On the omnipotence of God: testing my argument.

[GenesisNemesis]

Hey everyone, just seeing if this argument would work out, so, here it is:

1) God is omnipotent.
a. God can do anything.
b. God can create a married bachelor.
c. A married bachelor cannot exist because the two definitions of the words contradict each other, so God would have to create an entirely different universe in order for there to be a married bachelor.
d. God can only do what is within the realm of human logic.
e. God could not have risen from the dead
e.5 God could not have died in the first place if He is immortal
f. God could not have performed miracles
g. God could not have existed, because He is beyond the realm of human logic.


:huh:

Just wondering if this works out. Thanks for your input.

[555]

God is immortal ?

[GenesisNemesis]

Yup. Eternal/immortal... same thing, no?

[555]

I donno but... The first immortal cells- Hela. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa)

[GenesisNemesis]

Yeah, but those are cells... not people. :Cheeky:

[555]

Hey everyone, just seeing if this argument would work out, so, here it is:

1) God is omnipotent.
a. God can do anything.
b. God can create a married bachelor.
c. A married bachelor cannot exist because the two definitions of the words contradict each other, so God would have to create an entirely different universe in order for there to be a married bachelor.
d. God can only do what is within the realm of human logic.
e. God could not have risen from the dead
e.5 God could not have died in the first place if He is immortal
f. God could not have performed miracles
g. God could not have existed, because He is beyond the realm of human logic.


:huh:

Just wondering if this works out. Thanks for your input.

As an agnostic i think it is good because. When i ask theist about the rock soo heavy paradox they answer YES & NO. so if god can do both lift and not lift the rock to me is impossible... it's like.. god doing the logicaly impossible.

If god can do the logicaly impossible then he must exist & not exist at the same time :huh:

I can ask. Can god exist and not exist at the same time ?

[rhutchin]

Hey everyone, just seeing if this argument would work out, so, here it is:

1) God is omnipotent.
a. God can do anything.
b. God can create a married bachelor.
c. A married bachelor cannot exist because the two definitions of the words contradict each other, so God would have to create an entirely different universe in order for there to be a married bachelor.
d. God can only do what is within the realm of human logic.
e. God could not have risen from the dead
e.5 God could not have died in the first place if He is immortal
f. God could not have performed miracles
g. God could not have existed, because He is beyond the realm of human logic.


:huh:

Just wondering if this works out. Thanks for your input.

In the context of the Bible, omnipotence means that God can do anything he wants and nothing (person, law, thing) can prevent God from accomplishing His purpose. So, your point "a" is not an accurate term if you are using another definition.

Also, the term, "batchelor," is a descriptor of a person possessing certain characteristics (i,e,. a man who is not married). There is, by definition, no such thing as a married batchelor (or a square circle, etc.) that God could create. God can create a person who could then be described as a batchelor or a married person. God can create a figure that can then be described as a circle, square, triangle, rectangle, etc.

Technically Christ did not die on the cross (as no one will ever really die). The flesh and blood body that Christ inhabited died, but Christ himself did not die with that body. With the death of the body, Christ moved out of the body. Once out of the body, the soul of a person is said to live if that soul is allowed into heaven and to be dead if it is denied entry into heaven.

[GenesisNemesis]

Then why do they say "Jesus died for our sins"?

[rhutchin]

Then why do they say "Jesus died for our sins"?

Because, Jesus was nailed to a cross and the physical body that Jesus inhabited died. Men took that body and placed it in a tomb.

There are verses that speak of Christ preaching to the spirits in prison and I think that this is a reference to the time between His death and His resurrection. Jesus was alive on the cross and on the third day after being placed in the tomb. I think theologians believe that Christ was alive during the period between the cross and the resurrection.

[Johnny Skeptic]

There are verses that speak of Christ preaching to the spirits in prison and I think that this is a reference to the time between His death and His resurrection. Jesus was alive on the cross and on the third day after being placed in the tomb. I think theologians believe that Christ was alive during the period between the cross and the resurrection.

So what. Jesus might have been an evil imposter.

[GenesisNemesis]

Jesus may have not existed. :)

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
There are verses that speak of Christ preaching to the spirits in prison and I think that this is a reference to the time between His death and His resurrection. Jesus was alive on the cross and on the third day after being placed in the tomb. I think theologians believe that Christ was alive during the period between the cross and the resurrection.

Johnny Skeptic
So what. Jesus might have been an evil imposter.

GenesisNemesis
Jesus may have not existed. :)

So many theories; so little information. What is a person to do? One day, we will all know the truth.

[GenesisNemesis]

So many theories; so little information. What is a person to do? One day, we will all know the truth.

Talkin' bout the so-called Second Coming (http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/comingagain.html), eh? I smell failed prophecies (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html). ;)

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
So many theories; so little information. What is a person to do? One day, we will all know the truth.

GenesisNemesis
Talkin' bout the so-called Second Coming (http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/comingagain.html), eh? I smell failed prophecies (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html). ;)

Actually, I was referring to the certainty that we will all die. Upon death, the truth will become obvious to each of us, don't you think?

A lot of goofy things in the list of failed prophecies.

[GenesisNemesis]

Of course we all die. Everyone knows that!

[rhutchin]

Of course we all die. Everyone knows that!

Yep. That means that we will all get to learn the truth about what happens after death.

[JPD]

Yep. That means that we will all get to learn the truth about what happens after death.

So the only thing we know is that, one day, we will die. We know nothing beyond that, should there be a beyond. Spending time advising others about what they should do if they want to have a good time after they die is futile. If a single piece of evidence existed that demonstrated that a particular course guaranteed a great time we would all be doing it. As it is we aren't. It isn't through ignorance, arrogance, pride, rejection, or any of a multitude of other words, but through realising that we just don't know. Plain and simple. No hocus pocus. Don't know = can't prepare = don't bother preparing = just live.

[Draconis]

I wonder, after the 2nd coming, will there be a third coming after that?

[Thought Begets Truth]

Originally Posted by JPD
Don't know = can't prepare = don't bother preparing = just live.[/QUOTE]

What if your just living, not bothering to prepare for something you don't think you can prepare for, just because you don't know about it? Why spend all of the time attempting to accumulate knowledge for a better understanding of what we face here and now if it will all be for nothing? Your logic suggests that we should dismiss everything which we don't know or can't understand.

[crosshawk]

So does that mean if i don"t understand chinese then for me the Chinese people dont exsist

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Yep. That means that we will all get to learn the truth about what happens after death.

JPD
So the only thing we know is that, one day, we will die. We know nothing beyond that, should there be a beyond.

We are both certain that we will die. There will come a time when our physical bodies will be declared dead. Beyond that, we are not certain what happens. We have teh Bibel and other books alleging this or that happens afetr death. We will not know if any of these are true until we actually die.

Spending time advising others about what they should do if they want to have a good time after they die is futile. If a single piece of evidence existed that demonstrated that a particular course guaranteed a great time we would all be doing it. As it is we aren't. It isn't through ignorance, arrogance, pride, rejection, or any of a multitude of other words, but through realising that we just don't know. Plain and simple. No hocus pocus. Don't know = can't prepare = don't bother preparing = just live.

Jesus put it this way--

Luke 12
16 Then He spoke a parable to them, saying: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded plentifully.
17 “And he thought within himself, saying, ‘What shall I do, since I have no room to store my crops?’
18 “So he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there I will store all my crops and my goods.
19 ‘And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry.”’
20 “But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?’
21 “So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”

[rhutchin]

So does that mean if i don"t understand chinese then for me the Chinese people dont exsist

No. It means that you will not be able to communicate with a Chinese person if you meet one.

[rhutchin]

I wonder, after the 2nd coming, will there be a third coming after that?

There could be if there were a need or purpose for a 3rd coming. There seems to be no need for Christ to return again after the second time.

[XOVER]

Anybody that trusts Protestantism needs to have their head examined.

This is the bunch that says the devil is the guy who wants world peace, and so they all sit around hoping for wars, calamities, death, and vice on all the rest of us so they can say, "I told you so."

Kooky religion, yet highly dangerous to the entire world.

When you die, you're dead. Pretty simple, actually. So live righteously on earth because you don't get a second chance with some "glorified body" in the sky doing -- what? -- staring for eternity at Jesus? Give me a break.

[IonMic]

Hey everyone, just seeing if this argument would work out, so, here it is:

1) God is omnipotent.
a. God can do anything.
b. God can create a married bachelor.
c. A married bachelor cannot exist because the two definitions of the words contradict each other, so God would have to create an entirely different universe in order for there to be a married bachelor.
d. God can only do what is within the realm of human logic.
e. God could not have risen from the dead
e.5 God could not have died in the first place if He is immortal
f. God could not have performed miracles
g. God could not have existed, because He is beyond the realm of human logic.


:huh:

Just wondering if this works out. Thanks for your input.

Warren Jeffs and his followers could be called married bachelors. I guess the question is did God create Warren Jeffs?

[TrueMyth]

Hey everyone, just seeing if this argument would work out, so, here it is:

1) God is omnipotent.
a. God can do anything.
b. God can create a married bachelor.
c. A married bachelor cannot exist because the two definitions of the words contradict each other, so God would have to create an entirely different universe in order for there to be a married bachelor.
d. God can only do what is within the realm of human logic.
e. God could not have risen from the dead
e.5 God could not have died in the first place if He is immortal
f. God could not have performed miracles
g. God could not have existed, because He is beyond the realm of human logic.


:huh:

Just wondering if this works out. Thanks for your input.

OK, I think I want to redirect this discussion away from the mudflinging and juvenile "I know you're damned, but what am I?" stuff.

I would take issue with B and question your definition of A, for one. As far as A goes, I think it is implicit in the word "anything" that a thing must be a thing (i.e., it must exist or at least possibly exist) before God can do it. Otherwise, the questioner is speaking nonsense, just as you are with B. Square circles, married bachelors; such things cannot logically exist because they cannot retain one property and retain the other at the same time and in the same way.

So, I propose a definition of omnipotence as the actual ability to perform all logically possible acts. "Actual" here means that this is a metaphysically Real ability, not merely a potential one. For example, if I am tied up, I have the ability to turn on the light in the room, but I do not have the actual ability. If you seem to feel that "restricting" omnipotence to logical possibility is a restriction, I can only state that you share intuitions which I cannot understand. If you want me to try to explain why I cannot understand this, I am willing to.

Under this much more reasonable (and, incidentally, widely accepted) definition of omnipotence, your entire argument ends at B. Incidentally, you could have drawn your conclusion from ABC. Everything after that is superfluous (and quite suspect reasoning).

[555]

This hasn’t been thought out much…it just occurred to me so here goes nothing.

I believe some people use the infinitely heavy rock paradox (or omnipotence paradox) to either argue for the non-existence of God, the non-existence of omnipotence, the non-well-defined nature of the word omnipotence, or all three.

First of all, is that correct?

OK, now what about how this ties into the liar’s paradox: “I always lie,” “every statement I make is a lie,” or something to that effect.

I think the common objection/resolution to the liar’s paradox is that self-referential statements are not considered statements (by which I mean “things” which are true xor false). If that is the case, certainly the omnipotence paradox is not self-referential… While “every statement I make is a lie” is self-referential, I don’t think being such should automatically disqualify it from being a bona fide statement because there are formal, mathematical statements which are self-referential (or at least could be construed as such—Tarski’s self-reference lemma comes to mind).

Of course, the difference between the two paradoxes, one being self-referential and the other not, will probably prove to be the key.

Anyway, if one treats the liar’s paradox as some people treat the omnipotence paradox, then one could conclude from the liar’s paradox the following things (some of which depend on previous entries in list):
1. I don’t exist (compare to “God does not exist”)

2. lies don’t exist, or statements don’t exist (compare to “omnipotence does not exist”)

3. truth—true statements to be more specific and precise--does not exist (follows from 2)

4. one of the following terms is not well-defined: I, statement, lie (compare to “omnipotence is not well-defined”)

Your thoughts?

[TrueMyth]

This hasn’t been thought out much…it just occurred to me so here goes nothing.

I believe some people use the infinitely heavy rock paradox (or omnipotence paradox) to either argue for the non-existence of God, the non-existence of omnipotence, the non-well-defined nature of the word omnipotence, or all three.

First of all, is that correct?

OK, now what about how this ties into the liar’s paradox: “I always lie,” “every statement I make is a lie,” or something to that effect.

I think the common objection/resolution to the liar’s paradox is that self-referential statements are not considered statements (by which I mean “things” which are true xor false). If that is the case, certainly the omnipotence paradox is not self-referential… While “every statement I make is a lie” is self-referential, I don’t think being such should automatically disqualify it from being a bona fide statement because there are formal, mathematical statements which are self-referential (or at least could be construed as such—Tarski’s self-reference lemma comes to mind).

Of course, the difference between the two paradoxes, one being self-referential and the other not, will probably prove to be the key.

Anyway, if one treats the liar’s paradox as some people treat the omnipotence paradox, then one could conclude from the liar’s paradox the following things (some of which depend on previous entries in list):
1. I don’t exist (compare to “God does not exist”)

2. lies don’t exist, or statements don’t exist (compare to “omnipotence does not exist”)

3. truth—true statements to be more specific and precise--does not exist (follows from 2)

4. one of the following terms is not well-defined: I, statement, lie (compare to “omnipotence is not well-defined”)

Your thoughts?

To be perfectly honest, I don't even see how the liar's paradox relates to the omnipotence paradox except in that it is a paradox. If you were to relate the liar's paradox to God, you would still run into the omnipotence paradox at some point (i.e., "Can God, being omnibenevolent, lie?") or you would have to come up with a highly contentious premise (i.e., "Everything God says is a lie"). Neither will get you far with the liar's paradox.

Regarding what you have said about the liar's paradox, I really don't think you're mean to say that self-referential statements are not really statements. I think that under any definition of "statement" which is significant to the majority of reasonable people, statements such as "I have blue eyes" and "I am 6' 4"" and "I try to be honest" are meaningful. Perhaps you mean self-referentially contradictory? For example, "I fully and actually possess at this moment the properties of presentness and futurity" or "I see a square circle". I would agree with you in that case that they are not statements-- they are nonsense. Just as the statement "God can make a stone so big he can't lift it" is logical nonsense, because it is self-referentially contradictory.

People use such paradoxes to try to prove the non-existence of God, but what they are really trying to do is prove the incoherence of a construct such as omnipotence, which is said by orthodox theism to be possessed necessarily by God. What needs to be done is to agree on a definition of omnipotence which most rational people agree satisfies our commonsense notions about it and, in so far as it relates to God and is used as such, is congruent with the understanding of omnipotence given in the Bible and by theologians and philosophers throughout history. I believe the definition I gave satisfies those criteria.

[Atheos]

So many theories; so little information. What is a person to do? One day, we will all know the truth.Or not. Maybe the bible is (uncharacteristically) correct in the following place:Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.So actually your statement is not accurate. It is possible that we will never know the truth because after we die we may very well cease to exist.

And for what it's worth, based on this and many other passages, many believers in the bible hold that we do, indeed "die" (cease to exist) between the time we die and the alleged resurrection.

[Decypher]

Hey everyone, just seeing if this argument would work out, so, here it is:

1) God is omnipotent.
a. God can do anything.
b. God can create a married bachelor.
c. A married bachelor cannot exist because the two definitions of the words contradict each other, so God would have to create an entirely different universe in order for there to be a married bachelor.
d. God can only do what is within the realm of human logic.



Theists will often define omnipotence as only including what is logically possible.


e. God could not have risen from the dead
e.5 God could not have died in the first place if He is immortal

If this is about Jesus, then Christians will generally say that only the human nature of Jesus died, not the divine nature.


f. God could not have performed miracles


You are suggesting that miracles are something logically contradictory? If so, you need an argument for that. Assuming that God exists I can't personally see that miracles would be any problem.