How does one counteract the omnipotent paradox?

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Exactly! This is why your particular interpretation of both the prophecy and it's fulfillment create a paradox. Our omnipotent God could never forget Babylon.

He didn't say He would forget it. He says we will forget it. Or rather, those alive through the Thousand Year Reign, who will no doubt be so occupied by the beneficence of God and the peace they will have not being hampered by Satan they won't have time to think about what happened during the Tribulation.

 

[Adam]

There is a principal in mathematics known as "non-contradiction."

Anytime we attribute omnipotence to a being we must cease from saying that being "cannot" do something.

Non contradiction in the sense of omnipotence demands that all must be possible, including the ability to be contradictory.

That, in itself, is the nature of the paradox.


If God CAN create something that is so heavy He cannot lift or CAN create a being more powerful than Himself, then His identity is changed and He becomes no longer omnipotent

If He cannot, then He is was not omnipotent to begin with.

Then, for God to be omnipotent, He must be beyond the rules of logic. That presents its own problems, however.

 

[cupid dave]

Exactly! This is why your particular interpretation of both the prophecy and it's fulfillment create a paradox. Our omnipotent God could never forget Babylon.

But the whole world forgot that Iraq is really the olde Babylon.

 

[Adam]

The whole world?

Who told you, then?

 

[ivdavid]

Anytime we attribute omnipotence to a being we must cease from saying that being "cannot" do something.
Non contradiction in the sense of omnipotence demands that all must be possible, including the ability to be contradictory.

Why so? Why suspend the law of non-contradiction here? According to non-contradiction logic, (A is B) and (A is NOT B) are mutually exclusive. So, when I assert a binary truth state in (God is omnipotent)=>TRUE, it implies the binary false state in (God is NOT omnipotent)=>FALSE. So you see, (Being Omnipotent) does not include (Being NOT omnipotent).

Q. Can God create rocks?
A. God is omnipotent, hence Yes, He CAN create rocks.

Q. Can God lift any rock He creates?
A. God is omnipotent, hence Yes, He CAN lift any rock He creates.

Q. Can God NOT lift any rock He creates? [Inverse of the previous Qn.]
A. God is omnipotent, hence No, He CANNOT NOT lift any rock He creates.

There is no paradox here. The CANNOT here arises BECAUSE of His very omnipotence. Note the semantics in language - Omnipotence means God is ABLE to do all things - which logically means He is NOT UNABLE to do anything. Whereas the omnipotent 'paradox'(i wouldn't call it one) questions God's 'Ability' to be UNABLE - hence the question itself is a logical contradiction and thereby invalid.

 

[Adam]

The paradox arises not in the identity of God, but in the identity of omnipotence. I should remind you that omnipotence expicitly invokes and is in reference to one's ability, so the semantics are appropriate. When a "cannot" arises out of an omnipotent nature, it is widdershins to that very omnipotent nature, thus a paradox.

The same thing arises out of the statement "all things are possible."

Is "all things" inclusive or exclusive of the possibility that all things are not possible.

"All things" cannot be exclusive. It defies the identity of "all things." Then, "all things are not possible" is within the framework of "all things."

The statement can then be rewritten "That all things are not possible is possible" which directly contradicts the statement "all things are possible" which we can then conclude "all things are possible" to, in fact, be not possible.

That, of course, is logically valid because if all things were possible then a thing could be itself and not itself at the same time, which breaks the Law of Identity and the Principle of Non-Contradiction while being completely dependent on the explosion principle, which is basically falling down a black hole into obscurity and absurdity: spaghettification

 

[Adam]

The short answer is that there is no counter-argument to the omnipotence paradox that does not take on a case of special pleading, ie: "He's God. He doesn't have to work within the boundaries of logic or physics."

That's fine for people of faith, but it does not satisfy the expectations of non-believers for conclusions that should be direct consequences to a premise. More to the point, is how to explain to a non-believer that an intimate relationship is possible with a being who's fundamental nature is exterior to what we can actually comprehend because He operates in a way that is outside of finite reason and cannot be understood.

How to be familiar with that which one cannot know.


That is actually the question that needs to be answered, instead of questions about the weight of objects.

 

[ivdavid]

I should remind you that omnipotence expicitly invokes and is in reference to one's ability, so the semantics are appropriate.

Perhaps you're stressing on the wrong point. Didn't I say that the semantics of omnipotence ought to refer to one's ABILITY alone - whereas the semantics of the paradox is referring to one's INABILITY, which I hold to be incorrect.

When a "cannot" arises out of an omnipotent nature, it is widdershins to that very omnipotent nature, thus a paradox.

When the "cannot" arises out of an omnipotent nature, perhaps it's paradoxical - but that's what I've shown does not happen in my previous post. The "cannot" arises due to an omnipotent nature and hence is not paradoxical.

Is "all things" inclusive or exclusive of the possibility that all things are not possible.
"All things" cannot be exclusive. It defies the identity of "all things."

Why are you introducing dialetheism into a classical system of logic? It would obviously explode. The way to solve such issues in the classical system of logic is to show the invalidity of contradictory statements - which is what I've done in my previous post - hence the 'paradox' is shown to be invalid AND God is shown to be consistent to the very laws of Logic He's ordered about here. Isn't that better than introducing an informal system of logic(dialetheism) into a classical logic system instead of say, into a paraconsistent logic system?

So, under the classical logic system,
(A is B) is mutually exclusive to (A is not B)
hence, (All things are possible) is very much exclusive to (All things are not possible). "All things" here is limited to only "logical" things when operating under a logical framework - if you want to include "illogical" things too under "all things", then present a case for an "illogical" framework (and then we need not reason logically at all to uphold our case).

That, of course, is logically valid because if all things were possible then a thing could be itself and not itself at the same time....

This depends on what logic system you follow - the above is illogical under the classical system of logic, which I adhere to - and under which the 'omnipotent paradox' is posed.

The short answer is that there is no counter-argument to the omnipotence paradox that does not take on a case of special pleading, ie: "He's God. He doesn't have to work within the boundaries of logic or physics."

The counter-argument has been provided within the boundaries of formal logic in my previous post - the paradox has been shown to be invalid and God is consistent as a reasonable(logical) God - in accordance to the logical expectations of the unbelieving skeptics. Your introduction of dialetheism into the formal logic system is what runs into unnecessary issues.

 

[Adam]

I'm not introducing dialetheism. I am saying there are contradictions in some premises that make some statements untrue.

My solution is not to say that the statements are true regardless of the contradictions. Where we diverge is that you are unwilling to recognize these contradictions to begin with because you can't solve them. Of course, a problem must first be recognized before we can rectify it.

Your counterargument simply does not work.


As far as "all things" is concerned, I can simply appeal to the law of identity and the definitive attribute of "all" which requires, whether logical or illogical, every instance. That's the essence of the definition of the word. If we exclude illogical things, then we are limiting "all" and redefining it as only "some." That is literally saying "all is NOT all" and it explodes. Logically, then, we must include illogical things within the realm of what is possible in order to even investigate the validity of the statement.

If that seems counter-intuitive to you, it is because the statement "all things are possible" is a false one and we need to change our premise so that the consequence that follows works within a logical framework. So we begin with a less absolute premise and see where it leads us: Some things are possible. Not comprehensively deep, but at least it is a true statement.

 

[ivdavid]

As far as "all things" is concerned, I can simply appeal to the law of identity and the definitive attribute of "all" which requires, whether logical or illogical, every instance.
If that seems counter-intuitive to you, it is because the statement "all things are possible" is a false one and we need to change our premise so that the consequence that follows works within a logical framework.

Could you explain why you strive to change premises in order to permit conclusions that 'work' within a logical framework - but are against changing premises that are themselves illogical and that cannot 'work' in a logical framework at all, in the first place?

 

[Adam]

That's a strawman.

Steps in the Scientific Method:

1. Ask a Question
2. Research your topic
3. State your hypothesis.
4. Test your hypothesis
5. Analyze your data.
6 Report your results.


If the hypothesis fails to answer the question asked then you must come up with a new hypothesis.

We do so in order to arrive at truth.

Why else?


Now, in regard to changing premises? I'm fine with adjusting premises as long as that does not violate the identity of the subject under investigation. If you want to adjust the definition of "all" to a meaning of "only some" in order to work within a logical framework, that itself is a paradox and illogical. Self defeating. If premise is that "all" only is inclusive of "some," then it must be discarded as false.

So, yes, premises should be changed if they violate the law of identity from the outstart.

 

[Adam]

Bottom line: If you want a logical conclusion, you have to work within a logical framework which cannot be done if your premises allow for impossible things, such as for a thing to both be itself and not be itself in the same way at the same time, which is why the attribute of omnipotence is self defeating.

 

[ivdavid]

That's a strawman.

Why so? Could it be that you have not understood my point?

I'm fine with adjusting premises as long as that does not violate the identity of the subject under investigation.

This is my point - you subscribe to the "Law of Identity" while forsaking the "Law of Excluded Middle" when both these are to be necessarily upheld for a consistent system of logic. When you deny any violation of the law of identity, why are you then violating the law of excluded middle?

If you want to adjust the definition of "all" to a meaning of "only some" in order to work within a logical framework, that itself is a paradox and illogical.

I do not want to adjust any definitions at all. I have no issues with "all" referring to every member covered in the universe of discourse.

When I make an assertion that : "All things are possible" - I am using the law of identity to apply "ALL" to every single 'thing' in the universe of discourse - which means Every single 'thing' is possible - which further means(by the law of excluded middle) that No single 'thing' is impossible. So, when I've made the assertion initially that "all things are possible", then there isn't any "thing" in the universe that is impossible - for you to then include that under the subset of "all" - which is what you did when you showed the erroneous explosion in " 'all things not possible' is possible".

So, yes, premises should be changed if they violate the law of identity from the outstart.

What about denying premises that violate the law of excluded middle from the outstart - was my question. You're violating the law of excluded middle while asserting incorrectly that I'd violated the law of identity - which as seen above, I haven't.

 

[Arch Angle]

I was online the other day, and happened to find a website that said something to the extent of this--

Omnipotent paradox, in short; What if God is to create a rock that is so heavy, that not even he can move it? If he does that, then he is no longer omnipotent, be cause he cannot move the rock. If he does move the rock, then he is no longer omnipotent, because he cannot create a rock that is too heavy for him to move.

I thought about it for a while, and didn't see any way around it. I knew there must be a solution, but I could not find it. Any y'all got opinions, comments, etc.

god is not illogical.
producing a rock that you cannot move is illogical.

or
Put a rock in a place where you know that you will neverhave to move it again. A pebble will do.
This paradox is mind games. So answer it using mind games.

 

[cupid dave]

god is not illogical.
producing a rock that you cannot move is illogical.

or
Put a rock in a place where you know that you will neverhave to move it again. A pebble will do.
This paradox is mind games. So answer it using mind games.

This is a good start.

The concept of God can not be illogical because man images God, and Logic is a fundamental quality of man's ability to think about anything.

As I state previously, this paradox informs us that something very fundamental in our assumptions are wrong, or we would not come to this road blaock that defies Logic and reason.
That is what a paradox signals.

I say that our claim that God is Omnipotent has no supporting evidence when understood to mean God will and does violate his own Natural Laws.
He doesn't lift stones at all, forces do, and those forces must abide by the rule that F = mg.


Hence God doesn't "make rocks" that a force can not lift if that force is sufficient to so do.
And God makes no rocks that violate this Law.

 

[Adam]

Why so? Could it be that you have not understood my point?

You are misrepresenting my argument. If a point is misunderstood, it is not my misunderstanding.

This is my point - you subscribe to the "Law of Identity" while forsaking the "Law of Excluded Middle" when both these are to be necessarily upheld for a consistent system of logic. When you deny any violation of the law of identity, why are you then violating the law of excluded middle?

I am not violating the law of excluded middle. That is where your misunderstanding is. My point is is hinged on the law of excluded middle.

We have either ALL is ALL or ALL is NOT ALL. Not both.

I do not want to adjust any definitions at all. I have no issues with "all" referring to every member covered in the universe of discourse.

When I make an assertion that : "All things are possible" - I am using the law of identity to apply "ALL" to every single 'thing' in the universe of discourse - which means Every single 'thing' is possible - which further means(by the law of excluded middle) that No single 'thing' is impossible. So, when I've made the assertion initially that "all things are possible", then there isn't any "thing" in the universe that is impossible - for you to then include that under the subset of "all" - which is what you did when you showed the erroneous explosion in " 'all things not possible' is possible".

What you want to do is limit the definition of "All" to mean "only some" in which case you are claiming that "All is NOT All." Then what we have is only an explosion by contradiction in which anything can follow, which semantically (and ironically) proves that "all things ARE possible" including true contradictions. In effect you are introducing dialetheism here.

At the same time, by assigning "all" the definition of "only some" you rewrite the statement so it reflects a true meaning: "Only some things are possible," but by doing so, you just create yet another contradiction within the framework of the assumption that all things are possible.

What about denying premises that violate the law of excluded middle from the outstart - was my question. You're violating the law of excluded middle while asserting incorrectly that I'd violated the law of identity - which as seen above, I haven't.

When you limit "all" to mean "only some" you have violated the law of identity.

 

[ivdavid]

I am using the law of identity to apply "ALL" to every single 'thing'...

What you want to do is limit the definition of "All" to mean "only some"....

Isn't this the misrepresentation? Point out where in my argument of my previous post(quoted again below), I have limited the scope of 'ALL', else respond to the argument please.

When I make an assertion that : "All things are possible" - I am using the law of identity to apply "ALL" to every single 'thing' in the universe of discourse - which means Every single 'thing' is possible - which further means(by the law of excluded middle) that No single 'thing' is impossible. So, when I've made the assertion initially that "all things are possible", then there isn't any "thing" in the universe that is impossible - for you to then include that under the subset of "all" - which is what you did when you showed the erroneous explosion in " 'all things not possible' is possible".

 

[Adam]

Sure.

"All things" here is limited to only "logical" things when operating under a logical framework

This is the point where you redefined "All" to mean "only some" by claiming "all" to have an attribute of exclusivity, which is inherently illogical in itself because it breaks the law of non-contradiction.


This is where I perceive your position to break down completely.

 

[ivdavid]

This is where I perceive your position to break down completely.

I make a point that 'ALL' refers to only logical things[post#48] - not by either of us limiting it to such a domain, but by its very definition of scope under the logical framework. You disagree[post#49], citing the violation of the law of identity.

I then show you how this could be so AND how the law of identity is simultaneously preserved in my argument of post#53, quoted again specifically in post#57, quoted again below. Now I'm expecting you to proceed with the discussion from this latest elaboration of my preceding points - and yet you choose to refer to the initial assertion alone while ignoring the later explanation of it. How is that a progression in discussion?

If you can show me how the law of identity is violated in my explanation(quoted again below), then we could proceed along those lines. On the other hand, if you agree that the law of identity has not been violated, then that'd prove how my initial assertion was true. Your response to the argument quoted below is what is required to proceed.

When I make an assertion that : "All things are possible" - I am using the law of identity to apply "ALL" to every single 'thing' in the universe of discourse - which means Every single 'thing' is possible - which further means(by the law of excluded middle) that No single 'thing' is impossible. So, when I've made the assertion initially that "all things are possible", then there isn't any "thing" in the universe that is impossible - for you to then include that under the subset of "all" - which is what you did when you showed the erroneous explosion in " 'all things not possible' is possible".

 

[felix]

I was online the other day, and happened to find a website that said something to the extent of this--

Omnipotent paradox, in short; What if God is to create a rock that is so heavy, that not even he can move it? If he does that, then he is no longer omnipotent, be cause he cannot move the rock. If he does move the rock, then he is no longer omnipotent, because he cannot create a rock that is too heavy for him to move.

I thought about it for a while, and didn't see any way around it. I knew there must be a solution, but I could not find it. Any y'all got opinions, comments, etc.

The solution to omnipotent paradox is Christ Himself.

What if God is to create death and cursed man to it, that not even He cannot enter it? If he does that, then God is dead. If he does not die, then His is no longer omnipotent because, He cannot do something when He created.

But the God of the Bible is not the Human "omnipotent" version but He exists in three separate persons and yet one God.

To beat the omnipotent paradox, God Himself became a man, Jesus Christ and entered death so that trough His resurrection, we not only break the curse of death by God but live again through Him. When God became a man, it doesn't mean He simply vanished from being God and became a baby. It simply means, He exists in three persons, yet one God.