Omnipotence, a paradox and illogical.

I was just thinking this through.

1. Biblegod is "omnipotent." Omnipotent means "having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful."
2. Biblegod is "all-powerful." All-powerful means "having or exercising exclusive and unlimited authority; omnipotent."
3. Can Biblegod create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it? (alt., "Can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even He cannot eat it?")
4. If YES, then Biblegod is not omnipotent because he cannot lift the rock. This means that there is an upper limit on his might.
5. If NO, then Biblegod is not omnipotent because he cannot create whatever he wants; there is therefore an upper limit on his ability to create.
6. If Biblegod was truly omnipotent, there would be no upper limit on his might or creative powers.
7. The answer to the question in Point 3 can either be yes or no. Answering "maybe" or a similar term does not provide an answer any more than answering "maybe" provides an answer for the question "Did you shoot the President?"
8. No matter what the answer is, the outcome is that Biblegod cannot be omnipotent.
9. Furthermore, nothing can be omnipotent, because if it were omnipotent, then it would be subject to this paradox and therefore would not be omnipotent.
10. Therefore, my conclusion leads me to believe that it is logically impossible for anything to be omnipotent.

If there are any flaws in any of the arguments in my argument chain, please point them out and I will address them and try to fix my arguments.

Tags: Omnipotence

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Zack @ Think Atheist on August 22, 2008 at 4:18am

Now I think the universal theory is that space is infinite, but what if matter has a finite limit? I mean what if an object of mass can only reach a certain size without collapsing in on itself and causing the end of the universe (pre big bang). What if this 'omnipotent' being just has the power to reach this limit. This would mean that this beings rock is just large enough to keep from destroying all life. Now in relative terms, this might mean an omnipotent being to the people of earth. I know the definition specifically states 'unlimited' power, but I am not sure if the very old intent necessarily implies that (please correct me if im wrong).

That being said, because we have dreamt up this fantastical being that can create giant rocks and nuke burritos, why does that classify him in the slightest as someone who watches over and judges us. I think the more logical answer is that this being could care less about us. That is, if he exists (which I whole heartedly believe he doesn't).

Good post, just some rambling thoughts from me at 1:20am :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Ninja on October 20, 2008 at 1:30pm

It's a good point, but I just gotta say, conventional logic can sometimes fail to common sense. For example the Zeno paradox "That which is in locomotion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal." So nothing ever reaches its destination, but we know that isn't true.

▶ Reply

RSS

Welcome to
Think Atheist

Get Started Now
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

What's new today

1	France has strict gun laws. Why didn’t that save Charlie Hebdo victims?
2	Remember our discussion about the baker who turned down gay business?
3	You think there's a multiverse?
4	Has ISIS finally done something that that might start WW3?
5	Sunday School January 25th 2015
6	Mini post: That weird question, "How are you doing?"
7	Perfect Irony
8	Fruit of the Womb (Loss Edition)
9	Who didn't see this coming? :(
10	Planets