Being all-powerful

[Ravenmaster]

Here are a couple observations I\'ve made about being omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (everywhere at once), and omniscient (all-knowing):

Omnipotent:
It is impossible to be omnipotent. For example, if you were omnipotent, you would be able to make a bar of metal so strong, that even you can\'t bend it. Now, if you can bend it, you aren\'t all-powerful because you can\'t make one that you can\'t bend, and if you can\'t bend it, you aren\'t all-powerful either, because you can\'t bend it.

Omnipresent:
It would suck to be omnipresent.  First of all, your nose would constantly be up your own butt. Everyone else\'s too.  I\'m sure you can think of other places you would never want to be, but always would be.

Omniscient:
Knowing everything would also suck.  For example, after you\'ve played a game so long, it gets boring. You already know most of the secrets of the game, it has just lost its excitement.  Now, imagine if you already new all the secrets to EVERY game, and not just every game, but EVERYTHING! Then there would be no more excitement, no surprise.  Your life would be extraordinarily dull and there is nothing you could do for fun, not read books or watch movies, or anything.

I put up this post because I miss the controversial and intellect-filled posts that were common a month ago, when I first joined, like the evolution thread and the New Program that Reads Minds thread. So, please post anything that requires thought here.

[acraig]

Originally posted by Ravenmaster

Omnipotent:
It is impossible to be omnipotent. For example, if you were omnipotent, you would be able to make a bar of metal so strong, that even you can\'t bend it. Now, if you can bend it, you aren\'t all-powerful because you can\'t make one that you can\'t bend, and if you can\'t bend it, you aren\'t all-powerful either, because you can\'t bend it.

I think the simple answer here is that you can make the bar but you choose not to. That way you are still omnipotent.

-------------
Andrew

[Ravenmaster]

That doesn\'t work.  Because you can\'t create the bar, it\'s not that you just don\'t choose to.  There\'s an infinite amount of things you can\'t do.  You can\'t create a wall that can\'t be broken and a cannonball that breaks anything it hits, you can\'t create a game so complicated you can\'t beat it, you can\'t create a carrot so big you can\'t eat it all, you can\'t... well, you can\'t do a lot of things. Basically anything that outdoes yourself.  It\'s not that you can do it but choose not to, although you could tell people that.

Here\'s something else I just thought of:

What is the significance of this small period of time:

March 14 at 1:59 and 26 seconds am in the year 5358

[kinshadow]

Here\'s a random thought:

The traditional argument against an \"all-powerful\" being (the whole \"bend the bar\" thing) assumes that the being in question has only one manifestation/form.  If a being/god has an infinite number of forms, each more powerful than the last, then the current form of said being could be considered \"all-powerful\" from the vantage of the lesser forms.  Conversely, the same being must also posses an infinite number of weaker forms to the point of nothingness.

Thus, while the current aspect (and lesser forms) can?t break the bar, there is always a more powerful aspect that can.  Also, if the least powerful form is ?nothing?, the most powerful form must be ?everything? (or its equivalent) and therefore can alter reality to whatever it desires.  Thus, the being can change the rules to suit the situation and can be said to never ?disprove? itself.

[Wormtail_]

My thoughts on omniscence:

It may be true that if you knew everything, life would be dull. However, there is one thing that you can do to make life interesting. You would obviously know how to make life interesting if you were omniscient, so technically, you could \'make\' life interesting fo ryou. Also, while playing a game, you can \'make\' yourself not know the secrets to the game because you can push them into the back of your head and not use that information, so you would be surprised. You would do this because you would \'know\' how to do so if you were omniscent, and you would do so because you want to make your life interesting.

Just a thought. For now, I can\'t find any arguments or observations for your observations on being omnipresent and omnipotent... yet.

[Ravenmaster]

Well thanks for finally responding.
I have a quick question.

Originally posted by kinshadow
The traditional argument against an \"all-powerful\" being (the whole \"bend the bar\" thing) assumes that the being in question has only one manifestation/form.

You said \"traditional\". Does that mean you have heard this argument before? I thought I had not only come up with the idea behind it, but also the example of the bar.  I\'m not sure of my opinions on your point, though.

As for Wormtail, just because you know how to do something, doesn\'t mean you can do it. Also, you wouldn\'t necessarily know how to do everything. It\'s quite possible that some things are impossible to do, therefore, just because you know everything, doesn\'t mean you know how to do everything, because it might be something that is impossible to do.

Another thought on omniscience: If there were a god, who created the universe, where the whole universe existed only in his/her mind, he/she would have to be omniscient.  It would be impossible for someone within his (I\'m just gonna use his instead of his/her from now on, so if there are any feminists reading this, please don\'t get offended, and if you do get offended, get over it, and if you don\'t get over it, well I don\'t care.) mind to know something he doesn\'t know.  For example, if you were a Narrator (GM, DM, whatever. In my games I call it a Narrator) of a game, you would essentially be the god of that game.  No character can know anything that you don\'t know, and if they do, as soon as they expose it, you know it. Therefore you are omniscient.  

[Sarth]

Ravenmaster wrote:

You said \"traditional\". Does that mean you have heard this argument before? I thought I had not only come up with the idea behind it, but also the example of the bar.

Hmmm, sorry, but neither the idea nor the example are original. I\'m pretty sure the idea has been around for a looooooong time indeed ....