Omnipotence Paradox and God's Limitations

[ChristineM]

Ok, you've proven something no one was asking to be proved. Congratulations.
Let me know if you ever want to prove something that's actually difficult.

I have proven that dreaming is not reality

 

[Nakosis]

I have proven that dreaming is not reality

Yes, you woke up.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, you woke up.

And? The dream wasnt real when you were sleeping

 

[Nakosis]

And? The dream wasnt real when you were sleeping

Exactly, the trick again, is provening it's a dream while you are dreaming.

 

[ChristineM]

Exactly, the trick again, is provening it's a dream while you are dreaming.

No need, its already shown not to be reality

 

[Bird123]

I get a lot of different reactions from theists when I bring up the omnipotence paradox. The omnipotence paradox is the paradox that arises from the question (or some variation thereof) "Can an omnipotent god create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?" No matter how the question is answered, the result is that an omnipotent being is logically incoherent and thus cannot exist. So, if God exists, he could not be omnipotent in the technical sense, since the concept of omnipotence produces a paradox. The next question is: What are God's limitations? C.S. Lewis and many other apologists claim that God cannot do the logically impossible. But this then means that God is subservient to the laws of logic, and thus the laws of logic are above God. Other apologists claim that logic is part of God's nature, and God cannot alter his nature. This begs another question, though. If God cannot alter his nature, then he is not in charge of or responsible for his own nature, which implies that some greater being gave him his nature. Any way you look at it, the concept of an omnipotent god is logically incoherent, and raises many problems with the concept of the god of classical theism.

All my life, people have told me all the limits God has. Many play with words in order to justify their view. Can one really make a call with a limited view? When one is trapped within the box of this physical universe so very much of the view is missing. It's limited.

From what I have seen the only ones with limits are those with narrow minds thinking they know it all, not realizing that there is more they do not know, than do. I have seen no limits with God.

The limits people claim God has are no limits at all. It reflects the lack of knowledge of those who make such claims. Instead of placing limits to justify a view, one should concentrate on the discovery of why things are as they are. In doing so, one might Discover the genius behind it all.

That's the way I see it. Intelligence does exist far beyond mankind.

 

[Nakosis]

No need, its already shown not to be reality

Right, but how would you go about proving this reality that you experience is not a dream?

 

[ChristineM]

Right, but how would you go about proving this reality that you experience is not a dream?

Are you self aware in your dreams... Honesty?

 

[Nakosis]

Are you self aware in your dreams... Honesty?

Occasionally, not often.

Honestly I had a dream, I was myself, in my house. Family was there. So everything seemed normal but things felt a little off. So I started to wonder if perhaps I was asleep, dreaming.

I thought maybe you weren't supposed to feel pain in a dream so I banged my hand against a wall. It hurt like normal. I thought may I could jump of the stairs, take a flying leap of faith that it was only a dream but at the last moment chickened out. What if I was wrong. I could seriously hurt myself.

So this idea, prove it's all an illusion, jump in front of a truck or jump off a cliff to prove it is an illusion, one really needs more confidence than I have to follow through.

So I not saying this reality is an illusion, just one among other possibilities I don't have an answer for.

Having had a dream that I couldn't tell it was a dream until I woke up makes the possibility a little stronger for me. However nothing I have any confidence in to test out in any dramatic way.

 

[ChristineM]

Occasionally, not often.

Honestly I had a dream, I was myself, in my house. Family was there. So everything seemed normal but things felt a little off. So I started to wonder if perhaps I was asleep, dreaming.

I thought maybe you weren't supposed to feel pain in a dream so I banged my hand against a wall. It hurt like normal. I thought may I could jump of the stairs, take a flying leap of faith that it was only a dream but at the last moment chickened out. What if I was wrong. I could seriously hurt myself.

So this idea, prove it's all an illusion, jump in front of a truck or jump off a cliff to prove it is an illusion, one really needs more confidence than I have to follow through.

So I not saying this reality is an illusion, just one among other possibilities I don't have an answer for.

Having had a dream that I couldn't tell it was a dream until I woke up makes the possibility a little stronger for me. However nothing I have any confidence in to test out in any dramatic way.

I cant argue with that other than to ask if it was truly self awareness, awareness of pain etc or were you dreaming you were aware.

 

[Nakosis]

I cant argue with that other than to ask if it was truly self awareness, awareness of pain etc or were you dreaming you were aware.

It felt like I was there and conscious. It's only happen a few times.

Once though I kind of knew I was dreaming in a dream. I didn't like the way the dream turned out so I decided to redream the same dream with a different ending. An inconsistent reality proves it's not a dream.

One thing one your side is an inability to manipulate reality. No rewinding of events. No changing of facts.

My actual position is that unless it can be proven otherwise, we might as well accept this reality as "reality".

 

[ChristineM]

It felt like I was there and conscious. It's only happen a few times.

Once though I kind of knew I was dreaming in a dream. I didn't like the way the dream turned out so I decided to redream the same dream with a different ending. An inconsistent reality proves it's not a dream.

One thing one your side is an inability to manipulate reality. No rewinding of events. No changing of facts.

My actual position is that unless it can be proven otherwise, we might as well accept this reality as "reality".

Oh realty can be manipulated, mowing the lawn makes the grass shorter etc.

 

[Nakosis]

Oh realty can be manipulated, mowing the lawn makes the grass shorter etc.

I know, come on.

I meant in a way that is inconsistent with accepted physics, logic.
People claim supernatural stuff happens, magic maybe. I've never seen it actually pan out though.

 

[ChristineM]

I know, come on.

I meant in a way that is inconsistent with accepted physics, logic.
People claim supernatural stuff happens, magic maybe. I've never seen it actually pan out though.

People claim all sorts of stuff, i am only interested in the supermagical stuff as a talking point, mostly to ask for evidence.
What concerns me is real stuff, what has effect in the real world, stuff that can be measured, stuff that can be shared.

 

[ManSinha]

You know, @ChristineM and @Nakosis - watching you guys debate reminded me of Samkhya philosophy - it is one of the six ancient Vedantic schools of thought - and here is a brief intro

"Samkhya or Sankhya (Sanskrit: सांख्य, IAST: sāṃkhya) is one of the six āstika schools of Hindu philosophy.[1][2][3] It is most related to the Yoga school of Hinduism, and it was influential on other schools of Indian philosophy.[4] Sāmkhya is an enumerationist philosophy whose epistemology accepts three of six pramanas (proofs) as the only reliable means of gaining knowledge. These include pratyakṣa (perception), anumāṇa (inference) and śabda (āptavacana, word/testimony of reliable sources).[5][6][7] Sometimes described as one of the rationalist schools of Indian philosophy, this ancient school's reliance on reason was exclusive but strong.[8][9]

Samkhya is strongly dualist.[10][11][12] Sāmkhya philosophy regards the universe as consisting of two realities, puruṣa (consciousness) and prakṛti (matter). Jiva (a living being) is that state in which puruṣa is bonded to prakṛti in some form.[13] This fusion, state the Samkhya scholars, led to the emergence of buddhi ("intellect") and ahaṅkāra (ego consciousness). The universe is described by this school as one created by purusa-prakṛti entities infused with various permutations and combinations of variously enumerated elements, senses, feelings, activity and mind.[13] During the state of imbalance, one of more constituents overwhelm the others, creating a form of bondage, particularly of the mind. The end of this imbalance, bondage is called liberation, or kaivalya, by the Samkhya school.[14]

The existence of God or supreme being is not directly asserted, nor considered relevant by the Samkhya philosophers. Sāṃkhya denies the final cause of Ishvara (God).[15] While the Samkhya school considers the Vedas as a reliable source of knowledge, it is an atheistic philosophy according to Paul Deussen and other scholars"

The bold emphasis is completely mine - but to me it is fascinating to read and contrast what you have been debating about versus the views held by Adwaita and Dwaita Vedanta and the in between

 

[viole]

Can an omnipotent god create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?
Yes he can but he won't do it.

What are God's limitations?
He cannot lie and cannot change .

Well, if He cannot lie, then He is not omnipotent. By definition.

Agreed?

Ciao

- viole

 

[MJFlores]

Well, if He cannot lie, then He is not omnipotent. By definition.

Agreed?

Ciao

- viole

Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power.

Titus 1:2 New Living Translation (NLT)
This truth gives them confidence that they have eternal life, which God—who does not lie—promised them before the world began.

Omnipotence and the inability to lie are not comparable with each other.

The antonym or opposite of lie are
fact, truism, verity, honesty, truthfulness, veracity, authentication, confirmation, substantiation, validation, verification

The antonym of omnipotence are
helpless, impotent, impuissant, powerless, limited, restricted, hamstrung, handcuffed, high and dry, hog-tied, paralyzed, weak, incapable, incompetent, ineffective, ineffectual, inept, unfit, useless, feeble, frail, infirm

It is like comparing

 

[viole]

Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power.

Titus 1:2 New Living Translation (NLT)
This truth gives them confidence that they have eternal life, which God—who does not lie—promised them before the world began.

Omnipotence and the inability to lie are not comparable with each other.

The antonym or opposite of lie are
fact, truism, verity, honesty, truthfulness, veracity, authentication, confirmation, substantiation, validation, verification

The antonym of omnipotence are
helpless, impotent, impuissant, powerless, limited, restricted, hamstrung, handcuffed, high and dry, hog-tied, paralyzed, weak, incapable, incompetent, ineffective, ineffectual, inept, unfit, useless, feeble, frail, infirm

It is like comparing

That power is quite limited, then. Even I am able to outperform Him.

Look how simple I can lie: I am Napoleon.

Amazingly simple. I feel a bit sorry for Him, actually. Do you think He has some cognitive impairment? Can we help?

Ciao

- viole

 

[MJFlores]

That power is quite limited, then. Even I am able to outperform Him.

Look how simple I can lie: I am Napoleon.

Amazingly simple. I feel a bit sorry for Him, actually. Do you think He has some cognitive impairment? Can we help?

Ciao

- viole

I do not follow.

We are in a world that we are accustomed to lies
Lies become a thing to do
We see our leaders lie and cheat
And we see that is power

However God is not human
He is not the son of man
He does not lie nor changes his mind
And that unchanging characteristic
means God is dependable and doesn't fail
When he says he will do it
You can be assured it will happen.

Again being omnipotent and and lying are two different kinds
Didn't people teach that such things are not like the other?

 

[Milton Platt]

That is the trouble with invoking a transactional God - the very simple question I have is - did god know what Eve was going to do? Your argument fits that conundrum well. If one says well it was free choice - then why punish for exercising the choice? Another said it was disobedience - in that case the creator should have known that the creation would disobey and make contingency plans heck even Batman does.

Free will is not going to get them out of the conundrum. Why does the free will of a rapist supersede the free will of the victim?