Can omnipotent beings exist? [duplicate]

Question

Through an omnipotent being, all things are possible. Can such beings exist? For example, can the Flying Spaghetti Monster be omnipotent?

Prior discussion:

• This question is supposedly relevant, but is limited to discussion about Jehovah, and the accepted answer is a rhetorical excuse with no logical content.

Answer 1

To make the question simpler, consider it in this way- is it possible for a being to have impossible attributes? By definition, clearly not, so an omnipotent being, in the sense in which you use the word omnipotent, cannot exist.

Of course, there are countless ways in which people can and do fudge the meaning of omnipotence, so the answer depends upon which interpretation of omnipotent you have in mind. If you restrict omnipotent to mean capable of doing anything that is logically possible, then omnipotent beings can, again by definition, exist.

Answer 2

If the concept of omnipotence is defined in such a way in that it leads to logical contradictions, then no, they cannot.

If it is not defined in such a way, then the notion of “can exist” makes no sense. It would be like asking if humans “can” exist. They either exist or they do not. And the only way to demonstrate that they do is by providing evidence. And as of now, there seems to be arguably none.

Answer 3

Here's my attempt at an answer:

Through an omnipotent being, all things are possible. Can such beings exist?

It seems as if what you are trying to ask is: "If something is omnipotent, then all things can possibly exist, is this possible"? This depends on whether contradictions can be referred to as "things", as some would argue that contradictions refer to "no-thing". A simple illustration of this would be the following:

If all things can possibly exist, all statements of the form "x can exist" are true, in which x is a thing.

1. [A horse with wings] can exist
2. [A square circle] can exist

In (1) the subject of the sentence is [a horse with wings], but what is that? In order for this sentence to have meaning, its subject must be referring to something, be it a concept, an actual physical object, or some other entity. In case (1), I am essentially saying that the concept of a horse with wings can be embodied in material reality, hence the concept of a horse being the referent in this situation.

Now, in the case of (2), the subject of this sentence cannot be said to be referring to anything. The term [A square circle] in the sentence cannot be referring to an actual physical object, as such an object does not actually exist (just like all contradictions), nor can it be referring to the concept of [A square circle] under the ordinary understanding of "concept", as a concept is something that is conceived or imagined within one's mind, yet [A square circle] cannot be imagined or conceived within one's mind (just like all contradictions).

Essentially, what I am pointing out is that contradictions are vacuous subjects (subjects with no referents), and vacuous subjects cannot be classified as "things", as only something with a referent can be classified as a "thing"; a thing is its referent.

Now, "contradiction" is synonymous with logical impossibility (or just impossibility, for the sake of brevity), meaning that if something is impossible, then it is ultimately contradictory and vice versa. So, assuming the traditional classification of impossibility, possibility, and necessity (which can be looked at as a sub-category of possibility), we can state that by removing logically impossible "things" from the scope of things, the term 'thing' would only be referring to possible things (recall that if a thing is necessary, then it is possible).

Therefore, if we are to look at your question a second time through this lens, we can rephrase your question as:

"Through an omnipotent being, all possibilities (or possible things) are possible. Can such beings exist?"

In which the answer to your question would be yes (assuming that that is the only thing precluding the possibility of an omnipotent being existing).

• Let me know if you notice any glaring inaccuracies or mistakes, Thanks

Answer 4

Through an omnipotent being, all things are possible.

First of all we need to know what is meant by "thing". If it refers to, let's say physical objects, then clearly yes. The being can change the laws of nature and create absolutely any thing.

If "thing" includes actions then we can examine whether an omnipotent being can prevent itself from being omnipotent. Clearly that is possible if we allow that omnipotence does not have to last for ever. The being could use its power to deprive itself of power and then remain powerless ever after.

Could an omnipotent being make itself never have existed? Here we have to consider what we mean by "never". We must also ask what time is. Could a being send itself back in time to before it came into existence and thus prevent itself from existing? The answer seems to be no, because in order to get back in time to before its existence, it would have to exist before that time. This contradicts our concept of never.

What if time has always existed. When did the being come into existence? Was it (1) always there or did it (2) appear at some point?

If the being has always existed, it would have to destroy time in order to destroy itself - is that possible? If the being popped into existence at some moment, could it immediately make itself powerless - maybe so, but for an instant it would have been all-powerful.

My answer is that we, as non-omniscient beings, can never develop enough understanding to decide the question. Only when and if we became omniscient ourselves could we resolve the matter.

Conclusion

The question is unanswerable by mere humans.

Answer 5

No. Consider this high-level argument:

1. Things are extensionally defined by their logical properties.
2. Some things cannot co-exist; that is, there are logical descriptions of two objects such that the conjunction of the descriptions is a contradiction.
3. Any omnipotent being would be able to create things which cannot co-exist.
4. Therefore, such beings do not exist; that is, if they existed, then they would be able to instantiate logical contradictions.

This is sometimes known as the puff of logic. For concreteness, we shall adapt the paradox of the stone:

1. Following Pratt 1999, consider a square grid. There are rows and columns. Each row and column intersect at a cell, and each cell holds a Boolean value.
2. Note the following lemma from Pratt et al. If a row's cells all hold true, then no column's cells hold all false. Note also that this lemma has three siblings; we may switch "true" and "false," and also "row" and "column."
3. Construct a stone-throwing tournament. The tournament will accept contestants and rocks. The judges will use a square grid to keep score. Each contestant will be allotted a column, and each rock will be allotted a row. The judge marks a cell true or false based on their opinion of whether that cell's contestant was able to throw that cell's rock.
4. By (2), there is no contest which simultaneously registers a contestant who throws every entered rock, and also a rock which is not thrown by any contestant.
5. Any omnipotent being would be able to register an unthrowable rock and a contestant who can throw any rock.
6. Therefore, such beings do not exist.

Note that the tournaments in (3) are physically realizable, constructible, etc.