The omnipotency paradox is a contradiction.

HOLY FUCK!!!

They way I gathered it, the OP wants us to be in agreement that 'omnipotence' includes the impossible to unimaginable. All powerful or the ability to do anything. It may be a question of semantics that some may view the definition of 'all powerful' to 'all possible powers in this universe' excluding impossibilities. A big problem with God/religious debates is our individual interpretations and definitions of imaginary beings and concepts.

Ok, so this God CAN do impossible things, can he create something he can't undo? Yes he can because that's impossible and he CAN do impossible things. Sure, it is a paradox, it is also a contradiction, it is also way too much thought into the abilities of an imaginary being that does not exist!

 

I think I agree.

Using this framework you have employed, is and/or would it be possible for god to do the impossible?

It is the central problem after all because if he can't then he is already not logically considered "Having All Power's" because "Having All Power's" would mean the inclusion of the power to do the impossible. If not God can only do "All powers, except those that attempt to perform the Impossible".

But..........

That's exactly what our primary definition of it wasn't, it was if a being can perform any action. Or was it "A being that can perform any action except or minus Any Impossible Actions."

 

holiest of unhliesness fuckerrrrry!!!!

 

Hey, Relaxx. You missed your calling as a theologian. The most common way to handle this "paradox" is to accept a practical concept of "omnipotence" that allows such a being to impose limits to His own powers because He choses to do so. (See Hartshorne's Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes)The whole notion of "free will" is based on the idea that God can limit His ability to control our lives, because He wants to. Theologians following Socinius extended this idea from humans to the rest of nature. God builds indeterminacy into the system to keep it interesting. If it is indeterminate, there goes omniscience and omnipotence. Or we could simply take the simpler route, as I do, and just say there is no such thing as omnipotence. By the way, could we come up with a better source for this than Wikipedia?

 

This is the specific question that is not a paradox but a contradiction.

Why?

Well, on the one hand god can do the impossible, because he is all powerful and thus has the ability to do the impossible and on the other he can create something impossible for him to do.

However, If he creates a task impossible for him to have the power to do, then can he really do the impossible(have the power to do anything) or not? Clearly, on the one hand we say that god must have the power to do whats impossible for him, otherwise he is not Omnipotent(having all powers) but on the other we say that he can't do the impossible when we make reference to him creating a task that is impossible for him to do.

Basically, we are trying to resolve two situations; one that god can do the impossible and the other that god can create a task that is impossible for him to do.

But;

1. 'Nothing' is impossible for an omnipotent being to do.

I just realized that then the question can then read, does god have the power to create nothing?

Why?

Because if god can create a task that is impossible for him to do and NOTHING is impossible for him to do, we can substitute 'impossible for him to do' for nothing and get; is it possible for god to create nothing?


This is not a semantic argument at all, it simply works on the premise that 'nothing' is impossible for god and the potential for god to create a thing that is impossible for him to do.

In this sense, if god cannot create nothing(or something impossible for him to do) then he is not omnipotent and that is the problem, because god should have the ability to create nothing right?

Wrong and the PROBLEM lies in, as with many religious arguments in the world, CREATION.

Creation is the action or process of bringing something into existence.

Now, the question can read more like can god can bring into existence(create) that which doesn't exist(nothing).

And this my friends, is a silly question not a paradox; because obviously NOTHING CANNOT BE CREATED because creation is the process of bringing a-thing/some-thing into existence and nothing is that which IS in-existent.

 

creation is a law without opposite

 

No creation, is defined as the process and action of bringing something into existence.

:2thumbsup:

 

This question has been around almost as long as Christianity, and has been resolved to the satisfaction of most believers. It's the proverbial chicken and egg question. Saying that a being is omnipotent doesn't imply that (S)he can do logically contradictory things, like making black whiteness. Omnipotence, as Christians understand it, also allows God to set limits on His own power, as long as He can take them back. Since an omnipotent God is an Christian & Muslim concept, and they accept these qualifications, how can you say they're wrong? On the strength of Wikipedia? Arguing definitions is unproductive, especially when it comes to supernatural beings.

As for creating something out of nothing, the brilliant, sagacious physicist and atheist Victor Stenger assures us that "the transition of noting-to-something is a natural one, not requiring any agent." "since nothing is as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable." And he cites Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek as backup. (Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis, p 133.) So if nature can readily bring into existence something that doesn't exist, why can't God?

 

Is there a state called nonexistence?

 

God can create something from nothing however, he cannot create nothing from nothing because creation implies that the thing in question(in this case no-thing) can come into existence. Yet clearly, nothing must have the property of being in-existent in order for it be nothing, otherwise it immediately becomes something.


Omnipotence isn't paradoxical, asking if an omnipotent thing can create nothing, is a contradiction.

 

No - because a state has to exist in order for it to be a thing, because all things exist, whereas no-things do not.

 

An omnipotent thing can opt for nothing. That's the prerogative of omnipotence.

 

It can't create nothing.

It surely can opt to do nothing, because it is anything is possible for it. However, it cannot bring into existence that which is in-existent.

 

Of course it can create nothing, anyone can do that. All you have to do is sit there. Doesn't take omnipotence to do nothing.

 

There's no such thing as nothing. With space being the medium SOMETHING of the entire universe, it is impossible to create 'nothing'. For those keeping track, God is an IMPOSSIBLE contradictory paradox!

 

Of course there is such thing as nothing, we're discussing it, aren't we? You can say nothing, do nothing, feel nothing, think nothing and have nothing. Things would be a little strange if there was no nothing.

When you are dead you create nothing. My tea cup creates nothing. Very simple. There's nothing special about this one, go and put your mind to more useful things.

 

Did Einstein create nothing? Did his body not decompose into other things? You're a fucking idiot if you think a cup empty of tea contains nothing! Sweet Jesus, the wind must be an absolute mystery to you. All of your examples are wrong. 'Nothing' in the context of existence is a lie. It's just an expression for lazy minds and fools like creationists. Do you use your mind at all or is it just burning useful oxygen for the sake of fuck?

There are impossibilities and nothing is one of them. Nothing is impossible but some things are also impossible.

 

And yet two reputable physicists, nobel laureate Frank Wilczek (Scientific American 243,#6: 82-90) and Victor Stenger (God: The Failed Hypothesis)acknowledge the reality of nothing, although they both agree it is unstable. It depends on how you define the term. A vacuum contains no matter, but does contain electromagnetic and gravitational fields. Technically, such a region would not be "nothing", since it has measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum. See also, Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing. Sartre, Being and Nothingness.

 

Thank you.

What? Of course Einstein created more than nothing, I never said he created nothing. His body decomposing into other things is not the symbiotic entity creating things, from the moment of his death Einstein created nothing. His individual elements, however, created various chemicals and reactions, all in response to the environment, which had changed from a living human body into a husk of organic matter.

I never said a cup empty of tea contains nothing, go back and read my post properly before you start looking down on people, lest you be looked down on. The idea is that my tea cup sits empty (except for air and electromagnetism et al) there on the desk creating nothing! If you want to converse then I am happy to do so as equals but your opinion and your identity can only be tarnished by bringing such foolery and crassness into what should be a rather intellectual existential discussion. Okiefreak already pointed out the glaring absurdity of you assuming that people who acknowledge the existence of nothing must be lazy-headed or subject to doctrine. Perhaps your brain should burn a little more oxygen? Or just do some research before you open your mouth/whack your keys?

Of course, in a sense nothing does not exist, for if it existed, it would something. How are we able to make these comparisons between something and nothing, though? How can we say "Look, there is cup where once there was nothing." When there is no light, what do we see? Nothing. The space that the universe is ever expanding into... How would you describe that space? Filled with something? If so, what? There is now universe where before there was no universe. As this is my universe and I can't fathom my functioning outside of it, I prefer to say there is now universe where once there was nothing.

My notion of nothing is something that is, in most cases, immediately preceding something, ie I agree with the thinking that nothing is unstable. You can't have a stable state of nothing because there's nothing there to be stable!

Now, are you ready to converse like an adult or would you rather just insult me and tell me I'm wrong like the lazy-minded creationists do when they argue with people?

 

I'm not going to converse with asinine nonsensical arguments. Of course inanimate objects do nothing in the sense of a verb, how fucking absurd. That bull shit has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Conscious beings DO SOMETHING all the time even in a state of not acting on anything, they are BEING. If a consciousness was really DOING NOTHING, it would no longer be a consciousness at all! As far as the existence of inanimate or unconscious THINGS, there is NEVER NOTHING - ANYWHERE! Plenty of unknown and human ignorance, but no 'nothing'. The universe can not expand into nothing, that is fucking stupid and ignorant. Energy needs a medium to propagate through and in to. Just because it is unknown does not make it nothing.

I have no desire to argue any further with creationists who will go on their self righteous path until they're blue in the face to protect their fucking old biblical lies about creation from nothing. Closed minded asinine fucking moron debate mental cancer! That's the reply your stupid ass cup example deserves!