My Answer to the Omnipotence Paradox
- Leon
- Posts: 87
- Joined: May 17th, 2016, 1:50 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Re: My Answer to the Omnipotence Paradox
God may be omnipotent in making things exist. A stone God cannot lift just can't exist.
Only things can exist that are within the power of God.
My imagination may think of all kinds of impossible thinks like a square circle, it has nothing to do with existing.
-
- Posts: 383
- Joined: May 25th, 2016, 5:34 pm
Re: My Answer to the Omnipotence Paradox
Correct. And this is precisely why Roger Scruton the famous British modern philosopher has concluded that "omnipotence" is impossible.Leon wrote:My 2 cents again:
God may be omnipotent in making things exist. A stone God cannot lift just can't exist.
Only things can exist that are within the power of God.
My imagination may think of all kinds of impossible thinks like a square circle, it has nothing to do with existing.
It does not exist as a viable quality of anything not even the Philosophy God.
He says so in his book "Modern Philosophy".
- Leon
- Posts: 87
- Joined: May 17th, 2016, 1:50 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Re: My Answer to the Omnipotence Paradox
-- Updated May 31st, 2016, 10:36 pm to add the following --
There are conditions for something to exist (the rock or stone). The conditions here are fixed. It just what God wants I think.
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: February 24th, 2016, 1:54 pm
Re: My Answer to the Omnipotence Paradox
YIOSTHEOY wrote:Correct. And this is precisely why Roger Scruton the famous British modern philosopher has concluded that "omnipotence" is impossible.Leon wrote:My 2 cents again:
God may be omnipotent in making things exist. A stone God cannot lift just can't exist.
Only things can exist that are within the power of God.
Gods power cannot be fathomed by people. Claiming only things can exist.....is patently absurd.
(Nested quote removed.)
(Nested quote removed.)
My imagination may think of all kinds of impossible thinks like a square circle, it has nothing to do with existing.It does not exist as a viable quality of anything not even the Philosophy God.Scruton is simply a logically inept fool. First, God doesn't lift hence applying the term to God is in itself a straw man of God. Most atheists are too ignorant to understand logic in an absolute form, that's why they're atheists.
He says so in his book "Modern Philosophy".
-- Updated May 31st, 2016, 9:27 pm to add the following --
Alec Smart wrote:I don't believe in paradoxes.JamesCaan wrote: Are you still too much of a coward to attempt a logically sound omnipotent paradoxMaybe I am too ignorant but I'm not so dumb that I don't know the basics of editing a post.or are you just too ignorant to understand omnipotent?
-- Updated May 31st, 2016, 6:28 pm to add the following --
OK, maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "omnipotence". You tell me what the term "omnipotent God" means, give me a proper definition and I'll see what I can do.JamesCaan wrote: Are you still too much of a coward to attempt a logically sound omnipotent paradox
All powerful. Omnipotent doesn't seem to have variations in any dictionary I've read. Able to do anything. Hint, logically sound in that you can't straw man God. Example. God can't lie isn't a logically sound statement. Just because God doesn't lie doesn't therefore logically mean God can't. Hint, making oneself non omnipotent doesn't prove you're omnipotent. That's simple logic. Oh, when you try and equate ah act as being held to the condition of not being able to change the perception of people, you straw man God.
-- Updated June 1st, 2016, 5:41 am to add the following --
Surreptitious57 wrote:You asked for an example of something which is demonstrably false or contradictory or nonsensical in relation to the three omnisJamesCaan wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
When you actually answer the question with something objective instead of subjective blathering let me know. Until
then your opinion is laughable in that you honestly believe it achieved something other than a cowardly deflection
and I provided one. But are you suggesting that omnibenevolence is not altruistic and omnipotence is not non altruistic because
unless you are then my example is logically valid. Even if you are not suggesting that it is still logically valid and so either way
it makes no difference. So if it cannot be refuted which it cannot then it has to be accepted and since it cannot then it stands
What is it with people who think their opinion of human behavior is a valid way of invalidating God as God. Altruistic is a nonsensical attempt at you claiming the perception of reality based on your subjective viewpoint is somehow valid in attempting to tell God what God knows or should think is best for humanity. Its a non argument and just another example of someone proclaiming "If the world and God doesn't think what I , meaning you, think is best for humanity" then there is no God. You have no argument.That's why you fail or are too cowardly to address even a single example of what you think constitutes an altruistic act by God. Its subjective to you. The world isn't what you want it to be in order for it to be "good" or "beneficial" or an example of consistent behavior that would then take on a consistent definition of compatible "god qualities". You have no argument or basis for any of the three as being incompatible. You have nothing but an appeal to popular belief at best, a belief you aren't even willing to address in regards to one of your obvious subjective "god would stop this blah blah blah" argument. If you don't realize by now that proving what is good to God is beyond what you are capable of then you should go back to logic 101 and what you learn about the mind of others and what you can prove in regards to it. Because that's what your non argument is based on.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023