You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Strong Proof: On Omnipotence
Omnipotence does not mean the power to do anything, it means the power to do anything logically possible.
All human experience, and indeed our own minds, reflect the truth of logic, and it is an inherent part of our existence. Therefore, positing an illogical proposition is not sufficient to disprove a truth claim based on logic.
This is a very old discussion, usually called the "omnipotence paradox." A much more common approach is this, "can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" You could spend a lifetime reading the different perspectives on this, but it doesn't prove anything.
I agree that the “logically possible” part is the sticking point, and the most valid counter-argument. However, it seems dogmatic to assert that it is not logically possible to destroy God; and doing so places limitations on His power.
Given the assumption that existence depends on God for its being at all, for Him to destroy Himself would mean the cessation of being...so, as long as being exists, God cannot have the power to destroy Himself, which means He does not have “all power.”
I don't know about this approach. My initial thought is that you seem to have a very specific definition of omnipotent in mind, and any other definitions must be rejected because they don't fit your theory. The idea of omnipotence is pretty complex, and I don't think it's out of bounds to suggest that it conforms to logical rules like the rest of everything else seems to.
Also, I'm not saying it's logically impossible to destroy God, just that it's logically impossible to expect omnipotence to be destroyable. I mean, that's inherent in the definition of the word. Like an unquenchable fire cannot be quenched, or an immovable force can't be moved. If it's true that omnipotent means, or at least includes indestructibility, then it seems to me you're saying the term omnipotent itself cannot be a real concept because anything omnipotent would lack the power to destroy itself. So without even bringing God into it, you challenge the term itself.
At the end of the day though, if that's all God can't do then for all practical purposes He is Omnipotent because if He was destroyed then all existence would cease, and there would be no intelligent beings to debate semantics😁
Yes, I am being highly literal “Omni”=all, “potens”= power. If we cop out and instead mean “maximally powerful,” then we need a different word.
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.