If God is omnipotent, and if God is subject to logic and reason:

Does God have the power to limit his own power while still remaining omnipotent?

I'm thinking the fallacy lies in that a state of omnipotence and a lack of power cannot coexist together. Yet, if God was truly omnipotent, couldn't he make them coexist? Or would that defy logic itself?

Rust, save me, guy.

[This message has been edited by Antiquarian (edited 07-09-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Antiquarian:



Or would that defy logic itself?



God defys logic itself, because it is God.

No one can understand it completely because no one can understand God except God itself.

-Val

An omnipotent being must have the power to do illogical things, since if he didn't, he wouldn't have been omnipotent to begin with.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

An omnipotent being must have the power to do illogical things, since if he didn't, he wouldn't have been omnipotent to begin with.

Amazingly well put.

-Val

I do illogical things all the time, as illustrated by many of my posts. Does that make me omnipotent? I haven't created any worlds yet, but I've destroyed a lot of people's worlds.

i'm omnipotent! 000ps sorry...i mean impotent.. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

It's the coffee, Jack.

http://www.allayurveda.com/ail_sexualimpotency.htm

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

It's the coffee, Jack.

http ://www.all ayurveda.c om/ail_sexualimpotency.htm (http: //www.alla yurveda.co m/ail_sexu alimpotenc y.htm)

nah i don't have a coffee problem... (http://tinyurl.com/8xmlp)

*snickers*

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

I do illogical things all the time, as illustrated by many of my posts. Does that make me omnipotent? I haven't created any worlds yet, but I've destroyed a lot of people's worlds.

No, you created the necessity for a category of your own...

Omnisophistic

*grin*

no, he cant. for, if he did, he would have to lower himself off of his throne of lies, and coexist with humans. likely? i think not

Woe the contradictions of omni-max powers!

*waits for someone to step in with "we can't understand why god works yet we will still try and define one as we see fit"*

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

An omnipotent being must have the power to do illogical things, since if he didn't, he wouldn't have been omnipotent to begin with.

So we're in argreement, right?

What do theists say in response to that? How does one hold his faith in light of this?

I might be confused.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that refutes Christian god (or at least that it is an argument against it), are you not?

I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying he can both be omnipotent and un-omnipotent at the same time, however illogical it may seem, given that if he can't do so, he wouldn't be omnipotent to begin with, and we're assuming that he is.

In other words, that he has the power to do things that we consider illogical.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No, you created the necessity for a category of your own...

Omnisophistic

*grin*

But I can crack your skull for no other reason than getting a boner over it. Would it be wise to try and preach your idiocy to a person like me?

God cheats.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

God cheats.



He uses 1337 H4X LOLOLOL.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that refutes Christian god (or at least that it is an argument against it), are you not?

I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying he can both be omnipotent and un-omnipotent at the same time, however illogical it may seem, given that if he can't do so, he wouldn't be omnipotent to begin with, and we're assuming that he is.

In other words, that he has the power to do things that we consider illogical.

Ah, but he can't be un-omnipotent at any time, because God is always omnipotent!

He can, because he can do illogical things.

You can't crack god, for one reason. God or the idea of who or what god is, is written so vaguely that no assumptions can be made for or against the ideal. It's called a cop out for legitimate arguement. Someone like me obviousely created religion, cause I use this tactic to get away with things all the time, and have mastered it. It's actually what made me question religion when I was five. I'll tear those ideas apart just to show you how it's done.

Omnipotent- total control is a possibility as we could be created to be a certain way and our actions could be predetermined. You tend to know what cards people are going to get if you stack the deck.

Infaluable- failure is determined by ones self. It's relative to how you look at it. Is second place a failure or success? What if you fail, but in the process you learn a very good lesson that helps you succeed in the future. If failure gets you ahead, did you fail?

"An omnipotent being must have the power to do illogical things, since if he didn't, he wouldn't have been omnipotent to begin with."

I can both argue and support this statement with the same response.

If you are omnipotent, none of your choices are illogical as you know the outcome as you are omnipotent. The only way to know if god is being logical, would to become omnipotent yourself to see the whole plan. This ofcourse is impossible, so your only spinning the hamster wheel.

Now am I supporting the notion that god is indeed omnipotent as his illogical decisions to us, are logical with the whole perspective. Or am I pointing out that the statement of what god is was created because no one has the power to know this truth to argue whether or not god is logical or not.

Religion is designed so that questions can be played off as misinterpretation to fit the situation. It's designed this way so that the religion fits your life exactly the way you want it to, as you here what you want to here. The only purpose i've ever used this for was to cover up a lie or when I just didn't have a clue. If I know something for sure, their is no misinterpretation.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No, you created the necessity for a category of your own...

Omnisophistic

*grin*

You do realize that's a compliment, right? You called him all-knowledgable. The prefix omni- every one knows means all and the suffix -sophy, from which -sophistic is derived, comes from the Greek word sophia (which itself was derived from a mythological Greek heroine by the same name, setting it up for use as a woman's name), which means knowledge. This is much like the word philosophy, where the prefix philo- comes from one of twelve the Greek word meaning to love. The prefix philo- also has a partner in the suffix -phile, which we are all commonly bombarded with with the terms pedophile and necrophile. Just thought I'd let you know you complimented your arch-nemisis.

EDIT: Grammar demons.

[This message has been edited by Gorloche (edited 07-31-2005).]

Alright, I'll try to explain my position.

First off, if you want to try to detect bias, or use it against me somehow, I AM an atheist. However, I DESPISE arguments like "Could god create a rock so heavy..." "Could jesus microwave a burrito so hot..." "Could god limit his own power..."

Explanation for that first: I hate these arguments because they are detrimental to the atheistic position. It makes it seem as though some of us are so unintelligent it is all we can come up with. Logical impossibilities.

He will refer to the Judeo-Christian God, and this is (hopefully) from a christian perspective.

In short. No, he cannot. But that doesn't mean that he is not omnipotent. You see, he can do the impossible. He can create universes, create life, create MAGIC, if he wanted. However, he can not create a circular triangle. See the difference? The impossible is different from the logically impossible.

One argument I've heard in favor of my position, indeed, identical to my position, says that questions such as these "Can god create..." are meaningless, logically incoherent, pointless, and et cetera. They can be asked, yes, but you might as well as "What flavor is thursday?" For all it matters.

Hopefully I may have helped some people, or made some thing, or just shut up some of the ignorant atheists that use this argument repeatedly.

Hmmm....

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

But I can crack your skull for no other reason than getting a boner over it. Would it be wise to try and preach your idiocy to a person like me?

Well, I have no idea what kind of person you are, so I can't make that kind of assessment.

If you looked up the word sophistic, you would get the "joke".

For just ONE day, can you try not being the heroic antagonist ?

I know you get off on being a prick, but...give it a rest.

quote:Originally posted by Gorloche:

You do realize that's a compliment, right? You called him all-knowledgable. The prefix omni- every one knows means all and the suffix -sophy, from which -sophistic is derived, comes from the Greek word sophia (which itself was derived from a mythological Greek heroine by the same name, setting it up for use as a woman's name), which means knowledge. This is much like the word philosophy, where the prefix philo- comes from one of twelve the Greek word meaning to love. The prefix philo- also has a partner in the suffix -phile, which we are all commonly bombarded with with the terms pedophile and necrophile. Just thought I'd let you know you complimented your arch-nemisis.

EDIT: Grammar demons.



Hmmm...a simple check on Dictionary.com would have helped out tremendously here:

Omni: All

Sophistic: Apparently sound but really fallacious.

I would never be so mistaken as to compliment Snoopy. There is nothing to compliment.

You people never cease in trying to find ways to make me appear stupid, do you ?

But thanks for the uber-intellectual post ! (truly)

Wow... the definition completely denies the meanings of its roots. Well, that's English for you, I suppose.