14 Oct 12
Originally posted by Agergseems legit, i can detect nothing faulty with that reasoning. looks like you have provided a condition whereby an omnipotent being can give itself a temporary loss of omnipotence.
Ok...but then acknowledging the point about memory, is it not possible (in theory) that it could impose some constraint C denying[hidden]let P = \"painting apples turquoise\"[/hidden]itself both the ability of P, and the memory of C (and action P) for some finite length of "time"?[hidden]where \"time\" is some temporal \"thingy-majig\" allowing some god to do ...[text shortened]... ibly the memory of imposing it returns), whence it is no longer powerless to do P.
14 Oct 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritBut now your both agreeing that the concept of omnipotence is illogical when applied in a practical sense to an entity. Therefor the idea of a omnipotent God is illogical, so we all agree.
you don't disagree.
to the question of " Can God make a rock/stone so big He could not lift it? "
me: "if you define god as omnipotent, the answer is no."
you:"As such, I say an omnipotent god [b]cannot create a rock so heavy it cannot lift, and furthermore, its omnipotence is not retarded in any sense by this "limitation"."
we are in complete agreement.[/b]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Oct 12
Originally posted by checkbaiterOmnipotence is illogical.
I was once asked this question. Can God make a rock/stone so big He could not lift it?
Your thoughts? This actually will lead to another very big question.
There are an infinite list of things you can list the show omnipotence to be illogical and thus impossible.
Anything on the form of...
"Can the [omnipotent being of choice] do/make something that then prevents them from doing something."
If they can't do or make the thing then they can't do something and thus are not omnipotent.
If they can make the thing then that thing then prevents them from doing something and thus they are again
not omnipotent.
Omnipotence is impossible.
However this does nothing other provide a childish gotcha for unwary religious apologists and put an absolute
hypothetical outer limit on the possible powers of any hypothesised being.
They have to be logically possible.
This still leaves plenty of scope for beings with ridiculously over the top powers and abilities enough to satisfy any
theist.
And completely avoids the problem with any debate over the nature of gods...
They don't exist.
The only question of any relevance is "should you believe in the existence of god/gods or spirits/souls/life force/afterlife?"
The only rational answer is no.
First because you should only ever believe in things for which there is evidence enough to justify that belief.
Second because the evidence currently available demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that there is no afterlife,
we have no souls, and there are no gods.
Anything else is just sloppy thinking.
