Problem of Omnipotence

[ZodiacKiller]

Some of you have already probably heard of this, but I wondered how you'd respond to it:

A) An omnipotent being, such a god, can do anything;
B) An omnipotent being could then, create for example a chair in which no being could sit;
C) An omnipotent being has no limits- thus he could sit in the chair from premise B;
D) If that being can make something with an unbreakable ruleset, and then break that ruleset, he cannot make an unbreakable ruleset;
thus
E) An omnipotent being, such as "god", cannot exist;

[Sage]

Inb4 someone comes in with "god is beyond our comprehension" or some stupid bullshit of a similar vein.

[ZodiacKiller]

lolz

[Magus]

An omnipotent being, such as "god", cannot exist

Cool story bro!

Although, the same story goes to any Omnibenevolent and or Omniscient and and or Omnipresent entity. They simply do not exist in our closed system universe.

[ZodiacKiller]

I'd like to see you apply an argument for omnibenevolence, omniscience, or omnipresence (well... omnipresence is easy so I wouldn't be as impressed).

[Magus]

I'd like to see you apply an argument for omnibenevolence, omniscience, or omnipresence (well... omnipresence is easy so I wouldn't be as impressed).

Sorry, I am a simpleton.

[huginnmuninn]

Sorry, I am a simpleton.

we forgive you :p

[The Batman]

Some of you have already probably heard of this, but I wondered how you'd respond to it:

A) An omnipotent being, such a god, can do anything;
B) An omnipotent being could then, create for example a chair in which no being could sit;
C) An omnipotent being has no limits- thus he could sit in the chair from premise B;
D) If that being can make something with an unbreakable ruleset, and then break that ruleset, he cannot make an unbreakable ruleset;
thus
E) An omnipotent being, such as "god", cannot exist;

The problem with this post is part D. You're saying "if" not saying that it did happen. So for all we know it's not an unbreakable ruleset or that it only applies to whatever that being wants it to apply to.

[ZodiacKiller]

You missed the point, I am not saying it did happen, I said it may!
Either he is restricted to making rulesets that can be broken (aka he can't make an unbreakable ruleset), or he can't break a ruleset he already made.
The point is not that he did do it and does have restrictions, but that he may and theoretically could have restrictions. A being with theoretical restrictions can not be omnipotent.

[Amnesiac]

Some of you have already probably heard of this, but I wondered how you'd respond to it:

A) An omnipotent being, such a god, can do anything;
B) An omnipotent being could then, create for example a chair in which no being could sit;
C) An omnipotent being has no limits- thus he could sit in the chair from premise B;
D) If that being can make something with an unbreakable ruleset, and then break that ruleset, he cannot make an unbreakable ruleset;
thus
E) An omnipotent being, such as "god", cannot exist;

What this shows is that the idea of God is contradictory and flawed. The only argument that could be used in defense of God is "he is beyond our comprehension" which is just another vague excuse that explains nothing. The problem of omnipotence proves that, in this universe, such a being is not possible. However, people dedicated to God will do anything to protect "Him" from being disproved.

[The Batman]

You missed the point, I am not saying it did happen, I said it may!
Either he is restricted to making rulesets that can be broken (aka he can't make an unbreakable ruleset), or he can't break a ruleset he already made.
The point is not that he did do it and does have restrictions, but that he may and theoretically could have restrictions. A being with theoretical restrictions can not be omnipotent.

I get what you're saying, but my point is that we don't know if he did make a ruleset or not. This is a debate of "if this happened then it cannot be real" and the problem with those kind of debates is that the opposite of it is true as well "if it didn't happen then it can be real".

[ZodiacKiller]

Except we are arguing different things. You're arguing "did it happen" while I argue "can it happen", because if it can happen then the contradiction is still there, even if it is not in action. Theoretical contradictions are all that are needed to disprove absolute positives. When one says "x is true", when X is not a solid fact, then only one theoretical contradiction (or one actual contradiction) is needed to disprove it.
The same is not true for absolute negatives ("x is not true"), because one is not stating a pure absolute, but an altered absolute where the arguing is not based on "does god not exist" but "does god exist".
Tell me if that didn't make sense, I tried to make it as sensible as possible.

[The Batman]

Except we are arguing different things. You're arguing "did it happen" while I argue "can it happen", because if it can happen then the contradiction is still there, even if it is not in action. Theoretical contradictions are all that are needed to disprove absolute positives. When one says "x is true", when X is not a solid fact, then only one theoretical contradiction (or one actual contradiction) is needed to disprove it.
The same is not true for absolute negatives ("x is not true"), because one is not stating a pure absolute, but an altered absolute where the arguing is not based on "does god not exist" but "does god exist".
Tell me if that didn't make sense, I tried to make it as sensible as possible.
That makes more sense to me then your first post so I get what you're saying now.

[ZodiacKiller]

ok (im writing something random now because i need 4 characters- oh, thats more than four... and its not random)