There is no Omnipotence Paradox

Per the emphasized text above:

So should such suppositions as "one, no god or gods exist. Two omnipotence and omnipotence are total nonsense." , especially when there is insufficient data (meaning it has not been proven) to promote such nonsense.

 

Milton gave a darn good go at it!

http://www.paradiselost.org/

(from Book I)
So stretched out huge in length the Arch-fiend lay
Chained on the burning lake, nor ever thence
Had risen or heaved his head, but that the will
And high permission of all-ruling Heaven
Left him at large to his own dark designs,
That with reiterated crimes he might
Heap on himself (*)(*)(*)(*)ation, while he sought
Evil to others, and enraged might see
How all his malice served but to bring forth
Infinite goodness, grace and mercy shown
On man by him seduced, but on himself
Treble confusion, wrath and vengeance poured.

 

One has got to wonder at the willful dishonesty it takes to repeatedly make that assertion when you have been corrected so many times.

 

i think there is a clear pattern with the incorporeal mind

 

Well in the event NOW that you "do not believe in predestination", then it can be safely presumed that you have 'free will'... and that God is not in control of your life... therefore... God is not to blame for any or all of the little inconveniences that life will afford you. Because God is not predestining anyone, then anyone and everyone has 'free will'. That is fine with me.... at least that takes the blame off of God and places the blame right back on each and every individual man and woman. There you have it,,, another problem resolved.

 

But one does have to have a belief in a deity to say that one either does or does not exist.

 

Sure but it only takes the blame off God if there is no God or God is "not in control"

 

That is a very goofy assertion. It is the exact equivalent of:

One does have to have a belief in unicorns to say that one either does or does not exist.

It is so prima facie false that one can only wonder at the nature of the deficit that allows one to hold the idea.

 

Well, do you believe that unicorns exist? To believe that they do or do not, you have to believe that it is either possible or not possible, thus forming a rudimentary belief regarding unicorns. Another question: Do you often go about babbling about things that you believe do not exist? Do you have PROOF that such things that you believe do not exist actually do not exist?

 

No.

No. That is not a "rudimentary belief regarding unicorns." It is a fully formed belief that they do not exist.

You really, really are reaching. Why is that so important to you? Do you feel lonely? Go to church.

I never babble. But yes, I do talk about such things periodically. Especially on places like... oh, Internet fora which were set up for the explicit purpose of talking about them.

Some of them, yes. For example, when a concept is internally contradictory and self refuting, it has disproved itself. So... while a generic concept of god might not be capable of disproof, certain sectarian versions of the idea can be proven false. You know. Like the Islamo-Christian one.

 

A belief is a belief is a belief is a belief. Rudimentary or fully formed... it is still a 'belief'. Thus you are now advocating beliefs outside the realm of science and outside the realm of nature as recognized by science.

Who needs to be 'really, really reaching..' when there are people like you who are so happy to make admissions that are outside the realm of science and or nature?

Of course you do. Do you speak (fluently) every language and dialect known across the face of the globe? If not, and you were to approach someone using a language that you did not know, and that they did not know your language, then you would be (in their perspective) babbling. Do you feel that you are qualified to speak on such things when you cannot prove either the truth or falsity of such things?

Then disprove 'the Islamo-Christian one.' Keep in mind what is often said about PROOF.

 

What someone believes or does not believe has no bearing on predestination.

You are suggesting that God could not control someones life without them knowing about it.

If this is the case then God is not all powerfull.

The problem is that if you follow your own logic then God is not all powerfull.

If God was all powerfull then one could disbelieve predestination even though their entire lives were predestined. The belief in free will a mere mirage in the cosmic game that God is playing.

 

Actually no. Beliefs in different things are different.

But not the one you assert.

Nonsense.

I am curious as to what purpose you imagine such puerile equivocation serves?

Since there is no such thing as proof outside of deduction or mathematics, of course I do.

Proof can only be found via deduction or mathematics. In this case, I use deduction.

P1: The Islamo-Christian version of God assigns him simultaneously the characteristics of omnipotence and omniscience.

P2: These two characteristics are mutually exclusive.

C: The Islam-Christian version of God is impossible.

 

But they are still beliefs or in the case of any one of them, it is still a belief.

What is nonsense? The fact that you have a fully formed belief in something which you cannot prove?

You stated an absolute when you stated that you do not babble. You stated a misrepresentation of the facts as they are.

A deduction is not a proof. A deduction is merely an opinion that is not necessarily supported by any type of PROOF.

Even mathematics (according to Einstein) do not offer any type of proof as that math would relate to reality.

Why is it impossible?

 

Your persistent equivocation does not save your false argument.

What? You can't read the post? It tells you right there what I called nonsense.

Your childish semantic quibbling does not establish that.

Oh? Perhaps you should alert the media.

Deductive Proof in Geometry

Inductive vs. Deductive Proof

I guess you must have missed that class.

Because as just demonstrated it is internally contradictory and self refuting.

 

As I have stated in the past, I do not present arguments, I present truth. In this particular case, a belief is a belief, regardless of its content, it remains a belief.

Oh, I can read perfectly well, but your ability to facilitate your comments with meaningful content seems to be suffering. IE... for you to simply say "nonsense" and not follow up with a declaration or explanation of why you consider something nonsense, only points out how nonsensical your response was.

No, but your making a statement containing an absolute condition does establish that.

Uh, I guess you missed the fact that you are pointing to the opinions of other people as authority figures. An appeal to authority?

Explain how it is "contradictory and self refuting".

 

Compounding equivocation with delusion is no way to influence people, Inc.

An omniscient being cannot be omnipotent. Such a being cannot even change his own mind. In any universe with an omniscient being, everything is predestined. Even the behavior of the omniscient being.

 

And you complain about my equivocation when you cannot see a distinction between two differing terms and how those two differing terms are independent of one another? LOL... affirming the consequent?

Seeing now that you want to throw in the point "everything in the universe is predestined", then you have to either admit that God exists else throw out the argument about predestination. Your choice of logic or your use of logic is fallacious.

 

They are not independent. They are mutually contradictory.

That is how we know the Islamo-Christian version of god is impossible.

I choose a third path. I throw them both out.

My logic is secure.

 

You have not explained HOW they are contradictory. An apple is red and an apple is sweet. Does that make the aspects of the apple contradictory?

Who is "we"? Also, how does that make you KNOW "the Islamo-Christian version of god impossible"?

Your logic is on shaky ground as long as you do not offer an explanation to the points that I have brought to your attention.

 

Of course I have.

Omniscience demands predestination to include that of the omniscient being.

A predestined god is a powerless god.

We are everybody... including you whether you admit it or not.

And we know it is impossible since it is internally contradictory and self refuting.

Your unwillingness to accept the logic does not make it shaky.

It just makes you unwilling.

 

The explanation has been given you many times.

Omiscience - the capacity to know everything infinately.

If God knows everything infinately then God knows everything that will happen in the Future. If God knows everything that will happen in the future then the future can not be altered.

If the future can not be altered then God has no power to alter the future.

Omnipotent - All powerfull

God is omniscient and knows all that will happen in the future then God can not alter what will happen in the future and so God is not all powerfull.

If it is possible to alter the future then God can not know what will happen in the future and therfore God is not Omniscient.


It is not like this argument has not occurred to theologians

These folks obviously get the logical conclusion that total omniscience = predestination.

 

Are you omnipotent or omniscient? No? Then how do you suppose that you are able to determine what an entity who is omnipotent and omniscient is going to respond to a particular circumstance or personality or time? Do you really think that you are such a supreme being that the God of this universe is bound by your feeble logic? LOL

 

Ad Hominum - One does not need to Omnipotent to understand basic logic

The basic logic is sound.

I do not design the laws of the universe so am in no position to determine much.

This does not change the fact that if the future is predetermined then it can not be changed.

If the future can be changed then it is not predetermined.

It is a black and white issue. Either everything is predetermined or it is not.

If everything is not predetermined then all events in the future can not be known.

 

Asking a couple of questions is now related to being an Ad Hominem? That is not very logical.

I, personally, am very pleased to hear about that.

IF "the future is predetermined", then God must exist in order to make such predetermination.

It sounds as if you are totally void of an opinion on whether or not the future is 'predetermined', else you are in a state of confusion or possibly and very simply lacking sufficient evidence to make a determination one way or the other.... even to the extent of forbidding you to offer an opinion.

Seemingly, based on your statements prior to the one immediately quoted above, the matter is not black and white within your perception but rather some shade of gray, indicating a level of uncertainty.