fishbulb

I am sure that if you think about it a little, you'll realize that your take on the matter renders the concept of logically coherent incoherent. Consider the statements: "all human beings are made of matter" and "no trout can breathe air" You must declare these statements to be logically impossible for the very same reasons. In fact, "Tim is a dentist" is logically incoherent for the same reason: it is possible that Tim is not actually a dentist, and so the statement, according to you, must not be logically consistent because it implies that Tim is a dentist, even if he is not. But it does no such thing. And neither does the unliftable rock statement. You try to interpret it that way, but that's not what it says.

I will make one last attempt to explain: logically possible and actually true are not the same thing. The statement "Being X can create a rock that no being can lift" could be true because it in no way contradicts itself. In order for it to be actually true, one prerequisite is that no being exists which can lift any rock. If that condition is not fulfilled, the statement must be actually false. But it is not logically incoherent simply because it might be actually false.

And it is not clear that I believe that a being that can lift any stone is possible. If you are under that impression, I think you have forgotten the issue at hand.
g
That is not the point of the argument, and you should be well-aware of this. The argument demonstrates that omnipotence, if defined as the ability to do anything that is logically possible, also requires the ability to do things which, taken together, are paradoxical. The argument does not assume omnipotence is not possible; it points out that it is paradoxical.

But we do agree on one thing here: if there cannot be a being who can lift any stone, then omnipotence is impossible. Likewise, if there cannot be a being who cannot create an unliftable stone, then omnipotence is impossible. A being who is omnioptent must be able to do both. But being able to do both is paradoxical.

Taffy Lewis

fishbulb,

In the first post of page 2 of this thread you say:

And then a few sentences later you say:

Isn't that fairly clear?

If a being is omnipotent he should have unlimited stone lifting and stone creating powers. If a being has unlimited stone lifting powers then she can lift any number of stones of any size, shape, mass, texture, etc. (whatever makes some object a stone). And if a being has unlimited stone creating powers then she can create any number of stones of any size, shape, mass, texture, etc. It's possible she can create an unlimited number of stones even though she cannot create one she cannot lift.

Now you suggest that her inability to create a stone she cannot lift means that she is limited. But that can't be right. She can still create an unlimited number and variety of stones.

So how can a limited being create an unlimited number and variety of stones?

Answerer

I believed all this debate about an 'all-powerful' God usually started with a poor definition of 'omnipotence'.

Kimpatsu

But if he is unable to lift the stone, he is not omnipotent.

Tani

to those people find the stone example vague, there's another way to look at it:

1) god can create an omni-spear that penatrates all shields.
2) god can create an omni-shield that blocks all spears.

so what would happen if we try the omni-spear on the omni-shield?

you clearly can't have both at the same time, but neither claim contradicts itself within its own statement.

7thangel

The problem with omnipotence being described by both parties, theists or atheists, is that they assume infinite possibilities. But possibilities themselves are contradicting logic, and complete nonsense to what we are trying to achieve - the *DETERMINATION* of a thing.

Take for example the question above. What is the need that such a God would create another God more powerful than himself? Such person who could find a reason is more on..........Well, I guess there are!!!

Godot

I'll help you out with the rock part: it weighs 100 million trillion billion kagillion bagillion to the power of 17 trillion kagillion million billion metric tons (give or take a kilo).

Now, given THAT rock, find me the force needed to lift it.

Then try to reconcile that FINITE number with the FINITE force required to lift it, and show me where you'll find something capable of accomplishing it.

DBrant

If we remodulate the main deflector to emit an inverse tachyon pulse, we can establish a low-level subspace field around the rock, thereby decreasing its mass to 10 kg, and making it liftable even by a low-intensity tractor beam.

fishbulb

Red herring. We are not discussing how many different kinds of stones a being can create. We are discussing the "logically consistent" test of omnipotence. You are going way off topic here.

There are an infinite number of rational numbers between 0 and 1. I can (in principle) write down a unlimited number of rational numbers between 0 and 1, but if I can't write the number "2" then I do not have the ability to write down any possible number. There is a difference between being able to create an unlimited number and variety of X and being able to create any possible X.

Being able to create an unlimited number of unique X's is a mundane power that everyone possesses (or rather would, given an unlimited amount of time to complete the project) for countless values of X. Given enough time, raw materials, and simple tools, you and I could both create an unlimited number of unique stones.

fishbulb

I think that the notion of infinite possibilities is part of the notion of omnipotence itself. Any attempt to define omnipotence without assuming the ability to do an infinite variety of paradoxical things ends up rendering the term meaningless.

What I really don't understand is why some people who believe in an incoherent god who is "infinite" and "exists outside of space and time" and "is everywhere all at once" have a problem adding, "sure, he can create an immovable object and then move it; he can even create an immovable square circle and then move that. He's God: he can do anything." It's no less rational than any of the other omnimax traits assigned to God.

Nobody wants to believe in a finite god with limited powers and therefore potentially exploitable weaknesses anymore. That's so pre-1st millenium. Yet some people, it seems, are uncomfortable with the logical problems that poses. But omnimax abilities are fundamentally incompatible with logic and reason, so any attempt to frame an omnimax God in logical and rational terms ends up being incoherent.