Is omnipotence self-contradictory?

Well, I thought it would be interesting to see how this turned out. I'm sure you're all familiar with the classic ''can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it'' example, which has been argued to death on both sides, with no clear result. Before I proceed, let me point out that I have used this argument before, and now see that the argument is far more complex than this.Here is my discussion of omnipotence. I do not wish to prestate where I am heading with this, although many of you probably already know, since it will bias people toward or against my arguments. Feel free to post your own arguments, to criticize or support mine, or to just merely state whether or not you think omnipotence is self-contradictory.The problem with omnipotence rests in the fact that it is not really measurable. The ''create a rock so heavy that cannot lift it'' argument relies on this notion, and so cannot really be argued effectively for or against. However, let us create a function P(xj s.t. j belongs to J) to measure the power of a being. Each variable xj is some aspect that determines a being's power. J is an arbitrary set, which may be finite or infinite, and countable or uncountable. This function, which I will now abbreviate P(X) (where X = {xj s.t. j belongs to J}), has a few basic properties, even though the exact function cannot, for obvious reasons, be determined. The first is that an omnipotent being should maximize P(X), and that the omnipotent being should be unique (in other words, if P(A) = P(B) and P(A) = max(P(X)), then A = B). In other words, no two different sets of conditions should be able to yield the maximum power. Moreover, it can be assumed that P(X) is weakly monotone. That is to say, given to sets A and B, if ai > bi for some i belonging to J, and ak = bk for all other k belonging to J, then P(A) > P(B). This is only natural, considering that, for example, a being that can lift a 1000 pound rock, holding all other abilities constant, is necessarily more powerful than a being that can lift a 999 pound rock.Now, omnipotence can fall into two categories: either it can be constrained by logical paradoxes; or it can defy logical paradoxes. Let us consider each case separately.Case 1 (constrained by logical paradoxes)Given that the being is constrained by logical paradoxes, it cannot both be able to lift any weight and create a rock so heavy it cannot lift. This does not defy omnipotence, however, since omnipotence was said to be constrained by logical paradoxes. Now, consider two set, A and B. All properties are assumed to be maximized, save for two: the ability to create a rock so heavy that it cannot be lifted (belonging to A); and the ability to lift any weight (belonging to B). One of these two bundles, however, must be the set that yields omnipotence, since no other properties can be altered to increase P(X). The natural conclusion would be to state that the ability to lift any weight would be more ideal than the ability to create a rock so heavy that it cannot be lifted, so that the set B would be preferred to A. It is important to note that P(B) is not greater than P(A) by mere monotonicity, since set A contains an ability that set B does not, and since set B has an improved form of an ability that set A has. Now, consider under what circumstances set B might be preferred. Say there is a rock that the being needs to move from point C to point D. With set B, the rock could simply be picked up and moved there. However, with A, this is not possible. Let us presume that, with set A, the being can lift a maximum weight of w, and that the rock has a weight of q, such that q > w. By the Archimedian Property, there exists a natural number N s.t. wN > q. Hence, w > q/N. In other words, if the rock is broken up into N pieces of equal weight, the being should be able to lift each piece separately. By moving the pieces separately from C to D and reforming to rock at point D, it can mimick the action of simply moving the rock from C to D. Consider that, for any time (t1 > 0) it takes the being to move the original rock from C to D, there is some time t2 s.t. t1 > t2 > 0 (this follows from the fact that the set of all real numbers is dense). Hence, the time it takes the being to move the rock from C to D is lim(tx) (tx->0) = 0. In the case where it must move each piece separately, the time taken to move the rock from C to D is lim(N*tx) (tx->0) = N*lim(tx) (tx->0) = N*0 = 0. Hence, the method applied under set A takes no more time than the method applied under set B. Similar logic can be applied for energy expenditure, inconvenience, etc. In other words, the being would have no preference between sets A and B under such circumstances. Similar logic can be applied to other circumstances. Hence, the power of a being is the same in A and B, so P(A) = P(B). However, we now have P(A) = P(B) = max(P(X)) when A =/= B, which contradicts the original assumption. Hence, omnipotence is self-contradictory in the case of it being constrained by logical paradoxes.Case 2 (unconstrained by logical paradoxes)In this case, being unconstrained by logical paradoxes, the omnipotent being could obviously both lift any rock and create a rock so heavy that it could not be lifted. By similar logic, the omnipotent being could create a being more powerful than itself, since it is unconstrained by this evident logical paradox. Let Y be the set for the omnipotent being, and Z be the set for the new being. Hence, P(Z) > P(Y). However, since P(Z) > P(Y), P(Y) =/= max(P(X)), meaning that the being of set Y is not omnipotent, which is a clear contradiction. Hence, omnipotence is self-contradictory under case 2.Given omnipotence is self-contradictory in both cases, omnipotence is self-contradictory.Thanks to all those who post. Sorry my OP was so long :P.Is omnipotence self-contradictory?
As you point out ever so unclearly (:P), omnipotence is a contradiction of itself.Is omnipotence self-contradictory?
[QUOTE=''Genetic_Code'']As you point out ever so unclearly (:P), omnipotence is a contradiction of itself.[/QUOTE]Yeah, I was afraid people wouldn't understand my arguments. It's hard to explain these things over the internet.... :cry:
yes and infinite regression makes it impossible for omnipotence to even exist.
Constrained by logical paradoxes: God can't commit suicide, so he's no omnipotent.Unconstrained by logical paradoxes: When asked to do something without breaking the laws of logic, God can't do it. Therefore, he's not omnipotent.
[QUOTE=''chessmaster1989'']:cry:[/QUOTE]



Make a YouTube video if you can. I always find those to be the best learning references.
Yeah omnipotence is just some BS religion made up. But people get upset when I tell them this because they think I'm arguing against God's existence. Not so, just saying that if there is a God, we have to update how we think of it; ergo (I love using that word), if there is God, it would surely have physical limitations (probably much less than we have but limitations nonetheless).
[QUOTE=''chessmaster1989''][QUOTE=''Genetic_Code'']As you point out ever so unclearly (:P), omnipotence is a contradiction of itself.[/QUOTE]Yeah, I was afraid people wouldn't understand my arguments. It's hard to explain these things over the internet.... :cry:[/QUOTE]



Yeah I kind of gave up on it after I realized the whole 2 paragraphs were dealing with functions. I'll give it another go when I feel more energized :p

this works