In the beginning...

[The Reality Salesman01]

That does not satisfy me as a successful refutation. It attacks the specific form of the statement while dancing around the inherently illogical nature of omnipotence the statement conveys.

It refutes any variation of the question begging fallacy, like the one above. Omnipotence remains untouched logically. Unless you can actually challenge it.

The paradox of the heavy weight isn't what refutes omnipotence.

Relativity refutes omnipotence. Unlimited power cannot exist.

[archangle]

It refutes any variation of the question begging fallacy, like the one above. Omnipotence remains untouched logically. Unless you can actually challenge it.

The paradox of the heavy weight isn't what refutes omnipotence.

Relativity refutes omnipotence. Unlimited power cannot exist.

relativity is fixed by the speed of light. So if you fix that, you fix the energies. It may, or may not, be true. Have you ever heard of a particle accelerating in a black hole? It may accelerate itself past the energies of the back hole and the particle itself. They are looking at that these days.

[Neo-Scholastic]

If a being is, by any imaginable definition or for any imaginable reason, incapable of doing even a single thing, that being is not omnipotent.

You cannot imagine a being capable of doing something you cannot imagine as possible. You cannot imagine a square circle.

[archangle]

If a being is, by any imaginable definition or for any imaginable reason, incapable of doing even a single thing, that being is not omnipotent.

You cannot imagine a being capable of doing something you cannot imagine as possible. You cannot imagine a square circle.

how do we difine them?

I can bend a paper clip in to a circle, then a into square.
Err, wait, I am a god, forget that.

I couldn't resist

[Tonus]

I considered omnipotence as god being more powerful than anyone who might oppose him. Kind of like the Incredible Hulk, who would get angrier and angrier until he was "the strongest one there is." I saw the "nothing is impossible for god" argument the same way-- no one could foil his plans because he was stronger than anyone else. The stuff like squared circles or a rock he couldn't lift seemed irrelevant in that context.

Person A: So god, I hear you're a pretty tough guy. Omnipotent and all that.
God: That sounds about right.
Person A: Right, right. But check it-- can you make a rock so heavy that even you can't lift it?
God: Hmmm. Good question. Gimme a second.
*fashions a massive flaming boulder from his left pinkie, drops it on Person A, annihilating him*
God: Whoops! That must've slipped. I guess I don't have to bother with your question now, though.
*lengthy pause*
*maniacal laughter*

[Neo-Scholastic]

yes, it is an approximation. And yes again, it describes what is seen. But you are not taking into account that the approximation is off because of the measurements and interactions not accounted for. F=ma is not off.

Then I think we basically agree. The mathematical form of F=ma is truth-preserving, but the practical application is only approximate. The behavior of the physical system entails far too many extraneous influences, like friction etc. Plus the F is a vector sum of all the applied forces. Failing to consider even one makes the result approximate and not accurate.

Moving on to the subjective aspect of reality. I consider it, sensation, a fundamental property of substance from which various particular sensations are produced (via kenosis). To my mind, any physical theory that excludes the qualitative aspect of reality is incomplete.

[Mister Agenda]

It's an interesting question. Christians frequently assert that nothing can come from nothing, but also frequently assert that God made the universe from nothing at all. They also assert that quantum foam doesn't count as 'nothing', only absolute nothingness counts as nothing for purposes of universe origins. If God existed and was omnipresent, where did he get the 'absolute nothingness' he made the universe from.

Of course in 50 years, they'll be saying the 'nothing' Stenger refers to when speaking of the origin of the universe was the same 'nothing' God used all along, if more evidence comes along to support the 'universe from nothing' hypothesis.

If you look at Genesis 1:1 something did not come out of nothing. "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void."

Note that I didn't claim the Bible says it. Many Christian theologians interpret the same verse differently, however. Ex nihilo is a very common Christian doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo#C...heologians

It says God created X and Y It does not say from nothing X and Y were manifested. We know this because the word for Create is the Hebrew ברא bara' it means to shape or form. The Idea is like taking a lump of clay or a rock and to shape it into a vessal.

I agree with you and Chad on this one. However there are swathes of Christians who don't.

[archangle]

We definitely basically agree.

yes. it (all science understanding) is woe fully incomplete now. But we need to be careful with "qualitative" analysis with things like " it is beautiful". Or "I felt it speak to me".

"kenosis" if fine. IE, release your preconceived notions and truly see the world as it is. It is the basis for psychology today to help people help themselves. I do think the universe may speak to us. We are not a clean slate. There is no possible way for that to be true. I have evidence to support this stance.

what is "sustentation"? I put forth it is inputs to your brain from what is around you. I also put forth that the brain is so complex (10^14 ish reactions a second) that one area of the brain can input to another area of the brain. And we "sense" that it is from "somewhere else". we have to be aware that this is a possibility. The word "discern" comes to mind.

I also think that that universe's particles may be in states that would classify as an organized information transport sytem. I see it in earth biosphere, so maybe we can extend it, or not. Jury still out on that. But it is reasonable to extend it.

now let's investigate this Kenosis thing a tad more.
I think that we could know the states of all the particles in your brain. And understand how these particles interact we could predict what you would find "beautiful" and what you would not. I also would suggest that if we knew enough, we could change your brain state so that you would find something beautiful that you did not before the state change. Like, "you now like liver on pigs intestines" for lunch type a thing. I use the god helmet as evidence that this "kenosis" is possible

[Neo-Scholastic]

Ex nihilo is a very common Christian doctrine.

I believe ex nihilo is the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church (a.k.a. the Whore of Babylon =-) )
So yes, Drich and I at out of the mainstream.

[Ryantology]

If a being is, by any imaginable definition or for any imaginable reason, incapable of doing even a single thing, that being is not omnipotent.

You cannot imagine a being capable of doing something you cannot imagine as possible. You cannot imagine a square circle.

You have imagined such a being and decided to worship it.

And, this is not really a question of a being's capability, it's a question of whether the capability, itself, is logically possible. Omnipotence is impossible because either you must be able to invent an unbreachable limit to your powers, or be unable to limit your own powers, which is a limit itself. This is a debate a six year old could solve in a minute and no one has ever presented an objection to it which amounts to more than childish sophistry.