• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Omnipotence Paradox Debunked

Omega Man said:
On a related note, am wondering why God requires a penis, since I see that it is typically referred to in gender-specific terms.


OM
Click to expand...

The Bible was written by men, so god gets a penis. I wonder why God didn't aldo invent Viagra unless he didn't know then many men have a problem...............
 
On a related note, God (whatever it is), is it omnipotent, OR omniscient? Though they are both conceptualizations, theoretically it is impossible to possess both powers (they directly undermine/negate each other).

OM
 
TypicalRussian said:
again, you did not answer my question:roll:

You leave room for theism meaning that the ontological argument trumps your logic and proves God is real
Click to expand...

"The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century C.E. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., God—exists."


just because you can imagine a being that is as great as can be dosent mean it exists

anything that exists can be greater then an imaginary greatest being

you do more then a fake god ever could no mater what traits any one wants to imagine it has


this all seems rather simple and obvious
 
blarg said:
"The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century C.E. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., God—exists."


just because you can imagine a being that is as great as can be dosent mean it exists

anything that exists can be greater then an imaginary greatest being

you do more then a fake god ever could no mater what traits any one wants to imagine it has


this all seems rather simple and obvious
Click to expand...

really, a 12th century version of it

This is better

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
 
blarg said:
your going to have to explain how you get to that conclusion
Click to expand...

The ontological argument declares that if you leave room for god it has to exist
 
ashurbanipal said:
You cannot agree with a question--there's nothing there with which to agree. You may, at best, agree a question should be asked. But if you agree the question in this case should be asked, you should answer it.
Click to expand...

I did and rebuttalled all objections
 
Lisa said:
How did God create the universe if he isn't absolutely omnipotent?
Click to expand...

he is omnipotent, how is he not?

I think you are getting the definition wrong
 
TypicalRussian said:
I did and rebuttalled all objections
Click to expand...

Again, this makes no sense. It's not grammatical English, and you're even using a word that you apparently made up ("rebuttalled"). It's not merely that people here are unconvinced by your arguments, many of us don't even understand what you're trying to say.

You did what? What does "rebuttalled" mean?
 
TypicalRussian said:
The paradox in question:

“Can an Omnipotent Being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?”

But that is easily solvable

First, there are only two options here, he can make a stone heavy or not- he can not do both BECAUSE IT IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, BEING OMNIPOTENT IS BEING ALL-POWERFUL IN REGARDS TO BEING POSSIBLE AND LOGICALLY COHERENT

also

“Omnipotence Paradox” (Debunked) | Random Thoughts. Christian Walk.



so yes, an Omnipotent being is easily possible to exist, and if it can exist-then it HAS TO EXIST, explained by the ontological argument
Click to expand...

If you give me some bags of concrete and a few hours I can make a stone that I can't lift.
 
TypicalRussian said:
really, a 12th century version of it

This is better

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Click to expand...


1 seems ok though ther may be limits on what that maximum is that fall short of any gods

2 seems to rely on the many worlds multiverse or includes the imagination

3 maybe false if the maximum possible dosnet include omnipresence across the entire multiverse
 
TypicalRussian said:
really, a 12th century version of it

This is better

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Click to expand...

Willie Nelson?
 
blarg said:
1 seems ok though ther may be limits on what that maximum is that fall short of any gods

2 seems to rely on the many worlds multiverse or includes the imagination

3 maybe false if the maximum possible dosnet include omnipresence across the entire multiverse
Click to expand...

As for 1, it is possible that I share my house with invisible four-dimensional pixies but highly unlikely.
 
TypicalRussian said:
The paradox in question:

“Can an Omnipotent Being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?”

But that is easily solvable

First, there are only two options here, he can make a stone heavy or not- he can not do both BECAUSE IT IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, BEING OMNIPOTENT IS BEING ALL-POWERFUL IN REGARDS TO BEING POSSIBLE AND LOGICALLY COHERENT

also

“Omnipotence Paradox” (Debunked) | Random Thoughts. Christian Walk.



so yes, an Omnipotent being is easily possible to exist, and if it can exist-then it HAS TO EXIST, explained by the ontological argument
Click to expand...

Try this on for size, TR... would not an all-knowing entity, being aware of the paradox of omnipotence, be wise enough not to grasp for omnipotence in the first place?
 
zyzygy said:
As for 1, it is possible that I share my house with invisible four-dimensional pixies but highly unlikely.
Click to expand...

That's actually more likely than you might think, given the nature of four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime (Not sure so much about the pixie part, though).
 
Cordelier said:
Try this on for size, TR... would not an all-knowing entity, being aware of the paradox of omnipotence, be wise enough not to grasp for omnipotence in the first place?
Click to expand...

the omnipotence paradox is false, that is why-GOD should not shoot for false premises
 
An analogy:

I see a pyramid in Egypt.

The simple fact that the pyramid exists tells my puny little mind there was an architect.

I've never met the architect. I don't know anyone who has met the architect, but many share my belief in a pyramid architect. Some say we are deluded, that there is no proof of an architect. Others allow for the possibility of an architect, but are otherwise non-committed.

Not being an Egyptologist, I'm not sure if much was ever written about the pyramid architect.

I can't prove there was a pyramid architect. I'll just have to take it on faith. Go ahead and laugh. I can take it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom