Pretty much any entertainment wresting wring. For actual wrestling, like mat wrestling, they do have a circle/ring, but the squared ones in entertainment use a younger definition of ring, that I think is exclusive to them.
Im an atheist and im glad that i found this channel. I have many doubts of the common atheist arguments especially the definition that both sides uses.
@@robloxcris9461 Saying something is beyond logic is fine... It's completely worthless in an argument, but you can do whatever mental gymnastics you want, won't make it valid.
What i understand from his video is that God is beyond logic and we can't use logic to prove his existence or not. So we go back to the question of how theists believe in his existence if they are not using logic ?
@@gasmimoha1957 actually we dont need to asume he is beyond logic. Regarding His miracles, just because we dont understand how he does or did some things, doesnt expell it from the realm of logic. Also manipulation of all that is in existense is withing the "limited" first description.
What is interesting is that many times Thanos has became nearly what he, and some others, would define to themselves as omnipotent...unfortunately Thanos runs into his own contradictions and logical fallacies, which ultimately causes him to fail. The definition of "omnipotence" really has to be determined correctly for it to have any meaning, and therefore Thanos has yet to run into God's definition of it, lol.
Even if omnipotence did mean the ability to do everything (even the logically impossible), there still wouldn't be anything wrong with an omnipotent being creating a stone so heavy that even he can't lift it, and then him lifting it. Although that is logically impossible, if omnipotence includes the ability to do the logically impossible, that is not a problem.
Incorrect!!!! 1) Can an omnipotent being commit suicide ABSOLUTE DEATH of itself it's totality and finality?.....NOPE!!!!.....humans and animals can EASILY do this, yet such a powerful being lack the ability to do it. 2) Can such a being lie which equals moral imperfection?.....NOPE!!!! 3) Can it create many other omnipotent beings in equal and greater power?...in a manner of how humans have created a.i which is believed and/or anticipated to supercede humans IF restrictions are NOT implemented into the a.i. (Isaac Asimov- Laws of Robotics)...NOPE!!!!...an omnipotent being is not capable of creating more powerful beings. All the above would be a direct contradiction of it's own nature therefore omnipotence itself has limits. Thus, I favor the definition that omnipotence is to be the most powerful within logical possibility.
I see people define omnipotence, and I am like... "You can't accurately comprehend how powerful omnipotence is. It is so ridiculous that, if it is real, it is above any understanding and reasoning that any of us can ever come up with. We are not omniscient after all." I personally prescribe to the belief that an omnipotent being can do anything they want. They can change all of reality and existence to make their whims and wishes come true. They could make a square circle if they wanted to. They could break reality to accomplish their goals. But why would they do that? There is no reason to prove you wrong. You are a tiny insignificant nothing burger to them. So is "reason" and "logic". If a being is omnipotent then they are the ones who made"reason" and "logic". Then I keep spouting incomprehensible nonsense for the rest of the night, and nobody cares.
Scared Noel oh yeah that guy. Well actually both him and Viced Rhino do rather poor jobs in trying to debunk these people. Rhino actually did a debunk video of Ip’s ontological argument and he was basically trying to say the same thing of what these atheist here on the comments are saying. In fact he doesn’t even mention scholarly sources or even a set up a premise to make his case. He and Rationality Rules are both sell outs imo
If God is omnipotent in the case He can do anything with an unfathomable power, then one of two things is true. God is either able to do anything that has a logical reasoning or coherency, or, due to his overwhelming and comprehendible power he can defy logic anyway. Problem solved
@Andrew Ramshaw Well, what do we define "existed" as? The typical definition will also involve an "exit" or "death" from the state of "existing", so to speak. If God is beyond time, He simply "is", which is a state that is pretty contradictory to logic in and of itself. If we tie Creation into things (whether you believe in literal creation all at once or theistic evolution), making anything out of simply willing it to exist or of power that doesn't exactly "intersect" with our own time and space, we can, again, see that omnipotence wouldn't just be limited to our logic, if that's what you meant.
@Andrew Ramshaw My point with mentioning that God "is", rather than "exists", was to say that the nature of "is", in itself, is, at least, somewhat contradictory to our own logic, in terms of comprehensible thought. Simply, we cant fathom how God is able to perceive time and information in respect to us/our world, making that trait beyond our logic, itself. Going by the Christ story, we also see that God not only displayed *power* in the physical world, but He could also manifest in it - spiritually - with his power, which, again, is something we can theoretically say "should be possible" with omnipotence but is beyond our logic, as we can't reasonably deduce how a spirit that has been said to be triun-ally God, can remain fully God, when entering a human body, while the other "characters" of God are elsewhere.
@@charlestonian7110 I always saw it as god being a higher dimensional being. We know (or theorize) that multiple dimensions exist, so it wouldn’t be a stretch to assume that the being that is God would be in whatever the highest dimension.
@@AesirUnlimited Personally, I think so, to some extent, myself, as well, since we can't really perceive many things, even in our physical world, as it is. We have a very limited number of cones, compared to some other creatures, meaning they perceive colors we can't really begin to imagine unless they are somehow just more defined, but the problem comes in the form of lack of knowledge. Anyway, yes, I believe God is of a higher dimension and a higher dimensional perception, but I don't exactly think that means that a spiritual reality we cannot physically peer into is out of the question, though. It would seem, to me, according to my own belief, that God is a few things: a watcher, an influencer, a maker, and, at times, a helper. Odd to think about how He would perceive us and His interactions with us, though.
@@charlestonian7110 Lots of people act like science and faith can’t coincide. I see it like this. Science is the blueprint of the universe, faith and religion are the blueprint of the soul, the answer to why. Science can explain how, but it can’t always explain why. Why does quantum theory exist, why does gravity and all the other laws of physics work in the way that they do? Whether there’s a god or not, there’s some reason for it all. To me, there’s simply no way that all of this came from nothing, out of pure chance. If there truly was absolutely nothing before the universe came into existence during the big bang, why didn’t it just stay that way? If some outside influence or force is the thing that decides, then wouldn’t that be god?
The Bible says in Luke 1:37 :"For there is nothing which God is not able to do." Or Job 42:2 says :"I see that you are able to do every thing, and to give effect to all your designs." And Psalms 115:3 says :"But our God is in heaven: he has done whatever was pleasing to him." So I perfectly understand why an atheist can believe that God can do anything. When I read these verses my understanding is God can do whatever he wants. So I will be happy to see the verses who support your understanding of the omnipotence of God because you don't give any. (sorry if I make mistakes, English is not my mother tongue)
@@lysoutrighter8260 @Lysout Righter But the video said,i f something is illogical, god cannot do it.🤔🤔🤔 So that means that god is not beyond logic. Or maybe I completly miss the point of the video.🙄🙄🙄
@@mkmkkmlIf it is in the nature of God to be logical, does this necessarily mean that He is bound by it? It could be that God, in that He is a necessary, omnipotent and omniscient being, consists-- or is otherwise comprised of--the attributes and characteristics that give rise to logic, and can and has employed this with respect to His creating a rationally intelligible universe, but is not Himself limited by its laws, in the same way that He brought a contingent universe into being, yet is not contingent upon anything for his own existence. Forgive the more speculative tone of the comment, as I'm still in the process of formulating a syllogism.
Sounds like someone who is so bias and so arrogant that he will never try to understand other opinions. Instead he will ignore every single argument out there. That's not realistic, that's just stubborn.
I remember how someone presented this argument to me back when I was 14. I knew it was fallacious, but I couldn't put words to it. But a few years later I realized what you just said right now: people misunderstand what omnipotence means
@@awesomefacepalm but that is literally what the bible says it says he can do anything also what IP defines wouldnt allow creation and therefore cant fit
As an atheists and seeker I would say, you have provided a very good argument. You changed my mind in this issue. Keep it up. Subscribed to your channel.
Something I like to do when I think about God is try to pick out what are the limits I impose on him. Often, in my mind there exists a god that finds its being in time and space. God is a lot easier to understand when you think of him as the unchanging touchstone of reality. God told Moses that his name was "I AM THAT I AM" -perhaps you could even translate it as "I will cause to be that which I will be" (I don't speak Hebrew, but If I remember correctly, it's a causative verb which we don't have in English). Thinking of God as existing outside of (or at least independent of) time and space is important to understanding God in a consistent way. It's a good exercise to examine what kind of limits we place on our mental understanding of God. You don't have to believe in God to do this sort of philosophical exercise- if something like God should exist, what are the logical ends of this idea? There must be something that exists independently, being able to say "I AM" and _really mean it, _ or else where did the universe come from? If the universe is self-existent, does it make sense that it is bounded by time and space? Wouldn't time and space be self-existent, instead? The question that really matters to the human is: what is the nature of this ultimate, self-existing reality? Is it like a mind? Or is it inanimate, like a physical law?" Anyways, I'm presenting this idea because you described yourself as a "seeker," so I think it might be interesting for you to ponder or discuss.
@GDDM sam I don't know if you're replying to me or the other guy, but it seems like you're playing semantics, here. Of course he didn't debunk your peculiar conception of the problem- you've framed the definitions to preclude the possibility of being wrong.
UA-cam is glitching and I can't see your other comment, except the first few words in my notification. Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree since I can't see your side of the conversation.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 Couldn't you have juat said the same for space and time both the (biblical god) and the universe are paradoxes in there inherent nature . Me seeing space and time as a "touch stone of reality." Has as much validation as you seeing god as such.
The simplest objection to the omnipotence paradox is that omnipotence isn't the ability to anything, but rather the ability to do ALL *things* . Notice I highlighted things. God is by definition the most powerful being there is. As such, there is no thing that God can't do. Hence, the question "Can God create a stone so heavy that it can't be lifted?" makes no sense. There is nothing that God can't lift, so the very concept of a stone heavy enough that God can't lift it doesn't exist, not even hypothetically. It's a non-thing, thus not falling under the category of all *things* that omnipotent beings can do.
You cannot win an argument by redefining the given terms. If they specify something, then that is what they are claiming. You cannot alter their claim to make yourself right! So good to hear it here. Thank you very much! God Bless
@roasted pancakes So, IP gave you a definition of omnipotent that is consistent with how it has been understood classically. Even if not, this would be his claim. When you redefine it from, 'having power over all things' to, 'the power to do the illogical', then it isn't rational. Of course, you defined it as such. Thus, when someone defines omnipotent to mean the latter, you have an incoherent definition. Your definition is wrong, but in philosophy it is what the person defines it as, not the strawman of the latter definition. That is a circular definition, you mistaked it, not IP. *A clever mind can always make a definition that appears to be false, but if that isn't what it originally means, you cannot redefine your way to victory.* Omnipotent is power over all things, not power over things that logically couldn't exist. The stone to heavy to lift is incoherent as an idea, given the unpower of being stronger then all stones. It is only a paradox if you misconstrued the claim. Stones like that cannot logically be made. Just because you can say & conceptualize, a married bachelor, doesn't imply you can logically say such a person exists. Same with the stone.
Even if you go with the second definition of omnipotence, one could say that God can defy logic, because he is omnipotent. Therefore, if he created a limit to himself (like the famous rock), he could still remain omnipotent, even if it is illogical. He could create a married batchelor, even if it does not make sense, and humans cannot immagine such a creation just because they are bound by logic.
A video game developer is omnipotent from the perspective of their game world. They are free to add, change or modify everything in existence within that world. That does not mean that they are free to magically make the video game exceed the boundaries of the computer it's running on, but it does mean that they can alter its rules or add new things or take things away.
Logical Omnipotence is what you're describing. I designed every facet of Omnipotence before. I know every iteration of it. (... Well... I don't go around designing Existence anymore. The real world is just one of the many iterations.)
If the atheist wishes to rebut logic consistency by way of arguing that God ought to be able to do the logically impossible/ is "beyond" logic, they still don't get anywhere. God could create a rock so heavy that he can't lift and then lift it- it doesn't make sense (i.e. logically impossible), but that's fine remember? God can do the logically impossible/ is "beyond" logic. Even if you suspend logic to contrive your way to a paradox; there is no paradox.
I don't know if your being serious but you're proving the point. Why attempt to create sophomoric arguments for good and try to train if he can ascend above reason? What's the difference between that and saying god was a prexistent fish that lived before the existence of the cosmos and recreated likeness of himself among himself ?
@xxAlexFogxx so you say there are errors in the Qur'an but yet no errors in the Bible? Why can't you be critical about your religion the same way you are critical of Islam? Is it because you are emotionally blinded by one and not the other?
In Matthew 19:26, Luke 1:37, Job 42:1-2, it says that God can do anything. It doesn´t say that God can do anything except logically impossible things. Did God forgot to mention that in the Bible? Does he have memory problems? If he is omniscient, then he already knew that we would one day wonder about whether he can literally do anything or if he can only do what is logically possible, so why did he not clarify that in the Bible? These days, it´s becoming increasingly common for theists to assume that omnipotence means the ability to do anything that isn´t logically impossible, but that wasn´t always the case. Many theists in the distant past believed that omnipotence meant that God could do literally do anything one could think of. Religious pople in modern times seem to have a tendency for redefining what certain nwords mean in order to solve problems. It´s dishonest. No type of argument annoys me more than arguments based on wordplay. But regardless of any of that, the omnipotence paradox can´t be used to prove that Atheism is true. It can only be used against Gods wo are believed to be omnipotent.
So when President Obama said American can do anything does that mean you think Obama was making logically absurd claims, or was he just using hyperbole? obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/09/weekly-address-america-can-do-anything
@@InspiringPhilosophy The difference is that all human experience shows that Obama is only a human being, and human beings are by definition beings that have limited powers. Governments are institutions created by humans and everything that a government does relies on human manpower and what humans can physically achieve. Since what humans can achieve is by definition limited and since governments cannot achieve something that a well-organized group of human beings can´t achieve, it therefore logically follows that neither Obama, nor the american government, nor the entire human population combined can LITERALLY do anything, and everyone with an I.Q. above 35 knows it. As a result, whenever we hear someone saying that he or she can do anything, we automattically conclude that such statement is not to be taken literally. However, Gods have been historically described as superpowerful, living, intelligent,sentient organisms. Most Gods thoughout history were not believed to be omnipotent, but the Christian God has. A God is considered to be very different from a human. Humans can´t violate the laws of the Universe, while Gods were historically believed to be capable of doing such things. If God can only do what is logically possible, then why didn´t he just pointed that out in the Bible? On a sidenote, each of the individual steps of the stone paradox is logically possible. It´s possible to create a stone that no one can lift and it´s possible to lift any stone . It´s just not possible to do both. Sorry for not responding sooner. Your comment didn´t appear on the notification bell for some reason.
@What’s Up What about Job 42: 1-2? Also in Matthew 19, Jesus statement that " With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” meant that God could do anything, INCLUDING granting salvation to humanity. Jesus wasn´t saying that the ONLY things God was capable of doing were related with the issue of salvation.
I didn't say he could, I said his claim can't be hyperbolic using your own logic. Why can't Jesus use hyperbole as well, especially when the context suggests that?
@What’s Up Mathew 19 is related to the topic of forgiveness, but nowhere in that chapter does it say that God can only do anything when it comes to the issue of salvation. As for Job 42, i don´t see which verses can possibly lead one to conclude what you concluded. You are seeing things that aren´t there. Obviously a God should have the power to ensure that no one ever manages to thwart his goals, but that´s perfectly logically possible. But Job 42: 1-2 doesn´t say that there are certain things that even God can´t do. If God is omniscient and he already knew in advance that in the future some people would be confused about these verses, why didn´t he clarify exactly what he can and cannot do?
Jeremiah 32:17 - “Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you.” I admit i haven't looked at the argument like this before. It is because the bible actually seems to acknowledge that god could do anything, ''Nothing is too hard for him''
@@unarmilion457 lmao, thats exactly what it means, making the impossible, possible. Are you saying your god has limits?? If so, why call it omnipotent?
@@vegeta2800 Because you redifined omnipotence, we don't mean God can do literally anything, we mean he can do anything he can do, God is the ALL powerful, I don't know where ALL powerful to do literally anything even impossible was a part of the term all powerful, besides you tagging it on, but if you want to define all powerful as that the problem vanishes as God would just be able to make the rock liftable and non liftable at the same time, the question is based on Atheists Strawmaning omnipotence.
@@vegeta2800 is subjecting God to *incoherence* in an otherwise *logical* argument. As the narrator of the video points out, this makes no sense and is a self-defeating line of attack, because he is tacitly admitting that coherence (logic) is insufficient to counter the idea of an omnipotent being.
It's very helpful to know how omnipotence is expressed in greek e.g. in Nicean Credo. There is word "Pantokrator" which means "Ruler of all" so we can see there is nothing about ability, but the intuition that God is supreme Ruler who is holding everything in his hands.
@@YugenOfficial right, I mean in Credo -- which I think is a most important set of propositionts about God -- there is nothing about pantodinamos but pantokratoras. And these words are often translate in the same way as Almighty. I'm aware of the fact that pantodinamos is also used to describe God, but I think pantokratoras is a primary way to talk about powerfulness of our Lord.
To be fair, the second definition of omnipotence comes directly from the bible itself: Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27, Luke 1:37, Jeremiah 32:27, Job 42:2, Philippians 4:13
God doesn't NEED the angels. He just created them because He wants to. Remember before the Angels, God already exists. And He is not struggling in a war with Satan, WE christians are. God already condemned Satan to an eternal defeat in hell.
@@dhenreycorpuz2951 I dont see how that matters. Christianity and Islam have both their own problems that they need to solve. Based on my research, Christianity has fundamental problems that it cannot solve. So their God, I don't see as anything but fiction. Islam, well it has its own problems, and I wont research it. You guys do what you do.
I agree with your main points but I have to disagree with a minor point up top. It rustles my jimmies when someone says "it's logically impossible to be able to do anything"; like you, they always give examples of "things that cannot be done" which are simply incoherent pseudo-statements (I think "incoherent statement" is sort of a contradiction in terms; calling it a statement implies that it has some level of coherence). The favorite philosopher examples of "square circle" or "married bachelor" clearly aren't things, or even concepts. No one can conceive of them in any detail, because they are just incoherent mashups of two contradictory words. Saying "God can't create a square that is round" is equivalent to saying "God can't amckjeugidhgng." You're not saying anything at all; it just tricks our brains because we know what the words mean individually. Therefore we assume that they must also have a meaning when put together, but they don't, because their individual meanings are fundamentally at odds. Same deal with God creating a stone so big that he can't lift it. The answer is, the concept of "stone so big that an omnipotent being cannot lift it" is simply incoherent. The weight of the stone is defined so as to outweigh omnipotence itself; yet the very concept of omnipotence nullifies weight as a relevant factor as to whether or not it can be lifted. It's just contradictory words strung together, with the incoherence cleverly disguised. I guess I would suggest replacing the term "logically impossible" with "logically incoherent." Even evaluating a phrase's possibility implies that you have a phrase worth evaluating, but incoherent non-concepts like "square circle" don't qualify; they're like darkness, they are nothing, just a lack of sense disguised as english words. I would like for philosophers to stop confusing nonsense with impossibility.
It is precisely the contradictory nature of the whole scenario that proves the definition impossible. After all, it is perfectly possible for a normal human to create something it cannot lift. Just pile up a bunch of pebbles in a truck and see how you fare. This means that 'creating a thing you cannot lift' is 'a thing that can be done'. If omnipotence = 'Can do anything' then 'creating a thing you cannot lift' is necessarily one of them, as it is 'a thing that can be done'. but of course, the problem is, 'Lifting anything' is part of 'Anything can be done' , including the very 'thing you cannot lift'. If you in fact an lift it, it is no longer a 'thing you cannot lift'. If you can, 'you cannot 'lift anything'. as in either case, there is something you 'cannot do', which necessarily implies you cannot 'Can do anything'. Thus, you cannot be omnipotent
@@sukritmanikandan3184 "creating a thing you cannot lift" and "creating a thing you _can_ lift" are both "things that can be done". The paradox implies that. This just kicks the can down the road.
@@sporeguy-l4b As is 'Lifting anything', which contradicts 'creating a thing you cannot lift'. A logical framework is invalid if it has contradictions like these
@@austin3789 the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way. "the power of speech" Similar: ability capacity capability potential potentiality faculty property competence competency Opposite: inability incapacity 2. the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events. "a political process that offers people power over their own lives" verb 1. supply (a device) with mechanical or electrical energy. "the car is powered by a fuel-injected 3.0-litre engine" 2. move or travel with great speed or force. "he powered round a bend"
Nowhere does it say do anything, it says do 'something'. For example if i can lift 1000kg im powerful, but i might not be able to ride a bike, im still powerful. I have the capacity to do something, that's really amazing, but i dont have the power to do other things. Im still powerful, nowhere does it say, must be able to do ALL things, it's just something. Besides a 'thing' assumes that it exists, a paradox is 'nothing' by definition. So having the power to do all 'things' implies that the 'things' must be logically possible or exist.
If you read Bible you will find that God can't lie(Bible Is very vlear on that)Doesn that mean he Is not omnipotent?No.Why?1.potent=ability 2.potent=power Christians use 2. definition bcs it says in Bible that God can't lie.So there really Is no "paradox".God simply has more power than anyone or anything.He is NOT capable of doing everything,thas would be something that Bible doesnt teach.(its pretty clear you dont want to know the real answer,bcs this guy made very good explanation.P.S. if you arent Christian that doesnt mean you have to be pussy about evidence.
@@nemanjanikolic636 Yahweh lies by chapter 4 of Genisis. Yahwe tells Adam and Eve that they will die if they eat the fruit but they don't. He tells Abraham a lie, saying he will not accept human sacrifice in the future then happily accepts Jephthah killing his daughter as a sacrifice in Judges 11-12. There are a number of others. They are just more of the made-up nature of all of it.
Thanks for this video. I will be assigning it to my 100-level Introduction to Ethics course at the University of Maryland for our week on Divine Command Theory. We talk about the idea that God's so-called "inability" to make 'murder for fun' morally permissible isn't a limitation just like his so-called "inability" to make a circle-square or to make a rock so heavy that even he couldn't lift aren't really inabilities or violations of his/her/its omnipotence. You cover nicely in your video why neither of these are true inabilities or problems for omnipotence.
But in Matthew 19:26, it says: “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”.Meaning HE has the ability to do anything. Which means he can create a rock that he cannot lift. Which also means that something is impossible to God.
@Maxsteel 42 you are a human, you are made of proteins, proteins come from food, food comes from plants and animals( which in turn comes from plants), plants make food from minerals in the soil. So yea you are what you eat and what you est is soil, directly or indirectly you are made of soil either way.
Except that contradicts omnipotence. Omnipotence means your more powerful than everything else. God would still lift the rock because his beyond logic and illogic.
@@josephgetnet5662 Well soil comes from star dust, and star dust comes from bing bang, and bing bang probably comes from quantum fluctuations, and quantum fluctuations comes from... well nature itself I guess and nature comes from... You can do that endless times and never stop. So your provided answer, that man is made from clay, is pretty weak. :)
I principally disagree with the idea that “it is logically impossible to be able to do anything.” The “Logic” here is not bounded to the confines of our understanding of mechanics, reason, or existence, and assuming it is is doing a great disservice to a being that fundamentally usurps the essence of the reality we know. Can God create a square circle? Why sure, maybe not in this reality, but God is intrinsically unbounded by our “reality.” Generally speaking, if you have to counter a logical paradox with the redefinition of terms, the paradox still stands for the terms you excluded. These cases do not disintegrate because you decided to limit God to our experience of the physical universe
Sorry, but anyone that says it's possible to make a square circle has a fundamental misunderstanding of language, logic, reason, and mathematics. By definition, both circles and squares are two-dimensional in nature. To add extra dimensions in order to make a "square circle", one would have to change the very definition of a square or the very definition of a circle, thus creating a new entity altogether. This applies to anything. Once the definition of an term or entity is altered, it ceases to be that entity and actually creates a new entity. Anyone who has studied calculus, linear algebra, and discrete mathematics would understand what I'm saying. And no, logic cannot just be redefined at a whim or else it loses coherence, and when coherence is lost, collapse follows.
@@davidnewhart2533 Omnipotence is not beyond logic. To claim it is, is to claim it is illogical. Things that exists are capable of such because existence simply is; God was, is, and will always be. Hence God's name, "YHWH," which translates to "I be that I be" or "I am who I am." The name shows a continual nature that simply is. "I be" leads into "I be," and "I am" leads into "I am." God is a necessary being, therefore His non-existence is impossible, as God is existence itself. Which logically follows as God is logic itself, too. For example: God cannot make Himself not exist, that is logically impossible to do. God cannot do anything that does not follow logic, which is Himself. God cannot contradict His own nature, or He wouldn't be God. To say "omnipotence is beyond logic" is to say God is beyond Himself, and if God is beyond Himself then He wouldn't be bound by who He is. Therefore, He wouldn't exist and He wouldn't be Him. You're proposing a scenario where God contradicts Himself which is logically impossible. God being existence itself means God is omnipotent, no thing is beyond God, therefore existence, as they are bounded by it, hence their existence. Their being is contingent on God. Everything in existence, that is contingent, combined would not be greater than God ever. He cannot be defeated by anything that relies on Him to be.
You got omnipotent wrong yourself in a certain way. All- in omi- doesn't mean anything akin to "top of the leader board" it literally means all. As in, omnipotent means one can move with the fury of the entirety of creation times infinity, or move with the gentleness of an electron quantum tunneling.
@@keithtorres5743 No he doesn't. He doesn't mention this whatsoever the whole video. He never questions the meaning of the prefix Omni- and uses a single "top of the charts" definition for omnipotent and omniscient that DOESN'T equate to it's usage in omnipresent.
@@keithtorres5743 if you think what he says at 6:45 has anything to do with my comment, you either have failed to understand IP's video or failed to understand my comment.
@@keithtorres5743 no, my logic does not work that way. My argument is not the Etymology fallacy. I'm not arguing it's logically impossible to be Omnipotent, which is what the argument would entail. I'm saying that in this video, IP got the biblical definition of omnipotent incorrect, and is using the modern American definition, not how the ancient people of the near East would have used the word.
@@keithtorres5743 ... Yes, you have certainly misinterpreted what I was commenting. Because I am very confused as to why you're commenting such irrelevance haha You're not accurately describing what I'm saying at all. No part of my argument has to do with dismissing Christianity, like you seem to think. The definition I use is BETTER argumentation for God. It's LESS self-contradictory, takes FEWER presumptions, and makes MORE sense with BETTER internal consistency with the language and descriptions of God than the definition IP uses. It also fits the historical context better, as well as it better fits the context of Greek translations omnipotent is not a Hebrew word, but Greek, after all.
If saying God is good or all-knowing or all-possible doesn't mean good, all-knowing and all-possible by our standards, then we can't use those words. You can't say God is good, if good means something else.
IP should be careful with defining the phrase "all powerful" as something non - recogniseable from its original meaning. Now all he needs to do is let the other countries know what omnipotence actually means since they seem to not have caught up to what has apparently been known since forever. In my language the phrase "all powerful" when referring to God is made up out of two words "all" + "(he)with the ability to do" which translates to "he with the ability to do all" And you cannot prescribe any other meaning except "the ability to do" to the word that is in that place. There's no dilemma between the meaning of powerful (strong or able to do) because those would be two completely different words which are not even similar. "He who can do all" is the only phrase we have to refer to omnipotence. And there's no space for confusion whatsoever. But I'd like to see IP try really.
Personally I was thinking that if God created logic and the way things work that would mean that he doesn’t have to be affected by them meaning God can create a square circle and he can make a rock that he can lift and can’t lift.if God created logic then why does it apply to him ?
But All-powerful means the being has power do to as it wants to, so if the being makes a rock that it can't lift, the being is not all-powerful anymore, because it can't use its power over the rock, and if the being lift therock, then its power to create the rock wasn't absolute. The paradox still exists.
Did you not listen closely. The beginning of the video explains that omnipotence doesn't mean omnipotent abilities but simply omnipotent power. He explained the rock paradox in almost the exact same way. He answered the question "can an omnipotent being create a rock so big that he can't lift it?" by saying "NO." He then went on to explain that this is a logical contradiction and is therefore a logically impossible, non-doable thing. Omnipotence does not mean "the ability to do anything." The rock question is not a paradox. Its a logical contradiction.
God does whatever He wills and pleases, and would never do something that doesn't befit his greatness or become something He isn't, so the so called omnipotent paradox questions are absurd and meaningless. Just stop trying to grasp the nature of God when our minds are obviously very limited and not designed to fully understand anything that is beyond our limits, otherwise what you're doing and asking is in itself nonsensical and pointless...
The contradiction is that we try to measure His nature through logic while acknowledging that by his omnipotence and perfection, he isnt bound by anything, including logic.
God absolutely can create a stone he could not lift. But does this mean there is something he couldn't do? No. Because he could still lift it. How does that make sense? It doesn't. Consistency, causality and logic are derived from God. He could both simultaneously lift it and not be able to lift it by suspending the laws of logic. This answer is not a cheap trick or a gimmick. It demonstrates that God is so powerful the question of the stone is completely silly, since he can bend and change the fabric of reality itself. He is simply not limited by the logic that is derived from him.
You’re too worried about the definition of omnipotent rather than the nature of God. Omnipotent may not mean having the ability to do anything but that is the nature of God as most people believe. If God is really God he should be able to do anything that you can think of. Limits shouldn’t exist for such a being because if you want to be coherent than the idea of God itself is incoherent. So for such an incoherent being everything should be possible. But again if for him everything is indeed possible, you are then stuck in a loop of paradoxes that would never be solved. If you add limits to the word God the word itself becomes meaningless.
8:05 "...shows you don't know what you're talking about (pause)." I feel like a worse version of you put pictures of about a dozen UA-cam personalities on screen.
Logically impossible isn't real because logic prohibits it to be and if god is bound by logic and cannot bring forth something that doesn't exist due to logic he is infact being defeated by logic isn't he ?
it seems that the classic definition is in agreement with the bible: Matthew 19:26 ESV; Mark 10:27 ESV But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Luke 1:37 ESV "For nothing will be impossible with God.” Job 42:2 ESV “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted." Genesis 18:14 ESV "Is anything too hard for the Lord? At the appointed time I will return to you, about this time next year, and Sarah shall have a son.” Jeremiah 32:27 ESV “Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?" Philippians 4:13 ESV "I can do all things through him who strengthens me." Psalm 135:6 ESV "Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps." Mark 9:23 ESV "And Jesus said to him, “‘If you can’! All things are possible for one who believes.” Luke 18:27 ESV But he said, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” (funny fact: for me it is possible to create a pile of stones so heavy that I cannot move) and the list goes on: www.openbible.info/topics/omnipotence so, this argument is good for gods of other religions, but not for the biblical version (sorry, I do not speak english)
@@blusheep2 exactly only he has knowledge of such things and we should leave it at that. That's why hen it comes to God, belief is key because 'proof' and 'logic' would only get you so far, even if one doesn't believe in God...
This reminds me of the infamous 'paradox' of, "This statement is false." The statement, "This statement is false." CANNOT be a paradox simply because it is a nonsensical construct of words for the same reason that saying God is not omnipotent because He can't create something nonsense.
It is easy to create a married bachelor, or a square circle as long as you are defining a = a. As an omnipotent God I can create one man in two worlds, where in one the man is married, and in the other he is a bachelor. Their lives and identities can be precisely identical, except in one world the term applies and in the other it doesn't, yet there is no way to distinguish the two. Same can be said for any identity relationship, if it is true that other possible worlds exist. Words do not perfectly capture anything about reality, let alone allow us to approach real knowledge about what is and isn't possible.
Im an atheist, i noticed that some in the comment section points out that god is beyond logic if so why try to understand a being outside of logic? Why try to understand a god that is so alien and beyond our understanding let alone try to contemplate what that said god is thinking the judeo christian god can be an a-hole sometimes.
2:46 IP: *Unlimited is not synonymous of omnipotent.* Many of the definition of Omnipotent and All-powerful Include *Unlimited* Here is the definition from differences source. Feel free to corroborate if they are correct. *Omnipotent:* having virtually *unlimited* authority or influence Def2: one who has *unlimited* power or authority Def3: (of a deity) having *_unlimited_*_ power_ ; *able to do anything* . Def4: almighty or infinite in power, as God. Def5: having very great or *unlimited* authority or power. *All-powerful:* having complete, absolute, supreme, *unlimited* or sole power def2: having or exercising exclusive and *unlimited* authority; omnipotent. *Power:* (Power has the to many definitions to post them all so I will only use the one related to the context on video) def1: ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something. def2: possession of controlling influence def3: The capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events. def4: The ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a faculty or quality. So It can be correctly assumed that all-powerful being can be described as an unlimited in some kind of way. What I'm noticing is that IP is using Omnipotent and All-powerful in such manner that is vague enough that he can always have the option to back out of any logical contradiction by saying: " _That not what I mean_ ". He needs to give us a definition for Omnipotent because All-powerful tells us nothing about omnipotence. What I don't understand with his argument is that If Omnipotent mean All-powerful, what "Power" mean in all-powerful?
If God cannot do illogical tasks, that would mean logic is above God, it would also mean that something (logic) exists which is neither God nor God's creation.
He addressed this objection using both theist and atheist philosophers. This objection only works if you see something that is illogical as a part of reality. But logically impossible things are not. Logically impossible "things" are just a collection of incoherent words that pretends to describe something. So take the common example: Can God make a square circle? The answer is no and it doesn't limit God's omnipotence and its not a paradox. Why? Because this is all semantics. "Circle" and "Square" have set definitions. A square will have 4 sides, each 90* to the adjacent sides. A circle will describe a shape with a constant radius. Since these words have meaning, it is logically impossible for you to turn that circle into a square and still call it a circle because it will no longer contain any properties of a circle. This isn't a limit in an ability. Its an illogical, non-doable, language barrier and nothing else. It doesn't limit omnipotence. Essentially its a dumb question because its inherently contradictory.
@@blusheep2 I agree with you, when it comes to language. Incoherent things are not challenge to omnipotence. However, when it comes to math, some things are more than just language, for example, when you create triangle, total sum of angles will always be 180 degrees. Would you say that this rule God cannot break, therefore it's above him?
@@goranmilic442 No because your still just dealing with a description. "A triangle is a three sided shape whose sum of its angles always equals 180 degrees. Its no more a rule above God then to say the sky is blue. If you "broke" the rule and said that a triangle "has 4 sides" or that a triangle's angles all "add up to 360*" then you wouldn't be describing a triangle anymore. We'd be back to square circles. I do think there are more difficult examples then this. Namely any example in which it may be difficult to prove that one is asking for an illogical power. Such as: Can free will exist without evil?... or.... "is divine hiddenness a logical necessity for an omnipotent power that wishes to build relationship with its creation? I could answer either of those questions as "no" and "yes" respectively, but it would be difficult for me to prove it. I do think, though, that it would be illogical to ask if God can create man with free will without there being evil.
What do you think of this?: God just IS logic itself. Logic and coherence is just part of Gods nature. Why? It follows from the concept of a maximally great being. For without logic a maximally great being could not exist. But since a maximally great being exists necessarily, logic also must exist necessarily, being part of the maximally great being's nature. Furthermore, if God's nature did not include logic we could imagine something greater than God, namely a God which nature did include logic. But we could not imagine a being greater than a maximally great being, therefore a God which nature did not include logic must be false.
Unoriginal Thoughts That's a great way to think about it. On that note, there's a great article entitled "The Lord of Non-Contradiction" in Philosophia Christi arguing similar lines as yours. You may want to check it out.
Excellent. One can also come to the conclusion, based on Proverbs 8, that if God created Wisdom before the universe began, then one can extrapolate that God created Logic itself, at least how we in our limited fashion can understand it.
justifan I wouldn't say that God created logic since it would entail that God can change it but it seems that the nature of logic is unchangeable. Perhaps it's more appropriate to say that logic is a reflection of God's thoughts.
@@akosikuyzak Yes. Although I would be more inclined to say that God is identical to logic. If logic is a reflection of Gods thoughts then one might still ask why God could not think up a different logical system and hence change logic. It's the same as with morality. If morality where just part of God's commands or thoughts then that would make morality arbitrary since God could command or think something else by whim. If morality is instead part of God's unchanging nature then it reflects our intuition that morality can't change, which is a lot better.
"God just IS logic itself." It is an OLD idea. It is a good one but the problem with that idea is that the Biblical perspective of God is one who has thoughts and desires. AND - The only way for a being to have desires is to be lacking that something for which it desires. Logic doesn't have thoughts and desires and thus is not lacking and thus is greater than God. Therefor - God cannot be logic.
I always love being asked if God can create a stone too big for Him to lift. I always ask if God is bound by the laws of logic? If so, than the argument violates the Law of Non-contradiction and therefore the statement is false in itself. If God is not bound by the laws of logic, then He can create a stone too big for Him to lift, and lift it, and still be omnipotent.
@Leung Miles If that is the frame of the debate. The point t to my argument is that if God is illogical, then the question is pointless. But if God is logical, the question is pointless.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” ― Epicurus
This entire "omnipotence paradox argument" is on par with Zeno's logic tricks. They are all nonsense, but can be fun to play around with. For example: it's impossible to move across a room, because you always have to move to the halfway point first, and since we can divide space indefinitely, it's impossible to cross the room.
"The Omnipotence Paradox never made sense." When you show something is a parados you are showing that it is nonsensical. Paradoxes can not make sense or they are not paradoxes! This video failure breaks its own definition within the first 2 minutes.
@@chrisyoung5929 I think God being omnipotent doesn’t make sense, but I do think that it doesn’t make it untrue. After all, God’s knowledge is “greater” than ours. That’s how I understand the scripture. Not that I believe in it though.
@@jasonanderson7232 This all comes down to how you define the word omnipotent. Many definitions lead to paradox. This video tries to say if you use a different definition of omnipotent then there is no paradox. The problem is that the only example we have of the claim of omnipotence is certain deities. So god is omnipotent and omnipotence is what god is. We have no examples of any deity to examine to work out what omnipotence is. We do not have an omnipotent being to examine so we can not work out what a god is. We are left with meaningless word play.
You defeated your own argument. The rock is a physical thing with limitations, quantifiable and yet its creator cannot hoist it. So then you have to jump through endless hoops or redefining things such as what's logical, using your subjective opinion of said creator as the calibration of logical instead of what's quantifiable in the question
Yet you fail to understand that a creator is a foundation where everything else emerges, how can an emergent thing be more powerful than the foundation.
If an atheist forces the definition of omnipotence as being able to do contradictory things, then simply use the quantum superposition argument demonstrated by Schrodinger's cat. It shows that contradictory states can exist at the same time until observation collapses it with the cat being both dead and alive before observation. This pretty much allows god to lift the stone and not lift the stone at the same time and solving the paradox.
Then this means that god is preceded by the laws of logic. In which case God isn’t the basis of reality he isn’t the first cause because logic preceded him. His actions are bound by logic and his nature in which case he’s actually completely impotent god is a robot who is simply obeying his programming
@thegreen2504 Omnipotent doesn't mean the ability to do anything it means to have power over everything else in existence. But nonetheless, logical absurdities DO NOT EXIST AND CANNOT EXIST. They are not a part of existence .
@@artemisiachristodoulaki6305 so again then the Bible is wrong, the Bible says in the beginning there was only god. If god didnt invent the laws of logic, that means they predate him. Which means the true god is the laws of logic not god
Can God creat a problem he can't solve? I think a decent answer is; Sometimes. I can do many things, but not unconditionally and not entirely regardless of context, these conditions, do not mean that I definitively can or cannot do those many things. Can I walk? Can I speak? Can I breath?? If the answer in even moment is no, have I meaningfully lost the ability or power to breath or walk or speak? I think the focus on a binary "yes" or "no" answer is the issue, when in fact there could be many.
@@ronnywijngaarde7555 but you are not omipotent. An omnipotent being is all poverful. If you can do anything, you cant lose an ability, because its infinite. And also the fact that if something is omnipotent then its powers cant be taken or limited, because Infinity-Any number is still infinity.
@@keresztesmapper2447 hi, thanks for responding! Hmm why not. I mean what you can do, does not dictate what you will do, or what will happen right? So as I understand, being omnipotent does not mean you can at no point in time lose your omnipotence, if even for a moment. I think that something that is proven to be infinite now is not infinite definitively or unconditionally. That for instance, a cycle has the likely ability and potential to never end does not mean that it is bound, to never end.
@@keresztesmapper2447 There is no nature of omnipotence besides its definitions. That would be like saying the strong can't lose to the weak because that is the nature of the strong; "to always defeat the weak."'
But these are words that humans invented and if god would make someone like you are saying, by the definition his creation wouldn't apply for one of them (bachelor or husband)
@@Zoolthar Yep. Logical contradictions are just tricks of language. Just because you can put two words together doesn't mean they have to refer to anything at all.
One point that seems to have been missed in this lies in the simple fact that a challenge based upon an irrational logical impossibility, but that demands an answer that satisfies logical rationality, is a dishonestly inconsistent and fundamentally flawed challenge at its root level.
@@scambammer6102 No. Christian theologians, apologists and pholosophers have never argued that God can do "anything", and for the very reason you state. Logic eliminates the possibility of mutually exclusive attributes, for example. God "cannot" "logically" make a "dark sunny day". The point here is that rhetorically contradictory logical impossibilities takes nothing away from the genuine reality of an otherwise "logically" omnipotent Creator. Trying to deny God on the basis of the impossibility of logical contradictions is nothing more than creating a rhetorical straw man. It has no meaningful relevance in terms of revognizing God's limitless abilities within rational reality.
nobody is demanding "an answer that satisfies logical rationality". We are just pointing out that omnipotence is a paradox, which it is. your gawd doesn't make sense. We are not claiming that anything else does.
By the reasoning shown in this video regarding how Christian theologians have argued that logically impossible ideas are not actual 'things', it makes it fine to define omnipotence as the ability to do any thing (because logically impossible 'things' aren't actually things). Therefore God can do anything.
To be honest God is literally beyond our imagination God is beyond and above our limited logic You can not comprehend the power of god, so this question is wrong.
@adam zarbon I dunno about that, god is real, u think the universe came out of nowhere????????? my man if u think the universe came out of nowhere then u must be high on that good shit man.
@@av8r195 God always existed my friend, he did not come out of nowhere because he always existed. Logic applies to the Universe but God is above logic.
@@av8r195 Don't even try to reason with with someone intoxicated with religious rhetoric. There's no convicing them otherwise no matter how sound your aregument is. This is what makes them believers to begin with.
Some of you have to realize what omnipotence really mean. If one is omnipotent, they would be above the laws of logic as we know it. So yes, an omnipotent being would be able to make a square circle, they would be able to make the biggest finite number, they would be able to make an evil person simultaneously morally perfect. Please, stop contradicting omnipotence.
No because the square circle can't itself exist. The category of circle (all points equally distant to a single central point) and that of a square (polygon with 4 equal sides and 4 equal angles) can't coexist in a single entity. That's a property of the entity. It can't exist as actuality nor as potential. God itself being defined as all perfections (see Leibniz) means he is the potential (a necessary being). Thus omnipotence is incompatible with logical impossibility. Potential can't be realized if it is not potential. What you're actually doing is creating an impossible definition of power which is just flatus vocis.
@@notsam9528 We're assuming God is all powerful and can do anything in this hypothetical situation. This would include transcending the idea of logic and simple mathematical equations we currently have. You're trying to apply our current laws of physics to someone who is already omnipotent. We know this is consistent because God is a necessary existence (I can explain what that is) which makes him eternal. That would already contradict your debunk by definition, since our laws of physics suggest everything that has a beginning also has an ending.
@@Mehmet-sm8vr but this definition of omnipotence isn't part of a necessary being. In fact this definition is inconsistent and is what we call flatus vocis, a.k.a it has no real relationship with reality. All ability has to be logically possible. The impossibility of a circular triangle is a "property" of the circular triangle. Meaning IT can't exist, not that you can't draw it. There's a reason why no professional great philosopher ever made this argument. You'll only see this coming from amateur youtube atheists, never from David Hume, or Leibniz, or Dscartes.
@@notsam9528 I'm going to stop you there. "All abilities has to be logically possible". I disagree, since the specific argument we're discussing right now is if God can make a square circle, or a triangle square etc. By my definition of omnipotence, its the ability to do anything, and being all powerful. Now, when you say "all abilities has to be *logically* possible", it completely contradicts my definition of omnipotence anyway. Essentially, a square circle can not possibly or logically exist, yes. However, what I'm talking about is the existence of a square circle outside the laws of logic. If an omnipotent being couldn't create something logical or illogical, again, it'd contradict my definition.
Sir, the theist is making the claim that God is omnipotent, so the theist must define what he means. The Oxford dictionary does not get to do that. “Omnipotent” derives from the Latin omnis meaning “all” and potens or “powerful.” This means all-powerful, not the ability to do anything. Knowing this, it follows that anything that limits His all-power cannot be done. These terms do not mean that God can do anything. Rather, they describe the amount of God’s power. Power is the ability to effect change - to make something happen. God (being unlimited) has unlimited power. Therefore, God can do whatever is possible to be done. God cannot, however, do that which is actually impossible. This is because true impossibility is not based on the amount of power one has, it is based on what can actually occur. The truly impossible is not made possible by adding more power. When Christians say “God can do anything” we don’t mean literally everything. When we say that God can do the impossible, we don’t mean he can do the _logically_ impossible. By impossible, we mean things like creating things out of nothing, keeping people in a fire from burning, having a guy walk on water, or make a 90-year-old woman get pregnant and give birth to a healthy son, and things like that. We do not mean God can do absolutely everything. We mean only what is logically possible (that is to say, things that are not contradictory concepts). There are some things God cannot do simply _because_ He is omnipotent. If God is infinitely powerful than it’s impossible to create a rock so large He cannot lift it. For if there was anything He couldn’t lift, that would prove Him a being of finite strength. But a being of infinite power could create a rock of infinite size and infinite weight and still be able to move it. It is because God is infinitely powerful (i.e omnipotent) that He cannot create a rock too hard for Him to move. This little riddle is akin to asking “Can God’s infinite power overwhelm His infinite power?” Or it’s like asking “Can God beat Himself in a fistfight” or “Can God think up a mathematical equation too difficult for Him to solve”. It’s sheer nonsense. C.S Lewis once said, “Nonsense is still nonsense even when we speak it about God.” You’re basically asking if a Being of unlimited power can produce something to limit Him. But His unlimited power, by definition, rules out that possibility. An unlimited being cannot create limits for Himself.
God may be omnipotent or he may be all-loving but not both. No loving god would establish a plan of salvation knowing that 90% of all humans will suffer in hell forever.
Great video! I already had a rough idea as to why the omnipotence paradox is ridiculous, but listening to someone articulate it better gives further clarity.
Looking between different sides of the argument for and against this paradox, it seems to me like it's become a debate over what the meaning of certain words are to fit the different narratives. It's pretty ironic that language created by humans has become the focal point of a debate around the existence of a being supposedly incomprehensible to humans. For example, the first definition of power on Google is "the ability to do something or act in a particular way". Going by that definition would support the stone and lying paradoxes. Whether or not these paradoxes prove god doesn't exist comes down to how you define the words, AKA human language.
God is not a character in your favorite anime. You are worshipping your own intellect, not God. A paradox is a failure of human intellect, caused, according to Genesis, by eating the forbidden fruit, thus creating the world of duality. It does mean that which we can't understand or perceive can't exist.
Omg EXACTLY. All these everyday atheist you find literally think God is some kind of cartoon character that has a big beard, lives in a physical realm and flies around doing regular people stuff. This isnt really an exaggeration either from what a regular atheist on the street believes. The reason they rejected God is most likely because 1.He didnt do what i asked him to do (again as if he is a superhero doing your deeds) 2.He let me (relative) die of (disease) at (young age) (same thing as number 1) 3.Ive never felt him :)))) *has never seriously tried to either*
Stelios Mitr You are right, people have never tried to find God, or they find some vicarious sufferer to blame for God's absence, like children with cancer, when in reality, God was likely right there with those children with cancer and their outlook on life was probably orders of magnitude sunnier than your average atheist. A long life absence of purpose is basically a prison sentence.
Dichard Rawkins Very astute. I was talking about atheists and Christians alike who have this debate, no matter how many books theyve read or written, this is still just theological "Goku vs Superman" or "Babe Ruth would suck if he played today." It's the exact same thing.
Hey man, what are some good books you recommend reading for understanding the Bible and theology overall? You can include philosophy as I'm a beginner at a lot of this stuff. Fascinating, to say the least.
It might help if he actually earned how to play chess. 'Cuz .... IP just makes things up as he goes along. Here ... take a look at what GOD says about himself in his OWN words... And then compare that with the B.S. that IP claims. Luke 1:37 ESV For nothing will be impossible with God.” Matthew 19:26 ESV But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
@@AIVSRelilgion This would only work if you took the bible literally. The bible is full of hyperbole. For example, Matt. 5:29: “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out…” Now, we're not actually told to pluck out our eyes but simply that we must avoid what would cause us to sin. Another example is Mark 1:4-5: “John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins." Quite obviously not everyone in Judea and Jerusalem were baptized, but a lot of them were. Remember, taking the bible literally is not good!
@@AIVSRelilgion Blatantly using quotes biasedly without understanding it's meanings makes you clearly dishonest. As most 15 year old basement dweller anti-theists I'd say.
@@AIVSRelilgion That moment when you're too much of a simpleton to comprehend the very clear arguments presented in this video. He's making himself quite clear. I think you need to reexamine the context of those quotes you mined and the data presented in these videos. God is not logically inconsistent, unlike the concept of "doing anything". God is beyond physical limits, therefore you could have the most incomprehensibly massive rock and it would STILL not be possible for it to be beyond His ability to lift.
Nearly all scientific laws are only understood through induction. Therefore, like the universe, the laws of logic are incomplete. Trying to measure an all power entity with our finite understanding and ability is impossible to fully comprehend. If God can be omnipresent for instance, in our finite understanding, being in two places at the same time sounds like a contradiction. But does this apply to something that is allegedly infinite, eternal or nonlinear? 🤔
I completly disagree with the statements made. I infact like to pick up the argument of "God not being able to make logically incoherent >entities/concepts"/God not able to do anything. We just have to think of the Square Circle. The idea that such a shape/entity cannot exist is the result of our extremely limited perception of spacetime. Jesus said: “With man this is impossible, but >with God all things are possible.
I agree with the square circle part, all you would need for that is to bend spacetime so that it makes the circle square. I don't believe that god is real but if it was wouldnt it be as easy for it to do that as it is for us to make a coffee?
I think Descartes also thought that God could do even the logically impossible, so you're not the first. Most theologians don't agree with you though and are on the side of IP.
Incorrect!!!! 1) Can an omnipotent being commit suicide ABSOLUTE DEATH of itself it's totality and finality?.....NOPE!!!!.....humans and animals can EASILY do this, yet such a powerful being lack the ability to do it. 2) Can such a being lie which equals moral imperfection?.....NOPE!!!! 3) Can it create many other omnipotent beings in equal and greater power?...in a manner of how humans have created a.i which is believed and/or anticipated to supercede humans IF restrictions are NOT implemented into the a.i. (Isaac Asimov- Laws of Robotics)...NOPE!!!!...an omnipotent being is not capable of creating more powerful beings. All the above would be a direct contradiction of it's own nature therefore omnipotence itself has limits. Thus, I favor the definition that omnipotence is to be the most powerful within logical possibility.
Power in this case is best described I find, as authority over all existing things he created, which in our case would just be our universe, not making any assertions beyond that so take it as you will within the confines of how I’ve defined it
After thinking about God for a long time, I created this question. Has God sinned? My answer was and still is yes. A jealous God, an Angry God that kills. According to the bible God has lied at least once, wether it was a test or not. People take after their parents, so we must have gained sin from our creator, and we're sent to hell for punishment so as not to follow his misdeeds/ not believing in him and so on. I rambled a bit but if you consider a sin as weakness then in your eyes God does have a weakness. When I read the bible now, I see God made errors that he had to fix as well. Like killing off the entire human race with a flood. God's are a pretty fun subject.
@@Dahstin5311 No you just have not done enough research and have come to some faulty conclusions based on ignorance. If you have any specific example where you think God sinned in the Bible then I am sure you could easily find an answer online or I could try to answer.
What about omniscient? If a being is all-knowing, it must know how every single neuron in our brain will fire, thus it will know exactly what actions we would take. That begs the question of why god would need to “test” us if he already knows every single action we would take from the moment we were born to the moment we take our last breath. It also begs the question of whether or not free will really exists.
That’s not what the Bible says. Matthew 19:26 ESV / 3,408 helpful votes But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Luke 1:37 ESV / 2,881 helpful votes For nothing will be impossible with God.” Psalm 147:5 ESV / 2,627 helpful votes Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure. Job 42:2 ESV / 2,622 helpful votes “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. If you’re going by the Bible, the definition of omnipotent is that with god all things are possible. Which means there are no limits. Good try.
InspiringPhilosophy first, it’s your holy book. Not mine. I never claimed that the l made any sense. Secondly, you were accusing me of bastardization of the text. I didn’t. I quoted the text. You are the one twisting into pretzels to try to find a way to explain the lack of logic. 3. Clearly, in the quote in John, Jesus is making an analogy. Are you saying that Jesus’s comment about nothing being impossible with God is an analogy? So, I guess the real question is was Jesus bullshitting his listeners when he said nothing is impossible for god? Because if he was, then there goes his credibility. And if he wasn’t, then that negates your argument that god’s power has limits. By the way, nothing in the Bible mentions any limits to god’s power. He is all powerful, ever present and all knowing. (Which by the way blows a serious hole in the free will argument.) But, whatever gets you through the day man. I’m ok with it as long as you don’t try to inject it into the government where I live.
It is my holy book, and by that logic, you don’t get to tell me what it says. Second you are not taking the plain reading because you are quote mining, as I explain in the video I linked you. Third, Jesus made analogies and used hyperbole at times as well. Why do you can to randomly pick and choose what is literal. Again it is not your holy book, so you don’t study it. Fourth, again, I explained the hyperbolic nature of the passage in the above video I linked you. Stop quote mining the passage, that is why you are bastardizing the text.
Shakes my head. The fact that you believe that you can null/debunk the paradoxes when none really has managed to do so, is beyond me. You said an all powerful being=Meaning all of existence combined is weaker than omnipotent being. And you showed on your video "to have power over everything else in existence". When you say power over everything else in existence, you mean to surpass their power or to to actually have power/control/manipulation ect ect over everything else in existence? From the context of your video I understand you just mean being stronger than everything else in existence(combined). Which on it's own must be proven in order to be accepted. Meaning that the all powerful being must destroy all existence combined. But if he/she/it destroy all of existence, it will only be proving such to himself/herself/itself. Unless he/she/is able to recreate existence and somehow found a way to prove that he/she/it destroyed it before. So it remains that omnipotence can not be proven and it's a purely theoretical thing. Further obviously if someone or something else came up whom is stronger/more powerful than omnipotent being, then that being would no longer be omnipotent. Or if all existence combined was stronger or was able to withstand the power/attack of an omnipotent being, then that being would no longer be omnipotent. Now going over to the 2nd definition. They are not shooting themselves at all. Because a being having all power and all abilities ect ect, is supposed to be able to do everything you can and can't imagine(or so they say). So the paradoxes stand true and again it's impossible to prove a being omnipotent. As an example to this, let's take "The One Above All" who's considered to be omnipotent or the author of a fictional verse who's also considered to be omnipotent within fiction. Both of them are limited. The One Above All is limited to be only within fiction and is also limited to do only what the actual author/real life person knows and can imagine. Which in turn is also limited, as a person does have a limit to his knowledge and imagination. So yet again, we don't really have omnipotent beings. I noticed you shown Thanos on your video. Someone whom has been called omnipotent or nigh omnipotent. Yet again Thanos has shown to be able to be defeated and be weaker than others. And I am not talking about Living Tribunal or The One Above All or other beings in Marvel more powerful than Thanos. But I am talking even about Thanos and IG's(infinity gauntlet's) own universe. Multiple times combined forces of heroes ect has came close to defeating or actually defeated Thanos and saved the world. You may answer "Hence why nigh omnipotent", but the thing is, is even "nigh" good to say? Since it wasn't ALL EXISTENCE going against Thanos. It was less than that, much less than that. And further, there was also this time that he considered himself unworthy. Anyhow. Probably rumbling now so I will stop. My point is. Something to be accepted as omnipotent or existing or any other thing. It must first be proven as such. And since it can't be proven, then it will simply not be accepted. There is still none and nothing truly omnipotent whether you go by the first definition you spoke about or the second. And obviously when you don't have a proof about something existing, you don't go by "What if it exists? Let's behave as if something does exist"(religions in a nutshell), you go by "There is no proof about that existence. So we act as if it doesn't exist". With your video you prove nothing other than the fact that you simply don't agree with paradoxes and their existence~But they do exist for the 2nd definition and could possibly even exist for 1st definition if we give it enough thought. And at the end of the day none of that(God and omnipotence) can be proven. Last but not least that came to me right now. You said that the definition of "all powerful being" is being stronger/more powerful than all existence combined. Right? And you mentioned God. But God is not supposed to simply be more powerful than us/being able to destroy all existence. He is also the one who created it~supposedly the one who created it. So obviously the "omnipotent/all powerful" is not limited to just being stronger/more powerful. It does have a connection to more things/more abilities, such as being able to create life, objects ect. So the video feels more or less meaningless.
I've read a bit of what you wrote; it's absolutely incoherent. Your first paragraph, when summarized, essentially suggests that God, in order to be all powerful, would have to prove prove he's all powerful by destroying all of creation; you then also point out that he would only be destroying all of creation to prove his power to himself.. You're just spouting what you think, and what you're thinking is absolute nonsense.
@@LawlessNate No, I am saying that if we are to accept that he is all powerful he should be able to do that and demonstrate it for us to witness it. Which at the same time is not possible because we'd all be dead. So I am saying that unless there was some way for God to prove to us that he is "all powerful(by destroying all creation)" then we can not accept that he is "all powerful". So there is no point. It sounds like nonsense to you because you lack the depth of thinking and are unable to follow the process of the thought. Aside from the problems about proving to be a God, proving to exist, proving to be "all powerful" ect ect, there are also issues with his points in general because if the "all powerful" just meant that God wins in a " fight against all creation"/able to destroy all creation put together in one go. Then what about religion saying that God created the universe, life ect ect ect? That's clearly something not related to just power/destruction and goes towards abilities and such. So basically the meaning that he claims to be wrong/misconception(which obviously isn't).
@@Reno - "...if we are to accept that he is all powerful he should be able to do that and demonstrate it for us to witness it." 1: God can both be able to prove his omnipotence to us and have good reasons for not doing so. 2: Where did you get the idea that there's no other way God could prove his omnipotence than to destroy all of creation? 3: What gave you the idea that unless God personally proves his omnipotence to you that you cannot conclude logically that he's omnipotent? 4: God already proved his omnipotence to humanity 2,000 years ago when he came to Earth as a man, was killed, and then came back to life. There's amazing historical evidence to back this up. Is that not good enough for you? Your loss. Again, God has good reasons to not constantly prove his omnipotence to everyone.
@@LawlessNate 1: Tet if he does not prove his existence or omnipotence then we have no reason to believe it. In fact we would be fools to believe in something not proven. 2: We talked about all-powerful and all powerful specifically meaning that God is more powerful/stronger than all creation put together. So that's where we get it. 3: Cause if he doesn't prove his omnipotence, then we can't consider him having it. That's like believing that demons or ghosts exist without ever seeing one/have proof of such. Basically you are stupid. 4. Bullshit. You are such a sheep/herd. Yes listen and believe to the stories of religion while witnessing them not following their own religion and their preaching. Be a good puppet :)
@@Reno 4: "You are such a sheep/herd." "Be a good puppet :)" You don't seem to realize you're being a hypocrite by making such a suggestion. The easiest way to make idiots believe something stupid is by convincing them that they'd be stupid if they didn't believe it; atheism is the quintessential example of this. People have been convinced that unless they believe God doesn't exist then they are mindless sheep; like the mindless sheep they are, they then profess atheism so that they fit in with the rest of the herd. Also note that this was your reply to me pointing out the historical evidence. What is your response to this evidence? You've clearly never examined it for yourself. Here's both a video of someone doing a pretty good job covering the evidence I'm referring to and a quote from one of the top comments. First the quote "Striking how UA-cam atheists simply don't understand the arguments put forth by scholars. You're like mindless football fans, you pick a side and blindly cheer. Atheists are the undisputed kings of blind faith." and second the link ua-cam.com/video/ay_Db4RwZ_M/v-deo.html . 1: "...if he does not prove his existence or omnipotence then we have no reason to believe it." If you require proof in order to believe something then I suppose you deny all science then, right? After all, science, in all its various forms, is a study which deals exclusively in evidence rather than proof. That, and why does God have to be the one to go out of the way to prove his existence? His existence can be proven without his help via logical argumentation (example, the Kalam Cosmological Argument). 2: " We talked about all-powerful and all powerful specifically meaning that God is more powerful/stronger than all creation put together." But why, in your mind, is destroying all of creation the only way he could prove his omnipotence? Surely performing an act which is physically impossible would be sufficient to show that he's not bound by and, in fact, completely controls the physical world. 3: "Cause if he doesn't prove his omnipotence, then we can't consider him having it." Are you trying to make the suggestion that it's logically impossible for God to be omnipotent and not have proven it to us? If you're not, then you'd at least be open to the suggestion that it's logically possible, and if it's logically possible then we can consider whether or not he is.
I had to stop this video about 2 minutes in. If your power is infinite, then you can create paradoxes. End of discussion. Why is this so hard to understand? If I am omnipotent then, YES, I can make married bachelor, even if your simple mind doesn't understand. God can make 2 + 2 = 5. Simple as that. God created the laws of physics. God created time. God created the human mind. And God created logic. So ... God. Can. Do. Anything. ... and what is funny about everything I said, is that all makes logical sense. lol!!!
When it’s time to define what they actually believe and show the reason behind it they simply change their definition😂. How convienent the all powerful and very active god of the Old Testament now is very “limited” in things he can do not that every human being has a camera in their pockets. 😂😂😂
@@lymphoid ...you can certainly imagine/define "all powerful" that way but that is how how the Bible defined or meant by "all powerful" (which was kinda the point) So the best you can argue against the Bible from there is "I disagree with what the words means, but sure by your definition you would be right"
"God created the laws of physics. God created time. God created the human mind. And God created logic." You say this with authority and conviction but how do you know all this? I ask out of curiosity as I really want to know.
If a person is not omnipotent (by our very nature we are not) they would not be able to imagine a rock so heavy that it cannot be lifted OR even imagine what an omnipotent being actually is. The omnipotent paradox...we cannot imagine a being so unimaginable...
The issue with this is: The Bible DOES DEFINE OMNIPOTENCE as the ability to do anything, even going so far as saying God can do the impossible. The Bible DOES SAY THAT SELF-LIMITATION IS A STRENGTH, ie control over yourself counts as strength. It isn't just about external power over other things. So this debunking is only for the God of philosophers, but not the God of the Bible.
That verse is taken out of context thus leading to a strawman without any notice. That's like saying that Barack Obama said that when the U.S. Reach their full potential anything is possible yet no one accuses Obama of him saying that America can perform supernatural abilities.
So you think that redefining what "omnipotent" means debunks the omniscience paradox? What part of "The ability to do anything" do you not understand? You debunked yourself when you said god could not create a rock he could not lift.
good call roargathor... whole video is just nonsense... if someone read the bible versus it contradicts everything this video painstakingly tries to imply....
There are many things - actions - God cannot do. This disturbs some Christian believers until I list them. God cannot lie. God cannot renege on a deal. God cannot change His mind. (As He knew already, living in eternity.) God cannot 'see' the future. He exists in Eternity and is there. Past and future do not mean anything, but God can understand our limitations. I'm not convinced He was ever considering the 'rock challenge'. He cannot be stupid or illogical. From where do you think logic derived?
@@Maximex123 Many of the statements of the historical sections of the Bible - or the preceding Tanakh - are correct in the immediate context. This confuses many children and those of substandard mental ability. Genesis 2: 3 is one such example. God did at some point finish the creation process of the Universe. He also established all the 'laws of nature' and the process by which suns and planets form, evolve - change over time - and end. This is pretty easy to see as the late George Gershwin wrote many pieces of music. He in fact, finished his work (on "Porgy and Bess" for instance). But that does not mean Gershwin never wrote anything else. The same is evident in an anonymous designer of computers, Thomas Edison, John Browning, and Rex Stout. By create, one also means 'set in motion'. God created the Sun and Earth. God also set things in motion with the effects of gravity, momentum and quantum uncertainty. So 'night and day' in the popular sense continues. One is rather simple minded to ignore the fact that motion is not part of creation. Of course, this requires the existence of God. The all powerful, immutable and eternal One. Which is impossible for those who will not admit such. One of my late grandfathers - a rather proper man - did not believe (he said) Giraffes actually existed. He said - and I was a child at the time, so I cannot say how serious he was - they were a fraud on the other of P. T. Barnum's frauds. But even if he seriously believed so, Giraffes still exist.
If God has power over all things in existence, that would mean that he has power over all things in existence, including the laws of logic. If he has power over the laws of logic, he can make “God doesn’t exist” or “Truth doesn’t exist” a true statement. If he can’t, then he doesn’t have power over the laws of logic. Thus, does not have power over all things in existence & still wouldn’t be all-powerful. Would love to hear any objections.
Personally I believe it is the 3rd one. A being capable of making all of existance just cause they wanted to would probably not be bound (at least not bound in a way that creates actual limits for it) by the logic and reasoning of the existance it created. But even if I'm wrong about that, it would make no functional difference if the being is still omnipotent by the other definition. Just makes it slightly less unfathomable.
Think of omnipotence as drawing on paper. Sure, some entities suck at drawing out Existence but few can master it. Oh... And Omnipotence doesn't mean literally "one person". That idea is a very human level of comprehension. ... Well... Omnipotence is a limiter for me. Given the Origin, the true home of "our" kin. The Akashic Records holds what remains of that Data.
1. There are bible verses that imply that the christian God should be believed to contain the ability to do all things. - Phillipians 4:13 - Luke 1:37 - Jeremiah 32:37 - Job 42:1-2 - Genesis 18:14 - Matthew 19:26 Now you can make the case that all of these are conveniently communicating something else, but that's a rabbit hole, and quite a long one. You can also make the case that a christian can believe God to be whatever he wants to believe God to be. Sure. But is that biblical? 2. "All-powerful" is vague. What is power? Is it the capacity to influence? Because that sounds like an ability. Power in this context needs to be formerly defined in a way so that we can recognize what counts as power and what doesn't, without any ambiguity whatsoever. Otherwise the definition of omnipotence doesn't make any sense. 3. I've seen definitions of omnipotence that are along the lines of capabilities without invoking "the ability to do all things" Ex: the capacity to freely manipulate any constituent of reality. Why not strive for a definition of omnipotence that is more direct in meaning, that tries to address what such a being could and could not do? Because when someone is said to have "power" in pretty much any other context, normally people understand that to mean that said being is able to do many things.
I'll give my argument: If God wishes so, he will create a stone that is heavy, and he, by wishing a stone that he cannot lift, will give himself the inability to lift that stone.
The circular reasoning and basic defense is astounding. Omnipotence necessarily requires all possibilities to be achieved as this power would be greater than the laws of logic, you effectively portrayed logic as superior to a God.
@@InspiringPhilosophy That is something I have not done, you are simply limiting the concept of all powerful by stating all action must be consistent with the limitations of the human-centric perceivable reality. If one is limited by this, they are certainly not all powerful.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Then it is what? God centric? Can God not restate his rules and ways ? God is a slave to his own constructs of reality? So much for omniscient
How do you define power? In your video, you make it seem as though power is defined as strength. However, I think most people would define power as the ability to do. Therefore, omnipotence ought to be defined as the ability to do anything.
No, power is pretty well understood as being able to constrain, harm, or overtake someone. The ability to get sick doesn't affect power so power cannot mean getting more abilities.
@inspiringphilosophy that "well understood" definition sounds limited to abilities, skills, or traits that affect people. The power to sustain life for a bacteria is a power I have because of my ability to get sick. I think it's important that people, and nature in general, demonstrate some incredible ways to leverage weaknesses into strengths. I think this makes "power" intrinsically difficult to nail down, but it's necessary to do to validate many of your points.
10:21 "If something could exist beyond such a being's power then that being was never omnipotent to being with." Does this mean that, according to the first definition, an omnipotent being wouldn't merely have power over everything that does actually exist but also over everything that could logically exist?
Since the things that could possibly exist are all made of that which does exist, and the proposed omnipotent being is more powerful than all the rest of existence, than yes. It follow that they must also be greater than anything which could exist.
Something that I've seen being pointed out, is that because some verses in the bible describe God as being able to do anything it means the biblical view of omnipotence is the ability to do even the impossible, even if we skip the fact that this interpretation of scripture is insincere, and ignores reason within the scriptures to understand it hyperbolically. There is still flawed reasoning because being able to do "anything" by definition does not include that which is logically impossible because anything is all that is possible because it describes things that can be done, what is logically impossible is that which cannot be done and therefore cannot be defined under "anything"
You went through all that in order to bring it back to the beginning to say yes, it is logically impossible... and now we're back to square 1. you should've stuck to the initial definition of omnipotent = all powerful, not ability to do anything.
@ Iceman0509 RR has never address response to one of IP videos @John Toma Kalaam Cosmological Argument is one of the worst and pointless argument out there. There are hundreds of video of philosopher that debate and explain the argument that utterly destroys it. Look up _the Problem of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument_ if you want to know how.
@Leo Savage you’re lying RR has addressed one of IP’s videos on free will thinking it was the only one, and made it so superficial: it failed. And you can’t just say that there are tons of philosophers that “destroy” the cosmological argument, otherwise it wouldn’t exist. Typical Atheist in denial searching for his/her confirmation bias
@@arturosparages7829 RR's supposed "debunking" of free will is what I would call a parrot effect from Sam Harris, he just repeats debunked claims by Harris.
All he did was fabricate a new definition of all powerful to make it seem that he debunked the paradox but all he is really doing is trying to hold on to what he believes in eventhough he knows god cannot exist. He wants to fill a void in him to make him feel like he has purpose like most humans would.
@@amortality999 It was directed at avacado. But, if god is able to do everything and is omnibenevolent(as described) but refuses to then he is malevolent.
Here we go again, we put God in a box snd limit him. All atheists please listen to this. Yes God can make a rock he cant carry, but that’s like saying can God be stupid ? like can he make himself logically impaired ? And if so he will lose his all knowing power, its a dumb argument to try and put God down but it does not work, its a straw man argument.
People also forget (or fail to realize) that the ability to do anything doesn't inherently equal the desire to do anything. I often hear the argument, "if God is all powerful, then why doesn't He do this/that?" Because he's not required to. Maybe being omnipotent and omnipresent allows God a perspective we don't have, and the thing we want Him to do, no matter how "good" or "noble", might have catastrophic repercussions down the road.
"Can God microwave a burrito so hot even He can't eat it." -Homer Simpson
no
But then it wouldn't be a burrito, we call it a burrito because it'snot too hot for God to eat.
@@brianlamptey4823 um ok
LOL
XD
A square circle? Oh, you mean a WWE Ring
😂
O>2
Problem solved
Sean Spahr ya dead ass no if an atheist asked we can say that
Dude. Nice.
Pretty much any entertainment wresting wring. For actual wrestling, like mat wrestling, they do have a circle/ring, but the squared ones in entertainment use a younger definition of ring, that I think is exclusive to them.
Im an atheist and im glad that i found this channel. I have many doubts of the common atheist arguments especially the definition that both sides uses.
how?
Even without the definition of omnipotent. The paradox backfired its own argument if God was beyond logic.
@@robloxcris9461 Saying something is beyond logic is fine... It's completely worthless in an argument, but you can do whatever mental gymnastics you want, won't make it valid.
What i understand from his video is that God is beyond logic and we can't use logic to prove his existence or not. So we go back to the question of how theists believe in his existence if they are not using logic ?
@@gasmimoha1957 actually we dont need to asume he is beyond logic. Regarding His miracles, just because we dont understand how he does or did some things, doesnt expell it from the realm of logic. Also manipulation of all that is in existense is withing the "limited" first description.
Never thought I’d see Thanos in a video regarding Christianity, lol.
he will be in a couple more
Yeet
IP's a Marvel fan
A huge marvel fan.
What is interesting is that many times Thanos has became nearly what he, and some others, would define to themselves as omnipotent...unfortunately Thanos runs into his own contradictions and logical fallacies, which ultimately causes him to fail. The definition of "omnipotence" really has to be determined correctly for it to have any meaning, and therefore Thanos has yet to run into God's definition of it, lol.
Even if omnipotence did mean the ability to do everything (even the logically impossible), there still wouldn't be anything wrong with an omnipotent being creating a stone so heavy that even he can't lift it, and then him lifting it. Although that is logically impossible, if omnipotence includes the ability to do the logically impossible, that is not a problem.
EXACTLY
# "if omnipotence did mean..."
...but it does not mean a damn thing.
Valid point my friend, I’ll have to remember this one
God can sin
Incorrect!!!!
1) Can an omnipotent being commit suicide ABSOLUTE DEATH of itself it's totality and finality?.....NOPE!!!!.....humans and animals can EASILY do this, yet such a powerful being lack the ability to do it.
2) Can such a being lie which equals moral imperfection?.....NOPE!!!!
3) Can it create many other omnipotent beings in equal and greater power?...in a manner of how humans have created a.i which is believed and/or anticipated to supercede humans IF restrictions are NOT implemented into the a.i. (Isaac Asimov- Laws of Robotics)...NOPE!!!!...an omnipotent being is not capable of creating more powerful beings.
All the above would be a direct contradiction of it's own nature therefore omnipotence itself has limits.
Thus, I favor the definition that omnipotence is to be the most powerful within logical possibility.
I see people define omnipotence, and I am like... "You can't accurately comprehend how powerful omnipotence is. It is so ridiculous that, if it is real, it is above any understanding and reasoning that any of us can ever come up with. We are not omniscient after all."
I personally prescribe to the belief that an omnipotent being can do anything they want. They can change all of reality and existence to make their whims and wishes come true. They could make a square circle if they wanted to. They could break reality to accomplish their goals. But why would they do that? There is no reason to prove you wrong. You are a tiny insignificant nothing burger to them. So is "reason" and "logic". If a being is omnipotent then they are the ones who made"reason" and "logic".
Then I keep spouting incomprehensible nonsense for the rest of the night, and nobody cares.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
i care
True. If God created laws of logic as we know them , there’s no chance he’d have to be bound by his own creation
that's a really good point you just made
God didn't make logic though. No one did and no one can manipulate the rules of logic.
I love how you put “debunked”, and actually debunked something. Unlike other UA-camrs......
Arturo Sparages Viced Rhino? Lol
Tyler X09 I think he's referring to Rationality Rules haha
Scared Noel oh yeah that guy. Well actually both him and Viced Rhino do rather poor jobs in trying to debunk these people. Rhino actually did a debunk video of Ip’s ontological argument and he was basically trying to say the same thing of what these atheist here on the comments are saying. In fact he doesn’t even mention scholarly sources or even a set up a premise to make his case. He and Rationality Rules are both sell outs imo
Tyler X09 I'm not too big on philosophy, but seeing how atheists repeat the same questions and arguments, I'll take your word for it
Scared Noel yeah listen to their videos more often and you’ll see what I mean
If God is omnipotent in the case He can do anything with an unfathomable power, then one of two things is true. God is either able to do anything that has a logical reasoning or coherency, or, due to his overwhelming and comprehendible power he can defy logic anyway. Problem solved
@Andrew Ramshaw Well, what do we define "existed" as? The typical definition will also involve an "exit" or "death" from the state of "existing", so to speak. If God is beyond time, He simply "is", which is a state that is pretty contradictory to logic in and of itself. If we tie Creation into things (whether you believe in literal creation all at once or theistic evolution), making anything out of simply willing it to exist or of power that doesn't exactly "intersect" with our own time and space, we can, again, see that omnipotence wouldn't just be limited to our logic, if that's what you meant.
@Andrew Ramshaw My point with mentioning that God "is", rather than "exists", was to say that the nature of "is", in itself, is, at least, somewhat contradictory to our own logic, in terms of comprehensible thought.
Simply, we cant fathom how God is able to perceive time and information in respect to us/our world, making that trait beyond our logic, itself.
Going by the Christ story, we also see that God not only displayed *power* in the physical world, but He could also manifest in it - spiritually - with his power, which, again, is something we can theoretically say "should be possible" with omnipotence but is beyond our logic, as we can't reasonably deduce how a spirit that has been said to be triun-ally God, can remain fully God, when entering a human body, while the other "characters" of God are elsewhere.
@@charlestonian7110 I always saw it as god being a higher dimensional being. We know (or theorize) that multiple dimensions exist, so it wouldn’t be a stretch to assume that the being that is God would be in whatever the highest dimension.
@@AesirUnlimited Personally, I think so, to some extent, myself, as well, since we can't really perceive many things, even in our physical world, as it is. We have a very limited number of cones, compared to some other creatures, meaning they perceive colors we can't really begin to imagine unless they are somehow just more defined, but the problem comes in the form of lack of knowledge. Anyway, yes, I believe God is of a higher dimension and a higher dimensional perception, but I don't exactly think that means that a spiritual reality we cannot physically peer into is out of the question, though. It would seem, to me, according to my own belief, that God is a few things: a watcher, an influencer, a maker, and, at times, a helper. Odd to think about how He would perceive us and His interactions with us, though.
@@charlestonian7110 Lots of people act like science and faith can’t coincide. I see it like this. Science is the blueprint of the universe, faith and religion are the blueprint of the soul, the answer to why. Science can explain how, but it can’t always explain why. Why does quantum theory exist, why does gravity and all the other laws of physics work in the way that they do? Whether there’s a god or not, there’s some reason for it all. To me, there’s simply no way that all of this came from nothing, out of pure chance. If there truly was absolutely nothing before the universe came into existence during the big bang, why didn’t it just stay that way? If some outside influence or force is the thing that decides, then wouldn’t that be god?
The Bible says in Luke 1:37 :"For there is nothing which God is not able to do." Or Job 42:2 says :"I see that you are able to do every thing, and to give effect to all your designs." And Psalms 115:3 says :"But our God is in heaven: he has done whatever was pleasing to him." So I perfectly understand why an atheist can believe that God can do anything. When I read these verses my understanding is God can do whatever he wants. So I will be happy to see the verses who support your understanding of the omnipotence of God because you don't give any. (sorry if I make mistakes, English is not my mother tongue)
Yes he can do anything because he's beyond the realm of logic.
@@lysoutrighter8260 @Lysout Righter But the video said,i f something is illogical, god cannot do it.🤔🤔🤔 So that means that god is not beyond logic. Or maybe I completly miss the point of the video.🙄🙄🙄
Not serious hiberbaly
@@mkmkkmlIf it is in the nature of God to be logical, does this necessarily mean that He is bound by it? It could be that God, in that He is a necessary, omnipotent and omniscient being, consists-- or is otherwise comprised of--the attributes and characteristics that give rise to logic, and can and has employed this with respect to His creating a rationally intelligible universe, but is not Himself limited by its laws, in the same way that He brought a contingent universe into being, yet is not contingent upon anything for his own existence.
Forgive the more speculative tone of the comment, as I'm still in the process of formulating a syllogism.
That is an AWFUL translation of Luke 1:37. That's not even what it says.
As CS Lewis said. Nonsense remains nonsense even if we speak it about God :D
so?
@@davidhatcher7016 rövlob
What do you mean? Sorry no hate pls
Sounds like someone who is so bias and so arrogant that he will never try to understand other opinions. Instead he will ignore every single argument out there. That's not realistic, that's just stubborn.
Was that a C. S. Lewis quote or was it John Lennox?
I remember how someone presented this argument to me back when I was 14. I knew it was fallacious, but I couldn't put words to it.
But a few years later I realized what you just said right now: people misunderstand what omnipotence means
no
he just redefines it and then pretents that his definition was always used
@@Zanta100 IP or the atheist I talked about?
@@awesomefacepalm IP
@@Zanta100 taking the Bible as a source for God's omnipotence IPs definition of omnipotence is more accurate than "can do all things"
@@awesomefacepalm but that is literally what the bible says
it says he can do anything
also what IP defines wouldnt allow creation and therefore cant fit
As an atheists and seeker I would say, you have provided a very good argument. You changed my mind in this issue. Keep it up. Subscribed to your channel.
Something I like to do when I think about God is try to pick out what are the limits I impose on him. Often, in my mind there exists a god that finds its being in time and space. God is a lot easier to understand when you think of him as the unchanging touchstone of reality. God told Moses that his name was "I AM THAT I AM" -perhaps you could even translate it as "I will cause to be that which I will be" (I don't speak Hebrew, but If I remember correctly, it's a causative verb which we don't have in English). Thinking of God as existing outside of (or at least independent of) time and space is important to understanding God in a consistent way. It's a good exercise to examine what kind of limits we place on our mental understanding of God.
You don't have to believe in God to do this sort of philosophical exercise- if something like God should exist, what are the logical ends of this idea? There must be something that exists independently, being able to say "I AM" and _really mean it, _ or else where did the universe come from? If the universe is self-existent, does it make sense that it is bounded by time and space? Wouldn't time and space be self-existent, instead? The question that really matters to the human is: what is the nature of this ultimate, self-existing reality? Is it like a mind? Or is it inanimate, like a physical law?"
Anyways, I'm presenting this idea because you described yourself as a "seeker," so I think it might be interesting for you to ponder or discuss.
@GDDM sam I don't know if you're replying to me or the other guy, but it seems like you're playing semantics, here. Of course he didn't debunk your peculiar conception of the problem- you've framed the definitions to preclude the possibility of being wrong.
UA-cam is glitching and I can't see your other comment, except the first few words in my notification. Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree since I can't see your side of the conversation.
@@josephbrandenburg4373
Couldn't you have juat said the same for space and time both the (biblical god) and the universe are paradoxes in there inherent nature . Me seeing space and time as a "touch stone of reality." Has as much validation as you seeing god as such.
@@GabrielLopez-pi4xs No
If I can lift any weight, tell me what physical object I can’t lift
Yourself
@@ImpatientTheist I can in fact, jump. jumping is the lifting/propulsion of myself of the ground with the use of my legs
@AegohEternal you aren't lifting yourself, you're propelling yourself in the air, that isn't lifting, that's more close to throwing than lifting.
@@Thecoolestnumberone go do a few pullups
The simplest objection to the omnipotence paradox is that omnipotence isn't the ability to anything, but rather the ability to do ALL *things* . Notice I highlighted things. God is by definition the most powerful being there is. As such, there is no thing that God can't do. Hence, the question "Can God create a stone so heavy that it can't be lifted?" makes no sense. There is nothing that God can't lift, so the very concept of a stone heavy enough that God can't lift it doesn't exist, not even hypothetically. It's a non-thing, thus not falling under the category of all *things* that omnipotent beings can do.
You cannot win an argument by redefining the given terms. If they specify something, then that is what they are claiming. You cannot alter their claim to make yourself right! So good to hear it here.
Thank you very much! God Bless
what?!
roasted pancakes both I think
@roasted pancakes
So, IP gave you a definition of omnipotent that is consistent with how it has been understood classically. Even if not, this would be his claim. When you redefine it from, 'having power over all things' to, 'the power to do the illogical', then it isn't rational. Of course, you defined it as such.
Thus, when someone defines omnipotent to mean the latter, you have an incoherent definition. Your definition is wrong, but in philosophy it is what the person defines it as, not the strawman of the latter definition. That is a circular definition, you mistaked it, not IP.
*A clever mind can always make a definition that appears to be false, but if that isn't what it originally means, you cannot redefine your way to victory.* Omnipotent is power over all things, not power over things that logically couldn't exist. The stone to heavy to lift is incoherent as an idea, given the unpower of being stronger then all stones. It is only a paradox if you misconstrued the claim. Stones like that cannot logically be made. Just because you can say & conceptualize, a married bachelor, doesn't imply you can logically say such a person exists. Same with the stone.
Even if you go with the second definition of omnipotence, one could say that God can defy logic, because he is omnipotent. Therefore, if he created a limit to himself (like the famous rock), he could still remain omnipotent, even if it is illogical.
He could create a married batchelor, even if it does not make sense, and humans cannot immagine such a creation just because they are bound by logic.
Plenty of husbands are married bachelors. That's what cheap efficiency apartments are for.
But you can only choose one. That isn't just human logic. 😂
@@silencemeviolateme6076there are no husbands that are "married bachelors", you have either been married before or not.
A video game developer is omnipotent from the perspective of their game world. They are free to add, change or modify everything in existence within that world.
That does not mean that they are free to magically make the video game exceed the boundaries of the computer it's running on, but it does mean that they can alter its rules or add new things or take things away.
Logical Omnipotence is what you're describing.
I designed every facet of Omnipotence before. I know every iteration of it.
(... Well... I don't go around designing Existence anymore. The real world is just one of the many iterations.)
Jumanji 🐘 🐅 🐒
If the atheist wishes to rebut logic consistency by way of arguing that God ought to be able to do the logically impossible/ is "beyond" logic, they still don't get anywhere.
God could create a rock so heavy that he can't lift and then lift it- it doesn't make sense (i.e. logically impossible), but that's fine remember? God can do the logically impossible/ is "beyond" logic.
Even if you suspend logic to contrive your way to a paradox; there is no paradox.
Why do you believe in Yahweh when you know that Moslems believe in Allah?
I don't know if your being serious but you're proving the point. Why attempt to create sophomoric arguments for good and try to train if he can ascend above reason? What's the difference between that and saying god was a prexistent fish that lived before the existence of the cosmos and recreated likeness of himself among himself ?
# "it doesn't make sense"
Exactly.
@xxAlexFogxx so you say there are errors in the Qur'an but yet no errors in the Bible?
Why can't you be critical about your religion the same way you are critical of Islam?
Is it because you are emotionally blinded by one and not the other?
@@davecirlclux
what?
In Matthew 19:26, Luke 1:37, Job 42:1-2, it says that God can do anything. It doesn´t say that God can do anything except logically impossible things. Did God forgot to mention that in the Bible? Does he have memory problems? If he is omniscient, then he already knew that we would one day wonder about whether he can literally do anything or if he can only do what is logically possible, so why did he not clarify that in the Bible?
These days, it´s becoming increasingly common for theists to assume that omnipotence means the ability to do anything that isn´t logically impossible, but that wasn´t always the case. Many theists in the distant past believed that omnipotence meant that God could do literally do anything one could think of. Religious pople in modern times seem to have a tendency for redefining what certain nwords mean in order to solve problems. It´s dishonest. No type of argument annoys me more than arguments based on wordplay. But regardless of any of that, the omnipotence paradox can´t be used to prove that Atheism is true. It can only be used against Gods wo are believed to be omnipotent.
So when President Obama said American can do anything does that mean you think Obama was making logically absurd claims, or was he just using hyperbole?
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/09/weekly-address-america-can-do-anything
@@InspiringPhilosophy The difference is that all human experience shows that Obama is only a human being, and human beings are by definition beings that have limited powers. Governments are institutions created by humans and everything that a government does relies on human manpower and what humans can physically achieve. Since what humans can achieve is by definition limited and since governments cannot achieve something that a well-organized group of human beings can´t achieve, it therefore logically follows that neither Obama, nor the american government, nor the entire human population combined can LITERALLY do anything, and everyone with an I.Q. above 35 knows it. As a result, whenever we hear someone saying that he or she can do anything, we automattically conclude that such statement is not to be taken literally.
However, Gods have been historically described as superpowerful, living, intelligent,sentient organisms. Most Gods thoughout history were not believed to be omnipotent, but the Christian God has. A God is considered to be very different from a human. Humans can´t violate the laws of the Universe, while Gods were historically believed to be capable of doing such things. If God can only do what is logically possible, then why didn´t he just pointed that out in the Bible?
On a sidenote, each of the individual steps of the stone paradox is logically possible. It´s possible to create a stone that no one can lift and it´s possible to lift any stone . It´s just not possible to do both.
Sorry for not responding sooner. Your comment didn´t appear on the notification bell for some reason.
@What’s Up What about Job 42: 1-2? Also in Matthew 19, Jesus statement that " With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” meant that God could do anything, INCLUDING granting salvation to humanity. Jesus wasn´t saying that the ONLY things God was capable of doing were related with the issue of salvation.
I didn't say he could, I said his claim can't be hyperbolic using your own logic. Why can't Jesus use hyperbole as well, especially when the context suggests that?
@What’s Up Mathew 19 is related to the topic of forgiveness, but nowhere in that chapter does it say that God can only do anything when it comes to the issue of salvation. As for Job 42, i don´t see which verses can possibly lead one to conclude what you concluded. You are seeing things that aren´t there. Obviously a God should have the power to ensure that no one ever manages to thwart his goals, but that´s perfectly logically possible. But Job 42: 1-2 doesn´t say that there are certain things that even God can´t do. If God is omniscient and he already knew in advance that in the future some people would be confused about these verses, why didn´t he clarify exactly what he can and cannot do?
Jeremiah 32:17 - “Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you.”
I admit i haven't looked at the argument like this before. It is because the bible actually seems to acknowledge that god could do anything, ''Nothing is too hard for him''
If your omnipotent, You can make the impossible possible. It's simple.
PrestoAnimations/ GroomTV actually no I recommend watching a video by the imaginary axis called “the seven dark gods of dc”
@@unarmilion457 lmao, thats exactly what it means, making the impossible, possible. Are you saying your god has limits?? If so, why call it omnipotent?
@@vegeta2800 Because you redifined omnipotence, we don't mean God can do literally anything, we mean he can do anything he can do, God is the ALL powerful, I don't know where ALL powerful to do literally anything even impossible was a part of the term all powerful, besides you tagging it on, but if you want to define all powerful as that the problem vanishes as God would just be able to make the rock liftable and non liftable at the same time, the question is based on Atheists Strawmaning omnipotence.
@@vegeta2800 is subjecting God to *incoherence* in an otherwise *logical* argument. As the narrator of the video points out, this makes no sense and is a self-defeating line of attack, because he is tacitly admitting that coherence (logic) is insufficient to counter the idea of an omnipotent being.
@@Nikolai.A.McGuire If omnipotence is defined by doing everything you can do than everything is omnipotent, chief.
It's very helpful to know how omnipotence is expressed in greek e.g. in Nicean Credo. There is word "Pantokrator" which means "Ruler of all" so we can see there is nothing about ability, but the intuition that God is supreme Ruler who is holding everything in his hands.
Everything except the laws of logic.
Omnipotent is "pantodinamos".Not "Pantokratoras".
These words are not the same whats so ever.
@@YugenOfficial right, I mean in Credo -- which I think is a most important set of propositionts about God -- there is nothing about pantodinamos but pantokratoras. And these words are often translate in the same way as Almighty. I'm aware of the fact that pantodinamos is also used to describe God, but I think pantokratoras is a primary way to talk about powerfulness of our Lord.
It's also a really good, but not well know metalcore band. From Poland I think.
@@paaklapi god made logic
To be fair, the second definition of omnipotence comes directly from the bible itself:
Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27, Luke 1:37, Jeremiah 32:27, Job 42:2, Philippians 4:13
Haha he didnt respond :)))
How could God be all powerful if he needs angels and is struggling in a war and final battle with Satan yet to come?
That's Christian belief
@@godsservant1109yeah, that is the problem with the whole god buisness
@@sydeweizgtbut that's just Christianity islam doesn't have this narrative
God doesn't NEED the angels. He just created them because He wants to. Remember before the Angels, God already exists.
And He is not struggling in a war with Satan, WE christians are. God already condemned Satan to an eternal defeat in hell.
@@dhenreycorpuz2951 I dont see how that matters. Christianity and Islam have both their own problems that they need to solve. Based on my research, Christianity has fundamental problems that it cannot solve.
So their God, I don't see as anything but fiction.
Islam, well it has its own problems, and I wont research it. You guys do what you do.
I agree with your main points but I have to disagree with a minor point up top.
It rustles my jimmies when someone says "it's logically impossible to be able to do anything"; like you, they always give examples of "things that cannot be done" which are simply incoherent pseudo-statements (I think "incoherent statement" is sort of a contradiction in terms; calling it a statement implies that it has some level of coherence). The favorite philosopher examples of "square circle" or "married bachelor" clearly aren't things, or even concepts. No one can conceive of them in any detail, because they are just incoherent mashups of two contradictory words. Saying "God can't create a square that is round" is equivalent to saying "God can't amckjeugidhgng." You're not saying anything at all; it just tricks our brains because we know what the words mean individually. Therefore we assume that they must also have a meaning when put together, but they don't, because their individual meanings are fundamentally at odds.
Same deal with God creating a stone so big that he can't lift it. The answer is, the concept of "stone so big that an omnipotent being cannot lift it" is simply incoherent. The weight of the stone is defined so as to outweigh omnipotence itself; yet the very concept of omnipotence nullifies weight as a relevant factor as to whether or not it can be lifted. It's just contradictory words strung together, with the incoherence cleverly disguised.
I guess I would suggest replacing the term "logically impossible" with "logically incoherent." Even evaluating a phrase's possibility implies that you have a phrase worth evaluating, but incoherent non-concepts like "square circle" don't qualify; they're like darkness, they are nothing, just a lack of sense disguised as english words. I would like for philosophers to stop confusing nonsense with impossibility.
exactly, they're not even asking a meaningful question
It is precisely the contradictory nature of the whole scenario that proves the definition impossible. After all, it is perfectly possible for a normal human to create something it cannot lift. Just pile up a bunch of pebbles in a truck and see how you fare. This means that 'creating a thing you cannot lift' is 'a thing that can be done'. If omnipotence = 'Can do anything' then 'creating a thing you cannot lift' is necessarily one of them, as it is 'a thing that can be done'. but of course, the problem is, 'Lifting anything' is part of 'Anything can be done' , including the very 'thing you cannot lift'. If you in fact an lift it, it is no longer a 'thing you cannot lift'. If you can, 'you cannot 'lift anything'. as in either case, there is something you 'cannot do', which necessarily implies you cannot 'Can do anything'. Thus, you cannot be omnipotent
@@sukritmanikandan3184 "creating a thing you cannot lift" and "creating a thing you _can_ lift" are both "things that can be done". The paradox implies that. This just kicks the can down the road.
@@sporeguy-l4b As is 'Lifting anything', which contradicts 'creating a thing you cannot lift'. A logical framework is invalid if it has contradictions like these
@@sukritmanikandan3184 Yes, that is the whole point of the contradiction. Did you watch the video?
Literally the definition of power is the ability to do.
So omnipotence = omnicapable?
@@austin3789 the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way.
"the power of speech"
Similar:
ability
capacity
capability
potential
potentiality
faculty
property
competence
competency
Opposite:
inability
incapacity
2.
the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events.
"a political process that offers people power over their own lives"
verb
1.
supply (a device) with mechanical or electrical energy.
"the car is powered by a fuel-injected 3.0-litre engine"
2.
move or travel with great speed or force.
"he powered round a bend"
Nowhere does it say do anything, it says do 'something'. For example if i can lift 1000kg im powerful, but i might not be able to ride a bike, im still powerful. I have the capacity to do something, that's really amazing, but i dont have the power to do other things.
Im still powerful, nowhere does it say, must be able to do ALL things, it's just something. Besides a 'thing' assumes that it exists, a paradox is 'nothing' by definition. So having the power to do all 'things' implies that the 'things' must be logically possible or exist.
If you read Bible you will find that God can't lie(Bible Is very vlear on that)Doesn that mean he Is not omnipotent?No.Why?1.potent=ability
2.potent=power
Christians use 2. definition bcs it says in Bible that God can't lie.So there really Is no "paradox".God simply has more power than anyone or anything.He is NOT capable of doing everything,thas would be something that Bible doesnt teach.(its pretty clear you dont want to know the real answer,bcs this guy made very good explanation.P.S. if you arent Christian that doesnt mean you have to be pussy about evidence.
@@nemanjanikolic636 Yahweh lies by chapter 4 of Genisis. Yahwe tells Adam and Eve that they will die if they eat the fruit but they don't. He tells Abraham a lie, saying he will not accept human sacrifice in the future then happily accepts Jephthah killing his daughter as a sacrifice in Judges 11-12. There are a number of others. They are just more of the made-up nature of all of it.
Thanks for this video. I will be assigning it to my 100-level Introduction to Ethics course at the University of Maryland for our week on Divine Command Theory. We talk about the idea that God's so-called "inability" to make 'murder for fun' morally permissible isn't a limitation just like his so-called "inability" to make a circle-square or to make a rock so heavy that even he couldn't lift aren't really inabilities or violations of his/her/its omnipotence. You cover nicely in your video why neither of these are true inabilities or problems for omnipotence.
What an honor, thank you. Check out my video on virtue ethics if you like: ua-cam.com/video/e5uGIFkK2hY/v-deo.html
Anything that definitively states or implies "can not" is inherently a limitation.
@InspiringPhilosophy I have a genuine question, doesn't Matthew 19:26 and plenty of other Bible verses say that God can do anything
But in Matthew 19:26, it says: “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”.Meaning HE has the ability to do anything. Which means he can create a rock that he cannot lift. Which also means that something is impossible to God.
ua-cam.com/video/IIc0FrAM3xI/v-deo.html
@Maxsteel 42 you are a human, you are made of proteins, proteins come from food, food comes from plants and animals( which in turn comes from plants), plants make food from minerals in the soil. So yea you are what you eat and what you est is soil, directly or indirectly you are made of soil either way.
Except that contradicts omnipotence.
Omnipotence means your more powerful than everything else.
God would still lift the rock because his beyond logic and illogic.
@@josephgetnet5662 Well soil comes from star dust, and star dust comes from bing bang, and bing bang probably comes from quantum fluctuations, and quantum fluctuations comes from... well nature itself I guess and nature comes from... You can do that endless times and never stop. So your provided answer, that man is made from clay, is pretty weak. :)
Read it in context, what Matthew meant by that is that what is logically impossible for men is possible for God.
I principally disagree with the idea that “it is logically impossible to be able to do anything.” The “Logic” here is not bounded to the confines of our understanding of mechanics, reason, or existence, and assuming it is is doing a great disservice to a being that fundamentally usurps the essence of the reality we know. Can God create a square circle? Why sure, maybe not in this reality, but God is intrinsically unbounded by our “reality.”
Generally speaking, if you have to counter a logical paradox with the redefinition of terms, the paradox still stands for the terms you excluded. These cases do not disintegrate because you decided to limit God to our experience of the physical universe
really?
Sorry, but anyone that says it's possible to make a square circle has a fundamental misunderstanding of language, logic, reason, and mathematics. By definition, both circles and squares are two-dimensional in nature. To add extra dimensions in order to make a "square circle", one would have to change the very definition of a square or the very definition of a circle, thus creating a new entity altogether. This applies to anything. Once the definition of an term or entity is altered, it ceases to be that entity and actually creates a new entity. Anyone who has studied calculus, linear algebra, and discrete mathematics would understand what I'm saying.
And no, logic cannot just be redefined at a whim or else it loses coherence, and when coherence is lost, collapse follows.
@@Fealorin
Omnipotence is beyond logic.
He can make a square circle regardless.
@@davidnewhart2533 Omnipotence is not beyond logic. To claim it is, is to claim it is illogical.
Things that exists are capable of such because existence simply is; God was, is, and will always be. Hence God's name, "YHWH," which translates to "I be that I be" or "I am who I am." The name shows a continual nature that simply is. "I be" leads into "I be," and "I am" leads into "I am."
God is a necessary being, therefore His non-existence is impossible, as God is existence itself. Which logically follows as God is logic itself, too. For example: God cannot make Himself not exist, that is logically impossible to do. God cannot do anything that does not follow logic, which is Himself. God cannot contradict His own nature, or He wouldn't be God. To say "omnipotence is beyond logic" is to say God is beyond Himself, and if God is beyond Himself then He wouldn't be bound by who He is. Therefore, He wouldn't exist and He wouldn't be Him. You're proposing a scenario where God contradicts Himself which is logically impossible.
God being existence itself means God is omnipotent, no thing is beyond God, therefore existence, as they are bounded by it, hence their existence. Their being is contingent on God. Everything in existence, that is contingent, combined would not be greater than God ever. He cannot be defeated by anything that relies on Him to be.
@@dazaiel8081 Yet God can exist but not exist at the same time, that’s Omnipotence.
You got omnipotent wrong yourself in a certain way.
All- in omi- doesn't mean anything akin to "top of the leader board" it literally means all.
As in, omnipotent means one can move with the fury of the entirety of creation times infinity, or move with the gentleness of an electron quantum tunneling.
@@keithtorres5743 No he doesn't. He doesn't mention this whatsoever the whole video. He never questions the meaning of the prefix Omni- and uses a single "top of the charts" definition for omnipotent and omniscient that DOESN'T equate to it's usage in omnipresent.
@@keithtorres5743 if you think what he says at 6:45 has anything to do with my comment, you either have failed to understand IP's video or failed to understand my comment.
@@keithtorres5743 no, my logic does not work that way. My argument is not the Etymology fallacy.
I'm not arguing it's logically impossible to be Omnipotent, which is what the argument would entail.
I'm saying that in this video, IP got the biblical definition of omnipotent incorrect, and is using the modern American definition, not how the ancient people of the near East would have used the word.
@@keithtorres5743 ... Yes, you have certainly misinterpreted what I was commenting. Because I am very confused as to why you're commenting such irrelevance haha
You're not accurately describing what I'm saying at all.
No part of my argument has to do with dismissing Christianity, like you seem to think.
The definition I use is BETTER argumentation for God. It's LESS self-contradictory, takes FEWER presumptions, and makes MORE sense with BETTER internal consistency with the language and descriptions of God than the definition IP uses.
It also fits the historical context better, as well as it better fits the context of Greek translations omnipotent is not a Hebrew word, but Greek, after all.
@@keithtorres5743 you can stop putting atheist words in my mouth at any time.
We should be careful to define the unknown by our standards of what we know and deem possible.
If saying God is good or all-knowing or all-possible doesn't mean good, all-knowing and all-possible by our standards, then we can't use those words. You can't say God is good, if good means something else.
IP should be careful with defining the phrase "all powerful" as something non - recogniseable from its original meaning.
Now all he needs to do is let the other countries know what omnipotence actually means since they seem to not have caught up to what has apparently been known since forever.
In my language the phrase "all powerful" when referring to God is made up out of two words "all" + "(he)with the ability to do" which translates to "he with the ability to do all"
And you cannot prescribe any other meaning except "the ability to do" to the word that is in that place.
There's no dilemma between the meaning of powerful (strong or able to do) because those would be two completely different words which are not even similar.
"He who can do all" is the only phrase we have to refer to omnipotence.
And there's no space for confusion whatsoever.
But I'd like to see IP try really.
@@ina7084 God can simply change what it means to be logic. He can do anything.
Personally I was thinking that if God created logic and the way things work that would mean that he doesn’t have to be affected by them meaning God can create a square circle and he can make a rock that he can lift and can’t lift.if God created logic then why does it apply to him ?
Aristotle created Logic, but an omnipotent being is still a paradox.
You know, I was thinking the same thing. It’s just you say it way better XD
But All-powerful means the being has power do to as it wants to, so if the being makes a rock that it can't lift, the being is not all-powerful anymore, because it can't use its power over the rock, and if the being lift therock, then its power to create the rock wasn't absolute.
The paradox still exists.
Did you not listen closely. The beginning of the video explains that omnipotence doesn't mean omnipotent abilities but simply omnipotent power. He explained the rock paradox in almost the exact same way. He answered the question "can an omnipotent being create a rock so big that he can't lift it?" by saying "NO." He then went on to explain that this is a logical contradiction and is therefore a logically impossible, non-doable thing. Omnipotence does not mean "the ability to do anything." The rock question is not a paradox. Its a logical contradiction.
God does whatever He wills and pleases, and would never do something that doesn't befit his greatness or become something He isn't, so the so called omnipotent paradox questions are absurd and meaningless.
Just stop trying to grasp the nature of God when our minds are obviously very limited and not designed to fully understand anything that is beyond our limits, otherwise what you're doing and asking is in itself nonsensical and pointless...
The contradiction is that we try to measure His nature through logic while acknowledging that by his omnipotence and perfection, he isnt bound by anything, including logic.
You did not watch the video
God absolutely can create a stone he could not lift. But does this mean there is something he couldn't do? No. Because he could still lift it.
How does that make sense?
It doesn't. Consistency, causality and logic are derived from God. He could both simultaneously lift it and not be able to lift it by suspending the laws of logic.
This answer is not a cheap trick or a gimmick.
It demonstrates that God is so powerful the question of the stone is completely silly, since he can bend and change the fabric of reality itself. He is simply not limited by the logic that is derived from him.
Great answer bro, Christ is risen
You’re too worried about the definition of omnipotent rather than the nature of God. Omnipotent may not mean having the ability to do anything but that is the nature of God as most people believe. If God is really God he should be able to do anything that you can think of. Limits shouldn’t exist for such a being because if you want to be coherent than the idea of God itself is incoherent. So for such an incoherent being everything should be possible. But again if for him everything is indeed possible, you are then stuck in a loop of paradoxes that would never be solved. If you add limits to the word God the word itself becomes meaningless.
Okay? It's not his problem that people have the wrong idea on the nature of God.
Also, I know I'm late, but you're argument was horrible.
If a being is bound by logic then the being is not omnipotence.
8:05 "...shows you don't know what you're talking about (pause)." I feel like a worse version of you put pictures of about a dozen UA-cam personalities on screen.
I thought about it.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Hahaha
Logically impossible isn't real because logic prohibits it to be and if god is bound by logic and cannot bring forth something that doesn't exist due to logic he is infact being defeated by logic isn't he ?
it seems that the classic definition is in agreement with the bible:
Matthew 19:26 ESV; Mark 10:27 ESV
But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Luke 1:37 ESV
"For nothing will be impossible with God.”
Job 42:2 ESV
“I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted."
Genesis 18:14 ESV
"Is anything too hard for the Lord? At the appointed time I will return to you, about this time next year, and Sarah shall have a son.”
Jeremiah 32:27 ESV
“Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?"
Philippians 4:13 ESV
"I can do all things through him who strengthens me."
Psalm 135:6 ESV
"Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps."
Mark 9:23 ESV
"And Jesus said to him, “‘If you can’! All things are possible for one who believes.”
Luke 18:27 ESV
But he said, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.”
(funny fact: for me it is possible to create a pile of stones so heavy that I cannot move)
and the list goes on: www.openbible.info/topics/omnipotence
so, this argument is good for gods of other religions, but not for the biblical version
(sorry, I do not speak english)
So you're saying god must exist within the context of a logical system. How did god create that system if he lives within it?
How can we say that he lives in it as opposed to it flowing from him?
@@blusheep2 exactly only he has knowledge of such things and we should leave it at that. That's why hen it comes to God, belief is key because 'proof' and 'logic' would only get you so far, even if one doesn't believe in God...
Thanks!
Thank you for the donation.
@@InspiringPhilosophy I really used to struggle with this…this helped a lot 💯
This reminds me of the infamous 'paradox' of, "This statement is false." The statement, "This statement is false." CANNOT be a paradox simply because it is a nonsensical construct of words for the same reason that saying God is not omnipotent because He can't create something nonsense.
I have a video on that: ua-cam.com/video/tNLMN9DBFP0/v-deo.html
I don't think you understand what a paradox is.
It is easy to create a married bachelor, or a square circle as long as you are defining a = a. As an omnipotent God I can create one man in two worlds, where in one the man is married, and in the other he is a bachelor. Their lives and identities can be precisely identical, except in one world the term applies and in the other it doesn't, yet there is no way to distinguish the two. Same can be said for any identity relationship, if it is true that other possible worlds exist. Words do not perfectly capture anything about reality, let alone allow us to approach real knowledge about what is and isn't possible.
Im an atheist, i noticed that some in the comment section points out that god is beyond logic if so why try to understand a being outside of logic? Why try to understand a god that is so alien and beyond our understanding let alone try to contemplate what that said god is thinking the judeo christian god can be an a-hole sometimes.
2:46 IP: *Unlimited is not synonymous of omnipotent.*
Many of the definition of Omnipotent and All-powerful Include *Unlimited*
Here is the definition from differences source. Feel free to corroborate if they are correct.
*Omnipotent:* having virtually *unlimited* authority or influence
Def2: one who has *unlimited* power or authority
Def3: (of a deity) having *_unlimited_*_ power_ ; *able to do anything* .
Def4: almighty or infinite in power, as God.
Def5: having very great or *unlimited* authority or power.
*All-powerful:* having complete, absolute, supreme, *unlimited* or sole power
def2: having or exercising exclusive and *unlimited* authority; omnipotent.
*Power:* (Power has the to many definitions to post them all so I will only use the one related to the context on video)
def1: ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something.
def2: possession of controlling influence
def3: The capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events.
def4: The ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a faculty or quality.
So It can be correctly assumed that all-powerful being can be described as an unlimited in some kind of way.
What I'm noticing is that IP is using Omnipotent and All-powerful in such manner that is vague enough that he can always have the option to back out of any logical contradiction by saying: " _That not what I mean_ ". He needs to give us a definition for Omnipotent because All-powerful tells us nothing about omnipotence.
What I don't understand with his argument is that If Omnipotent mean All-powerful, what "Power" mean in all-powerful?
he's wrong
If God cannot do illogical tasks, that would mean logic is above God, it would also mean that something (logic) exists which is neither God nor God's creation.
Or we just accept reality as it is. Because there isn't a god.
@@lydiaisbored Yes, that's my point.
He addressed this objection using both theist and atheist philosophers. This objection only works if you see something that is illogical as a part of reality. But logically impossible things are not. Logically impossible "things" are just a collection of incoherent words that pretends to describe something.
So take the common example: Can God make a square circle? The answer is no and it doesn't limit God's omnipotence and its not a paradox. Why? Because this is all semantics. "Circle" and "Square" have set definitions. A square will have 4 sides, each 90* to the adjacent sides. A circle will describe a shape with a constant radius. Since these words have meaning, it is logically impossible for you to turn that circle into a square and still call it a circle because it will no longer contain any properties of a circle. This isn't a limit in an ability. Its an illogical, non-doable, language barrier and nothing else. It doesn't limit omnipotence.
Essentially its a dumb question because its inherently contradictory.
@@blusheep2 I agree with you, when it comes to language. Incoherent things are not challenge to omnipotence. However, when it comes to math, some things are more than just language, for example, when you create triangle, total sum of angles will always be 180 degrees. Would you say that this rule God cannot break, therefore it's above him?
@@goranmilic442 No because your still just dealing with a description. "A triangle is a three sided shape whose sum of its angles always equals 180 degrees. Its no more a rule above God then to say the sky is blue. If you "broke" the rule and said that a triangle "has 4 sides" or that a triangle's angles all "add up to 360*" then you wouldn't be describing a triangle anymore. We'd be back to square circles.
I do think there are more difficult examples then this. Namely any example in which it may be difficult to prove that one is asking for an illogical power. Such as: Can free will exist without evil?... or.... "is divine hiddenness a logical necessity for an omnipotent power that wishes to build relationship with its creation?
I could answer either of those questions as "no" and "yes" respectively, but it would be difficult for me to prove it. I do think, though, that it would be illogical to ask if God can create man with free will without there being evil.
What do you think of this?: God just IS logic itself. Logic and coherence is just part of Gods nature. Why? It follows from the concept of a maximally great being. For without logic a maximally great being could not exist. But since a maximally great being exists necessarily, logic also must exist necessarily, being part of the maximally great being's nature.
Furthermore, if God's nature did not include logic we could imagine something greater than God, namely a God which nature did include logic. But we could not imagine a being greater than a maximally great being, therefore a God which nature did not include logic must be false.
Unoriginal Thoughts That's a great way to think about it. On that note, there's a great article entitled "The Lord of Non-Contradiction" in Philosophia Christi arguing similar lines as yours. You may want to check it out.
Excellent. One can also come to the conclusion, based on Proverbs 8, that if God created Wisdom before the universe began, then one can extrapolate that God created Logic itself, at least how we in our limited fashion can understand it.
justifan I wouldn't say that God created logic since it would entail that God can change it but it seems that the nature of logic is unchangeable. Perhaps it's more appropriate to say that logic is a reflection of God's thoughts.
@@akosikuyzak Yes. Although I would be more inclined to say that God is identical to logic. If logic is a reflection of Gods thoughts then one might still ask why God could not think up a different logical system and hence change logic.
It's the same as with morality. If morality where just part of God's commands or thoughts then that would make morality arbitrary since God could command or think something else by whim.
If morality is instead part of God's unchanging nature then it reflects our intuition that morality can't change, which is a lot better.
"God just IS logic itself."
It is an OLD idea. It is a good one but the problem with that idea is that the Biblical perspective of God is one who has thoughts and desires. AND - The only way for a being to have desires is to be lacking that something for which it desires.
Logic doesn't have thoughts and desires and thus is not lacking and thus is greater than God.
Therefor - God cannot be logic.
I always love being asked if God can create a stone too big for Him to lift. I always ask if God is bound by the laws of logic? If so, than the argument violates the Law of Non-contradiction and therefore the statement is false in itself. If God is not bound by the laws of logic, then He can create a stone too big for Him to lift, and lift it, and still be omnipotent.
@Leung Miles If that is the frame of the debate. The point t to my argument is that if God is illogical, then the question is pointless. But if God is logical, the question is pointless.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus
This entire "omnipotence paradox argument" is on par with Zeno's logic tricks. They are all nonsense, but can be fun to play around with.
For example: it's impossible to move across a room, because you always have to move to the halfway point first, and since we can divide space indefinitely, it's impossible to cross the room.
For a mortal in the 3rd dimension, yes.
But teleporters exist... Not that humans can use it.
The ability to do anything does admittedly sound cooler
This is one of the best videos ever.
The Omnipotence Paradox never made sense.
"The Omnipotence Paradox never made sense."
When you show something is a parados you are showing that it is nonsensical. Paradoxes can not make sense or they are not paradoxes!
This video failure breaks its own definition within the first 2 minutes.
@@chrisyoung5929 I’m confused
@@jasonanderson7232 We all are Jason. It is part of being human I guess
@@chrisyoung5929 I think God being omnipotent doesn’t make sense, but I do think that it doesn’t make it untrue. After all, God’s knowledge is “greater” than ours. That’s how I understand the scripture. Not that I believe in it though.
@@jasonanderson7232 This all comes down to how you define the word omnipotent. Many definitions lead to paradox. This video tries to say if you use a different definition of omnipotent then there is no paradox. The problem is that the only example we have of the claim of omnipotence is certain deities. So god is omnipotent and omnipotence is what god is. We have no examples of any deity to examine to work out what omnipotence is. We do not have an omnipotent being to examine so we can not work out what a god is. We are left with meaningless word play.
You defeated your own argument. The rock is a physical thing with limitations, quantifiable and yet its creator cannot hoist it. So then you have to jump through endless hoops or redefining things such as what's logical, using your subjective opinion of said creator as the calibration of logical instead of what's quantifiable in the question
Yet you fail to understand that a creator is a foundation where everything else emerges, how can an emergent thing be more powerful than the foundation.
If an atheist forces the definition of omnipotence as being able to do contradictory things, then simply use the quantum superposition argument demonstrated by Schrodinger's cat. It shows that contradictory states can exist at the same time until observation collapses it with the cat being both dead and alive before observation. This pretty much allows god to lift the stone and not lift the stone at the same time and solving the paradox.
That’s a better argument instead of going mental gymnastics but even if you can still be bound to logic as an Omnipotent then it would still be absurd
Then this means that god is preceded by the laws of logic. In which case God isn’t the basis of reality he isn’t the first cause because logic preceded him. His actions are bound by logic and his nature in which case he’s actually completely impotent god is a robot who is simply obeying his programming
No it doesnt mean that. As he said logical absurdities do not exist. Even if we could fabricate one , that does not mean that it exists!
@@artemisiachristodoulaki6305 So god can't create logical absurdities so he's not omnipotent. He's weaker than logic.
@thegreen2504 Omnipotent doesn't mean the ability to do anything it means to have power over everything else in existence. But nonetheless, logical absurdities DO NOT EXIST AND CANNOT EXIST. They are not a part of existence .
@@artemisiachristodoulaki6305 so again then the Bible is wrong, the Bible says in the beginning there was only god. If god didnt invent the laws of logic, that means they predate him. Which means the true god is the laws of logic not god
@thegreen2504 In the beginning there was only God. Yes . And God did create the laws of logic . Yes .
If you are omnipotent, you are all powerful MEANING you can do anything.
Can God creat a problem he can't solve? I think a decent answer is; Sometimes.
I can do many things, but not unconditionally and not entirely regardless of context, these conditions, do not mean that I definitively can or cannot do those many things. Can I walk? Can I speak? Can I breath?? If the answer in even moment is no, have I meaningfully lost the ability or power to breath or walk or speak?
I think the focus on a binary "yes" or "no" answer is the issue, when in fact there could be many.
@@ronnywijngaarde7555 but you are not omipotent. An omnipotent being is all poverful. If you can do anything, you cant lose an ability, because its infinite. And also the fact that if something is omnipotent then its powers cant be taken or limited, because Infinity-Any number is still infinity.
@@keresztesmapper2447 hi, thanks for responding!
Hmm why not. I mean what you can do, does not dictate what you will do, or what will happen right?
So as I understand, being omnipotent does not mean you can at no point in time lose your omnipotence, if even for a moment.
I think that something that is proven to be infinite now is not infinite definitively or unconditionally. That for instance, a cycle has the likely ability and potential to never end does not mean that it is bound, to never end.
@@ronnywijngaarde7555 yes. You cant lose your omnipotence by the nature of omnipotence
@@keresztesmapper2447
There is no nature of omnipotence besides its definitions. That would be like saying the strong can't lose to the weak because that is the nature of the strong; "to always defeat the weak."'
If God created the whole universe by speaking it into existence, I think he can handle your little married bachelor. That puts God at 1, and you at 0.
Agreed!
But these are words that humans invented and if god would make someone like you are saying, by the definition his creation wouldn't apply for one of them (bachelor or husband)
@@Zoolthar Yep. Logical contradictions are just tricks of language. Just because you can put two words together doesn't mean they have to refer to anything at all.
Makes no sense
One point that seems to have been missed in this lies in the simple fact that a challenge based upon an irrational logical impossibility, but that demands an answer that satisfies logical rationality, is a dishonestly inconsistent and fundamentally flawed challenge at its root level.
the point you missed is that most theists think god can do anything, which is logically impossible
@@scambammer6102 No. Christian theologians, apologists and pholosophers have never argued that God can do "anything", and for the very reason you state. Logic eliminates the possibility of mutually exclusive attributes, for example. God "cannot" "logically" make a "dark sunny day". The point here is that rhetorically contradictory logical impossibilities takes nothing away from the genuine reality of an otherwise "logically" omnipotent Creator. Trying to deny God on the basis of the impossibility of logical contradictions is nothing more than creating a rhetorical straw man. It has no meaningful relevance in terms of revognizing God's limitless abilities within rational reality.
@@scambammer6102 No, in fact it is the paradox itself that is logically wrong.
@@bureau31 lol wut? yes paradoxes are logically wrong. That's what the word means.
nobody is demanding "an answer that satisfies logical rationality". We are just pointing out that omnipotence is a paradox, which it is. your gawd doesn't make sense. We are not claiming that anything else does.
By the reasoning shown in this video regarding how Christian theologians have argued that logically impossible ideas are not actual 'things', it makes it fine to define omnipotence as the ability to do any thing (because logically impossible 'things' aren't actually things). Therefore God can do anything.
To be honest God is literally beyond our imagination
God is beyond and above our limited logic
You can not comprehend the power of god, so this question is wrong.
@adam zarbon I dunno about that, god is real, u think the universe came out of nowhere????????? my man if u think the universe came out of nowhere then u must be high on that good shit man.
@@av8r195 God always existed my friend, he did not come out of nowhere because he always existed. Logic applies to the Universe but God is above logic.
@@av8r195 Don't even try to reason with with someone intoxicated with religious rhetoric. There's no convicing them otherwise no matter how sound your aregument is. This is what makes them believers to begin with.
@@Acek-tq2jv and your high on something stronger than heroin.
Some of you have to realize what omnipotence really mean. If one is omnipotent, they would be above the laws of logic as we know it. So yes, an omnipotent being would be able to make a square circle, they would be able to make the biggest finite number, they would be able to make an evil person simultaneously morally perfect. Please, stop contradicting omnipotence.
If He's able to make self-contradions, then He is in of Himself impotent.
No because the square circle can't itself exist. The category of circle (all points equally distant to a single central point) and that of a square (polygon with 4 equal sides and 4 equal angles) can't coexist in a single entity. That's a property of the entity. It can't exist as actuality nor as potential. God itself being defined as all perfections (see Leibniz) means he is the potential (a necessary being). Thus omnipotence is incompatible with logical impossibility. Potential can't be realized if it is not potential. What you're actually doing is creating an impossible definition of power which is just flatus vocis.
@@notsam9528 We're assuming God is all powerful and can do anything in this hypothetical situation. This would include transcending the idea of logic and simple mathematical equations we currently have. You're trying to apply our current laws of physics to someone who is already omnipotent. We know this is consistent because God is a necessary existence (I can explain what that is) which makes him eternal. That would already contradict your debunk by definition, since our laws of physics suggest everything that has a beginning also has an ending.
@@Mehmet-sm8vr but this definition of omnipotence isn't part of a necessary being. In fact this definition is inconsistent and is what we call flatus vocis, a.k.a it has no real relationship with reality. All ability has to be logically possible. The impossibility of a circular triangle is a "property" of the circular triangle. Meaning IT can't exist, not that you can't draw it.
There's a reason why no professional great philosopher ever made this argument. You'll only see this coming from amateur youtube atheists, never from David Hume, or Leibniz, or Dscartes.
@@notsam9528 I'm going to stop you there. "All abilities has to be logically possible". I disagree, since the specific argument we're discussing right now is if God can make a square circle, or a triangle square etc. By my definition of omnipotence, its the ability to do anything, and being all powerful. Now, when you say "all abilities has to be *logically* possible", it completely contradicts my definition of omnipotence anyway. Essentially, a square circle can not possibly or logically exist, yes. However, what I'm talking about is the existence of a square circle outside the laws of logic. If an omnipotent being couldn't create something logical or illogical, again, it'd contradict my definition.
Omnipotent definition: having unlimited power; able to do anything
Yep, right out of Oxford dictionaries. Who's making up ( slicing off ) definition now =))))
Sir, the theist is making the claim that God is omnipotent, so the theist must define what he means. The Oxford dictionary does not get to do that. “Omnipotent” derives from the Latin omnis meaning “all” and potens or “powerful.” This means all-powerful, not the ability to do anything. Knowing this, it follows that anything that limits His all-power cannot be done.
These terms do not mean that God can do anything. Rather, they describe the amount of God’s power. Power is the ability to effect change - to make something happen. God (being unlimited) has unlimited power. Therefore, God can do whatever is possible to be done. God cannot, however, do that which is actually impossible. This is because true impossibility is not based on the amount of power one has, it is based on what can actually occur. The truly impossible is not made possible by adding more power.
When Christians say “God can do anything” we don’t mean literally everything. When we say that God can do the impossible, we don’t mean he can do the _logically_ impossible. By impossible, we mean things like creating things out of nothing, keeping people in a fire from burning, having a guy walk on water, or make a 90-year-old woman get pregnant and give birth to a healthy son, and things like that. We do not mean God can do absolutely everything. We mean only what is logically possible (that is to say, things that are not contradictory concepts).
There are some things God cannot do simply _because_ He is omnipotent. If God is infinitely powerful than it’s impossible to create a rock so large He cannot lift it. For if there was anything He couldn’t lift, that would prove Him a being of finite strength. But a being of infinite power could create a rock of infinite size and infinite weight and still be able to move it. It is because God is infinitely powerful (i.e omnipotent) that He cannot create a rock too hard for Him to move.
This little riddle is akin to asking “Can God’s infinite power overwhelm His infinite power?” Or it’s like asking “Can God beat Himself in a fistfight” or “Can God think up a mathematical equation too difficult for Him to solve”. It’s sheer nonsense. C.S Lewis once said, “Nonsense is still nonsense even when we speak it about God.” You’re basically asking if a Being of unlimited power can produce something to limit Him. But His unlimited power, by definition, rules out that possibility. An unlimited being cannot create limits for Himself.
God may be omnipotent or he may be all-loving but not both. No loving god would establish a plan of salvation knowing that 90% of all humans will suffer in hell forever.
Great video! I already had a rough idea as to why the omnipotence paradox is ridiculous, but listening to someone articulate it better gives further clarity.
Looking between different sides of the argument for and against this paradox, it seems to me like it's become a debate over what the meaning of certain words are to fit the different narratives. It's pretty ironic that language created by humans has become the focal point of a debate around the existence of a being supposedly incomprehensible to humans.
For example, the first definition of power on Google is "the ability to do something or act in a particular way". Going by that definition would support the stone and lying paradoxes. Whether or not these paradoxes prove god doesn't exist comes down to how you define the words, AKA human language.
Well, the question could be - can God do anything? That would draw interesting answers.
@@goranmilic442 almost all theists say yes, thus making the omnipotence paradox valid
God is not a character in your favorite anime. You are worshipping your own intellect, not God. A paradox is a failure of human intellect, caused, according to Genesis, by eating the forbidden fruit, thus creating the world of duality. It does mean that which we can't understand or perceive can't exist.
Omg EXACTLY. All these everyday atheist you find literally think God is some kind of cartoon character that has a big beard, lives in a physical realm and flies around doing regular people stuff.
This isnt really an exaggeration either from what a regular atheist on the street believes. The reason they rejected God is most likely because
1.He didnt do what i asked him to do (again as if he is a superhero doing your deeds)
2.He let me (relative) die of (disease) at (young age) (same thing as number 1)
3.Ive never felt him :)))) *has never seriously tried to either*
@@steliosmitr8245 they reject the god portrayed by religion .. no body is denying the possibility but that possibility seems very much unlikely
Stelios Mitr You are right, people have never tried to find God, or they find some vicarious sufferer to blame for God's absence, like children with cancer, when in reality, God was likely right there with those children with cancer and their outlook on life was probably orders of magnitude sunnier than your average atheist. A long life absence of purpose is basically a prison sentence.
Dichard Rawkins Very astute. I was talking about atheists and Christians alike who have this debate, no matter how many books theyve read or written, this is still just theological "Goku vs Superman" or "Babe Ruth would suck if he played today." It's the exact same thing.
Hey man, what are some good books you recommend reading for understanding the Bible and theology overall? You can include philosophy as I'm a beginner at a lot of this stuff. Fascinating, to say the least.
IP out here playing chess while these Atheists play checkers. 😛 Great video IP! Thank you!
It might help if he actually earned how to play chess.
'Cuz .... IP just makes things up as he goes along.
Here ... take a look at what GOD says about himself in his OWN words...
And then compare that with the B.S. that IP claims.
Luke 1:37 ESV
For nothing will be impossible with God.”
Matthew 19:26 ESV
But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
@@AIVSRelilgion This would only work if you took the bible literally. The bible is full of hyperbole. For example, Matt. 5:29: “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out…” Now, we're not actually told to pluck out our eyes but simply that we must avoid what would cause us to sin. Another example is Mark 1:4-5: “John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins." Quite obviously not everyone in Judea and Jerusalem were baptized, but a lot of them were. Remember, taking the bible literally is not good!
@@AIVSRelilgion
Blatantly using quotes biasedly without understanding it's meanings makes you clearly dishonest. As most 15 year old basement dweller anti-theists I'd say.
@@roggoz6624 why do you believe in Yahweh when you know that Moslems believe in Allah?
@@AIVSRelilgion That moment when you're too much of a simpleton to comprehend the very clear arguments presented in this video. He's making himself quite clear. I think you need to reexamine the context of those quotes you mined and the data presented in these videos. God is not logically inconsistent, unlike the concept of "doing anything". God is beyond physical limits, therefore you could have the most incomprehensibly massive rock and it would STILL not be possible for it to be beyond His ability to lift.
Nearly all scientific laws are only understood through induction. Therefore, like the universe, the laws of logic are incomplete. Trying to measure an all power entity with our finite understanding and ability is impossible to fully comprehend.
If God can be omnipresent for instance, in our finite understanding, being in two places at the same time sounds like a contradiction. But does this apply to something that is allegedly infinite, eternal or nonlinear? 🤔
1:25 It is logically impossible to be able to do anything
Nothing is impossible for God though. :/
Still christian god
If we remove christanity, then no problem
I completly disagree with the statements made. I infact like to pick up the argument of "God not being able to make logically incoherent >entities/concepts"/God not able to do anything.
We just have to think of the Square Circle. The idea that such a shape/entity cannot exist is the result of our extremely limited perception of spacetime.
Jesus said:
“With man this is impossible, but >with God all things are possible.
I agree with the square circle part, all you would need for that is to bend spacetime so that it makes the circle square. I don't believe that god is real but if it was wouldnt it be as easy for it to do that as it is for us to make a coffee?
I think Descartes also thought that God could do even the logically impossible, so you're not the first. Most theologians don't agree with you though and are on the side of IP.
Incorrect!!!!
1) Can an omnipotent being commit suicide ABSOLUTE DEATH of itself it's totality and finality?.....NOPE!!!!.....humans and animals can EASILY do this, yet such a powerful being lack the ability to do it.
2) Can such a being lie which equals moral imperfection?.....NOPE!!!!
3) Can it create many other omnipotent beings in equal and greater power?...in a manner of how humans have created a.i which is believed and/or anticipated to supercede humans IF restrictions are NOT implemented into the a.i. (Isaac Asimov- Laws of Robotics)...NOPE!!!!...an omnipotent being is not capable of creating more powerful beings.
All the above would be a direct contradiction of it's own nature therefore omnipotence itself has limits.
Thus, I favor the definition that omnipotence is to be the most powerful within logical possibility.
So what does "power" in all powerful refer to?
Power in this case is best described I find, as authority over all existing things he created, which in our case would just be our universe, not making any assertions beyond that so take it as you will within the confines of how I’ve defined it
Omnipotent doesn't have weakness.
After thinking about God for a long time, I created this question. Has God sinned? My answer was and still is yes. A jealous God, an Angry God that kills. According to the bible God has lied at least once, wether it was a test or not. People take after their parents, so we must have gained sin from our creator, and we're sent to hell for punishment so as not to follow his misdeeds/ not believing in him and so on. I rambled a bit but if you consider a sin as weakness then in your eyes God does have a weakness. When I read the bible now, I see God made errors that he had to fix as well. Like killing off the entire human race with a flood. God's are a pretty fun subject.
@@Dahstin5311 No you just have not done enough research and have come to some faulty conclusions based on ignorance. If you have any specific example where you think God sinned in the Bible then I am sure you could easily find an answer online or I could try to answer.
What about omniscient? If a being is all-knowing, it must know how every single neuron in our brain will fire, thus it will know exactly what actions we would take. That begs the question of why god would need to “test” us if he already knows every single action we would take from the moment we were born to the moment we take our last breath. It also begs the question of whether or not free will really exists.
That’s not what the Bible says.
Matthew 19:26 ESV / 3,408 helpful votes
But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Luke 1:37 ESV / 2,881 helpful votes
For nothing will be impossible with God.”
Psalm 147:5 ESV / 2,627 helpful votes
Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.
Job 42:2 ESV / 2,622 helpful votes
“I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
If you’re going by the Bible, the definition of omnipotent is that with god all things are possible. Which means there are no limits.
Good try.
I already debunked that bastardization of the text: ua-cam.com/video/IIc0FrAM3xI/v-deo.html
Good try
InspiringPhilosophy bastardization? It’s directly from the text of the Bible. I didn’t change the words or anything else.
Christians. 🤪
Then i guess you also think Jesus is a plant (John 15:1), right?
InspiringPhilosophy first, it’s your holy book. Not mine. I never claimed that the l made any sense.
Secondly, you were accusing me of bastardization of the text. I didn’t. I quoted the text. You are the one twisting into pretzels to try to find a way to explain the lack of logic.
3. Clearly, in the quote in John, Jesus is making an analogy. Are you saying that Jesus’s comment about nothing being impossible with God is an analogy?
So, I guess the real question is was Jesus bullshitting his listeners when he said nothing is impossible for god? Because if he was, then there goes his credibility. And if he wasn’t, then that negates your argument that god’s power has limits. By the way, nothing in the Bible mentions any limits to god’s power. He is all powerful, ever present and all knowing. (Which by the way blows a serious hole in the free will argument.)
But, whatever gets you through the day man. I’m ok with it as long as you don’t try to inject it into the government where I live.
It is my holy book, and by that logic, you don’t get to tell me what it says. Second you are not taking the plain reading because you are quote mining, as I explain in the video I linked you. Third, Jesus made analogies and used hyperbole at times as well. Why do you can to randomly pick and choose what is literal. Again it is not your holy book, so you don’t study it. Fourth, again, I explained the hyperbolic nature of the passage in the above video I linked you. Stop quote mining the passage, that is why you are bastardizing the text.
Shakes my head. The fact that you believe that you can null/debunk the paradoxes when none really has managed to do so, is beyond me.
You said an all powerful being=Meaning all of existence combined is weaker than omnipotent being. And you showed on your video "to have power over everything else in existence". When you say power over everything else in existence, you mean to surpass their power or to to actually have power/control/manipulation ect ect over everything else in existence?
From the context of your video I understand you just mean being stronger than everything else in existence(combined). Which on it's own must be proven in order to be accepted. Meaning that the all powerful being must destroy all existence combined. But if he/she/it destroy all of existence, it will only be proving such to himself/herself/itself. Unless he/she/is able to recreate existence and somehow found a way to prove that he/she/it destroyed it before. So it remains that omnipotence can not be proven and it's a purely theoretical thing. Further obviously if someone or something else came up whom is stronger/more powerful than omnipotent being, then that being would no longer be omnipotent. Or if all existence combined was stronger or was able to withstand the power/attack of an omnipotent being, then that being would no longer be omnipotent.
Now going over to the 2nd definition.
They are not shooting themselves at all. Because a being having all power and all abilities ect ect, is supposed to be able to do everything you can and can't imagine(or so they say). So the paradoxes stand true and again it's impossible to prove a being omnipotent.
As an example to this, let's take "The One Above All" who's considered to be omnipotent or the author of a fictional verse who's also considered to be omnipotent within fiction. Both of them are limited. The One Above All is limited to be only within fiction and is also limited to do only what the actual author/real life person knows and can imagine. Which in turn is also limited, as a person does have a limit to his knowledge and imagination. So yet again, we don't really have omnipotent beings. I noticed you shown Thanos on your video. Someone whom has been called omnipotent or nigh omnipotent. Yet again Thanos has shown to be able to be defeated and be weaker than others. And I am not talking about Living Tribunal or The One Above All or other beings in Marvel more powerful than Thanos. But I am talking even about Thanos and IG's(infinity gauntlet's) own universe. Multiple times combined forces of heroes ect has came close to defeating or actually defeated Thanos and saved the world. You may answer "Hence why nigh omnipotent", but the thing is, is even "nigh" good to say? Since it wasn't ALL EXISTENCE going against Thanos. It was less than that, much less than that. And further, there was also this time that he considered himself unworthy.
Anyhow. Probably rumbling now so I will stop. My point is. Something to be accepted as omnipotent or existing or any other thing. It must first be proven as such. And since it can't be proven, then it will simply not be accepted. There is still none and nothing truly omnipotent whether you go by the first definition you spoke about or the second. And obviously when you don't have a proof about something existing, you don't go by "What if it exists? Let's behave as if something does exist"(religions in a nutshell), you go by "There is no proof about that existence. So we act as if it doesn't exist". With your video you prove nothing other than the fact that you simply don't agree with paradoxes and their existence~But they do exist for the 2nd definition and could possibly even exist for 1st definition if we give it enough thought. And at the end of the day none of that(God and omnipotence) can be proven.
Last but not least that came to me right now. You said that the definition of "all powerful being" is being stronger/more powerful than all existence combined. Right? And you mentioned God. But God is not supposed to simply be more powerful than us/being able to destroy all existence. He is also the one who created it~supposedly the one who created it. So obviously the "omnipotent/all powerful" is not limited to just being stronger/more powerful. It does have a connection to more things/more abilities, such as being able to create life, objects ect.
So the video feels more or less meaningless.
I've read a bit of what you wrote; it's absolutely incoherent. Your first paragraph, when summarized, essentially suggests that God, in order to be all powerful, would have to prove prove he's all powerful by destroying all of creation; you then also point out that he would only be destroying all of creation to prove his power to himself.. You're just spouting what you think, and what you're thinking is absolute nonsense.
@@LawlessNate No, I am saying that if we are to accept that he is all powerful he should be able to do that and demonstrate it for us to witness it. Which at the same time is not possible because we'd all be dead. So I am saying that unless there was some way for God to prove to us that he is "all powerful(by destroying all creation)" then we can not accept that he is "all powerful".
So there is no point. It sounds like nonsense to you because you lack the depth of thinking and are unable to follow the process of the thought.
Aside from the problems about proving to be a God, proving to exist, proving to be "all powerful" ect ect, there are also issues with his points in general because if the "all powerful" just meant that God wins in a " fight against all creation"/able to destroy all creation put together in one go. Then what about religion saying that God created the universe, life ect ect ect? That's clearly something not related to just power/destruction and goes towards abilities and such. So basically the meaning that he claims to be wrong/misconception(which obviously isn't).
@@Reno - "...if we are to accept that he is all powerful he should be able to do that and demonstrate it for us to witness it."
1: God can both be able to prove his omnipotence to us and have good reasons for not doing so.
2: Where did you get the idea that there's no other way God could prove his omnipotence than to destroy all of creation?
3: What gave you the idea that unless God personally proves his omnipotence to you that you cannot conclude logically that he's omnipotent?
4: God already proved his omnipotence to humanity 2,000 years ago when he came to Earth as a man, was killed, and then came back to life. There's amazing historical evidence to back this up. Is that not good enough for you? Your loss. Again, God has good reasons to not constantly prove his omnipotence to everyone.
@@LawlessNate
1: Tet if he does not prove his existence or omnipotence then we have no reason to believe it. In fact we would be fools to believe in something not proven.
2: We talked about all-powerful and all powerful specifically meaning that God is more powerful/stronger than all creation put together. So that's where we get it.
3: Cause if he doesn't prove his omnipotence, then we can't consider him having it. That's like believing that demons or ghosts exist without ever seeing one/have proof of such. Basically you are stupid.
4. Bullshit. You are such a sheep/herd. Yes listen and believe to the stories of religion while witnessing them not following their own religion and their preaching. Be a good puppet :)
@@Reno 4: "You are such a sheep/herd." "Be a good puppet :)"
You don't seem to realize you're being a hypocrite by making such a suggestion. The easiest way to make idiots believe something stupid is by convincing them that they'd be stupid if they didn't believe it; atheism is the quintessential example of this. People have been convinced that unless they believe God doesn't exist then they are mindless sheep; like the mindless sheep they are, they then profess atheism so that they fit in with the rest of the herd.
Also note that this was your reply to me pointing out the historical evidence. What is your response to this evidence? You've clearly never examined it for yourself. Here's both a video of someone doing a pretty good job covering the evidence I'm referring to and a quote from one of the top comments. First the quote "Striking how UA-cam atheists simply don't understand the arguments put forth by scholars.
You're like mindless football fans, you pick a side and blindly cheer. Atheists are the undisputed kings of blind faith." and second the link ua-cam.com/video/ay_Db4RwZ_M/v-deo.html .
1: "...if he does not prove his existence or omnipotence then we have no reason to believe it."
If you require proof in order to believe something then I suppose you deny all science then, right? After all, science, in all its various forms, is a study which deals exclusively in evidence rather than proof. That, and why does God have to be the one to go out of the way to prove his existence? His existence can be proven without his help via logical argumentation (example, the Kalam Cosmological Argument).
2: " We talked about all-powerful and all powerful specifically meaning that God is more powerful/stronger than all creation put together."
But why, in your mind, is destroying all of creation the only way he could prove his omnipotence? Surely performing an act which is physically impossible would be sufficient to show that he's not bound by and, in fact, completely controls the physical world.
3: "Cause if he doesn't prove his omnipotence, then we can't consider him having it."
Are you trying to make the suggestion that it's logically impossible for God to be omnipotent and not have proven it to us? If you're not, then you'd at least be open to the suggestion that it's logically possible, and if it's logically possible then we can consider whether or not he is.
I had to stop this video about 2 minutes in. If your power is infinite, then you can create paradoxes. End of discussion. Why is this so hard to understand? If I am omnipotent then, YES, I can make married bachelor, even if your simple mind doesn't understand. God can make 2 + 2 = 5. Simple as that. God created the laws of physics. God created time. God created the human mind. And God created logic. So ... God. Can. Do. Anything. ... and what is funny about everything I said, is that all makes logical sense. lol!!!
This^
Yup
When it’s time to define what they actually believe and show the reason behind it they simply change their definition😂. How convienent the all powerful and very active god of the Old Testament now is very “limited” in things he can do not that every human being has a camera in their pockets. 😂😂😂
@@lymphoid ...you can certainly imagine/define "all powerful" that way
but that is how how the Bible defined or meant by "all powerful" (which was kinda the point)
So the best you can argue against the Bible from there is "I disagree with what the words means, but sure by your definition you would be right"
"God created the laws of physics. God created time. God created the human mind. And God created logic."
You say this with authority and conviction but how do you know all this? I ask out of curiosity as I really want to know.
Thank you so much IP this is amazing!
If a person is not omnipotent (by our very nature we are not) they would not be able to imagine a rock so heavy that it cannot be lifted OR even imagine what an omnipotent being actually is.
The omnipotent paradox...we cannot imagine a being so unimaginable...
The issue with this is:
The Bible DOES DEFINE OMNIPOTENCE as the ability to do anything, even going so far as saying God can do the impossible.
The Bible DOES SAY THAT SELF-LIMITATION IS A STRENGTH, ie control over yourself counts as strength. It isn't just about external power over other things.
So this debunking is only for the God of philosophers, but not the God of the Bible.
That verse is taken out of context thus leading to a strawman without any notice. That's like saying that Barack Obama said that when the U.S. Reach their full potential anything is possible yet no one accuses Obama of him saying that America can perform supernatural abilities.
@@onlyechadtherebellious2467 Obama isn't God, so it isn't a good comparison.
@@SamGarcia No but the analogy remains, this is just an argument from semantics.
2:49
Saitama fanboys don’t like that
Hey lol
I may get some hate for this. God can save you from your sins (only if you want him to), but he CANNOT save you in your sins.
So you think that redefining what "omnipotent" means debunks the omniscience paradox? What part of "The ability to do anything" do you not understand?
You debunked yourself when you said god could not create a rock he could not lift.
I did not redefine it, I used the old traditional definition. You didn't watch the video.
good call roargathor... whole video is just nonsense... if someone read the bible versus it contradicts everything
this video painstakingly tries to imply....
wow religious people believe any nonsense if they think it helps their cause...
fantasyland is callling ...
Logic flows from the nature of God which is truth. It isn't above Him.
muslims say the same thing
There are many things - actions - God cannot do. This disturbs some Christian believers until I list them.
God cannot lie.
God cannot renege on a deal.
God cannot change His mind. (As He knew already, living in eternity.)
God cannot 'see' the future. He exists in Eternity and is there. Past and future do not mean anything, but God can understand our limitations.
I'm not convinced He was ever considering the 'rock challenge'. He cannot be stupid or illogical. From where do you think logic derived?
@@Maximex123 Many of the statements of the historical sections of the Bible - or the preceding Tanakh - are correct in the immediate context. This confuses many children and those of substandard mental ability.
Genesis 2: 3 is one such example. God did at some point finish the creation process of the Universe. He also established all the 'laws of nature' and the process by which suns and planets form, evolve - change over time - and end.
This is pretty easy to see as the late George Gershwin wrote many pieces of music. He in fact, finished his work (on "Porgy and Bess" for instance). But that does not mean Gershwin never wrote anything else. The same is evident in an anonymous designer of computers, Thomas Edison, John Browning, and Rex Stout.
By create, one also means 'set in motion'. God created the Sun and Earth. God also set things in motion with the effects of gravity, momentum and quantum uncertainty. So 'night and day' in the popular sense continues. One is rather simple minded to ignore the fact that motion is not part of creation.
Of course, this requires the existence of God. The all powerful, immutable and eternal One. Which is impossible for those who will not admit such. One of my late grandfathers - a rather proper man - did not believe (he said) Giraffes actually existed. He said - and I was a child at the time, so I cannot say how serious he was - they were a fraud on the other of P. T. Barnum's frauds. But even if he seriously believed so, Giraffes still exist.
@@Maximex123 The question has been answered. I cannot provide understanding.
@@OldManMontgomerystop stop he’s already dead LMAO
@@thermite547 Thanks. I do get carried away at times.
@@OldManMontgomery Sure, I love these kinda of comments on these channels. Keep up the good fight
Is it bad I laughed when he showed a pic of Richard Dawkins
No. Laughter is good for your health.
😉
Christophe Keating especially when it’s a funny picture.
If God has power over all things in existence, that would mean that he has power over all things in existence, including the laws of logic. If he has power over the laws of logic, he can make “God doesn’t exist” or “Truth doesn’t exist” a true statement. If he can’t, then he doesn’t have power over the laws of logic. Thus, does not have power over all things in existence & still wouldn’t be all-powerful. Would love to hear any objections.
Yep, He can. He can exist while simultaneously not existing. He's GOD.
@@IAmAlpharius20 are you trolling or do you actually believe that?
Personally I believe it is the 3rd one. A being capable of making all of existance just cause they wanted to would probably not be bound (at least not bound in a way that creates actual limits for it) by the logic and reasoning of the existance it created. But even if I'm wrong about that, it would make no functional difference if the being is still omnipotent by the other definition. Just makes it slightly less unfathomable.
Think of omnipotence as drawing on paper. Sure, some entities suck at drawing out Existence but few can master it.
Oh... And Omnipotence doesn't mean literally "one person". That idea is a very human level of comprehension.
... Well... Omnipotence is a limiter for me. Given the Origin, the true home of "our" kin. The Akashic Records holds what remains of that Data.
1. There are bible verses that imply that the christian God should be believed to contain the ability to do all things.
- Phillipians 4:13
- Luke 1:37
- Jeremiah 32:37
- Job 42:1-2
- Genesis 18:14
- Matthew 19:26
Now you can make the case that all of these are conveniently communicating something else, but that's a rabbit hole, and quite a long one.
You can also make the case that a christian can believe God to be whatever he wants to believe God to be. Sure. But is that biblical?
2. "All-powerful" is vague.
What is power? Is it the capacity to influence? Because that sounds like an ability. Power in this context needs to be formerly defined in a way so that we can recognize what counts as power and what doesn't, without any ambiguity whatsoever. Otherwise the definition of omnipotence doesn't make any sense.
3. I've seen definitions of omnipotence that are along the lines of capabilities without invoking "the ability to do all things"
Ex: the capacity to freely manipulate any constituent of reality.
Why not strive for a definition of omnipotence that is more direct in meaning, that tries to address what such a being could and could not do? Because when someone is said to have "power" in pretty much any other context, normally people understand that to mean that said being is able to do many things.
ua-cam.com/video/IIc0FrAM3xI/v-deo.html
I'll give my argument:
If God wishes so, he will create a stone that is heavy, and he, by wishing a stone that he cannot lift, will give himself the inability to lift that stone.
The circular reasoning and basic defense is astounding.
Omnipotence necessarily requires all possibilities to be achieved as this power would be greater than the laws of logic, you effectively portrayed logic as superior to a God.
All you have done is redefine omnipotence.
@@InspiringPhilosophy That is something I have not done, you are simply limiting the concept of all powerful by stating all action must be consistent with the limitations of the human-centric perceivable reality. If one is limited by this, they are certainly not all powerful.
No, because logic is not a human-centric reality.
@@InspiringPhilosophy
Then it is what? God centric? Can God not restate his rules and ways ? God is a slave to his own constructs of reality? So much for omniscient
No one said that.
How do you define power?
In your video, you make it seem as though power is defined as strength. However, I think most people would define power as the ability to do. Therefore, omnipotence ought to be defined as the ability to do anything.
No, power is pretty well understood as being able to constrain, harm, or overtake someone. The ability to get sick doesn't affect power so power cannot mean getting more abilities.
@inspiringphilosophy that "well understood" definition sounds limited to abilities, skills, or traits that affect people. The power to sustain life for a bacteria is a power I have because of my ability to get sick. I think it's important that people, and nature in general, demonstrate some incredible ways to leverage weaknesses into strengths. I think this makes "power" intrinsically difficult to nail down, but it's necessary to do to validate many of your points.
10:21 "If something could exist beyond such a being's power then that being was never omnipotent to being with."
Does this mean that, according to the first definition, an omnipotent being wouldn't merely have power over everything that does actually exist but also over everything that could logically exist?
Since the things that could possibly exist are all made of that which does exist, and the proposed omnipotent being is more powerful than all the rest of existence, than yes. It follow that they must also be greater than anything which could exist.
@@Lamster66 you *can't immagine one though. lol
@@Lamster66 but that island paradise could be made to exist and thus exists in potential.
@@Lamster66 I don't know how you possibly got "anything that can exist must exist" from my original comment
Something that I've seen being pointed out, is that because some verses in the bible describe God as being able to do anything it means the biblical view of omnipotence is the ability to do even the impossible, even if we skip the fact that this interpretation of scripture is insincere, and ignores reason within the scriptures to understand it hyperbolically. There is still flawed reasoning because being able to do "anything" by definition does not include that which is logically impossible because anything is all that is possible because it describes things that can be done, what is logically impossible is that which cannot be done and therefore cannot be defined under "anything"
You went through all that in order to bring it back to the beginning to say yes, it is logically impossible... and now we're back to square 1.
you should've stuck to the initial definition of omnipotent = all powerful, not ability to do anything.
You are ignoring the definition of logic
I love this channel! It is a blessing to me and many others. I hope you are blessed and pray you keep doing what you do.
Except he is wrong. Most theists think god can do anything. And "omnipotent" means "all powerful" not just more powerful than anything else.
Can't wait to see Rationality Rules make an ass out of himself trying to debunk this. Great video, IP. You really do put the "butthurt" in "atheist."
Iceman0509 Looool just like how he “debunked” the Kalaam Cosmological Argument
Iceman0509 or when he “debunked” IP’s Free Will... talk about disaster
@
Iceman0509 RR has never address response to one of IP videos
@John Toma Kalaam Cosmological Argument is one of the worst and pointless argument out there. There are hundreds of video of philosopher that debate and explain the argument that utterly destroys it. Look up _the Problem of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument_ if you want to know how.
@Leo Savage you’re lying RR has addressed one of IP’s videos on free will thinking it was the only one, and made it so superficial: it failed. And you can’t just say that there are tons of philosophers that “destroy” the cosmological argument, otherwise it wouldn’t exist. Typical Atheist in denial searching for his/her confirmation bias
@@arturosparages7829 RR's supposed "debunking" of free will is what I would call a parrot effect from Sam Harris, he just repeats debunked claims by Harris.
God can do all of these things, it's just that we are not intelligent enough to COMPREHEND it.
All he did was fabricate a new definition of all powerful to make it seem that he debunked the paradox but all he is really doing is trying to hold on to what he believes in eventhough he knows god cannot exist. He wants to fill a void in him to make him feel like he has purpose like most humans would.
He uses the factual definition of omnipotence. Get over it
@@arushs121 Ahh, it's a shame. The definition of Omnipotence: 'All-powerful, the ability to do anything.'
@@mravocadotoast8129 Yes, exactly. God is all-powerful and we should get over it.
@@amortality999 It was directed at avacado.
But, if god is able to do everything and is omnibenevolent(as described) but refuses to then he is malevolent.
Here we go again, we put God in a box snd limit him. All atheists please listen to this. Yes God can make a rock he cant carry, but that’s like saying can God be stupid ? like can he make himself logically impaired ? And if so he will lose his all knowing power, its a dumb argument to try and put God down but it does not work, its a straw man argument.
People also forget (or fail to realize) that the ability to do anything doesn't inherently equal the desire to do anything. I often hear the argument, "if God is all powerful, then why doesn't He do this/that?" Because he's not required to. Maybe being omnipotent and omnipresent allows God a perspective we don't have, and the thing we want Him to do, no matter how "good" or "noble", might have catastrophic repercussions down the road.