But if God can't defy it, then he is not omnipotent. Omnipotent means a being can do everything and there is nothing he can't do.
I've already covered this. I am speaking specifically under the terms of Thomas Aquinas' definition of omnipotence, which is that God can do all that is possible, and nothing that is impossible. You're making this assertion based on Descartes' definition, which is that God is above logic and can do anything and it won't be contradictory. Also, both definitions of omnipotence underscore that there are some things an omnipotent being cannot do - an omnipotent being cannot, for example, ever not be omnipotent and be in a situation where omnipotence becomes impossible for said being.
If God cannot defy logic, then he is not omnipotent.
If God can, then he defies the principle of Non-contradiction, but then again, that doesn't apply, either.
I end this with a quote: "Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned."
If God cannot defy logic, then he is not omnipotent.
Can you support this? I'm saying that at least under Aquinas' definition, he *can* be omnipotent and not be able to defy logic because defying logic falls under the category of doing something logically impossible, which under Aquinas' definition is not required for omnipotence.
It's not logically possible to defy logic, so that's not a problem
beyond the world of theism, something that we can varify exists i.e. a black hole, is something that does defy logic.... but under the circumstance we have limited knowledge of it and limited or... no ways to gain knowledge of it...
Is it possible to have an omnipotent being? I want to see if anybody can bring up the paradox it forms.
by paradox are u referring to unstopable versus unmoveable paradox.... for some reason it appeared to me that this is the paradox u were reffering to...
If logic cannot be defied, then determinism. If determinism, there can be no God.
I am not arguing for the existence of a god, I am arguing that an omnipotent being does not necessarily have to be able to defy logic to be omnipotent. This is obviously hypothetical, assuming that it is possible for an omnipotent being to exist in the first place. This goes back to the topic I originally commented on - the rock argument. An omnipotent being doesn't have to be able to defy logic to be omnipotent under Thomas Aquinas' definition because omnipotence under that definition only requires the ability to do all that is logically possible, which does not include the ability to defy logic as that would fall under logical impossibility, which is beyond the realm of such a definition of omnipotence.
Aquinas' definition proves that he cannot do the impossible. Therefore, he is not omnipotent.
If logic cannot be defied, then determinism. If determinism, there can be no God.
I am not saying there is no God, but that God is not omnipotent.
by paradox are u referring to unstopable versus unmoveable paradox.... for some reason it appeared to me that this is the paradox u were reffering to...
That paradox is impossible. To have an unstoppable force would mean to have infinite energy and to have an unmovable object would mean to have infinite mass, both impossible to have in the universe. I am not referring to that, yet it is similar.
Thisisnotanalt, God is not omnipotent. If he cannot do the illogical, then he is not omnipotent. It doesn't matter whose definition you go by, if he cannot do the impossible, then he is no omnipotent since the impossible is included in everything.
you just threw out a paradox for being nonsensical when it is the exact same thing you just proposed????? i've addressed it on the first page w/ my answer to you.
an unstoppable force implies that there is no unmovable object and viceversa... its in the name. its similar to what you're proposing... except by definition of your omnipotence then he can do both create said thing and move it... but he never moved it b/c it was unmovable.. but he did b/c he has the power to even tho he can't.
if you can stubbornly advocate something like this then we can counter it stubbornly in the same fashion... you will need to get God's signature and picture w/ time stamp saying that he doesn't exist to fully prove to me that he doesn't.
see how this thread doesn't get anywhere?... our debate on wormholes was acheiving more
Aquinas' definition proves that he cannot do the impossible. Therefore, he is not omnipotent.
You don't get the point of it. It's one of the competing definitions of omnipotence itself. I've gone over this already. Omnipotence is not necessarily the ability to to ANYTHING, because Aquinas' definition is a definition of omnipotence and there's a debate over whether Descartes' definition - the one you're so stalwartly adhering to - is the more correct one, or that Aquinas' definition - the one I am arguing about in the context of the rock argument - is the more correct one. My original statement was referring to how either definition refutes the rock argument on its own, so that's not a problem, and now I'm caught up clarifying that Aquinas' definition exists and that the one you're thinking of is not the only one and not the universally-accepted one.
Even though this site as a whole isn't good, it gives a surprisingly good explanation on the different definitions of omnipotence.
Thomas Aquinas had a narrower conception of omnipotence. According to Aquinas, God is able to do anything possible; he can part the red sea, and he can restore the dead to life, but he cannot violate the laws of logic and mathematics in the way that Descartes thought that he could.
Thisisnotanalt, God is not omnipotent. If he cannot do the illogical, then he is not omnipotent. It doesn't matter whose definition you go by, if he cannot do the impossible, then he is no omnipotent since the impossible is included in everything.
I am not arguing as to whether God exists or if God is omnipotent, I am arguing that omnipotence does not have to include the impossible and I have done so. You're failing to understand what I'm saying and you seem to have missed that there are multiple definitions to omnipotence and I am using Aquinas' one as an example to refute the rock argument (the paradox of the stone).
This topic seems to be tied into the laws of our universe. But with a multiverse model a Omnipotent being could exists outside the confines of our universe where the laws could and probably are not the same as in our universe. Also It's possible that there could exist a semi-omnipotent being in our universe that is restricted by these laws but said entity would seem like a all powerful entity. We don't even fully understand our universe so how would we even be able to tell.
multiple definitions to omnipotence
If your making an argument is paramount that you define everything that is either unknown or is expressed in a different way. Otherwise it just goes in circles and is pointless since people are arguing in different views.
the thing is... the paradox proposed only works for a deity that doesn't have the claim to creation... at least in my opinion. for something to have created everything to be tethered by anything seems illogical.
now... the argument is whether or not omnipotent > logic or omnipotent < logic .... it would seem that if said being created logic itself then he would be greater (if in existence) then his creation. you are advocating that logic > omnipotence... I am advocating omnipotence > logic...
if its in the name then there's no way you can refute it... u just end up in a supposed paradox but the answer if omnipotence is > logic will be that it can be done.
this argument for the non-existence of God does not hold water. you're going to have to revise your logic and try again. now you could use the argument by one Magegraywolf and say that just b/c we don't know something doesn't mean that slapping a "God did it" label onto it means he exists. That would be a much better argument then this supposed paradox. :-P
