Do logical limits point to the limits of what is possible or to limits of our thinking? — Fooloso4
You're just expressing beliefs about the content of logic. It's beside the point. I am asking whether being omnipotent involves having control over the content of logic. You can't provide any insight into the answer by just telling me more and more about the content of logic. — Bartricks
And I answered the question and gave my reasons for the answer. Those reasons justify that answer. You seem to be thinking they don't - why? — Bartricks
A programmer can create a level he cannot complete, and then a cheat that enables him to complete it. In relation to the game-world, the programmer is omnipotent. Any constraints he may have are 'otherworldly'. — unenlightened
We're talking at different levels. my question is about whether or not an omnipotent agent would have control over logic. What you're doing is talking about the content of logic. What you're talking about it is irrelevant. Whatever you say about the content of logic, my point is that an omnipotent being isn't bound by it.
If you say no question can be given a yes/no answer, the omnipotent being can give you a definitive answer to any question you ask. And so on. — Bartricks
I refer you to my earlier answer. You're not addressing the question, or realizing that you're not addressing the question. — Bartricks
Wouldn’t any constraints on this being then be irrelevant to what is created? — Possibility
Logic is a formal language. — alcontali
No, it is to do with the concept of power. — Bartricks
my question is about whether or not an omnipotent agent would have control over logic. — Bartricks
That is one concept of logic, but certainly not the only one. — Fooloso4
It is a formal language along with transformation/rewrite/inference rules. — alcontali
I will not attempt to answer these questions, for any answer is based on certain assumptions that are not held in common by those who offer a contrary view. — Fooloso4
It is the language of logic itself that causes the issue. — alcontali
A 2 dimensional person can be trapped inside a closed square but, according to how I understand it, a 3 dimensional being can just jump over the sides of the square. In other words impossibility is relative. — TheMadFool
I regard the paradox as a pseudo-problem since an omnipotent being is a hypothetical, but I do not think the problem of logical contradiction here is a language problem. — Fooloso4
I do, however, think the problem is compounded when one attempts to solve it on the basis of an abstract symbolic system. — Fooloso4
The Creator of the real, physical world cannot be existentially contained in it. — alcontali
So, it is not a question of about the real, physical world. — alcontali
Can human knowledge even reach outside the universe in order to answer questions about what we would observe there? — alcontali
Yes, but the way in which it involves logic is that it tells us something about what the nature of logic would need to be for there to be an omnipotent being. — Bartricks
The point, though, is that an omnipotent being would have to be the author of logic. — Bartricks
Well, either those concepts are the ones that have something answering to them -in which case we can conclude that no omnipotent being exists - or we have good evidence that an omnipotent being exists, in which case we can conclude that the alternative concepts do not have anything answering to them. — Bartricks
So we can learn something about the nature of logic from this kind of inquiry. — Bartricks
It might be demonstrable that logic requires a god. — Bartricks
The god it requires would be omnipotent because the god in question would have control over both its existence and content. — Bartricks
I have answered the question. If you insist that the question is unanswerable, demonstrate that by showing my answer to be false. — Bartricks
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.