Omnipotence Paradox.....

[PyrrhusIV]

The Omnipotence Paradox....

It has been asked, can an Omnipotent being limit its own Omnipotence? If so, if the Being could limit its Omnipotence, it would no longer be Omnipotent, or would it?

My Logic to this Philosophical Paradox is this:. If an Omnipotent being can limits it's own Omnipotence (i.e, a Stone too heavy to lift) it is just showing how it is omnipotent. Because, if it can limit oneself, then it can also let oneself free.

What are your thoughts on the Paradox, your theories?

[Manji]

Like you said, even if the being limits his capabilities he can, nonetheless, revert to it's omnipotent state because his "natural" state is omnipotent and the reducing of his capabilites is just a temporary and induced state.
This, of course, is seen from a human perspective (and seeing as humans cannot become omnipotent) because a omnipotent beng would be above the human scale ergo above the human logic and, dare I say, above physics or logic and hence we wouldn't be able to define them in absolute terms.

[Denny Crane!]

If an omnipotent being could limit its omnipotence....

If we take omnipotent at its literal meaning then it means all powerful. If the being did decide to limit its own omnipotence then it could make the transition permanent, omnipotence means all things are in its power including the ability to destroy oneself, or set limits upon oneself. The paradox is similar to a debate I had on the nature of the christian trinity.

Peter

[imb39]

If the change was permament and the omnipotent being could actually limit its powers without being able to recall them, then it would no longer be omnipotent.

If, however, the being was voluntarily limiting its powers then it would still be omnipotent but choosing not to be. The power is still there.

[Simetrical]

There's no reason to assume that omnipotence doesn't give the omnipotent being control over logic as well as physics. In that case, it could limit its omnipotence while still being omnipotent with no contradiction, and any attempts to logically disprove its existence fail because it supercedes the logic.

[imb39]

But if it is limited by physics etc, is it omnipotent? I've always taken omnipotence to be able to wield Godlike powers, ie the laws which constrain us mere mortals do not apply.

[Manji]

There's no reason to assume that omnipotence doesn't give the omnipotent being control over logic as well as physics. In that case, it could limit its omnipotence while still being omnipotent with no contradiction, and any attempts to logically disprove its existence fail because it supercedes the logic.

Magnificatum ad aeternum indeed. My point exactly.

But if it is limited by physics etc, is it omnipotent? I've always taken omnipotence to be able to wield Godlike powers, ie the laws which constrain us mere mortals do not apply.

If it's limited by anything then it is not omnipotent. The correllation with godlike powers you make would be due to cultural influence (the judeo-christian "God" that is omnipotent) though I believe that any entity that exists, even if outside our reality and in a non-logical binding, could be omnipotent.

[Sidus Preclarum]

There's no reason to assume that omnipotence doesn't give the omnipotent being control over logic as well as physics. In that case, it could limit its omnipotence while still being omnipotent with no contradiction, and any attempts to logically disprove its existence fail because it supercedes the logic.

exactly .

[Obi Wan Asterix]

exactly .

That is the classic logical framework to challenge this paradox yes.

Unless.... you question logic itself, in which case you still cannot disprove the paradox.

[Simetrical]

The alternative approach, incidentally, is to redefine omnipotence to be less absolute, namely still bound by the laws of logic. Such a being could not, for instance, draw a square circle, but could violate stuff like conservation of matter. I don't see the appeal of this tack, personally.

[Mímirswell]

Assume there are two omnipotent beings: One attempts to kill the other and the other attempts to not be killed. Now logically, this is similar to the unstoppable force paradox; in which if such a thing as an unstoppable force exists, then no object is immovable, and vice versa. It is logically impossible to have these two entities exist in the same paradigm. However, as noted before, logic need not apply to omnipotent beings and certainly an omnipotent being can create another omnipotent being. What is/are the outcome(s)?

[the_mango55]

Assume there are two omnipotent beings: One attempts to kill the other and the other attempts to not be killed. Now logically, this is similar to the unstoppable force paradox; in which if such a thing as an unstoppable force exists, then no object is immovable, and vice versa. It is logically impossible to have these two entities exist in the same paradigm. However, as noted before, logic need not apply to omnipotent beings and certainly an omnipotent being can create another omnipotent being. What is/are the outcome(s)?

In my guess it would split reality in two, into identical dimensions in all senses except for the outcome of the battle, each having the one as the victor. That is really the only scenario I can think of right off hand.

Assuming that these two omnipotent beings have dissagreements occasionally, there could be billions of universes.

Or perhaps one will simply be proven not to be omnipotent.

[Simetrical]

Assume there are two omnipotent beings: One attempts to kill the other and the other attempts to not be killed. Now logically, this is similar to the unstoppable force paradox; in which if such a thing as an unstoppable force exists, then no object is immovable, and vice versa. It is logically impossible to have these two entities exist in the same paradigm. However, as noted before, logic need not apply to omnipotent beings and certainly an omnipotent being can create another omnipotent being. What is/are the outcome(s)?

Both succeed.

[Atheist Peace]

It seems somewhat ironic to me that we say logic does not apply to omnipotent beings, yet we use our logic to come to that conclusion.

[Mímirswell]

Perhaps it's why they say we cannot understand God [at least from the religions who claim their god is omnipotent].

[MoROmeTe]

There a little something that the Psudo Aropagite first, I think, said. That is that we cannot try and say anything about God positively as in "God is good" because we have to phisycal and logical way of reaching Him.

The only valuable sentences about God, and as such for any omnipotent being as discussed here, are negative definitions like "God is not bad" which is not the same as saying "God is good" cause the sentences "Good is not bad" and "God is not good" are at the same time true in the contet of a negative definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-...the_Areopagite

[Denny Crane!]

Hmmm Omnipotent means almighty all powerful. I would say it infers singularity, I don't think dual omnipotence is really a potential possibility.

Peter