Talk:Omnipotence paradox/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 30 April 2020. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

Another question

Does God (of whatever persuasion) actually #choose# to explore 'relevant possessive pronoun' - or to create something that 'relevant pronoun' cannot lift?

(There is a special ward in God-Hospital for deities who have done themselves nasty injuries trying to create and manipulate weights they cannot lift.) Anna Livia (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

A problem with the topic

It does not seem to evolve, just loops back onto the original discussion point(s).

In one of the old newspapers I read occasionally someone asked 'the resident answerer of questions' - what would happen if an irresistible force meets an immovable object? The answer was (paraphrasing) - by definition the two things cannot exist in the same universe, so, dear reader, go and think about something more useful.

Anyone care to watch this film instead of continuing the discussion? Anna Livia (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a stone, God, you didn't make it

* dons Mod Hat * 

Stop responding to this guy for the last time Anna Livia. This conversation is going nowhere. And I'm going to leave the collapse there because you Birdman are an insufferable unhealthily-obsessive pain in the ass who keeps proclaiming victory, resorting to semantic arguments, and reiterating your points when you're backed into a corner. Go play some football with some cavemen. For the rest of you, he's not going to do what you guys are asking him to do and he's not going to to respond to your challenges. I've tried it myself ages ago and ended up wasting my time as he went to semantics. If he were intellectually honest, otherwise, he would've changed his argument within a year's worth of 500 hundred paragraphs ago (and if you check his talk page, you probably have a better idea about how exhausting he is) and also after smugly LANCBing. All you respondents are getting on my nerves for constantly responding to this unfixable intellectually bankrupt drain dump who again, deserves no attention. Let him rant about it, but he's not going to change the page and he's going to continue seeing his comments get collapsed, as his method of argument is not conductive to RationalWiki by wasting all your time trying to debate him. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, messing with Birdman can be fun. I would argue that anyone can join in on his talk page instead because then they're not particularly polluting anything :) —Kazitor 06:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You can continue in his talk page I guess but I've dealt with far funnier trolls compared to this one. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably because he's not a troll? I haven't made the effort because I got my fill last year, but I'm saying that's what others can do if they want. —Kazitor 02:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Birdman isn't a troll, he's a Christian Apologist. It's his job/hobby to jam as much bullshit scripture into reality as he can feasibly get away with. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

What to do with those types? I do suppose it's up to people to choose to debate others but I don't want less experienced people hopping in and wasting time with this person too. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 03:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Create a wiki just for them that is to RW what RW is to 'Conservapedia etc'?

Can one argue that 'omnipotence' is something too complex/strange for us mere mortals to understand - the equivalent of the 'bumblebees and Newton's laws' argument (so we can now entertain ourselves by switching to counting the angels dancing on a different pin). Anna Livia (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

First off I applaud Kazitor for recognizing that I'm clearly not a "troll." Unlike the others here on ratinalwiki, at least he recognizes the work that went into my CGCP resolution and knows its purpose in regard to exposing the fallacious use of logic embedded within the Stone Paradox. He may not agree with it, but he understands the concept. The rest of you are tantamount to a bunch of "ban happy" Pope Paul V's when he punished Galileo for presenting information that was contrary to his particular ideology.

Unfortunately, LeftyGreenMario has shamefully resorted to "editing away" what I have physically written on a frickin' TALK PAGE which is absolutely UNPRECEDENTED in the wiki community! Nobody does this! ...NOBODY!!! The moment LeftyGreenMario edited my words and collapsed my talk page contribution, he totally destroyed any "credibility" that Rationalwiki ever had. After all, if the only contribution you can make is to "ban, bury and edit someone else's words" ...then you have destroyed your own forum. Congratulations, Lefty! You destroyed the credibility of your own frickin' website! Hell, Lefty, just do what the Popes do when they don't like the information that's been presented to them. ...Just delete it and ban the source! ...right?

And we also have GrammarCommie who is equally "censor happy" and desires only to bury what I write. He is so totally clueless as to label me as a "Christian Apologist" even though I have openly stated numerous times here on rationalwiki that I have absolutely no religious affiliations whatsoever. How many "Christians" do you know of who will state the same, GrammarCommie? ...How many? Give me a number!

You also wrote, "It's his job/hobby to jam as much bullshit scripture into reality as he can" didn't you? I challenge you to copy and paste anywhere I have used "Biblical Scripture" as you claim I have. So c'mon, GrammarCommie, ...all you have to do is show me just ONE STINKIN' TIME where I have used "scripture" anywhere at all. Where' is it, GrammarCommie? ...Where?

And lastly, LeftyGreenMario, wrote, "I don't want less experienced people hopping in and wasting time with this person too." Less experienced? Seriously? Hell, buddy, that's YOU! You brought absolutely NOTHING to the intellectual table regarding the entire debate over my CGCDP resolution. NOTHING! It seems your only "contribution" is your ability to edit other people's words that you don't agree with, collapse information that other people submit because you are so frickin' afraid that it'll be seen and "lock out" anyone who writes words you do not agree with. The truth is, LeftyGreenMario, that anyone "less experienced" than you would need to be in a frickin' coma!

Hey, Lefty, you just keep on editing my words, collapsing the talk page sections that you don't like and "locking out" those to which you don't agree. It's YOUR "character" (and rationalwiki's reputation) that your flushing down the toilet ....Not mine! --Birdman (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we're threatening to murder you if you don't start agreeing with us. Honestly, why is it so hard for you to accept that you're wrong, rather than screaming about being oppressed and censored? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It's hard because he first has to navigate his head out of the intricate labyrinth that is his large intestines that is as convoluted as his argument. 207.233.76.9 (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You also forgot this edit, this edit, and this edit dipshit. You know, where I was still giving you benefit of doubt but you exhausted my patience. What are you going to do, ignore all counter arguments or are you going to resort to more semantics? 207.233.76.9 (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The first derivative of Godwin's Law - anyone who mentions Hitler/Stalin/other generally disapproved-of person out of context/compares someone in the discussion to them automatically loses the argument.

The first derivative of the first derivative of Godwin's Law - anyone who uses swearwords unnecessarily/asks 'why won't you listen to my (several times repeated) argument' has lost. Anna Livia (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, knowledge-bashers, you can trash me all you like. I don't care. It only serves to expose you for what you are and everyone is able to read it. They can also read this part: NONE of you were ever able to refute my CGCP response to the Stone Paradox. It WORKS and it's game over for the Stone Paradox! ...That's why the only thing left that you can do is "trash the person" who created it.

That's also what is keeping Ratinalwiki "behind the times" in regard to accessing emerging knowledge. Your Atheist ideology has turned you all into censor-happy control freaks and it's damaging your website. Unfortunately the people visiting your website are the ones who suffer from your ideologically-driven censorship.--74.132.77.142 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

There are many forms of atheism, BON - most modern people are probably atheistic towards the gods of Ur of the Chaldees, and Doggerland (among many others): and not all RW contributors who do not admit to a faith will be atheist. They can have 'a faith or belief system' (including agnosticism/deism/theism) but choose not to discuss it here because it is not relevant to their postings, or to avoid long discussions. Anna Livia (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Mathematical question

If God creates a 'too large' stone in one set of dimensions, and then switches to another set of dimensions where the stone appears to be no larger than a pebble would he be able to move it then? Anna Livia (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Although you have treated me with the utmost disrespect from my very first day here on RationalWiki, I'll still answer your question. The reason I do so is because I am far more interested in knowledge than I am in censoring and deleting shit that I don't necessarily agree with.

ANSWER: Dimensions are based on "units of measure" which are likewise based on an infinite set of numbers. Since length, width and height are all inherently infinite, there are no barriers set in place as to how large an object can be made to be. In addition, the size of a stone does not necessarily correlate with its weight. An example would be the planet Saturn. to which if it were placed in a body of water large enough to hold it, it would float due to its lack of density.

Length, width and height are the standard three dimensions that we use to define the size of an observable object and represent the only dimensions needed to do so. Having your misogynistic, penis-brandishing God switching over to some new theoretical set of quantum-based dimensions is tantamount to God using a magic wand to make the stone "appear" to be smaller to us non-Omnipotent beings. Unfortunately that still does not physically alter the characteristics of the stone in question.

And lastly, the purpose of the Stone Paradox is to pit God's own Omnipotent power against his own will to use it (i.e., "Omnipotence vs. Omnipotence"). Although this represents a blatantly fallacious concept and in no way represents a legitimate challenge, that is the only possible method to theoretically thwart the will of an Omnipotent Being. However, having God already creating a "too large" stone in the first part of your scenario is a non sequitur as that is tantamount to trying to create water that is "too wet."

Requiring God to make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it represents a fallacious use of paradoxical logic (as demonstrated by my CGCP resolution) but at least it does pit "Omnipotence against Omnipotence." ...Your scenario does not do the same! Your scenario asks an "after the fact" question based on an impossible scenario. The beginning of your scenario declares that a stone already exists that somehow exceeds the boundaries of infinite dimensions -- which is not possible . Since the beginning part of your scenario is a non sequitur, the "switching dimensions" part becomes moot as well.

The best you possibly do with your scenario is to drop the "switching dimensions" part and simply ask the question, "Can God create a stone so large that it cannot be measured?"

The problem is that this does not pit "Omnipotence against Omnipotence" but rather "Omnipotence against Measurements" to which an Omnipotent Being (God) can easily overcome. An Omnipotent Being could reduce the Universe to a finite container the size of a 12" dildo. Anything outside the limits of this dildo-sized universe would become part of a different dimension void of any and all measurements. God could then create a stone slightly larger than the size of a 12" vibrating dildo and whatever parts of the stone extend past the barriers of our dildo-size universe becomes part of a different dimension ...and thusly meet your challenge!

So there ya have it, Anna. I took all of this time to answer your question even though you have seemingly dedicated your life to making sure my CGCP resolution is never included on RationalWiki's Omnipotence Paradox page. This is what clearly defines the difference between our levels of character.--Birdman (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

No. The Omnipotence paradox questions the logic of omnipotence, given that omnipotence is in essence both the unstoppable force and the immovable object, even though not only are both ideas flawed but mutually exclusive. The real problem here is that apologists such as yourself have painted themselves into an ideological corner, where on the one hand you want to prove your poorly repurposed bronze age war deity turned supreme deity real, and on the other you will settle for nothing less than a perfect creator deity. Therein lies your problem, you are unwilling to bend on either point, and are as thus crushed between two mutually exclusive beliefs. What's particularly ironic is if you read the Bible cover to cover you wouldn't support the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and/or omnipresent deity, given that it would directly contradict scripture (The only real "evidence" you have for your god). In fact you might do what I did and lose your faith on the spot. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Stop wasting your breath. If Birdman makes a similar space-wasting response bitching about semantics or being overall smug in the similar vein to above, I'll probably collapse it. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Birdman - I am glad you think I have so much power - and I am more 'indifferent to your posturing and amused by your presumption.'

Can anyone answer the technical-mathematical question? To put it another way - how would the mathematicians of Flatland treat the tines of an OurWorld 3D rake moving through their world. Anna Livia (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

LeftyGreenMario, the answer I provided Anna was very well-thought-out, highly detailed, accurately addressed her question and was clearly a valuable contribution in regard to her question (and this rationalwiki talk page). By ALL MEANS Lefty, show everyone who stumbles upon this section of this Rationalwiki Talk Page the shameful level of your character and "collapse it." Maybe you can manage to flush Rationalwiki's entire reputation down the toilet by going back and maliciously editing what I write into something completely different? Maybe you can even "lock me out" for so eloquently and accurately responding to Anna's question? After all, that's what the Popes and cowards do, ...so why should you be any different?--Birdman (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Birdman - #you have not answered my question# and you have not proved your case.Anna Livia (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I can answer your question: dimensions do not work that way. To get something of higher dimension into lower dimension, mathematically, is a transformation known as a projection (not that kind). Projection does not eliminate the original higher dimensional object, it merely creates a locally meaningful mathematical representation of it. To use a very blunt metaphor, taking a picture of a rock does not make that rock 2d.

Now, there are other approaches to this idea than projection, but none of them, I'd say, fit the "purely mathematical" phrasing you're using. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Ikanread - I know the question I am trying to ask, it is a matter of phraseology. With the garden fork passing through Flatland the local scientists will find that the 'slices of the tines' will move together despite not being connected in 2D space. How will the Flatlander scientists understand what they are looking at? Anna Livia (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The Flatlanders would observe just one slice and see it change shape as the fork moves through their 2D realm, no? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Take a garden fork with four tines intersecting with a plane: the Flatlanders will see four shapes which unexpectedly all move together - what will they deduce, and will they be able to move them when so much of the 'mass or weight' lies outside their universe? (And what about the 'polygon slice of the encountered tesseract'?) Anna Livia (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

If they're like most humans they'll probably go "UFO! UFO!". And I assume they could interact with it as long as it's intersecting with their world. Whether they can move it is simply a matter of how much force they can exert. A 2D giant might find himself able to exert more force upon the fork than a 3D human, though any 2D inhabitant would likely be surprised by the fork's large inertia considering its seemingly small size. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Quantum physics already runs into that problem, and the answer physicists frequently cite is "shut up and calculate" because the mathematical abstractions of quantum physics work, even if we don't have a proven material analogy to the behavior we see. See wikipedia's article on the various interpretations of quantum physics to see the kinds of ways scientists propose as abstractions for things that work but we don't know why. I suggest this because them there tines being connected is not unlike spooky action at a distance. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

People seriously

Honestly, this paradox explores some interesting potential conflicts between God's proposed unlimited power of creation and unlimited power to act upon his creation. But then people go and waste it on ridiculous things like a rock that's "too big" or "too heavy" or a pizza that's "too hot"? What in the world is that even supposed to mean? There's no such thing. Even the most massive black holes can be moved if you have enough mass to match it. And the universe started as a singularity at an infinite temperature; this doesn't seem to have stopped God from acting upon it to create the world we see today. While taking an adjective and putting "too" in front of it may make for a funny haha-God-can't-do-this joke, it also makes for a joke of an argument. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

"Even the most massive black holes can be moved if you have enough mass to match it." i.e. one femtogram and below? Sorry, had to nitpick :) —Kazitor 07:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I sense a faint rush of air from the point of a joke flying overhead. No puns were intended btw. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

As I was saying, the wording of the argument seems self-defeating but your argument can be a case against the logical problem of omnipotence. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with kazitor, joke or no. Our terristrial lives, dominated by static friction, it can seem like it takes a certain amount of force to overcome it and actually move something. But with bodies in space, they all change the trajectories of each other, in equal and opposite manners. A black hole doesn't merely suck you in, it has a force equal to that placed upon itself, pulling it towards you. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 05:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It's ok I figured it out

1) Create big rock you can't lift 2) Change your abilities so that you can lift it 49.199.251.247 (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

And now, it's not a rock you can't lift. —Kazitor 07:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

If I was omnipotent, I'd be able to just change my mind about how strong I was and how heavy the rock was 49.199.251.247 (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Anon here has the right idea. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

So - God is omnipotent but cannot exercise all aspects of that omnipotence at one time.

My dimension-hopping God above is a variant on this idea. Anna Livia (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

People complain about God not being able to do contradictory things at the same time and place, but what is time and place but a dataset pinpointing a unique state in a quantum superposition? God can manifest both state A and state -A, that doesn't mean us mortals get to see both. Kind of the whole deal with being mortal, you're confined to one state at a time. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel this whole god thing is just one souped up epicycles in the garage: addenum sort of thing. God is such a headache to believe in. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I just described the basics of a multiverse and rebranded it as God doing stuff. Is a multiverse a headache to believe in or is it the rebranding you disagree with? (I suspect I know the answer. :P) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

No, they're just headaches. Better if we didn't believe in the bloody entity. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Better if we didn't believe in a multiverse? (They're the entity, God is the terminology.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Multiverse is probably easier to believe in than God. Funny to entertain possibilities. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I get the impression you might be missing my point... *grimacing emoji* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You are probably correct because I must admit, I'm not sure where you're trying to lead me. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 05:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

God-the-omnipotent may well create a multiverse so that different (groups of) aspects of omnipotence can be displayed (analogy - think of the 'complex stellated polygons' where the various 'visible bits' of the several face are given the same colour) - but this is answering a different question to that originally propounded. Here God has #the potential# to be omnipotent but in the event only certain aspects are displayed (the Schrodinger Cat closed box scenario equivalent)

Can gods which have limited/specific functions be omnipotent within their particular field (could a fire god start a flame on an Oort-cloud object, and what happens when two gods of cities lay claim to the same bit of territory?).

The Big Bang - (the by-product of) God's attempt to resolve this omnipotence paradox. Anna Livia (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this the type of hypothesizing where Occam's razor finds some utility?Mikecol05 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Shaving off enough of the immovable stone at the start of the discussion for God to be able to manage the stone? (And 'the ultimate paradox' might well cause disruption to the God-created-universe). Anna Livia (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Mikecool: That's what I'm saying, isn't this just superb mental gymnastics? Something epicycles would be proud of? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Omnipotence paradox: Unstoppable force vs Immovable object. God should be able to do both if he is Omnipotent. He cannot do both, therefore he is not Omnipotent. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘(reset) And the question has been moved to one that RWians can actually discuss sensibly. Anna Livia (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright, so let's analyze this scenario. What would happen when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? First things first, what exactly are these things? For the sake of the argument, let's assume they can't pass through each other and the unstoppable force can't change directions, not even a little bit. Both would need to be entirely unaffected by their surroundings but also able to affect them. This would mean both are perfect, absolute (outside)force-nullifiers, one "at rest" relative its surroundings, the other not so much. What would happen to these two if they hit each other? Assuming there's no special particle physics involved (e.g. colliding photons can turn into matter+antimatter), the answer is simple: nothing. To the unstoppable force the immovable object is like a fly that's now stuck on its windshield, while to the immovable object, the unstoppable force is like a little fly trying to fly through a wall to no avail. This is because, as you'll recall, both are perfect force-nullifiers, meaning they cannot have any effect on one another as it's automatically nullified. Their surroundings, on the other hand, are less lucky. As the effect of a new equilibrium spreads across the fabric of spacetime and shakes things up, an observer may notice the immovable object is now moving together with the unstoppable force, but the latter has slowed down significantly. So were either of them really unstoppable/immovable? Depends on your perspective! So let's say you want an unstoppable force that's unstoppable regardless of the perspective and the same thing re immovable object. Simple, then you have to set the behaviour of their environment as absolute as well. Thus we surround the immovable object with an environment that's always at rest with it and the unstoppable force with an environment that's on one side falling towards it and on the other side falling away. If you've been paying attention, you'll notice we've just separated the two into different bubbles (universes?) that must remain separate to sustain the conditions required. Conclusion: What you're asking of God is either gibberish (two necessarily separated things colliding) or non-controversial (if the surroundings don't matter, everything's just fine). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said in an earlier section, the concepts of a unstoppable force and an immovable object are not only mutually exclusive,i.e. an unstoppable force cannot exist in the same universe as an immovable object, but flawed. These flaws are better explained (at least for the unstoppable force) in the article on Free energy. However, since Omnipotence is unlimited power/unlimited ability, such things should be trifles to create, and setting them against each other should be equally simple. The main problem is that when invoked, Omnipotence is rarely thought through, hence the the paradox. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

For those claiming that God must split his being into multiple universes, or across a multiverse, to avoid the contradictions of the paradox, since we are bound to this one universe, is it safe to say that the God of the Bible, who traditionally has omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, doesn't exist here with us as described, or at least only partially? Why doesn't the Bible ever tell us that? Mikecol05 (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This seems applicable. (Also, a reply addressing all that text I just typed would be nice. >.>) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mikecol05 Because it was written by superstitious primitives, who were in turn embellishing the myths of older primitives, who in embellished older myths... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

BoN Err... that sound like special pleading to me. If God needs to use multiple realities/dimensions/what have you in order to make his power work he has limitations on his power, and is thus not Omnipotent, just incredibly powerful. Remember kiddos, any limits automatically disqualify Omnipotence, since being Omnipotent means zero limitations, null, none, nadda. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

So if I say "hey God, do xdiofxnos for me please" and while all of us are aware it's just a gibberish phrase I just cooked up, God failing to do xdiofxnos because it's not a meaningful concept somehow constitutes a relevant limit on God's power? Colour me unconvinced. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

And now I have to worry about God inventing a meaning for xdiofxnos and it being something legitly horrifying. Pretty sure this is how we got Phineas & Ferb. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you are now understanding why omnipotence is such a fundamentally flawed concept. (This says nothing about nigh-omnipotence, mind you) —Kazitor 05:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Next you'll tell me people should say "nigh-nothing" instead of nothing because there's never truly nothing. *shrug* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of prescribing literal meanings though, isn't "omni"-"potence" about controlling "all potential". In that sense, whether/to what extent there are limits is pretty much an open question. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Does 'potency' in this context refer to 'capacity to do something' or 'actually doing the said thing'?

Is there not some 'term related to deepity' relevant - the obvious meanings dissolve into an irresolvable/near meaningless paradox, trite nonsense etc, and the actual reasonable discussion topics are in the questions that lead off from the original point. Anna Livia (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Livia, BoN. From the Latin: Omni, All. Potent/potence, power/powerful. This is commonly held by most scholars to translate almost verbatim to unlimited power. The paradox listed here is quite simple, stone, God. Stone can be lifted, or stone cannot be lifted. What you two don't seem to understand is that if Omnipotence as a concept was more than "my god's dick is bigger than your god's dick" neither outcome should be a problem. Both outcomes are a problem, therefor saying someone or something is Omnipotnet is the equvilant of claiming to be able to square a circle, i.e. not true, and utterly ridiculous. As both I and @Kazitor have said, you would have better luck arguing for nigh omnipotence, than for omnipotence itself. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm imagining a conjoined twin with four arms whose outer arms are too short to reach one another. Sure, when the twins claim that they have four arms so they are twice as strong as a two-armed person, they have a point. But if the outer arms are too short to aid in lifting something, there's also something wrong with the argument. I agree with GrammarCommie, the whole concept is flawed as the multiverse solution concedes that this conception of a diffused God has a limit (not being able to express all its power in a single universe all at once). But also, functionally, like the short armed conjoined twin, it has another problem. Within our universe, there is no omnipotent God, even as the God as a whole has omnipotent power (save for the power to express its omnipotence at will, which again is a limit). So it's a non-solution, that if it were a solution, doesn't solve the important problem of giving our universe an omnipotent God. Mikecol05 (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

For those who are thinking: this diffused God would create the big rock with his big rock making arms, then later bring in his big rock lifting arms, isn't that more of a cosmic parlor trick than a display of omnipotence? Mikecol05 (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

To what extent is the discussion fuelled by both meanings (the capacity to do everything, if not necessarily at the same time/location/bit of the multiverse, and the ability to do everything at the same 'spacetime etc point' being applied to different degrees by different contributors?

The question is always likely to be one to which there are answers and explanations which are clearly wrong, and many others which are approximations and which can be argued against - and God (of whatever kind) is amused by our presumption. Anna Livia (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I love coming back here to see the same little squad of militant Atheists controlling, censoring and deleting any and all information regarding "Omnipotence" that doesn't work to their advantage or forward their myopic Atheistic Ideology... just like what the Pope did to Galileo centuries ago. Nope! Can't have anything visible here on RationalWiki that's able to totally annihilate the Stone Paradox, can we? It's something we Atheists cherish so deeply! We NEED the stone Paradox to survive and we HATE Birdman and his frickin' Circular God Counter Paradox for crushing it right before our very eyes! Unfortunately for RW, such weak arguments have been presented here in defense of the Stone Paradox that Christopher Hitchens is probably rolling over in his grave.--Birdman (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The real question.

Rock lifting or lack thereof aside, an amusing variation of the paradox has occurred to me: Can God erase himself from all (no way to attempt to cheat using semantics here, it's either yes or no) of existence? If yay, then by virtue of no longer existing, God is not omnipotent. If nay, then God is not omnipotent. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 11:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

And how does the question develop if there are a number of gods?

As in other cases - the original question may be flawed (for whatever reasons) but the derivative questions and explorations are valid/interesting. Anna Livia (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

That's good. Odin could create a rock that he couldn't lift, except with Thor's help. Therefore, if there's a god, he she or it is not alone. Yay, polytheism wins! :) 88.105.157.122 (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC) (pagan Sophie) 88.105.157.122 (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Livia I'm specifically referring to Monotheism in general and Christianity in particular. The reason for this narrow focus is that Pantheism rarely if ever posits the concept of omnipotence. Further I would compare the Omnipotence Paradox as being similar to The Trolley Problem, in that the original thought experiment works just fine, it's just not as interesting as the spinoffs. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

To Sophie: This is why whenever I entertain the thought of deities (and yes, despite my Atheism, Apatheism, and Antitheism I do actually entertain such thoughts and ideas) I almost always end up with a Polytheistic or Polydeistic model over a Monotheistic or Monodeistic model. The former are just so much more logical than the latter. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Remember it's OK to entertain an idea in your head, that doesn't mean you believe it, it just means you can imagine it. Sadly there are a lot of people who can't get their heads round that idea. 88.105.157.122 (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC) (Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings, 37 Wasp Villas, Greenbridge)

ANSWER: God can erase himself causing literally every entity to disbelieve and ignore his existence, where even REALITY and the laws of physics ignores him and also all well, doesn't God enscapulate all? To exclude God from "all" is a defeating argument which is typical of so-called RATIONALWiki. If you disagree, you're a censorship happy Nazi and you probably dislike pineapple on pizza. The answer I provided was very well-thought-out, highly detailed, and factually accurate and clearly a valuable contribution. Gonna fly off and LANCB so smell ya later. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

If God erased himself then, God being the foundation of all existence, everything would cease to exist. Be careful what you wish for! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear BoN, I have yet to to see evidence of such heretical claims. Thus I must conclude that you are ignorant of the true foundation of reality, the Flatulent Samba dancing Hippo, who through it's musical flatulence, farted our world into existence. I have faith that this is so, because I've allowed my delusions the great Hippo's warmth into my heart. Silliness aside, what have you got to prove your claim? How can you prove your god real, let alone that he, an illogical and fantastical concept, is the basis of all reality? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

My claim is simply that erasing the foundation of all existence would, well, erase the foundation of all existence. Does a tautology require proof? If you disagree with my terminology though, feel free to make the case why I can't refer to the foundation of reality as God. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Apart from certain types of body art most artists/creators exist outside their artwork - and perhaps the whole point is that 'the Deity, Deities and other creator entities' have removed (relevant pronoun(s)) from the experiment to see how it develops (and in another parallel universe there is constant interference - with occasional cross-"contamination" between the two). Anna Livia (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

A watch doesn't need the watchmaker to keep existing, but it does need a world (with physical laws etc.) to exist in. That's where God-as-foundation-of-reality comes in. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Who created God then?

A tree can act as the gnomon of a 'ground sundial' - so the watch example is flawed. Anna Livia (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

"My claim is simply that erasing the foundation of all existence would, well, erase the foundation of all existence. Does a tautology require proof? If you disagree with my terminology though, feel free to make the case why I can't refer to the foundation of reality as God." Because it's intellectually dishonest. "God" is commonly held to be a person, "the foundation of reality" is A) a thing, and B) not falsifiable. Further you have not demonstrated that reality even needs a foundation, let alone that it has one, let alone that it's "god". In addition, I really hate this "well God is just a catchall I use to describe X" nonsense, since it's just a supped up version of "well Christianity is just a philosophy, not a religion." Bullshit. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have a knack for offering up false equivalencies based on "this thing made me think of this thing". (I remember you somehow connecting the Buddhist doctrine of the mind being emptiness to Christians saying all souls are sinful. Wut?) Maybe this wasn't clear, but I'm not defending a particular religion here, so bringing up odd-sounding Christian-apologetic slogans is kind of irrelevant.

Anyway, we were talking about a being possessing omnipotence, which I interpret as God having "complete control" over all of reality. Speculations on rock-related limitations aside for now, the more pressing question seems to me how God would exert such control over reality. And the obvious answer is that God is the foundation of reality/reality is an extension of God's being/God is the 'ultimate' most fundamental reality (all synonymous statements). Now, you're right that God is commonly thought of as a person, but is the foundation of reality necessarily just a thing? It creates, it sustains, nurtures and when the time comes, it devours, dissolving its creations back into the most fundamental state of being. Moreover, it does all these things by its own volition. The latter is the case by logical necessity, as there is simply no other volition "outside" of its being that might influence it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

We perceive 'God' as being an entity in our own image (and the donkey's gods and amoebae's gods would look like them).

Perhaps Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty applies to God's omnipotence amd/or Schrödinger's cat while in the box. What is the relationship between being omni-potential and being omnipotent? Anna Livia (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You've perceived God, Anna Livia? Lucky you. :) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The answer is

Of course, 'God only knows.' Anna Livia (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Can God erase his own memories? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

If he is stoned? Anna Livia (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Can God stone himself and then lift himself? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

What would God get stoned on/what sort of stone would he turn himself into? Anna Livia (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

LeftyGreenMario you have absolutely no business submitting garbage like that on this RatioinalWiki talk page while at the same time censoring/editing what I have written. You just provided empirical evidence that this entire website is agenda-driven based on a specific "ideology" that is absolutely NOT impartial. Anyone who censors resolutions that actually "WORK" in favor of the gibberish that you and the other individual is writing has no business editing any Wiki pages at all!--74.132.77.142 (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you deliberately mis-spelling Rationalwiki as this is the second time you have done it - and can you not recognise 'an exchange of humorous wordplay and doodling'? Anna Livia (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

'Message to the deities'

It being the season of charitable donations on many of the planets of sentients in all the universes you have created (can we remind you #yet again# to be somewhat more random in this), can we at the respectfully request a donation on behalf of all those who have attempted the Omnipotence Paradox and suffered injuries as a result.

Please also consider us in your wills.

Deities Truss Charity.

Anna Livia (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC) (being humorous)

Another view

God has overindulged in burnt offerings etc - and he cannot see his feet, let alone pull himself up by his bootstraps and so 'solve' the omnipotence paradox. He is keeping his alcohol consumption - from the same source - under control by following a twelve-step plan (as to what is 'the higher power' he believes in I leave to others). Anna Livia (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)