This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

A thought about the "Problem of Omnipotence"

#1OrangeWizardPosted 3/29/2013 11:48:43 AM
"If God is omnipotent, then can he create a rock so big he can't lift it?"
"If he can't then he's not omnipotent"
"If he can, then he's not omnipotent because he can't lift it."

Okay, let's say he can break logic and create that wrong.
But here's the thing. He just broke logic.

He can create a rock too big for him to lift, AND LIFT IT, because logic is now disregarded.
He both can, and can't create the rock, because logic is now disregarded.

Furthermore, if some poor soul is so unfortunate and accidentally couples this problem with the Problem of Evil, then he can both allow evil to exist, and be benevolent. He can perpetrate evil, and be benevolent. He can not be capable of stopping evil, and still be omnipotent, because we threw logic out the window.

I knew before that the problem of omnipotence wasn't actually a problem at all, but this is just a new (to me) way of refuting it.

Another poster on another forum turned me on to this, and I just wanted to share it with you guys, unless you already knew this, in which case I no longer wish to share it with you guys, so please give it back.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#2kozlo100Posted 3/29/2013 12:01:16 PM
The problem with this approach is that any argument or reasoning is necessarily logic based, so if you throw out logic, you also throw out your ability to infer anything at all about the subject at hand, including why it's ok to throw logic out the window.

It basically just turns the issue into a big recursive mess of nonsense where nobody can say anything and everyone can say anything. Frogblast the vent core, Twas bryllyg, and ye slythy toves, ect.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#3mgtonvac55Posted 3/29/2013 12:11:22 PM
Yes, OrangeWizard, we all agree that you need to throw logic out the window to make it easier to believe in the Christian god.
---
http://i.imgur.com/SipgQ.gif
#4GBALoserPosted 3/29/2013 12:35:17 PM
So, God can and can't do anything because God.
---
Every once in a while I realize the human race may be worth saving. Of course, then I come back here, but still, those are good moments. -Readyman
#5OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 3/29/2013 1:45:30 PM
When I said
Okay, let's say he can break logic and create that wrong.

I meant
Okay, let's say he can break logic and create that rock.


From: GBALoser | #004
So, God can and can't do anything because God.


I'm just taking one of the possible answers in that loaded question, and pointing out that it's self-defeating.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#6Kaiser1onePosted 3/29/2013 2:34:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODetOE6cbbc
---
Why is it that the world can't spell "lose" right???
#7OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 3/29/2013 2:44:28 PM
And why should I watch that?
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#8JonWood007Posted 3/29/2013 3:56:29 PM
Oh goody, this is a variation of what Stephen Law refers to as the theist's "nuclear option": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvkbiElAOqU (Go to 1:13:30). Basically, it's a highly hypocritical and intellectually dishonest to hold argument, because it basically is used to attempt to discredit whatever logical arguments an atheist has against their bullcrap faith. Of course, OW will use "logic" when it suits him, but as soon as it goes against him, oh well, logic is irrelevant. But you better make sure that in another topic, he will begin to use logic again. So that's why it's intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. It's used basically to unfairly dismiss the other side's arguments against your religion, but at the same time you can lecture as us all day. Very poor position to take, and one already addressed by atheists. In short, if you violate reason in this context, why not all other contexts? Why have discussions and arguments at all if logic is irrelevant and you can just break it? Let's close down the religion board, because logic no longer matters, and one's belief in unicorns is no less valid than the most defensible position out there. Is the earth flat? Yes, because **** logic. Even though it looks round from space, it looks flat from the ground, and since logic no longer matters, why can't it be both at the same time?!

Anyway, I want to tackle this in a number of ways. So sorry if this is a bit disjointed and I jump around a lot.

I'm perfectly okay with throwing conventional logic out the window if you can actually DEMONSTRATE a valid reason to do so. I mean, in science, we often find reasons to throw out conventional logic. Like, quantum mechanics. How can something be in two places at once? How can something come from nothing? How can two places be connected even though they're trillions of miles away? Well, these are all possible occurrences when you factor in quantum mechanics.

However, the thing you need to understand about quantum mechanics is that experiments have been done, mathematical equations discuss it, and there's an entire branch of scientific thought associated with it.

Your religion does not have this. It's testimony is based on a 2000-3000 year old book, written by ignorant people, and is full of flaws and contradictions (although I know this is lost on you). Its claims have not been sufficiently demonstrated. There are no scientific studies on it, and the logic theologians often write in is biased, unfounded, and flawed. Point is, you have given us ZERO, ZIP, NADA evidence. Scientifically, there is no reason to believe any of your claims at all, and honestly, the null hypothesis, the hypothesis that there is nothing going on, is more likely. That being said, the problem of evil, omnipotence, omniscience, are all thrown out the window. The thing is, no God is a much better and more defensible position than God existing, as long as there's no definitive evidence suggesting your god exists. To remain intellectually honest, you must accept the null hypothesis over a convoluted system that has no reliable evidence behind it.
---
Desktop: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/K6Pj
Laptop: http://us.gateway.com/gw/en/US/content/model/LX.WY202.001
#9JonWood007Posted 3/29/2013 3:56:37 PM
Okay, next point. The thing is, logic and science do matter. If you go back 2-3 minutes from where I pointed out in that video, Richard Dawkins points out that science "works, *****es!" (yes, he actually said that, cuss word and all). The world is consistently observable, the laws of physics do not change. We can find out things about the world from science, and we can make laws and theories to describe phenomena. If logic truly didn't matter and we can throw it out the window, then science would not work, and you would've even be able to get on the internet to spout the BS that you do because computers wouldn't work. The thing is, this stuff does work. The universe is understandable through science, and once again, you're trying to cover up the inadequacies of your unfounded religion instead of honestly address issues like a mature person.

The thing is, with quantum mechanics, it's not that it's illogical, it's that we don't understand how it works because it is such a mindfudge. I think in a few hundred years, we may be able to understand how it works a little better. Likewise, assuming God exists, and that God can really make a rock so big he can't lift it, there must be some sort of logic behind which this is possible. A premise we don't understand in our logic. You see, when we come across things we don't understand, it's not that we should say screw logic, but that we should recognize we are missing something. If God can do those things, it's not that God is illogical (since we live n a logical universe), it's that we don't understand how said logic works. In quantum mechanics, we don't understand how it works. It's not that it's illogical, it's that there are things we dont understand about it.

Now, once again, the difference between God and quantum mechanics is that we can actually observe the weird qualities of quantum mechanics in action. We can't with God. We have zero reason to believe it, without evidence, this kind of argument sounds more like an attempt to cover up one's inadequacies than a legitimate defense. So what I will say to theists who use these kinds of arguments is put up or shut up. If you want us to believe weird and seemingly illogical things, then prove them. Until then you're horribly intellectually dishonest and hypocritical people who realize that your beliefs are undefensible and are resorting to the "nuclear option."
---
Desktop: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/K6Pj
Laptop: http://us.gateway.com/gw/en/US/content/model/LX.WY202.001
#10OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 3/29/2013 4:06:05 PM
From: JonWood007 | #008
So that's why it's intellectually dishonest and hypocritical.


Um, I think you completely missed the point of this topic.

The atheist, or whoever has a problem with Omnipotence is the one suggesting that an Omnipotent being SHOULD be able to break logic. That guy is the one saying that God SHOULD be able to make a square circle, or a married bachelor, or a "rock so big".

It's that guy who's intellectually dishonest and hypocritical.

I'm just saying "If you're okay with God throwing logic out the window, then look at all the side-effects"

I am not okay with God throwing logic out the window, for the record. I do not believe God can do anything that's logically impossible.

So calm your tit-birds
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.