diana

sandlewood,

Once again, you've said what I would have, but only more concisely.

As Theli said, "One ability can eliminate another." This sums it up nicely. It is logically impossible to have all abilities simultaneously.

Omnipotence cannot be coherently defined in such a way that it is somehow set apart from potence.

We simply define "omnipotence" to mean "all-powerful."

Then someone asks us about that pesky rock. So we refine our definition to "the ability to do anything that isn't logically impossible." Then someone asks you if God can learn, as this is a logically possible action, but in violation of one of the characteristics of God: omniscience. (If God can learn, he isn't omniscient; if he can't, then he can't do everything that's logically possible.)

So then we further refine the definition to be, "the ability to do anything that isn't logically impossible and not in violation of one's innate characteristics."

At which point I become "omnipotent," by that definition, just as a blind retarded hamster with a clubfoot is "omnipotent," by that definition.

I think the rebuttal to this is that learning, for God, is logically impossible because it contradicts one of his innate characteristics (omniscience). But that leaves us in the same boat. By this reasoning, we're all still "omnipotent."

I can't fly, but my inability to do so is simply a logical contradiction of one of my innate characteristics ([terrestrial]), and therefore cannot be held against me in the running for "omnipotence."

What I'm saying is, "omnipotence" has to include logically impossible actions and actions in violation of one's innate characteristics--which renders the word incoherent and meaningless. But by the time you get it coherent, it's indistinguishable from "potence."

d

Z500

i disagree. omnipotence isn't, in my opinion, a "basic" law of nature. omnipotence is a relative concept. i like to say we're practically omnipotent to bacteria. if we were just as omnipotent as god and never met anything that couldn't do what we do, well, god wouldn't be so omnipotent, would he?

Tani

what i am saying is basically said by others, omnipotent is a contradictory concept by itself.

basically, consider the following:

1)god can create stone of x weight
2)god can lift stone of y weight

if max(x) is larger than max(y), then god can't lift something.
if max(y) is larger than max(x), then god can't create something.

they simply can't be reconciled.

fishbulb

:banghead: The existence of such beings is an assumption made by you and not by the statement. In fact, the statement assumes the opposite: that there are no beings that can perform such a feat.

Consider the following: all human beings contain carbon atoms.

Using the same line of reasoning you propose, you would have to conclude that the above statement is not logically consistent because "all human beings" includes those human beings who contain no carbon atoms. This is patently ridiculous for the same reason that your objection is ridiculous. The statement makes the assertion that there is no such thing as a human being which contains no carbon atoms, just as the previous statement makes an assertion that ther are no beings who can lift any stone. Each statement may condtradict other assumptions that you or someone else might make, but they don't contradict themselves.

Answerer

Seriously guys, I think this question is meaningless as long as the weight of the rock and the force that God uses to lift the rock are not being given a definite value. Our law of physics and logic don't work for infinities.

sandlewood

[quote]That sounds like a good way to look at it.

I think of it as a proof-by-contradiction, as in mathematics. You start out by assuming that what you are trying to prove is true (God is omnipotent). If that leads to a contradiction, then your original assumption must be false.

Also, instead of the rock analogy, you can ask ”can God build a house so heavy he can’t lift it?” In this case, any competent carpenter can build a house that he can’t lift, so it’s not a logically impossible feat. But an omnipotent being could not.

Angrillori

Hmm, If I rephrase the question such:

Can an omnipotent being make a rock an omnipotent being can't move?

This seems analgous to:

Can an omnipotent being create a 2 such that 2+2=7?

(Replace the non-sense second clause in the first question 'that an omnipotent being can't move' with the more clearly non-sensical clause '2+2=7')

What this seems to mean to me is that the question is flawed, thus leading to an impossibility to answer within our logical framework.

Does that make sense? I think I'm even confusing myself here. Sorry.

Taffy Lewis

fishbulb,

One need not presume such a being exists. It is a question of coherence. Such a being need only be possible. And it is clear that you believe a being who can lift any stone is at least possible.

If your Power 1 presupposes that there cannot be a being who can lift any stone then your argument presupposes that omnipotence is impossible. Your argument begs the question.

diana

I don't think the question is so much flawed as it points out the inherent flaw in the very concept of "omnipotence."

Omnipotence means "all-powerful," which means "able to do anything." Well obviously, such a condition is impossible. The age-old question about the rock (with all its corollaries) simply points that out.

People argue it by pointing out that you can't have both an unstoppable force and an unmovable object simultaneously. Those of us who are using the question to illustrate the inherent incoherence of "omnipotence" say, "Yes! Exactly!"

d

DBrant

Wow, how profound! And how easy to say! You know, we could teach a parakeet to say these exact things. Does that mean that the parakeet will understand God better than all atheists combined?
Ok... perhaps I should rephrase the question for you: Can God create another god that's also 'outside of our reality'? A being exactly like himself?
I'm willing to bet that your understanding of the meaning of the enlightening phrases you spout off is no better than the parakeet's.