Proof that God is not omnipotent

[tcla75]

And for the record, I don't believe God is omnipotent.

Why ?

 

[Storm]

Why ?

Because I'm not a theist, I'm a panentheist. Mine is a natural God subject to natural law.

 

[Rakhel]

You may have the biscuit but the definition is still the definition. "unbreakable" is still something that is damn near impossible to be broken but that doesn't mean it can't be. "damn near" is the key phrase here.

If you insist on using the definition for "omnipotent" then you must use the definition for "unbreakable" Cherry picking is not allowed.

 

[painted wolf]

Your real world example is missing one tiny but crucial piece.... the real world.

wa:do

 

[meogi]

You use the example of this apple is not an apple in what I presume is an argument against the unbreakable sword parable. This is one of the worst counter arguments because as I said earlier it uses an example of something that is completely different to what I said. It is like you saying that your cat has brown fur and me saying that is not possible because a hoover can't be a dog. Ya a hover can't be a dog we all know that but it doesn't prove your cat hasn't brown fur though. Don't use examples of other things that are contradictions if there is a flaw in my logic then point out where?

You appear to have a gross misunderstanding of logic, and my apple comment. It wasn't an argument against anything; you were supposed to think on the logical implications of if an actual apple were indeed NOT an actual apple. Was just trying to point out that if a logical impossibility were to be true, we would have no comprehension of it.

Anyway, the closest a God will come to our understanding of Omnipotent is within the lines of logical validity. You can draw some crazy conclusions and still be valid (God can do many things that we could comprehend).

 

[Thief]

Perhaps a better question yields a better answer.

Can a creation be greater than it's Creator?

Obviously not.

I make large knives as a hobby.
Sword making I know.

Unbreakable sword?...if it breaks.... it was too hard for combat.
If it bends...it might not hold a sharp edge.
I heat treat the edge...leave the rest of the steel soft.

As for God not able to control His creation? really?

 

[tcla75]

You may have the biscuit but the definition is still the definition. "unbreakable" is still something that is damn near impossible to be broken but that doesn't mean it can't be. "damn near" is the key phrase here.

If you insist on using the definition for "omnipotent" then you must use the definition for "unbreakable" Cherry picking is not allowed.

un·break·a·ble (n-brk-bl)
adj.
1. Impossible to break; able to withstand rough usage: unbreakable plates.
2. Able to withstand an attempt to break. Used of a horse.

1. Impossible to break

im·pos·si·ble (m-ps-bl)
adj.
1. Incapable of having existence or of occurring.
2. Not capable of being accomplished: an impossible goal.
3. Unacceptable; intolerable: impossible behavior.
4. Extremely difficult to deal with or tolerate: an impossible child; an impossible situation.

2. Not capable of being accomplished: an impossible goal.

 

[fantome profane]

Perhaps a better question yields a better answer.

Can a creation be greater than it's Creator?

Obviously not.

That is not obvious at all. I can see no reason at all why a creation cannot be greater than it’s creator. We already create machines that are much faster and more powerful than us. And if technology continues to advance there is no logical reason that we cannot create machines that are smarter than us.

 

[Thief]

That is not obvious at all. I can see no reason at all why a creation cannot be greater than it’s creator. We already create machines that are much faster and more powerful than us. And if technology continues to advance there is no logical reason that we cannot create machines that are smarter than us.

You confused the concept of creation...compared to making something.

Man is a maker. We make things....mano a mano.
God is the one and only Creator.

And even so...Man can destroy anything he 'creates'.

(notice the every day use of the word 'create'?...we think and speak of ourselves as 'creative'...but in truth....never are)

 

[tumbleweed41]

A swordsmith was asked by god to make an unbreakable sword. After a year of trying over and over again he came back with what he believed to be an unbreakable sword and showed it to god. God looked over the sword and agreed that it was in fact the best sword he ever saw but with one snap of his fingers broke the sword in two. He turned to the him and said "I'm very disappointed in you." The swordsmith thought about this for a moment and then said "You do it then."

This is not the heavy rock argument but a real world scenario where if there was a god you could ask him to create an unbreakable sword. If he could then it is unbreakable and if you asked him to break it he wouldn't be able to do so. If he could break it then he couldn't create an unbreakable sword.

This is really no different than the original "Heavy Rock Paradox". The question itself is void of logic.
It is no different than asking, "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?".
The existence of an unstoppable force means that there can be no immovable objects. And visa-versa. Thus the question is meaningless. A linguistic paradox that can only exist in words.

 

[tcla75]

This is really no different than the original "Heavy Rock Paradox". The question itself is void of logic.
It is no different than asking, "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?".
The existence of an unstoppable force means that there can be no immovable objects. And visa-versa. Thus the question is meaningless. A linguistic paradox that can only exist in words.

please point out in the question itself where it is void of logic and not by showing an example of something else being void of logic.

 

[tumbleweed41]

This is really no different than the original "Heavy Rock Paradox". The question itself is void of logic.
It is no different than asking, "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?".
The existence of an unstoppable force means that there can be no immovable objects. And visa-versa. Thus the question is meaningless. A linguistic paradox that can only exist in words.

please point out in the question itself where it is void of logic and not by showing an example of something else being void of logic.

A swordsmith was asked by god to make an unbreakable sword. After a year of trying over and over again he came back with what he believed to be an unbreakable sword and showed it to god. God looked over the sword and agreed that it was in fact the best sword he ever saw but with one snap of his fingers broke the sword in two. He turned to the him and said "I'm very disappointed in you." The swordsmith thought about this for a moment and then said "You do it then."

Like the immovable object question, there can be no unbreakable sword if it can be broken. A linguistic paradox void of logic.

 

[Eliot Wild]

please point out in the question itself where it is void of logic and not by showing an example of something else being void of logic.

Yeah, I got to agree with tumbleweed on this.

There are some actions that are impossible, not because they are too difficult to accomplish, which would not be the case for an omnipotent being who is capable of doing anything, regardless of the degree of difficulty. But these actions are impossible because they are inherently illogical. Like tumbleweed indicated, conceptually these actions are linguistic paradoxes.

For example, can God make a circular square? No, of course not. However, the impossibility of accomplishing such an act is not a refutation of God's omnipotence. It is literally a conceptual absurdity.

There are similar paradoxes, at least I believe so, that relate to the question of God's omniscience. Does God know everything? Well, I suppose if we are talking about an omniscient God, then he knows everything there is to know. But does he know the cheapest place to buy coffee on Saturn? Does he know the name of Superman's gay lover? Does he know the average heartrate of a snidgelsnarkasaurus? No, he can't because I just made up the creature in my mind.

These linguistic paradoxes and conceptual absurdities do not limit God. They do, however, indicate a certain fallibility with language, I believe.

 

[Wandered Off]

This is not the heavy rock argument but a real world scenario where if there was a god you could ask him to create an unbreakable sword. If he could then it is unbreakable and if you asked him to break it he wouldn't be able to do so. If he could break it then he couldn't create an unbreakable sword.

As others have noted, this is not a logically valid query. There are two implied and incompatible states of being expressed in your dilemma:

1. All swords can be broken.
2. A sword exists that cannot be broken.

Only one of these can be true at a time within a single reality. A condition cannot both "be" and "not be" at the same time. It's basically asking, "Can God do something God cannot do?" Being capable of being incapable is a semantic trick. No coherent conclusion can be drawn. It is only pretend logic.

If we try and use logic to prove or disprove God's ability to transcend logic, we end up with vapor. Self-contradictory claims are the lingual equivalent of an optical illusion: They only appear to have meaning.

All that said, I think the concept of omnipotence is a human invention created as a trump card in a "My god can beat up your god" contest.

 

[Storm]

All that said, I think the concept of omnipotence is a human invention created as a trump card in a "My god can beat up your god" contest.

:biglaugh:

ETA: tcla, I still don't understand why you think "this is not the heavy rock argument." What do you think the difference is?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Personally, I'd like to see proof that god isn't omnimpotent.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Personally, I'd like to see proof that god isn't omnimpotent.

I challenge God to a game of Trivial Pursuit. If he can beat me, I'll concede he is omnipotent.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Let's review: "Proof" that "god" is not "omnipotent." Three doorways through which the sarcastic seeker of knowledge can question the OP as to things like "meaning" and "sentence structure..."

Everybody's a critic. No one wants to 'fess up to what is being criticized - that what you say cannot be right because I did not say it first - anyhoo - rather than a bunch more words, I got a number for you:

288

Referring to electron states and the Pauli Exclusion Principle - that what we know of Absolute Infinity cannot be resolved in a finite space. Quantum theory may suggest a "smallest that cannot be cut," but a seeming absolute prohibition against we mortals speaking with true knowledge of those things that are infinite seems to be that three electrons will not fit in the first shell...

Never mind that there is a speed of light, an absolute zero, and the seeming contradiction that the Hilbert Hotel apparently has a ground floor. In The Beginning there was a beginning... would not god speak of the most important things first? That the first thing god says translates into "you cannot understand?"

Levels of absurdity - "proof, god, omnipotent" - but I still go with "the silliest thing ever declared is the "strong atheist subdivision" that insists "god cannot exist."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Personally, I'd like to see proof that god isn't omnimpotent.

I challenge God to a game of Trivial Pursuit. If he can beat me, I'll concede he is omnipotent.

Probably hard to see at first reading.

 

[Willamena]

Probably hard to see at first reading.

What does it mean?