The Limits of Omnipotence

Omnipotent: All-powerful. Not necessarily unlimited or infinite power. Infinity doesn't do math well and can cause havoc with logic. Visit Hotel Infinity for an example [2]. Best avoid infinity in your theology. I concede everything else my opponent has said in Round 2 as he's done a decent job of supporting my argument. My resolution is that: An omnipotent deity is either: (1) Limited by logic in what it can and cannot do or (2) Utterly incomprehensible and thus unworthy of further consideration. My opponent has done an admirable job of arguing against position (1) while arguing for position (2). Let's take that 30 year-old computer and try running Windows 7 on it. "Hard drive"?!? What's that? "64-bit operating system"?!? As I say above, utterly incomprehensible. And this is just a small technological gap that we could overcome, if we really wanted to. The Paramecium that Won the Debate Let's use a more realistic analogy between us and the infinite. We'll sign up one of the paramecia on my desk top on DDO. You argue that "God created logic", the paramecium replies "Mmmm... Dead skin cells." It doesn't matter how long you wait or how hard either you or the paramecium tries. It will never even know that there's a debate going on, much less what the debate is about. And this analogy is still a finite gap between us and a paramecium. The gap between us and the infinite is infinitely larger, infinitely less comprehensible to us. http://www.fcps.edu...; /> Reduction to Absurdity Sadly, my opponent didn't answer my question from last round regarding whether God can elevate a mere mortal to status greater than his own. Seeing as how "Unlimited & Anything" includes this perverse notion I'll just take it for granted. Any claim to the contrary will be a limit on omnipotence. The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God [3], first stated by St. Anselm of Canterbury in 1078 and refined by such worthies as Descartes, Leibniz and Godel runs as follows: (P1) God is the greatest being which can be imagined. (P2) God exists as an idea in the mind. (P3) All else being equal, a being that exists in reality is greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. (P4) If God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God, a greatest possible being that exists in reality. (P5) We cannot imagine something that is greater than God because it is a contradiction to imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined. (C) God must exist in reality. Congratulations on invalidating the first premise and invalidating the Ontological Argument. The howling horde of apologists that will shortly break down your door is actually the least of your worries. We need not use just any random mortal for elevation to super-deity status. We can use a specific one. Me. Substituting my new name for God's: (P1) Uber-Paleophyte is the greatest being which can be imagined. Keep substituting my name into the Ontological Argument in place of God's and Voila! (C) Uber-Paleophyte exists! By blending the contradictions inherent in unlimited power with the Ontological Argument we have proven that I am now God. Kindly Vote Accordingly. If it'll make you happier I can violate a little causality while I'm here and become the Uncaused Cause. This is the sort of foolishness that logic degenerates into when you invoke the infinite. It's why any smart philosopher avoids the stuff like the plague. Conclusion: While it is possible that a deity might have the power to commit paradox, the explosive nature of the logical contradictions lead to absurdities. Even the existence of such an entity would be indeterminate. It is incomprehensible and unworthy of further consideration. [2] The Infinite Hotel Paradox - Jeff Dekofsky http://ed.ted.com... [3] Anselm: Ontological Argument for God's Existence http://www.iep.utm.edu...