The Problem of Omnipotence
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.พ. 2018
- Exploring the philosophical rabbit hole of omnipotence. Feel free to read the script here:
philosophyengineered.blogspot...
It's kind of amazing to me how many bizarre subjects tend to pop up when having this discussion. It's a really fun exercise in analysis that takes you through all sorts of obscure twists and turns. It's also a great demonstration of how terrible Christian philosophers are at doing basic philosophy. Even when you're practically fixing their own problems for them, they still fight you on every level. - บันเทิง
![ทททททททท #27 [หลุยส์ เค โตมายังไง ณ สระบุรี]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CaKoYw_Xmtg/mqdefault.jpg)
This is how you do philosophy properly. You define a word, you poke at the definition until it breaks, and then you revise the definition so that it isn't broken any more. Lather, rinse, repeat.
17:12 "But can we please all be grown up enough to admit that this is nothing more than an indirect admission of defeat?" .....
Couple of things here, because I have to nitpick. Don't hold it against me daddy:
1. Establishing your definitions by creating extensive lists of traits is veeeerry sloppy and that's not actually how we usually do that. How you make a good definition is create a set of rules, like an algorithm, that will sort things into them or outside of them for you. For example you don't list a selection of traits which would make a good automotive technician, you set a simple rule- _can they fix a car._ And the reason is pretty simple- you don't have time to play word games daddy. Also, in your daily life, you never require an empirical test to see if the automotive technician is good or not, you have to go by the company's reputation. So essentially you have to trust them. I know that's unfortunate, but that's the sort of intrinsic bias humans have- we rely on trust and the claims of others because it saves a lot of time. Reinventing the wheel just because you feel your caveman bro botched it would take way too long if everybody did it.
2. The idea of absolute omnipotence existed long before the Bible. You sort of imply that that's where the idea comes from while it isn't.
3. You say that the Universe doesn't care whether our words are coherent or not but it... Kinda sorta does. Language is the framework you use to understand the world and since reality is all that appears to be real to you, things you cannot define coherently simply cannot exist.
4. You go about determining what a logically possible action would be pretty bad. An action is logically possible if it can be expressed as a valid syllogism. That's all there is to it. You're trying to reverse engineer it by first appealing to an empirical observation. Iiiiii kind of see now why a lot of philosophers sneer at you. Not me daddy, just... Others.
5. The whole rock-pilling thing is... A bit off. It's a bit off because it could be said about you as well that you can lift any finite rock (with enough help). If Q gets to use magic, why wouldn't get to use technology?
6. You wouldn't be able to truthfully state that you're not omnipotent _if you were omnipotent._ Demanding that from an omnipotent thing turns it from a logically possible proposition to a logically impossible one.
7. See this is what this reliance on empirical tests leads to. You have to remember the words and definitions you use. If an omnipotent being can only do logically possible things for them, whether a non-omnipotent being can or cannot do them is irrelevant. It's a category error. Russel would be pissed at you daddy. And this is why in logic you don't start with long lists of empirical tests, you start with statements and rules.
@AntiCitizenX A being with all powers would have the power to do the logically impossible. There all the issues are gone, you are welcome sir.
Meaning it can make itself exist and not exist simultaneously...that would be a nifty trick.
@Voidsworn lol right! It could also lift something to big for it to lift or lie while still not lying.
This is the definition I use on the more militant. Every time they think of something wrong just say "something with all powers has the power to do that (thing).
I'm a married bachelor.
I'm married to loneliness.
Sadly relatable.
*Sad react*
I'm a bachelor and I'm not interested in getting married or even having a marriage-like relationship without technically marrying anytime soon. Weird, I know.
(Yes, I'm over 18 years old)
So am I but, I have no desire to be in a relationship with anyone.
@@tochoXK3 have people told you to get married or into serious relationship? I'm married, but don't understand why some people demand that others have to have relationship others don't want to have.
Ya, you don't bow down to him cause he is omnipotent. That would be nuts. You bow because he is John de Lancie.
lol
I like the Q episodes. Some Trek viewers I've heard say they're not all that taken with the character and they don't care for the Q episodes. But I do. It's not the most heady or intellectual sort of science fiction. It's more of a fantasy. But it's fun. TNG is usually very serious in tone and Q provides a welcome respite every once in a while. I think so anyway. Just my two cents.
He also voices Discord from MLP. I love Discord. I'd bow
Creating a married bachelor:
1 - Gay couple marries.
2 - They move to a country/place where external same-sex marriage isn't recognised.
The men are simultaneously married and bachelors. Legally speaking anyway.
buddyltd that’s clever
yeah but we arent speaking legally
@@kadnan6111 it was never said that it couldnt be only in the legal sense...besides, marriage is only a legal institution...nothing physical changes when a marriage occurs...
@Buddy: That's so clever, I wish I had thought of it!
GaYs CaNt MaRrY tHaTs NoT gOdS wAy hahaha you are a clever one though maybe you should be omnipotent
Creating a married bachelor:
Step 1: put a man in a box with a radioactive woman
I looked and there was a dead man under the box.
Schrodinger's bachelor eh?
Lol this is quantum mechanics he is both married and not married at the same time. Clever.
Schrodingers Bachelor
why do you all make it so complicated. just make someone who has a split personality, one part of which is married while the other isnt thus the person as a whole is both married and not
Q: I'm omnipotent - I can do anything, go anywhere and know everything - challenge me to a task I can not do..
Me: Get lost
Me: ok, create a being more powerful than you.
Me: Make creating such a being more contructive and then create it.
Married Bachelors exist. I donw one who's name is literally "Guy"
The Jim Reaper
If you say they can create a task that they cannot fulfill then you're basically granting them the power of contradiction. They create the task and then solve it. It's contradictory but they can do it.
If you don't grant them the power of contradiction then they cannot create the task, but still be perfectly Omnipotent. As an Omnipotent being is a being that can do all and a task that cannot be fulfilled by such a being is a contradiction.
Let's say:
1.) An Omnipotent being can do all.
2.) Thus an Omnipotent being is a being that can fulfill all tasks.
3.) Creating a task that said being can't fulfill is something the being can do.
4.) A task that cannot be fulfilled by a being that can fulfill all tasks is a contradiction.
5.) We now throw all logic out of the window since an Omnipotent being can simply ignore contradictions.
I never said you would not be able to ask him this. Where did that come from?
An Omnipotent being would - depending on the definition of Omnipotent- not be confused by a mere mortal. He/She would probably be well aware of what you're playing on.
It's not the fault of the Omnipotent that we mortals come up with a vague abstract concept with a definition we apparently cannot agree on and then try to debunk it.
There is the kind that allows an Omnipotent being to make 1 apple and 1 apple be equal to 3 apples, create a square circle and perform the action described by a cat rolling on a keyboard.
It creates the rock and lifts it, while it stays unliftable.
It makes no sense, but it just simply is above the laws of the universe and all else.
There is the kind that doesn't allow the Omnipotent being to do anything logically impossible. It's allpowerful as it can do everything logically possible. The logically impossible isn't a thing. Nothing at all. Doesn't exist.
It either can create the rock and or it can't. Both contradictory and so is not actually things. He'd not be confused, but politely remind you that your question is false. Well, possibly. I do not know any such Omnipotents.
Simply saying that "AHA, it cannot do that thing so it isn't Omnipotent!" doesn't disprove anything as this is a different definition of Omnipotence.
P.S.: I'm sorry if the formatting is a bit weird. TH-cam comments are for some reason malfunctioning on my computer.
A competent automobile mechanic - but isn't that the definition of a Demi-God.....?
The problem is that they TIRE easily.
a fractal can create a replica of itself with the exact same nature and characteristics of the "father" or "parent" fractal............the "son" fractal is the exact same as the parent fractal in every single way, and yet, not the same as the father...................I think this can explain the apparent paradox of Jesus claiming to be God almighty, and the son and also being the same as the father at the same time "if you have seen me you have seen the father". John 14:9.........................................so please,,,stop criticising Christians and making straw man arguments about us saying we are both "poly theists and monotheists and are just stupid Christians that cant make up our minds".................do you seriously think we have come to the revelation of our faith so lightly withought critical thinking?!................................also onto the issue of "sons of God".....and "only begotten son of God"....................we, humans, are sons of God,,we are his children....but we are not his "begotten" children......we don't have the exact nature, characteristics and abilities...............we can "beget" others like us and continue our family line,,,,,but at no point can our "begotten" children ever be like anything else apart from us(which is why I think evolution is a satanic blasphemy and mockery of Gods word since it implies we are on an "ascending path" through the generations)...............Jesus wasn't accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be a son of God,,,,,if he did,,the Jews would have been like "meh, ,,whatever,,,,no big deal"......Jesus was accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be the "BEGOTTEN" son of God.....a son of God after him in complete likeness, character and ability...........the Hebrews understood that a BEGOTTEN son takes on his fathers name, (normally profession), his inheritance and continues his family line.....................at to me, sounds like a fractal and explains why Jesus is both man, both God and yet "the son"....................ive only ever seen evidence of life coming from other life,,,,,,,,,,ive never seen life come from non life(but I'm willing to be proven wrong with evidence if you can).
studmalexy this is your comment in a nutshell: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,.........,,,,,..,,..,,,,,,,,,,.................
Only when you add "in a reasonable amount of time" they transcend to Godhood if you add "affordably" because if you are good at something you shouldn't do it for free
That would be something that doesn't exist
I'm not here for the debate of religious themes, but to comprehend with easy to understand examples how we use tools as "language" and "logic" to solve problems. Thanks for your efforts making these videos.
Using logic for ethics usually ends up being disastrous
@@AdolfStalin how?
@@valivali8104 utilitarian garbage
@@AdolfStalin that explains nothing.
@@valivali8104 I guess. do more research
That’s pure evil, asking an omnipotent being to flargle a snuffin when our species is near extinct. How truly insensitive you are to our plight. This requires a public apology and admission of guilt as well as resignation immediately in order to make up for this major indiscretion. On behalf of the snuffin’s I wait for your response to this outrage, #SnuffinLivesMatter
the thing about that, is that in that situation god would look at what your mind thinks of when you say flargle a snuffin.
i think of flargling like, fluffing up a bunnies fur very aggressively. and i think of a snuffin as a tiny fluffy sentient ball of fur that snuffs around. or just wobbles. thus, he would fluff up a tiny fluffy sentient ball of fur that snuffles around aggressively.
i am not christian.
You say snuffin lives matter, but most snuffins are flargled by other snuffins.
My God finally someone making sense
@@kysier6015 you fucking snegal privileged gualng scrabbled scall!
Turns out that Snuffin is a racial slur, and Flargle is a combination of rape, genocide, and 9/11.
Not gonna lie, if John de Lancie came to my door, I'd probably start bowing.
Richard Thomas same here.
Richard Thomas, I thought it stod blowing and not bowing. Hahaha
Richard Thomas I am a BIG Star Trek fan myself but REALLY....Come on! You worship an actor. Now William Shatner you bow to.
Met Mr. de Lancie once at a convention. Despite the "Q" continuum reputation & his role on "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle," he was a real approachable, down to Earth guy. Even the goatee he had on threw me off. Too bad Keegan de Lancie his son wasn't there. A.K.A. q-Junior on "Voyager."
i first read blowing
Can the Lord microwave a burrito so hot the Lord cannot eat it?
God is incapable of receiving physical injury, so I'm gonna go with no.
Yep, his omnipotentence is broken for sure - should check the warranty and take it back, perhaps ask for a refund.
all he has to do is give it a few minutes to cool down and not be such a greedy bastard - lol!!!
Microwaving a burrito so hot he cannot eat it is easy. Microwave it to the point that the carbon evaporates, which should take care of all the elements that evaporate ate a lower temperature (i.e., all but carbon).
That's from The Simpsons.
God: I'm omnipotent
Me:prove it.
God:gimme a task
Me: bow down and become a slave for me for eternity.
God: whaaaaaaaaat?
He is omnipotent. People seem to assume omnipotent means forced to do something. He has the ability to do anything but his agency (choice) does not allow it... obvious solution..
God will just clone Himself and give you the clone. As if He would listen to you anyways...
@FAT cat woah. the god clone wars
@FAT cat r/wooooooosh
@@vitiated001 do you know what wooosh means???
This is one of my favorite videos (among so many on your channel), but I gotta say this:
You are wrong about absolutism and the existence of gods.
My girl flargled my snuffin last night, thereby proving that she is a goddess. Naturally, I had no choice but to "bow" down on her...
... and when everyone’s super.. no one will be! AHAHAHAHA AHAHAHA AHA!
You sound a lot like Jason Lee! Haahaaa!
this dude is pushing the narrative that atheists are hotheaded, angry, religion hating, logic fanatic monsters.
AND IT'S NOT HELPING!
case an point: i don't want to be grouped in with this guy... :(
@@UsefullPig I knew if I commented what I said no one would notice it. So I instead replied it to unrelated comment. idfk man
@@teakfreeman3543 lol
Reminds me of Bicycle Repairman (Monty Python)
I'll have you know sir that I happen to come from a long line of snuffin flarglers.
I will take that as a confession; I am a snuffin flagler police, and you are under arrest.
It's a long and proud tradition.
And I come from a long line of flarglerd snuffers
Then stay away from my girlfriend! I am the only one allowed to flargle her snuffin. In fact, I just did it earlier and she called ME omnipotent!
Well omnipotence is another thing created by people. So having a rational definition would benefit everyone.
Omnipotence means that you can do anything even if it’s beyond logic.
@@GunNr- yes
@@GunNr- agree
@@GunNr- no. It means all powerful
@@WinterApologetics Being able to do anything despite logic isn't all powerful?
"Flargle a snuffin" is my favourite action phrase now!
But frankly isn't the problem here more of that YOU don't know the omnipotent being had completed the task? I mean since it is a sentence that doesn't mean anyhthing, then ANYTHING that omnipotent being should complete said task and then "flargle a snuffin" would come to mean that thing. Also, maybe "flargle a snuffin" DOES mean smthing in some other language, who knows...? So maybe absolutism IS possible
Also, the rock problem assumes that God could materialize, as clearly an immaterrial beig can't lift something material? Also immaterial being lifting an immaterial rock makes even less sense, since immaterial rock wouldn't have mass and density, which are needed to it to be "heavy" or "light"
god can say he's a potato if he transforms him into a potato.
But if he says it while a potato, he's not a geniune potato, because potatoes don't talk.
I'M POTATO GOD!!
If christian god is everything then it is also part potato...
potatoes also don't transform themselves back into God -> end of God
Jaroslav Jůza Way around that paradox: the omnipotent being suspends the rules to turn himself back into his original form and reinstates the rules immediately after. Thus, being able to truly turn himself into a potato, and still remaining omnipotent.
So if he turn he turn into a potato he can't tell lie
I just flargled a snuffin. He wasn't happy about it.
Fuath maybe buy it dinner?
My snuffin turned around and flargled me right back. It tickled. Now I'm confused. There must be hentai to clear this up.
When you're all finished I'd like my snuffin back. It needs new batteries anyway.
Griexxt You weren't doing it right then.
Did you just assume the snuffin’s gender?
As a programmer, to a program that lives in my computer, one which I would happen to be developing, I am an omnipotent being. I am capable of amending every sort of thing in that program's universe (being my computer). I could mock inputs, change time, terminate the "universe", change the rules in that "universe", create interruptions, and amend the shape of that program itself. I could even simulate things that would be paradoxical to the universe that I myself live in. From the perspective of that program, the possibilities are endless, regardless of the given rules that it is currently run in.
So an omnipotent being to you as a human, would be that engineer to a computer program. It's not a self refuting concept, it's just not falsifiable or testable, and for that reason it's not worth spending our time in examination of it.
Just like any other terminology, senseless people would nonsensically define this term. Despite these people not being able to accurately or coherently express what they mean like little babies, we are perfectly capable of understanding what they mean. What you are doing here, despite the good will, is sophistry. Rather than enlightening people with actual meanings to produce philosophical progress, you're running a play of words which mostly results in confusion and misunderstanding, and mockery of less philosophically educated or literate people. None of this has value. In fact occupying the minds of your viewers with this huge mess has negative value. Good philosophy simplifies problems to greater clarity. It's just that philosophy wouldn't have much to say about this except for "Yeah, these people can't express what they mean correctly." and move on to something worth thinking about.
Ben Barkay well said bro; I would only disagree in that omnipotence is in my personal opinion, something worthwhile to pursue the meaning of, and your programmer analogy is spot on the reason why I think so; I want to know the “engineer”
Well put
And yet simply choosing to believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent, creative "force-entity", even without all the religious baggage, is looked at as being stupid. There's no point in approaching the heat death (or surviving in some techno-magical way only to do it all over again in the next universe), or to try to survive the universe if the universe is in all respects infinite, but there's very much a point in trying to approach God through science, philosophy and meditation.
So basically you are saying that the omnipotent being might have created a universe that has laws but is not itself bound by those laws. As sound as that might sound, it totally disregards the problem, and in fact disregards all problems. Thinking of the universe in that light makes it meaningless, it just means we are a program going as the programmer wants us to go, that line of thinking makes all action, or lack there of, absolutely meaningless. Meaning itself has only any meaning in human imagination. Thinking of something that is beyond human limitations is the meaningless thing, as there is nothing to gain from it. If the said version of god exists, all is as it planned, and WE don't mean anything. Otherwise we mean what we think we do. Either way, no use thinking of that, only despair is at the end of that road. I have walked that path, trust me.
@@NabPunk
1) Despair for me personally is a total lack of free will and while I'm a big proponent of science (the part that doesn't wish to destroy belief and imagination) the most popular theories in neuroscience, psychology, sociology and even leading theories in quantum physics (concerning relativistic, granular localized time) are all slowly pushing us into an increasingly deterministic model (aiming to disprove free will or even asserting it outright in many cases). Based on the prevailing theories in most fields (including QM and astrophysics), we will never be able to escape this black box called the universe, save for the intervention of whatever entity encompasses it (or whatever else they would have you believe in the place of God, like 'we're a simulation'). Now, supposing there's no such entity, no God, where would you find meaning? What's the point of legacy in an infinite determined universe? To eventually die out when the universe ends and having made our mark? For whom? For what? To try and jump into the next higher-tier universe (simulation theory) or the adjacent one (multiverse theory)? Then what? Same thing over and over again? Where does it stop? It has to stop somewhere doesn't it? Perhaps there's some sort of chirality or fractal nature to it, in which case the pointlessness is again inherent in the infinite quality of existence. There's no point in infinite space-time. In the infinite, all finite things lose meaning. ([*]but in the finite, the infinite gains meaning? see point (2))
2) Given my intermediate understanding of cosmology and quantum theories, as well as a good understanding of many religious and mystical texts, I believe Everything is but a projection from an absolute (dimension-less?) substrate. Now, with projection, I don't mean hologram like in star trek or something, but our material world and light and gravity are all natural interference patterns resulting from a deceptively chaotic but very much absolute and willful substrate. That substrate is the absolute force-entity I'm talking about. God, if you will. Now that you know what I mean, concretely, by this entity (for simplicity's sake and because of the overlapping qualities I mostly refer to this entity as God). [*] I believe said entity willed Everything, in order to see something refracted/reflected back. Or maybe its just a logical consequence of any system, in-universe or over-universe, no matter how 'perfect' it may be, to produce anomalies (resulting in our reality). As I said, the infinite may find meaning in the finite, which would explain why it willed/caused a self-partition of sorts (material projection of our universe, granularity, QM theory). I believe this substrate, this absolute entity, this God we speak of, finds meaning in our universe and in us. A dialogue between the self-less and the self. Between chaos and order. Between the infinite and the finite. Anyway, I'm ranting. What it comes down to is this: I believe in keeping both the avenue of science and logic; and the avenues of the wise, the mystical and religious experience open. They go hand in hand, regardless of what militant atheists would have you believe. We find more and better meaning and knowledge WITH these narratives than without, and to me it makes life not only worth living, but unconditionally GOOD.
Dear Que, please define "Omnipotent". Thanks
agree
see: inspiring philosophy
5:44 when english is not your native language and you waiste 2 min googling what those words mean. and then you realise you paused 1 sec before he said they're fake
LOL! That's funny.
OH man that is funny
When*
English*
waste*
Google*
And*
realize*
.*
English is not my native language, but at least I do not fail this bad...
Also; Sorry, felt the need to correct thee.
you*(thee is archaic unless you're intentionally using that fashion as in I bid thee good night/farewell and other nerdy speech)
Bes righting. Yet bes also wronging.
Bes not speak like we bes.
((Few can even understand this nonsense...))
When everything's omnipotent, no-one will be
YOU GOT ME MONOLOGUING!
No capes!
And when will this be? The singularity? Yay, can't wait..
A man who was married but the wife died; could be defined as married or a bachelor.
We have a word for that. Its called Widowed.
You're either married or you are not. You're not both.
Nah she dead he ain't married no more
I came here because people kept calling me omnipotent
Ray Mak you again?
pog
You mean impotent.
@Venkat Karyala Hey
You are.
I could create a married bachelor. Not perfectly, but just whip up a situation where a drunk guy marries a stripper in vegas, has no memory of it, and goes back home thinking he's still single.
Try Shroedingers Bachelor : The divorce papers were either approved or not by the courts; it's in a sealed envelope; no one knows till it's opened.... and so he is either both or one or the other; so we see the quantum married bachelor..............it's a hell of a state to be in......
That example works a lot better. Touché.
That's pretty clever, actually.
No amount of power could make a married bachelor so it is completely irrelevant as far as omnipotence is concerned.
That would just be equivocation.
To be fair, if John de Lancey knocked on my door I'd probably start bowing from instinct, that guy's awesome
See. This guy gets it.
As would I.
Hail Q, for he saved the Picard, and knew saints Sisko and Janeway.
Daniel Gould who is that?
I'd kick his ass for ripping off Trelane and the Great Gazoo.
Very interesting. I like your definition of omnipotence!
That's also why I like the idea of polytheism: A bunch of very powerful, thought not omnipotent, and sometimes not even entirely immortal beings.
...Though the christian God is also an interesting piece of mythology. 😘😝
Fjuron From what I have gathered from your response, I have determined that you do not believe in the Christian God. That leads me to the question, what do you believe in?
@@iamsethhasting8911 Just to venture a guess, Fjuron probably believes he could get a starbucks coffee for a decent price when he sees the iconic logo over a storefront.
Stop trying to convert people in comments sections.
@@magnusanderson6681 that comment doesn't suggest that he wants to convert people so much does it show how uneccisarily wordy and slightly pretentious people can sound.
I am real, regardles of what you think or believe.
@@doe-dw9lo well may e he doesn't mean to do it but still anyone can believe in what he want and is not forced to say it ...
How about if omnipotence were defined as “the ability to do any meaningfully-defined task that doesn’t require the actor to have limits to their abilities”, or something along those lines?
Honestly, I find arguments about creating a married batchelor to be just word games.
That's just philosophy as a whole. It's basically word salad to mess with the mind. In fact you'll also find that most schools teaching philosophy will more waste time teaching the history of it and odd voodoo the people believed in and practiced over actual intellectual training and studies. This is kinda how its always been.
@@Skylancer727
Dreams and video games are the best examples for all omni factors.
But dreams are difficult for humans to control and video games require true omniscience in order to show omnipotence.
Humans are limited machines...
@absolstoryoffiction6615 I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a response to my post. In fact I question how that's a response to the master post too.
Also I'll intergect that omnipotence is basically an abstract construct. We see a lack of perfection in things and people therefore assume a perfect example must exist. An example is the perfect steam engine requires absolute 0, but absolute 0 is physically impossible. Just because something can be imagined doesn't make it possible even if the logic is consistent; that's the flaw of philosophy. This is why research has nearly entirely moved onto science as it seems more consistent with being accurate.
@@Skylancer727
True... But technology has an almost perfect state, given omniscience. Since nothing has infinite durability nor infinite energy.
Dreams and video games are an example of omnipotence in a more realistic context since both are actual things which exists.
@absolstoryoffiction6615 I mean if black holes are a singularity then they technically have infinite energy in an infinitly small space while also being nearly indestructible. The only thing that can break a black hole is age after the stars all die off.
Also dreams can't really be said to "actually exist" they're also a construct of our minds, all be it unintentionally. They also tend to be byproducts of things we already know.
Not sure what you mean by technology having a perfect state. I'll say there's a threshold which improvements become irrelevant, diminishing returns, but I've yet to see a "perfect technology". I mean I'm sure at one time the candle was seen as nearly perfect, yet today we don't just use the light bulb, we use LED. Soon we'll likely move to something else. The more we know the more we know what can be improved. But I don't know of any perfect end goals in technology. It is a slow progression of adding old ideas together to get new ones and adding new understanding to old concepts.
Omnipotence: n. See plot hole.
Martymer 81 A wizard did it!
It's called "Holly bible" because it has holes in the plot.
Erick Lopes: Yup, that would explain it.
Martymer 81
Love your videos, looking forwards to more debunkes of FlatEarthers and spirit science BS 👍😎👌
Martymer 81
Omnipotents also known as Plot armor lol
Loved this video!
The third definition of omnipotence (Doing everything consistent with one's nature) was one I found funny even existed when I first encountered it.
My first thought was: "Wait, you think everyone and everything's omnipotent? Everything I can do is consistent with my nature, and everything I cannot, isn't!"
No, people usually define it in that way as the ability to do within God's nature, so you would not be omnipotent.
But then it becomes a tautology.
"God can do everything within God's nature", or "God can do everything God can do"
So can I do everything within my own nature.
Xgya2000
The definition was about god for one thing.
Secondly, definition are tautological, aren’t they?
They're not tautological... They're definitional. They're assertions... Is that too difficlut to wrap your brain around?
Roberto Singer
Definitions are strings of words that are meant to reflect what a thing is, by being a referent to that thing.
A man, is a man is a perfect definition of what a man is is- and that’s a tautology.
Omnipotence - The ability to change the laws of physics
Omnipotence is not the abillity to change the laws of phycics, is it is the ability to be all powerful
The laws of physics would be reality warping. Still powerful but only a fragment of omnipotence
@@quentinweidle5550 No, Very powerful reality warpers can change the rules of logic too
And omnipotent beings can change the laws of physics too
I came back a year later just to say that this reminds me of when, in Madoka Magica, Madoka makes a paradoxical wish along the lines of Russell's paradox.
The universe implodes and she becomes a god. (Because anime logic.)
This implies that, before the events of the series, nobody decided to troll the series' genies with "I want this statement to be true and false at the same time" or "I want to create a rock so heavy I can't lift it".
A married bachelor - A man named Bachelor and his wife. Easy.
I accept.
It would be grammatically incorrect.
TheBritishTwat Not really. Just an uncommon use of the phrasing.
"A married man" is a man who is married. "A married Bachelor" could be a man, named Bachelor, who is married. Or a man with a Bachelor's Degree.
Gerald Bieniek then he needs to make the actual married (the state of wife and husband) and bachelor (single) you can’t avoid it
StemSale the point is that if you only ask for "a married Bachelor", he can get around it with this word game of "a man named Bachelor who is married".
You have to be more specific to catch him in a contradiction.
He could even pull someone from an alternate universe where "bachelor" is the word for "a married man".
I can do anything that I'm able to do, so I'm omnipotent, wow.
I have always defined omnipotence as being able to control all material of the universe; physics, space, time, ya know. The idea of being able to do "anything" sounds like an incredibly juvenile way to describe great power to me.
Yet, many people still hold to the "anything" version.
The key thing of omnipotent is being able to make material from nothing. So only being able to control and change material that already exists, would be viewed as a limited form of omnipotence.
Omnipotence is the ability to have complete infinite control over power, mind, soul, space, time and reality itself... Basically the infinity stones from those movies
@@charkopolis
The "anything" version is a reflection of the feeble mind.
The humans cannot even slay Gods if this is all they comprehend.
And this world is not alone.
@@tristan4175
Define Nothingness... Because Nothingness and Existence are two sides of the same coin.
Well... At least to me... "I" am the Precursor of Absolute Omnipotence.
Mankind simply lacks the technology to master the 3rd dimension.
The episode Death Wish answers many of these questions. Q says, "but you mustn't think of us as omnipotent, no matter what the continuum would like you to believe". This episode does a very good job of explaining a 4 dimensional being, even taking us to the Q continuum to see quite likely the best interpretation of the 4th dimension I have seen.
Is there any theories,processes that explain how a omnipotent being is created?
My cousin flargled a snuffin and he got 6-months house arrest, 5 years probation and a lifetime ban from all SeaWorld and Universal Studios theme parks.
I'm not much of a legal expert; is it normal for the probation to be so much longer than the arrest?
Its been years since my gargle was snuffened :( #stillsingle
An interesting video I must say, I'll keep an eye out for more !
My favorite version of the rock thing is, can god microwave a burrito so hot that he cant eat it
A Catholic priest is a married bachelor, as they are married to the Church.
I found your channel about a year ago from the Jekyll and Hyde demos you uploaded. Small world, I guess.
BUT wait actually that does in an insane way kinda work i guess
cool
The jokes on you. The 1959 Cadillac weighs 5,000 lbs, not 1,000 lbs.
Jokes on you. I made mine out of aluminum :D
jokes on you, mine is made out of nothing
I don't have one
Basically someone who uses console commands in skyrim
Yea pretty much
Ah I found a gem. It's weird to think that you only have 33k subs
Can I give a fair definition of god?
God - "The Man Named Gabe Newell (Also Known as GabeN) who create the company known as "Valve Incorporated" and is the owner of the service Steam"
Too bad Lord GabeN is not omnipotent! How do I know? An omnipotent being can create Half-Life 3!!!
God does not have to be omnipotent, Gaben is love, Gaben is life, Gaben is god!
But who do we pray for HL3 then? Who can make that happen?? What is the meaning of life???
Gaben only knows...
Vert343 I would rather worship that guy, because atleast that can motivate him to create HL3 or keep improving valve. If I worshiped god he wouldn’t do shit.
"Potatoes, boil 'em, mash 'em, put 'em in a stew."
They're taking the Hobbits to Isengard!
omg, I just watched Lord of The Rings for the first time, why do I keep seeing references to it?
BlazeRightBy
Divine intervention, obviously. 😆
Every now and then my wife will be watching/listening to something for the millionth time and at the exact same moment both say:
"huh, Ive never noticed that part before now"
fucking crazy how that shit goes sometimes isnt it? Coincidences are fun!
can you spell it in English or i you disable
th-cam.com/video/qrQVFZx7XX4/w-d-xo.html
1:06 Top squirrel getting some smash.
*AND HE'S LUVIN IT*
To ask God to make a rock he cannot lift is asking God to make a married bachelor.
This was just a ploy to show off how much you can lift, isn't it? :p great video! :)
lol
i'm not hearing a "no"......
If you have a long enough lever, and a fulcrum, you can lift everything.
Who else misread the title of this video as "The Problem of Impotence"?
The Ultimate Reductionist. Me:(. I must on to the next video to solve my problem...
Well, to put it figuratively, the claim of anyone being omnipotent is impotent and ignorant.
The Ultimate Reductionist That's what it says.
Can God create a penis so flaccid even he can't arouse it?
Great video. I learned and thought a lot. Thank you.
Very well made, good job! made me think about it until I found an answer. Keep up the good work!
Can god flargel a snuffin so completely, that even he could not unflargle it?
Bro... I'm calling the police.
A new ACX video? What a treat this is! Thank you.
I think it's reasonable to assume that a logically omnipotent being is capable of permanently limiting himself such that he could create a rock and then never be able to lift it, but this being would obviously never choose to do so because that would be absurd.
Or to take your example of an omnipotent being truthfully claiming to not be omnipotent, he would be fully capable of reducing himself to not being omnipotent and then speak the words truthfully, but again would never choose to do this because that would be absurd.
So wait , if an omnipotent being has to permanently limit themself to be able to create a rock in which he cannot lift then doesn't that prove that it's not possible to be omnipotent and create a rock in which you cannot lift ? Since they would have to limit themselves to the point of not being omnipotent to complete the task ? At that point it would be like asking any regular non - omnipotent being to complete that task and avoid the logical impossibility altogether.
I mean, God did limit himself to a body that could die so I don’t get a rock is an issue
@@joecreek6038 Why do you believe that story anyway?
@Kenny Yes and so is Santa Claus. We simply can't understand how he disappears into the North Pole without a single shred of evidence for
his existence.
@@unknownwarrior9775
It's a dimensional question. Humans failed to understand.
Just like... Ending Gods... Of which I have done before.
I created Omnipotence. I am its Precursor. And I am its End.
Hey do you know when we’ll see more Anti-citizen 1? It’s been a WHILE
I would think that a omnipotent with absolute power would be able to change the universe so any task you set them could be completed. As for your examples he could create something we would call a snuffin and create a meaning for the word flargle.And as for create a married bachelor he could simply change the meaning of the word bachelor to mean a married man. if a being holds true omnipotence he would be able to do all thing even things that are not logical as he could just change the universe to make them logical.
So, what if an OB said "I have never been omnipotent, and have never existed. Including right now, while speaking this sentence."
if it was truly an OB then surly removing themselves from existence could be done, the ability to chance reality and logic are kind of the point if were talking true omnipotence. so while your correct by our logic the OB could not be omnipotent and say what you said the OB could simply change reality and logic to a point he could say it and it would be true.
Ok. I see what you mean. But I fear this doesn't resolve the issue. What would you expect to happen if an OB that does exist must continue to exist to utter the phrase? For me, this is reason enough to say that it is simply impossible for an OB to exist as defined with absolutism.
I understand what your saying completely but think of this. we as humans can only imagine things in 3 dimensions but mathematics and computers can calculate using many more. a computer can plot a graph in 8 dimensions and interpret the results. so just because we as humans are not advanced (or smart) enough to understand something, that in in its self isn't reason to say it cant exist.
I don't think anyone can purport to say they know everything. But what we can say is that, as defined, an OB must logically not exist. Maybe there is a OB-like being out there, but (in a very technical sense) that being is not what we're talking about. This is all about definitions. And, how a poorly defined word can show us that either the thing isn't logically consistent, or we simply need a better, more precise definition in its place.
So Donald Trump is a Canadian 9:04. Got it.
An absolute omnipotent being, wouldn't something like that defy logic itself?
-Flargle a snuffin
Doesn't matter what he does, it ends up being exactly what it was supposed to be, even if we didn't know it beforehand.
-Create a married bachelor
Simply changes the definition of bachelor. If he can do anything, then surely changing a meaning of a word shouldn't be impossible.
Or, even more simply, an omnipotent being could just make us believe that he indeed is omnipotent without having to lift a finger. Maybe at the mere sight of him we would know. Maybe even before the knowledge of his presence we would know that he is omnipotent.
Why should something, that can do anything, be constrained by logic?
Yes. Omnipotent being is basically a reality warper. Someone gets it
But if the being needs to change the definition of a bachelor to perform the task of creating a married bachelor, then it couldn't perform the initial task of creating an unmarried bachelor, and therefore still can't be omnipotent in the sense that it could do literally anything.
Or atleast that's how I see it.
@@Ilyena or could be both married and unmaried. Again, omnipotence would defy logic and at its full capacity (as if it were to have a full, since we're talking about infinity) it's simply beyond our compréhension.
Okay. New challenge: Make a married bachelor without defying our logic, or redefining the words, and make it within our comprehension.
If the omnipotent being is truly omnipotent, and can do literally anything, it should be able to do that.
I feel like when talking omnipotence there's a point where there's no way around these things. Something needs to break.
Our definitions are steadfast and need to be agreed upon, because they need to be, otherwise what does anything mean.
How would we communicate here?
You understand me, because we, in way of communicating, agreed to communicate in english, and trust that the other understands the definitions of the words we use. Otherwise fjjrlal kdlfbjalg. ksifo-€7kfksl. Ueigkla Dkkfl.
Am I right?
Or does that mean literally nothing, because we didn't, consciously or just by means of communicating, agree on the meaning of fjjrlal kdlfbjalg. ksifo-€7kfksl. Ueigkla Dkkfl.
Ich könnte jetzt einfach anfangen auf deutsch zu schreiben. Vorausgesetzt du kannst nicht zufällig deutsch, was bedeuten diese Zeichen hier überhaupt für dich? Sie haben keine Definition (außer das vielleicht) die du kennst. Das ganze hier hat genauso viel Bedeutung für dich wie fjjrlal kdlfbjalg. ksifo-€7kfksl. Ueigkla Dkkfl, solange du nicht die Definitionen, und/oder Übersetzungen nachschaust.
That's German btw, if you don't coincidentally speak it. Point is: That paragraph has no meaning for you if you don't speak German. Maybe it isn't even German. You don't know. And neither is an omnipotent being able to do things within our logic that are without our logic.
If the omnipotent being just does whatever it wants, then what meaning does it have for us? You say it's beyond our comprehension, but that's kinda the point. If it can't make these things within our understandable rules of what we mean when we say things, then it can't be omnipotent, it can't be omnipotent in the sense of being able to do literally anything.
In a sense, and paradoxically, which is exactly the point of the omnipotence paradox, an omnipotent being can't be omnipotent. I would call it ironically, the meaning we give words are more "powerful" than a being that can do literally anything.
Omnipotence by definition of being able to literally anything must be able operate within our window of logic, if it can't, which it can't, it can't be able to literally anything, because it can't.
You honestly need to work with darkmatter2525. Make a short video with him over this idea.
i love darkmatter2525
The thought alone made me
N U T
the problem is not with god but with our rules of language.
This guy gets it.
As I stated in another comment. Kurt Godel explained all this a long time ago. It's not a problem of our rules of language. It's a problem of any system of rules that has any descriptive power. Paradoxes are in the very nature of any logical system.
That's the biggest problem with trying to define the powers of gods (an abstract concept in of itself, which becomes more abstract as their "logic" is far past our reach) within logical boundaries. Its kinda like trying to grade Pablo Picasso's work based on how realistic it is.
Great video. Though Constructive criticism: "The Bizzare Mental Gymnastics of Christian Apologetics" at 1:45. That's a very isolating statement.And frames your video as if it were going to disprove the concept of Christianity and any other faith through the use of the English language. I mean, as a Christian I found the statement kind of jarring. I had to stop the video and remind myself to stay open minded before proceeding. I would suggest a better word choice in the future.
Edit: Also, did it only have to be the Christians 100% of the time? Arent there like... 100 other different religions you could have chosen as examples to spice it up? Why did you need to focus on Christianity entirely?
Still liked the video though, pretty good content. You raise a lot of good points about the problems with language and 'Omnipotence' as a whole.
Its like trying to explain colour to a blind person. (Born blind). They have no frame of reference and all our discriptions of colour are far too subjective to transfer by language. Its more like two people may see two colors differently but associate them with the same word. Because for all intents and purpouses And to the outside world. They are.
Well, the Q aren't omnipotent - Quinn himself confirms this in "Death Wish"
Tuvok: "I am curious. Have the Q always had an absence of manners, or is it the result of some natural evolutionary process that comes with omnipotence?"
Quinn: "What? Oh, you mean just popping in whenever we feel like it..."
Tuvok: "That is one relevant example"
Quinn: "I apologize. At some point along the way I guess we just stopped thinking about the little niceties.
Tuvok: "So it seems."
Quinn: "But you musn't think of us as omnipotent. No matter what the Continuum would like you to believe. You and your ship seem incredibly powerful to lifeforms without your technical expertise, it's no different with us. We may appear omnipotent to you but believe me, we're not."
“Let’s go to bed.”
- Me
lol
I like the idea that God is just some guy who wrote a story down on something or just a guy who set the seed for the universe and we just happened as a unintended result of those fundamental actions
then it is easy to remove God at all and let the universe be itself... boom! reality explained.
I'd be more worried if that were the case, when most people plant a seed in their garden and something unintended grows on their crop or garden; its usually labled a weed or a parasite, both of which have a nasty habit of getting exterminated.
Have you ever seen life come from an explosion ?
well, then where did the God came from? ... you can't explain existence of universe with God since both end in same question: What was before? ... God is not solution, just excuse.
Chuck Norris is omnipotent.
Nonsense. Norris is omni-impotent at most. Just look at America today. He had his chance and he blew it.
@The Kaiser You are talking about the 78yo "actor" i.e. the wrinkled up arsehole, known as Carlos "Chuck" Ray Norris.
Whereas Kenneth is talking about Chuck Norris the "meme", and his power is limited only to the Memers Imagination.
Fiddlesticks!
I think you mean incontinent.
The Kaiser I want my last name back lol
Do you have an email address where I could ask you a question or should I just post it here?
i really like philosophy stuff like this, and here's another; how would an omniscient (all-knowing) deity know that there is nothing they do not know? if there is a box representing that which the deity knows, how would they know that nothing falls outside that box?
You assume such as omnipotent entity is limited to the human comprehension.
But to answer... Yes and no.
Omniscience is what you're looking for. And not all omnipotent entities fully understand omniscience.
Why?... Free Will is why... Very few can see beyond Free Will. So most omnipotent entities are lead by their own soul, by their own desires.
Kind of like religion...
Humans amuse me.
I consider myself a Christian with a great faith in God and I agree with what you've said. Christians have a very difficult problem defending their faith logically. I have struggled with this problem myself, my own use of language has hobbled me in discussions with much more intelligent people that understand philosophy. It would be hard to satisfy you with accounts of experiences with God or witnessing miracles because those things would be outrageous arguments that could not be used as proofs. Most of the study I have done has been to better understand my own beliefs and to clarify the feeling of truth that I feel and contrast that with my own life in the physical world. I honestly believe any intelligent Christian should have either an atheist or agnostic friend that they can discuss just these types of arguments. A friend tho, for real, not some stranger just to prove a point. I believe that that type of argument often will end up embarrassing that Christian and could hurt the overall view of or Christian beliefs.
I think you must be the first Christian on this forum to realize that all we're doing here is defining words. It's not an attack on God. It's a clarification of the words used to describe God. Just because some definitions are bad, that doesn't mean God has to die with them. It just means we have to find better words to talk about him.
Why are you a Christian though?
Easy way for an omnipotent being to "Flargle a Snuffin" or something like that:
1. Change the language so it is possible
2. Do the thing
Also, a TRULY omnipotent being would be totally able to flargle a snuffin by creating both the snuffin and the act of flargling and editing your mind so that you knew the new things were called flargle and snuffin. And it would be pretty damn convincing, especially if he left you with the knowledge that such things didn't exist until he snapped his fingers, and they were both things that never existed before.
A third option is manipulating causality and time such that an incoherent challenge never was nor ever shall be issued.
Except you wouldn't be flargling a snuffin because the being would have to make your challenge have a meaning. Which changes its meaning from gibberish to sensical. Which means that he isn't doing the challenge stated initially.
Hm, going back to the mechanic metaphor, what would the proper response to being asked to "change the headlight fluid" be, if the questioner seriously believed that this is something auto mechanics should be able to do?
The mechanic could always do *something* to the car as an act of sorts, which if satisfactory to the questioner would effectively be giving the phrase "change the headlight fluid" a meaning it didn't have before.
You're avoiding the real issue without realizing it, so I'll rewrite the example to capture the issue more precisely: can god "flargle a snuffin" without changing the language so it's possible? According to absolutism god can. Hell, according to absolutism, god can flargle a snuffin without flargling a snuffin, or without doing *anything at all*, because contradictions don't matter to absolutism. God can literally do nothing at all and everything. God can literally be omnipotent and not omnipotent. In fact, according to absolutism, god is omnipotent. Sure, god is omnipotent, but god is also not omnipotent. Somehow, this conversation makes sense, according to absolutism. Also according to absolutism this conversation makes no sense whatsoever. But it also makes all the sense. ALL of it. Also NONE of it. Contradictions are not contradictions but they are contradictions. God is real and fake. God is subservient to logic and also not subservient to logic. Human beings are better than god and also not better than god. God is omnipotent and also not omnipotent. Because contradictions don't matter according to absolutism.
Genuine question. Could I get your credentials please? Do you have any professionally published literature I can read?
That's just a question out of idle curiosity, right? Because I'm sure you realize that everything he said here can be evaluated on its own logical merits, regardless of the educational background or publishing history of whoever says it.
You wish to become an intellectually dishonest,and fallacy repeater disciple?
The liar's paradox is new to me and it's also my favorite.
I'm an atheist, but I would argue that the theist argument about type/token is actually valid and the correct way of looking at this. If you were to create a rock so heavy you couldn't lift it, no matter how heavy that rock is, an omnipotent being could easily replicate that rock. By asking an omnipotent being to perform a linguistically similar (but practically entirely different) task, "Create a rock so heavy you cannot lift it," you are specifying a logically impossible task. The being isn't negating his own omnipotence by doing it (or failing to do it), at least by the second definition. Rather, you are asking him to do something inconsistent with logic: saying "Create a finite rock so heavy [an omnipotent being] cannot move it," is the same as saying, "Create a finite rock that cannot be moved by a being that can, by definition, move any finite rock." This isn't impossible just for an omnipotent being, but for any being. By failing to do it he may still meet the definition of omnipotence if he succeeds at all logically possible tasks. Now, your argument about all actions being inherently self-referential hinges on implicit language, not formal logic. "Eat a taco" implicitly means, "Put a taco in your own mouth and swallow it." When a person performs a task on himself, "replicating" the task is mirroring it, and we are wired by social convention to infer that is what is intended. If, however, I drop a taco into a trash can and tell you to replicate the action, you would have no trouble realizing that you were meant to drop a taco into the same trash can. If we replace the trash can with a human mouth that isn't that of the person manipulating the taco, (ie, feeding that third person a taco) then the replication act is likewise obvious. It is thus only SOME actions that are self-referential in this particular way, and only implicitly (not inherently) so. The fact that, for want of implicit language, you would have to specify all of the tokens in the act of eating a taco is irrelevant to the question of whether the task of creating a rock so heavy a regular human can't lift it is the same thing as creating a rock so heavy an omnipotent being can't lift it (it isn't). For some challenges, achievement requires the token to shift, and for others it doesn't. Acknowledging this isn't pedantic. Hiding it behind language conventions is false equivocation and weakens your overall argument, which is otherwise very good.
*By asking an omnipotent being to perform a linguistically similar (but practically entirely different) task, "Create a rock so heavy you cannot lift it," you are specifying a logically impossible task. The*
Precisely. That was the point of the video regarding the first interpretation of omnipotence. You're reiterating what was already said in the video and treating it as a criticism of the video...
NoNameC68 I'm afraid you've missed both AntiCitizenX's and my points. This is NOT in regards to the first definition of omnipotence, but to the type/token discussion amid the SECOND definition, wherein AntiCitizenX argues that the second definition is violated not because God has failed to do something impossible, but because he's failed to do something POSSIBLE (creating an object so heavy it's creator cannot lift it). He then uses some linguistic similes to justify this. I've argued that he is in error (as is the formulation of the challenge) in moving the weight token when the task is replicated by a different entity. It is a subtle but important point being made, on both parts, and I don't blame you for not seeing it. I urge you to re-watch the section from 13:30-16:35, then re-read my first comment.
Thank you, I'm not atheist, but the second definition really bothered me because of that argument. By challenging an omnipotent being to lift a rock a potentially omnipotent being cannot lift, YOU the CHALLENGER are creating a logical inconsistency through which you are determining if a logic-bound omnipotent being is omnipotent.
In this case, your challenge becomes void and you've made it impossible for them to complete. The same logic can also apply to the liar's paradox. The challenger's perception is a part of the equation and undermine's the validity of an OB (Omnipotent Being) being able to "honestly declare that [they are] not omnipotent." It is not logical for them to do such a thing, why is it logical to challenge them to do it?
So, why would it be logical to challenge them to create, then lift, a rock even an omnipotent being can not lift? Also, I think making a "rock" big enough that a supposed OB cannot lift it using everything within the OB's power would destroy the universe as we know it... So it's also an irrational challenge, even theoretically, as being able to observe, and thus verify, the completion of such a feat requires the (presumably living) presence of the challenger.
The use of squirrels for philosophical demonstrations is the cherry on top.
AlexandruSD Im adding them to my final thesis
Squirrels are essential. How else are you going to catch the attention of -dog- god?
the Christian God is not concerned with doing the impossible for the sake of impossibilities sake to "prove himself".....and its a strawman to set God and Christians up like that.........................ill tell you what God is concerned with though............SIN,,,,,,and bringing his creation back to an eternal infinite state...a state of LIFE...and solving this issue through his Son(who took the curses meant for us upon himself)
name the chapter text and verse where God is capable of all things at once with all possibilities?.........when Christians say he is "all powerful", they are meaning he has a nature(which cant be compromised) but also complete control of this reality with a specific order to it..............so its stupid to say stuff like "I wont believe in God if God doesn't manifest 1000 pink unicorns in front of me right now"..........that's not the nature of God..........yes he performs miracles, but normally his miracles have a double/symbolic meaning behind them, as well as the purpose of actually helping humans(who are in need or sick..etc)............hes not going to magically manifest Godzilla from the ether and do the impossible just for the sake of impossibilitys sake to "prove" to a bunch of atheists that he is "all powerful"
he creates a false narrative of the Christian faith(or uses people weak in faith and scripture then debunks them)...........regarding the "trinity issue"... a fractal can create a replica of itself with the exact same nature and characteristics of the "father" or "parent" fractal............the "son" fractal is the exact same as the parent/father fractal in every single way, and yet, not the same as the father...................I think this can explain the apparent paradox of Jesus claiming to be God almighty, and the son and also being the same as the father at the same time "if you have seen me you have seen the father". John 14:9.........................................so please,,,stop criticising Christians and making straw man arguments about us saying we are both "poly theists and monotheists and are just stupid Christians that cant make up our minds".................do you seriously think we have come to the revelation of our faith so lightly withought critical thinking?!................................also onto the issue of "sons of God".....and "only begotten son of God"....................we, humans, are sons of God,,we are his children....but we are not his "begotten" children......we don't have the exact nature, characteristics and abilities...............we can "beget" others like us and continue our family line,,,,,but at no point can our "begotten" children ever be like anything else apart from us(which is why I think evolution is a satanic blasphemy and mockery of Gods word since it implies we are on an "ascending path" through the generations)...............Jesus wasn't accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be a son of God,,,,,if he did,,the Jews would have been like "meh, ,,whatever,,,,no big deal"......Jesus was accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be the "BEGOTTEN" son of God.....a son of God after him in complete likeness, character and ability...........the Hebrews understood that a BEGOTTEN son takes on his fathers name, (normally profession), his inheritance and continues his family line.....................at to me, sounds like a fractal and explains why Jesus is both man, both God and yet "the son"....................ive only ever seen evidence of life coming from other life,,,,,,,,,,ive never seen life come from non life(but I'm willing to be proven wrong with evidence if anybody can)......................................it all comes down to the paradox of eternity and infinity(as being the key to why I think the Christian faith is the one true faith),,and I think fractals are the answer to the divine(meaning to branch) nature of God, and I think the Christian faith best explains our reality and true nature of God and what he is......................now,,,im not trying to take anything away from God(just because the spirit has revealed these truths to me in a way that we can now conceptualise), it doesn't change the fact God the father loved us so much he sent his only begotten son(in his own likeness, character in image) to die on a Roman cross(taking the curses upon himself) 200 years ago in Jerusalem that we may be "brought back" to our eternal "fractal" state at one with God almighty.
Ominpotence = Nothing can stop you from doing the things that you are determined to do.
I am determined to create a married bachelor in a square circle.
Good content. Thanks for the video
A married man who has the nickname "bachelor".
Just like anything else, Omnipotence is a relative characteristic.
The animation in this is top notch
An omnipotent being could make themselves not omnipotent, but still able to make themselves omnipotent again, fail to lift the stone they made, and then make themselves omnipotent again after they failed to lift the stone, thus being omnipotent, yet being unable to lift something they create.
So in other words, in order to demonstrate omnipotence, you have to NOT be omnipotent.
Do you see the problem??
24:35 With two omnipotent beings, you can make them enact the spear vs shield paradox!
well ya, thats why there are never two omnipotent beings within one fictional continuity.
The Q arnt omnipotent ya know they are just very very advanced
According to Urban Dictionary, to flargle a snuffun is to "Wiggle the arms of a cookie".
Don't think i didn't notice your little nod to the babelfish.
Minute 23 and my brain is just sitting there going "....this is fine" while flames prapare to take it down to the endless hole of i don't know what XD
I'm real late to the party here and most likely no one will see this, but if we define omnipotence to mean "ability to do anything logically possible" then is it not logically IMPOSSIBLE to create a rock so big an omnipotent being cannot lift it? Isn't that the entire point of the paradox? That we can logically prove its impossible for an omnipotent being to create a rock so large that they cannot lift it? So if we are logically proving its impossibility, then why is it a strike against a being able to do anything logically possible, that they are unable to do it?
I'm not trying to make a case for god here, but I see this argument all the time. How is the logically impossible rock any different than the logically impossible married bachelor? Certainly I can prove the possibility of creating a rock pile so large that _I_ cannot lift it by doing so in real life, but I cannot similarly create a rock pile so large that a so defined omnipotent being can't lift it.
In the same way I can truthfully say that I am not omnipotent, but I can't truthfully say that an omnipotent being is not omnipotent. Therefore I would conclude that it is logically impossible for an omnipotent being to truthfully proclaim _themself_ to be omnipotent.
------------Edit-----------
Summarized for clarity:
If we define omnipotence as the ability to do anything logically possible
Creating a rock of any arbitrary size no matter how big is logically possible so an omnipotent being must be able to do it
-let this group of rocks of any size be "set 1"
Lifting any object of any arbitrary size no matter how big is logically possible so an omnipotent being must be able to do it
-Let this group of all objects be "set 2"
Therefore all of set 1 is fully encompassed by set 2 because all "rocks of any size" are definitively within the scope of "object of any arbitrary size".
Since set 1 encompasses all possible rocks and set 1 is entirely encompassed by set 2, a hypothetical rock from set 1 but not encompassed by set 2 is logically impossible.
Therefore a rock so large that a so defined omnipotent being cannot lift it is not logically possible
Therefore, a being able to do anything logically possible cannot create a rock so big that the being cannot lift it.
In the same way that a married unmarried man cannot exist, an object unlift-able by something able to lift any object cannot exist. The set of all possible objects is lift-able, so the set cannot contain any unlift-able objects; The set of all bachelors is unmarried, so it cannot contain any married men. The creation of something from a set, but with attributes definitionally excluded from the set, is logically impossible. Just like creating a fractional integer.
The point isn't to solve the paradox, but to create a satisfactory definition for omnipotence that we could reasonably be able to apply to a god should he make himself known.
@@metzen0 I get that. What I am saying is that "able to do anything logically possible" is a satisfactory definition. The objections to that definition in this video all seem to be things that are logically impossible, so I don't see how they are really objections at all.
This needs some explanation, then.
Let there be two minimal logically possible things one can do: A and B. Suppose that a being having the ability to do A makes it impossible for it to do B, and having the ability to do B makes it impossible to do A.
Now, I ask you: which one can your omnipotent being do? Having the ability to do A is logically possible, and having the ability to do B is logically possible, but having the ability to do both is not. Which one can your being do?
We can easily construct real examples for A and B by choosing A to be "make a rock so big that its maker cannot lift it" and B to be "lift a rock of arbitrary size".
Because we can even choose such actions A and B at all, we've already shown that being able to do anything logically possible is logically impossible.
@@coolkusti "being able to do anything logically possible is logically impossible"? I feel like you made a massive jump there in the end and lost me. I don't see how our ability to come up with logically impossible challenges to be failed is a problem for something we define as able to do only the logically possible .
@@outsider344 then you need to reason better dude..
I stopped understanding what you were talking about at the 20 minutes mark but I still enjoyed the way you talked about it.
paradox is rarely deeper than the faultiness of the definitions you use to craft it
My guy took one Psych class now he thinks he’s Plato
Psych is phycology...
God dammit auto correct, psychology
I get my car serviced at Walmart. So having faith in the mechanic is an absolute must.
Herpeslip Herpeslip having faith in Walmart is awful
If Picard really wanted to get rid of Q once and for all, he should have challenged him to create a stone that not even Q could lift.
then thrown it at him
There was an episode when Q was able to create a Peter Pan universe and even Q could not bring them out of it.
LOL! :D
Picard never wanted to get rid of Q. They were like frenemies, right?
Picard thought Q reckless and consistently criticized Q for his lacking sense of integrity to the balances of a place and time, as well as Q's interference with many personal/mission affairs.
I feel like these examples fail to meet what is "logically possible."
It is logically possible for _someone_ to truthfully say "I am not omnipotent", but it is not logically possible for an _omnipotent_ being to truthfully say "I am not omnipotent", so it fails to meet that definition of omnipotence.
The not telling a lie thing definitely isn't all powerful though.
I am not religious, but I do have a fondness for omnipotent beings in fiction.
*It is logically possible for someone to truthfully say "I am not omnipotent", but it is not logically possible for an omnipotent being to truthfully say "I am not omnipotent", so it fails to meet that definition of omnipotence.*
That's why it's called a PARADOX, man! It is *both* logically possible and *not* logically possible for an omnipotent being to perform that task. The definition of "omnipotence" itself is the problem, here. It forces you to accept both.
@@AntiCitizenX paradoxes are not logically possible, so in the definition in which omnipotence is limited by what is logically possible, paradoxes are automatically ruled out.
It is not both logically possible and logically impossible for an omnipotent being to truthfully say they're not omnipotent. It's just logically impossible. It is logically impossible to truthfully say a lie, just as it is to create a married bachelor.
@@oromain So you're telling me it GOES AGAINST HIS ESSENTIAL NATURE?
Watch the video before commenting, please.
@@joalampela8612 It has literally nothing to do with essential natures. The lying thing does, and I agree that the lying thing is dumb. But if you're arguing against the definition of "what is logically possible", using things that are not logically possible to debunk it make for a poor argument.
@@oromain the problem doesn't come from any omnipotent being constrained by logic, it comes from the Christian bibles interpretation of God, who is unable to lie.
We cant just ignore the paradox of a logically omnipotent being who is unable to lie because that itself would mean that the Christian god is illogical, meaning he doesn't fit the criteria itself.
Or if you mean that things logically possible for one being shouldn't be expected from other beings, then omnipotence becomes anyone, because anyone can only do what is logically possible for that being to do, which makes omnipotence weak and meaningless
Alternatively, when asking God to "Flargle a snuffin" he could go back in time and invent snuffins and add flargling to the english dictionary.
You good
So the editors are Webster's dictionary are omnipotent, then?
AntiCitizenX you need to correct your grammar I cannot understand what you are saying
@@AntiCitizenX They would be considered omnipotent, if that was the only thing you asked them to do in your test.
@@trondordoesstuff good point, but if we allow redefining words to be allowed in our test for omnipotence, then any being which can redefine words can technically beat any challenge we put on the list. This makes omnipotence the same as the ability to redefine words, which makes the test doable for humans, despite our obvious limitations. Therefore we must not allow redefining words to be on the list
META RULES
META RULES
META RULES
*SERIOUS PHILOSOPHY STUDENTS STAY AWAY*
You cannot break meta rules, in other words you’re coming up with your own particular definitions. As you study philosophy more seriously the solutions to the problems that you don’t realize you’re bringing up will come to light.
Thanks, but for reasons unknown many here want to hug the idea of Omnipotent and not let go. Several, even a possible workable one, were offered up with the last not fully explored. But I guess we got a lot of Thanos fan bois out there who really love themselves some Omnipotent beings that can do anything; logic or the laws of physics be damned. "Nope, I'm going to put on my Infinity Gauntlet and make your pesky logic go away."
James Ala BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA eye like that.
th-cam.com/video/lb8fWUUXeKM/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/lb8fWUUXeKM/w-d-xo.html
*Hisses in Aramaic*
something something multiverse something something time doesn't exist something something essentialism
Malachy M. Classic.
Omnipotence is just that song that starts “anything you can do I can do better…”
>Be me
>Be omnipotent
>”can you create a rock so heavy that even you can’t lift it? No matter what you say, you are proven not to be omnipotent”
>challengeaccepted.jpeg
>create a clone of me
>clone is not omnipotent, but me nonetheless
>create heavy rock that clone cant lift
>paradox averted
>yfw
paradox not averted. You just demonstrated that not being omnipotent can fulfill the challenge, yet an omnipotent being will fail the challenge. Paradox holds!
@@charkopolisExactly lol
But Q is Q spelled backwards so why is he not returning to his home dimension after he says his name?
Pronunciation.
'Q' is spelled - 'kew', spelling that backward would sound more like 'week' imo.
Mix yee spit lick kill tip zee zim.
I think they spelled it that way on purpose. Because he is a being that can't really be contained in 4 a dimensional continuum his name wouldn't be described correctly on 2-dimensional paper. :)
ABaumstumpf
Kjuu
Uuik
You're thinking of Mr. Myxzptlk.
Okay I have several things (not necessarily negations) to some of the points made in this video:
1. Consider the number line of integers, clearly there are an infinite number of integers. I create a set where all integers are included, except the number "10". Despite so, the set of incomplete integers is still infinite; just as a being who is infinitely powerful, who couldn't accomplish just 1 task, is still infinitely powerful. The being is not all-mighty, but he is mighty all-except-one. The example of the ear guy is a converse of "mighty all-except-one", which is "all-incompetent except one". It is equivalent of saying a set of the integer containing only the number "10", is about as numerous as the set of integers containing all numbers but "10". It is a good argument against "essence", but it cannot negate the possibility of a being that can perform infinitely many tasks except for one.
2. There's a misunderstanding of conditional logic/definition. Suppose I say: "Everyone get out of the room now, except me." That is a perfectly logical sentence, just as "Everything that can be done I can do, except this." But if I were to say: "I want the room completely empty, except I'll be in the room", that starts to sound illogical. I haven't figured out why that is the case, but this could be relevant to how we define "Omnipotence".
I still have more stuff, but I'll edit them in later. Oh, and I'm an atheist, and I do not believe in Omnipotence.
1. There are infinities larger than others, but even if there were not, if a number set is to include all numbers, then not including 10 would make it not contain all numbers.
2. Why, yes, that is reasonable however: suppose that a omnipotent being is to 'Create a finite rock too heavy for it's own maker'. What exactly is meant to happen? No matter what, it would be seen as a logical contradiction of omnipotence as defined by 'ability to do all that is logically possible'
Now let's say that omnipotence is 'the ability to do all that power can do' well... what is power and what can it do?
1. Physics definition: Well, then an omnipotent being is dependent upon time to do anything, but how much power? The more power you have, the less time/more force so the only way to have infinite power is infinite force but.... force is mass×acceleration, so that means they must have infinite mass, or infinite acceleration. that much mass would destroy the universe instantly so it cannot be that, so all we are left with is either position or distance since everything else does not work, and I think you can figure those out
2. Power as in authority: So the being just has authority over everything, which means they can by virtue of authority revoke authority from themselves but doing so removes their omnipotence, also this meaning means they have authority over what free will is and over whether or not you will go to hell which most theists don't like that their free will can be arbitrary
If there are other meanings of power bring them over
I'm an atheist, however I believe that our understanding of language and reality as a whole doesn't allow us to comprehend omnipotance.
A being could logically create something which is by definition contradictory such as a married bachelor, as it could at any time bend the definition to it's will.
At any time, the being could just make you never have seen it, or never had existed at all, so it's fair to say that all meaning is irrelevant when it is the sole dictator of meaning.
I think the true problem comes from determinism. As it's fairly certain that all the things we do are determined by our surroundings, psychological effects, and all, a true omnipotent being would be entirely free from any desire or will, and therefore would never do anything.
I am only sorry there is no way in YT to express how I enjoy your content like there is on Facebook.
But please consider I left you Facebook heart instead of just YT thumbs up.
Great job.