This thread is mainly about whether or not omnipotence can physically exist, i.e. that you can physically have a being that is capable of literally any possible physical action imaginable at any moment in time.
However, I would like to start out with the question "Can an omnipotent being create an object so massive that they themselves cannot lift it?" which often is uses the word god as god is assumed to be an omnipotent being.
From what I know, this question proves physical omnipotence cannot exist because no matter what the outcome is, there will always be some action they are incapable of doing. They are either incapable of the physical act of lifting that object, or they are incapable of the physical act of creating something they cannot lift, which means they are not actually capable of any physical action, but who knows, maybe there's something I didn't think of.
However, I would like to start out with the question "Can an omnipotent being create an object so massive that they themselves cannot lift it?"
The problem is this is a meaningless request.
And if you asked, "Can an omnipotent being create a car?" you would be asking if an omnipotent being could create an instance of any one thing out of a set of all things that have the quality "car," correct?
And if you asked, "Can an omnipotent being create a red car?" you would be asking if an omnipotent being could create an instance of any one thing that, out of the set of all things that have the quality "car," has the quality "red," correct?
And if you asked, "Can an omnipotent being create a blue car?" you would be asking if an omnipotent being could create an instance of any one thing that, out of the set of all things that have the quality "car," has the quality "blue," correct?
The problem is there's nothing out of the total number of all things that fall under the category of "object" that have the quality "Cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being."
It would be like asking, "Can you create a square circle?" It's illogical. Nothing out of the total of all things that have the quality "square" have the quality "circle."
It is a meaningless question, because the question does not point to anything. It would be like asking if God can create GORUIGHOHI. That's not actually a word. It doesn't mean anything. To ask if God could create GORUIGHOHI is a meaningless question, because GORUIGHOHI has no definition.
I would say if God is bound by logic He could not, but if He is than He can.
But, Taylor, what does any of this have to do with the OP? NOTHING!
See, that's the problem. We can all debate around in circles "is God bound by logic? is God bound by physics? How big can Rocks get?"
Even after we thoroughly look at each one of those questions, we STILL know NOTHING about whether or not God exists. The definition of omnipotence, and whether or not its bound by logic, has NOTHING to do with assigning the quality 'existence' to a Being called "God."
if god can create a rock so big that he cant move it , then he is not all powerful (strength-wise) but therefore he is "all creating" (can create anything)
if god cannot create a rock that would be too big for him to move then he cannot create anything he wants and is therefore not "all creating."
Right, you're saying: Can God make X equal not X?
Like I said. And as was said, logically that statement does not make any sense at all. You're asking God to "Foo bar a Zranx." And then saying "Ha! Got you! You can't do something that does not mean anything!"
Logically, the task is meaningless. If you're saying all things are bound by logic, then so is God (and under most Religious definitions He is). If you're binding all things by logic, then you get a different definition of "omnipotence." You HAVE TO redefine it to be "can do all things that logically can be done."
Making an unliftable object and then lifting it is something that can't logically be done, so it falls outside of that definition of "omnipotence."
However, I would like to start out with the question "Can an omnipotent being create an object so massive that they themselves cannot lift it?"
The problem is this is a meaningless request.
And if you asked, "Can an omnipotent being create a car?" you would be asking if an omnipotent being could create an instance of any one thing out of a set of all things that have the quality "car," correct?
And if you asked, "Can an omnipotent being create a red car?" you would be asking if an omnipotent being could create an instance of any one thing that, out of the set of all things that have the quality "car," has the quality "red," correct?
And if you asked, "Can an omnipotent being create a blue car?" you would be asking if an omnipotent being could create an instance of any one thing that, out of the set of all things that have the quality "car," has the quality "blue," correct?
The problem is there's nothing out of the total number of all things that fall under the category of "object" that have the quality "Cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being."
It would be like asking, "Can you create a square circle?" It's illogical. Nothing out of the total of all things that have the quality "square" have the quality "circle."
It is a meaningless question, because the question does not point to anything. It would be like asking if God can create GORUIGHOHI. That's not actually a word. It doesn't mean anything. To ask if God could create GORUIGHOHI is a meaningless question, because GORUIGHOHI has no definition.
Therefore, the request is meaningless.
But if I said "can god create any object that resembles a car?" wouldn't that solve it be removing limitations of what the object actually was? So can't I ask an omnipotent being to create any physical thing which all observers can agree he cannot apply an upward force to for more than say, 3 seconds before his mechanism for pushing upwards changes position in the direction opposite of the applied force? Also, what if the request was meaningless to you but not to an omnipotent being? In theory couldn't they attempt to place their arm out and apply an upward force to an object that grows indefinitely large and massive to test whether or not they can lift it, and if he/she fails in his/her test, it means he/she cannot create an object that he/she cannot lift?
Can God microwave a burrito so hot, he cannot eat it?
Aside from the point this proves, if any at all, omnipotence or the more interesting question of nigh-omnipotence might possibly exist if we explore the physical limitations of our universe and other realities.
For example, if our universe is a 4-dimensional reality that exists in the confines of a 5th, 6th, or 7th dimensional space, do those 5th, 6th, and 7th dimensional beings having omnipotence?
But if I said "can god create any object that resembles a car?" wouldn't that solve it be removing limitations of what the object actually was?
Pretty sure you made a typo somewhere in this sentence.
So can't I ask an omnipotent being to create any physical thing which all observers can agree he cannot apply an upward force to for more than say, 3 seconds before his mechanism for pushing upwards changes position in the direction opposite of the applied force?
No, because there's nothing under the category of "physical thing" that an omnipotent being cannot move upwards for any length of time.
Again, it's an illogical request. It's like asking to create a triangle that's also a square. You can't have a triangle that's also a square. By definition, this is contradictory.
Also, what if the request was meaningless to you but not to an omnipotent being?
That would not be, because the request is illogical. Much like the request to make a triangle that's also a square, much like the request of God to create an object that is GOIRHGOUIHR, it has no meaning.
In theory couldn't they attempt to place their arm out and apply an upward force to an object that grows indefinitely large and massive to test whether or not they can lift it, and if he/she fails in his/her test, it means he/she cannot create an object that he/she cannot lift?
No, because there's no object that possesses the category, "Cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being."
It would be like asking if a being could create a triangle with four-sides. There is nothing in the set of things with the quality "Triangle" that has four sides. You are asking an illogical request.
But if I said "can god create any object that resembles a car?" wouldn't that solve it be removing limitations of what the object actually was?
Pretty sure you made a typo somewhere in this sentence.
So can't I ask an omnipotent being to create any physical thing which all observers can agree he cannot apply an upward force to for more than say, 3 seconds before his mechanism for pushing upwards changes position in the direction opposite of the applied force?
No, because there's nothing under the category of "physical thing" that an omnipotent being cannot move upwards for any length of time.
Again, it's an illogical request. It's like asking to create a triangle that's also a square. You can't have a triangle that's also a square. By definition, this is contradictory.
Also, what if the request was meaningless to you but not to an omnipotent being?
That would not be, because the request is illogical. Much like the request to make a triangle that's also a square, much like the request of God to create an object that is GOIRHGOUIHR, it has no meaning.
In theory couldn't they attempt to place their arm out and apply an upward force to an object that grows indefinitely large and massive to test whether or not they can lift it, and if he/she fails in his/her test, it means he/she cannot create an object that he/she cannot lift?
No, because there's no object that possesses the category, "Cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being."
It would be like asking if a being could create a triangle with four-sides. There is nothing in the set of things with the quality "Triangle" that has four sides. You are asking an illogical request.
Ok, so your claim is "there is no object which fits the category of not being able to be lifted by an omnipotent being", so I don't understand how that itself wouldn't prove that an omnipotent being would be incapable of creating an object that they could not lift. If an omnipotent being can lift all things, then that means things they can't lift cannot exist, which means they cannot physically create things they cannot lift as those objects wouldn't not physically exist, which means we're at the paradox stated in the wiki link.
Ok, so your claim is "there is no object which fits the category of not being able to be lifted by an omnipotent being", so I don't understand how that itself wouldn't prove that an omnipotent being would be incapable of creating an object that they could not lift. If an omnipotent being can lift all things, then that means things they can't lift cannot exist, which means they cannot physically create things they cannot lift as those objects wouldn't not physically exist, which means we're at the paradox stated in the wiki link.
No it doesn't, because that doesn't contradict that the being is omnipotent.
What you are asking is nonsensical. It is as nonsensical as my asking for a triangle with four sides. A triangle with four sides is a nonsensical request. It logically contradicts itself.
Similarly, if I ask for a "Grihgrihgoahwoigh," that's not a thing. That is a sound, but it's not a word. It doesn't correspond to any meaning of any kind. It's not a request of any kind, because it does not point to anything in any meaningful sense. It's nonsense.
None of these invalidate the being's omnipotence, because no logical request was ever made to the being to fulfill.
You're asking if Omnipotence can exist in our physical universe right?
Unfortunately, The Universe is already using all the energy (power) The Universe has just to be The Universe. So what power is left over for any being to have that would make them Omnipotent? I would argue that a being seeking omnipotence, would have to fight The Universe for the power until they win...
This thread is mainly about whether or not omnipotence can physically exist, i.e. that you can physically have a being that is capable of literally any possible physical action imaginable at any moment in time.
If this is your definition of omnipotence, then everyone and everything is omnipotent. A human is:
Capable of any possible physical action imaginable at any moment in time.
When you add the caveats "possible physical action" you make it so that any action an entity cannot physically do doesn't count against its omnipotence.
Which is why I tend to think of the term omnipotence as meaningless.
Ok, so your claim is "there is no object which fits the category of not being able to be lifted by an omnipotent being", so I don't understand how that itself wouldn't prove that an omnipotent being would be incapable of creating an object that they could not lift and thus it is nonsensical that if a being is capable of any physical thing that they should be able to create an object of any physical category. If an omnipotent being can lift all things, then that means things they can't lift cannot exist, which means they cannot physically create things they cannot lift as those objects wouldn't not physically exist, which means we're at the paradox stated in the wiki link.
No it doesn't, because that doesn't contradict that the being is omnipotent.
What you are asking is nonsensical. It is as nonsensical as my asking for a triangle with four sides. A triangle with four sides is a nonsensical request. It logically contradicts itself.
Similarly, if I ask for a "Grihgrihgoahwoigh," that's not a thing. That is a sound, but it's not a word. It doesn't correspond to any meaning of any kind. It's not a request of any kind, because it does not point to anything in any meaningful sense. It's nonsense.
None of these invalidate the being's omnipotence, because no logical request was ever made to the being to fulfill.
You keep saying "no" but you're not really giving a good explanation because "creating" something is also an action which physically takes place in the universe, even with conservation laws in place, and if he cannot create something that fits the category "cannot be lifted", then at least we arrive at the wiki paradox, his own capabilities turn into limitations. Is an omnipotent being physically capable of being incapable? And if not, then he is physically incapable of something such as the act of being incapable, so wouldn't they cancel each other out?
You're asking if Omnipotence can exist in our physical universe right?
Unfortunately, The Universe is already using all the energy (power) The Universe has just to be The Universe. So what power is left over for any being to have that would make them Omnipotent? I would argue that a being seeking omnipotence, would have to fight The Universe for the power until they win...
Well who says the said omnipotent being can't physically use all of the energy of the universe? What if they find out that for whatever reason they they cannot lift that much mass?
This thread is mainly about whether or not omnipotence can physically exist, i.e. that you can physically have a being that is capable of literally any possible physical action imaginable at any moment in time.
If this is your definition of omnipotence, then everyone and everything is omnipotent. A human is:
Capable of any possible physical action imaginable at any moment in time.
When you add the caveats "possible physical action" you make it so that any action an entity cannot physically do doesn't count against its omnipotence.
Which is why I tend to think of the term omnipotence as meaningless.
Then why don't we add "capable of any physical action by their own free will". A human "could" spontaneously teleport to the other side of the universe, but with our current technology or genetics, not by their own free will, it would either be a wormhole, some profoundly rare quantum phenomena or some kind of alien with superior technology doing it,
Then why don't we add "capable of any physical action by their own free will". A human "could" spontaneously teleport to the other side of the universe, but with our current technology or genetics, not by their own free will, it would either be a wormhole, some profoundly rare quantum phenomena or some kind of alien with superior technology doing it,
I don't quite understand what you mean when you say "by their own free will."
If it turns out that it is fundamentally physically impossible for a human's will to teleport them across the universe, your definition doesn't hold that against their omnipotence.
For instance, if I asked Omniman to build a physically impossible structure like an Escher painting, you wouldn't hold that against Omniman because what I am asking is nonsense. I think it is just as much nonsense to ask a human to "teleport by your own free will" because of physical impossibility as it would be to ask Omniman to create an infinite looping staircase.
For instance, if I asked Omniman to build a physically impossible structure like an Escher painting, you wouldn't hold that against Omniman because what I am asking is nonsense. I think it is just as much nonsense to ask a human to "teleport by your own free will" because of physical impossibility as it would be to ask Omniman to create an infinite looping staircase.
Ok, so if something is a physical impossibility, then they cannot physically do it, can they? There would in fact be things they are physically incapable of doing like a real life Escher painting. It doesn't fall under the realm physically possible...therefore he cannot physically do it, unless we can perhaps consider that space and time can be warped such that someone can indefinitely walk a certain pattern and arrive at their original state.
Now with lifting n object, can we in fact determine that such an object that he cannot be lifted exists? It is "possible" such an object physically exist, in fact if you tried to push upwards in a wormhole, it wouldn't move anywhere, you would simply move your arm through it, so the act of pushing cannot move a wormhole. He could create an object so massive that it creates a wormhole and thus is not able to translate it's position, assuming it's impossible for someone to willfully translate the position of a wormhole.
Other people seem to think the problem is "omniman is capable of only all possible physical actions, therefore ruling out actions that are physically IMpossible", but my stance is more like "let's see what actions actually are impossible and can be physically done to determine if they can perform those actions despite that they can possibly physically occur", suggesting that physical existence does not necessarily mean "manipulable" or "duplicable" by will or in any possible way.
If a human can't do it, it's not physically possible for a human. You've stated that if it's not physically possible for an entity to do something, it doesn't count against its omnipotence. How then are humans not omnipotent?
How about this, can you give me an action that we know is physically possible that a human cannot do?
You keep saying "no" but you're not really giving a good explanation because "creating" something is also an action which physically takes place in the universe, even with conservation laws in place, and if he cannot create something that fits the category "cannot be lifted", then at least we arrive at the wiki paradox, his own capabilities turn into limitations. Is an omnipotent being physically capable of being incapable? And if not, then he is physically incapable of something such as the act of being incapable, so wouldn't they cancel each other out?
He is talking about this omnipotent being as acting within a realm of logic.
It is logically inconsistent to ask an omnipotent being to create a rock that is so heavy that said omnipotent being cannot lift it.
As such, it is meaningless.
Now, the question is whether you believe that this being is still omnipotent if it has to exist under a realm of logic.
Can an omnipotent being create an object that exceeds their physical limitations for manipulation? Possibly.
That's still contradictory. Part of being omnipotent means being able to manipulate anything. By definition, nothing can exist that the omnipotent cannot manipulate.
Like Highroller said: You may as well ask if the omnipotent being can make a round triangle with seven sides.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
Can an omnipotent being create an object that exceeds their physical limitations for manipulation? Possibly.
That's still contradictory. Part of being omnipotent means being able to manipulate anything. By definition, nothing can exist that the omnipotent cannot manipulate.
Like Highroller said: You may as well ask if the omnipotent being can make a round triangle with seven sides.
Of course it could make it, we simply wouldn't be capable of comprehending it.
Can an omnipotent being create an object that exceeds their physical limitations for manipulation? Possibly.
That's still contradictory. Part of being omnipotent means being able to manipulate anything. By definition, nothing can exist that the omnipotent cannot manipulate.
Like Highroller said: You may as well ask if the omnipotent being can make a round triangle with seven sides.
Well perhaps that's because you define omnipotence differently, when really there's more than one possible type.
Can an omnipotent being create an object that exceeds their physical limitations for manipulation? Possibly.
That's still contradictory. Part of being omnipotent means being able to manipulate anything. By definition, nothing can exist that the omnipotent cannot manipulate.
Like Highroller said: You may as well ask if the omnipotent being can make a round triangle with seven sides.
Of course it could make it, we simply wouldn't be capable of comprehending it.
Why would be be unable to comprehend it? Let's say by definition object x cannot be manipulated, but can result of manipulating matter. Omniman manipulates matter to create object x, but cannot manipulate it, so he has created an obect that physically cannot be manipulated, which as others said wouldn't mean he isn't omnipotent according to his own definition, just that some things are physically impossible for it to do.
Can an omnipotent being create an object that exceeds their physical limitations for manipulation? Possibly.
That's still contradictory. Part of being omnipotent means being able to manipulate anything. By definition, nothing can exist that the omnipotent cannot manipulate.
Like Highroller said: You may as well ask if the omnipotent being can make a round triangle with seven sides.
Well perhaps that's because you define omnipotence differently, when really there's more than one possible type.
Can an omnipotent being create an object that exceeds their physical limitations for manipulation? Possibly.
That's still contradictory. Part of being omnipotent means being able to manipulate anything. By definition, nothing can exist that the omnipotent cannot manipulate.
Like Highroller said: You may as well ask if the omnipotent being can make a round triangle with seven sides.
Of course it could make it, we simply wouldn't be capable of comprehending it.
Why would be be unable to comprehend it? Let's say by definition object x cannot be manipulated, but can result of manipulating matter. Omniman manipulates matter to create object x, but cannot manipulate it, so he has created an obect that physically cannot be manipulated, which as others said wouldn't mean he isn't omnipotent according to his own definition, just that some things are physically impossible for it to do.
Your being mentally bound by your perceptions. If you are incapable of perceiving something you have an incredibly difficult time understanding or accepting it. When dealing with omnipotence nothing is "impossible". That word has no meaning to such a being. Unless of course they work on a completely different set of rules (which is possible).
Can an omnipotent being create an object that exceeds their physical limitations for manipulation? Possibly.
That's still contradictory. Part of being omnipotent means being able to manipulate anything. By definition, nothing can exist that the omnipotent cannot manipulate.
Like Highroller said: You may as well ask if the omnipotent being can make a round triangle with seven sides.
Well perhaps that's because you define omnipotence differently, when really there's more than one possible type.
Can an omnipotent being create an object that exceeds their physical limitations for manipulation? Possibly.
That's still contradictory. Part of being omnipotent means being able to manipulate anything. By definition, nothing can exist that the omnipotent cannot manipulate.
Like Highroller said: You may as well ask if the omnipotent being can make a round triangle with seven sides.
Of course it could make it, we simply wouldn't be capable of comprehending it.
Why would be be unable to comprehend it? Let's say by definition object x cannot be manipulated, but can result of manipulating matter. Omniman manipulates matter to create object x, but cannot manipulate it, so he has created an obect that physically cannot be manipulated, which as others said wouldn't mean he isn't omnipotent according to his own definition, just that some things are physically impossible for it to do.
Your being mentally bound by your perceptions. If you are incapable of perceiving something you have an incredibly difficult time understanding or accepting it. When dealing with omnipotence nothing is "impossible". That word has no meaning to such a being. Unless of course they work on a completely different set of rules (which is possible).
No I was looking at what others said ad after meditating on it I think they got it right, according to my definition. If you define omnipotence as "able to will-fully do any physically possible action", then it excludes actions that are not possible by definition.
The problem with you is that you defined omnipotence differently to mean "can literally do anything", in which case if they wanted they could make x not equal x, which isn't something we can't "comprehend", we just don't know how to do it. Like we can't find the roots of polynomials in Cartesian coordinates that do not pass the vertical line test, but that doesn't mean we can't "comprehend" the roots just that we don't know how to get them, and in fact we can easily find the roots by using another system such as polar coordinates, showing that comprehension was never the issue, we can definitely comprehend real numbers. So even if omniman made x not equal x, that doesn't prove we can't comprehend it, it just means we do not yet know how it would be true according to our own rules.
You keep saying "no" but you're not really giving a good explanation because "creating" something is also an action which physically takes place in the universe, even with conservation laws in place, and if he cannot create something that fits the category "cannot be lifted", then at least we arrive at the wiki paradox, his own capabilities turn into limitations.
Because the requests are not logical requests. They have no meaning.
If I tell you to VOIHRGOIHG, are you capable of fulfilling that request? The answer is neither yes or no. It is N/A, because such a thing is a meaningless statement. That statement has no defined meaning.
Is an omnipotent being physically capable of being incapable?
There's nothing an omnipotent being can't do, so no.
And if not, then he is physically incapable of something such as the act of being incapable, so wouldn't they cancel each other out?
Are you arguing that a being who is not not-omnipotent is not-omnipotent?
However, I would like to start out with the question "Can an omnipotent being create an object so massive that they themselves cannot lift it?" which often is uses the word god as god is assumed to be an omnipotent being.
From what I know, this question proves physical omnipotence cannot exist because no matter what the outcome is, there will always be some action they are incapable of doing. They are either incapable of the physical act of lifting that object, or they are incapable of the physical act of creating something they cannot lift, which means they are not actually capable of any physical action, but who knows, maybe there's something I didn't think of.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The problem is this is a meaningless request.
And if you asked, "Can an omnipotent being create a car?" you would be asking if an omnipotent being could create an instance of any one thing out of a set of all things that have the quality "car," correct?
And if you asked, "Can an omnipotent being create a red car?" you would be asking if an omnipotent being could create an instance of any one thing that, out of the set of all things that have the quality "car," has the quality "red," correct?
And if you asked, "Can an omnipotent being create a blue car?" you would be asking if an omnipotent being could create an instance of any one thing that, out of the set of all things that have the quality "car," has the quality "blue," correct?
The problem is there's nothing out of the total number of all things that fall under the category of "object" that have the quality "Cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being."
It would be like asking, "Can you create a square circle?" It's illogical. Nothing out of the total of all things that have the quality "square" have the quality "circle."
It is a meaningless question, because the question does not point to anything. It would be like asking if God can create GORUIGHOHI. That's not actually a word. It doesn't mean anything. To ask if God could create GORUIGHOHI is a meaningless question, because GORUIGHOHI has no definition.
Therefore, the request is meaningless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
It's over my head but seems there is no definitive answer.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=141629
Anywho:
But if I said "can god create any object that resembles a car?" wouldn't that solve it be removing limitations of what the object actually was? So can't I ask an omnipotent being to create any physical thing which all observers can agree he cannot apply an upward force to for more than say, 3 seconds before his mechanism for pushing upwards changes position in the direction opposite of the applied force? Also, what if the request was meaningless to you but not to an omnipotent being? In theory couldn't they attempt to place their arm out and apply an upward force to an object that grows indefinitely large and massive to test whether or not they can lift it, and if he/she fails in his/her test, it means he/she cannot create an object that he/she cannot lift?
But I suppose after looking at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
It seems even after hundreds of years no one has a definitive answer everyone can agree on.
Can God microwave a burrito so hot, he cannot eat it?
Aside from the point this proves, if any at all, omnipotence or the more interesting question of nigh-omnipotence might possibly exist if we explore the physical limitations of our universe and other realities.
For example, if our universe is a 4-dimensional reality that exists in the confines of a 5th, 6th, or 7th dimensional space, do those 5th, 6th, and 7th dimensional beings having omnipotence?
I would argue yes...for nigh-omnipotence.
Pretty sure you made a typo somewhere in this sentence.
No, because there's nothing under the category of "physical thing" that an omnipotent being cannot move upwards for any length of time.
Again, it's an illogical request. It's like asking to create a triangle that's also a square. You can't have a triangle that's also a square. By definition, this is contradictory.
That would not be, because the request is illogical. Much like the request to make a triangle that's also a square, much like the request of God to create an object that is GOIRHGOUIHR, it has no meaning.
No, because there's no object that possesses the category, "Cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being."
It would be like asking if a being could create a triangle with four-sides. There is nothing in the set of things with the quality "Triangle" that has four sides. You are asking an illogical request.
Ok, so your claim is "there is no object which fits the category of not being able to be lifted by an omnipotent being", so I don't understand how that itself wouldn't prove that an omnipotent being would be incapable of creating an object that they could not lift. If an omnipotent being can lift all things, then that means things they can't lift cannot exist, which means they cannot physically create things they cannot lift as those objects wouldn't not physically exist, which means we're at the paradox stated in the wiki link.
No it doesn't, because that doesn't contradict that the being is omnipotent.
What you are asking is nonsensical. It is as nonsensical as my asking for a triangle with four sides. A triangle with four sides is a nonsensical request. It logically contradicts itself.
Similarly, if I ask for a "Grihgrihgoahwoigh," that's not a thing. That is a sound, but it's not a word. It doesn't correspond to any meaning of any kind. It's not a request of any kind, because it does not point to anything in any meaningful sense. It's nonsense.
None of these invalidate the being's omnipotence, because no logical request was ever made to the being to fulfill.
You're asking if Omnipotence can exist in our physical universe right?
Unfortunately, The Universe is already using all the energy (power) The Universe has just to be The Universe. So what power is left over for any being to have that would make them Omnipotent? I would argue that a being seeking omnipotence, would have to fight The Universe for the power until they win...
http://www.comicvine.com/galactus/4005-2149/
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Capable of any possible physical action imaginable at any moment in time.
When you add the caveats "possible physical action" you make it so that any action an entity cannot physically do doesn't count against its omnipotence.
Which is why I tend to think of the term omnipotence as meaningless.
You keep saying "no" but you're not really giving a good explanation because "creating" something is also an action which physically takes place in the universe, even with conservation laws in place, and if he cannot create something that fits the category "cannot be lifted", then at least we arrive at the wiki paradox, his own capabilities turn into limitations. Is an omnipotent being physically capable of being incapable? And if not, then he is physically incapable of something such as the act of being incapable, so wouldn't they cancel each other out?
Well who says the said omnipotent being can't physically use all of the energy of the universe? What if they find out that for whatever reason they they cannot lift that much mass?
Then why don't we add "capable of any physical action by their own free will". A human "could" spontaneously teleport to the other side of the universe, but with our current technology or genetics, not by their own free will, it would either be a wormhole, some profoundly rare quantum phenomena or some kind of alien with superior technology doing it,
If it turns out that it is fundamentally physically impossible for a human's will to teleport them across the universe, your definition doesn't hold that against their omnipotence.
For instance, if I asked Omniman to build a physically impossible structure like an Escher painting, you wouldn't hold that against Omniman because what I am asking is nonsense. I think it is just as much nonsense to ask a human to "teleport by your own free will" because of physical impossibility as it would be to ask Omniman to create an infinite looping staircase.
Ok, so if something is a physical impossibility, then they cannot physically do it, can they? There would in fact be things they are physically incapable of doing like a real life Escher painting. It doesn't fall under the realm physically possible...therefore he cannot physically do it, unless we can perhaps consider that space and time can be warped such that someone can indefinitely walk a certain pattern and arrive at their original state.
Now with lifting n object, can we in fact determine that such an object that he cannot be lifted exists? It is "possible" such an object physically exist, in fact if you tried to push upwards in a wormhole, it wouldn't move anywhere, you would simply move your arm through it, so the act of pushing cannot move a wormhole. He could create an object so massive that it creates a wormhole and thus is not able to translate it's position, assuming it's impossible for someone to willfully translate the position of a wormhole.
Other people seem to think the problem is "omniman is capable of only all possible physical actions, therefore ruling out actions that are physically IMpossible", but my stance is more like "let's see what actions actually are impossible and can be physically done to determine if they can perform those actions despite that they can possibly physically occur", suggesting that physical existence does not necessarily mean "manipulable" or "duplicable" by will or in any possible way.
How about this, can you give me an action that we know is physically possible that a human cannot do?
He is talking about this omnipotent being as acting within a realm of logic.
It is logically inconsistent to ask an omnipotent being to create a rock that is so heavy that said omnipotent being cannot lift it.
As such, it is meaningless.
Now, the question is whether you believe that this being is still omnipotent if it has to exist under a realm of logic.
Can an omnipotent being create an object that exceeds their physical limitations for manipulation? Possibly.
Can an omnipotent being physically do something that is physically impossible to happen? No, that's contradictory.
That's still contradictory. Part of being omnipotent means being able to manipulate anything. By definition, nothing can exist that the omnipotent cannot manipulate.
Like Highroller said: You may as well ask if the omnipotent being can make a round triangle with seven sides.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Of course it could make it, we simply wouldn't be capable of comprehending it.
Well perhaps that's because you define omnipotence differently, when really there's more than one possible type.
Why would be be unable to comprehend it? Let's say by definition object x cannot be manipulated, but can result of manipulating matter. Omniman manipulates matter to create object x, but cannot manipulate it, so he has created an obect that physically cannot be manipulated, which as others said wouldn't mean he isn't omnipotent according to his own definition, just that some things are physically impossible for it to do.
Your being mentally bound by your perceptions. If you are incapable of perceiving something you have an incredibly difficult time understanding or accepting it. When dealing with omnipotence nothing is "impossible". That word has no meaning to such a being. Unless of course they work on a completely different set of rules (which is possible).
Moving the goalposts.
How about you come up with a good definition we can all agree on so we actually have something to talk about?
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
No I was looking at what others said ad after meditating on it I think they got it right, according to my definition. If you define omnipotence as "able to will-fully do any physically possible action", then it excludes actions that are not possible by definition.
The problem with you is that you defined omnipotence differently to mean "can literally do anything", in which case if they wanted they could make x not equal x, which isn't something we can't "comprehend", we just don't know how to do it. Like we can't find the roots of polynomials in Cartesian coordinates that do not pass the vertical line test, but that doesn't mean we can't "comprehend" the roots just that we don't know how to get them, and in fact we can easily find the roots by using another system such as polar coordinates, showing that comprehension was never the issue, we can definitely comprehend real numbers. So even if omniman made x not equal x, that doesn't prove we can't comprehend it, it just means we do not yet know how it would be true according to our own rules.
Because I don't actually know what everyone can agree is a "good" definition, there's several.
Because the requests are not logical requests. They have no meaning.
If I tell you to VOIHRGOIHG, are you capable of fulfilling that request? The answer is neither yes or no. It is N/A, because such a thing is a meaningless statement. That statement has no defined meaning.
There's nothing an omnipotent being can't do, so no.
Are you arguing that a being who is not not-omnipotent is not-omnipotent?