The omniptence paradox is a philosophical paradox that arise when logic is applied to the exitence of... How is logic applied to exitence? And how that does logic's being applied to something generate a paradox? Paradoxes arise within language (formal or informal). --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Some philosophers see this argument as proof of the impossibility of the existence of any such entity; others assert that the paradox arises from a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the concept of omnipotence. In addition, several philosophers have considered the assumption that a being is either omnipotent or non-omnipotent to be a false dilemma, as it neglects the possibility of varying degrees of omnipotence (Haeckel)."
Omnipotence Paradox Movie In Italian Dubbed Download
DOWNLOAD 🔥 https://bytlly.com/2yg5yg 🔥
New comment: It's not neutral with regard to theism and atheism. E.g., J.L. Mackie is presented as attempting to resolve the parodox. If I undertand the hisory of the "modern" debate on this, it was Mackie who revived the ommipotence paradox as an argument against the existence of god in "Evil and Omnipotence". Later, Geach, Plantinga and others responded to Mackie. I don't have the article, but I'll see what I can do on this score.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. Just found it and scanned through it. He does, in fact, attempt to resolve the paradox. The main argument is a modern version of the problem of evil. Sorry about that.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed some of SOuj1ro's concerns. Dbuckner voiced a few more concerns before he QUIT WP!! such as that we still don't know who first did the triangle version, or how much older than Mavrodes the stone version might be. Further, I have left some of the work of former editors from back in the original FA days, including some stuff on Ethan Allen, that Dbuckner thought, not unreasonably, now inhibited the flow of the article. This article is now vastly better than when it FA'd but yeah, Dbuckner is right there are still things we don't know about it, and would take even more hard work for me to find out and I'm tired of wasting my time in this puppy. Someone else can read the minor commentaries by Ibn Rushd for a while looking for evidence for the claim that he invented the triangle version of the paradox. I'm not ready to leave WP yet, but I am tired to trying to bring old philosophy FA's up to the new standards. Bmorton3 14:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can an omnipotent being create a stone too heavy for him to lift? If not, he is not omnipotent. But if so, he is not omnipotent either, since there is something he cannot lift. Hence there can be no omnipotent being. J .L. Cowan's recent reformulation of this paradox of omnipotence (this Journal, vol. III, no. 3, March, 1974) has been sharpened through a number of objections and clarifications, and, in its final form, constitutes a significant problem for the analysis of the concept of an omnipotent agent. I will develop fragments of two systems in which the problem can be defined more exactly, and try to indicate some formal guidelines within which constructive steps towards a solution may be possible. I will argue that the paradox shows the need for a special kind of restriction on omnipotence that can be distinguished from some related restrictions.
Atterton would have been better off dedicating his whole column to these problems instead of briefly discussing and then giving up the paradox of omnipotence or the problem of evil. If he had done this, then he would have had space to address one of the many replies theists have given to these problems including:
For eons, men, both well known and uncommon, have spoken of omnipotence or an omnipotent being, questioning whether such a being could exist.
For our purposes, an omnipotent being will be defined as: "one who has unlimited power."
In short, this being could do anything.
Is it possible that there could exist a being capable of anything?
I myself have come to the conclusion that omnipotence is logically impossible.
The way I came about this conclusion was by observing what many will refer to as the "omnipotence paradox."
It varies, but its original form conveys as such:
Could an omnipotent being create a rock so big it couldn't lift it?
There are only two answers to this question, Yes or No.
If we answer the proposition with "Yes", i.e an omnipotent being could create a rock so big he couldn't lift it, it would prove that he was not omnipotent, since he cannot perform a certain action (lift the rock). Since he cannot lift the rock he has created, I think any observer would come to the conclusion that this being was not all powerful.
If we were to answer the proposition in the negative, i.e an omnipotent being couldn't create a rock so big he couldn't lift it, it would again prove he is not omnipotent. How? He cannot perform a certain action (creating a specific rock he couldn't lift), again contradicting the very nature of omnipotence he claims to have. Since he cannot create the rock that he desires, a rock so big that he could not lift it, again any observer would conclude that he is not all powerful.
One major criticism of the proposed resolutions to the paradox is that they seem to limit omnipotence by making it subject to the laws of logic. Critics argue that this suggests logic is a higher principle than the omnipotent being itself, which is contrary to some religious beliefs that position God as the ultimate authority, above all laws, including logic.
Responses often involve arguing that careful analysis of the case shows that there is no actual paradox, e.g., that creating the stone is not in fact logically consistent, as the stone is described as something that both can and cannot be lifted, a contradiction, and so an impossibility.[6]
For example, omnipotence and omniscience combined with complete benevolence seem to entail the absence of unnecessary and undeserved suffering: God would know when such bad events would take place, and presumably have the power to prevent them. As a benevolent being, God would want to eliminate such events, so there should not be any. However, such suffering is arguably a fact of our lives, which calls the compatibility of these attributes into question.[10]
[6] Some contemporary philosophers, e.g., Mavrodes (1963) and Savage (1967), have raised interesting response to this problem. Savage argues that even if God cannot create a stone God cannot lift, this is no threat to omnipotence, since this is consistent with God lifting any stone God creates, and also creating stones of any weight. (In other words, if God creates it, God can lift it, and God can create any stone. While omnipotence requires creating stones of any weight, and lifting stones of any weight, it is asking too much to then ask God to create stones that are also unliftable.)
However, for many of the metaphysical poets, the paradox of the Incarnation offers a picture of fullness, pleroma, which may be even more important than the kenosis described above. Mainly, this fullness stems from an awareness of the ultimate victory of Christ over death and humiliation; even without directly evoking this victory, though, it can be understood that, by taking on human form, Christ sacralises humanity, expanding it to a greater capacity.
This paradox does not relate to the existence of God per se, but only to this particular definition of God. However, I suspect the inclusion of any absolute term, such as omnipotent or omniscient, in the definition of God, inevitably leads to similar paradoxes. If this is true, it is likely that this does not allow a logically-consistent (ie meaningful) definition of God in these terms. It would certainly place this God beyond logical consideration, as Kant and others claimed.
It appears that trying to deal logically with God leads either to a concept that is so absolutist it can be paradoxical or to a statement that is undecidable by logic. This leads to yet another apparent paradox. Assuming God exists, God created humans with logical abilities, but apparently devised logic so that humans could not apply logic to God.
A Paradox is an assertion that seems contradictory or opposed to common sense but is nevertheless true. Paradox is not contradiction nor inconsistency. Paradox is part of the wholeness of God's creation, and we can easily adjust to paradox as well as we adjust to facts. God may be realized as unfailing Principle, and God may be experienced as a warm and loving Presence. This is one example of the divine paradox. Ed Rabel - Metaphysics 1, The Divine Paradox, Principle/Personal
In other words, the resolution of the omnipotence paradox is that God's inability to make Himself finite is not a lack or flaw on His part at all. This limitation is not testimony to His imperfection. On the contrary, it is actually the ultimate expression of His perfection."
Outside of medicine and the army, favored terrains of simulation, theaffair goes back to religion and the simulacrum of divinity: "l forbadeany simulacrum in the temples because the divinity that breathes life intonature cannot be represented." Indeed it can. But what becomes ofthe divinity when it reveals itself in icons, when it is multiplied insimulacra? Does it remain the supreme authority, simply incarnated in imagesas a visible theology? Or is it volatilized into simulacra which alonedeploy their pomp and power of fascination - the visible machinery of iconsbeing substituted for the pure and intelligible Idea of God? This is preciselywhat was feared by the Iconoclasts, whose millennial quarrel is still withus today.3 Their rage to destroy images rose precisely because they sensedthis omnipotence of simulacra, this facility they have of erasing God fromthe consciousnesses of people, and the overwhelming, destructive truthwhich they suggest: that ultimately there has never been any God; thatonly simulacra exist; indeed that God himself has only ever been his ownsimulacrum. Had they been able to believe that images only occulted ormasked the Platonic idea of God, there would have been no reason to destroythem. One can live with the idea of a distorted truth. But their metaphysicaldespair came from the idea that the images concealed nothing at all, andthat in fact they were not images, such as the original model would havemade them, but actually perfect simulacra forever radiant with their ownfascination. But this death of the divine referential has to be exorcisedat all cost. 589ccfa754
QuarkXPress v9.3 Multilingual Incl Serials
Incredible Bee Archiver 3.0.6 MacOS [Full]