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?
Not only are you bad at writing, but you are bad at reading as well.
No I was looking at what others said and 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.
"Liftability" is designated by an X; "not" will be ~; "and" is ^
God creates an unliftable object: ~X=True
Chenjesu says God need to lift it. Thus he is asking God to:
X ^ ~X = True
This is logically nonsensical. If you say God must be bound by logic (which is normally a requirement if you want to have a sensible discussion about Him), then He "can't" do it. He "can't" not because of some weakness on His part, but because it doesn't make any sense at all to say "X = ~X." The request is logically meaningless.
If you say logic is a requirement, then it would be a goalpost shift to say something illogical is meaningful. If you say logic isn't a requirement, then all bets are off and God can make X = ~X.
Thus, all that matters is how you define the term "Omnipotent," logically or illogically.
"Liftability" is designated by an X; "not" will be ~; "and" is ^
God creates an unliftable object: ~X=True
Chenjesu says God need to lift it. Thus he is asking God to:
X ^ ~X = True
This is logically nonsensical. If you say God must be bound by logic (which is normally a requirement if you want to have a sensible discussion about Him), then He "can't" do it. He "can't" not because of some weakness on His part, but because it doesn't make any sense at all to say "X = ~X." The request is logically meaningless.
If you say logic is a requirement, then it would be a goalpost shift to say something illogical is meaningful. If you say logic isn't a requirement, then all bets are off and God can make X = ~X.
Thus, all that matters is how you define the term "Omnipotent," logically or illogically.
Taylor, I think you're missing something here. The whole argument the paradox is making against God's omnipotence is that it creates a contradictory situation in which both God's ability to create and God's ability to lift must one or the other fail.
You're not invalidating the paradox, you're just rewording exactly what the paradox is arguing.
"Liftability" is designated by an X; "not" will be ~; "and" is ^
God creates an unliftable object: ~X=True
Chenjesu says God need to lift it. Thus he is asking God to:
X ^ ~X = True
This is logically nonsensical. If you say God must be bound by logic (which is normally a requirement if you want to have a sensible discussion about Him), then He "can't" do it. He "can't" not because of some weakness on His part, but because it doesn't make any sense at all to say "X = ~X." The request is logically meaningless.
If you say logic is a requirement, then it would be a goalpost shift to say something illogical is meaningful. If you say logic isn't a requirement, then all bets are off and God can make X = ~X.
Thus, all that matters is how you define the term "Omnipotent," logically or illogically.
No he "can't" do it because I defined omnipotence as containing the word physical, therefore he cannot perform actions that are physically impossible, as it would be akin to asking "can you something that you can't lift?" which is like "can you do what you can't do?", whereas originally the interpretation was "is an omnipotent being incapable of being incapable of something within the parameters of the physical of possibilities".
It's not really meaningless it's that the question contradicts itself. You could ague that it has meaning by having a basis to compare other statements to it to show how they are contradictory.
You're not invalidating the paradox, you're just rewording exactly what the paradox is arguing.
Its not a true paradox; its a contradiction.
Our inexact language allows us to write contradictions. I can write:
"God makes something that can't be lifted, then He lifts it. In fact, He both lifts it and doesn't lift it, simultaneously. A quantum state of lifting and not lifting. Thus, He creates something that He can lift, while also having it not lifted."
I can also write:
"Twas bryllyg, and ye slythy toves. Did gyre and gymble in ye wabe: All mimsy were ye borogoves; And ye mome raths outgrabe."
In both cases, you might get some imagery in your mind's eye from those collection of letters. Your brain might tell you they make a kind of sense. However, they don't. They don't relate to anything except what you fool yourself into thinking they do. Those words don't truly map onto reality, or logic, or anything.
You're not invalidating the paradox, you're just rewording exactly what the paradox is arguing.
Its not a true paradox; its a contradiction.
Paradoxes are contradictions.
And while the paradox has a solution, and while you're on the right track by saying one of the requests is illogical, it's not the request you're saying it is.
If we say God is omnipotent, it means that God has no limits to his power. If a limit were to be found, such as an object existing that he would not be able to lift, that would prove that God's power has limitations and therefore he would not be omnipotent.
I'll repeat that again for emphasis: were there an object unliftable to God, it would disprove the claim that God is omnipotent.
You're attempting to argue that the request for God to lift an unliftable object is meaningless. This is not the case at all. It is not meaningless to request someone to lift an object. In fact, that request makes perfect sense, and is easily understood by pretty much any human who speaks English. That the object is "unliftable" is precisely what the paradox is arguing. Once again, if God is omnipotent, there exists no object he cannot lift. Therefore, if there were an object he could not lift, this would disprove God's omnipotence. Otherwise, you're just arguing God is omnipotent because he can lift everything except the stuff he can't lift. That's not what omnipotence is. The whole point of omnipotence is that it is potens that is omni. All-powerful.
In other words, to argue it's illogical that God would be expected to lift an unliftable object is to make the exact same argument that the paradox is making in an attempt to disprove God's omnipotence.
No, the problem is not in that request. The problem instead lies in the request for God to create an object he cannot lift. That request, unlike the request to lift, is requesting something that is illogical.
It is illogical because if there is no object an omnipotent being cannot lift, then to request for an object that cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being doesn't make any sense. It is a request for an object that cannot be lifted by a being that can lift any object. It would be like requesting a square with five sides, or a triangle with six sides, or an object that isn't an object.
Such a request would be requesting something that does not make logical sense, and to make a request that is outside of any logic is to make a request that has no meaning at all. It is nonsense.
I don't really see a disagreement between us, Highroller. I entered this thread with the sole purpose to try and clarify the point I assumed you were making, because I saw it as sound. I mean, if you claim we are at odds on this one, then I guess I just really misunderstand what's going on and what you're trying to articulate. But, I'm ok with that.
I don't really see a disagreement between us, Highroller. I entered this thread with the sole purpose to try and clarify the point I assumed you were making, because I saw it as sound. I mean, if you claim we are at odds on this one, then I guess I just really misunderstand what's going on and what you're trying to articulate. But, I'm ok with that.
Not only are you bad at writing, but you are bad at reading as well.
Flame warning. - Blinking Spirit
God creates an unliftable object: ~X=True
Chenjesu says God need to lift it. Thus he is asking God to:
X ^ ~X = True
This is logically nonsensical. If you say God must be bound by logic (which is normally a requirement if you want to have a sensible discussion about Him), then He "can't" do it. He "can't" not because of some weakness on His part, but because it doesn't make any sense at all to say "X = ~X." The request is logically meaningless.
If you say logic is a requirement, then it would be a goalpost shift to say something illogical is meaningful. If you say logic isn't a requirement, then all bets are off and God can make X = ~X.
Thus, all that matters is how you define the term "Omnipotent," logically or illogically.
Taylor, I think you're missing something here. The whole argument the paradox is making against God's omnipotence is that it creates a contradictory situation in which both God's ability to create and God's ability to lift must one or the other fail.
You're not invalidating the paradox, you're just rewording exactly what the paradox is arguing.
No he "can't" do it because I defined omnipotence as containing the word physical, therefore he cannot perform actions that are physically impossible, as it would be akin to asking "can you something that you can't lift?" which is like "can you do what you can't do?", whereas originally the interpretation was "is an omnipotent being incapable of being incapable of something within the parameters of the physical of possibilities".
It's not really meaningless it's that the question contradicts itself. You could ague that it has meaning by having a basis to compare other statements to it to show how they are contradictory.
Its not a true paradox; its a contradiction.
Our inexact language allows us to write contradictions. I can write:
"God makes something that can't be lifted, then He lifts it. In fact, He both lifts it and doesn't lift it, simultaneously. A quantum state of lifting and not lifting. Thus, He creates something that He can lift, while also having it not lifted."
I can also write:
"Twas bryllyg, and ye slythy toves. Did gyre and gymble in ye wabe: All mimsy were ye borogoves; And ye mome raths outgrabe."
In both cases, you might get some imagery in your mind's eye from those collection of letters. Your brain might tell you they make a kind of sense. However, they don't. They don't relate to anything except what you fool yourself into thinking they do. Those words don't truly map onto reality, or logic, or anything.
They are meaningless.
Paradoxes are contradictions.
And while the paradox has a solution, and while you're on the right track by saying one of the requests is illogical, it's not the request you're saying it is.
If we say God is omnipotent, it means that God has no limits to his power. If a limit were to be found, such as an object existing that he would not be able to lift, that would prove that God's power has limitations and therefore he would not be omnipotent.
I'll repeat that again for emphasis: were there an object unliftable to God, it would disprove the claim that God is omnipotent.
You're attempting to argue that the request for God to lift an unliftable object is meaningless. This is not the case at all. It is not meaningless to request someone to lift an object. In fact, that request makes perfect sense, and is easily understood by pretty much any human who speaks English. That the object is "unliftable" is precisely what the paradox is arguing. Once again, if God is omnipotent, there exists no object he cannot lift. Therefore, if there were an object he could not lift, this would disprove God's omnipotence. Otherwise, you're just arguing God is omnipotent because he can lift everything except the stuff he can't lift. That's not what omnipotence is. The whole point of omnipotence is that it is potens that is omni. All-powerful.
In other words, to argue it's illogical that God would be expected to lift an unliftable object is to make the exact same argument that the paradox is making in an attempt to disprove God's omnipotence.
No, the problem is not in that request. The problem instead lies in the request for God to create an object he cannot lift. That request, unlike the request to lift, is requesting something that is illogical.
It is illogical because if there is no object an omnipotent being cannot lift, then to request for an object that cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being doesn't make any sense. It is a request for an object that cannot be lifted by a being that can lift any object. It would be like requesting a square with five sides, or a triangle with six sides, or an object that isn't an object.
Such a request would be requesting something that does not make logical sense, and to make a request that is outside of any logic is to make a request that has no meaning at all. It is nonsense.
Oh don't worry about it. I hope it's clearer now.