4 ms·

Ok, sure, the paradox can’t be solved. But most of the time ‘omnipotent being’ would refer to a deity of some sort, and this only rules out an absolute deity o

by DougN7 4y ago

Ok, sure, the paradox can’t be solved. But most of the time ‘omnipotent being’ would refer to a deity of some sort, and this only rules out an absolute deity of a very specific and narrow definition. I don’t think it applies to any of the deities I’ve come across in literature, religion or movies. I think the paradox itself is the problem.

drcongo 4y ago
You're changing the rules. The thread asked "What are examples of common beliefs conclusively invalidated by data?", I replied "Omnipotent beings", now you're bringing in "deities" that you specifically have come across in "literature, religion or movies". Now, given that I don't know you, and nor presumably does the person who asked the original question, how are we to know which movies, religions and literature you have been exposed to in order to ascertain whether the deities that you specifically know about would be covered by my answer? Obviously we can't. So given that, maybe it broadens out to just "deities", but of course, not all deities are supposed to be omnipotent. Which is exactly why I didn't say "deities". So in summary, I was right and you've constructed a very bizarre new argument to try to justify your original, very wrong, nitpick.
- pinusc 4y ago
  Your paradox only shows (conclusively, I might add) the logical impossibility of omnipotence _under one definition of omnipotence_. Not a very good one, nor one that is widely used by anyone who has thought about omnipotence at all. Other definitions of omnipotence (such as: being able to do all logically/metaphysically possible things) do not fail to this paradox, but beings that satisfy them would still be "omnipotent". It's interesting however to consider _what exactly_ people believe counts as "omnipotent being" when they say they believe in the existence of one (e.g. religious people). If asked, many would probably only give the definition "omnipotence is being able to do anything". But "anything" doesn't necessarily mean "anything at all". People say to their children "you can do anything if you set your mind to it!" and that "anything" is not qualified explicitly, but it also is restricted to "anything that a normal human being can reasonably achieve given enough effort". If you pressed anyone on this issue, they wouldn't update their belief, they would update the definition they give you. Perhaps with omnipotence one would have the same result, where "being able to do anything" really means "being able to do anything not self-contradictory", and pointing that out doesn't change the belief, only the stated explicit definition. The reason I think this digression is interesting is that we're in a thread about "commonly held beliefs", and here we have a belief that is arguably about the definition of a word; but there is a missing step between believing that there can be omnipotent beings and producing one definition that would satisfy that belief, especially when multiple subtly different ones could be given, and not all of them are logically inconsistent or self-contradictory. It's a problem of epistemology and philosophy of language, of course, and not really about logic or theology. Mind you, I don't think that any omnipotent being exists, not by any reasonable definition of omnipotent. I do believe one can make reasonable definitions of omnipotence that are consistent and logically possible; but there is no reason to believe that any such being exists. As one of the posters above pointed out, I don't think you're particularly interested in discussing subtleties. Perhaps pointing out inconsistencies in this topic or argument doesn't change your belief of being right, but will just change the stated definition of "being right"... So I would like to extend a gentle reminder that discussions, even on the internet, do not need to be about being right. Sometimes nitpicking adds to the discussion, but it doesn't need to prove anyone wrong. We all get everything wrong all the time, but through talking about this stuff we all get a chance to learn something, to change a little. It really sucks that as soon as we _perceive_ the tiniest accusation of being wrong, we stop being kind and make huge asses out of ourselves to vindicate the truth of our superior, and usually very inconsequential, arguments.

by DougN7 4y ago

drcongo 4y ago

You're changing the rules. The thread asked "What are examples of common beliefs conclusively invalidated by data?", I replied "Omnipotent beings", now you're bringing in "deities" that you specifically have come across in "literature, religion or movies". Now, given that I don't know you, and nor presumably does the person who asked the original question, how are we to know which movies, religions and literature you have been exposed to in order to ascertain whether the deities that you specifically know about would be covered by my answer? Obviously we can't. So given that, maybe it broadens out to just "deities", but of course, not all deities are supposed to be omnipotent. Which is exactly why I didn't say "deities". So in summary, I was right and you've constructed a very bizarre new argument to try to justify your original, very wrong, nitpick.

pinusc 4y ago
Your paradox only shows (conclusively, I might add) the logical impossibility of omnipotence _under one definition of omnipotence_. Not a very good one, nor one that is widely used by anyone who has thought about omnipotence at all. Other definitions of omnipotence (such as: being able to do all logically/metaphysically possible things) do not fail to this paradox, but beings that satisfy them would still be "omnipotent". It's interesting however to consider _what exactly_ people believe counts as "omnipotent being" when they say they believe in the existence of one (e.g. religious people). If asked, many would probably only give the definition "omnipotence is being able to do anything". But "anything" doesn't necessarily mean "anything at all". People say to their children "you can do anything if you set your mind to it!" and that "anything" is not qualified explicitly, but it also is restricted to "anything that a normal human being can reasonably achieve given enough effort". If you pressed anyone on this issue, they wouldn't update their belief, they would update the definition they give you. Perhaps with omnipotence one would have the same result, where "being able to do anything" really means "being able to do anything not self-contradictory", and pointing that out doesn't change the belief, only the stated explicit definition. The reason I think this digression is interesting is that we're in a thread about "commonly held beliefs", and here we have a belief that is arguably about the definition of a word; but there is a missing step between believing that there can be omnipotent beings and producing one definition that would satisfy that belief, especially when multiple subtly different ones could be given, and not all of them are logically inconsistent or self-contradictory. It's a problem of epistemology and philosophy of language, of course, and not really about logic or theology. Mind you, I don't think that any omnipotent being exists, not by any reasonable definition of omnipotent. I do believe one can make reasonable definitions of omnipotence that are consistent and logically possible; but there is no reason to believe that any such being exists. As one of the posters above pointed out, I don't think you're particularly interested in discussing subtleties. Perhaps pointing out inconsistencies in this topic or argument doesn't change your belief of being right, but will just change the stated definition of "being right"... So I would like to extend a gentle reminder that discussions, even on the internet, do not need to be about being right. Sometimes nitpicking adds to the discussion, but it doesn't need to prove anyone wrong. We all get everything wrong all the time, but through talking about this stuff we all get a chance to learn something, to change a little. It really sucks that as soon as we _perceive_ the tiniest accusation of being wrong, we stop being kind and make huge asses out of ourselves to vindicate the truth of our superior, and usually very inconsequential, arguments.