Talk:Omnipotence paradox

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Paradox?)
(Paradox?)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
What about 'biting the bullet', so to speak, in the manner of Occam, and simply allowing that God's omnipotence extends over the laws of logic like non-contradiction?  That would eliminate the paradox, albeit with some violence... is that ever raised as a counter?
 
What about 'biting the bullet', so to speak, in the manner of Occam, and simply allowing that God's omnipotence extends over the laws of logic like non-contradiction?  That would eliminate the paradox, albeit with some violence... is that ever raised as a counter?
 
[[User:Vico's G|Vico's G]] 02:14, 6 December 2007 (CST)
 
[[User:Vico's G|Vico's G]] 02:14, 6 December 2007 (CST)
 +
 +
It is raised as a counter but it is extremely weak. First it creates another claim and secondly it devalues logic, which is used as a common device in the stories put forward in the Bible, Quran etc etc. If logic is not an appropriate, convincing method for analysis then why is it used in these spiritual texts? --[[User:Vagon|Vagon]] 22:23, 11 May 2008 (CDT)

Revision as of 22:23, 11 May 2008

Perhaps the issue of God's character could be addressed more clearly. Things God cannot do and things God will not do are easily confused. An example is that God cannot do evil. It could be said that God is capable of commiting an evil act, but that it goes against his character. He "cannot" do something evil in the way that one might say the aren't capable of murder. I think "God's Nature" would be more properly defined as "the things God's capable and willing to do." This however would cause something of a large overhaul on the section.--ChristOnIce 06:42, 2 August 2006 (MST)

It seems to me that self-imposed limitations don't really relate to the omniscience paradox (except that claims of limitations are an ad hoc way of explaining away difficult objections). If, for example, God is capable of eliminating evil, but chooses not to (whether this is a character-driven limitation or an act of will) that condition (and the objections and questions we have concerning it) belongs in the main "God" article, as a claim or avoidance of a claim, about the nature of god. What we're really talking about is the ill-defined nature of god, which varies from person to person and, perhaps, situation to situation.Sans Deity 08:40, 2 August 2006 (MST)

Paradox?

What about 'biting the bullet', so to speak, in the manner of Occam, and simply allowing that God's omnipotence extends over the laws of logic like non-contradiction? That would eliminate the paradox, albeit with some violence... is that ever raised as a counter? Vico's G 02:14, 6 December 2007 (CST)

It is raised as a counter but it is extremely weak. First it creates another claim and secondly it devalues logic, which is used as a common device in the stories put forward in the Bible, Quran etc etc. If logic is not an appropriate, convincing method for analysis then why is it used in these spiritual texts? --Vagon 22:23, 11 May 2008 (CDT)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox