Does the omnipotence paradox disprove God?

It disproves omnipotence because either God does not have the power to lift any stone or he does have the power to lift any stone, but then can not create a stone unliftable by him.

What would an omnipotent being do?

Omnipotence is the property of being all-powerful; it is one of the traditional divine attributes in Western conceptions of God. This notion of an all-powerful being is often claimed to be incoherent because a being who has the power to do anything would, for instance, have the power to draw a round square.

What are some examples of omnipotence?

The definition of omnipotent is someone or something that is all-powerful. An example of omnipotent is God. Having unlimited power or authority; all-powerful.

Can an omnipotent being be defeated?

No. First of all Omnipotent beings cannot be defeated. Heck a true omnipotent being doesn’t even exist in all of fiction. Omnipotent means “be able to do anything anytime anywhere.” A fictional Omnipotent being would be real, since Omnipotence is not limited to the boundaries of fiction.

Is the omnipotence paradox solved?

If a being is accidentally omnipotent, it can resolve the paradox by creating a stone it cannot lift, thereby becoming non-omnipotent. Unlike essentially omnipotent entities, it is possible for an accidentally omnipotent being to be non-omnipotent. The omnipotent being cannot create a stone it cannot lift.

Can a human be omnipotent?

No. Humans have physical limitations and thus can not be omnipotent. For example it is not possible for a human to turn all matter in the visible universe into photons.

What is omnipotence psychology?

n. in psychology, the delusion that one can personally direct, or control, reality outside of the self by thought or wish alone. —omnipotent adj. …

Who can beat an Omnipotent?

Simply he is the original one so you cannot beat him (unless he does not attack). So Omnipotence can only be achieved by the creator of everything or one who can copy ability and copy every single ability in the world. This makes it possible for the gods of things to defeat him.

Who came up with the omnipotence paradox?

The omnipotence paradox has medieval origins, dating at least to the 10th century, when the Saadia Gaon responded to the question of whether God’s omnipotence extended to logical absurdities. It was later addressed by Averroës and Thomas Aquinas.

Who discovered bootstrap paradox?

Though thought experiments about time travel date back centuries, the bootstrap paradox comes from Robert Heinlein’s story “By His Bootstraps.” It was published in the October, 1941 issue of the Astounding Science Fiction magazine under the pseudonym Anson MacDonald.

Is there a solution to the omnipotence paradox?

One solution of the omnipotence paradox is to make God omnipotent but still bound within the laws of logic. So while God could happily create matter out of absolutely nothing, violating conservation of energy, suddenly reverse the orbit of the planet Earth, violating conservation of momentum, God would still have be bound within the laws of logic.

What is the omnipotence paradox according to Homer Simpson?

—Homer Simpson. The omnipotence paradox refers to the apparently paradoxical ability of an omnipotent entity to both limit its powers and remain omnipotent. The paradox is used both as an argument against an omnipotent God and against the concept of true omnipotence.

Can an omnipotent being create a stone?

If no: the being’s power is limited, because it cannot create the stone. Either way, the allegedly omnipotent being has proven not to be omnipotent due to the logical contradiction present in both possible answers. The stone paradox can be substituted with similar examples. E.g.

What does it mean to say Y is omnipotent?

Y is omnipotent means “Y can do X” is true if and only if X is a logically consistent description of a state of affairs. This position was once advocated by Thomas Aquinas. This definition of omnipotence solves some of the paradoxes associated with omnipotence, but some modern formulations of the paradox still work against this definition.