Proof Doesn't Matter

[darkrobe]

#2 -#4 make the least sense of the 5. because they are all reformulations of what I said.

God can do everything. except things that he cannot do.

^^^ that is a contradictory statement. and why I consider the word omnipotent to be contradictory. If you believe that the concept you are describing is not contradictory. please use a word other than omnipotent. such as almighty.


Edit:

To expand. If the definition of Omnipotent is "able to do anything that can be done." then all creatures are omnipotent. because all creatures can do what is possible for them to do. That definition of omnipotent holds no unique meaning.

[OldTrees]

#2 -#4 make the least sense of the 5. because they are all reformulations of what I said.

God can do everything. except things that he cannot do.

^^^ that is a contradictory statement. and why I consider the word omnipotent to be contradictory. If you believe that the concept you are describing is not contradictory. please use a word other than omnipotent. such as almighty.


Edit:

To expand. If the definition of Omnipotent is "able to do anything that can be done." then all creatures are omnipotent. because all creatures can do what is possible for them to do. That definition of omnipotent holds no unique meaning.

1)
The rainbow contains every color except the colors it does not contain. This is not contradictory.
The rainbow contains every color even the colors it does not contain. This is contradictory.
The set of all colors contains every color except the colors it does not contain. It contains all but none therefore it contains all. This is self-consistent not contradictory.

2)
I use the word omnipotent because most people assume it symbolizes the non contradictory formulation.

3)
No, my definition "able to do anything that can be done" is not the same as the general "able to do anything that it can do". All creatures are able to do anything they can do. Omnipotence is being able to do anything that can be done. A fire can burn but cannot swim. A frog can swim but cannot burn. Both burning and swimming can be done. Omnipotence would include the capacity to burn and to swim. Neither a fire nor a frog is Omnipotent.

[darkrobe]

So god can murder? god can tell lies? god can forget things? god can get lost? These are all things which can be done.

[OldTrees]

So god can murder? god can tell lies? god can forget things? god can get lost? These are all things which can be done.

An omnipotent being using the definition I am using can do those things.
However an omnipotent being cannot simultaneously be "lost and not lost" for being "lost and not lost" is something that cannot be done.

[Naesala]

This most recent argument reminds me of the line "Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?"

[OldTrees]

This most recent argument reminds me of the line "Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?"

Can an omnipotent being create an unmovable object? Yes or No depending on whether an unmovable object can exist in the reality with an omnipotent being.
Can an omnipotent being move an unmovable object? No.

Reminder of my other quesiton
Can it ever be rational to permanently exclude a possible option by requiring impossible evidence?" (and if so the how/why)

[darkrobe]

can an omnipotent being lack the ability to do something?

or put another way. can an omnipotent being fail to do something which is possible?
 

[OldTrees]

can an omnipotent being lack the ability to do something?

or put another way. can an omnipotent being fail to do something which is possible?

An Omnipotent being can "not do" something that they can do.
However an Omnipotent being cannot be Impotent.

[darkrobe]

so then an omnipotent being cannot do anything than can be done? failing to perform an action is something that can easily be done by a non omnipotent being.

I can build a object that I do not have the strength to lift. But that another might be able to lift. Your omnipotent being cannot perform this action. because if he builds an object that another can lift. he can lift it as well. he cannot build an object that he cannot lift, but another can. thus he is not omnipotent.

Even your simplified definition of omnipotent contains within itself contradictions, this will happen no matter what kindof simplification you add to the idea of omnipotence, because it is an idea that defies logic.

[OldTrees]

so then an omnipotent being cannot do anything than can be done? failing to perform an action is something that can easily be done by a non omnipotent being.

I can build a object that I do not have the strength to lift. But that another might be able to lift. Your omnipotent being cannot perform this action. because if he builds an object that another can lift. he can lift it as well. he cannot build an object that he cannot lift, but another can. thus he is not omnipotent.

Even your simplified definition of omnipotent contains within itself contradictions, this will happen no matter what kindof simplification you add to the idea of omnipotence, because it is an idea that defies logic.

Failing is not an action. Rather it is a relation between intent and result. The omnipotent being could lift (using >500N) or could "not lift" (using <500N) the object (500N). The omnipotent being could fail to lift the 500N object with 1N of force but would not fail if it used 1000N of force.

Likewise an omnipotent being cannot build an object that another could lift but the omnipotent being could not using the same method and ability. It is impossible for me to be able to lift an object and someone momentarily identical to me be unable to lift the object. Such an object cannot exist and therefore nobody can build it and therefore an omnipotent being could not build it.

[darkrobe]

I made no stipulations that the other person had to be identical to me in terms of ability. so your example. while similar. is inherently different. Their are many people who could lift something I could not. So I can easily create something that I cannot lift, depending on my ability, that another could lift, depending on their ability. A being that has an ability to perform any possible action cannot perform the action I just did. because to make an object that he cannot lift. he would have to make it impossible to lift. and if he made it impossible to lift, another could not lift it. so he would not be able to match the action i just did. so he would not be able to perform any action, so he would not fit your definition of omnipotent.


Edit: the object is not what is unable to exist, I can easily create it. the omnipotent being is.

[OldTrees]

I made no stipulations that the other person had to be identical to me in terms of ability. so your example. while similar. is inherently different. Their are many people who could lift something I could not. So I can easily create something that I cannot lift, depending on my ability. A being that has an ability to perform any possible action cannot perform the action I just did. because to make an object that he cannot lift. he would have to make it impossible to lift. and if he made it impossible to lift, another could not lift it. so he would not be able to match the action i just did. so he would not be able to perform any action, so he would not fit your definition of omnipotent.

You did not create something you cannot lift. Your inability to lift it is not a static characteristic of the object but rather a characteristic of the method you use to lift it.
You created something that cannot be lifted with method A (your only method) but could be lifted with method B (the other person's method). Likewise an Omnipotent being could make an object that cannot be lifted with method A but could be lifted with method B. If the omnipotent being tried method A they would fail. If they tried method B they would succeed.