An Omnipotent God is Logically Impossible

>Existence exists.

>I Perceive.

>Something exists which someone perceives.

>Someone exists who possesses consciousness, which is the faculty of perceiving what exists.

>There are different things that come out of this existence.

>Existence, with different intensities and consistencies makes different attributes which define these different things.

>A is A. A has certain attributes, that distinguish it incontrovertibly from B or C.

>If a thing has no attributes, then it is a nonentity–it does not and cannot exist.

>A can not be B at the same time as it is A if they have different opposing attributes. Contradiction doesn’t work.

>If you come to a conclusion in your logic that has a contradiction, at least one of your premises which brought you to that conclusion must be wrong.

>This Principle over the existence of paradoxes is absolute. In any attempt to dismiss you would actually have to apply it.

>Thus it cannot be created, it is pre-existent. It is a fundamental law of reality.It is part of what defines reality.

>If a God exists he would have to be bound by it.

>To say he is not means he is not bound by reality, which means he does not, in relative to us, exist.

>If he is bound by it, he does exist. But is not omnipotent.

>To say he is omnipotent would be to say he has dominion over The Law of Paradoxes, which is illogical. An omnipotent God is impossible.
____________________________
>Causes were caused by something.

>Effects have an effect.

>Cause and effect are bound.

>To say they are not is to say things do not have to operate upon logic, that something can happen for no reason and that something can happen to which does not have any effect.

>This principle of cause and effect is another fundamental law of reality which is absolute and is part of what defines reality. It cannot be created.

>If there is a God he would have to be bound by this law.

>To say he is not means he is not bound by reality, which means he does not, in relative to us, exist.

>If he is bound by it, he does exist. But is not omnipotent.

>To say he is omnipotent would be to say he has dominion over the law of cause and effect, which is illogical. An omnipotent God is impossible.

>If God exists, he does not need a beginning if he exists outside time. But if he exists, he is bound by reality and those things which define it, which are it’s laws. The law of cause and effect, though not requiring a beginning of God does require that he have a cause for existence.

>This also means that if there is a God he would not be omnipotent because some outside force must have caused him.
____________________________
>Effects cannot cause themselves. circular reasoning doesn’t work.

>This Law of Circular Reasoning is absolute and another fundamental law of reality which is part of what defines it. It cannot be created.

>If there is a God he would have to be bound by this law.

>To say he is not means he is not bound by reality, which means he does not, in relative to us, exist.

>If he is bound by it, he does exist. But is not omnipotent.

>To say he is omnipotent would be to say he has dominion over The Law of Circular Reasoning, which is illogical. An omnipotent God is impossible.

Further more, consider this; if God is omnipotent he can lift any stone, but he can also make a stone that he cannot lift, if he cannot lift any stone he is not omnipotent and if he cannot make a stone that he cannot lift he is not omnipotent, yet, to be able to do both is contradictory, it simply isn’t possible.

And further more still, IF there actually is a logical reason for the very existence of God, that in itself would mean that God is bound by that logic, it would be the cause for God and have dominion over him. But if there is NO logical reason for the existence of God, that would mean God does not exist.

View Image

Advertisements

One Response to “An Omnipotent God is Logically Impossible”

  1. That which necessarily exists in itself nevertheless is dominated by the human ability to abstract ‘existence’ as a thing in itself.

    Human practical and intellectual abilities are in regard to the synthetic physical world, and to the finite practical tasks regarding that world. Human thinking appears capable easily of understanding only that over which humans most naturally have power. So, human thinking naturally is of a dissociative/synthetic analytic type: ‘from the bottom, up’ as it were. This method of thinking is very good at invoking parsimony. But, even minor auto diagnostics presupposes an entire, functioning automobile: from the top, down.

    The reason it is possible for a machine to discohere is because a machine is not its own source of power. It is possible for a machine to discohere, which is how a machine has the power to cause itself to discohere (disease, death, injury, amputation, inconsistent reasoning about omnipotence, erroneous belief, arrogance, etc.).

    A machine has the potential to make another machine like itself precisely because a machine is a synthetic power. This ability is not a direct ability, however, and for the same reason: a machine is a synthetic power: a machine’s own coherent powers are mere products of more basic powers.

    So, it is possible, in itself, for a machine to discohere, and to recohere. Therefore, any power which is equal to, or greater than, a given machine has the power to cause that machine to discohere or recohere.

    But, a machine shall not have the actual power to recohere (heal), or to make another machine like itself (reproduce), unless the machine in question is both at least functionally self-aware and in functional contact with the more basic powers of which itself is made. (Or, if that’s not quite all accurately described, then at least you sort of get what I’m getting at.)

    A power made up of other powers is subject to discohere. Such a power is a machine: synthetic, contingent. But, there must be a power which is not subject to discohere, else there be an infinite regress of powers/causes.
    Whatever is the foundational power is omnipotent. Otherwise, omnipotence is the sum of an infinite regress of powers. Omnipotence is omnifarious infinite potential: inifinite power in all things which are, in themselves, possible.

    Power is abstracted as agency: the ability to bring about a given state of affairs. Love is therefore a kind of power over those who love. This is not domination or control, as of a man over a draft animal by way of a whip and bridle. Rather, a superior kind of love is superior to a love over which it is superior.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: