Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Omnipotent logically impossible?

Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 12:14:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I start off with some obvious points and go to logically consecutive outcomes, that I thought of, to reach the conclusion that it is actually impossible:

>Existence exists.

>We Perceive.

>Something exists which someone perceives.

>Someone exists who possesses consciousness, which is the faculty of perceiving what exists.

>There are different things that come out of this existence.

>Existence, with different intensities and consistencies makes different attributes which define these different things.

>A is A. A has certain attributes, that distinguish it incontrovertibly from B or C.

>If a thing has no attributes, then it is a nonentity--it does not and cannot exist.

>A can not be B at the same time as it is A if they have different opposing attributes. Contradiction doesn't work.

>If you come to a conclusion in your logic that has a contradiction, at least one of your premises which brought you to that conclusion must be wrong.

>This Principle over the existence of paradoxes is absolute. In any attempt to dismiss you would actually have to apply it.

>Thus it cannot be created, it is pre-existent. It is a fundamental law of reality.It is part of what defines reality.

>If a God exists he would have to be bound by it.

>To say he is not means he is not bound by reality, which means he does not, in relative to us, exist.

>If he is bound by it, he does exist. But is not omnipotent.

>To say he is omnipotent would be to say he has dominion over the law of paradoxes, which is illogical. An omnipotent God is impossible.
____________________________
>Causes were caused by something.

>Effects have an effect.

>Cause and effect are bound.

>To say they are not is to say things do not have to operate upon logic, that something can happen for no reason and that something can happen to which does not have any effect.

>This principle of cause and effect is another fundamental law of reality which is absolute and is part of what defines reality. It cannot be created.

>If there is a God he would have to be bound by this law.

>To say he is not means he is not bound by reality, which means he does not, in relative to us, exist.

>If he is bound by it, he does exist. But is not omnipotent.

>To say he is omnipotent would be to say he has dominion over the law of cause and effect, which is illogical. An omnipotent God is impossible.

>If God exists, he does not need a beginning if he exists outside time. But if he exists, he is bound by reality and those things which define it, which are it's laws. The law of cause and effect, though not requiring a beginning of God does require that he have a cause for existence.

>This also means that if there is a God he would not be omnipotent because some outside force must have caused him.
____________________________
>Effects cannot cause themselves. circular reasoning doesn't work.

>This Law of Circular Reasoning is absolute and another fundamental law of reality which is part of what defines it. It cannot be created.

>If there is a God he would have to be bound by this law.

>To say he is not means he is not bound by reality, which means he does not, in relative to us, exist.

>If he is bound by it, he does exist. But is not omnipotent.

>To say he is omnipotent would be to say he has dominion over the law of Circular Reasoning, which is illogical. An omnipotent God is impossible.

Do you disagree with any of these points? And if you do, how is it possible that you can dismiss one but not another before it?
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2009 6:09:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This is a very good argument. I like it. There are very few mistakes and I would agree that it is logically impossible for a completely omnipotent God to exist.

The only thing that hinders this argument from discrediting the God of the main montheistic religions is the nature of the two main definitions of omnipotent which are as follows:

-- Definition 1: Omnipotence means the ability to do anything which is logical or otherwise.

-- Definition 2: Omnipotence means the ability to do anything which is logically possible.

The first of these definitions would make all of your arguments futile because none of your premises would be able to show that it is impossible. Example:

">If there is a God he would have to be bound by this law."

If he were this brand of omnipotent then he would not be bound to this law, or any other law because of this definition of omnipotence. In that case your premise would be invalid.

This is not to say I agree with this definition. I hold the view that logic is absolute and that nothing, not even a god, can escape this fact. This is, however, unverifiable due to the nature of the argument as I stated above.

The second one is more agreeable and makes the god with this form of omnipotence logically possible by most of your arguments.

There are a few statements that I disagree with:

1. ">This also means that if there is a God he would not be omnipotent because some outside force must have caused him."

-- Being created or caused does not (unless you could show me how) eliminate the possiblity of being omnipotent. There is no contradiction in a created omnipotent being.

2. "The law of cause and effect, though not requiring a beginning of God does require that he have a cause for existence."

-- I would actually propose the opposite: If God did not have a beginning the he would could not possibly have a cause that was bound by logic because cause and effect is describing a relationship in which the cause must exist before an effect. If God did not have a beginning then there would not be any point in time at which a cause could have existed, therefore ruling out the possibility.

I appriciate the people that use pure logic to debate. The are too few and far inbetween. Thank you for your posts.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2009 10:49:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Bravo. Good, critical and objective analysis.

I had not actually read the definition of omnipotence, thank you for sharing that.

Now an address to your disagreements:

" 1. ">This also means that if there is a God he would not be omnipotent because some outside force must have caused him."

-- Being created or caused does not (unless you could show me how) eliminate the possiblity of being omnipotent. There is no contradiction in a created omnipotent being. "

>> I'm not really seeing your reasoning for how it couldn't. If God was created, he didn't have control over it, something would have more power than him. The implication being that the objective laws are the supreme force of reality.

" 2. "The law of cause and effect, though not requiring a beginning of God does require that he have a cause for existence."

-- I would actually propose the opposite: If God did not have a beginning the he would could not possibly have a cause that was bound by logic because cause and effect is describing a relationship in which the cause must exist before an effect. If God did not have a beginning then there would not be any point in time at which a cause could have existed, therefore ruling out the possibility. "

>> This scenario is not taking place in time/space. Notice that I never mention universe, which is defined by time/space, only "reality", which is defined by the objective laws. When you take time out of the scenario it works.

I was astonished when I discovered you were 15 years old, so am I. I've never seen anyone else my age that thinks like this.

I would appreciate it if you filled out your "The BIG issues" on your page so I can see how much you agree with me.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2009 1:35:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Omnipotence can be defined as both 100% and infinity. The paradox of the stone (see below) plays on equivocation between these two definitions.

If God is omnipotent, then God can create a stone God cannot lift.
If God is omnipotent, then God can lift any stone he can create.

Both definitions of omnipotence have two parts each.
Infinty:
Something is omnipotent if and only if it can do infinte things. (Anything concievable)
Something is not omnipotent if and only if it cannot do infinite things.
Infinite minus one is still infinite.

100%:
Something is omnipotent if and only if it can do everything.
Something is not omnipotent if and only if it cannot do everything.
100%-1 < 100%

The Paradox of the Stone applies the first part of the first definition and shows that it contradicts the second part of the second definition. The conclusion of the Paradox of the Stone, that omnipotency can not exist, is therefore unwarranted.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2009 7:17:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
To Freedomaniac:

"I had not actually read the definition of omnipotence, thank you for sharing that."

--Sorry, I actually had not gotten those from a dictionary but rather from the two most commonly used meanings that I hear people refer to.

The following arguments will be made using the second of the two definitions which I provided.

">>I'm not really seeing your reasoning for how it couldn't. If God was created, he didn't have control over it, something would have more power than him. The implication being that the objective laws are the supreme force of reality."

--You are right about God not having control over his own creation if he had one(which I don't believe he did), however, if he were was created then he would not have the quality of omnipotence before his own creation. Therefore, there would be no contradiction in him not having control over a situation at a time he was not omnipotent.

">> This scenario is not taking place in time/space. Notice that I never mention universe, which is defined by time/space, only "reality", which is defined by the objective laws. When you take time out of the scenario it works."

--When you take time out of the scenario, it is simplified even further. Then it would be impossible for God to have had a beginning because of the lack of time. If he did not have a beginning, then no change takes place(from something/nothing to God). A change is the only thing that requires a cause. Any change requires a cause, anything that does not involve any kind of change cannot have a cause.

"I was astonished when I discovered you were 15 years old, so am I. I've never seen anyone else my age that thinks like this."

--Wow... I had no idea you were fifteen. There are very, very few people my age who will even entertain my thoughts and even fewer that understand them. I'm glad to have found another one.

To wjmelements:

I do not think that the paradox of the stone applies at all to an omnipotent being. Essentially the paradox is not really a paradox at all. If God were to create a stone too heavy for himself to lift then he would have used his omnipotence to limit his omnipotence. Immediately after that act is performed he no longer posseses omnipotence and therefore it is no paradox that he cannot lift it.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2009 11:08:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"--You are right about God not having control over his own creation if he had one(which I don't believe he did), however, if he were created then he would not have the quality of omnipotence before his own creation. Therefore, there would be no contradiction in him not having control over a situation at a time he was not omnipotent."

>> First of all I'm not saying he was created, that implies he is bound by time, which if there is a God, I do not think he would be. Second, the way you stated the rest was a little fuzzy, please re-state.

"--When you take time out of the scenario, it is simplified even further. Then it would be impossible for God to have had a beginning because of the lack of time. If he did not have a beginning, then no change takes place(from something/nothing to God). A change is the only thing that requires a cause. Any change requires a cause, anything that does not involve any kind of change cannot have a cause."

>> First, yes, I know he could not have had a beginning, but there can be existence outside of time/space, so he would still need a cause. Second, I never implied that there was any kind of "change".
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2009 11:10:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
To theLword:

I'm not able to use the debate system at the present time, I give anyone permission to use in their own debate it if you wish.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 9:22:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
To Freedomaniac:

">> First of all I'm not saying he was created, that implies he is bound by time, which if there is a God, I do not think he would be. Second, the way you stated the rest was a little fuzzy, please re-state."

--The statement I am objecting to is this following one:

"If God was created, he didn't have control over it, something would have more power than him."

--I am saying that if God didn't have control over his own beginning then it wouldn't contradict his omnipotence. This is because the event which he had no control over (a hypothetical beginning) happened causualy before he was omnipotent. Also, the hypothetical creator of an omnipotent being would not have to be omnipotent. The only quality that it would definitely have would be the ability to create an omnipotent being. Thererfore it could have less power than the being it creates.

">> First, yes, I know he could not have had a beginning, but there can be existence outside of time/space, so he would still need a cause. Second, I never implied that there was any kind of "change"."

--I'm not entirely sure that you fully understand the laws governing cause and effect. The law is not stating that everything must have a cause. Rather, it states that every effect has a cause. We know that an effect can only occur if there is a change of some sort taking place. And, we also know that every change is the effect of a cause. God did not have a beginning. Any "beginning" implies a change. Therefore his existance is not the result of a change from anything. He is not an effect. And, not being an effect, he could not have had a cause.

--This is getting very interesting.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 9:44:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
to freedomaniac:

just wanted to point out one problem with your argument . . .

An omnipotent God (i'm referring to the Christian God) does not exist "in relative to us." The Christian God is not some white bearded man who waits in the clouds surrounded by angels playing harps. . . . he is a spirit, and as such not of this world, and as such not bound by the natural laws and logic of this world. I understand that this is a sucker punch to the gonads and that there really is no rebuttal to it, however just thought I'd let you in on the mind of how a Christian views God.

It is also believed that God created this earth, and all the laws within it. The creator is not bound by the creation, nor is he controlled by the logic of it, so it is logical to say that God defies logic. . .. is it not? . . .
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 10:32:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
"An omnipotent God (i'm referring to the Christian God) does not exist "in relative to us." The Christian God is not some white bearded man who waits in the clouds surrounded by angels playing harps. . . . he is a spirit, and as such not of this world, and as such not bound by the natural laws and logic of this world. I understand that this is a sucker punch to the gonads and that there really is no rebuttal to it, however just thought I'd let you in on the mind of how a Christian views God.

It is also believed that God created this earth, and all the laws within it. The creator is not bound by the creation, nor is he controlled by the logic of it, so it is logical to say that God defies logic. . .. is it not? . . ."

--This is an example of the first definition of omnipotent that people use. In which Omnipotent = Above Logic. And he is right about there not being a rebuttal to it. If he really is above all logic then using logic to argue against him is futile and can't be proven.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 10:37:02 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Agreed. But on the flip side, logical arguments aimed at attempting to prove the existence of said being would also be useless, wouldn't it?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 1:27:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 10:37:02 AM, Kleptin wrote:
Agreed. But on the flip side, logical arguments aimed at attempting to prove the existence of said being would also be useless, wouldn't it?

--Actually, logical arguments for said being would be completely unaffected. If an argument for such a being were proven correct, then the existance of that being (which didn't have to follow logic) would not prove the argument wrong. The only way that the argument would be futile is if it did exist, in which case the argument would still be correct.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 7:30:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 9:22:49 AM, DevinKing wrote:
To Freedomaniac:

">> First of all I'm not saying he was created, that implies he is bound by time, which if there is a God, I do not think he would be. Second, the way you stated the rest was a little fuzzy, please re-state."

--The statement I am objecting to is this following one:

"If God was created, he didn't have control over it, something would have more power than him."

--I am saying that if God didn't have control over his own beginning then it wouldn't contradict his omnipotence. This is because the event which he had no control over (a hypothetical beginning) happened causualy before he was omnipotent. Also, the hypothetical creator of an omnipotent being would not have to be omnipotent. The only quality that it would definitely have would be the ability to create an omnipotent being. Thererfore it could have less power than the being it creates.

How do you make something with more power out of only something with less power? That's impossible.


">> First, yes, I know he could not have had a beginning, but there can be existence outside of time/space, so he would still need a cause. Second, I never implied that there was any kind of "change"."

--I'm not entirely sure that you fully understand the laws governing cause and effect. The law is not stating that everything must have a cause. Rather, it states that every effect has a cause. We know that an effect can only occur if there is a change of some sort taking place. And, we also know that every change is the effect of a cause. God did not have a beginning. Any "beginning" implies a change. Therefore his existence is not the result of a change from anything. He is not an effect. And, not being an effect, he could not have had a cause.

Not understanding it? I' defining the laws on my own, I'm not taking them from someone else. I think it is only logical that everything must have a cause.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 7:34:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 9:44:04 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
to freedomaniac:

just wanted to point out one problem with your argument . . .

An omnipotent God (i'm referring to the Christian God) does not exist "in relative to us." The Christian God is not some white bearded man who waits in the clouds surrounded by angels playing harps. . . . he is a spirit, and as such not of this world, and as such not bound by the natural laws and logic of this world. I understand that this is a sucker punch to the gonads and that there really is no rebuttal to it, however just thought I'd let you in on the mind of how a Christian views God.

It is also believed that God created this earth, and all the laws within it. The creator is not bound by the creation, nor is he controlled by the logic of it, so it is logical to say that God defies logic. . .. is it not? . . .

Just so you know, I used to be a Christian, and I used think exactly what you've stated here. But now I think your wrong. There is a rebuttal. Reality is defined by logic, to not be bound by that logic is to not be bound by reality, to not be bound by reality is to be nonexistent. If there is a God, he must be bound by logic.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 4:36:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"How do you make something with more power out of only something with less power? That's impossible."

--Or is it? If the being in question has the power to create an omnipotent being, whether that particular being is omnicient or not, then it would not be impossible. If it did not have that power, then of course it could not create an omnipotent being.

--An example of something with less power creating something with more power would be a human designing and building a super-human artificial inteligence with a human body. Which of course has not happened but is still very possible if not inevitable.

--Another example would be if an omnipotent being of the first definition existed. Such a being, by definition, would be able to do anything conceiveable, namely, create a being with more power than itself.

"Not understanding it? I' defining the laws on my own, I'm not taking them from someone else. I think it is only logical that everything must have a cause."

--One way to look at it is this: an object is not caused to stay the same. A cause is only used when a change takes place.

--Look at Newton's first law of motion:

"In the absence of force, a body either is at rest or moves in a straight line with constant speed. "

--In this law he states that without a force(cause) acting upon an object, then it will always do what it was doing with the abscence of an effect(either remaining at rest, or continuing in its previous direction). That object being described is not caused to stay still or caused to keep going in the same direction. Essentially, without a cause, nothing will change. And, if nothing changes, then there is no effect, and therefore, no cause. In the case of God, there is no change from being nonexistant to existing. And in that way, he needs no cause for existance.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 4:44:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 1:27:53 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--Actually, logical arguments for said being would be completely unaffected. If an argument for such a being were proven correct, then the existance of that being (which didn't have to follow logic) would not prove the argument wrong. The only way that the argument would be futile is if it did exist, in which case the argument would still be correct.

How would you go about proving that a being which transcends logic exists?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 4:52:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/27/2009 1:35:35 PM, wjmelements wrote:
If God is omnipotent, then God can create a stone God cannot lift.
If God is omnipotent, then God can lift any stone he can create.

Solution: God creates Harry Potter to levitate the stone for him using his magic wand.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com