1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Answer to Paradox of Stone

Discussion in 'Theological Concepts' started by hispanicmormon, Apr 24, 2017.

  1. PureX

    PureX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    9,273
    Ratings:
    +2,644
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    Can an omnipotent being create a square circle?

    By the definition of "omnipotence", yes. By the definitions of "square" and "circle", no. The problem was never about "God's limitations". It was always about ours.
     
  2. Darryl Lankford

    Joined:
    May 10, 2017
    Messages:
    20
    Ratings:
    +0
    Religion:
    Christian
    ...On this we can fully agree!

    -Darryl
     
  3. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    51,570
    Ratings:
    +11,305
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    Attempt something but fail.

    There's nothing "logically absurd" about attempting two mutually exclusive acts. The logical absurdity only arises if both acts were successfully done.

    Therefore, the attempt is within the scope of an omnipotence that's limited to the "logical possibile," but the success itself is still impossible.

    So can a being that attempts an act but fails be considered omnipotent?
     
  4. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,403
    Ratings:
    +1,248
    Religion:
    Christian
    We aren't even on the same linguistic footing; failure isn't an ability, it is a want of ability. It isn't a thing done, but, a thing not done.

    Which means success doesn't fall under the set of things logically possible. If your definition of omnipotence is the set of all things logically possible, then success is not included.

    It is the definition you've chosen to defend. I happen to say that no, such a being would not be omnipotent that is why omnipotence must include the logically impossible.

    I'll also note that in this post you've again demonstrated the inconsistency of your position; you must choose whether failure or its absolute lack is representative of omnipotence. You cannot reasonably attack from both sides.
     
Loading...