Omnipotence is logically impossible!

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. 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 o ...[text shortened]... anything, it must mean that whomever possess this
quality can do anything logically possible.

The god cannot lie supposition strikes me as thoroughly ridiculous. Playing that game we could define "God" to be inert on Monday-Saturday whereby it would still satisfy omnipotence on all days of the week (since the set of logically possible things for that god to do would be empty on 6 of those days)

As for very powerful (as opposed to maximally powerful) this is far more plausible to me than the childish notion of "God" that your typical theist would put forward. Indeed why can't a creator of the universe entity just be good at doing things that seed universes and capable of sod all else worth mentioning!?? 😕
I do wish there was a theist on these boards that would put forward an argument for what ought to be the absolutely necessary characteristics of a creator entity (the only one I can think of, and he doesn't post here these days, is Conrau K)

Originally posted by Agerg
The god cannot lie supposition strikes me as thoroughly ridiculous. Playing that game we could define "God" to be inert on Monday-Saturday whereby it would still satisfy omnipotence on all days of the week (since the set of logically possible things for that god to do would be empty on 6 of those days)

As for very powerful (as opposed to maximally powerful) ...[text shortened]... a creator entity (the only one I can think of, and he doesn't post here these days, is Conrau K)

The notion is that God is perfect, to lie is to be imperfect, so that God cannot lie. One thing you have to ask yourself is are the things we are talking about powers? The purpose of a lie is to use deceit to gain an end, however God does not need the lie to gain the end and the power lies in gaining the end result, not automatically the method.

Just a point on the law of non-contradiction. Logic is a formal language, in the formal language of classical logic one has the rule ¬(P&¬P) so that a proposition cannot be true and not true at the same time. However consider the case of an electron prepared so its spin is uncertain, it's state vector is 1/sqrt(2) * (|1/2> + |-1/2> ). If the proposition is that it has spin 1/2 (i.e. state vector |1/2> ) then the law of non-contradiction doesn't apply until one tries to make a measurement. If the law of non-contradiction doesn't apply to an individual electron, why should it apply to God?

Originally posted by C Hess
Not exactly news, but I love how he presents it.

Omnipotence Fails. Period.: http://youtu.be/95xXt0D0SQ8

And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Matthew 19:26 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Originally posted by twhitehead
...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

This is a real conundrum for believers of an omnipotent being. Either it can't lie, in which
case it's limited in its powers as it can't alter its own nature, or it can alter its own nature
and lie, in which case any of the things it's supposedly revealed could potentially be a lie.*

But, if we consider that an omnipotent being must be powerful enough to alter its own
nature, once its nature has been altered, is it still the same being? If it's not, and I would
have to think it isn't, could its previous self really have been considered omnipotent? I
mean, it sortof had to die and give rise to a being with a different nature before it could do
whatever it needed to do.

So if we define omnipotence as being able to do anything that's logically possible as long
as no contradiction occur, then an omnipotent being can't alter its own nature as it would
in the process become a being that could contradict its previous self. Therefore, an
omnipotent being can't alter its own nature. If an omnipotent being can only do what's
logically possible, non-contradictory, and limited to its own nature, we're back at square
one, since any human fits in with that definition. We can't change our nature, and there are
only so many possible actions we can take that's both logically possible and non-
contradictory. We're omnipotent.

Or, omnipotence means to be able to do anything logically possible, and should
contradictions occurr that limits the number of possible actions the omnipotent being can
choose to take, then that means that omnipotence itself is a logical impossibility.

* The third option, that it was already in its nature to be able to lie, produce the same problem for believers as the second option

Originally posted by josephw
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 ...[text shortened]... to me. Unless you think there's more to what omnipotent means than being almighty and only wise!

Yet, as I think has been demonstrated, being all powerful is a logical impossibility, a
paradoxical state of being that produce self-contradictions.

Originally posted by Agerg
The god cannot lie supposition strikes me as thoroughly ridiculous

I don't think it is. It's not the god can't lie that's the real argument. It's whether or not god
can change her own nature should she need to that's the real argument.

Originally posted by Agerg
As for very powerful (as opposed to maximally powerful) this is far more plausible to me than the childish notion of "God" that your typical theist would put forward. Indeed why can't a creator of the universe entity just be good at doing things that seed universes and capable of sod all else worth mentioning!??

I'm sure she could, but is that really an omnipotent god? Is it even possible to be omnipotent?

Originally posted by DeepThought
...God does not need the lie to gain the end and the power lies in gaining the end result...

Well, we don't know that. If god can lie, we don't know what her end goal of a creation is, so
we can't know whether or not she's been lying to us. It could be that her goal is to weed out
free-thinkers from the rest, so that she can use our minds for some esoteric duty in her
own dimension, while throwing away the rest on the soul garbage heap. Who can say, if
god can lie? Sh it, we don't even know if she's a she.

Originally posted by DeepThought
If the law of non-contradiction doesn't apply to an individual electron, why should it apply to God?

This is the one argument that's given me pause. Thank you. 🙂

Originally posted by Agerg
I do wish there was a theist on these boards that would put forward an argument for what ought to be the absolutely necessary characteristics of a creator entity

I doubt that you will find anyone putting forward a reasonable argument since it seems fairly trivial that there are no known such characteristics other than what is contained in the definition 'creator entity'.

Originally posted by C Hess
If an omnipotent being can only do what's logically possible, non-contradictory, and limited to its own nature, we're back at square one, since any human fits in with that definition.

I really can't see how you reach that conclusion. In fact I really can't make much sense of any of your post.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The notion is that God is perfect, to lie is to be imperfect, so that God cannot lie. One thing you have to ask yourself is are the things we are talking about powers? The purpose of a lie is to use deceit to gain an end, however God does not need the lie to gain the end and the power lies in gaining the end result, not automatically the method.

Jus ...[text shortened]... he law of non-contradiction doesn't apply to an individual electron, why should it apply to God?

Why should not-lying be more perfect than lying!? ... setting aside the fact that we may not like being lied to, the act of a lie, paraphrasing you slightly, is to deliberately convey information which is believed to be not true in order to gain an end (and end which may be a positive one or a negative one (No kind Nazi ... no jews in my basement!)). In some cases lies can be good, and may also be the most efficient means of accomplishing a particular end - it would seem to me that it is more perfect to achieve an objective X with method x with greater economy than achieving the same objective with method y.

As for your second argument, given that I studied pure maths as opposed to physics I cannot say I have seen the derivation of the expression for the state vector you gave here (I cannot even be sure you stated it correctly). I'm sorry but I cannot follow you on this argument yet.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I doubt that you will find anyone putting forward a reasonable argument since it seems fairly trivial that there are no known such characteristics other than what is contained in the definition 'creator entity'.

It doesn't seem fairly trivial to me.
But before I proceed, are you arguing along the lines that, say, the set of all necessary characteristics of a pianist is: {create music with pianos} !?

Originally posted by Agerg
It doesn't seem fairly trivial to me.
But before I proceed, are you arguing along the lines that, say, the set of all necessary characteristics of a pianist is: {create music with pianos} !?

Yes, more or less. Unless your definition requires the pianist to be human, in which case being human must be added to the list. But if you do not include being human, then I think you will find it practically impossible to go beyond {create music with pianos}.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, more or less. Unless your definition requires the pianist to be human, in which case being human must be added to the list. But if you do not include being human, then I think you will find it practically impossible to go beyond {create music with pianos}.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ist

Added to words to form nouns denoting:

a person with a particular creative or academic role;

artist, one who makes art
violinist, one who plays a violin
botanist, one who studies plants
psychiatrist, one who practices psychiatry

one who proscribes to a particular theological doctrine or religious denomination;

Calvinist, Baptist, deist
Note, these are related to -isms: Calvinism, deism

one who owns or manages something;

capitalist; industrialist
Note, these are related to -isms: capitalism; industrialism

one who has a certain political tendency;

Marxist, fascist, pacifist, activist, environmentalist, feminist
Note, these are related to -isms: Marxism, fascism, pacifism'

a person who holds bigoted, partial views.

sexist, racist
Note, these are related to -isms: sexism, racism