This, respectfully, is bait and switch. First you suppose an omnipotent god, then you talk about it being bound by rules and limits. If omnipotence means what it says on the tin, there’s no reason an omnipotent can’t enter into a inconstant state.
In other words if you suppose A, and A includes the union of B and C, but B and C are mutually exclusive, then by your definitions A still includes the union of B and C
Put another way, by definition the answer to “Can an omnipotent ______” is always yes.
Can an omnipotent build a wall to big for it to leap? Yes.
Can it leap it anyway? Yes.
If you ever say something can’t do something then it isn’t omnipotent.
Well, (no offense to you personally) that seems a particularly useless definition of “omnipotence” then. I don’t think choosing a self-contradictory definition of a word and then showing that using it leads to a paradox is particularly enlightening, other than as a word game.
And I wasn’t talking about God, I was talking about me I think having complete control of every facet of my virtual world is a decent definition of all-powerful. And, of course, I can perform actions that appear logically impossible to the inhabitants of my world. In fact, I get to choose exactly what they consider logical to start with…
I know it’s a paradox and what the word “omnipotent” means. I don’t understand why you think I don’t understand the concept of omnipotence. The reason that I created this thread is to see what you can say about that.
We could just read “God can do X” as “X is possible” to avoid all the theology and geology.
Then “Can God create a task which God cannot do?” would be “Is it possible to create an impossible task?”. Which seems an easier question to get a grip on. I suspect most people would want to play the alethic language-game in such a way as to say “Yes”.
Ok. The answer has been addressed here already in several ways, but there is a logical answer.
Omnipotence is the set of everything. There is nothing outside the set.
*Creating a rock outside of the set that is too heavy to lift *is part of the set. The rock created would not be, but the ability to create it is.
Upon creating a rock outside of the set that is too heavy to lift, there is something outside of the set. God is no longer omnipotent. But the only thing missing from the set is the rock.
Including a rock that is outside of the set as part of the set is also part of the set. God can do that and then himself lift the rock, and would be omnipotent again.
Destroying a rock that is outside of the set is part of the set. God can destroy the rock, so nothing is outside of the set, and God will become omnipotent again.
Permanently removing the ability to include a rock that is outside of the set as part of the set is also part of the set. God can do that, but then can no longer be omnipotent.
So, yes, God can create a rock which is too heavy for himself to lift. But he has to lose omnipotence momentarily, but can restore it using 4 and 5 above. Unless you are trying to catch a president in a perjury trap, in which case the meaning of ‘is’ is meant as ‘ever’, and then using 6, God would permanently lose omnipotence.
Of course it’s probably easier for God to redefine logic as a way to do this, but he doesn’t have to in order to provide a logical answer to the question.
With omnipotence defined as, “able to do any x, where x is possible” (or some variant thereof)? I think the interesting issue is getting a good definition of omnipotence, and then evaluating what that means for theology. By “good” I just mean, one that can be instantiated by some being.
But the (fact that there is an) omnipotent being is left out of the second sentence. Left in, and you might have a more complicated question.
For example, define omnipotence as “bring about any possible world”, and ask the question “is it possible for there to be something that can bring about any possible world?” It at least seems plausible that it is not possible (in particular, it cannot bring about the world where it never existed). And so nothing can be omnipotent. You might want to fault my definition of omnipotence, but as above, I think the issue is finding a definition that can be instantiated, and so leaving it out of the discussion seems a mistake to me.
If part of the definition of God is that he is omnipotent, then he is not God as he attempts to lift the rock-he only reacquires Godhood after the accomplishment is complete.
Please don’t reply to my posts as though you are responding to something I said when you clearly are not.
I was talking about a virtual world I had created where I am the “God”. In that world it is obviously possible for me to execute just about any “miracle” that can be coherently described. Therefore you are flat out wrong to describe my “miracles” as illogical when it’s a matter of fact that they can be performed.
In this case, logic is in the eye of the creator, so I go along with your concept. I think the purpose of these questions is to propose a logical paradox in the concept of omnipotence, or simply deny the existence of God or omnipotence. Which is kind of silly because the question assumes those things as givens in the first place.
“If wishes were horses then beggars could ride”
Wishes aren’t horses, but the statement is logically consistent based on the assumption.
Logic puzzles of this type get complicated when the subject of the puzzle is included in the puzzle.
Can God “forget” something?
Can God fail? Can God fumble? Can God err?
If he can, he’s fallible; if he can’t, he’s not omnipotent.
It’s logically pointless, although it does serve as a nice (if silly) response to the old “proof” of God’s existence by appeal to his perfection. Now that we’ve shown that this perfection is not logically imperative, the proof is refuted.
None of this is an answer, in any way, to the question of a God that is very, very powerful. If God can create a rock as big as, say, the Milky Way Galaxy, well, that’s pretty impressive. I’d have to call it “God-like,” just before I fall into the black hole.
What does “possible world” mean, and what does it mean to bring one about? [What particular alethic language-game do you want to play?]
Is there a possible world where Abraham Lincoln wasn’t assassinated in 1865? Well, in some sense, it’s not logically impossible to have a story with a character named Abraham Lincoln who shoots John Wilkes Booth first and later dies peacefully in his sleep in the year 1873. On the other hand, it’s not possible, given the contingent fact of our world that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865, for it to ever not be the case that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865. In that sense, no one could now bring about a possible world where Abraham Lincoln wasn’t assassinated in 1865; it’s logically impossible to do so.
I’d like to know what this kind of language is supposed to mean before attempting to give a response to your quoted question.
Just to be clear, all I’m doing is setting up some reasonable way to get a definition of omnipotence into trouble. I am not wedded to such a definition, nor to any cashing out of “possible world”, nor “bring about”. I presume, from what you state below, that you don’t want a description of what possible worlds literally are, but of which worlds count as possible.
I mean all metaphysically possible worlds. By “bring about”, I’ll say I mean “make it true that such and so a possible world is the actual world.” If you are still worried about this terminology, substitute in “consistent state of affairs” for “possible world”, and whatever agentival device you like for “bring about”.
As above, to be clear, the question is just supposed to be an example; take some reasonable definition, include omnipotence in the question, and then we, at least plausibly, get a problem.
This question dates to the 12th century, according to Wikipedia; at any rate, it far predates Carlin. Carlin just happens to have been referencing an existing piece of culture.
I want anything that helps me know what “possible” means.
I don’t know what “metaphysically possible worlds” are. I don’t know what “metaphysically possible” amounts to.
Is it possible for Abraham Lincoln to have never been assassinated in 1865? I can think of different ways for the word “possible” to be used, under which this question receives different answers. I’d like to know what way the word is being used here.
Fair enough, but I’m trying to address that example to give an example myself of how I would address such questions in general.
Insofar as people puzzle over it, we may get a problem, sure. But I think they are typically pseudo-problems arising from misunderstanding/misinterpreting our own use of language.
But even ignoring that, I also was confused by this:
I didn’t see why the presence of an omnipotent being should complicate things; the second sentence is precisely what results from the first sentence by using the omnipotence assumption to translate “God can…” into “It is possible to…”. You gave an example of potential complication of the form “Well, how about the question of whether God could bring it about such that God never existed?”. That is, the complication of whether God could change the truths of statements about the past. In order to address this proposed complication, I needed to figure out what “possibility” meant in that context, and so I asked about Abraham Lincoln’s assassination to clarify what “possibility” is to mean so far as changing the truth of statements about the past goes.
I think having complete control of every facet of my virtual world is a decent definition of all-powerful. And, of course, I can perform actions that appear logically impossible to the inhabitants of my world. In fact, I get to choose exactly what they consider logical to start with…