PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 11, 2017 15:19:39 GMT
Im sure anybody who posts on a religion forum knows what it is so I won't bother explaining it.
How does it prove anything exactly? All it tells you is that god has the ability to disable his omnipotence (if it has it) which you would expect from an omnipotent being.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 11, 2017 15:37:37 GMT
Is that the one where they try to say that omnipotence cancels out free will? No, it doesn't make sense, but some refuse to let go of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2017 17:02:10 GMT
Im sure anybody who posts on a religion forum knows what it is Apparently not!  |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 11, 2017 17:32:35 GMT
If he was omnipotent, then he'd have seen the flaws inherent in his design from the start and if he were also omnibenevolent and omniscient, he would have not started his 'experiment' until he had perfected the design. Huh? I am talking about the whole "Can god make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?" Paradox. What does that hav to do with anything? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2017 17:35:13 GMT
If he was omnipotent, then he'd have seen the flaws inherent in his design from the start and if he were also omnibenevolent and omniscient, he would have not started his 'experiment' until he had perfected the design. Huh? I am talking about the whole "Can god make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?" Paradox. What does that hav to do with anything? I didn't know what you meant by the omnipotence paradox. I'll delete my post above, and then try and think of a response to what you actually meant. |
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jun 12, 2017 16:06:16 GMT
When I was a believer, I avoided a lot of headaches by thinking....God can do anything within normal logical parameters.
I know.....I know!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 16:39:03 GMT
Well your posts don't make sense either -_-
|
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Jun 12, 2017 18:07:54 GMT
It is literally impossible to have even less belief in god(s) than I have, but I agree, this "paradox" is nonsensical and it doesn't prove anything. It's like asking "Can God make a square circle?" No, he can't, but that obviously doesn't mean that he is not omnipotent - it just means that there is no such thing as a square circle, just like there is no such thing as a rock so big that God can't lift it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 12, 2017 23:28:53 GMT
Im sure anybody who posts on a religion forum knows what it is so I won't bother explaining it. How does it prove anything exactly? All it tells you is that god has the ability to disable his omnipotence (if it has it) which you would expect from an omnipotent being. On a casual discussion board such as this you'll find varying definitions of terms. The difference between atheists and people who believe in a god often turns out to be more about the definition of a god than the existence of one. If by "omnipotence" one means the ability to do "anything" and if certain conditions are recognized as impossible such as two opposing facts (mutually exclusive) being true at the same place and time then that "omnipotence" is also not possible. If however one means the ability to do anything "logically consistent" (no inherent opposition or mutual exclusion) then there might be an "omnipotent" being by that definition. This results in two separate very different questions, whether there is a god and whether there is mutual exclusion. Then you have the people who believe mutual exclusion can be defied being associated with people who believe in a god, which is not fair by any means. As noted at the outset a remarkable imprecision of terms tends to drive such conversations. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 12, 2017 23:30:25 GMT
Im sure anybody who posts on a religion forum knows what it is so I won't bother explaining it. How does it prove anything exactly? All it tells you is that god has the ability to disable his omnipotence (if it has it) which you would expect from an omnipotent being. On a casual discussion board such as this you'll find varying definitions of terms. The difference between atheists and people who believe in a god often turns out to be more about the definition of a god than the existence of one. If by "omnipotence" one means the ability to do "anything" and if certain conditions are recognized as impossible such as two opposing facts (mutually exclusive) being true at the same place and time then that "omnipotence" is also not possible. If however one means the ability to do anything "logically consistent" (no inherent opposition or mutual exclusion) then there might be an "omnipotent" being by that definition. This results in two separate very different questions, whether there is a god and whether there is mutual exclusion. Then you have the people who believe mutual exclusion can be defied being associated with people who believe in a god, which is not fair by any means. As noted at the outset a remarkable imprecision of terms tends to drive such conversations. Spoken like you read the wikipedia page. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 12, 2017 23:55:01 GMT
On a casual discussion board such as this you'll find varying definitions of terms. The difference between atheists and people who believe in a god often turns out to be more about the definition of a god than the existence of one. If by "omnipotence" one means the ability to do "anything" and if certain conditions are recognized as impossible such as two opposing facts (mutually exclusive) being true at the same place and time then that "omnipotence" is also not possible. If however one means the ability to do anything "logically consistent" (no inherent opposition or mutual exclusion) then there might be an "omnipotent" being by that definition. This results in two separate very different questions, whether there is a god and whether there is mutual exclusion. Then you have the people who believe mutual exclusion can be defied being associated with people who believe in a god, which is not fair by any means. As noted at the outset a remarkable imprecision of terms tends to drive such conversations. Spoken like you read the wikipedia page. Sometimes brevity is the soul of wit. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 13, 2017 0:38:15 GMT
What's the omnipotence paradox?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 13, 2017 1:05:20 GMT
What's the omnipotence paradox? You know the old chestnuts.... "Rock so heavy" "Fire so hot" "Me so honay" Yada, yada, yada.....
 |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 13, 2017 1:08:32 GMT
Got it.
You can;t have a paradox regarding omnipotence when one can't even truly define power or the control of it.
|
|
