An Omnipotent is Being Impossible
« on: 2003-07-31 13:54:13 »
Here is a though for you guys out there, can there really be an omnipotent being? No, of course not. It's impossible. I'm sure a few of you have thought about this already, but I thought it was worthy to post about. Omnipotent means all powerful, with no restrictions. You could do what ever you wish to do if you were omnipotent. That means that if there was such a being he/she could create something that is undestroyable. But if it was undestroyable he could not destroy it. Therefore he would not be omnipotent. Now, on the other hand if he couldn't create something that he couldn't destroy he still wouldn't be omnipotent. Therefore it proves that most religions CAN NOT be right.
Safe from the pain and truth and choice and other poison devils See.. they don't give a fuck about you, like i do. Just stay with me, safe and ignorant, Go back to sleep Go Back to sleep
you have been FnoRded, may the farce be with you..
Re:An Omnipotent is Being Impossible
« Reply #1 on: 2003-08-01 00:31:02 »
there's also the arguement of the irresistable force vs. the immovable object... "if god is omnipotent, could he create a rock so heavy he couldn't move it?" yes and no. if he can, he's not omnipotent, because he can't move it. if he can't, that;s something he can't do anyway.
one of the more interesting one's i've thought about, though, was:
"if god is omnipotent, could he create a being more powerful/advanced/what-have-you than himself?"
that one intrigued me more because of the notion that there was something beyond "all-powerful" ...and if god cannot do that, once again, he's not all powerful. but, contrary-wise, if he can, then what he considers to be "all-powerful" isn't really omnipotence afterall...
I have addressed this issue several times before onlist. 1) Of course the idea of an omnipotent being is self-contradictory on a logical level. The primitive (but still quite effective) version of this argument is "Can God make a rock so big that (S)He can't lift it?". If (S)He can't, then (S)He is not omnipotent, since (S)He therefore cannot build an unliftable-by-Him/Herself rock, but if (S)He can, then (S)He also is not omnipotent, since (S)He can build a rock so big that (S)He can't lift it. 2) But there is also the mutually contradictory conflict between two impossible-to-exist-together absolute deific attributes. If a deity were omnipotent, that is, if (S)He knew everything that would happen in the future, than (S)He would be unable to change it, and thus couldnot omnipotent; if, however, (S)He could change the future at will, than (S)He could not know it in advance, and thus could not be omniscient. This irresolveable conclusion is logically identical to the Irresistable Force/Immovable Object paradox.
you have been FnoRded, may the farce be with you..
Re:An Omnipotent is Being Impossible
« Reply #3 on: 2003-08-01 15:54:40 »
joe, you're confusing "omnipotent" with "omniscient"...
omnipotent means "all powerful" meaning that whoever/whatever possess that quality can do anything, change anything, withstand anything, etc...
omniscience referse to knowledge of everything. now, whereas omnipotence is a self-contradictory notion, omniscience isn't necessarily so. (at least not by the same premises)
if someone (for the sake of convienience, let's call it "him" and "god") possessed omniscience (as well as the ability to affect things based upon his omniscience), then one would indeed know "the future" if indeed the 'future' exists and is predestined to play out certain cause/effect sequences.
such as: i have knowledge that if i hit the post button (most likely) this will become visible to all the bbs. cause, pushing the post botton; effect, people seeing my post.
now, if there isn't really a predestination thing in effect, then the future doesn't really exist in that it is one thing or another; rahter it is intangible and changing based upon our reactions (that in turn cause actions, producing effects). now, this arguement doesn't presuppose a notion of fate or destiny. so, let's see...
if one is omniscient, and therefore possesses all knowledge, and there is no predestination or fate in effect, then what does one see in place of "the future?" i proposit that one would see all possible outcomes of all the cummulative effects produced by causes, the probability (likelyhood) of each happening, and all possible new causes created by each outcome, and each of their respective likelyhoods, et cetera, ad infinitum....
so, assuming one could know everything and also assuming that there is no predestined future, one would not see "the future" or be incapable of "changing the future" as you can see. mostly because there would be no future to see, but rather infinite possibilities with infinite possible outcomes instead of a fixed future.
so it is not "logically identical" as you would have it, because for one, you are presuming more things with that arguement (omniscience, omnipotence, and predestination...count em, that's three [3])...while with the immovable object/irresistable force you deal with two aspects of one presumption: omnipotence.
Re:An Omnipotent is Being Impossible
« Reply #5 on: 2003-08-01 22:38:46 »
a person once claimed that since god was omnipotent he didn't need a memory... and it was that day i resolved never to worship beings that weren't Turing compatible...
Author
Logged
