Disclaimer: my interest in this topic is purely logical, please don't go on a religious/atheist crusade against me, like it happened the last time I brought it up on another board. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox I remember back in school a guy told me about this. I actually gave it some thought and didn't figure it out untill about 5 years ago it suddenly dawned on me. So many thinkers have written so much about it yet completely missed the point. Can a God make a stone he cannot lift? Yes he can. Then he's not omnipotent, he can't lift this stone. Ok then he can't make such a stone. So he's not omnipotent still. The way wiki puts in general terms The omnipotence paradox states that: If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do. Now can you spot where a major, size of the universe, fallacy lies here? The one that completely solves this seeming paradox? The whole gravity of this paradox lies in the idea that in both conceivable scenarios God (or whatever being which is deemed omnipotent) is not omnipotent. Which is true about the second scenario since there's an inability to limit one's powers. However it's entirely false about the first scenario. Because being ABLE to do something is entirely separate from ACTUALLY DOING it. Yet the whole appearance of the paradox comes from the fact that people conflate those. They write above 'hence, this being cannot perform all actions'. That's a pretty big 'hence'. It's like me asking you 'Is it possible for you to cut off your leg?' 'Yes' 'Hence your leg is already cut off'.
Its a dumb question IMO. Mass and force, the two opposing ideas here, are the result of a limitation. As soon as god made a stone, it would have limited dimensions thus an unlimited force could move it. So you'd need a stone of unlimited mass, which is nonsense, since mass requires dimensionality (degrees of freedom).
Now God is not omnipotent. There's something he can't do. With this seeming paradox they used to intellectualy corner religious guys back in my school days and perhaps they still do. Since this seemingly proves the logical impossibility of omnipotence, then it also proves the impossibility of God.
It doesn't even have to have unlimited mass. It just have to be beyond God's powers even if everyone else can move it. In any case it doesn't have to be about stone or object, the general question would be - can God limit his power.
for the sake of argument lets say i have a 500 pound stone and i cannot lift it with my own two arms. now if i build a tool that allows me to lift said 500 pound stone then what is it i have done exactly? am i now omnipotent enough to accomplish my goal or not?
You can't be omnipotent enough. Omnipotent means you can do anything, your power is unlimited. Here your powers became greater but are still limited.
We cant know the answer, math and logic cannot properly handle actual infinities. Whats infinity minus one? How many 2d squares do you have to stack to make a cube? It seem possible to me that the universe itself is a limitation of the infinite. This paradox is resolved by dichotomy. This is present in the assumption that the universe is symmetric, that the total energy of the universe comined is zero.
Not infinity. In my case if you can do anything and then there's a one thing you can't do then you no longer can do anything, no longer omnipotent. There's no such thing as 2d square. All squares that you can actually stack are 3d.
In math squares are treated as 2d. Regardless, back to the topic. Maybe 'god'can limit its powers, only after the fact is it not omnipotent.
I was way too high when I read this yesterday. Looked right over the second part haha. Definitely something to get religious minds thinking, maybe.
So god is omnipotent since he hasnt limited his powers? We also have the problem of our inability to remove the temporal notion cause and effect. Can, did, after etc, implies a temporal aspect and causality.
Easy solution: Since God can do anything, he can create a stone that he cannot lift, AND he can also lower or increase the "strength" he uses to move that stone...at will. So he can move it if he makes himself stronger, which he can do since he's omnipotent. And just for the fun of it let's assume that he can raise or lower his strength all he wants like a yo-yo since he's God
I like it but I think the powerfull argument can be made that if a God is like this then he's unable to truly become powerless since he only needs to wish his power back and it returns. So it's not that he can't lift the stone it's that he's not making a necessary step of wishing his power back in order to lift it.
Yes, God doesn't become non-omnipotent by having the ability to become non-omnipotent unless he actually exercised it. Like my ability to cut off my arms doesn't mean I'm handicap, untill and unless I finally get rid of those damn hands.
this is based on a definition error and even Wikipedia is wrong in this one Omnipotent means all knowing and all seeing Not all powerful But to answer your question, lets talk about video games In a video game, the programmer is omnipotent. However, it is possible for him to create a boss he cannot defeat. However, it is also possible for him to make the boss easier afterwards -yuri
I'm going to quote the Bible here for a moment "I am who am" The thinking is backward which results in the confusion. Instead if thinking of God as a being, think of all existence as God. -yuri