Originally Posted by Mark75
Can you explain why this is invalid? If god cannot do something (such as limit himself) that is by definition a limitation. Limitations are things you can't do.
I thought I explained enough; I broke it down. You're saying it is a limitation that something is unlimited? You're saying it is a limitation that something is unable to contradict itself? Is existence "limited" to existence only? This is just word games.
The "limit" is defined as a restriction of ability. Yet to be able to be limited is not actually an ability to begin with, in the context of the unlimited, and that itself, by definition, has no reason to be contradictory. That which is infinite is not limited to itself, it is unlimited itself. "Restriction to restriction" is redundant.
If something infinite can intrinsically and simultaneously be finite, elaborate, and explain why that should prove that it is only infinite. If this itself, is your argument against it, you're mixing paradigms.
Originally Posted by Mark75
Correct, however not being able to destroy or diminish yourself is a limitation if doing so out of the scope of your ability. Can god do _____? If god has no limit to his power, it shouldn't matter what you put in the blank, the answer should be yes. You are suggesting that placing "destroy himself" returns the answer no. This must mean that you think that god has certain restrictions on his ability. It seems like you're getting frustrated because the definition of omnipotence UM is using is illogical, paradoxical and silly. But that is exactly the point UM is trying to highlight. The point he and I are trying to make is that omnipotence is impossible. And really, the definition he is using is the only really accurate and relevant one. The only other sense which "omnipotence" could be used otherwise in this kind of context would be a hyperbolic one to simply indicate an extreme (but not unlimited) amount of power, in which case it'd just make more sense to say that there are certain things god cannot do.
"Not being able to destroy yourself" is neither an ability nor a limitation; coming from something that is indestructible! That which is non-linear cannot be destroyed or opposed. Both "no ability for self-destruction" and "infinite, indestructible power" are the same, and are importantly by definition. You just seem to want this to disprove or contradict itself, but it can't occur because it is not arguable.
Originally Posted by Noogah
"however not being able to destroy or diminish yourself is a limitation"
God never said that he couldn't.
God never said anything.
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
The contradictions prove the absurdity of the idea of omnipotence.
The contradictions are in your argument. You're not seeing that they are not applicable. They're exclusively within your argument alone and really have no way to apply, and if they did, Reality wouldn't exist.
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
It doesn't matter what you put after "cannot" in that sentence. It automatically creates a contradiction. (as Mark said) That is exactly what I was illustrating. There is no "cannot" with an omnipotent being. That is why omnipotence is an absurd principle. The nature of it contradicts itself.
Ok here's another example.
God one with all Reality - the Absolute. But Reality cannot become non-Reality and neither can non-Reality become Reality. This is the all-encompassing Omnipotence; there is nothing outside of itself.
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
My point is valid. The contradictions I am talking about are not. The invalidity you are talking about is actually the nature of omnipotence. It is self-contradictory and invalid. Exactly.
Once again you're not really saying anything, but just repeating nonsense. Again, if something infinite can intrinsically and simultaneously be finite, elaborate, and explain why that should prove that it is only infinite.
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Infinite power is the ability to do ANYTHING, even be destroyed.
Why? What makes it infinite power then?
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
If something cannot allow itself to be destroyed, that is something it CANNOT do. It is therefore not omnipotent.
LOL No, therefore it is Omnipotent. That "it is something it cannot do" is beside the point that it cannot be itself.
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
You are talking about invincibility, which is a quality an omnipotent being could have IF it wanted it. Invincibility and infinite power are not the same thing.
No, my point is: Invincibility and infinite power are one and the same. And because they are, there is nothing an Omnipotent being really needs to do at all, but simply be itself. There is no need to do anything because that would imply limitation, a task, and a requirement to be fulfilled or a need to travel from here to there. It is hard to understand because it falls within the non-dualistic and nonlinear paradigm. It stands on its own, like Reality. Self evident, yet obscured by conceptualization.
|
|
Bookmarks