Timeline for Can omnipotent beings exist? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 30, 2023 at 23:00 | vote | accept | Corbin | ||
| Jun 26, 2023 at 13:57 | comment | added | Kristian Berry | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Jun 26, 2023 at 13:56 | comment | added | Corbin | @KristianBerry: The overall goal is to take common schoolyard statements like "there is a biggest number" or "I can do anything" and explain why they are false. This is only possible through logic. Similarly, physics relies on mathematical logic for its modelling and its metaphysics; swampland research is all about rejecting physical theories because they are inconsistent with evidence or prior axioms. | |
| Jun 26, 2023 at 13:53 | comment | added | Kristian Berry | @Corbin I'm a logical pluralist/inclusivist, and I try to look at logic as a way to order the act of inference. Per model theory, I'm not sure that mere logic has much, if any, nontrivial metaphysical significance (except modal and deontic logic, maybe, though). But then we have had several people posting here about contradictions in various omni-properties, and I appreciate that unrestricted quantification in general is fraught with peril, but otherwise I don't know what the point of these posts is, because it is very easy to redefine terms to go from incoherence to coherence. | |
| Jun 26, 2023 at 13:38 | comment | added | Corbin | @KristianBerry: What do you think formal syntactic logic is? I'm starting to worry about the denizens of thie site; maybe this warrants a meta post after all. | |
| Jun 26, 2023 at 4:53 | comment | added | Kristian Berry | @Corbin what does it mean to say that a word "should" be defined a certain way? One would think that words should be defined coherently, so that we "should" define "omnipotence" in some way that does not lead to incoherence. Beyond that, this all seems little more than word games. | |
| Jun 26, 2023 at 3:56 | history | left closed in review |
Ludwig V Mark Andrews curiousdannii |
Original close reason(s) were not resolved | |
| Jun 25, 2023 at 23:07 | comment | added | Corbin | @KristianBerry: I construct an explicit example of a physical system which cannot simultaneously hold two properties, even though each property should be within the ambit of an omnipotent being. | |
| Jun 25, 2023 at 19:22 | comment | added | Kristian Berry | People can fabricate whatever definitions of "omnipotent" they please, and fabricate in turn whatever arguments they feel against these definitions. However, none of this has any deeper significance, because for the theist, it is not a question of "all power" but "power over all." God can't create an irresistible force and an immovable object in the same world; God can't move Its hands (if It has no hands), etc. But so what? God can Itself be irresistible and immovable, and push other people's hands about at will. | |
| Jun 25, 2023 at 16:25 | comment | added | Ludwig V | I see you have been busy. The paradox of the stone is ancient, but not the other two versions. That's clearer. | |
| Jun 25, 2023 at 16:18 | comment | added | Ludwig V | OK. Fair enough. But it might have been fairer if you had told us where it came from. By the way, where did it come from? I'ld like to look it up. | |
| Jun 25, 2023 at 15:32 | history | edited | Corbin |
Re-add the logic tag.
|
|
| S Jun 25, 2023 at 15:24 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jun 26, 2023 at 3:56 | |||||
| S Jun 25, 2023 at 15:24 | history | edited | Corbin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Link to the mod-recommended question and explain why it is not the same as this one.
Added to review
|
| Jun 25, 2023 at 15:18 | comment | added | Corbin | @LudwigV: It's not my argument; it is ancient, attributed to pre-Socratic philosophers. | |
| Jun 25, 2023 at 4:49 | history | closed |
David Gudeman Conifold Ludwig V curiousdannii tkruse |
Duplicate of Is the "omniscient-omnipotent-omnipresent" definition of God consistent? | |
| Jun 24, 2023 at 23:34 | answer | added | user62907 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 24, 2023 at 23:22 | answer | added | chasly - supports Monica | timeline score: -2 | |
| Jun 24, 2023 at 21:46 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Jun 24, 2023 at 19:18 | answer | added | Max Maxman | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 24, 2023 at 17:27 | comment | added | Ludwig V | I'm also wondering why you answered your own question at pretty much the same time as you asked it. Is it because what you actually wanted was some critical response to your argument? (No criticism, just curious.) | |
| Jun 24, 2023 at 17:26 | comment | added | Ludwig V | Wouldn't an omnipotent Flying Spaghetti Monster be a divine Flying Spaghetti Monster? I'm assuming omnipotence includes the power to avoid death. It doesn't really matter. I suppose focusing on omnipotence alone excludes arguments based on the other attributes of the Christian God - or any other, come to that. | |
| Jun 24, 2023 at 15:32 | answer | added | Marco Ocram | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 24, 2023 at 14:24 | history | edited | Mauro ALLEGRANZA |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 24, 2023 at 14:11 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 25, 2023 at 4:58 | |||||
| Jun 24, 2023 at 14:06 | comment | added | Corbin | @LudwigV: You may consider this question to be about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. | |
| Jun 24, 2023 at 13:58 | comment | added | Ludwig V | Isn't this equivalent to the old question whether God can do what is logically impossible? In any case, the answer to your question depends on whether God can change, or at least violate, the rules (laws) of logic. Given normal understanding of logic, the answer is clearly, No. But then, why would an omnipotent being want to do that? | |
| S Jun 24, 2023 at 13:44 | answer | added | Corbin | timeline score: -3 | |
| S Jun 24, 2023 at 13:44 | history | asked | Corbin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |