Talk:Omnipotence paradox
[edit] Objections
- The model of logic used in the first section is inadequate to the question, as it fails to take time into account. One would agree that the omnipotent being has to be capable of giving up his omnipotence; creating a stone too heavy for him to lift, and other such self-tasks, simply entail his giving up omnipotence, without imposing any restrictions upon him in his omnipotent state.
- It must also be noted that a omnipotent being would also be in charge of writing the laws of logic and hence would not be subject to any contradictions. The consequences of this are perhaps best illustrated by a quote from the article:
“”Or similarly, could God create a flat circle where π = 3? To do so would be to create a shape which cannot possibly exist in our universe. (emphasis mine)
|
- The omnipotent being could have created this universe with certain rules that, though capable of breaking, he chooses not to.
ListenerXTalkerX 21:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is why the general case of the paradox is whether an omnipotent being can limit its own powers - and so cease to be omnipotent. But the paradox doesn't need to take into account time (such a constraint would be beside the point). It is whether an omnipotent being can limit their own power and remain omnipotent. Hence the paradox - merely saying that the being is giving up (even temporarily) its omnipotent powers is uninteresting.
sshole 21:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- True; in that case one would have to fall back on the second objection, that the omnipotent being has the capacity to ignore the laws of logic.
ListenerXTalkerX 21:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Surely it would be impossible to make any argument about a being to which the laws of logic do not apply. How would you ever know if your argument about the being were valid? --BobSpring is sprung! 22:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- In which case we add additional caveats to reform the paradox; Can an omnipotent being limit its own powers under the consistent set of logical rules observed in our universe.
sshole 22:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Eliezer Yudkowsky can consistently assert the sentence 'Eliezer Yudkowsky cannot consistently assert this sentence.'"
sshole 22:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Bob, welcome to the monotheist's world; it is a whole other mind-set, in which the world is ultimately governed by God instead of reason and orderly natural law.
- Armondikov, God is considered to be outside the universe, and to have set all the rules, including the laws of logic, by which the universe operates, but is not considered to be bound by them himself. The best analogy for this is with a simulated reality; the flesh-and-blood user of a computer can do things that are not possible for a computer process to do.
ListenerXTalkerX 05:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- That was a creationist escape hatch... If God is outside the universe, yet he created it, then he must have a detectable impact on our natural world. This would render God to be an observable supernatural entity. This is a paradox in itself, supernature that violates nature existing in nature.[1]As for the simulated reality analogy, the people simulating the reality would have no ability to communicate with us directly, only through the computer program. If they tried to bring their own laws into our simulated reality it would ruin the simulation because the laws of nature would clash, leading to a fatal simulation error.Several ingredients (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sticking with a God to which is not subject to logic. Imagine said God says "If you are evil you will go to hell and if you are good you will go to heaven."
- A human being would logically assume that following these instructions will lead to the outcomes specified. But if we say that God is not bound by logic then he might, in fact, apply the heaven and hell destinations randomly. So you can certainly imagine a God not bound by logic but there would seem to be little point is serving It. --BobSpring is sprung! 13:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's pretty much the exact reason why the whole "outside the universe" thing is bullshit. If you say that you're saying that God has no effect on the world (equivalent to non-existence by definition). It's a fundamentally stupid position and a perfect example of "escape hatch" mentality.
sshole 19:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Bob, the "random application" is exactly what the Calvinists say; God, being in complete control of everything, determines who serves him and who does not.
- Armondikov and Several ingredients, you are approaching not even wrong territory. The "outside the universe" argument is correctly labeled as a creationist escape hatch because creationists try to use it within the scope of scientific arguments, when it is clearly unscientific. However, that does not make it an invalid argument in general.
- For starters, the two sentences ending in "fatal simulation error" are complete blather. It is in theory entirely possible to muck about with a simulation without anyone inside the simulation being aware of it; recent cinematic examples are the black cat "glitch" in The Matrix and the midnight reshuffles in Dark City (which also involved people's minds being altered).
- I think that also suffices to demonstrate why it is nothing more than silliness to suggest that an extra-universal God could have no effect on the universe. And it is also quite possible that these effects would not be observable or measurable, at least in any way that could differentiate between a theistic and an atheistic cause. Science only tells us how the machine works; it says nothing about who, if anybody, is turning the crank.
ListenerXTalkerX 04:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, it's pure speculation for what might be controlling the universe from the outside. As for the "fatal simulation error" I didn't mean it as in the error would kill all life and destroy the universe, but like a fatal error in computing, which requires a restart. Now, the simulator could, in theory, keep on restarting and restoring the universe every time it wanted to change nature. It just seems an extraordinary claim, one which could explain our reality, but isn't the most straight-forward method of explaining it.Several ingredients (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- As for the "fatal simulation error"... I am entirely unaware how you got the notion that I thought this meant a universe-destroying error.
- It is one thing to say a belief is speculative or is silly or requires extraordinary evidence or is a multiplication beyond necessity, and quite another to say it is logically inconsistent.
ListenerXTalkerX 05:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Then what do you mean by "fatal simulation error" being blather, when my point was that it was a computational fatal error? You also say that I'm approaching "not even wrong" territory, seeing as I'm not yet in it, could you please explain how I'm wrong?Several ingredients (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- As I attempted to demonstrate with the cinematic examples, it is (1) possible for the simulators to communicate with the simulated in ways not in conformance with the rules of the simulated universe; (2) this does not "ruin the simulation."
ListenerXTalkerX 06:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, that finally makes some sense. Now, this discussion has taken a right-angled turn and we need to get back on track. Are the simulators omnipotent? I doubt they really are, and they barely fit the most commonly accepted idea of "God". Unless you define God as limited in his abilities in our universe- which is not omnipotence- then you can't solve the paradox.Several ingredients (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- As I attempted to demonstrate with the cinematic examples, it is (1) possible for the simulators to communicate with the simulated in ways not in conformance with the rules of the simulated universe; (2) this does not "ruin the simulation."
- Then what do you mean by "fatal simulation error" being blather, when my point was that it was a computational fatal error? You also say that I'm approaching "not even wrong" territory, seeing as I'm not yet in it, could you please explain how I'm wrong?Several ingredients (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, it's pure speculation for what might be controlling the universe from the outside. As for the "fatal simulation error" I didn't mean it as in the error would kill all life and destroy the universe, but like a fatal error in computing, which requires a restart. Now, the simulator could, in theory, keep on restarting and restoring the universe every time it wanted to change nature. It just seems an extraordinary claim, one which could explain our reality, but isn't the most straight-forward method of explaining it.Several ingredients (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- That was a creationist escape hatch... If God is outside the universe, yet he created it, then he must have a detectable impact on our natural world. This would render God to be an observable supernatural entity. This is a paradox in itself, supernature that violates nature existing in nature.[1]As for the simulated reality analogy, the people simulating the reality would have no ability to communicate with us directly, only through the computer program. If they tried to bring their own laws into our simulated reality it would ruin the simulation because the laws of nature would clash, leading to a fatal simulation error.Several ingredients (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Eliezer Yudkowsky can consistently assert the sentence 'Eliezer Yudkowsky cannot consistently assert this sentence.'"
- In which case we add additional caveats to reform the paradox; Can an omnipotent being limit its own powers under the consistent set of logical rules observed in our universe.
- Surely it would be impossible to make any argument about a being to which the laws of logic do not apply. How would you ever know if your argument about the being were valid? --BobSpring is sprung! 22:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- True; in that case one would have to fall back on the second objection, that the omnipotent being has the capacity to ignore the laws of logic.
- This is why the general case of the paradox is whether an omnipotent being can limit its own powers - and so cease to be omnipotent. But the paradox doesn't need to take into account time (such a constraint would be beside the point). It is whether an omnipotent being can limit their own power and remain omnipotent. Hence the paradox - merely saying that the being is giving up (even temporarily) its omnipotent powers is uninteresting.
The simulators are omnipotent as far as the simulated system is concerned, in that they can set the rules of the system as they wish, and alter the state of the system in ways not in conformance with those rules. As with all analogies, the parallels break down at some point, but it serves to illustrate the idea of an extra-universal deity interacting with it in arbitrary ways.
ListenerXTalkerX 06:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- "The simulators are omnipotent as far as the simlulation system is concerned". Hmmm, too bad this hasn't been demonstrated to us in any way, all nature has taken it's course. Your idea of an extra-universal deity is unfalsifiable as we have no way of observing it from our own. Please don't go on about miracle, as they too are unfalsifiable, thus not science. Anyway, it does raise some serious questions about the deity in question, for example, why does it not use its "omnipotence" to do away with evil. Or why doesn't this God help advance our understanding. Again, we are left to nature's devices. If this is all an illusion, and this God is hiding himself from us then he is undeserving of worship. How can one rationally worship something they have no evidence for?Several ingredients (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- For some reason it has never helped for me to keep repeating that I am not pretending that any of this is at all scientific, demonstrable, falsifiable, more than speculation, etc., etc.
- It is rather ridiculous to speak of "demonstrations" in reference to a hypothetical situation used to illustrate an idea.
ListenerXTalkerX 07:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- "For some reason it has never helped for me to keep repeating that I am not pretending that any of this is at all scientific, demonstrable, falsifiable, more than speculation, etc., etc." ...And we are on RationalWiki. One of our goals is to refute pseudoscience and a wide range of crank ideas. Your speculation seems a bit crank, so I suggest we stop speculating and use what logic and evidence we have in the best manner.Several ingredients (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- If God is unbound by logic then trying to formulate logical questions & answers about what He/She can/can't do is a fool's task as the question becomes meaningless. The answer to the question will be neither "yes" nor "no", since both "can" and "can't" are expressions of logic which cannot apply to such a being. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 08:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Precisely. If we assume this whole "beyond time" and "beyond logic" horseshit, you become able to consistently say the phrase "God does not exist because he exists". It becomes fundamentally pointless to even argue the point.
sshole 13:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Your speculation seems a bit crank... To which I can only reply: You wish.
- Again, I am not arguing for the existence of an omnipotent, extra-universal deity. I do not even think there to be any such argument, or any such deity. I am merely refuting the argument here that it is impossible for such a deity to exist.
- Weaseloid, the only relevant question and answer there is (Q) "What can God do?"; (A) "There's nothing he can't." Besides, any inability of ours to enumerate divine abilities has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of the deity in question; similarly our inability to enumerate the members of the "halting set" has no bearing on which computer programs halt and which do not.
- Armondikov, if indeed such ideas are "horses***," it is because they were plucked out of the air, not because of this so-called "paradox."
ListenerXTalkerX 03:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- The link to Wikipedia only shows how popular religions are... What's not to make us say that religions are crank? Popularity does not determine truth or credibility of an argument, only evidence can do so. As for you doubting this omnipotence paradox, I'm a but unsure as to how you define omnipotent. I always defined it as "all powerful; with infinite power" which would lead to a paradox reguarding its abilities, pitting infinite abilities against itself would logically result in those abilities being described as finite. Thus, it is reasonable to say that when people say their God can "do anything" or is "all powerful" they can't be telling the truth. They could say it can have great powers so that it can create the universe, but not infinite powers. Now, as for you saying that you are not arguing for the existence of an extra-universal, omnipotent deity, but that your refuting the idea that such a deity is impossible. Fair enough, but so far all you've done is show that this argument could be right. Could? Yes, could. But is this argument for an extra-universal deity not subject to laws, yet has some effect on our natural universe without us knowing a very likely one? Using our own logic breaks down at this point, as it has no bearing on a deity that can change it. Though there is no doubt this deity is a possibility, it is just as likely a possibility as the universe being a computer simulation, or the universe being completely and utterly random in every sense of every sub-atomic particle to give us a picture of reality, or the doctrine of solipsism. All of these are indeed possibilities, yet they are unfalsifiable, untestable and unprovable. This makes them NOT science. As we are on RationalWiki, we prefer SCIENCE or LOGIC to such unproveable claims.Several ingredients (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Again, I am not disagreeing with most of the remarks about science (although atheists are often loath to include the non-self-refuting variants of strong rationalism on that list of equal possibilities).
- The link to Wikipedia only shows... That was not a discussion about the truth of the ideas in question, but their crankishness, in which popularity is a definite factor. Monotheism is a mainstream notion, not a crank one. A far greater proportion of atheists promote their beliefs in a crankish manner, and that is not even counting the non-Objectivists.
- I'm a but unsure as to how you define omnipotent. I am going by the definition of omnipotence assumed by the article, viz., the Cartesian definition, by which an omnipotent entity can do anything, even create impossible worlds. Other definitions do not make the pretense that an omnipotent entity can perform logically impossible tasks.
- ...all you've done is show that this argument could be right... But is this argument... Precisely what argument is that?
- As we are on RationalWiki... When you have been editing the Wiki for over half its life, perhaps you can credibly tell me what the place is about; not before.
ListenerXTalkerX 06:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Precisely what argument is that? from what I read, it was that you were refuting the idea that an omnipotent deity is impossible to exist. Your reasoning seems to be that this deity is omnipotent such that it can bend logic. I pointed this out to be speculation. You then provided a link to Wikipedia about the popularity of religion. I said that religion can still be crank and popularity doesn't make it any more credible. And now you say that...well, I'm not quite sure so I'll take it straight from the horse's mouth :That was not a discussion about the truth of the ideas in question, but their crankishness, in which popularity is a definite factor. Monotheism is a mainstream notion, not a crank one. A far greater proportion of atheists promote their beliefs in a crankish manner, and that is not even counting the non-Objectivists. I'm not quite sure what you mean by atheists spreading beliefs. Atheists don't promote their beleifs, they promote their lack of belief[2]. Besides that you say that this discussion is not about the truth of the idea of an omnipotent deity, but of its crankiness. Well, I'll concede to you that monotheism- due to its popularity- is not crank. Its just false. You also seem to think that because I'm relatively new here that I am not entitled to have a say about RationalWiki. Well, I've read and understand our community standards, style and our point of view. I should be able to make an educated statement on what our aim is as well.Several ingredients (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- When I said, "That was not a discussion about the truth...", I was referring to the thread stemming from your claim that monotheism is crankish. If a reductio ad absurdum is based on some speculation, that speculation may be freely used in refuting that argument.
- Atheists don't promote their beleifs [sic]... The belief in question is what distinguishes the explicit atheist from the implicit atheist: the belief that a non-belief in God is to be preferred (or, if the atheist is also a strong rationalist, the belief that there is no truth beyond what the scientific method tells us).
- Well, I've read and understand our Community Standards... Well, I was here when said standards were drafted and I do not need reminding of what they say (stick around long enough and you will understand that wikilink). Take a look at the final section in the last of the pages you cited; you might see why I took such objection to your remarks.
ListenerXTalkerX 06:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, you weren't. "10 November 2008" was xis months later. A Whiter Shade of Pale (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Your link to Wikipedia's toilet paper article reminded me of a rather humorous piece of vandalism on Conservapedia[3]. I am, however, puzzled as to what criticism of RW has to do with discussion of the omnipotence paradox? Is it because you object to the style of the main article? Because so far you've just said an omnipotent God can exist, given certain restrictions- and that monotheism is not crank. I disagree with the former and agree with the latter. Also, I'd really prefer it if you didn't pay attention to my newness at this wiki but to what points I bring up. Unless, of course, these points show an obvious lack of understanding of the subject. In which case I'd prefer constructive criticism over quick dismissals. Thank you.Several ingredients (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- A Whiter Shade, I was referring to the massive overhaul that took place about January of 2009, shortly after I arrived.
- Several ingredients, as the "criticism of RationalWiki" section notes, it is considered bad form in RationalWiki debates to dismiss the opposing side by citing the Wiki's name. If you do not wish any hay to be made of your being new to the Wiki, kindly do not presume to know the Wiki's ways better than more established editors.
- Also, I'd really prefer it if you didn't pay attention to my newness at this wiki but to what points I bring up. If you will notice, I have been doing so. Your last few posts have been pure argument by assertion with little to respond to; in the others you seemed to be confusing possibility (
) with necessity (
), in that you were responding to my arguments that an omnipotent God could exist (or, more narrowly, that this "omnipotence paradox" is invalid) with refutations designed for arguments that an omnipotent God does exist. Another error you made was to appeal to science in an argument about matters outside its purview.
ListenerXTalkerX 06:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I got lost with who you were replying to there, ListenerX, but if I have some question of protocol, does this mean I can come to you to verify/check things out before sticking my neck out? Cheers, A Whiter Shade of Pale (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Each of my paragraphs in the above post is headed with either the name of the editor to which it is addressed, or a quote from that editor. As to your question, we appear to follow an exaggerated form of WP:BOLD here; no worries.
ListenerXTalkerX 06:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I see now. This discussion was never intended to be about science. Or logic. Or even reality. It was just that an omnipotent God can exist in some form or another. Whatever, I'm getting rather tired of having to repeat my points, so please- don't be "refuting" the ideas I put forth. Instead, validate your own objections to the omnipotence paradox.Several ingredients (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Each of my paragraphs in the above post is headed with either the name of the editor to which it is addressed, or a quote from that editor. As to your question, we appear to follow an exaggerated form of WP:BOLD here; no worries.
- I got lost with who you were replying to there, ListenerX, but if I have some question of protocol, does this mean I can come to you to verify/check things out before sticking my neck out? Cheers, A Whiter Shade of Pale (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Your link to Wikipedia's toilet paper article reminded me of a rather humorous piece of vandalism on Conservapedia[3]. I am, however, puzzled as to what criticism of RW has to do with discussion of the omnipotence paradox? Is it because you object to the style of the main article? Because so far you've just said an omnipotent God can exist, given certain restrictions- and that monotheism is not crank. I disagree with the former and agree with the latter. Also, I'd really prefer it if you didn't pay attention to my newness at this wiki but to what points I bring up. Unless, of course, these points show an obvious lack of understanding of the subject. In which case I'd prefer constructive criticism over quick dismissals. Thank you.Several ingredients (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, you weren't. "10 November 2008" was xis months later. A Whiter Shade of Pale (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Precisely what argument is that? from what I read, it was that you were refuting the idea that an omnipotent deity is impossible to exist. Your reasoning seems to be that this deity is omnipotent such that it can bend logic. I pointed this out to be speculation. You then provided a link to Wikipedia about the popularity of religion. I said that religion can still be crank and popularity doesn't make it any more credible. And now you say that...well, I'm not quite sure so I'll take it straight from the horse's mouth :That was not a discussion about the truth of the ideas in question, but their crankishness, in which popularity is a definite factor. Monotheism is a mainstream notion, not a crank one. A far greater proportion of atheists promote their beliefs in a crankish manner, and that is not even counting the non-Objectivists. I'm not quite sure what you mean by atheists spreading beliefs. Atheists don't promote their beleifs, they promote their lack of belief[2]. Besides that you say that this discussion is not about the truth of the idea of an omnipotent deity, but of its crankiness. Well, I'll concede to you that monotheism- due to its popularity- is not crank. Its just false. You also seem to think that because I'm relatively new here that I am not entitled to have a say about RationalWiki. Well, I've read and understand our community standards, style and our point of view. I should be able to make an educated statement on what our aim is as well.Several ingredients (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- The link to Wikipedia only shows how popular religions are... What's not to make us say that religions are crank? Popularity does not determine truth or credibility of an argument, only evidence can do so. As for you doubting this omnipotence paradox, I'm a but unsure as to how you define omnipotent. I always defined it as "all powerful; with infinite power" which would lead to a paradox reguarding its abilities, pitting infinite abilities against itself would logically result in those abilities being described as finite. Thus, it is reasonable to say that when people say their God can "do anything" or is "all powerful" they can't be telling the truth. They could say it can have great powers so that it can create the universe, but not infinite powers. Now, as for you saying that you are not arguing for the existence of an extra-universal, omnipotent deity, but that your refuting the idea that such a deity is impossible. Fair enough, but so far all you've done is show that this argument could be right. Could? Yes, could. But is this argument for an extra-universal deity not subject to laws, yet has some effect on our natural universe without us knowing a very likely one? Using our own logic breaks down at this point, as it has no bearing on a deity that can change it. Though there is no doubt this deity is a possibility, it is just as likely a possibility as the universe being a computer simulation, or the universe being completely and utterly random in every sense of every sub-atomic particle to give us a picture of reality, or the doctrine of solipsism. All of these are indeed possibilities, yet they are unfalsifiable, untestable and unprovable. This makes them NOT science. As we are on RationalWiki, we prefer SCIENCE or LOGIC to such unproveable claims.Several ingredients (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Precisely. If we assume this whole "beyond time" and "beyond logic" horseshit, you become able to consistently say the phrase "God does not exist because he exists". It becomes fundamentally pointless to even argue the point.
- If God is unbound by logic then trying to formulate logical questions & answers about what He/She can/can't do is a fool's task as the question becomes meaningless. The answer to the question will be neither "yes" nor "no", since both "can" and "can't" are expressions of logic which cannot apply to such a being. Wėąṣėḷőįď
The burden of proof is not on me, as I am not the one with the "proof" (i.e., the omnipotence paradox). I have presented a refutation to that particular "proof," which is that the necessary use of the Cartesian definition of omnipotence in this case places the argument's scope outside the purview of logic. This may be a tricky concept to grasp for someone who has not studied meta-logic, but to give a nudge in the right direction, it is not difficult to see that one cannot discount in the premise a principle to which one appeals in drawing the conclusion.
ListenerXTalkerX 05:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Response
This is the response I am familiar with, and the one I subscribe to personally. I think it is a quite common approach, but the current version of the article doesn't explain it well:
- A being is omnipotent if it can bring about any logically possible state of affairs
- The existence of a rock heavier than an omnipotent being can lift is not a logically possible state of affairs
- Hence, an omnipotent being can't create such a rock
- But they do not cease to be omnipotent for being unable to do so
The same argument disposes of the square circle, the square both black and white all over, and similar such examples. Responses? Zack Martin
12:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's just a definitions issue with "omnipotence". Omnipotence in the usual religious sense usually means defying a lot of laws, including maths and physics, in order to enact miracles. If said being can't break out of "logically possible" states, then it is not omnipotent by that standards that most people ascribe to God and indeed what would need to be ascribed to God for an interventionist omnipotent being to exist. ADK...I'll speak your operating system! 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you look at how omnipotence is traditionally defined in Catholic theology, it includes the ability for God to violate the laws of physics, but not the laws of mathematics. The difference is, they argue, it is logically (albeit not physically) possible to violate the laws of physics; it is not logically possible to violate the laws of mathematics; God can do anything logically possible, but nothing logically impossible. I believe the definition of omnipotence I propose is the traditional one in Catholic, and probably more broadly most Christian, theology. Maybe, not the popular definition, but certainly the official one. (For more discussion on Catholic view on omnipotence, see here.) Zack Martin
12:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't most - if not all - of physics described by and hence governed by maths?--BobSpring is sprung! 16:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes; but that doesn't mean violating the laws of physics requires a violation of the laws of maths. Physics works like this: we do some measurements (determining initial conditions); plug them into some equation, solve it, we pick out some of its solutions to use as predictions; perform some more measurements; wow, the predictions we got out of the equation match the actual measurements. Now, suppose hypothetically an omnipotent God decides to intervene, and changes things - now, suddenly, our measurements don't match the predictions from the equation. So the laws of physics have been violated, but not the laws of mathematics. I think, mainstream Catholic theology would say, the laws of physics are contingent, it is logically possible they could be other than they are, so an omnipotent God is free to violate them; the laws of mathematics are logically necessary, there is no logically possible state of affairs where they are different than they are, hence the omnipotent God can't alter them. (I think they would say, the laws of mathematics are part of God's nature, and God can't alter his own nature.) Zack Martin
10:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is straining it quite far... ADK...I'll feel your lollipop! 14:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- The point is, if you pick up a "popular" definition of omnipotence, and find the logical holes in it, that is really a strawman argument. The theologians have already wrestled with those issues centuries ago, and they have come up with a definition of omnipotence which arguably doesn't have the same holes. Finding holes in the "popular" definition of omnipotence, is like pointing out the logical holes in Joe the Plumber's scientific views, and using that to condemn science as incoherent. Zack Martin
00:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say it's even begging the question. If you use a logically impossible definition of omnipotence and then determine that omnipotence is logically impossible, you've proven absolutely nothing. 84.198.53.190 (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- The point is, if you pick up a "popular" definition of omnipotence, and find the logical holes in it, that is really a strawman argument. The theologians have already wrestled with those issues centuries ago, and they have come up with a definition of omnipotence which arguably doesn't have the same holes. Finding holes in the "popular" definition of omnipotence, is like pointing out the logical holes in Joe the Plumber's scientific views, and using that to condemn science as incoherent. Zack Martin
- I think this is straining it quite far... ADK...I'll feel your lollipop! 14:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes; but that doesn't mean violating the laws of physics requires a violation of the laws of maths. Physics works like this: we do some measurements (determining initial conditions); plug them into some equation, solve it, we pick out some of its solutions to use as predictions; perform some more measurements; wow, the predictions we got out of the equation match the actual measurements. Now, suppose hypothetically an omnipotent God decides to intervene, and changes things - now, suddenly, our measurements don't match the predictions from the equation. So the laws of physics have been violated, but not the laws of mathematics. I think, mainstream Catholic theology would say, the laws of physics are contingent, it is logically possible they could be other than they are, so an omnipotent God is free to violate them; the laws of mathematics are logically necessary, there is no logically possible state of affairs where they are different than they are, hence the omnipotent God can't alter them. (I think they would say, the laws of mathematics are part of God's nature, and God can't alter his own nature.) Zack Martin
- Isn't most - if not all - of physics described by and hence governed by maths?--BobSpring is sprung! 16:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you look at how omnipotence is traditionally defined in Catholic theology, it includes the ability for God to violate the laws of physics, but not the laws of mathematics. The difference is, they argue, it is logically (albeit not physically) possible to violate the laws of physics; it is not logically possible to violate the laws of mathematics; God can do anything logically possible, but nothing logically impossible. I believe the definition of omnipotence I propose is the traditional one in Catholic, and probably more broadly most Christian, theology. Maybe, not the popular definition, but certainly the official one. (For more discussion on Catholic view on omnipotence, see here.) Zack Martin
[edit] BoN Addition 16/4/15
+ THIS IS NOT A Paradox. The stone question is a fallacy of composition because , through the use of vague seemingly different terms, the question is the contradiction. Here's why the question is invalid.
+
1)Can God make a rock (yes)
+
2) By definition God could therefore "unmake" the rock.(yes)
+
3) could God make the rock anywhere (yes)
+
4) Therefore God could make the rock say in Texas laying anywhere on the ground (yes)
+
5) God could then unmake the same rock in Texas and then remake it on the moon (yes)
+
Conclusion, It has just been explained, by definition, the ability to make a rock includes the ability to lift it as a subset of what is within the method of making a rock and what the definition of lifting the rock entails. I.e. make it In Texas than make it on the moon, therefore in regards to the definition of lifting it was lifted from Texas to the moon. Unless you disagree with what constitutes lifting, if so please inform NASA the term liftoff is incorrect.
+
All omnipotent paradoxes, or so called paradoxes, are nothing more than the projection of human limitations onto God usually based in contradictions in composition or straw man fallacies that redefine God differently in order to achieve the idea of a paradox.
+
Let's do one more. Can God create a being more powerful than God? This contradicts the definition of God being ALL powerful, which entails having all possible power that exists or could exist. So if a being was MORE powerful than God, even created by God for example, it would negate the definition of God possessing all power this this question merely straw man's how God is defined making the question about a different God.
Added by Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)