Theli

I trust you mean the other way around. Not being able to survive the attack is a failure of the first god, and thus a limit to him. Keep in mind that this example can just aswell be mirrored, (the first god destroying the second god).
I would say that "advisable" has nothing to do with the issue at all. Being omnipotent, god must also be able to make dumb decisions.
If you are refering to a windows2000 server, then 2 administators can delete eachother's accounts. And if these gods could not delete eachother, then that is certainly a lack of ability.

fishbulb

I think you are playing word games.

Let's consider the assertions:

1) God can lift any possible rock.

2) God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift.

These statements are mutually contradictory, so it is logically impossible that both (1) and (2) are true. But it is logically possible that statement (1) is true, and it is also logically possible that statement (2) is true. All that is not possible is that they are both true.

You say that God is omnipotent if he can do anything that is logically possible. Both (1) and (2) are logically possible, but it is not possible to both be able to lift any possible rock and at the same time be able to create an unliftable rock. Therefore, there must be at least one logically possible thing that God cannot do. It is logically impossible to be omnipotent.

Weaseling around the definition won't help. If you say god can lift any rock, then he cannot have the power to create an unliftable rock. But it is logically possible to be able to create an unliftable rock. Since it is logically possible to create an unliftable rock and God, being omnipotent, can do anything that is logically possible, God must be able to create an unliftable rock. But if this is true, then he cannot have the ability to lift any possible rock. But it is logically possible to have the ability to lift any rock. Since it is logically possible to be able to lift any rock and God, being omnipotent, can do anything that is logically possible, God must be able to lift any rock. But if this is true, then he cannot have the ability to create an unliftable rock. Et cetera ad nauseum.

Therefore God (if he exists) is either able to do paradoxical things, or else he is not omnipotent.

TerryTryon

What happens when an unstoppable missile hits an impenetrable target?

The question is nonsense since the two entities cannot logically exist in the same realm of existence (i.e, universe).

Can god create a new god who is also omnipotent?

No. Like the first example, the two entities cannot logically exist in the same realm of existence. (Note that I cannot use the word universe in this context because of the slick manner that theists have misused the word in order to provide a residence for their god.)

Relatedly, can god alter mathematical relationships? Is two plus two always four, regardless of the will of god? Must pi remain constant?

Irrelevant post script: I need a "smiley" making "donkey ears" for this post. It's not available.

DBrant

Come to think of it, god lifting rocks is nonsensical in other ways:

To be able to "lift" a rock, the rock must first be resting on a much larger rock that is attracting it (gravitationally), or else "lift" becomes meaningless. So if god decides to create an unliftable rock, he must first create an even bigger rock upon which the smaller rock will rest.

If, however, we are talking about an immovable rock (one that simply floats in space), then we must remember that a structure of any size is movable to some degree (a piece of dust that hits the Earth will affect its orbit infinitessimally)

And of course, if god created something too large too fast, it would simply collapse into a black hole. (I wonder what God does with those...)

Taffy Lewis

fishbulb,

Ironically, the paradox of the stone is merely a word game. That's why it is so easy to construct a counter-dilemma such as the one I have proposed.

Actually, I said that the solution to the paradox of the stone that I presented merely says that omnipotence cannot include the ability to do that which is logically impossible. That doesn't entail that omnipotence can be defined as the ability to do the logically possible. Omnipotence may be a subset of the logically possible. At any rate, the counter-dilemma I stated doesn't require that we actually have an account of omnipotence. And if God exists, I doubt that we are capable of arriving at a definition of omnipotence that states the necessary and sufficient conditions for possessing such a property. I don't find this problematic for theism for the simple reason that I can't formulate a definition of my own abilities that describes the extent of my power. If we can't even do that much, I don't see why we should be capable of defining the extent of a god's power.

At one point you say:

Later, you say:

But (2) isn't logically possible if (1) is true. It may be possible for you and I to create a stone we cannot lift. But your (1) states that God can lift any stone. It's possible for you and I to create a stone we cannot lift because it is not true that:

(3) You and I can lift any stone.

Therefore, God's inability to create a stone he cannot lift is due to the fact that such an act is logically impossible. And omnipotence (whatever else it may include) does not include the ability to do that which is logically impossible.

Mageth

Damn that rock!

My contribution to the dilemma:

It is logically impossible for god to create a rock too heavy for him to lift. However, it is logically possible for him to create two rocks, each of which is more than half as heavy as his maximum lift capability. He can lift each of these rocks separately. However, he can't lift both simultaneously.

long winded fool

I agree that omnipotence paradoxes are nothing but word games unless you forego the use of logic. Can any being do something that it can't do? If god is omnipotent, can he also be non-omnipotent? For that matter, can an omniscient and omnipotent god make a mistake? He can do anything can't he? Can an omnipotent entity create somthing "more omnipotent" that itself? Unless you abandon logic, omnipotence and omniscience paradoxes are just complicated ways of asking, "If God can do anything, can anything ever exist which is outside of his/her/its power?" The logical answer always seems to be no which does not contradict the notion of omnipotence. God can't make a rock so big that even he can't lift it if he's all-powerful, since nothing can exist outside of the power of an all-powerful entity. Essentially, an all-powerful being can never be not all-powerful, and the absence of this possibility does not logically present a paradox.

Of course, if we abandon logic then all sorts of possibilities arise, but I fail to see how the throwing out of logic can lead to any meaningful conclusions about anything.

Jinto

I mean exactly what I said. As you note later:

Which is precisely my point. Not being able to prevent this is not a failure of either of the admins, it is simply a result of the fact that there are no built-in safeguards to prevent this. Since no safeguards can be built that would limit an omnipotent being, two Gods would be able to kill each other.

So we agree then.

fishbulb

Alright.

Omnipotence means possessing unlimited power. If you define omnipotence as meaning something other than having unlimited power, you are using the word in an unconventional way. If you choose to do this, you are at the very least obligated to explain that you are using the word in a non-standard way and then to clearly define the way you will be using it. But you tried to counter a criticism of the notion that God is omnipotent by attempting to redefine omnipotence in a manner that doesn't pose the stated problem. At worst, this is intentionally dishonest. At best, you are not addressing the issue that was raised, but rather avoiding the question altogether.

But you are trying to anyway. If you label God as omnipotent, you are making a claim about the extent of God's power. But when questioned about it, you then admit that you really don't know what it means to be omnipotent, but you've just decided that God is omnipotent by definition. Therefore, whatever God can do defines omnipotence. Besides being a useless argument (you could re-phrase it as, "God has all of the powers that God has, and nothing more), it is highly misleading, because omnipotence is a concept with a particular, albeit abstract, meaning.

And


It is not logically possible that (1) AND (2) are true. But either proposition on its own is logically possible. Consider the following:

1) I am wearing black pants.
2) I am not wearing any pants.
3) I am not wearing any pants, and I am wearing black pants.

Statement (1) is logically possible. There are no internal inconsistencies with this statement. Statement (2) is logically possible. There are no internal inconsistencies with this statement. Statement (3) is logically impossible because it contradicts itself. Of statement (1) and (2), either both are actually false or one is actually true and one is actually false, because saying (1) is true and (2) is true is the same thing as saying (3) is true.

You are trying to say that being logically possible and being actually true are the same thing, but this is not so. A statement is logically possible if there are no logical inconsistencies within that statement. Two statements can independently be logically possible, but the statement created by joining them with "AND" may create a logically impossible statement. But that is a third statement; it doesn't invalidate the logical possibility of either the first or the second statement, each taken on its own.

There is no internal contradiction in the statement "God can lift any possible rock." There is also no internal contradiction in the statement "God can create an unliftable rock." Therefore, it is logically possible that either one of these statements could be true. If God can (for argument's sake) do everything that is logically possible, then he can create a rock that is unliftable, because that is logically possible. He can also lift any possible rock, because that is logically possible. Because being able to do both is paradoxical, being able to do anything that is logically possible entails being able to do things that are logically impossible as well.

If you employ the accepted definition of omnipotent: having unlimited power, then an omnipotent would have to be able to do things that are paradoxical.

You could try to redefine omnipotent as being able to do anything that is actually possible. Suppose that it is actually possible to be able to lift any rock, but it is not actually possible to create a rock that no entity can lift. In this case, if God were omnipotent (according to our new definition), he would have to be able to lift the rock, but he wouldn't have to be able to create an unliftable rock, because it is not actually possible to do that. The trouble is, we don't actually know whether it is actually possible to lift any rock. Perhaps it is not actually possible to do either. In that case, God would be omnipotent and still be unable to either create or lift rocks of unlimited mass. In addition, there may be many other things which, although logically possible, are not actually possible: exist forever, create a universe, answer prayers, send people to heaven or hell, create a material incarnation of yourself when you are an immaterial being, turn sticks into snakes, deluge the world in a global flood, turn water into wine, walk on water, rise from the dead, and so forth. If we limit omnipotence to what is actually possible, then we have a problem. We do not know what is actually possible, and what is merely logically possible. Therefore, we cannot say with any certainty if God has even the most basic of powers usually attributed to him. It is logically possible to have the power of being indestructable, but we do not know if it is actually possible for a being to be indestructable, or even to be immune to nuclear weapons. That being said, we can't say for certain that we couldn't, in principle, nuke God out of existence (if he actually exists in the first place and we can figure out where he's hiding), so we have no principled grounds on which to say that God is immortal and indestructable. But try telling most Christians that it may be possible to take out God with a Titan V armed with a 20 megaton warhead and see what they tell you.

Taffy Lewis

fishbulb,

I haven't offered a definition of omnipotence. The only requirement the solution to the paradox of the stone requires is that omnipotence not include the power to do the logically impossible. Since the "paradox" is nothing more than a verbal sleight of hand, the solution does not require a more detailed definition.

You rightly point out that omnipotence means "unlimited power". And the etymology of the word suggests it means possessing all the power it is possible to possess (ie. all powerful). But neither of these suggestions is very illuminating. It certainly doesn't tell you whether or not there are any difficulties with the concept. And it clearly doesn't suggest the necessary and sufficient conditions for possessing omnipotence. If someone asked me "What is the extent of your power?" (Admittedly an odd question.) It wouldn't be very interesting if I told him "I have limited power." You still wouldn't know the extend of my power. The same thing would hold true if I answered "I have unlimited power." Putting the prefix "un-" in front of "limited" doesn't make it more illuminating.

As to the counter-dilemma itself, you simply didn't address it. It pretty straight-forwardly reveals the verbal legerdemain involved in the "paradox".

(S) It is logically possible that God is omnipotence and there exists a stone he cannot lift.

This statement is either true or false and either way there is no difficulty for omnipotence.

Your difficulty arises because you think "a stone which a being with unlimited power cannot lift" makes sense. But if God has unlimited power then he can lift any stone.

"A being with unlimited power cannot create a stone he cannot lift" means "If a being with unlimited power creates a stone then he can lift it." What limitation does this suggest? He can still create any number of stones of any size and weight. He just can't create a stone that can't be lifted by a being that can lift any stone. But creating such a stone makes no sense. In other words, he can't exercise his power in ways that are nonsensical. That's hardly a limitation. And as I've already said, omnipotence does not include the power to do that which is logically impossible.