Is omnipotence intrinsically paradoxical?
By whose definition? Did God himself tell you this? That a god can only be God if he is uncreated? Not all conceptions of god involve uncreated beings.sneez said:God cannot create god. It means that whatever HE creates cannot be called god because it is created and god by definition is not created.
I believe it is well established that concepts of infinite sets can easily lead to paradoxes. This is not limited to the paradox of infinity implied within the definition of omnipotence, but is applicable also to well-defined sets in mathematics. For example Russells paradox, or the Barber paradox. There are many examples on the same theme. None of these paradoxes have prevented eminent mathematicians from doing legitimate studies of infinite sets.Icebreaker said:Is omnipotence intrinsically paradoxical?
What's that supposed to mean? Seems to me you're the blue-pill.sneez said:I let you than go back to your wonderland.
I'd say it isn't paradoxical, but rather that omnipotence isn't indicated. Here's how I contemplate it, and for this contemplation I will assume God exists (which I am not saying he/she/it actually does).Icebreaker said:Is omnipotence intrinsically paradoxical?
I was going to answer from the historical perspective but I see you came up with some good stuff.loseyourname said:That's a very good point, Les. Where does the conception of God's omnipotence come from? Is it part of a sacred text, or was it invented by the early medieval scholastics?
If a human gives birth to a child, then one day that child grows up to kill thier parent,isn't that the same thing? On some level we could be considered "omnipotent". It's all in perspective. We are capable of creating things that destroy ourselves. Omnipotence doesn't preclude self destruction. Or at least it shouldn't IMHO. Basically a being who can do anything, can kill himself, Can make himself human, can create a being as powerful as he is( though not more powerful). because such a being can do anything by definition. You say he can make a rock too heavy to lift, but if he's mos powerful, he will not be able to create such a rock that he cannot lift, because there are no limits to his strength.loseyourname said:I like this example better than the rock example:
If God is all-powerful, he should have the power to create another God. What happens if both Gods want the same slice of pie? If God II gets it, then God I was not all-powerful. If God I gets it, then not only is God II not all-powerful, but God I is also not all-powerful, as he did not have the power to create another all-powerful God.
It's not the same thing at all. There is no extant claim that humans are omnipotent, as there are obviously things that are beyond our powers. (This holds even if we look at simple cases that don't involve paradoxes, such as the ability to fly unaided by aircraft). You're right in a sense to point out a sort of ambiguity in the word "omnipotent," which might be the cause of the apparent paradoxes being discussed in this thread. But it's safe to say that no remotely reasonable sense of the word "omnipotent" could be attributed to humans.Zantra said:If a human gives birth to a child, then one day that child grows up to kill thier parent,isn't that the same thing? On some level we could be considered "omnipotent".
Well, that's exactly the sort of question the paradoxes turn on. If God is omnipotent, shouldn't he/it be able to create such a rock? Does not the inability to create such a rock imply that God's creative powers are limited, and doesn't this imply in turn that God is not truly omnipotent?You say he can make a rock too heavy to lift, but if he's mos powerful, he will not be able to create such a rock that he cannot lift, because there are no limits to his strength.