I just came across this on Wikipedia, and I am still reeling in astonishment. It's called the 'Omnipotence Paradox.' Just thought I'd throw it on here to give you guys some quick and easy ammo against theists. I'll give you the scientific idea, then the example (aka 'Paradox of the Stone').
If a being can perform such actions, then it can limit it's own ability to perform such actions. By this arguement, it cannot perform all actions, yet, on the other hand if it cannot limit it's own actions, then that is something it cannot do, and therefore, is not omnipotent.
And now for the easy version:

Could god create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it? If so, he would then cease to be omnipotent. If not, he was not omnipotent to begin with.

Thank you for your time and patience. Another win for the Rationalists brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Atheist,

Maggie

Views: 202

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Jeffrey,

 

"I don't think this works,

So assuming god can create the heaviest thing in the in the universe and lift it, the only thing that he could not lift would be a infinitely heavy rock. But he can not create or lift a infinitely heavy rock because it is not logically possible for it to exist. It would be like asking God to draw a round circle, God can't because it is not logically possible for it to exist. So the rock is logically impossible not God for this reason."

 

 

I discussed something similar in a previous post, but thank you for bringing it up again.

 

BAMF! RIGHT THERE! Win.
luka,
"Isn`t that deism?"
Deism would describe the belief of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Antony Flew, etc. but I think Plantinga meant this for a more general audience.
"The way I see it, if god is something else than the physical laws governing our universe then whatever he does is disrupting the determinism of the universe."
But is the universe deterministic? Wheeler's Delayed Choice experiment has been verified in the laboratory:
"But if you believe that we have free will, what does that mean? Does that mean that we can choose different actions when in the same situation?"
Given the above links, it appears we choose our reality.
"on the other hand, the notion of free will is true then god cannot fulfill any prayers because that would mean he would intervene and destroy our free will."
If we are able to choose our reality and if the Flying Spagetti Monster is something else than the physical laws governing our universe and the Flying Spagetti Monster chose to intervene and answer our prayers (or choose not to) how would that destroy our free will?

If I physically attacked a Pastafarian and he, in response, started praying for me to break my knees in order to escape, and The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster gave a helping noodle to the poor guy by breaking them, he would directly intervene in what would otherwise be the purpose for which the person doing the action (me) decided to do that particular action. When I choose an action, I accept any physical consequence following from that action, as long as that consequence is realized through the accepted physical laws of our universe. Since The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not subject to those laws he is influencing the consequences of my action in such a way as to endanger my free will.

Will get back to you on other things you wrote about as soon as I read the articles you posted

Ok, I think I got it. So the photon can "choose" to act in two ways, but the "choice" the photon makes is dependent on the "choice" the experimenter makes - whether to turn on or off the second beam splitter. This only shows that the observed data is influenced by the observer, that is, that in cases where we are dealing with matter that is on a sufficiently small scale, the matter (physical matter) cannot be isolated in such a way as to be both observable and unaffected by observation. In my opinion, however, this is not enough to support the thesis that we have free will. On the contrary, it shows how every action we take influences and is influenced by something. You do not (nor cannot) prove by this that the person making a choice could have made a different choice because he/she simply didn`t. Is there really a difference when I say, for example: We have no choice. or What we choose is already determined. So, while it does seem that we choose our own reality, it does not follow that we could have chosen another one. Therefore determinism is not refuted by this. This is not a good thing because it seems that determinism is equally irrefutable as, say, an existence of a god.

If I misread the article do tell me but don`t be too harsh because I really am not at good terms with physics (especially advanced one)

We don't have free will in the way most people think of free will. I maintain that “free will” is an awful term to express the independent agency humans possess to define purpose for themselves and pursue it. Our choices aren’t free in a libertarian sense: they’re free within the constraints of our experience; our identity.  Perhaps Arthur Schopenhauer summed it up best: "Man can do what he wills but he can not will what he wills."  We can do, in the present, whatever our experience has prepared us for.

 

Experience represents the past.  Experience -- what we've learned -- is all we know.  I believe it's virtually impossible to think or act outside our experience.  Even inspiration comes from experience. Where the rubber meets the road is in the present.  This is where our human brains interact with the world around us to form the conceptual continuity of identity: our consciousness.  Experience influences us so much because it was once formed in the present and layered into our identity just as the present will be.  THAT is the self in self-determinism.

Don’t get me wrong . . . causality rules.  We might think we’re in control until that earthquake or tsunami or car accident or economic crash or newborn baby changes our lives.  Causality is the ultimate big dog.  The unfortunate among us will be pursuing successful plans or enjoying the fruits of their labors when causality rears its ugly head and wipes out their achievements.  We can make choices to maximize security but we can never be sure we’re secure.

But how do you explain the fact that, despite the pervasiveness of causality, we can still map out our own futures and achieve our plans (if they’re any good)?  How do you explain how we, for the most part, hack our own paths into the future?

Feedback.

Mental feedback is the key.  Without it, we could not have memories or analyze problems or learn or make plans.  Without it, we could not understand causality or anticipate it.  Intelligence and consciousness itself hinge on mental feedback.  Mental feedback gives us a temporal advantage over causality by allowing us to anticipate it and plan for the future accordingly.  THAT is the determinism in “self-determinism”.

It lacks the flourish and romanticism of unbridled libertarian free will but self-determinism has its own beauty revealed in the paradox of free agency in a clockwork universe. Causality determines the scope of our abilities and actions and we use those abilities and actions to hack our own paths into the future.  And we're good at it.  We're getting cocky. But we’re not masters of the universe . . . just expressions of it.

Not bad Chris. I'm a bit of a more basic thinker than you. To me we are only free to the extent we are aware. As for the matter of free will vs determinism -- what is important is not if there is "free will" or not but that we believe we have free will -- and thus are always in an IF-THEN choice situation. I would be willing to bet that if people of both beliefs were implicitly scrutinized (without their awareness) that the "free willers" are more proactive in their lives than are the "determiners".
That does not follow. The determinism Atheist Exile (I guess he`s called Chris) talks about has absolutely no impact on the level of proactiveness of people. There is a research which proves your point, but the problem is that people misunderstand determinism in such a way as to influence their approach to things. They, indeed, tend to be less active and less moral. But what I am saying is that in acting in such a way they misunderstand the concept of determinism in its implications for the way we live our lives. If determinism is the case of things, it was the case even before you knew it was. Why then would you start acting differently after accepting determinism as a fact? Understanding determinism does not imply the change in behavior - misunderstanding does

Oh . . . so you're talking to me when you're talking to Chris?  I don't know where you got that name from.  Just call me AE.

To me, determinism is a consequence of causality.  With INANIMATE MATTER, the consequences of causality are mathematically deterministic.  This kind of clockwork predictability, however, does not apply to ANIMATE BEINGS.  Living beings -- particularly intelligent life (like us humans) -- are not as predictable.  The best predictions you can hope for, where humans are concerned, are ones that identify the SCOPE of possible (re)actions.

Humans have evolved to notice, comprehend, anticipate and use causality for their own purposes.  For instance, when IBM entered the PC market, I believed a future career with PCs had high potential if I were expert enough.  THAT is noticing, comprehending and anticipating causality.  Then I spent thousands of dollars on PC hardware and software and mastered them.  Once I felt ready, I read that a new PC networking company, called Novell, was starting up training for Certified Network Engineer (CNE) certification.  I believed the current trends would continue growing stronger, so I took the course and got certified.  I switched careers less than a month later.  THAT is using causality for my own purposes.

Using causality is commonly known as "planning" or "innovation" or "invention".  The repeated ability to plan for future goals and successfully realize them is demonstrable proof of self-determinism.  I maintain that self-determinism is the only form of free will that we humans have.

It's important to keep in mind that consciousness is not all in the brain: it's the interaction of the brain, our body's sensory apparatus and the world around us (causality).  Determinism, for inanimate matter, is a consequence of causality.  Self-determinism, for intelligent beings, is a consequence of causality.  The difference is the temporal advantage we derive from intelligent mental feedback. It empowers us to anticipate causality and (hopefully) meet the future prepared for what causality brings us.

Self-determinism is a FACT that we can ALL empirically prove with predictability rivaling that of causality.

By the way, Luka Rek, I agree with you.  The fatalism espoused by those who believe in ABSOLUTE (hard) determinism (i.e. there is no causal difference between inanimate matter and animate beings) is more aligned with religious thinking than with free thinking.

Something  find interesting about the Omnipotence Paradox is that it does NOT apply to religions with multiple Gods - only monotheistic religions.

 

The problem with monotheism is that it does not account for paradoxes like the one above. A god like our favorite Hebrew God has no excuses for not being in complete control of everything all the time.

 

In a Polytheistic religion (there are plenty to choose from), the worshipers are well aware that omnipotence just doesn't make sense. Why would a friendly god murder? Why would an evil god demand to be thought of as loving? That just doesn't make sense.

Luka,

 

"If I physically attacked a Pastafarian and he, in response, started praying for me to break my knees in order to escape, and The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster gave a helping noodle to the poor guy by breaking them, he would directly intervene in what would otherwise be the purpose for which the person doing the action (me) decided to do that particular action. When I choose an action, I accept any physical consequence following from that action, as long as that consequence is realized through the accepted physical laws of our universe. Since The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not subject to those laws he is influencing the consequences of my action in such a way as to endanger my free will."

If the Pastafari prays to His Noodliness to smite thee, ought we to expect the sound of a whip-crack as the end of His noodley appendage exceeds the speed of sound when it strikes your knee cap and you crumple to the ground? Where, then, is faith? Where, then, is free will? We would then know for certain that His Noodliness exists. There would be no question that He exists. We would not be free to choose to believe in Him nor would we be free to choose not to believe in Him. There would be direct evidence of His existence--not only your shattered knee cap but also some bits of pasta on the knee of your pants.

If, on the other hand, the Pastafari prays to His Noodliness to smite thee and you, say, step in a chuck hole and your knee bends the wrong way and breaks and you crumple to the ground, then we being skeptics would not be able to directly attribute your breaking your  knee to His Noodliness intervening in response to the Pastafari's prayer. We would simply beileve it was a coincidence. The Pastafari believes His Noodliness answered his prayer. And free will is preserved.

What's really going to bake the Pastafari's noodle later on is, if the chuck hole formed "naturally" beforehand in anticipation of his prayer.

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service