.pl?Jun.11)' and the lexicographers nuance it rather nicely: "having virtually unlimited authority or influence." The key word being 'virtually.'
My dictionary (Oxford) defines omnipotent as "having unlimited or very great power." While the 'very great' clause is in there perhaps to address arguments such as these, I think the implication is that if someone/thing created the entire universe and has the ability to manipulate it at will, the being should be considered 'all-powerful'. Certainly, the Christians I've spoken with have categorised God as omnipotent in the truest sense of the word.

[postbicameral]

The whole "stone too large" question becomes especially lame when you really think about it. The fact that god is trying to lift the stone implies gravity. So I ask you, what is god standing on? However massive the stone is, the place where god is standing on would have to be more massive, or else god would appear to be simply pushing two massive stones apart.

The size of the mass that god is standing on dictates the gravitational forces he will be dealing with (in terms of what a "pound" feels like, for instance). Considering the source, I would imagine we are talking about earth-type gravitational attractions here. Now, since god created the earth (or so I'm told) , the offending rock would have to be many, many times more massive than the earth (Neptune? Nah, he created that too...). Perhaps a super-dense collapsed star, or hey, fuck it, a black hole. This presents another problem; the gravitational forces of the "stone" that god is trying to lift would rip apart the the "earth" that he's standing on.

Oh well, I hear he can still fit an assload of angels on the head of pin!

[FishFace]

It's pretty clear, though, that the actual question is, "Can God set himself a task he cannot accomplish?" Which reduces to, "Can God do something he cannot do?" Whether or not the stone example is valid, it can simply be seen as an example of the more general (but still self contradictory) problem.
To expand on your discussion of the stone, surely all lifting anything is is pushing two bodies apart. Therefore, the question might be more literally be phrased as, "can God create two bodies he cannot push apart?" Eh, it doesn't really matter, anyways.

The conclusion I came to with this was that god's omnipotence just means that he is able to do everything that is possible to do.
Yes, me too. The problem is that we as humans actually have no way of verifying what is or isn't possible, so God's omnipotence becomes unfalsifiable. Any time something crops up that God apparently cannot accomplish, a Christian can immediately shoot back, "Can't have been possible then." In other words, under this definition, the theist just defines what is possible as what God can do. Dumbasses.

Here's a somewhat random question I have: Why is god considered to be male?
Because males are superior ;) More likely, we have no gender neutral personal pronoun. 'It' sounds weird when used with people, so we had to pick one. Historically, I believe languages have actually picked male pronouns to stand in for gender neutral/unknown ones - in French, if you don't know the gender of the referred person, you use il not elle, and if there is a mixed group of people, you use ils not elles.
Likewise, we use "man" to refer to "people" or "the human race;" we have, "mankind" and so on. I am tentatively of the opinion that people who try to replace these words with gender neutral ones are just being awkward and crap.

[postbicameral]

This cuts to the core of the matter. Saying that god can only do things that are possible to do is saying that god is limited by something else, that he is not the origin of everything. In short, this makes god a man, or a dolphin, or anything else but a god. We all are limited to doing only that which is possible; and what's possible changes dramatically species by species. A bird flies because it is possible for that bird to do so. I mow my lawn for the same reason.

[Demigod79]

This cuts to the core of the matter. Saying that god can only do things that are possible to do is saying that god is limited by something else, that he is not the origin of everything. In short, this makes god a man, or a dolphin, or anything else but a god. We all are limited to doing only that which is possible; and what's possible changes dramatically species by species. A bird flies because it is possible for that bird to do so. I mow my lawn for the same reason.
But by the same logic one can say that god is only limited by what god can do, thus making him god. If god was limited to what man can do then he'd be a man, but if god is limited to what god can do then it would make him god. Of course this then becomes something of a tautology, as Fish made it clear, this doesn't really help us answer the question of what god can actually do. It just defines god's abilities as god's abilities. Then again, most statements about god involve tautologies so this isn't too surprising.

The stance that god can do everything that is possible is a negotiated one. Most fundies will argue that god created logic so he cannot be constrained by it. Therefore, he can literally do everything, including contradictions. Of course in arguing for this they are using logic; they use logic to argue against logic.

[postbicameral]

Point taken. Wouldn't the limitations of an omnipotent being be omnipotence? A tautology indeed...

[FishFace]

The stance that god can do everything that is possible is a negotiated one. Most fundies will argue that god created logic so he cannot be constrained by it. Therefore, he can literally do everything, including contradictions. Of course in arguing for this they are using logic; they use logic to argue against logic.
If God invented logic, then it is possible that he has to act within those bounds in this universe, but others could act differently. Alternatively, God could change logic if he wished.

The former certainly allows theists to make assertions about God. The latter, I think, has the same problems as if God is unconstrained by logic - he is utterly impossible to understand, and so we cannot attribute qualities to him.

[evident_enigma]

Well, enigma, it's not really a contradiction for an omnipotent being to turn itself into an impotent one. If, as an impotent one, it can't turn itself back, there's nothing illogical - it's no longer omnipotent. The problem is, God is atemporal, so he can't "turn himself into" anything.
The atemporal thing, is a guess, BTW. Common, but a guess.

That implies it would be incapable of action itself (if it couldn't change itself), and thus non-omnipotent.

-edit- Just as a note: This is what I got from what you posted, at least.

E_E

[thenormalyears]

Thats why my paradox was the best. Could god kill himself. He should be all accounts be unkillable and if he couldnt kill himself theres the limit to his power. But if he CAN kill himself then we can kill him as well. Which would mean hes not omnipotent.

[FishFace]

See the other thread about omnipotence. All of these internal contradictions are fallacious, as they ask, "Can God do something he cannot do?" Illogical captain. Either God's omnipotence is within logic (in which case, no contradiction) or he's not (see above, but we can't make assertions about him.)

The atemporality attributed to God is the classical definition. I expect there are Bible verses, but y'know what? I really can't be bothered! This ties into the fact that prayer is useless. God cannot change his mind if he's omniscient, and if he's atemporal, he can't change at all.

[HeWhoAsks]

Fishface, how about this: the question "Can God do something he cannot do" is rejected by some before it's answered on the basis that it is nonsensical question, similar to "Can A equal not-A?" (the answer to which, of course, is "No.").

But the basis on which it is rejected is logic. That is, A is A, and A cannot be not-A. But, as you mentioned in post #35, if God created logic that says A cannot be not-A, then he can surely transcend it and do something he cannot do.

So if God can transcend that logic, he can do something he can't do. That means he's omnipotent (because he can do anything, including what he can't do). The contradiction is resolved because God is omnipotent, not because we mere mortals can resolve the contradiction.

It's just like magic!

[evident_enigma]

:mad:

Screw magic!

Magic can suck my balls!

*insert evil GIR from Invader Zim*

"Omnipotence is stupid!"

"This conversation is stupid!"

"You are stupid!"

:mad:

:lol:

JK :lol:

E_E

[thenormalyears]

:mad:

Screw magic!

Magic can suck my balls!

*insert evil GIR from Invader Zim*

"Omnipotence is stupid!"

"This conversation is stupid!"

"You are stupid!"

:mad:

:lol:

JK :lol:

E_E
This is all why I'm a teapot atheist and not really a positive atheist

[evident_enigma]

Yeah, not all ideas are equal.

Many people would agree, but for varying reasons and ideals. <-edit-redundancy

All the BS that happens seems to be a result of differing models/mindsets for "understanding" things.

I know what you mean, TNY.
I'm not totally sure whether a teapot is circling pluto or not, but I think it would be best and more mentally stable to take the side that there isn't.

E_E

[Coatsy]

The irritating things about 'logical' arguments such as these though, is that Christians usually just throw them back in your face with a remark along the lines of 'God defines logic and can therefore act outside of it'.

To be frank, I do not consider this an answer, as the fundamental basis of the question is about a logical contradiction, and answering thus is redefining a concept that is currently accepted as 'defined'.

On a side note, the idea of logic as a non-omnipresent concept was suggested in 'The Science of the Discword' by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewert and Jack Cohen. Anyone here read it?

[FishFace]

I started reading the sequel, but never finished... I should pick it up again.

So if God can transcend that logic, he can do something he can't do. That means he's omnipotent (because he can do anything, including what he can't do). The contradiction is resolved because God is omnipotent, not because we mere mortals can resolve the contradiction.
This works; I think I said it somewhere (there's another thread about omnipotence...)

I think it does, anyways. My head is tired.

[Rhinoqulous]

So if God can transcend that logic, he can do something he can't do. That means he's omnipotent (because he can do anything, including what he can't do). The contradiction is resolved because God is omnipotent, not because we mere mortals can resolve the contradiction.
This works; I think I said it somewhere (there's another thread about omnipotence...)

I think it does, anyways. My head is tired.
Going this route doesn't help the theist out though. If God transcends the bounds of logic, you don't end up resolving paradoxes, you make propositions about God meaningless. Theist's who embrace a God who transcends logic would also have to seriously consider the proof I've posted a few times where the greatest achievement an omnipotent God could do would be to create all of existence while not existing. It wouldn't be a paradox, it's omnipotence! :P

[FishFace]

Yep. Like I said... tired head. I realise now that it doesn't matter whether God is confined to logic in our universe - making statements about God is meaningless if, in some place, he can defy logic.