Johns answer to the rock argument
The argument...
If a being were omnipotent, can it create a rock so heavy that it cannot carry? If not then the being is not omnipotent and therefore it is impossible to be omnipotent because to be omnipotent you must be able to do the required task...
Therefore the concept of an Omnipotent being is fallaciou
This is a question of ability isn't it? Where the rock represents the amount of ability the being has.
Wherein the beings ability is Infinite
Therefore:
If the beings ability is infinite, can it create a seperate power greater than itself?
If not, can the beings power be considered infinite?
Well no, by definition there is no such thing as anything greater
than infinity. Therefore to suggest that it can create a power greater
than itself is fallacious.
If it cannot create a power greater than itself, can its power still be considered infinite?
basically that begs the question. Because by definition there is NOTHING greter than infinity.
Let me put it this way...
You have a yellow omnipotent being named John
Everyone say hi to John
Everyone: Hi John!!!!
John is infinte
What you want john to do is make something greater than he is... You want John +1
has to make +1
The thing is John IS ALREADY John +1 because John is infinite so to
add +1 to infinity doesn't change John at all... That makes John happy
...John is happy
So when it comes down to it:
= +1 = +1+1 = +1+1+1
they are all equal... but at the same time... not
(Therefore the answer to your question is yes AND no)
But you know what John CAN do?
John can do this...
- = ZERO
and John says "I want to make a rock"
So then John goes I will minues myself to make zero then get John +1
and take +1 away from John +1 to make one...and still I'll be the same
person so...
- = Zero
+ 1 gives the one to the Zero
So now... the ZERO is 1!!!! *GASP* and he is then able to make ANYTHING he wants thus making an infinite being OMNIPOTENT.
But wait...doesnt that mean that John lost his power? NO!
+ 1 - 1 =
But...
= +1
and that makes him happy
THE END
Any questions children?
You see, this is precisely why I don't like these omni words.
John, you look a lot more yellow and tiny than I remember. Did you get some kind of cosmetic surgery done?
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." - Albert Einstein
An infinite being has nowhere to go.
Wouldn't 'nowhere' contradict it's infinite attribute?
But, of course.
Reviewing the history of religion, you can see free market forces (or you can say "evolution") at work in the progression from a variety of limited, local spirits to a single, all powerful god. It had to be so for the professional class running the state religions to maintain their monopoly. However, just as in mathematics, the concept of infinity has very limited usefulness. Other than getting a spooky feeling when you learn that infinity = infinity + n, and solving differential calculus equations, infinity has no practical value. An omnipotent being could have created the universe 1 second ago and embedded all of your memories of life and history in your mind, and could change it to something else again 1 second from now. That's why theists have so many debates between denominations about free will since any form of predestination or even foreknowledge negates choice. They are often reduced to silly software patches such as "ours is not to know the reasons why" or "God's ways are mysterious" or "God cannot be understood with logic."
---------------------> "My work here is done." -- my 5-year-old son, Zach.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is a serious mathematical error in this argument. You have claimed that John = infinity, however, infinity minus infinity does NOT equal zero. Infinity is not actually a number, it is what we call a "limit." Something can only be in the state of approaching infinity, never equal to it (per se). Infinity minus infinity is what we call an "indeterminate form" and has no exact answer, it is strictly dependent on the particular function with which one is considering. Unfortunately for you, you are not considering a function which renders this line of reasoning invalid.