Total Members Voted: 110
The paradox of omnipotence.Some argue that omnipotence is flawed by definition. A common example question to point this out is:Can an omnipotent being create a stone that is so heavy the being cannot lift it?If he cannot create it, then isn't that a flaw in his omnipotence?If he can create it, but cannot lift it, then isn't that a flaw in his omnipotence?The answer is very simple: "Yes he can create it; and no it's not a flaw that he cannot lift it.". The problem is choice again. An omnipotent being surely has the potential to lift any stone, but also the potential to wave his own potential by choice! So the reason he cannot lift the stone then is not because the being was never capable of lifting it, but because he chose so. A variation to the question could then be conceived, where the reason for not being able to lift it is better speculated. More precisely, so the characteristics of the stone is not linked directly to the creator, like: Can an omnipotent being create something that is to heavy to lift even for an (other) omnipotent being? Here the question is unreasonable. The questioner is asking for an object with contradicting characteristics. Asking if omnipotence can make the impossible possible. He might just as well have asked, can an omnipotent being create water that isn't wet, or squared circles. At best, the only thing this question could illustrate is that the existence of two omnipotent beings is problematic since the omnipotence of one would include limiting the other's omnipotence and vice versa.
In other words, being a god means you can't do certain things or you no longer qualify as a god.
But than in it self is a fruitless paradox? is 1 really 1, or is 1 really 2?
Mayhaps replacing "anything" with "everything" skews the argument to a bit more clearer standing?
stupidity has been highlighted.
so how good a god is, is now the debate on if there is a god or not?or have we just ignored the "vs" part of the topic completely?
we just ignored the "vs" part of the topic completely?
Excuse me, that was the "southern" grammar in me. What I meant was "there are is nothing out there that can do anything."
ah, you see, that makes sense.
So, it is choosing not to be able to lift that stone? So, it is choosing to wave some of it's "power" away, leading to the point I was trying to make.Seeing as a god has to be all powerful.
Better to belive in God and find out there isnt one than not belive and find out there is one
Yeah he is still all powerful, I don't see how that statement changes anything.Bob can make a better Graphic logo than Jim, Their fore Bob is better Graphic artist.
but believing in the wrong god is just as unfortunate as not believing in any at all.for some reason people of faith only specifically follow 1 obscure faith. their odds arent any better then a non believer.if a god exists. a non believer has more chance of his acceptance then a believer of the wrong faith.
But, he waved some of his power away, so he can't still be all powerful. All means everything and anything. Sure, he can choose to get rid of some of his power, but that doesn't mean he is still all powerful afterwards.This helps explain what he said.
Yeah he can get that power back just as easily, and he is still the most all powerful being in the universe soooo...
How so?
Poll