You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Strong Proof: On Omnipotence
Although this argument is in the vein of the omnipotence paradox, it is not the same. Here, there is no actual or apparent paradox, it meets contradiction and terminates.
The conundrum lies in the realization that a being cannot be both omnipotent and indestructible (either it can or it can’t destroy itself - no rock or other being needed).
I am picking a side, resulting from the argument above, that it is “omnipotence” that must go...not that this is some lacking in the nature of the divine, but rather a failure of human conception: the synthesis of “all” and “power” is not in itself false or wrong, but its ascription to a single being cannot be done while maintaining a consistent worldview.
I don't see the distinction. I think you're doing the exact same thing but you're telling yourself you aren't.
A single omnipotent creator is a logical necessity if you want to avoid an infinite regression loop. A necessary being can't be destroyed logically, so the structure of your statement is illogical.
BTW, I'm not picking at you, I just find the topic interesting.
A single creator is necessary to avoid an infinite regress, not an omnipotent one.
Well, what would you call a being who created the universe with it's infinite size and complexity?
Creator.
No worries, I appreciate that you're engaging...that's the point, to discuss and disagree, to discuss and hopefully agree.
I'll respond more directly to your critique shortly.