The Omnipotence Paradox

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No, it's based on the false assumption that there is a value higher than infinite value.

Wouldn't an omnipotent being - if they were truly omnipotent - be able to create a value higher than infinity or multiple infinities? Or even infinite infinities?

No.

If they can't, then that leads back into the Rock question and makes them no longer omnipotent.

Also no.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No, it's based on the false assumption that there is a value higher than infinite value.

Wouldn't an omnipotent being - if they were truly omnipotent - be able to create a value higher than infinity or multiple infinities? Or even infinite infinities?

If they can't, then that leads back into the Rock question and makes them no longer omnipotent. If they can, then your argument is invalid, and the Rock question is still a valid question, and regardless of if an omnipotent does create this hypothetical rock, it has then surrendered its omnipotence in the sense that it cannot lift this rock it has created. It could still erase the rock, or otherwise, take and remove the rock from existence, but it cannot physically lift the rock in a physical form.

Now, the truly important thing about this is that this means a truly omnipotent being ought to be able to surrender their omnipotence more permanently - that is, create an object that they can no longer affect in any form, physically or metaphysically or nonphysically or whatever else, by any means.

...actually, this could prove why any hypothetical omnipotent "god" or "gods" out there are now non-interventionist: they made the Universe an inviolable object immune to their own power.

No, they wouldn't because it's logically impossible, and even omnipotent beings are bound by logical possibility. The question doesn't even make sense unless you redefine Infinity. Think about the phrase "value higher than infinity" for a little bit and you'll realize just how stupid the phrase even is.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Wouldn't an omnipotent being - if they were truly omnipotent - be able to create a value higher than infinity or multiple infinities? Or even infinite infinities?

If they can't, then that leads back into the Rock question and makes them no longer omnipotent. If they can, then your argument is invalid, and the Rock question is still a valid question, and regardless of if an omnipotent does create this hypothetical rock, it has then surrendered its omnipotence in the sense that it cannot lift this rock it has created. It could still erase the rock, or otherwise, take and remove the rock from existence, but it cannot physically lift the rock in a physical form.

Now, the truly important thing about this is that this means a truly omnipotent being ought to be able to surrender their omnipotence more permanently - that is, create an object that they can no longer affect in any form, physically or metaphysically or nonphysically or whatever else, by any means.

...actually, this could prove why any hypothetical omnipotent "god" or "gods" out there are now non-interventionist: they made the Universe an inviolable object immune to their own power.

No, they wouldn't because it's logically impossible, and even omnipotent beings are bound by logical possibility. The question doesn't even make sense unless you redefine Infinity. Think about the phrase "value higher than infinity" for a little bit and you'll realize just how stupid the phrase even is.

Value higher than infinity? You mean your mom's weight?

[Dooom35796821595]

No, it's based on the false assumption that there is a value higher than infinite value.

Wouldn't an omnipotent being - if they were truly omnipotent - be able to create a value higher than infinity or multiple infinities? Or even infinite infinities?

If they can't, then that leads back into the Rock question and makes them no longer omnipotent. If they can, then your argument is invalid, and the Rock question is still a valid question, and regardless of if an omnipotent does create this hypothetical rock, it has then surrendered its omnipotence in the sense that it cannot lift this rock it has created. It could still erase the rock, or otherwise, take and remove the rock from existence, but it cannot physically lift the rock in a physical form.

Now, the truly important thing about this is that this means a truly omnipotent being ought to be able to surrender their omnipotence more permanently - that is, create an object that they can no longer affect in any form, physically or metaphysically or nonphysically or whatever else, by any means.

...actually, this could prove why any hypothetical omnipotent "god" or "gods" out there are now non-interventionist: they made the Universe an inviolable object immune to their own power.

No, since infinity literally means non finite, it never ends. So 2♾ is the same as one♾, and the same as a trillion♾.

It’s like asking if you can jump higher then the height you can jump, it’s circular logic.

[Galloism]

No, it's based on the false assumption that there is a value higher than infinite value.

Wouldn't an omnipotent being - if they were truly omnipotent - be able to create a value higher than infinity or multiple infinities? Or even infinite infinities?

If they can't, then that leads back into the Rock question and makes them no longer omnipotent. If they can, then your argument is invalid, and the Rock question is still a valid question, and regardless of if an omnipotent does create this hypothetical rock, it has then surrendered its omnipotence in the sense that it cannot lift this rock it has created. It could still erase the rock, or otherwise, take and remove the rock from existence, but it cannot physically lift the rock in a physical form.

Now, the truly important thing about this is that this means a truly omnipotent being ought to be able to surrender their omnipotence more permanently - that is, create an object that they can no longer affect in any form, physically or metaphysically or nonphysically or whatever else, by any means.

...actually, this could prove why any hypothetical omnipotent "god" or "gods" out there are now non-interventionist: they made the Universe an inviolable object immune to their own power.

I mean, infinity is a logical concept. An omnipotent being could create a concept higher than infinity, and will everyone to start using it.

But then infinity is no longer infinity, just a really big number. Currently, infinity plus infinity is not 2infinity. It’s just infinity, because infinity is the worst. If you made infinity infinities the concept (thanks for breaking English), then the omnipotent being still has infinity infinities power, and can still bench press your rock.

Also, I don’t know why this conceptual process “proves” that the God or gods are now non interventionist. That’s a giant logical leap.

[The V O I D]

Wouldn't an omnipotent being - if they were truly omnipotent - be able to create a value higher than infinity or multiple infinities? Or even infinite infinities?

If they can't, then that leads back into the Rock question and makes them no longer omnipotent. If they can, then your argument is invalid, and the Rock question is still a valid question, and regardless of if an omnipotent does create this hypothetical rock, it has then surrendered its omnipotence in the sense that it cannot lift this rock it has created. It could still erase the rock, or otherwise, take and remove the rock from existence, but it cannot physically lift the rock in a physical form.

Now, the truly important thing about this is that this means a truly omnipotent being ought to be able to surrender their omnipotence more permanently - that is, create an object that they can no longer affect in any form, physically or metaphysically or nonphysically or whatever else, by any means.

...actually, this could prove why any hypothetical omnipotent "god" or "gods" out there are now non-interventionist: they made the Universe an inviolable object immune to their own power.

No, they wouldn't because it's logically impossible, and even omnipotent beings are bound by logical possibility. The question doesn't even make sense unless you redefine Infinity. Think about the phrase "value higher than infinity" for a little bit and you'll realize just how stupid the phrase even is.

An omnipotent being is bound by logic and reason? Since fucking when?

That doesn't make any sense, either. Literally all of the monotheistic and polytheistic religions out there say their god(s), when omnipotent, can do anything. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've heard multiple arguments about how god(s), especially the Abrahamic God, isn't bound by logic or reason in the human sense so which the fuck is it.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Wouldn't an omnipotent being - if they were truly omnipotent - be able to create a value higher than infinity or multiple infinities? Or even infinite infinities?

If they can't, then that leads back into the Rock question and makes them no longer omnipotent. If they can, then your argument is invalid, and the Rock question is still a valid question, and regardless of if an omnipotent does create this hypothetical rock, it has then surrendered its omnipotence in the sense that it cannot lift this rock it has created. It could still erase the rock, or otherwise, take and remove the rock from existence, but it cannot physically lift the rock in a physical form.

Now, the truly important thing about this is that this means a truly omnipotent being ought to be able to surrender their omnipotence more permanently - that is, create an object that they can no longer affect in any form, physically or metaphysically or nonphysically or whatever else, by any means.

...actually, this could prove why any hypothetical omnipotent "god" or "gods" out there are now non-interventionist: they made the Universe an inviolable object immune to their own power.

I mean, infinity is a logical concept. An omnipotent being could create a concept higher than infinity, and will everyone to start using it.

But then infinity is no longer infinity, just a really big number. Currently, infinity plus infinity is not 2infinity. It’s just infinity, because infinity is the worst. If you made infinity infinities the concept (thanks for breaking English), then the omnipotent being still has infinity infinities power, and can still bench press your rock.

Also, I don’t know why this conceptual process “proves” that the God or gods are now non interventionist. That’s a giant logical leap.

Bench press? You mean kick across the universe?

[Kowani]

Wouldn't an omnipotent being - if they were truly omnipotent - be able to create a value higher than infinity or multiple infinities? Or even infinite infinities?

If they can't, then that leads back into the Rock question and makes them no longer omnipotent. If they can, then your argument is invalid, and the Rock question is still a valid question, and regardless of if an omnipotent does create this hypothetical rock, it has then surrendered its omnipotence in the sense that it cannot lift this rock it has created. It could still erase the rock, or otherwise, take and remove the rock from existence, but it cannot physically lift the rock in a physical form.

Now, the truly important thing about this is that this means a truly omnipotent being ought to be able to surrender their omnipotence more permanently - that is, create an object that they can no longer affect in any form, physically or metaphysically or nonphysically or whatever else, by any means.

...actually, this could prove why any hypothetical omnipotent "god" or "gods" out there are now non-interventionist: they made the Universe an inviolable object immune to their own power.

I mean, infinity is a logical concept. An omnipotent being could create a concept higher than infinity, and will everyone to start using it.

But then infinity is no longer infinity, just a really big number. Currently, infinity plus infinity is not 2infinity. It’s just infinity, because infinity is the worst. If you made infinity infinities the concept (thanks for breaking English), then the omnipotent being still has infinity infinities power, and can still bench press your rock.

Also, I don’t know why this conceptual process “proves” that the God or gods are now non interventionist. That’s a giant logical leap.

Well, there are different sized infinities, but at the same time, not.

[Galloism]

I mean, infinity is a logical concept. An omnipotent being could create a concept higher than infinity, and will everyone to start using it.

But then infinity is no longer infinity, just a really big number. Currently, infinity plus infinity is not 2infinity. It’s just infinity, because infinity is the worst. If you made infinity infinities the concept (thanks for breaking English), then the omnipotent being still has infinity infinities power, and can still bench press your rock.

Also, I don’t know why this conceptual process “proves” that the God or gods are now non interventionist. That’s a giant logical leap.

Bench press? You mean kick across the universe?

Technically, such a rock would probably destroy the universe.

[Cekoviu]

This assumes the omnipotent being would have a physical form and be able to lift things in the first place, so I reject the premises.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No, they wouldn't because it's logically impossible, and even omnipotent beings are bound by logical possibility. The question doesn't even make sense unless you redefine Infinity. Think about the phrase "value higher than infinity" for a little bit and you'll realize just how stupid the phrase even is.

An omnipotent being is bound by logic and reason? Since fucking when?

Since the invention of logic.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No, they wouldn't because it's logically impossible, and even omnipotent beings are bound by logical possibility. The question doesn't even make sense unless you redefine Infinity. Think about the phrase "value higher than infinity" for a little bit and you'll realize just how stupid the phrase even is.

An omnipotent being is bound by logic and reason? Since fucking when?

That doesn't make any sense, either. Literally all of the monotheistic and polytheistic religions out there say their god(s), when omnipotent, can do anything. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've heard multiple arguments about how god(s), especially the Abrahamic God, isn't bound by logic or reason in the human sense so which the fuck is it.

Doing anything =/= Doing things that aren't things

[Cekoviu]

An omnipotent being is bound by logic and reason? Since fucking when?

Since the invention of logic.

But prior to that, the omnipotent being could do whatever it wanted?

[Salandriagado]

As with any other paradox, the solution is "the premise is wrong": in this case, the solution is that no omnipotent being can exist.

[Cekoviu]

As with any other paradox, the solution is "the premise is wrong": in this case, the solution is that no omnipotent being can exist.

Also true.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Since the invention of logic.

But prior to that, the omnipotent being could do whatever it wanted?

Prior to that logic as a concept didn't exist.

[Cekoviu]

But prior to that, the omnipotent being could do whatever it wanted?

Prior to that logic as a concept didn't exist.

Tautological as shit.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

As with any other paradox, the solution is "the premise is wrong": in this case, the solution is that no omnipotent being can exist.

I'm an atheist and these jokes make me groan.

[The V O I D]

An omnipotent being is bound by logic and reason? Since fucking when?

That doesn't make any sense, either. Literally all of the monotheistic and polytheistic religions out there say their god(s), when omnipotent, can do anything. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've heard multiple arguments about how god(s), especially the Abrahamic God, isn't bound by logic or reason in the human sense so which the fuck is it.

Doing anything =/= Doing things that aren't things

You can't see me right now, but I'm squinting and tilting my head at you.

If a being is omnipotent and can do anything, that means they aren't restricted by logic or reason in the traditional sense; they are the rules, they make the rules - and so that means they can break or ignore their own rules. Saying they are constrained by logic/reason is saying they aren't omnipotent, which is admitting that they are just absurdly powerful reality manipulators instead.

[Kowani]

Prior to that logic as a concept didn't exist.

Tautological as shit.

That seems to be a repeating theme.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Since the invention of logic.

But prior to that, the omnipotent being could do whatever it wanted?

What he means is that logic constrains even an omnipotent being because even the ability to do anything doesn't include the ability to do things that aren't things.

So, for example, God cannot draw a square circle, because a square circle isn't a thing, and it couldn't logically be even if a being with infinite power wanted it to be, because it's an inherent contradiction.

Thomas Aquinas explains it well in the Summa, logical impossibilities aren't included in omnipotence because they're conceptually not possible, as opposed to being impossible due to constraints.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Doing anything =/= Doing things that aren't things

You can't see me right now, but I'm squinting and tilting my head at you.

If a being is omnipotent and can do anything, that means they aren't restricted by logic or reason in the traditional sense; they are the rules, they make the rules - and so that means they can break or ignore their own rules. Saying they are constrained by logic/reason is saying they aren't omnipotent, which is admitting that they are just absurdly powerful reality manipulators instead.

See my above comment. Logic isn't a constraint.

[Lord Dominator]

Why?

Admittedly this answer makes more sense when dealing with God (any of them), since they would have presumably created logic, but I see no reason why it wouldn't be applicable in this hypothetical.

The example I gave in the IDT: Square Circles.

Is that just the same question as here, but with making square circles instead of unliftable rocks, or something else?

[The V O I D]

You can't see me right now, but I'm squinting and tilting my head at you.

If a being is omnipotent and can do anything, that means they aren't restricted by logic or reason in the traditional sense; they are the rules, they make the rules - and so that means they can break or ignore their own rules. Saying they are constrained by logic/reason is saying they aren't omnipotent, which is admitting that they are just absurdly powerful reality manipulators instead.

See my above comment. Logic isn't a constraint.

I'm pretty sure you're making that up so you don't have to concede that god(s) aren't omnipotent unless they can ignore logic/reason.

[Kowani]

The example I gave in the IDT: Square Circles.

Is that just the same question as here, but with making square circles instead of unliftable rocks, or something else?

Pretty much.