Can Omnipotence Escape Logical Paradoxes?

[whatta]

...lets work with you theory here

god is omnipotent therefore god can take away his omnipotence

this means that as god has taken away his omnipotence he is no longer omnipotent

if god is now NOT omnipotent then he is no longer able to give himself his omnipotence back

Yes, yes and yes.

what i was attempting to prove with my stone theory is that being omnipotent doesn't mean he has to be logical

While you may be right with this, but he also doesn't have to be illogical, as your above analysis shows.

 

[HeavenTornApart]

he is either logical or he is illogical, what's the middle ground?

the fact that he supposedlly has an illogical ability makes him illogical by default

 

[whatta]

me is either live or dead, what's the middle ground?

the fact that me supposedlly has an ability to be dead makes me dead by default

 

[HeavenTornApart]

:!) i love you i love you :!)

sigh let's start again

life and death have nothing to do with it, as going from life to death requires an action.

however you don't go from being a logical being to being an illogical being.

they are opposing sides, if you are a logical being you do logical things at all times.

if you are illogical then you don't always do what's logical

 

[whatta]

:!) i love you i love you :!)

PM me your pics and if you're hot female, we will talk about it ;)

life and death have nothing to do with it, as going from life to death requires an action.

Going from omnipotent to no-longer-omnipotent also requires an action. As you may guess, god is perfectly omnipotent before this action is taken, and so if he never takes this action, he remains omnipotent forever (or as long as he exists, to be specific).

 

[HeavenTornApart]

im not hot female I am hot male so no pics for you,

and if he is all powerfull then the stone theory from earlier remains valid and therefore makes hi omnipotence illogical, but still possiable

 

[whatta]

the stone theory from earlier remains valid

i have failed to see this. i can accept illogical god, but i can't see how your stone theory makes his illogicalness necessary.

 

[whatta]

though, i have a better idea: if god is omnipotent, he can be logical and illogical at the same time (at will). so, if he ever choose to be like that, will the universe collapse or something?

 

[HeavenTornApart]

that would make him illogical surely, if you do things which are logical and illogical then that makes you illogical doesn't it?

the universe collapsing depends on if you believe it is infinite or finite. an infinite universe can't technically collapse, so let's hope it infinite shall we

 

[whatta]

that would make him illogical surely, if you do things which are logical and illogical then that makes you illogical doesn't it?

well if even it does, it's only because logic requires so, isn't it. so, if he's illogical, he has not to became illogical only because he does things that are logical and illogical. this doesn't make any sense, but only because you are trying to apply logic to it =)

 

[HeavenTornApart]

ok point taken on that one let's stop trying to work out whether god himself is logical or illogical.

lets get back to the original subject the illogicallity of omni-potence.

im sure we would have to agree that omnipotence in itself can be classed as being illogical if you use the stone theory from earlier

 

[whatta]

so you're sure, arent you. well, i guess I'm happy for you.

 

[HeavenTornApart]

yup I'm sure that if you apply logic to the stone theory above it will show that the omnipotence is a logical paradox.

this doesn't mean its not possiable just illogical!

 

[Wizardsblade]

I always thought the problem with the stone paradox was that it assumes in itself that God does not possesses omnipotence.

"if a god is all powerfull can he create a stone"

This part makes logical since. Can God do X

"that he himself cannot lift?"


The problem with this part of the statement is that it implies a negative, or rather the statement implies God cannot do something that God can do. its like saying:

Can a man get in a pool that he does not have the ability to swim in?

With the definition of "a man"-a person with the ability to get in any pool and has the ability to swim in any pool.

the problem is not with the man, the pool, or the ability to swim, but rather an illogical question. The question ask something contradictory to the definitions.