1. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    25 Jul '14 14:57
    Not exactly news, but I love how he presents it.

    Omnipotence Fails. Period.: http://youtu.be/95xXt0D0SQ8
  2. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    25 Jul '14 15:081 edit
    I haven't seen the vid, but does the speaker say something like "can God make a burrito too spicy for him to eat and then it"? Or ask if God can make a circular square, or perform other self-contradicting feats?
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    25 Jul '14 15:13
    Originally posted by C Hess
    Not exactly news, but I love how he presents it.

    Omnipotence Fails. Period.: http://youtu.be/95xXt0D0SQ8
    Maybe this guys logic is flawed. Just saying.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    25 Jul '14 15:241 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    I haven't seen the vid, but does the speaker say something like "can God make a burrito too spicy for him to eat and then it"? Or ask if God can make a circular square, or perform other self-contradicting feats?
    Yes, he does. Obviously most people who have given it some thought do not define omnipotence that way.
    I personally see major problems with omniscience. Generally if you know the future, you can't change it.
  5. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78550
    25 Jul '14 15:39
    Originally posted by vivify
    I haven't seen the vid, but does the speaker say something like "can God make a burrito too spicy for him to eat and then it"? Or ask if God can make a circular square, or perform other self-contradicting feats?
    The definition of a square is four equal length straight line segments perpendicular to one another and linked at their end points. The definition of a circle is a curve all of whose points are equidistant from its centre. Simply select your background geometry so that a square has all it's points equidistant from it's centre.
  6. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    25 Jul '14 16:11
    Originally posted by vivify
    I haven't seen the vid, but does the speaker say something like "can God make a burrito too spicy for him to eat and then it"? Or ask if God can make a circular square, or perform other self-contradicting feats?
    No, he's not actually. He's pointing out that to be omnipotent is to be able to do anything
    that is logically possible, but not what is logically impossible. Then he goes on to show that
    omnipotence itself is logically impossible, since it's a paradox, self-contradiction.
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    25 Jul '14 16:39
    Originally posted by C Hess
    He's pointing out that to be omnipotent is to be able to do anything
    that is logically possible, but not what is logically impossible.
    No, he is not 'pointing it out' he is defining it that way. It is not the only possible definition - as I said it is not even the most reasonable definition
  8. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78550
    25 Jul '14 16:40
    Originally posted by C Hess
    No, he's not actually. He's pointing out that to be omnipotent is to be able to do anything
    that is logically possible, but not what is logically impossible. Then he goes on to show that
    omnipotence itself is logically impossible, since it's a paradox, self-contradiction.
    Since he's taking a non-absolute form of omnipotence, specifically one where God cannot do anything contradictory I don't see why there should be a contradiction. Possibly he's defined omnipotence in a way which contains a contradiction and needs to revise his definition so it does not.
  9. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    25 Jul '14 17:55
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    No, he is not 'pointing it out' he is defining it that way. It is not the only possible definition - as I said it is not even the most reasonable definition
    I think it's reasonable enough. A being that can do the logically impossible (such as both
    exist and not exist at the same time - or create itself before it exists so that it can exist)
    makes even less sense than a being that can do anything, but only as long as it's logically
    possible. Either way, the concept of omnipotence fails on its own definition.
  10. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    25 Jul '14 18:07
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Since he's taking a non-absolute form of omnipotence, specifically one where God cannot do anything contradictory I don't see why there should be a contradiction. Possibly he's defined omnipotence in a way which contains a contradiction and needs to revise his definition so it does not.
    He is saying that an omnipotent being can do anything as long as it's logically possible,
    then points out that it's both logically possible for an omnipotent being to create a rock so
    heavy he himself cannot lift it, and also logically possible for an omnipotent being to lift
    any finite mass, thus showing that it's logically impossible to be omnipotent. Revising the
    definition of omnipotence to be able to do the logically impossible creates problems of its
    own.
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    25 Jul '14 19:14
    Originally posted by C Hess
    I think it's reasonable enough. A being that can do the logically impossible (such as both
    exist and not exist at the same time - or create itself before it exists so that it can exist)
    makes even less sense than a being that can do anything, but only as long as it's logically
    possible.
    Making an even less sensible definition doesn't justify his definition.

    Either way, the concept of omnipotence fails on its own definition.
    Yes, by either of those definitions, it fails. But as I have said several times, this is of little importance because most theists do not use either definition when they talk of omnipotence.
    He is using a strawman argument.
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    25 Jul '14 19:21
    Having gone through it again I would say that I dispute his premise 4. or the way he applies it.
    He claims that it is logically possible to create a rock so big its creator cannot lift it. He does not state whether this applies to any creator. But he then claims that an omnipotent being can create such a rock. But this does not follow unless premise flaw applies to all beings. But if premise 4 applies to all beings then it is false.
  13. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    25 Jul '14 21:04
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    ...as I have said several times, this is of little importance because most theists do not use either definition when they talk of omnipotence.
    He is using a strawman argument.
    I don't think so. Consider other definitions. Any one of them would have to include further
    restrictions on what an omnipotent being can do, limiting its power. Consider, for instance,
    the nature of said being. There's the age-old argument that god, because of her nature,
    can't lie. Still, she's considered omnipotent. But a being that cannot alter its own nature is
    not all powerful.

    So, now we define omnipotence as not all powerful, but very powerful. The problem with
    this is that any human can be considered omnipotent by that definition, for every human is
    very powerful in relation to, say, ants. Really, any living thing can in some sense be
    considered omnipotent by that definition.

    No, I think for omnipotence to mean anything, it must mean that whomever possess this
    quality can do anything logically possible.
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    25 Jul '14 21:58
    Originally posted by C Hess
    I don't think so. Consider other definitions. Any one of them would have to include further
    restrictions on what an omnipotent being can do, limiting its power.
    I think a reasonable definition would be one that could do anything that didn't result in a contradiction. So God could not for example make something both existent and non-existent at the same time even though it could do both individually.

    There's the age-old argument that god, because of her nature,
    can't lie. Still, she's considered omnipotent. But a being that cannot alter its own nature is
    not all powerful.

    Yes, such a God is clearly not omnipotent. But what if there was a God that choose not to lie, but could if it had wanted to? Omnipotence does not require a being to actually do every thing it can do.

    No, I think for omnipotence to mean anything, it must mean that whomever possess this
    quality can do anything logically possible.

    I think you have to be very careful about what you mean by 'logically possible'. I think the guy in the youtube got it wrong in that he claimed something was logically possible, then showed it was logically impossible, then instead of admitting his premise was false, he instead claimed a contradiction. In reality it was his premise that was false.

    Consider this:
    1. I could go to the Johannesburg. It is logically possible for me to go to Johannesburg.
    2. I could not go to Johannesburg yesterday. It is logically impossible for me to go to Johannesburg yesterday.
    3. 1. and 2. form a contradiction. I don't exist.
  15. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    25 Jul '14 22:17
    Originally posted by C Hess
    Not exactly news, but I love how he presents it.

    Omnipotence Fails. Period.: http://youtu.be/95xXt0D0SQ8
    God defines Himself.

    It is irrational for a mere mortal to explain anything about God that God hasn't already, or doesn't explain about Himself.

    1 Timothy 1:17
    Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, [be] honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

    Genesis 35:11
    And God said unto him, I [am] God Almighty: ...

    Ok, what do we have here? Almighty, and only wise God.

    Sure sounds omnipotent to me. Unless you think there's more to what omnipotent means than being almighty and only wise!
Back to Top