Strong Proof: On Omnipotence
Assume:
The Principle of Non-Contradiction (not “A and not A”)
Proof:
If a being possesses all power, then it must possess the power to destroy itself, because if it does not possess the power to destroy itself, then it does not possess all power.
Consequently, if a being possesses all power, then it is destructible.
Likewise, if a being possesses all power, then it must possess the power to resist being destroyed by any power (even its own), because if it does not have the power to resist being destroyed by any power, then it does not possess all power.
Consequently, if a being possesses all power, then it is indestructible.
Thus, if a being possesses all power, then it is both destructible and indestructible in the same way, at the same time.
But, a being cannot be and not be in the same way at the same time (PNC).
Therefore, there is no being that possesses all power.
Omnipotence does not mean the power to do anything, it means the power to do anything logically possible.
All human experience, and indeed our own minds, reflect the truth of logic, and it is an inherent part of our existence. Therefore, positing an illogical proposition is not sufficient to disprove a truth claim based on logic.
This is a very old discussion, usually called the "omnipotence paradox." A much more common approach is this, "can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" You could spend a lifetime reading the different perspectives on this, but it doesn't prove anything.
Although this argument is in the vein of the omnipotence paradox, it is not the same. Here, there is no actual or apparent paradox, it meets contradiction and terminates.
The conundrum lies in the realization that a being cannot be both omnipotent and indestructible (either it can or it can’t destroy itself - no rock or other being needed).
I am picking a side, resulting from the argument above, that it is “omnipotence” that must go...not that this is some lacking in the nature of the divine, but rather a failure of human conception: the synthesis of “all” and “power” is not in itself false or wrong, but its ascription to a single being cannot be done while maintaining a consistent worldview.
I don't see the distinction. I think you're doing the exact same thing but you're telling yourself you aren't.
A single omnipotent creator is a logical necessity if you want to avoid an infinite regression loop. A necessary being can't be destroyed logically, so the structure of your statement is illogical.
BTW, I'm not picking at you, I just find the topic interesting.
No worries, I appreciate that you're engaging...that's the point, to discuss and disagree, to discuss and hopefully agree.
I'll respond more directly to your critique shortly.
A single creator is necessary to avoid an infinite regress, not an omnipotent one.
Well, what would you call a being who created the universe with it's infinite size and complexity?
Creator.
I agree that the “logically possible” part is the sticking point, and the most valid counter-argument. However, it seems dogmatic to assert that it is not logically possible to destroy God; and doing so places limitations on His power.
Given the assumption that existence depends on God for its being at all, for Him to destroy Himself would mean the cessation of being...so, as long as being exists, God cannot have the power to destroy Himself, which means He does not have “all power.”
I don't know about this approach. My initial thought is that you seem to have a very specific definition of omnipotent in mind, and any other definitions must be rejected because they don't fit your theory. The idea of omnipotence is pretty complex, and I don't think it's out of bounds to suggest that it conforms to logical rules like the rest of everything else seems to.
Also, I'm not saying it's logically impossible to destroy God, just that it's logically impossible to expect omnipotence to be destroyable. I mean, that's inherent in the definition of the word. Like an unquenchable fire cannot be quenched, or an immovable force can't be moved. If it's true that omnipotent means, or at least includes indestructibility, then it seems to me you're saying the term omnipotent itself cannot be a real concept because anything omnipotent would lack the power to destroy itself. So without even bringing God into it, you challenge the term itself.
At the end of the day though, if that's all God can't do then for all practical purposes He is Omnipotent because if He was destroyed then all existence would cease, and there would be no intelligent beings to debate semantics😁
Yes, I am being highly literal “Omni”=all, “potens”= power. If we cop out and instead mean “maximally powerful,” then we need a different word.
To prove that there is no being that possesses all power is by no means to prove that God does not exist; rather, to free the conception from the bonds of a hazy (and manifestly false) understanding, to see clearly the sheer vastness of the power in question: to create or to destroy the entirety of Being in a single instant, this is merely a single power.
God is True
Well done! Specious but very nearly convincing!
The weakest, most meek little thing can defeat the strongest giant and gain the kingdom. Power never ensures invincibility. It enables one to force his will on others. It is no aid to himself directly because it is outward in orientation. So his survival and position do not rest on his power.
Power doesn’t ensure invincibility, but ALL power must. The argument is that it is logically false to ascribe omnipotence to any single being...to do so is contradiction.
I see what you're saying that logically, there can be no power outside of the all-powerful to challenge the all-powerful, otherwise the all-powerful would not be all-powerful. You're talking of God and suggesting limits to His power and what that means for His existence.
The proposition you venture to blow up with the aid of the above logic, correct me if I'm wrong, is that omnipotence necessitates immortality. And, correct me if I'm wrong, you conclude that if omnipotence must but cannot necessitate immortality, no being can be all-powerful.
I think you confuse one of the two facets of the argument, which is that omnipotence necessitates immortality.
The all-powerful cannot not be immortal. For omnipotence exists and can only exist beyond its manifestation in the life cycle of mortal existence, b/c it would not be all-powerful if it was subject to Nature's power.
But since all things have power, isn't it logically impossible for a being to possess in itself all power? If we're speaking solely regarding power in mortal existence, yes. However, as we said before, nothing mortal can be omnipotent anyways.
Far from redundant, this implies the all-powerful also must be all things, if no power may exist outside itself. Yet, if the all-powerful is not of mortal existence, it still must possess Nature's power as its own. Then it can only compass Nature as omniscience.
But how can an omniscient, omnipotent being exist who is not of mortal existence, of Nature's underlying fabric of the kosmos? As the overlying fabric of the kosmos; omnipresent.
Thus this being evinces the triumvirate aspects of singularity: omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. And b/c it is a singularity it cannot become less powerful and cease to exist by turning against itself. All its power is contained within itself and singularity is not divisible.
Once it is it cannot logically be otherwise. So the real existential question to ask is why God ever came to be, not whether He could exist. What a miracle it is!
The nice, short proof for non-existence of almighty beings - including God (in its christian form).
I love logic too, but a proof in logic does not necessarily proveor disprove an actual reality.
The un-stated assumption in your argument is that reality conforms to conceptual word based logic.
Posted using Partiko Android
A philosophy need not be “true,” merely consistent. Insofar as a worldview contains contradictions, it must necessarily be false...to hold that any one being is omnipotent is self-contradictory.
I agree with consistency as a necessity for a stable worldview.
An entity being omnipotent seems contradictory in the context of duality, but what about in the context of pure monism?
If there is only one entity/power/substance/reality then the question of it's ability to destroy or not destroy itself is meaningless.
The totality remains the totality always.
I appreciate this realm of thoughtful considerations but have some tangible realities to attend to.
Thanks for the thought provoking thread!
Posted using Partiko Android
Hmm... I'm by no means omnipotent and yet I possess physical power to commit suicide and mental power to resist it. Those powers are not contradictory.
We agree...as humans we are neither omnipotent nor indestructible; no contradiction.
You totally skipped my argument - it is possible to have both power to self destruct and power to resist such destruction. If omnipotence is A, lack of omnipotence is ~A. Indestructibility is not ~A, it is different dimension of existence (omnipotence tells about potential - what can you potentially do, indestructibility tells about practice - assured continued existence). Being that is both omnipotent and indestructible is not self contradictory.
There is also scope to be considered. You can only view omnipotence/indestructibility within the defined set of axioms that build certain reality. F.e. if you have 2D plane and flat objects that move around it, if you add a 3D object to the mix it forms a new 2D object through intersection - that object can vanish (be destroyed) in reality of 2D plane, but its 3D existence is intact.
Other example of scope: I can potentially stop the flow of time for any computer application, analyze and correct its behavior, change its data (memories), modify its environment - I am omnipotent in that scope. Yet due to the nature of my reality I can only influence application reality via proxy - other applications (angels/demons). I "emanate my omnipotence" to my proxies, inside computer I am my proxies and they are me - there is no other me in that scope. My proxies are therefore omnipotent. They are also destructible yet I am not, I can always return to that reality with new proxies that will be just as "me" as previous ones.
Yes, they are different dimensions, but they are linked/related. The structure of the argument is sound:
Omnipotence = A, Indestructible = B.
A -> ~B
A -> B
Therefore, ~A.
Generally, the scope of this argument is existence (that which exists)...if we wish to suppose some dimension beyond existence, then we are no longer doing logic.
Although some think of omnipotence as unbounded power, as you here assume for your argument, I and most theist philosophers would define it as maximal power—thus, limited by that which is possible, as well as by God’s own nature.
By this definition, your argument doesn’t at all refute God’s existence.
See “Omnipotence” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
While we’re on it, I must demand epistemic justification for the law of non-contradiction. I contend that a theistic externalism (a priori knowledge is given to us by God) is necessary for such knowledge to be counted trustworthy. Else you’re left with the conclusions of John Stuart Mill, that logical and mathematical axioms could be overturned by experiment, and may not be true in some distant part of the universe.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omni-
Clearly, “Omni” means “all,” by definition.