Is The One Above All REALLY Omnipotent?

You'll have to fight me for it.

@jedixman: Don't mind me stealing it awhile you fight.

@skyroid: thank you

Look who's talking I'm Batman.

That shizzle just makes my head hurt tbh. By definition he could but in doing so breaks the definition of omnipotence. So you know.. but he's the writer. So yes he could. Then wipe your memory and act like it never happened. :P.

xoxo, -Saint Sophie

TOAA is only omnipotent within the comic book. Otherwise, Stan Lee is a but a mere human.

Depends what you mean by really omnipotent. Omnipotence is a man made term, meant to convey a certain idea, that idea or those ideas usually to do with the power to do anything, unlimited or infinite amounts of power. So usually absolutes. The trouble with omnipotence is when it comes into conflict with other absolutes. Like absolute immortality, omnipresence, and omnipresence and omnipotence… can an omnipotent being kill itself permanently… its not a matter of defying or changing reality, the question is posed in such a way to exploit human ideas of such concepts. We don't have any actual examples of omnipotence just projections.

Also sure, humans may not be able to understand actual omnipotence, but humans can't comprehend the actual scope of the universe, or even just large galaxies, we just get a rough idea by using certain types of thinking and logic. Numbers and comparisons. We also… are pretty good at comprehending each other, and how individuals estimate, overestimate, underestimate, reason, use language, understand language, maths, other things related. If a metal pink whale the size of 89 trillion galaxies existed… we wouldn't be able to fathom that accurately either. Also you don't have to be omnipotent to change 1 into 3, just being bad at maths and English can do that, 1 being 1 also has a lot to do with language and consensus as well, not just logic. In fiction, where ideas don't have to be consistent with reality or even consistent with itself (something reality requires to a degree) we can have examples of omnipotence and so we do.

@kyrees: You are once again wrong. Human beings did not create logic. Human beings discovered logic. Logic is not man-made. There is no such thing as "human logic." Logic was not created by man, it was discovered by man. There is no "higher form of logic." Omnipotence is impossible because we can only do logical things.

@jedixman: That's precisely why it's impossible to be omnipotent. Because everything will always be limited by the world of logic. Nothing can go beyond that, so nothing can be omnipotent.

Really? This is literally one of the most common questions that anyone even remotely interested in philosophy has answered before. Any search would have got you answers in seconds.

If you can, by definition, do anything, then you can easily defy physics. I can do anything, therefore I say that paradoxes do not exist.

Physics are humanity's attempts to explain the universe. At the end of the day, physics as we know them could be torn to the ground by some new discovery. It is a human concept.

Logic and numbers are concepts only. They have meaning as long as we give them meaning. Logic and math were, indeed, created by man to understand the complexities of a universe that is still complicated the unexplored. Despite everything we've done, we still barely know anything about the universe.

This isn't hard to comprehend. You're the only one in this thread struggling to prove everyone wrong; you never will. You are too bound by simple understandings of the universe to the point that you cannot grasp the idea of the unknown and unexplained.

@hulk99: Dude

Omnipotent means to be able to do anything right?

Then its simple, if you can do anything then your omnipotent

If you cannot your not omnipotent

Depends on what you mean by "Omnipotent".

no he got no feats to say he is omnipotent, if he was he could erase whole time and space for eternity and himself must be standing somewhere

we did not discover it. we nurtured it. it was already innate in humans or the earliest ones or they won't be making those stick tools for hunting and as our society progress, we started explaining things beyond us and for the most part, we understood a lot of it. however, omnipotence is something that is beyond the concept of human logic because of the duality of illogical and logical factors due to how everything can be done by it. there is higher logic simply because we are not the only living things in this universe by sheer statistics and to say our logic is that highest to date is sheer foolishness for us.

you can say everyone is wrong over and over again but that doesn't prove anything for anyone here except you because it only shows that you are bounding yourself on the concepts that man made to explain everything and man can't even explain what happens inside a black hole at this point.

@kyrees:You are wrong again. We discovered it, we didn't nurture it. Our discovery of logic is innate, and logic is an absolute, not something which is man made. Once again, it's not "human logic." It's simply "logic." Omnipotence is within human understanding.

OMNIPOTENCE IS THE SIMPLEST THING TO UNDERSTNAND. The inability of human beings to explain what occurs inside a black hole doesn't show that human beings can barely understand anything because it is incredibly hard to comprehed what occurs within a singularity. However, a preschool kid could understand what omnipotence is. Yet you continue to avoid the question, please answer it: Can an omnipotent being create a rock that he cannot lift?

@jedixman: Wrong. Math always existed, it was never created by man. I'll tell you what was created by man: Symbols. Human beings created the language and the symbols in order to label these quantities and make sense of the math, but math itself has always existed. Humans did not create physics, humans DISCOVERED physics. And in this era that we live in, the chances of any scientific theory being proven wrong is almost null due to the fact that we only support scientific theories if they are backed up by mountains of evidence. So don't count on any scientific theory being proven wrong ever.

Yet you still choose to avoid the question: Can an omnipotent being create an object that's too heavy for him to lift?

First of all: using a large font is just annoying. It doesn't give your post more depth. Second, I gave you that answer in my very first post, yet you choose to ignore it:

A being of true omnipotence has unlimited control over what we describe as "reality." No rules, logical or illogical, have power over you. If I were omnipotent, I would be able to create something that would ordinarily be a paradox, but would no longer be a paradox. I decide that the rules of the universe mean that 2 + 2 = anything I want, and it would make sense because reality says that it makes sense (based on my power). I create a thing that is both a 3D cube and a 2D circle. I create a being stronger than myself while I remain superior. I can create a scenario where I simultaneously follow all rules and defy all rules. There is no paradox, and there is no contradiction - they just are, because reality conforms to my whim, not the other way around.

An omnipotent being can make an object too heavy for him to lift, while being capable of lifting it. All paradoxes cease; all contradictions cease. The ability to do anything has absolutely no upper limit. An omnipotent being can do the impossible and make it possible; he can make something possible cease to be possible. He can do all of these things at the same time, and there would never be a paradox. It wouldn't be simply "because I say so," but because reality itself would be nothing to an omnipotent being. You want to make a box filled with infinity (and all that implies), yet the box is the size of an atom? Easy to do. A cube and a triangle can be the same thing. Reality as you know it means nothing. If you are bound by physics, you are not omnipotent. If you are not bound by any laws, then you are truly omnipotent.

An omnipotent being is not bound by any laws, period. That's the bottom line, and if you cannot wrap your mind about something so complicated, then I certainly cannot help you. I understand: higher level philosophy can be difficult for some to grasp, but I do not need to educate you. Take some philosophy classes, and learn to open your mind to the seemingly impossible. A good scientist and a good philosophy opens their mind to ideas that can break their perceptions of reality; without that, society would never advance.

@claymore1998: you are the real MVP

yes

No oneis omnipotent due to the fact that you can't be omnipotent.

me being wrong is saying human history is wrong because as far as human history has shown, logic has been an innate trait of humanity to a point that it is the major driving point of societies's rise and fall. without it, we wouldn't even be creating those primitive weapons to kill the wooly mammoth. once again, claiming that our logic is the only thing out there is sheer folly on our part simply because there are other beings out there just by the sheer statistic of the size of the current universe and don't give that weak reason that they haven't interacted to us so they don't exist; if the average earth creatures go on decades to millenia go unfound or undiscovered, what more of beings living in an atom sized planet in the vast ocean of galaxies ?

if it was so easily understood, then why does hundreds of philosophers aka people who devote their lives to studying the fundamental problems of reality and reason don't agree to one answer ? as much you want to limit it to basic human understanding, people who put more thinking to it disagree. heck, your answer is the opposite of everything philosophers strive to answer since you accepted the lazy man's way out of this question and set that humans are the ultimate beings in case of logic. lol on the preschool kid understanding omnipotence because that's saying that everything an adult specializes on for the rest of their lives is useless because of a kid spouting that cheese is a truly omnipotent object is the one believable answer then.

the answer to your question is this: an omnipotent being can create a rock he cannot lift and lift it accordingly because that how omnipotence truly works. you could enforce that its wrong but if you google that question accordingly, your own answer doesn't really line-up to the more prominent individuals who weighed in to it.

one last thing: typing in bigger fonts doesn't make your arguments stronger.

@jedixman:

An omnipotent being can make an object too heavy for him to lift

Then he's not omnipotent

while being capable of lifting it.

That was not the goal, therefore he's not omnipotent. You just proved yourself wrong, congradulations.

It all boils down to this: If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task that it is unable to perform. Hence, this being cannot perform all actions. On the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there is something it cannot do.

Therefore, no matter what way you look at it, omnipotence is impossible because nothing in existence can be omnipotent.

You didn't solve the paradox by saying that omnipotent beings can erase paradoxes. You know why? Because once a being tries to erase a paradox, he realise's that he is not omnipotent because he cannot erase or avoid the paradox xD. What I mentioned has nothing to do with the rules of the universe. It's simple.

Thanks for proving yourself wrong btw.

@kyrees:

an omnipotent being can create a rock he cannot lift and lift it accordingly

Then he is not omnipotent because the goal was to make it so that he cannot lift it at all. If he can create the rock that he cannot lift, then he's not omnipotent because there exists something that he cannot do. If he can later lift it accordingly, then he's not omnipotent because he hasn't accomplished his goal which was to create a rock that he cannot lift no matter what he does.

Kudos on disproving yourself.

@jedixman: This hulk guy said ip man beating 10 black belt people is not a big deal but Jack Reacher beating 5 thugs is a big deal and he said Supes freezing breath don't hurt hulk because hulk was in space and space is colder (if you stay in space vacuum for mins you will not free but boil)...

But ''A being of true omnipotence has unlimited control over what we describe as "reality." No rules, logical or illogical, have power over you. If I were omnipotent, I would be able to create something that would ordinarily be a paradox, but would no longer be a paradox.'' how do you know this? Are you using logic to find this?

So logic can't explain omnipotent but can explain the idea that logic can't explain omnipotent?

If we are not omnipotent and we use logic to explain logical things, if we use logic we think only logical things exist, if you KNOW there exists non logical things that means you are a non logical thing too(omnipotent mb) but if you THINK with your logic that there are non logical things - you are just saying ''He is died 10 y ago, He didn't die'' means you are wrong because he died or he is alive, not both if you are not using logic.

btw I'm using logic to explain non logical things don't exist. Remember if you are just a human you can use logic to understand only logical things.

1 more thing, if you think something can bypass logic but you used logic to think that, it means ''thinking something something can bypass logic'' logic might be bypassed too, another paradox

Sry for long post, hope it makes any sense for you

@jedixman: in short words you are trying to use logic way to explain illogical things

@kbalesi:

I think there's some miscommunication here. I'm saying that one cannot apply logic to something that is essentially illogical. If something is without limits, then it is beyond logical boundaries. I myself am just attempting to use logic to explain it. If you take the term "omnipotence" to its extreme (and omnipotence is essentially extreme by definition), then there's no limits at all.

My view is that omnipotence cannot be restricted by any sort of logic, laws, or paradoxes. As logical, limited beings, the only way to express this and discuss this is by using logic. I couldn't explain it without using logic, because I am a mere man, and I am bound by the laws of the universe.

Yes, I am.

@jedixman: Yeah no misunderstanding from me, I actually read your comments 3 times to understood it right. That was my point if we are just people and we use logic that means we should explain things in logical way, you are trying to explain illogical things in logical way (as you said too), but you can't. If omnipotent being is illogical and we are logical you shouldn't even have the idea that omnipotent being exist because there is no way you can find it by using logic.

The concept itself is illogical. I'm not exactly applying logic to the concept; if I were, then I would say that something cannot exist because everything exists in a logical form. But if we step back and allow ourselves to accept that it is, truly, illogical, then we can't put restrictions on it, or apply logic to it.

My original point is that attempting to use logic to say that an omnipotent being cannot exist is a contradiction because an omnipotent being wouldn't be restricted by logic, and therefore, a debate is meaningless. Try as hard as we may, we still can't completely wrap our minds around it; I just try to explain it to the best of my abilities.

Are you essentially saying that we can't discuss it because it's illogical, or that it cannot exist because it is illogical?

I can't help but feel Bill Cipher's words would suit this thread:

"Time is dead and meaning has no meaning! Existence is upside down and I reign supreme!"

depends on the plot of the story.

Reality is defined by logic and rules, (what is iffy is our understanding of them) what is logical and illogical is not the same as what is right and wrong, more akin to something and nothing, the most accurate and best ways to apply the idea, is through understanding one is actual and the other is the absence of it. So in that sense, the ideas accompany the other naturally but don't actually exist. This can lead to colloquial references, phrasing, examples of something being illogical or being nothing, when the phrasing could be better (why dictionaries often emphasis the lack of logic or disregard to logic when defining illogical) because actions or behavior that may appear illogical, usually have some logic involved, just not very 'good' logic.

Omnipotence is like a blue whale that is ten trillion times bigger than the size of the Omniverse, and you owe it all your money. I mean… yeah that sounds silly, but if it truly exists, because its truly illogical… and a blue whale being that large definitely is… then who are we to say… well its because all the examples of illogical we have, all have to do with its relationship with logic, in understanding, not an existence as a pure property found in reality.

To put it another way, William Lane Craig, the philosopher and debater, even if you disagree with him, he can still runs circles around most people when it comes to logic and philosophy, and as far as people who actually believe in omnipotence (well a certain entity that is) as being actual and people who defend its application, he is probably the most well known advocate and defender I can think of, but even he asserts that there are some things that an omnipotent being can't do (act contrary to their nature) there are many other good rejections and deconstructions of Universal Possibilism (omnipotence means you can do everything including the illogical) as well mind you for people to google and have fun with.

@jedixman: ''Are you essentially saying that we can't discuss it because it's illogical, or that it cannot exist because it is illogical?''

Second one, we shouldn't be able to understand illogical things or the idea of illogical things can exist.

I just have to say it again, example ''The concept itself is illogical. I'm not exactly applying logic to the concept; if I were, then I would say that something cannot exist because everything exists in a logical form. But if we step back and allow ourselves to accept that it is, truly, illogical, then we can't put restrictions on it, or apply logic to it.'' in general meaning you are trying to apply logic that the idea of illogical things can exist, but in ''But if we step back and allow ourselves to accept that'' you are just having faith.

''Exist'' is logical, omnipotent is illogical means illogical should not ''exist''. If you believe illogical can exist you are just having faith.

You are saying omnipotent don't use logic, physics and other rules we know, ''exist'' is in all of these (logic, physics and other rules) that means omnipotent don't use ''exist''.

You are saying he exist but he doesn't exist.

''Exist'' is just a logical thing, why omnipotent would exist?

Omnipotent is powerful enough to not ''exist''(as logical), why omnipotent need to exist, existing is only for things with limited power.

This was my last, thank you for conversation.

@kbalesi:

An omnipotent being, by definition, can do anything - including exist as a contradiction.

Okay. Same.

Omnipotent beings are not limited to rules.

We Are not taking about some time and space bending. Humans can't understand reality manipulation because they can't understand how 2+2 can be 5. That is possible with reality manipulation, and with it anything that is logical isn't important. When we Talk about character like TOAA WHO is more powerful than omnipotent beings, how can we even question about him?