- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
You're welcome!
:mrgreen:
:lol::lol:
You're welcome!
:mrgreen:
Being omnipotent means that you can both break and not break the rules at the same time.
Power limited to only the logically possible is limted.
Omnipotence is having power not limited.
And really...
Having the power to defy logic seems impossible because of the limits of the human mind. It is no different than the classic 'flatlander' scenario where the inhabitants of flatland cannot conceive of what we call 'up'.
To believe that God is limited to the limits we place on the universe due to our understanding of same is rather narcisisitic.
Omnipotence means everything is logically possible. Even making a rock so massive that the omnipotent being could not lift it.
It's actually pretty easy. Create the Rock, fail to lift it once, then succeed to lift it the next time.
/dilemma
Not sure how there is a necessary relationship here.
Being able to break the rules of logic is an inherent part of omnipotence.
Well if you're going to describe omnipotence in that manner, why go through the charades and pretenses of trying to be logical. Why go through the trouble of establishing logical evidences and such?
If God doesn't follow the rules of logic, why use logic to explain it?
Being omnipotent means that you can both break and not break the rules at the same time.
Power limited to only the logically possible is limted.
Omnipotence is having power not limited.
And really...
Having the power to defy logic seems impossible because of the limits of the human mind. It is no different than the classic 'flatlander' scenario where the inhabitants of flatland cannot conceive of what we call 'up'.
To believe that God is limited to the limits we place on the universe due to our understanding of same is rather narcisisitic.
One does not have to be able to do anything and everything at all what-so-ever to be omnipotent.
One needs only virtually unlimited authority or influence.
In this universe God has unlimited authority or influence. The rules of this universe do not allow a 4-sided triangle to exist, therefor God does not need to be able to create a 4-sided triangle in order to be omnipotent.
If God doesn't follow the rules of logic, why use logic to explain it?
I'd like to see the dictionary you are using.
But that renders them limited and therefore without capacity to do anything.
What you describe is the capacity to do somethings. That's hardly "All powerful."
Since when was God bound by the laws of his universe?
Your argument places limitations upon God that are inherently not there.
Webster is the accepted credable dictionary freely available to everyone online.
omnipotent - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
The ability to do what can not be don is not a requirement to be omnipotent.
So long as one can do everything which can be don, one is omnipotent.
Since always.
My argument describes the limitations on God witch were already there.
I could take your argument seriously if you took an existing limitation cited by Christians on God. This whole 4-sided triangle thing is just silliness.
Therefore you argue that God is indeed limited? That it is prohibited from engaging in certain actions?
A yes or no answer would be appreciated.
Descartes suggests otherwise.
Furthermore you are indeed arguing that there is something above God, something that limits God's capacity. That suggests your view of God is, to some, heretical. If God is thereby limited by Logic, then Logic is above God.
Except that the limitation on God to deal with the paradox creates bigger problems.
If God is allegedly the most powerful being in existence responsible for all, the notion that God is somehow limited implicitly argues that God is indeed not the creator of all as there is something above God that limits its capacities.
:l
God is limited, I've said so many times on this thread. There are things God can not do.
Since the things God can not do are things which can not be don at all, God is still omnipotent.
If the things God can not do were possible, then God would not be omnipotent.
I think the dilemma here is that people seem to be presuming that conceptualizing the existence of something which cannot exist doesn't change the fact that it simply cannot exist.
An omnipotent being has unlimited power to do anything and everything that can be done.
An omnipotent being does not have unlimited power to do anything and everything that cannot be done.
Such a being can do everything that can be done. The fact that something simply cannot do something doesn't place a limitation upon the power of the omnipotent being.
For example, an omnipotent being cannot make a yellow circle that is a blue square. That's because a yellow circle that is a blue square cannot exist.
Some things just simply cannot be done. It is not a limitation upon teh omnipotent being to be unable to do the impossible.
If the things God can not do were possible, then God would not be omnipotent.
I'm not sure if I could care less, or even if I know who that is, but I am sure that you're bringing up a tangent, so I'm ignoring it.
You're introducing a dynemic into the discussion which I never have.
Logic is not a being to hold authority.
There is no paradox.
That simply doesn't follow. I mean you're taking two completely alien concepts and composing sentences pretending they have anything to do with each other.
I think the dilemma here is that people seem to be presuming that conceptualizing the existence of something which cannot exist doesn't change the fact that it simply cannot exist.
An omnipotent being has unlimited power to do anything and everything that can be done.
An omnipotent being does not have unlimited power to do anything and everything that cannot be done.
Such a being can do everything that can be done. The fact that something simply cannot do something doesn't place a limitation upon the power of the omnipotent being.
For example, an omnipotent being cannot make a yellow circle that is a blue square. That's because a yellow circle that is a blue square cannot exist.
Some things just simply cannot be done. It is not a limitation upon teh omnipotent being to be unable to do the impossible.
Under your limited definition no.
Yes it does. If God is allegedly the highest, most powerful concept out there, but it is limited in capacity by logic, then how can God be the highest, most powerful concept when itself is bound by logic?
Yes it does. If God is allegedly the highest, most powerful concept out there, but it is limited in capacity by logic, then how can God be the highest, most powerful concept when itself is bound by logic?
Yes it does. If God is allegedly the highest, most powerful concept out there, but it is limited in capacity by logic, then how can God be the highest, most powerful concept when itself is bound by logic?
Yes it does. If God is allegedly the highest, most powerful concept out there, but it is limited in capacity by logic, then how can God be the highest, most powerful concept when itself is bound by logic?
"Any discussion outside of a logical framework is inherently irrational and thus not to be taken seriously. "
Meaning, you only want to deal with the logical views of God despite having no argument to prove that the illogical and nonsensical views of God are not inherently correct.
While our measurements do exist only in a logical construct, that does not equate to God not being able to do the illogical.
You are doing exactly what Tucker does. You don't actually have any argument as to why God can't do the illogical. You just fit it to suit your beliefs. That's fine. Just admit that.
A logical discussion necessarily precludes the illogical.
True, but we first assume a logical discussion on a being we have not first proven to be logical.
That would be limited.Omnipotence means everything is logically possible.