Socrates Tea wrote:ChanceIsChange wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
Yes, and then that stone would instantly come into existence, whereupon God would realize that he can’t lift it, which runs contrary to his omnipotence. That is exactly the paradox we are trying to resolve.
I mean his words constitute existence of the stone, not that the they actually create it.
But even if that’s the case, the stone can have existence; regardless of whether the stone is created or its existence constituted by God’s words, its existence is potential, i.e. the existence of an object that can prove God to be incapable of something is possible, violating his omnipotence. How does that resolve the paradox?
-- Updated January 7th, 2017, 12:02 pm to add the following --
Felix wrote:ChanceIsChange: wouldn’t drawing a line between the finite and the infinite actually be a limitation of the infinite, which would, of course, be contradictory to the concept of true infinity?
But that's exactly what the omnipotence paradox does, it demands that the infinite restrict its action to finite parameters (of weight, resistance, etc.) while simultaneously exceeding those limitations, which is clearly illogical. It's like saying: create a finite thing (e.g., a stone) that is not a finite thing (that has infinite weight).
You’re right in saying that the omnipotence paradox challenges the infinite to restrict itself and simultaneously exceed those restrictions. However, saying that such a feat would be illogical is applying the laws of (finite) logic to the infinite, which is not valid.
-- Updated January 8th, 2017, 8:07 am to add the following --
Socrates Tea wrote:What if the question itself is illogical, like asking if colourless green thought sleep furiously?
What is logic is not a limit on power, but it's highest possilble expression, and so considering a contradiction like the one in question is, in essence, illogical and not of power either.
Omnipotence means the power to do absolutely anything at all. Doesn’t that automatically include being able to accomplish the possible, the impossible, the logical, the illogical, the hyper-logical, the meaningful and the meaningless, to name just a few?
Isn’t saying that transcending logic is not a power essentially arbitrarily defining power as a logical notion?
-- Updated January 8th, 2017, 8:23 am to add the following --
LuckyR wrote:If omnipotence is a myth propagated by the minions of various gods, then there is no paradox since there is no omnipotence.
That would be the solution also proposed by Renee that the omnipotence paradox is a logical proof of the impossibility of omnipotence. I admit that it is quite a promising solution, but it does not help us in thinking beyond logic.
Regarding gods and their minions, does a non-omnipotent entity have the right to be called a god? Also, isn’t it more probable that omnipotence is a concept discovered by humans rather than a myth propagated by various “gods” whose divinity and existence are questionable? For if those “gods” are not omnipotent, then why should only they and not humans have come up with the concept, considering that both are not omnipotent? Wouldn’t an explanation involving a true God be more convincing? Of course, we shouldn’t dismiss any possibility completely.