?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Omnipotence

So there was this video. The following is the comment I put in the comment section:

Okay but like... imagine you're programming the Matrix, and filling it with artificial people. They find out about you, and they're like "Oh, you're the Admin? Okay then, create a rock so big you can't lift it." But then consider these facts: A. Any rock you use Admin privileges to lift is not technically being lifted by you, you merely commanded the system to have the rock be lifted. So you logically created a rock that, while you can command it to be lifted, you cannot yourself lift it. B. Putting that logical semantics behind, if you used Admin privileges to make a rock such that you were locked out of being able to lift it with Admin privileges, you would again have a rock so heavy you couldn't lift it. C. You ARE in fact playing logic games, because you could then say "Oh, you made a rock that you can't lift. Now to really prove you're omnipotent, you have to lift it." And you're like "I can't. I don't have Admin privileges over that rock anymore. And anyway, I technically wasn't lifting it before that anyway."

The point is that any degree of omnipotence, any definition of omnipotence, is going to have things about it where some person who thinks he's being very clever will be able to poke holes in it with logical semantic games.

That said, I am not a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim, or any of those. My idea of "god" is "the consciousness that 'created' the universe by generating it inside itself." Because we know, from Einstein, that matter and energy are forms of the same thing, and neither can be created or destroyed, so there can be no being that creates something from nothing, because that is literally impossible. Therefore any god that existed would have to be the consciousness of the multiverse, generating the multiverse inside its own body.

Similarly, the concept of "nothing" is nonsense. If matter and energy cannot be destroyed, there can be no Nothing for them to go to. "Nothing" thus is only a label that can only exist in relation to "something," and thus "nothing" as most people think of it is a meaningless idea. That is, "nothing" is still something, so the idea of "nothing" as "the opposite of something" is meaningless. Might as well try to flarble nergles.

But basically yes, the Christians and their relatives need to think critically and logically, and improve their conception of "god." But at the same time, even a reasoned, reasonable concept of an omnipotent god can never be immune to the kind of logical semantics games people like you are fond of playing.

Though this is not to imply that any god lacking total omnipotence is unworthy of being called a god, as some would suggest. Any being that can create the universe and presumably alter it at will or destroy it is still worthy of respect and would still be worthy of being called a god, as that would be functional omnipotence, even if there were some things that someone playing semantic games showed it couldn't do.

This was cross-posted from https://fayanora.dreamwidth.org/1383608.html
You can comment either here or there.

Profile

Djyahlah icon
fayanora
The Djao'Mor'Terra Collective
Fayanora's Web Site

Latest Month

April 2018
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Taichi Kaminogoya