I'd just like to say, this is not a debate over whether God exists or not. That topic was superfluous from the start. We've probably had more than millions of those kind of topics, and all ended in a flame war.
In a sense, people cannot possibly imagine omnipotence. But that's what we're trying to do nowadays. People only define omnipotence as a concept, and often think of it as something they can comprehend. But with every possibility that unveils itself goes into the category of omnipotence. How far would you take omnipotence? Or, how would you define omnipotence- in the strictest sense, would be more correct.
In a sense, we are an entity that lives in a three dimensional world- with a one way axis of time. But in the sense of a hypothetical god, that is omnipotent would theoretically be in full control of infinite dimensions. Per say, to me, I would explain an omnipotent entity, whose time is not something that 'goes'. You could be an entity that encompasses all of time, whether that time be infinite or finite. There could be more than one axis of time to the eyes of an omnipotent entity. Also, it would also have an axis of 'possibility' of universes. Of course, to an omnipotent entity, it would have to encompass 'all' of its possibility. That is how I view omnipotence.
None.
Relatively ancient and inactive
According to
Dictionary.com: The quality or state of being omnipotent.
Omnipotent is: One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
It's having unlimited power. Stop trying to complicate a simple concept.
None.
I think of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence as actually 1 characteristic. I can see how something could be any of these, and also not be all 3. At the same time, I think to say something is omniscient and/or omnipotent is superfluous, when you should just describe it as omnipresent. Omnipresence is the true god characteristic.
Why? Because of "cogito ergo sum" I think therefore I am. The one bit of information about anything that you can say you truly know. Even if you can get anal enough to say even that isn't 100% truth, you can't argue that it is at least more true than anything else you know. Alright, so now let's say you just have that omnipresence attribute. When you have the "I think therefore I am" moment, since you are everything, you know everything, so omniscient. I forget how right now, but somehow omniscience leads to omnipotence from there, and you're done.
Can God create a box that He cannot see into?
None.
Relatively ancient and inactive
Saying nonsense and holding it up as a contradiction to something isn't intelligent.
None.
>be faceless void >mfw I have no face
Can God create a box that He cannot see into?
Yes, and then He'd look into it anyway.
Stupid questions deserve stupid answers.
@Dazed, time isn't an axis or a dimension D:
Anyway, what centreri said.
Red classic.
"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."
I'm trying to conceptify the meaning of time conveyed. In a sense, to a omnipotent being, time could go more than one (infinite, just like how there are infinite ways from a point) way- and exist in all of time; unlike how we exist momentarily in each phase of time. It would also be possible that we are only living a single scenario, within a set of infinite universes.
But ultimately, it would be better to talk of omnipotence after we've elaborated it. It's sort of meaningless if you are talking about a concept which is impossible to know. But when the condition arises, we talk of it, and we think of it as if it were limited to our chain of thoughts. Then, that would no longer be omnipotent. God can create and not create- and see and cannot see, and not see all at the same time, because time isn't something an omnipotent entity is entrapped or is in mutual flow with. Because we move through time, we automatically assume another kind of entity would move along with it. Wrong assumption.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 27 2010, 7:40 am by BeDazed.
None.
We can't explain the universe, just describe it; and we don't know whether our theories are true, we just know they're not wrong. >Harald Lesch
Can God create a box that He cannot see into?
This can actually have a sensible, non-contradicting answer:
When god decides to, then yes. If at a later point he decides he now wants to reverse the blockade, he of course can too.
Kinda like locking a box and throwing the key away. You can't open the box until you decide to make a new key or pick/break the lock.
This seems to work for pretty much any (so called) paradox. If the omnipotent being wants to do something seemingly limiting its powers it can make it happen, but the paradox is "cleared" when the being decides otherwise.
Omnipotence means being capable of anything, even things you can't imagine while not being omnipotent. I don't know why there needs to be discussion about it. I think the concept is pretty clear.
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on May 27 2010, 4:22 pm by NudeRaider.
I think of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence as actually 1 characteristic. I can see how something could be any of these, and also not be all 3. At the same time, I think to say something is omniscient and/or omnipotent is superfluous, when you should just describe it as omnipresent. Omnipresence is the true god characteristic.
Why? Because of "cogito ergo sum" I think therefore I am. The one bit of information about anything that you can say you truly know. Even if you can get anal enough to say even that isn't 100% truth, you can't argue that it is at least more true than anything else you know. Alright, so now let's say you just have that omnipresence attribute. When you have the "I think therefore I am" moment, since you are everything, you know everything, so omniscient. I forget how right now, but somehow omniscience leads to omnipotence from there, and you're done.
Omnipotence necessarily encompasses omniscience and omnipresence, but not the other way around.
e.g., a hypothetical particle in a super-positioned state in a closed system could be omnipresent, while obviously not maintaining omniscience as it is an unaware particle. Likewise, a single conscious entity could be omniscient in a hypothetical universe in which it is impossible to be omnipresent - if it was possible, they'd know how to do it.
None.
time isn't an axis or a dimension
*sigh* troll?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA
Win by luck, lose by skill.
Saying nonsense and holding it up as a contradiction to something isn't intelligent.
Well said, i'm tired of people thinking they sound profound when they say things like this on face book and pretty much anything that contains a option to post your 'status'. Sheesh. :C
None.
