Is omnipotence intrinsically paradoxical?

[Les Sleeth]

Do you believe God exists as a spirit, in that He is not bound by time and space and subject to the laws thereof? That would pretty much make Him omnipotent over everything which is "physical" don't you think?

Well, what is "spirit"? Might spirit be thought of as the ground state substance? What is time? How can anyone answer if something is bound by time when nobody yet agrees what time is?

But let's say your hypothetical God is going to exist eternally from here on . . . does that mean he/she/it always existed? It might be that NOW God is eternal, but looking backward there could have been a point where God had a beginning.

If God is "over everything which is physical" as you suggest, that still doesn't mean God is omnipotent. Since the physical is finite, then all it logically indicates is that God is more powerful than however powerful physicalness is, which isn't infinite.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I honestly can't find a single reason for the belief that God is all powerful. Somebody appears to have dreamt it up a long time ago, made it Church dogma, and people have been taken with the idea ever since.

If God is responsible for creation and life and me, what difference does it make if God is infinitely powerful? However powerful God is, God was powerful enough to bring creation about, and gracious enough to bring about my existence. I would love such creator no matter how powerful, or not, he/she/it is.

Can you explain why it is so important to you that God is omnipotent? I haven't seen the logic or evidence of your belief yet, but maybe there is something you haven't communicated.

 

[Iacchus32]

Well, what is "spirit"? Might spirit be thought of as the ground state substance?

I believe that reason predates everything, including what you refer to as this ground state substance. Indeed, how do we describe any of these so-called events (suggesting that there must be a way everything is put together) without reason? ... Unless of course you're willing to suggest that this ground state substance existed and/or came about for no reason?

What is time? How can anyone answer if something is bound by time when nobody yet agrees what time is?

The rate of change, with respect to all things that are physical?

But let's say your hypothetical God is going to exist eternally from here on . . . does that mean he/she/it always existed?

Would you be willing to assess that the knowledge of God has always existed, including the knowledge of everything God entails, including us? In other words do you believe that reason has always exist and, can only be maintained via omniscience? I do.

It might be that NOW God is eternal, but looking backward there could have been a point where God had a beginning.

But who is willing to admit to Eternity, when all we have is the Big Bang, and apparently nothing beyond that?

If God is "over everything which is physical" as you suggest, that still doesn't mean God is omnipotent.

If you believe "the physical" is all there is, then that's exactly what it means. In which case there's really no need to take it beyond that. At the very least this ground state substance would have to exist ... which, isn't to say it isn't a direct manifestation of God.

Since the physical is finite, then all it logically indicates is that God is more powerful than however powerful physicalness is, which isn't infinite.

Yet who wants to admit to the existence of a spiritual world? It's enough just to try and grapple with Eternity and all-knowing don't you think?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I honestly can't find a single reason for the belief that God is all powerful. Somebody appears to have dreamt it up a long time ago, made it Church dogma, and people have been taken with the idea ever since.

I understand your prejudice against formalized religion.

If God is responsible for creation and life and me, what difference does it make if God is infinitely powerful? However powerful God is, God was powerful enough to bring creation about, and gracious enough to bring about my existence. I would love such creator no matter how powerful, or not, he/she/it is.

Does this mean it's possible for us to become like God some day? Sorry, I couldn't resist ... And yes, I do believe we are all the progeny of God, regardless.

If God has infinity and Eternity at His disposal, why shouldn't that make Him all-powerful?

Can you explain why it is so important to you that God is omnipotent? I haven't seen the logic or evidence of your belief yet, but maybe there is something you haven't communicated.

I believe it's important to believe that there's something greater than this physical Universe.

 

[loseyourname]

If He draws his power from outside of himself, then obviously he must be "subject to" whatever that power source may be.

I think you may an unwarranted leap of reasoning in there somewhere, Iacchus. A non-omnipotent being also does not have to draw his power from an external source. In fact, if this being is non-physical, it's "power" would not even be the kind of power studied in physics, that operates according to conservation and exchange laws.

And how exactly would making the hypothetical being omnipotent solve any issues that you brought up? Does the being that can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, and still lift it, draw power from within itself, whereas the being that can only create the rock but not lift it must draw power from somewhere else? Why?

Regardless, how does one establish the ground rules for anything to exist in the first place?

No system or postulate or axiom or anything else can establish the ground rule that says something will exist in the first place. No matter what you propose, you will always have that problem.

How does something come from nothing ... unless that something (the proclivity for all things to exist) has always existed? Look at all the "potential" hidden within a single seed. Is it possible that a very similar scenario existed when the Universe sprang forth? Obviously we would have no Universe without any potential for it to exist prior to its inception.

You're going to have to explain to me how this has anything to do with omnipotence, or anything else that was discussed in this thread before you entered.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I understand your prejudice against formalized religion.

In the past I've said that the ideal seeker of truth has no biases or a priori assumptions firmly in place when contemplating things. He is instead fully open to accepting the truth no matter what that turns out to be.

I strive to achieve that sort of objectivity, but I have to admit you are probably right about my prejudice. I have, however, studied religion more than most people trying to understand it and its history (my undergrad degree was religious studies).

What upsets me about religion is how many atheists it's created. Most atheists I know are pretty smart, but their atheism usually hasn't stemmed from contemplating the possibility of some sort of creationary consciousness being part of creation, but rather is usually almost entirely a reaction to religious concepts and the behavior, beliefs, and logic of religious devotees.

As someone interested in stimulating discussion about the possibility of a plausible creationary consciousness, religion has been the biggest thorn in my . . . oops, er obstacle. I do believe, however, that someone can be religious and also make sense. One could be a follower of Jesus for example, put one's faith totally in him and that's it. One needn't "believe" anything at all to do that. With total faith, questions about heaven, hell, omipotence, etc., or if Jesus rose from the dead or did miracles . . . all that is irrelevant because one's aim is to wholly trust the inner experience Jesus has to offer as sufficient.

Anyway, I can't honestly justify my prejudice, I wish I could get it out of my head. But I can say that my prejudice is against religion, and not against the religious who I judge on an individual by individual basis.

 

[Iacchus32]

No system or postulate or axiom or anything else can establish the ground rule that says something will exist in the first place. No matter what you propose, you will always have that problem.

Not even cause-and-effect?

 

[loseyourname]

Not even cause-and-effect?

How does cause and effect establish that something must exist? The law of causality isn't even properly basic, as it presupposes that there exist agents capable of having a causal relation to one another.

 

[Iacchus32]

Anyway, I can't honestly justify my prejudice, I wish I could get it out of my head. But I can say that my prejudice is against religion, and not against the religious who I judge on an individual by individual basis.

Yes, but how can one "live in the moment" and have someone ram the idea of it down your throat at the same time? Your prejudice is not unfounded.

 

[Iacchus32]

How does cause and effect establish that something must exist? The law of causality isn't even properly basic, as it presupposes that there exist agents capable of having a causal relation to one another.

What is the effect, generally, but the "hybrid" (result) which is generated by the relation between two or more things? Obviously, it is possible for one agent to induce an effect upon (and hence modify) another.

 

[bola]

Here's my idea on this.
First we must establish what god IS.

For god to be omnipotent, he cannot be a part of the universe, as in, he can't be made p of particles or strings and whatever else the universe consists of.
Why? Because if he was, he would be a slave to the laws of physics, and that's not very omnipotent.

So what we have left is an external god, one that can be called a creator.
The creator can be anything, but we know one thing, we can never interact, view, or touch him, because he is outside the universe system.

As for the infinite regress thing.
Well, something is obviously missing in the picture, we are indeed existing, in a physical universe.
The questions of infinity, time, and all such things, lie outside the human mind, so I would propose that the biggest question of them all is "what is existence?" "Why does existence exist?"

Existence lies beyond atoms and particles and strings, it lies beyond everything else.

 

[Iacchus32]

The creator can be anything, but we know one thing, we can never interact, view, or touch him, because he is outside the universe system.

Unless, of course, we ourselves have a spirit.

 

[phoenixthoth]

The omnipotence issue seems to be similar to the issue in the statement, "this statement is false."

When all is used (e.g., all powerful) or when a statement refers to itself or its truthfulness, then you are likely to get a paradoxical statement.

What does this mean?

What might it mean?

1. God does not exist because it "must" be omnipotent
2. God is not omnipotent and therefore is "no god at all"
3. ?

Anything else?

I think so and maybe you can help me prove option 3 or disprove it.

3. That natural language (meaning any known language) is incapable of fully and adequately describing God. So the following arguments are equivalent:
A. the rock paradox imples God is not omnipotent
B. uga buga... Ergo God is not omnipotent
C. uga buga... Ergo God is omnipotent.

 

[Temporarily Blah]

I don't believe in the idea of an omnipotent being, so i'll let my friends' words be typed. (Parenthesis are my notes)
"God CAN create a rock he can't lift; He'd create it, then lift it." (Someone explain this to me?)

"God is everywhere, encompassing anything that can possibly exist" (Same thing, explination please.)

"God could create another God, but they'd still be one being" (Hmm...)

Anyway, that's what my friend told me, and so I wrote. I don't believe in the existence, but I do believe the possibility.

 

[Sikz]

Yes, except in the instance of existence as a whole. The entirety of reality might be considered omnipotent, but for anything else it is a paradox.