Omnipotence, I don't think it can exist. While there is no way to disprove a universal negative, I can disprove something that is self contradictory. I can say with 100% certainty there is no circle with 4 corners in it anywhere in the universe. It creates a paradox and cannot therefore exist. Omnipotence also creates paradoxes. Theres the classic and overused boulder to big to lift instance, but it works with numerous things. Can God make a square circle would be one as well. Can someone explain to me how omnicience can exist then?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Someone explain this to me.
- Thread starter Umaro
- Start date
It seems to me you are trying to refute Omnicence to
do this you must set up a disjuctive sylogism. Set
the parameters of what God can and cannnot do.
Then set up causal effect of these premises you are
trying to refute.
On you do this then you can transpose the argument
between the disjucts. Piece of cake
Ron
do this you must set up a disjuctive sylogism. Set
the parameters of what God can and cannnot do.
Then set up causal effect of these premises you are
trying to refute.
On you do this then you can transpose the argument
between the disjucts. Piece of cake
Ron
Upvote
0
Calminian
Senior Veteran
- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,789
- 1,044
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Omnipotence is simply the idea that God is all powerful. He can do anything that is logically possible. He cannot make square circles. He can't even violate His own nature. He can't lie for instance.
Heb. 6:18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.
Omnipotence is not the idea that God can do anything including logical impossibilities. This is a false understanding of the term. I hope you didnt spend too much time thinking about this.
Upvote
0
Calminian
Senior Veteran
- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,789
- 1,044
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
It seems to me you are trying to refute Omnicence to
do this you must set up a disjuctive sylogism. Set
the parameters of what God can and cannnot do.
Then set up causal effect of these premises you are
trying to refute.
On you do this then you can transpose the argument
between the disjucts. Piece of cake
Ron
Hmm. Interesting challenge.
1-God can make anything.
2-A square circle is a thing.
3-God cannot make a square circle.
4-God is not omnipotent.
Premise 2 fails. A square circle is not a thing. Great point Jasper!
Upvote
0
Rafael
Only time enough for love
Can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up?
This question is representative of the type of paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this. God is supposed to be omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist.
Is this logical? A little. However, the problem is that this bit of logic omits some crucial information, therefore, it's conclusion is inaccurate.
What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.
For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is and not with what He is not since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with His nature. He cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that He is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if He stopped existing then He wouldn't be in all places at all time. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating His own nature.
The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate His own nature. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, He would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big He can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self contradiction. Since truth is not self contradictory, as neither is God, if He were not true, then He would not be God. But God is true and not self contradictory, therefore, God cannot do something that violates His own nature.
Another way to look at it is realize that in order for God to make something so big He couldn't pick it up, He would have to make a rock bigger than Himself. Since He is infinite in size, He would have to make something that would be bigger than Himself. Since it is His nature to be the biggest thing in existence because He created all things, He cannot violate His own nature by making a rock that is larger than He.
Also, since a rock, by definition, is not infinitely big, then it isn't logically possible to make a rock, something that is finite in size, be infinite in size (no longer a rock) since only God is infinite in size. At dictionary.com, a rock is defined as a "Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. a) A relatively small piece or fragment of such material. b) A relatively large body of such material, as a cliff or peak. c) A naturally formed aggregate of mineral matter constituting a significant part of the earth's crust." A rock, by definition is not infinitely large. So, to say that the rock must be so big that God cannot pick it up is to say that the rock is no longer a rock.
What the critics are asking is that God become self contradictory as a proof He doesn't exist. Their assertion is illogical from the start. So what they are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. They want to use illogic to prove God doesn't exist instead of logic. It doesn't work and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid.
Is this logical? A little. However, the problem is that this bit of logic omits some crucial information, therefore, it's conclusion is inaccurate.
What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.
For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is and not with what He is not since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with His nature. He cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that He is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if He stopped existing then He wouldn't be in all places at all time. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating His own nature.
The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate His own nature. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, He would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big He can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self contradiction. Since truth is not self contradictory, as neither is God, if He were not true, then He would not be God. But God is true and not self contradictory, therefore, God cannot do something that violates His own nature.
Another way to look at it is realize that in order for God to make something so big He couldn't pick it up, He would have to make a rock bigger than Himself. Since He is infinite in size, He would have to make something that would be bigger than Himself. Since it is His nature to be the biggest thing in existence because He created all things, He cannot violate His own nature by making a rock that is larger than He.
Also, since a rock, by definition, is not infinitely big, then it isn't logically possible to make a rock, something that is finite in size, be infinite in size (no longer a rock) since only God is infinite in size. At dictionary.com, a rock is defined as a "Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. a) A relatively small piece or fragment of such material. b) A relatively large body of such material, as a cliff or peak. c) A naturally formed aggregate of mineral matter constituting a significant part of the earth's crust." A rock, by definition is not infinitely large. So, to say that the rock must be so big that God cannot pick it up is to say that the rock is no longer a rock.
What the critics are asking is that God become self contradictory as a proof He doesn't exist. Their assertion is illogical from the start. So what they are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. They want to use illogic to prove God doesn't exist instead of logic. It doesn't work and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid.
Upvote
0
ebia
Senior Contributor
- Jul 6, 2004
- 41,711
- 2,142
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
Omnipotence is a naieve concept. It's adequate shorthand for what God can do, but it falls on it's face when pressed to the limits. Note that it's a greek concept, not a biblical one.
One could probably devise a defintion of omnipotence that was properly consistant, but is it worth the effort?
One could probably devise a defintion of omnipotence that was properly consistant, but is it worth the effort?
Upvote
0
Key
The Opener of Locks
This is good, the only part of it that I would change is this little bit. "For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it."
I would change this example to be more like this. "For example, I have a human nature, I live, breath, etc, as such, I will survive as it is my nature to do so, however, I can not die and come back to life, my nature in it;s core is that I have this life, and once it cease it does not come back, my ability as human simply will not permit this to happen, because it is my nature it live, not come back from the dead, and I can not violate that"
This the running analogy could be taken to be twisted, to say that "We human are Omnipotent in our own right" if we use the run and vs lion analogy.
However, to use the Die and come back to life analogy, is better, because God did what defied the Human nature, thus proving that he was God in the flesh, and that is Die and come back to life in his son Jesus Christ.
Just thought I would throw that out there, for your consideration, other then that little bit, this was really good !
God Bless
Key
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Key
The Opener of Locks
Depends on the pattern and design of the Compass.
There should be 4 Main Points (N,S,E,W), and 4 Minor Points (NW,SW,SE,NE) for directional use, however, some compasses have more points and some only have the primary 4 points.
However, circular, or spherical, is a standard for a compass, even a computerized one still requires the capacity to rotate 360 degrees continually, so as to set "North". Unless you are dealing with a GPS, which could not be considered a true Compass.
Great Question.
God Bless
Key
Upvote
0
By the very concept of omnipotence, if such a limitless attribute of a Divine Being were true, your reaction of it's incongruity would be the only proper response that finite reason could ever offer. An objection here opens up the door of it's possibility rather than it's impossibility. If you seek to disprove God's omnipotence, you must seek to defeat it upon grounds other than by mere reason, but you will then be striving against the very universe which you are in that demands it's existence. It is to be believed upon rather than comprehended by.
Upvote
0
ebia
Senior Contributor
- Jul 6, 2004
- 41,711
- 2,142
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
Raises the interesting question - can you define a consistant geometry where a square can be a circle?
(Where square is defined as "a closed, planar, shape made up of exactly 4 straight lines of equal length, and 4 equal corners", and circle is defined as "the locus of points equidistant from a centre" or somthing similar.)
Upvote
0
Similar threads
