<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wikipedia: the Omnipotence Paradox</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/01/09/wikipedia-the-omnipotence-paradox/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/01/09/wikipedia-the-omnipotence-paradox/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:47:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: FAQ: To say &#34;there is no god,&#34; you need as much faith as to say the opposite.</title>
		<link>http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/01/09/wikipedia-the-omnipotence-paradox/#comment-13814</link>
		<dc:creator>FAQ: To say &#34;there is no god,&#34; you need as much faith as to say the opposite.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:17:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/01/09/wikipedia-the-omnipotence-paradox/#comment-13814</guid>
		<description>[...] many logical arguments against the existence of an entity such as the Judeo-Christian god. Take the omnipotence paradox, or the problem of evil. The former is logically self-contradictory; the latter requires such [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] many logical arguments against the existence of an entity such as the Judeo-Christian god. Take the omnipotence paradox, or the problem of evil. The former is logically self-contradictory; the latter requires such [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel</title>
		<link>http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/01/09/wikipedia-the-omnipotence-paradox/#comment-6122</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2007 20:47:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/01/09/wikipedia-the-omnipotence-paradox/#comment-6122</guid>
		<description>I personally think popular challenges against Classical Theism from questions such as "Can God create a round square" or "Can God create a rock so heavy that not even God can lift it" do not succeed.  At least not without some additional work. Here, I attempt to explain why in succession:

&lt;b&gt;Can God Create a Round Square?&lt;/b&gt;

I’d be willing to bet the person posing the question isn’t quite sure of what it is he’s asking for in the first place -- in fact, he can't even conceive what his own challenge is.  Precisely, what &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; a "round square"?  It's nothing more than a combination of contradictory words which fail to describe any possible state of affairs.  It is the question that is incoherent, so in a sense, the person posing the challenge hasn’t said or asked anything at all.  How then, can it be conceived to be an effective argument against God’s Omnipotence if it fails to be a coherent question of God?  Or take the challenge posed in its second form:  

&lt;b&gt;Can God create a rock so heavy that not even God can lift it?&lt;/b&gt;

Again, the challenge takes into consideration a classical atttibutes of God, which include the &lt;i&gt;Essential&lt;/i&gt; property of being "All-Powerful" (or "Maximally powerful").  

A property's "being essential" means that the property is part of what makes God who God is.  It is another way of saying, "A being could not logically be God if that being were not omnipotent."  

Another essential property of God is his &lt;i&gt;Necessity&lt;/i&gt;... which is to say that if Classical Theism is true, then it is not logically possible that God could &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; have existed.   

Combined, this means God must be &lt;i&gt;Necessarily Omnipotent&lt;/i&gt;. If God is to exist, it logically cannot be any other way.

A person posing the "rock" challenge accepts such definitions on one hand, but asks if God could bring about a state of affairs which contradict those definitions on the other. Again, the person posing this challenge is simply putting together a contradictory set of terms into a meaningless challenge.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I personally think popular challenges against Classical Theism from questions such as &#8220;Can God create a round square&#8221; or &#8220;Can God create a rock so heavy that not even God can lift it&#8221; do not succeed.  At least not without some additional work. Here, I attempt to explain why in succession:</p>
<p><b>Can God Create a Round Square?</b></p>
<p>I’d be willing to bet the person posing the question isn’t quite sure of what it is he’s asking for in the first place &#8212; in fact, he can&#8217;t even conceive what his own challenge is.  Precisely, what <i>is</i> a &#8220;round square&#8221;?  It&#8217;s nothing more than a combination of contradictory words which fail to describe any possible state of affairs.  It is the question that is incoherent, so in a sense, the person posing the challenge hasn’t said or asked anything at all.  How then, can it be conceived to be an effective argument against God’s Omnipotence if it fails to be a coherent question of God?  Or take the challenge posed in its second form:  </p>
<p><b>Can God create a rock so heavy that not even God can lift it?</b></p>
<p>Again, the challenge takes into consideration a classical atttibutes of God, which include the <i>Essential</i> property of being &#8220;All-Powerful&#8221; (or &#8220;Maximally powerful&#8221;).  </p>
<p>A property&#8217;s &#8220;being essential&#8221; means that the property is part of what makes God who God is.  It is another way of saying, &#8220;A being could not logically be God if that being were not omnipotent.&#8221;  </p>
<p>Another essential property of God is his <i>Necessity</i>&#8230; which is to say that if Classical Theism is true, then it is not logically possible that God could <i>not</i> have existed.   </p>
<p>Combined, this means God must be <i>Necessarily Omnipotent</i>. If God is to exist, it logically cannot be any other way.</p>
<p>A person posing the &#8220;rock&#8221; challenge accepts such definitions on one hand, but asks if God could bring about a state of affairs which contradict those definitions on the other. Again, the person posing this challenge is simply putting together a contradictory set of terms into a meaningless challenge.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoff</title>
		<link>http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/01/09/wikipedia-the-omnipotence-paradox/#comment-357</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:33:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/01/09/wikipedia-the-omnipotence-paradox/#comment-357</guid>
		<description>I go with Descartes on this one, in that a being that is truly omnipotent in the sense you require has power over all limitations, including logic. So when the paradox reaches the point of reductio ad absurdum, the being simply changes whatever needs changing. If necessary, P &#38; ~P is true. 

However, is omnipotence necessarily a state which has no limits or degrees? After all, there are greater and lesser infinities...maybe there are greater and lesser supreme beings.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I go with Descartes on this one, in that a being that is truly omnipotent in the sense you require has power over all limitations, including logic. So when the paradox reaches the point of reductio ad absurdum, the being simply changes whatever needs changing. If necessary, P &amp; ~P is true. </p>
<p>However, is omnipotence necessarily a state which has no limits or degrees? After all, there are greater and lesser infinities&#8230;maybe there are greater and lesser supreme beings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kanzentai</title>
		<link>http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/01/09/wikipedia-the-omnipotence-paradox/#comment-323</link>
		<dc:creator>Kanzentai</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2006 02:11:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/01/09/wikipedia-the-omnipotence-paradox/#comment-323</guid>
		<description>Maybe it's a case of mastery.

If both are omnipotent, that doesn't automatically make them omniscient. They'd have to learn to wield such massive power, if that power didn't wield them. But then, this is assuming that what happened was an ascension to a higher plane.

Like mankind has, I could go on dissecting every single point, idea, concept or even thesis through millenia... but since I lack both the time and patience required to do such, I will not adhere to that course of action :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe it&#8217;s a case of mastery.</p>
<p>If both are omnipotent, that doesn&#8217;t automatically make them omniscient. They&#8217;d have to learn to wield such massive power, if that power didn&#8217;t wield them. But then, this is assuming that what happened was an ascension to a higher plane.</p>
<p>Like mankind has, I could go on dissecting every single point, idea, concept or even thesis through millenia&#8230; but since I lack both the time and patience required to do such, I will not adhere to that course of action <img src='http://www.wayofthemind.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elektra</title>
		<link>http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/01/09/wikipedia-the-omnipotence-paradox/#comment-321</link>
		<dc:creator>Elektra</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:25:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/01/09/wikipedia-the-omnipotence-paradox/#comment-321</guid>
		<description>"...if both are all-powerful, what if they oppose each other?"

For one of them will be the end of "Glory Days" I guess... :)

Now seriously, I do understand what is the question, I almost ran
crazy when I tried t understand "the limits of the Universe"… it's
truly impossible because besides mathematic concept of infinite, I
couldn't realize what would happen if I just go straight all the time
were would it end… and if it happen to end, what would exist "after"
the end…? Madness! I don't wanna play with it!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;if both are all-powerful, what if they oppose each other?&#8221;</p>
<p>For one of them will be the end of &#8220;Glory Days&#8221; I guess&#8230; <img src='http://www.wayofthemind.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Now seriously, I do understand what is the question, I almost ran<br />
crazy when I tried t understand &#8220;the limits of the Universe&#8221;… it&#8217;s<br />
truly impossible because besides mathematic concept of infinite, I<br />
couldn&#8217;t realize what would happen if I just go straight all the time<br />
were would it end… and if it happen to end, what would exist &#8220;after&#8221;<br />
the end…? Madness! I don&#8217;t wanna play with it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pedro Timóteo</title>
		<link>http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/01/09/wikipedia-the-omnipotence-paradox/#comment-319</link>
		<dc:creator>Pedro Timóteo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:28:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/01/09/wikipedia-the-omnipotence-paradox/#comment-319</guid>
		<description>I assume you mean Star Trek, right? :) Q is a different case - not only is he often used for comedy (due, in part, to John DeLancie's charisma), but he isn't really "omnipotent", just very powerful. Omnipotence, by definition, has no limits, no degrees, you can't be "more omnipotent" or "less omnipotent".

Which, again, leads us to a paradox: what if there are TWO omnipotent beings? If one is more powerful than the other, then the lesser one isn't really omnipotent; if both are all-powerful, what if they oppose each other?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I assume you mean Star Trek, right? <img src='http://www.wayofthemind.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> Q is a different case - not only is he often used for comedy (due, in part, to John DeLancie&#8217;s charisma), but he isn&#8217;t really &#8220;omnipotent&#8221;, just very powerful. Omnipotence, by definition, has no limits, no degrees, you can&#8217;t be &#8220;more omnipotent&#8221; or &#8220;less omnipotent&#8221;.</p>
<p>Which, again, leads us to a paradox: what if there are TWO omnipotent beings? If one is more powerful than the other, then the lesser one isn&#8217;t really omnipotent; if both are all-powerful, what if they oppose each other?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elektra</title>
		<link>http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/01/09/wikipedia-the-omnipotence-paradox/#comment-318</link>
		<dc:creator>Elektra</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2006 23:15:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/01/09/wikipedia-the-omnipotence-paradox/#comment-318</guid>
		<description>What about “Q” on ST...? ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What about “Q” on ST&#8230;? <img src='http://www.wayofthemind.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
