Timeline for Is it possible to have several omnipotent gods?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 7, 2017 at 15:32 | comment | added | ErikE | @Separatrix For certain definitions of those words, yes it's silly. I don't agree that this makes all definitions of them silly. | |
| Aug 7, 2017 at 7:52 | comment | added | Separatrix | @ErikE, omnipotent beings can die, immortal beings are the ones who struggle with that. It's all silly word games, we all know that, but it's as much to point out that omnipotence is a silly word in its own right and when logic is applied it falls apart. | |
| Aug 5, 2017 at 8:21 | comment | added | ErikE | An omnipotent being can't die and you can, but an omnipotent being can live forever and you can't. Can't you see that these are the same thing merely framed negatively and positively? Expecting omnipotence to include both simply by coincidence of the framing used to express the idea is silliness. Being able to make a rock so big that one can't move it sounds to me like a total doofus move that an omnipotent being would never be so foolish or weak as to suffer from... | |
| Aug 5, 2017 at 8:17 | comment | added | ErikE | @Separatrix Answer: being unable to do something can be an expression of capacity, not only incapacity! Everything can be framed negatively or positively, and that has nothing to do with whether an omnipotent being should or shouldn't be able to do it. An omnipotent being can't die, either—are you suggesting this makes him not omnipotent? Omnipotence is having sufficient power to do anything that power is sufficient to do. Being unable to move a rock requires less power. Being unable to make a rock he can't move is not something power is sufficient to do. There's no problem here. | |
| Aug 4, 2017 at 14:29 | comment | added | Secespitus | @Separatrix "Anyone else wanna tell me what I can't do?" | |
| Aug 4, 2017 at 14:18 | comment | added | Separatrix | The real solution is as the gods have always done it, mortal says, "you can't do this", Omnipotent being says, "I can give you a lightning bolt to the face though". Works every time, just as cheap but brings in the sacrifices. | |
| Aug 4, 2017 at 11:22 | comment | added | Secespitus | @Separatrix It's not necessarily ignoring the problem. For every paradoxon you have to find the one thing that is not easily visible that allows you to "solve" it. When thinking about omnipotence the thing is to think about what omnipotence means. If you can do anything then that means you are not playing by the rules that we commonly accept as given. "Logic" is in this case one of the rules that we as humans accept. Something omnipotent is above such cute little concepts that were developed by us humans. I admit it feels like a cheap solution, but you have to limit or find way around it | |
| Aug 4, 2017 at 11:14 | comment | added | Separatrix | Ah the joys of solving a problem by ignoring it. You can't do this. I can if I ignore the actual requirements. It's amazing how well lighting carries the argument. | |
| Aug 3, 2017 at 20:41 | comment | added | Secespitus | @Separatrix Which leads to the easy "solution" of postulating that omnipotence means not being constrained by logic. Self-contradiction is no problem once you are out of the realm of logic. | |
| Aug 3, 2017 at 20:38 | comment | added | Separatrix | It's a delightfully tricky word, in this case it means they can no longer do something an ordinary person can do, meaning that omnipotence itself is self contradictory. | |
| Aug 3, 2017 at 20:31 | comment | added | sphennings | @Separatrix Because is something is all powerful they should be able to lift anything. That all is a tricky word. | |
| Aug 3, 2017 at 20:29 | comment | added | Separatrix | Creating an object you can't lift is within the power of any normal person. Why does it become a self contradictory sentence when applied to someone omnipotent? | |
| Aug 3, 2017 at 20:24 | history | answered | Secespitus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |