By definition, it assumes that a Deity can do or be, both logical and illogical or possible and impossible things. Those unresolved paradox's are clues to the probability of that description or idea, and can be reasonably inferred as such. Good points!! — 3017amen
Descartes' idea that being omnipotent involves being able to do anything at all.
Imagine a person who can do anything logically possible. Well, that person has a lot of power, to be sure. But they do not have as much as one who can also do the logically impossible. So I think true omnipotence involves the latter. — Bartricks
But God cannot lie, because it goes against his nature. Therefore, that presents a contradiction. A similar example would be the logical possibility of making a mistake – God can’t do this either. — philorelkook
Question: Can an omnipotent being create a stone which he cannot lift?
Answer: SORRY, CANNOT COMPUTE. THE PREMISE DOES NOT CONFORM TO VALID LOGICAL PARAMETERS. — BrianW
There is technically not anything logically impossible about an omnipotent being creating something that it then cannot move. That's just equivalent to resigning a small piece of its omnipotence. Before the creation of the thing, it's omnipotent. Then it creates a limit to its omnipotence, which is within its power to do. After that it's not omnipotent anymore. But while it was omnipotent, it had the power to create limits to its own omnipotence, without contradiction. — Pfhorrest
No, exactly what omnipotence involves is the issue under discussion. I am saying that it involves being able to do anything, not just the possible. — Bartricks
If you don’t know how one does anything — Possibility
If he could do anything at all - than how hasn't he done anything at all? — Swan
My point was that if you had a clear understanding of how X does things, — Possibility
of what is involved in the doing, then you could determine whether or not such a thing was done or could be done, regardless of whether you were aware that it has been done. — Possibility
But we don’t have any idea how X would do anything at all, let alone do things that we are unaware of. — Possibility
All we can do is assume [...] — Possibility
FWIW, I don’t think X exists either, but I do think the potential to do anything at all exists. It’s just not a being. — Possibility
No, exactly what omnipotence involves is the issue under discussion. I am saying that it involves being able to do anything, not just the possible. — Bartricks
Possible: anything we can imagine happening
Potential: anything that can happen
Probable: anything that is likely to happen
Most discussions like this fail to make the distinction between potentiality and possibility. To actually do something, one needs to be aware (although not necessarily conscious of that awareness) that the something can be done.
One doesn’t have to do anything to be considered omnipotent - it only requires the potential. — Possibility
Possible: anything we can imagine happening — Possibility
So "potentiality" denotes any necessary existing attributes present & unique to X (omnipotent being), correct? — Swan
I disagree. Any thing 'possible' is not just 'possible' because we imagined them to be so. Any thing 'possible' is 'all things possible.' — Swan
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.