This is how you do philosophy properly. You define a word, you poke at the definition until it breaks, and then you revise the definition so that it isn't broken any more. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Ya, you don't bow down to him cause he is omnipotent. That would be nuts. You bow because he is John de Lancie.

I'm a married bachelor. I'm married to loneliness.

I'm not here for the debate of religious themes, but to comprehend with easy to understand examples how we use tools as "language" and "logic" to solve problems. Thanks for your efforts making these videos.

Creating a married bachelor: Step 1: put a man in a box with a radioactive woman

Q: I'm omnipotent - I can do anything, go anywhere and know everything - challenge me to a task I can not do.. Me: Get lost

A competent automobile mechanic - but isn't that the definition of a Demi-God.....?

Creating a married bachelor: 1 - Gay couple marries. 2 - They move to a country/place where external same-sex marriage isn't recognised. The men are simultaneously married and bachelors. Legally speaking anyway.

That’s pure evil, asking an omnipotent being to flargle a snuffin when our species is near extinct. How truly insensitive you are to our plight. This requires a public apology and admission of guilt as well as resignation immediately in order to make up for this major indiscretion. On behalf of the snuffin’s I wait for your response to this outrage, #SnuffinLivesMatter

... and when everyone’s super.. no one will be! AHAHAHAHA AHAHAHA AHA!

Not gonna lie, if John de Lancie came to my door, I'd probably start bowing.

This is one of my favorite videos (among so many on your channel), but I gotta say this: You are wrong about absolutism and the existence of gods. My girl flargled my snuffin last night, thereby proving that she is a goddess. Naturally, I had no choice but to "bow" down on her...

Well omnipotence is another thing created by people. So having a rational definition would benefit everyone.

I'll have you know sir that I happen to come from a long line of snuffin flarglers.

Can the Lord microwave a burrito so hot the Lord cannot eat it?

As a programmer, to a program that lives in my computer, one which I would happen to be developing, I am an omnipotent being. I am capable of amending every sort of thing in that program's universe (being my computer). I could mock inputs, change time, terminate the "universe", change the rules in that "universe", create interruptions, and amend the shape of that program itself. I could even simulate things that would be paradoxical to the universe that I myself live in. From the perspective of that program, the possibilities are endless, regardless of the given rules that it is currently run in. So an omnipotent being to you as a human, would be that engineer to a computer program. It's not a self refuting concept, it's just not falsifiable or testable, and for that reason it's not worth spending our time in examination of it. Just like any other terminology, senseless people would nonsensically define this term. Despite these people not being able to accurately or coherently express what they mean like little babies, we are perfectly capable of understanding what they mean. What you are doing here, despite the good will, is sophistry. Rather than enlightening people with actual meanings to produce philosophical progress, you're running a play of words which mostly results in confusion and misunderstanding, and mockery of less philosophically educated or literate people. None of this has value. In fact occupying the minds of your viewers with this huge mess has negative value. Good philosophy simplifies problems to greater clarity. It's just that philosophy wouldn't have much to say about this except for "Yeah, these people can't express what they mean correctly." and move on to something worth thinking about.

"Flargle a snuffin" is my favourite action phrase now!

god can say he's a potato if he transforms him into a potato. But if he says it while a potato, he's not a geniune potato, because potatoes don't talk.

When everything's omnipotent, no-one will be

God: I'm omnipotent Me:prove it. God:gimme a task Me: bow down and become a slave for me for eternity. God: whaaaaaaaaat?

I came here because people kept calling me omnipotent

I just flargled a snuffin. He wasn't happy about it.

5:44 when english is not your native language and you waiste 2 min googling what those words mean. and then you realise you paused 1 sec before he said they're fake

Dear Que, please define "Omnipotent". Thanks

Very interesting. I like your definition of omnipotence! That's also why I like the idea of polytheism: A bunch of very powerful, thought not omnipotent, and sometimes not even entirely immortal beings. ...Though the christian God is also an interesting piece of mythology. 😘😝

Loved this video! The third definition of omnipotence (Doing everything consistent with one's nature) was one I found funny even existed when I first encountered it. My first thought was: "Wait, you think everyone and everything's omnipotent? Everything I can do is consistent with my nature, and everything I cannot, isn't!"

To be fair, if John de Lancey knocked on my door I'd probably start bowing from instinct, that guy's awesome

How about if omnipotence were defined as “the ability to do any meaningfully-defined task that doesn’t require the actor to have limits to their abilities”, or something along those lines? Honestly, I find arguments about creating a married batchelor to be just word games.

The episode Death Wish answers many of these questions. Q says, "but you mustn't think of us as omnipotent, no matter what the continuum would like you to believe". This episode does a very good job of explaining a 4 dimensional being, even taking us to the Q continuum to see quite likely the best interpretation of the 4th dimension I have seen.

I could create a married bachelor. Not perfectly, but just whip up a situation where a drunk guy marries a stripper in vegas, has no memory of it, and goes back home thinking he's still single.

Omnipotence: n. See plot hole.

A man who was married but the wife died; could be defined as married or a bachelor.

What about someone that is consistently inconsistent

My cousin flargled a snuffin and he got 6-months house arrest, 5 years probation and a lifetime ban from all SeaWorld and Universal Studios theme parks.

I came back a year later just to say that this reminds me of when, in Madoka Magica, Madoka makes a paradoxical wish along the lines of Russell's paradox. The universe implodes and she becomes a god. (Because anime logic.)

Ah I found a gem. It's weird to think that you only have 33k subs

But Q is Q spelled backwards so why is he not returning to his home dimension after he says his name?

A new ACX video? What a treat this is! Thank you.

i really like philosophy stuff like this, and here's another; how would an omniscient (all-knowing) deity know that there is nothing they do not know? if there is a box representing that which the deity knows, how would they know that nothing falls outside that box?

“Let’s go to bed.” - Me

I can do anything that I'm able to do, so I'm omnipotent, wow.

I consider myself a Christian with a great faith in God and I agree with what you've said. Christians have a very difficult problem defending their faith logically. I have struggled with this problem myself, my own use of language has hobbled me in discussions with much more intelligent people that understand philosophy. It would be hard to satisfy you with accounts of experiences with God or witnessing miracles because those things would be outrageous arguments that could not be used as proofs. Most of the study I have done has been to better understand my own beliefs and to clarify the feeling of truth that I feel and contrast that with my own life in the physical world. I honestly believe any intelligent Christian should have either an atheist or agnostic friend that they can discuss just these types of arguments. A friend tho, for real, not some stranger just to prove a point. I believe that that type of argument often will end up embarrassing that Christian and could hurt the overall view of or Christian beliefs.

I have always defined omnipotence as being able to control all material of the universe; physics, space, time, ya know. The idea of being able to do "anything" sounds like an incredibly juvenile way to describe great power to me.

So Donald Trump is a Canadian 9:04. Got it.

A married bachelor - A man named Bachelor and his wife. Easy.

I'm an atheist, but I would argue that the theist argument about type/token is actually valid and the correct way of looking at this. If you were to create a rock so heavy you couldn't lift it, no matter how heavy that rock is, an omnipotent being could easily replicate that rock. By asking an omnipotent being to perform a linguistically similar (but practically entirely different) task, "Create a rock so heavy you cannot lift it," you are specifying a logically impossible task. The being isn't negating his own omnipotence by doing it (or failing to do it), at least by the second definition. Rather, you are asking him to do something inconsistent with logic: saying "Create a finite rock so heavy [an omnipotent being] cannot move it," is the same as saying, "Create a finite rock that cannot be moved by a being that can, by definition, move any finite rock." This isn't impossible just for an omnipotent being, but for any being. By failing to do it he may still meet the definition of omnipotence if he succeeds at all logically possible tasks. Now, your argument about all actions being inherently self-referential hinges on implicit language, not formal logic. "Eat a taco" implicitly means, "Put a taco in your own mouth and swallow it." When a person performs a task on himself, "replicating" the task is mirroring it, and we are wired by social convention to infer that is what is intended. If, however, I drop a taco into a trash can and tell you to replicate the action, you would have no trouble realizing that you were meant to drop a taco into the same trash can. If we replace the trash can with a human mouth that isn't that of the person manipulating the taco, (ie, feeding that third person a taco) then the replication act is likewise obvious. It is thus only SOME actions that are self-referential in this particular way, and only implicitly (not inherently) so. The fact that, for want of implicit language, you would have to specify all of the tokens in the act of eating a taco is irrelevant to the question of whether the task of creating a rock so heavy a regular human can't lift it is the same thing as creating a rock so heavy an omnipotent being can't lift it (it isn't). For some challenges, achievement requires the token to shift, and for others it doesn't. Acknowledging this isn't pedantic. Hiding it behind language conventions is false equivocation and weakens your overall argument, which is otherwise very good.

paradox is rarely deeper than the faultiness of the definitions you use to craft it

Omnipotence - The ability to change the laws of physics

I would think that a omnipotent with absolute power would be able to change the universe so any task you set them could be completed. As for your examples he could create something we would call a snuffin and create a meaning for the word flargle.And as for create a married bachelor he could simply change the meaning of the word bachelor to mean a married man. if a being holds true omnipotence he would be able to do all thing even things that are not logical as he could just change the universe to make them logical.

Its been years since my gargle was snuffened :( #stillsingle

Absolutism is perfectly acceptable, in that a truly omnipotent being could easily flargle a snuffin or create a married bachelor, as the omnipotent being can create a snuffin and the act of flargling, or simply change the meaning of the concept of being married or being a bachelor. The being is omnipotent, therefore it can do anything even beyond definition, therefore our definitions don't bound it's ability to do. Attempting to catch an omnipotent being in a logical fallacy would also be problematic, as if they are indeed omnipotent they would see your challenge coming, and decline - ignoring that they could simply change the rules that make it a fallacy, or change in your mind your intention to ask such a feat of them. But asking an omnipotent being to /truthfully/ speak the words "I am not omnipotent" is also an issue in that even if an omnipotent being would deign to accept your challenge, why would they thereafter deign to speak truthfully to satisfy the asker. But I agree, omnipotence isn't even a thing

The way you presented the unliftable object paradox doesnt sit well with me. By including the 'logically possible' to the definition, doesnt that exclude that paradox? Creating a pile of rocks thats too heavy for the creator to lift is an accomplishable task that this being can do. Logically then the creator lifting this specific rock is not possible due to the same reasons a bachelor cannot be married: by definition, its not possible. I couldve easily misinterpreted something but its just my 2 cents.

There was never any *official* definition of omnipotence. You can’t complain that people are changing “the definition” when the word was merely an attempt to understand God in the first place. There’s no discredit to anyone for developing a better definition for a word that attempts to describe the power of God. What else did you expect? If God exists, would you expect it to be easy to describe him? It’s clear that you are attacking Christians. You are full of scorn. You didn’t make this video to merely come up with a good definition of omnipotence, but also to criticize and denigrate Christians. You act like you’re squeaky clean, but in the way you are attacking, you reveal your own irrational attachment to something unreasonable-to mock for reasons that have nothing to do with logic or any noble pursuit. And you sure make a lot of sweeping generalizations about “all Christians” which is just a tad arrogant and dismissive. How do you know what Christians are willing to discuss or accept? Also, you need to take a step back from the essential nature thing. It perhaps was not phrased well, but there’s a huge aspect you seem to be overlooking. You act as though anything that can be negatively framed is a lack of omnipotence. But you aren’t seeing that this is just a language problem-the very thing you knock Christians for supposedly not understanding. Let me give you an example. The fastest racecar in the world cannot ever lose a race, right? And don’t you agree that this confers superiority upon that car? Perhaps we could even say, it has a power no other car has? But you know what power every other car has that it doesn’t? The power to lose a race! The inability of God to lie isn’t merely some arbitrary ridiculous thing, but an ability that we don’t have-the ability to always tell the truth. Suddenly, your disdainful treatment of such a thing is exposed as just being poor analysis. God can’t be both a creature that can lie but also can always tell the truth, so all you have here is a simple issue of logical contradiction and a binary choice. Which sort of being is God? Now, a being merely having omnipotence doesn’t necessarily say which one it has to be (always- truthteller or sometimes-liar), but it is clear that such a being can only be one of the two. When Christians say god is omnipotent, they aren’t just thinking in the category of mere power, but are also putting forth other propositions about what God is like, and furthermore are suggesting that these characteristics are the most perfect, the most good, or the best of all possible characteristics. Not being able to lift a car cannot be considered the most perfect/good/best that a being can be. Essential nature is just a red herring here. You can get all mad that the fastest race car in the world can’t even lose one race like all the other cars, but merely framing this positive capacity in negative language doesn’t make that car worse-it actually makes that car the best one.

This was just a ploy to show off how much you can lift, isn't it? :p great video! :)

I have an issue to see why requesting to "truthfully tell a lie" isn't already excluded by the "logically possible" rule.

Very interesting video. I liked it. You made a good point about self-referencing. That was part of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, developing a way for math to talk about itself. BTW, the musical Oklahoma has a line where a Muslim is described, "He has only one wife. He's a bachelor." Ah, 1930s humor.

You honestly need to work with darkmatter2525. Make a short video with him over this idea.

I stopped understanding what you were talking about at the 20 minutes mark but I still enjoyed the way you talked about it.

Quick warning: This is a huge comment with no easy TL;DR. Please read through it thoroughly and tell me what you think. I disagree with the comparison of an omnipotent being and a mechanic. Omnipotence is the power to do anything (which you later talk about in the video) but a mechanic is a profession that one works to achieve; Omnipotence is an ability that cannot be earned (At least not by any known method that humans possess). So by saying, "Basically the exact same situation as before" you're either implying that one must be born a mechanic and that one can't learn to become a mechanic, OR, you're saying that omnipotence is something that can be earned through hard work and dedication. Of course, neither of these are correct. On the topic of your challenges of "Flargle a snuffin," and "Create a married bachelor," you are forgetting that the definitions of words that we use are ever changing, and to a hypothetical omnipotent being those tasks may very well be achievable because there may be a period in time where either the words, "Flargle," and, "Snuffin" exist; or the terms, "Married," and, "Bachelor," may mean different things than what they do now. You touched on that the request that has been proposed is faulty, saying that, "That’s not a limitation on our subject, but another limitation on language itself." By requesting an omnipotent being to perform a logically contradicting action, such as, "Create a married bachelor," you do not disprove omnipotence, or even absolutism: all you reveal is a fault in language, or show a trait of human thought where we seek to challenge authority, even if it means we create impossible scenarios within our own minds. I disagree with the assumption that words need to be, "coherent, logical, and verifiable," since words often convey meaning, even if they are not logical. Words such as, "Yeet," or other words that often come with meme-culture are not logical, as they often convey no meaning at all; or if they do convey meaning, it is often inconsistent. However, even though these words don't convey meaning in a strict definition, they often have an alternate meaning that isn't tied to the word itself. For example: by saying, "Yeet," a word with no conventional meaning in and of itself, you are signalling to people that know about the culture of the word, which then creates a meaning to those people. Within this video, you often reference the Christian God and the Bible. You are also choosing to interpret the bible as strictly and as literally as possible, seemingly forgetting that it was people that wrote down what they believed was God and his actions, adding their interpretations to the text. "It is impossible for God to lie," is a sentence that was written down by a human on earth, and therefore included their interpretation of God. By saying that an omnipotent being should be able to lie, and then referencing a Bible passage that claims God cannot lie, does not prove that God isn't omnipotent, just that the author of that passage interpreted God as such. By issuing the challenge of, "Create a finite rock that its own maker cannot lift it," is a logical action that a human with a finite degree of strength can perform. Just because a challenge logically applies to humans, that does not necessarily mean that the same challenge would be able to logically applicable to an omnipotent being. This idea comes from the differences between animals on earth. For example: an ant can withstand 5000 times its own body weight of pressure, and a human cannot. The ant being able to withstand that much pressure is logically verifiable, but the same challenge being applied to a human is impossible for the human to perform. The assumption that an omnipotent being and a human being the same creature, and therefore obeying the same rules and logical outcomes, is a dubious idea at best. I'm currently at 13:38 in the video, and the attacks on Christianity are becoming tiresome; as many of your arguments against them are strawmen, being set-up simply so you can knock them down. Not every Christian believes that God is entirely omnipotent, or that God is, "Perfectly honest," or even, "Perfectly good," and you seem to be treating the situation as such. This video would have been much more enjoyable if it was more focused around the subject of omnipotence, and not just a slew of attacks on Christianity: pandering to atheists. 15:24 yet another strawman argument. By claiming that, "This may sound like a somewhat reasonable point at first," after previously calling those that would disagree with you on the nature of the challenge as, "Hack philosophers," is simply you stroking your ego. By setting up someone as a, "Hack," and then proceeding to misrepresent their argument, is extremely dishonest. You are setting someone who disagrees with you to fail, discouraging dialectic: the core requirement of philosophical discussion. The changing of a definition when the previous definition was inadequate is not a, "Sign of defeat," it is a sign of progress in the philosophical conversation. It is more of an admission of, "You're right, there was a flaw with the definition I gave, perhaps this new definition will more properly explain what I mean." The changing of definitions over time is an age-old feature of language, and not a sign of you winning an argument. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you in saying, "The ability to do all that is consistent with one's 'essential nature'," is a bad definition of omnipotence, as it means that literally anybody has the potential to be omnipotent. On a positive note, I actually really like the definition of omnipotence you have presented, "The capacity to create, destroy, and rearrange matter/energy in accordance with arbitrary whims.," it's simple, yet completely contains the power that an omnipotent being, such as the Christian God would bear. Good job. Overall the content you have presented was thought provoking and interesting to discuss. Your issue was presentation: by attacking Christians relentlessly you have distracted the audience from the topic at hand, and you have made the topic of the video, "Why Christians are stupid," instead of the more inviting topic of, "The logical failings of omnipotence." I'm not a Christian, and I'm not an atheist either. I hope this huge comment will invite you to think about the subject further.

I'm an atheist, however I believe that our understanding of language and reality as a whole doesn't allow us to comprehend omnipotance. A being could logically create something which is by definition contradictory such as a married bachelor, as it could at any time bend the definition to it's will. At any time, the being could just make you never have seen it, or never had existed at all, so it's fair to say that all meaning is irrelevant when it is the sole dictator of meaning. I think the true problem comes from determinism. As it's fairly certain that all the things we do are determined by our surroundings, psychological effects, and all, a true omnipotent being would be entirely free from any desire or will, and therefore would never do anything.

The jokes on you. The 1959 Cadillac weighs 5,000 lbs, not 1,000 lbs.

Can I give a fair definition of god? God - "The Man Named Gabe Newell (Also Known as GabeN) who create the company known as "Valve Incorporated" and is the owner of the service Steam"

My favorite version of the rock thing is, can god microwave a burrito so hot that he cant eat it

I need to watch Star Trek now...

"Potatoes, boil 'em, mash 'em, put 'em in a stew."

24:35 With two omnipotent beings, you can make them enact the spear vs shield paradox!

To ask God to make a rock he cannot lift is asking God to make a married bachelor.

I think it's reasonable to assume that a logically omnipotent being is capable of permanently limiting himself such that he could create a rock and then never be able to lift it, but this being would obviously never choose to do so because that would be absurd. Or to take your example of an omnipotent being truthfully claiming to not be omnipotent, he would be fully capable of reducing himself to not being omnipotent and then speak the words truthfully, but again would never choose to do this because that would be absurd.

Your dismissal of Absolutism is strange, especially considering you're using Q as an example. Q can't flargle a snuffin? Please. - flash of light - You: Where are we? Q: I've just created this planet, and this species of blue-skinned humanoids. Cute, aren't they? You: Well, that's impressive, but... whoa, what is that?! Q: That, my friend, is a creature that these people refer to by a vocalism that sounds like "snuffin." You: OK... and why are they... ugh, why are they doing THAT to it? Q (grinning) : And THAT, my friend, is what they call, "flargling." Oh, that's right, your request was specific.... - flash of light, Q is now blue-skinned, looking like the other beings - Q: Alright now, who's a cute little snuffin? Who's a cute snuffin, oh that's right, *you* are! - Q proceeds to flargle the snuffin - With *true* omnipotence, nothing is impossible. You, sir, lack imagination.

A Catholic priest is a married bachelor, as they are married to the Church.

Basically someone who uses console commands in skyrim

Can a omnipotent person create a rock he can't destroy. If he can't destroy it he's not omnipotent but if he can't make it he's not omnipotent

I like the idea that God is just some guy who wrote a story down on something or just a guy who set the seed for the universe and we just happened as a unintended result of those fundamental actions

A married man who has the nickname "bachelor".

An absolute omnipotent being, wouldn't something like that defy logic itself? -Flargle a snuffin Doesn't matter what he does, it ends up being exactly what it was supposed to be, even if we didn't know it beforehand. -Create a married bachelor Simply changes the definition of bachelor. If he can do anything, then surely changing a meaning of a word shouldn't be impossible. Or, even more simply, an omnipotent being could just make us believe that he indeed is omnipotent without having to lift a finger. Maybe at the mere sight of him we would know. Maybe even before the knowledge of his presence we would know that he is omnipotent. Why should something, that can do anything, be constrained by logic?

That's also kind of the point of defining any god this way: to never apply it to existent beings. Take Star Trek as an example... various captains have met at least two beings claiming to be big g God and all of them reject the claims. Because, powerful they may have been, they weren't powerful enough to satisfy the idea of "omnipotent".

Just like anything else, Omnipotence is a relative characteristic.

Who else misread the title of this video as "The Problem of Impotence"?

Ominpotence = Nothing can stop you from doing the things that you are determined to do.

This is precisely why the doctrine that defines God also forbids questioning faith in said god. Because, it falls apart very quickly.

The use of squirrels for philosophical demonstrations is the cherry on top.

I get my car serviced at Walmart. So having faith in the mechanic is an absolute must.

1:06 Top squirrel getting some smash. *AND HE'S LUVIN IT*

I feel like these examples fail to meet what is "logically possible." It is logically possible for _someone_ to truthfully say "I am not omnipotent", but it is not logically possible for an _omnipotent_ being to truthfully say "I am not omnipotent", so it fails to meet that definition of omnipotence. The not telling a lie thing definitely isn't all powerful though. I am not religious, but I do have a fondness for omnipotent beings in fiction.

Discussion with my cousin on the problems with the Christian god. Me: God is all powerful right? And all merciful? Cousin: Yes. Me: So why does he require sacrifices to forgive? Why couldn't he forgive humanity without the death and torture of Jesus? Cousin: Because God is a god of order. Me: Huh? That doesn't really answer the question. What does order have to with it? Cousin: Because he requires order, there are rules he sets out and he can't go against them. Me: Ok then. But if he can't go against his own rules, he can't be all powerful either. Because he doesn't have the power to go against himself. Not only that, he can't be all merciful either. Because if he was, there wouldn't be any rules for his mercy to be granted. Cousin: No he still would be. Me: How?? Cousin: Because God is a god of order. Me: ...😐...

the problem is not with god but with our rules of language.

"God can do all things" means exactly what it means. A rock so heavy God couldn't lift it isn't a thing; it's logically contradictory, just like a married bachelor, and so it isn't even a thing (just because we can put the words "married" and "bachelor" together, doesn't mean that the combination of those words is actually a thing). These objections aren't new. Aquinas wrote about them 800 years ago. You're also equivocating protestant christian philosphers with christianity in general. Catholics have a long intellectual tradition that has considered all of the objections you raise in your videos.

As a Christian, bravo! Excellent assessment and logical proposals/conclusions. Keep it up ;)

Okay I have several things (not necessarily negations) to some of the points made in this video: 1. Consider the number line of integers, clearly there are an infinite number of integers. I create a set where all integers are included, except the number "10". Despite so, the set of incomplete integers is still infinite; just as a being who is infinitely powerful, who couldn't accomplish just 1 task, is still infinitely powerful. The being is not all-mighty, but he is mighty all-except-one. The example of the ear guy is a converse of "mighty all-except-one", which is "all-incompetent except one". It is equivalent of saying a set of the integer containing only the number "10", is about as numerous as the set of integers containing all numbers but "10". It is a good argument against "essence", but it cannot negate the possibility of a being that can perform infinitely many tasks except for one. 2. There's a misunderstanding of conditional logic/definition. Suppose I say: "Everyone get out of the room now, except me." That is a perfectly logical sentence, just as "Everything that can be done I can do, except this." But if I were to say: "I want the room completely empty, except I'll be in the room", that starts to sound illogical. I haven't figured out why that is the case, but this could be relevant to how we define "Omnipotence". I still have more stuff, but I'll edit them in later. Oh, and I'm an atheist, and I do not believe in Omnipotence.

I'm real late to the party here and most likely no one will see this, but if we define omnipotence to mean "ability to do anything logically possible" then is it not logically IMPOSSIBLE to create a rock so big an omnipotent being cannot lift it? Isn't that the entire point of the paradox? That we can logically prove its impossible for an omnipotent being to create a rock so large that they cannot lift it? So if we are logically proving its impossibility, then why is it a strike against a being able to do anything logically possible, that they are unable to do it? I'm not trying to make a case for god here, but I see this argument all the time. How is the logically impossible rock any different than the logically impossible married bachelor? Certainly I can prove the possibility of creating a rock pile so large that _I_ cannot lift it by doing so in real life, but I cannot similarly create a rock pile so large that a so defined omnipotent being can't lift it. In the same way I can truthfully say that I am not omnipotent, but I can't truthfully say that an omnipotent being is not omnipotent. Therefore I would conclude that it is logically impossible for an omnipotent being to truthfully proclaim _themself_ to be omnipotent. ------------Edit----------- Summarized for clarity: If we define omnipotence as the ability to do anything logically possible Creating a rock of any arbitrary size no matter how big is logically possible so an omnipotent being must be able to do it -let this group of rocks of any size be "set 1" Lifting any object of any arbitrary size no matter how big is logically possible so an omnipotent being must be able to do it -Let this group of all objects be "set 2" Therefore all of set 1 is fully encompassed by set 2 because all "rocks of any size" are definitively within the scope of "object of any arbitrary size". Since set 1 encompasses all possible rocks and set 1 is entirely encompassed by set 2, a hypothetical rock from set 1 but not encompassed by set 2 is logically impossible. Therefore a rock so large that a so defined omnipotent being cannot lift it is not logically possible Therefore, a being able to do anything logically possible cannot create a rock so big that the being cannot lift it. In the same way that a married unmarried man cannot exist, an object unlift-able by something able to lift any object cannot exist. The set of all possible objects is lift-able, so the set cannot contain any unlift-able objects; The set of all bachelors is unmarried, so it cannot contain any married men. The creation of something from a set, but with attributes definitionally excluded from the set, is logically impossible. Just like creating a fractional integer.

If two or more omnipotent beings cannot exist simultaneously, then Christianity must be false, because it requires three omnipotent beings. Who would win a game of checkers, Jesus or the Holy Ghost?

So Q is more powerful than a christian god. He can do everything the god can. Plus! He can lie.

Can god flargel a snuffin so completely, that even he could not unflargle it?

META RULES META RULES META RULES *SERIOUS PHILOSOPHY STUDENTS STAY AWAY* You cannot break meta rules, in other words you’re coming up with your own particular definitions. As you study philosophy more seriously the solutions to the problems that you don’t realize you’re bringing up will come to light.

did anyone else notice the windows logo on the door

My guy took one Psych class now he thinks he’s Plato

Chuck Norris is omnipotent.

Not a religious guy, but aren't words just meanings we give something? So, if someone were to give two meanings to a word, would it not be both of those things at the same time? So, something can and can't as long as you define it as such?

The animation in this is top notch

Omnipotence is just that song that starts “anything you can do I can do better…”