You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is there a solution to the omnipotence paradox?
If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.
What would be the "task" that this being is unable to do? The question itself is a word play game. The premise was set before hand that the being could do ALL. If a being could do all then there is no such thing as a task that it cannot complete or perform. It cannot exist. The questions breaks its own set of rules.
That also breaks its own rules. It also can't be applied to a being beyond the perception of space-time since mass is only relative to the contents inside the universe.
For one you are try to redistribute infinite power to a non-infinite, space-bound thing. Infinite doesn't end and the rock will never gain infinite mass. The question cannot be applied to him. The question cannot be apploed to him.
Also, if God is truly omnipotent and can in fact do anything then he could both lift and not life the rock at the same time, thus proving omnipotence.
Which indicates ANOTHER thing Big G cannot do then...
God can do everything that exists and is logically possible. Illogical things have no existence and cannot exist amd the questions that are created byusing them are flawed from the start. Your asking God to create non existence. However, I personally believe God is Almighty, not omnipotent, like you said. I used that in my other argument a while back. That God has near infinite might, but not capability.
I do not believe that is mathematically viable.
I cannot be. It doesn't have to be. Are you going to argue using logic which is all things logical or illogic which is the paradox? The paradox destroys itself. If something is truly omnjpotent it can do both things at the same time which proves it is omnipotent. You cannot even imagine what that looks like. Nearly any argument we make is based off of what the realm is composed of.
God can do everything that exists and is logically possible.
You are placing modifiers on his capacity. Therefore you are moving away from the definition of omnipotent. Omnipotent means "able to do anything" not just things that are logical.
Illogical things have no existence and cannot exist amd the questions that are created byusing them are flawed from the start.
Yes. That is why it is a valid test. If the only way to rectify the language in through impossibility, then it highlights the problem with the premise.
The paradox destroys itself.
The paradox destroys all things that are caught within it. Its like the whole first cause paradox. Everything we observe has a cause so it is reasonble to assume to EVERYTHING has a cause. Reasonable until you realize the first cause would need a cause too. So you have have to change your premise in some way. At least one thing did not have a cause, or time is not linear, or the rule only applies within a confined system....something has to give in order to remove the prardox. In this case, because omnipotence is by definition ALL-inclusive, the only way to remove the paradox is to remove it as a quality.
Nearly any argument we make is based off of what the realm is composed of.
You are placing modifiers on his capacity. Therefore you are moving away from the definition of omnipotent. Omnipotent means "able to do anything" not just things that are logical.
Not in any sense am I doing so. Its a misplaced, illogical question that cannot be understood. Omnipotent TRULY means all powerful through either force, authority, control, etc. Kings were called omnipotent. Omnicompetence is somehow tied to omnipotence, which isn't the true meaning of the word. Another way of phrasing it is that God is unlimited energy which would be relative to power in his creationary sense.
Yes. That is why it is a valid test.
No, you have not gained any ground. You are only falsely and unaccurately attributing things to God that cannot fit amd make no sense. You are asking God to make absolute nothing become something while remaining nothing. That is completly illogical in practice and questioning. I have already established that God can truly do all this that are logically possible unless he wishes to reign above it and not be contested by it.
The paradox destroys all things that are caught within it. Its like the whole first cause paradox. Everything we observe has a cause so it is reasonble to assume to EVERYTHING has a cause.
That establishment itself is flawed since it is based on what our interpretation of creation is. Everything in the universe requires creation. Anything outside space-time canot have a beginning or an end and thus must always exist. If God is outside space-time and possesses infinite energy then he can create the universe in any method he wishes. That question is only true if there is no outside of space-time.
Do you have an alternative?
Wait until you go to heaven to ask God. It's impossible for us to begin explaining God without him giving us his knowledge about his own capabilites.
Its a misplaced, illogical question that cannot be understood.
I understand it. It is a thought exercise. Its like using a mathematical proof, basically.
Kings were called omnipotent.
Kings were often called Gods too. It doesn't mean that they fit the definition. There was a crap-ton of hyperbole back then.
No, you have not gained any ground. You are only falsely and unaccurately attributing things to God that cannot fit amd make no sense.
No. Somebody else attributed those qualities to him. I am simply pointing out that these attributes "cannot fit and make no sense". Omnipotence is a self-defeating quality, so it is invalid as a proposition. The paradox test is a viable logical test.
That establishment itself is flawed since it is based on what our interpretation of creation is.
And our understanding is known to be flawed?
Anything outside space-time canot have a beginning or an end and thus must always exist.
Assuming items exist outside of space-time. Either way though, you are doing EXACTLY what I said you had to do to nullify the paradox. Which is a good thing. I said you had to change the parameters, and you are. You'd probably be a decent logician :)
If God is outside space-time and possesses infinite energy then he can create the universe in any method he wishes.
Any method viable within the capabilities of energy. Even an infinite supply of energy is still bound by the limits of energy.
Wait until you go to heaven to ask God.
So your answer is "no"? See, I'd rather do my thinking while I'm alive, just in case its the only shot I get. Which certainly seems to be the case.
Kings were often called Gods too. It doesn't mean that they fit the definition. There was a crap-ton of hyperbole back then.
This is where our arguments become parallel instead or perpendicular. This lends me to believe that the exaggeration of God was used to either glorify him or make him look stronger.
Omnipotence is a self-defeating quality
Unless you're omnipotent. :)
The paradox test is a viable logical test.
In what sense is illogic applicable to logic?
Any method viable within the capabilities of energy. Even an infinite supply of energy is still bound by the limits of energy.
This is only true if we understand the nature of the energy. We don't know the nature of the energy. Also, our understanding of energy is completely limited to the universe's use of energy. So there may be no limitations to this divine energy.
So your answer is "no"? See, I'd rather do my thinking while I'm alive, just in case its the only shot I get. Which certainly seems to be the case.
Nah. My answer must wait until I can ask the deity myself. Even if it doesn't exist I have made myself happy and done what I wished.
This lends me to believe that the exaggeration of God was used to either glorify him or make him look stronger.
I'd say there is plenty of validity to that. It sure wouldn't be the first or last time people would do something like. Especially during the earliest days of Judaism and Christianity. They were surrounded on all sides by mostly polytheistic religions, so the temptation to say that "my God can beat up all of yours" would seem high.
In what sense is illogic applicable to logic?
In the same sense that dark is applicable to light, or cold is applicable to heat, or in the way that I can conclude that "ghdosn" is not an English word if I don't find it in my dictionary. Its been a super-long time since I took my logic classes, but I do remember exercises where we would intentionally set up an invalid form and plug a premise into it. If it fit the form, and the form defied logic, the premise could be said to be illogical.
We don't know the nature of the energy.
We don't know everything there is to know about energy, but we do know its nature. We have the Laws of Thermodynaimcs, we have energy behaving consistently at set wavelengths, we know that quantums and force carriers will behave in certain ways in certain conditions (in reference to classical physics. Quantum physics is, admittedly, harder to make sense of, but this does not rule out patterns and sequences in the quantum world, it just identifies that they behave differently than in the macro). Despite what new agers and sci-fi writers seem to believe, energy is not deux ex machinae that is unknowable. Part of the reason that all matter has limits is because matter is energy and enrgy has limits.
Also, our understanding of energy is completely limited to the universe's use of energy. So there may be no limitations to this divine energy.
As far as we can surmise, energy that enters into the universe from "outside" would automatically be subject to the laws inside. It is possibly true that in a non-universal context (such as the singularity "preceding" the big bang) energy has no limits. But those limits are what gives it capacity, since you need differentiation. When everything is possible, nothing happens. So if God is outside of the universe, I wager that he can ONLY be omnipotent there. If he or his energy comes into the universe, they become limited. And if he is limited in at least one section of reality, he is not omnipotent.
My argument is going to be very similar to Mucka, as he hit the nail on the head... (damn you Mucka, why must your way of thinking be so similar to mine!) Anways. Omni means "all" and potent means "powerful", thus literally translated to what those word pieces mean, omnipotent would mean "all powerful". All-powerful, would mean to possess ALL power, to not be lacking in any power, if god doesn't have the power to do something, then said god is not all powerful. This would also mean that logic couldn't have power over god, but rather god has power over logic, so in that sense this said god should apparently be able to make "2 + 2 = fish" and thus bypass logic, if god can bypass logic, then said god should have no excuse for an imperfect world, or a world with any flaws, if this said god's goal was to make the best world for maximizing happiness, well-being, and health, then this world would be a lot different. However, people probably weren't very consistent, or literal back in the days where religion grew, and "all-powerful" was probably an exaggeration. Whether or not omnipotent meant back then what it means today, in either case they REALLY probably meant MOST powerful (as Mucka said, damn you Mucka :P). If we take omnipotence literally, technically paradoxes are solved because god can force them to make sense, but this said god could also make the world a better place whether or not it is logically possible.
If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.
Most theologians and philosophers don't think that God is defined as being able to do any action, but being able to do anything that can be done. This means that it cannot do the logically impossible, such as making a married bachelor, or a square circle, or be an omnipotent non-omnipotent being. So, there is no issue here, since omnipotence does not state to be able to do the logically impossible. However, even if God can do the logically impossible, then it logically follows that He would be able to create a task that is unable to be performed, but then be able to perform it.
So, really the problem is flushing out what omnipotence is. It is in no way a paradox. If you say He can do the logically impossible, then He cannot make a task that cannot be done. If you say He can do the logically impossible, then He can make the task and then complete it. So, I don't see the problem here.
However, atheistic though I may be, there is a way out for God: Do not identify him as being omniscient. In modern parlance, we tend to equate the word "almighty" with "omnipotent", but several scholars do not believe this was the intended usage in the original text. They argue that the word we translate as almighty simply meant "MOST powerful", not "ALL Powerful". So you can't escape the paradox, but you can justify God as not being subject to it if you can accept that he can't do ANYthing, just more than anything else.
My argument is going to be very similar to Mucka, as he hit the nail on the head... (damn you Mucka, why must your way of thinking be so similar to mine!) Anways. Omni means "all" and potent means "powerful", thus literally translated to what those word pieces mean, omnipotent would mean "all powerful". All-powerful, would mean to possess ALL power, to not be lacking in any power, if god doesn't have the power to do something, then said god is not all powerful. This would also mean that logic couldn't have power over god, but rather god has power over logic, so in that sense this said god should apparently be able to make "2 + 2 = fish" and thus bypass logic, if god can bypass logic, then said god should have no excuse for an imperfect world, or a world with any flaws, if this said god's goal was to make the best world for maximizing happiness, well-being, and health, then this world would be a lot different. However, people probably weren't very consistent, or literal back in the days where religion grew, and "all-powerful" was probably an exaggeration. Whether or not omnipotent meant back then what it means today, in either case they REALLY probably meant MOST powerful (as Mucka said, damn you Mucka :P). If we take omnipotence literally, technically paradoxes are solved because god can force them to make sense, but this said god could also make the world a better place whether or not it is logically possible.
That also gets me too. If God is all powerful he is above logic and can change, manipulate, or evade any logic that may try to contest him. Its logical that he is able to do so, but the bible specifically used the word "Almighty". Omnipotent appears in like one or two translations. God is really just almighty, not omnicompetent.
to be fair, the notion that "almighty" might simply mean most powerful was actually introduced to me by a Christian. It is one of the only arguments that a Christian has ever given me that increases God's validity. I'm surprised more Christians haven't caught on.
I used this a while ago once I learned that absolute omnipotence seems silly with the occurences we experience in our world. Simple processes for a being of such measure? Nah. The bible also only uses "Almighty". A few new translations use "omnipotent".
Also as you have said in our argument "there was a crap ton of hyperbole". So I wouldn't be surprised if this was applied to God's knowledge (omniscience) or his moral implication. (omnibenevolence).
I'd say that's a fair assessment. I think, however, omnibenovelnce is slightly different. I think the other ones were supposed to establish that he is to be feared, while the benevolence is too assure us that he is on our side.
