The Problem of Omnipotence

[@AntiCitizenX]

This is how you do philosophy properly. You define a word, you poke at the definition until it breaks, and then you revise the definition so that it isn't broken any more. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[@thulyblu5486]

17:12 "But can we please all be grown up enough to admit that this is nothing more than an indirect admission of defeat?" .....

[@Arrakiz666]

Couple of things here, because I have to nitpick. Don't hold it against me daddy: 1. Establishing your definitions by creating extensive lists of traits is veeeerry sloppy and that's not actually how we usually do that. How you make a good definition is create a set of rules, like an algorithm, that will sort things into them or outside of them for you. For example you don't list a selection of traits which would make a good automotive technician, you set a simple rule- _can they fix a car._ And the reason is pretty simple- you don't have time to play word games daddy. Also, in your daily life, you never require an empirical test to see if the automotive technician is good or not, you have to go by the company's reputation. So essentially you have to trust them. I know that's unfortunate, but that's the sort of intrinsic bias humans have- we rely on trust and the claims of others because it saves a lot of time. Reinventing the wheel just because you feel your caveman bro botched it would take way too long if everybody did it. 2. The idea of absolute omnipotence existed long before the Bible. You sort of imply that that's where the idea comes from while it isn't. 3. You say that the Universe doesn't care whether our words are coherent or not but it... Kinda sorta does. Language is the framework you use to understand the world and since reality is all that appears to be real to you, things you cannot define coherently simply cannot exist. 4. You go about determining what a logically possible action would be pretty bad. An action is logically possible if it can be expressed as a valid syllogism. That's all there is to it. You're trying to reverse engineer it by first appealing to an empirical observation. Iiiiii kind of see now why a lot of philosophers sneer at you. Not me daddy, just... Others. 5. The whole rock-pilling thing is... A bit off. It's a bit off because it could be said about you as well that you can lift any finite rock (with enough help). If Q gets to use magic, why wouldn't get to use technology? 6. You wouldn't be able to truthfully state that you're not omnipotent _if you were omnipotent._ Demanding that from an omnipotent thing turns it from a logically possible proposition to a logically impossible one. 7. See this is what this reliance on empirical tests leads to. You have to remember the words and definitions you use. If an omnipotent being can only do logically possible things for them, whether a non-omnipotent being can or cannot do them is irrelevant. It's a category error. Russel would be pissed at you daddy. And this is why in logic you don't start with long lists of empirical tests, you start with statements and rules.

[@cerberushex9705]

@AntiCitizenX A being with all powers would have the power to do the logically impossible. There all the issues are gone, you are welcome sir.

[@Voidsworn]

Meaning it can make itself exist and not exist simultaneously...that would be a nifty trick.

[@cerberushex9705]

@Voidsworn lol right! It could also lift something to big for it to lift or lie while still not lying. This is the definition I use on the more militant. Every time they think of something wrong just say "something with all powers has the power to do that (thing).

[@krazer9515]

Ya, you don't bow down to him cause he is omnipotent. That would be nuts. You bow because he is John de Lancie.

[@sd-yn1yu]

lol

[@PaulTheSkeptic]

I like the Q episodes. Some Trek viewers I've heard say they're not all that taken with the character and they don't care for the Q episodes. But I do. It's not the most heady or intellectual sort of science fiction. It's more of a fantasy. But it's fun. TNG is usually very serious in tone and Q provides a welcome respite every once in a while. I think so anyway. Just my two cents.

[@Vario69]

He also voices Discord from MLP. I love Discord. I'd bow

[@priasethecow]

Q: I'm omnipotent - I can do anything, go anywhere and know everything - challenge me to a task I can not do.. Me: Get lost

[@ispd123]

Me: ok, create a being more powerful than you.

[@einekartoffel2490]

Me: Make creating such a being more contructive and then create it.

[@KiraSlith]

Married Bachelors exist. I donw one who's name is literally "Guy"

[@einekartoffel2490]

The Jim Reaper If you say they can create a task that they cannot fulfill then you're basically granting them the power of contradiction. They create the task and then solve it. It's contradictory but they can do it. If you don't grant them the power of contradiction then they cannot create the task, but still be perfectly Omnipotent. As an Omnipotent being is a being that can do all and a task that cannot be fulfilled by such a being is a contradiction.

[@einekartoffel2490]

Let's say: 1.) An Omnipotent being can do all. 2.) Thus an Omnipotent being is a being that can fulfill all tasks. 3.) Creating a task that said being can't fulfill is something the being can do. 4.) A task that cannot be fulfilled by a being that can fulfill all tasks is a contradiction. 5.) We now throw all logic out of the window since an Omnipotent being can simply ignore contradictions. I never said you would not be able to ask him this. Where did that come from? An Omnipotent being would - depending on the definition of Omnipotent- not be confused by a mere mortal. He/She would probably be well aware of what you're playing on. It's not the fault of the Omnipotent that we mortals come up with a vague abstract concept with a definition we apparently cannot agree on and then try to debunk it. There is the kind that allows an Omnipotent being to make 1 apple and 1 apple be equal to 3 apples, create a square circle and perform the action described by a cat rolling on a keyboard. It creates the rock and lifts it, while it stays unliftable. It makes no sense, but it just simply is above the laws of the universe and all else. There is the kind that doesn't allow the Omnipotent being to do anything logically impossible. It's allpowerful as it can do everything logically possible. The logically impossible isn't a thing. Nothing at all. Doesn't exist. It either can create the rock and or it can't. Both contradictory and so is not actually things. He'd not be confused, but politely remind you that your question is false. Well, possibly. I do not know any such Omnipotents. Simply saying that "AHA, it cannot do that thing so it isn't Omnipotent!" doesn't disprove anything as this is a different definition of Omnipotence. P.S.: I'm sorry if the formatting is a bit weird. KZbin comments are for some reason malfunctioning on my computer.

[@p.v.rangacharyulu241]

I'm a married bachelor. I'm married to loneliness.

[@plantingasbulldog2009]

Sadly relatable.

[@lurker_dude1955]

*Sad react*

[@tochoXK3]

I'm a bachelor and I'm not interested in getting married or even having a marriage-like relationship without technically marrying anytime soon. Weird, I know. (Yes, I'm over 18 years old)

[@kylelundgren5133]

So am I but, I have no desire to be in a relationship with anyone.

[@valivali8104]

@@tochoXK3 have people told you to get married or into serious relationship? I'm married, but don't understand why some people demand that others have to have relationship others don't want to have.

[@buddyltd]

Creating a married bachelor: 1 - Gay couple marries. 2 - They move to a country/place where external same-sex marriage isn't recognised. The men are simultaneously married and bachelors. Legally speaking anyway.

[@josemao6984]

buddyltd that’s clever

[@kadnan6111]

yeah but we arent speaking legally

[@teletoonfan]

@@kadnan6111 it was never said that it couldnt be only in the legal sense...besides, marriage is only a legal institution...nothing physical changes when a marriage occurs...

[@golden-63]

@Buddy: That's so clever, I wish I had thought of it!

[@jaebird3077]

GaYs CaNt MaRrY tHaTs NoT gOdS wAy hahaha you are a clever one though maybe you should be omnipotent

[@Rimpala]

Not gonna lie, if John de Lancie came to my door, I'd probably start bowing.

[@patrickowens4294]

Richard Thomas same here.

[@LasVegar]

Richard Thomas, I thought it stod blowing and not bowing. Hahaha

[@JohnMorris-ge6hq]

Richard Thomas I am a BIG Star Trek fan myself but REALLY....Come on! You worship an actor. Now William Shatner you bow to.

[@energicko]

Met Mr. de Lancie once at a convention. Despite the "Q" continuum reputation & his role on "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle," he was a real approachable, down to Earth guy. Even the goatee he had on threw me off. Too bad Keegan de Lancie his son wasn't there. A.K.A. q-Junior on "Voyager."

[@zeynaviegas]

i first read blowing

[@breadfan7433]

This is one of my favorite videos (among so many on your channel), but I gotta say this: You are wrong about absolutism and the existence of gods. My girl flargled my snuffin last night, thereby proving that she is a goddess. Naturally, I had no choice but to "bow" down on her...

[@ZuoKalp]

I'm not here for the debate of religious themes, but to comprehend with easy to understand examples how we use tools as "language" and "logic" to solve problems. Thanks for your efforts making these videos.

[@valivali8104]

@Adolf Stalin how?

[@valivali8104]

@Adolf Stalin that explains nothing.

[@valivali8104]

@Adolf Stalin shifting burden of proof, eh? 🙄🤦‍♀️

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

As a Christian, I find the problem of omnipotence to be silly. If we define omnipotence to be logically contradictory and then say that its logically contradictory, we haven't assessed anything. Everything can be logically impossible at this point. Here's an absurd proof that still works by the OP's own logic. 1. God is defined as an omnibenevolent being. 2. Omnibenevolence means unlimited goodness. 3. It is not good to create the universe. 4. God created the universe. 5. God is an omnibenevolent being who created the universe. (Contradiction) 5. God does not exist (3 and 5) I can define anything to be the case and still be right. This is the VERY THING YOU CONDEMN in the Ontological argument. 1. God is defined as a necessary being. 2. A necessary being exists in all possible worlds. 3. A necessary being exists in the actual world. 4. A necessary being exists. 5. God exists. (1 and 4) In my opinion, it is hypocritical to use logic like this if you are the same person that condemns it.

[@scotte4765]

@@TheSpacePlaceYT *If we define omnipotence to be logically contradictory* He didn't do this. The definitions offered by other people simply turned out to be this way when they were considered closely. Your two proofs are indeed absurd, however.

[@Alphenex]

That’s pure evil, asking an omnipotent being to flargle a snuffin when our species is near extinct. How truly insensitive you are to our plight. This requires a public apology and admission of guilt as well as resignation immediately in order to make up for this major indiscretion. On behalf of the snuffin’s I wait for your response to this outrage, #SnuffinLivesMatter

[@TinyLadyKris]

the thing about that, is that in that situation god would look at what your mind thinks of when you say flargle a snuffin. i think of flargling like, fluffing up a bunnies fur very aggressively. and i think of a snuffin as a tiny fluffy sentient ball of fur that snuffs around. or just wobbles. thus, he would fluff up a tiny fluffy sentient ball of fur that snuffles around aggressively. i am not christian.

[@kysier6015]

You say snuffin lives matter, but most snuffins are flargled by other snuffins.

[@channingdeadnight]

My God finally someone making sense

[@commenteroftruth9790]

@@kysier6015 you fucking snegal privileged gualng scrabbled scall!

[@owen-cu6gr]

Turns out that Snuffin is a racial slur, and Flargle is a combination of rape, genocide, and 9/11.

[@TheParanoidAndroid79]

I'll have you know sir that I happen to come from a long line of snuffin flarglers.

[@louisng114]

I will take that as a confession; I am a snuffin flagler police, and you are under arrest.

[@AntiCitizenX]

It's a long and proud tradition.

[@thiesenf]

And I come from a long line of flarglerd snuffers

[@robertseybold5745]

Then stay away from my girlfriend! I am the only one allowed to flargle her snuffin. In fact, I just did it earlier and she called ME omnipotent!

[@KessaWitdaFro]

Creating a married bachelor: Step 1: put a man in a box with a radioactive woman

[@poppers7317]

I looked and there was a dead man under the box.

[@Behemoth_Rogue]

Schrodinger's bachelor eh?

[@IconoclastX]

Lol this is quantum mechanics he is both married and not married at the same time. Clever.

[@0000-q3g]

Schrodingers Bachelor

[@thorbcrafter997]

why do you all make it so complicated. just make someone who has a split personality, one part of which is married while the other isnt thus the person as a whole is both married and not

[@veltonhix8342]

... and when everyone’s super.. no one will be! AHAHAHAHA AHAHAHA AHA!

[@charkopolis]

You sound a lot like Jason Lee! Haahaaa!

[@teakster03]

this dude is pushing the narrative that atheists are hotheaded, angry, religion hating, logic fanatic monsters. AND IT'S NOT HELPING! case an point: i don't want to be grouped in with this guy... :(

[@teakster03]

@@MitsyWuzHere I knew if I commented what I said no one would notice it. So I instead replied it to unrelated comment. idfk man

[@IconoclastX]

@@teakster03 lol

[@AndyHoward]

Reminds me of Bicycle Repairman (Monty Python)

[@commenteroftruth9790]

Well omnipotence is another thing created by people. So having a rational definition would benefit everyone.

[@GunNr-]

Omnipotence means that you can do anything even if it’s beyond logic.

[@commenteroftruth9790]

@@GunNr- yes

[@nickakaisuki1839]

@@GunNr- agree

[@BrotherJApologetics]

@@GunNr- no. It means all powerful

[@GunNr-]

@@BrotherJApologetics Being able to do anything despite logic isn't all powerful?

[@myname7937]

5:44 when english is not your native language and you waiste 2 min googling what those words mean. and then you realise you paused 1 sec before he said they're fake

[@AntiCitizenX]

LOL! That's funny.

[@kurtsimon7530]

OH man that is funny

[@copperboltwire320]

When* English* waste* Google* And* realize* .* English is not my native language, but at least I do not fail this bad... Also; Sorry, felt the need to correct thee.

[@kurtsimon7530]

you*(thee is archaic unless you're intentionally using that fashion as in I bid thee good night/farewell and other nerdy speech)

[@copperboltwire320]

Bes righting. Yet bes also wronging. Bes not speak like we bes. ((Few can even understand this nonsense...))

[@EmmittBrownBTTF1]

Can the Lord microwave a burrito so hot the Lord cannot eat it?

[@alphasaith8349]

God is incapable of receiving physical injury, so I'm gonna go with no.

[@EmmittBrownBTTF1]

Yep, his omnipotentence is broken for sure - should check the warranty and take it back, perhaps ask for a refund.

[@honeychurchgipsy6]

all he has to do is give it a few minutes to cool down and not be such a greedy bastard - lol!!!

[@davidweihe6052]

Microwaving a burrito so hot he cannot eat it is easy. Microwave it to the point that the carbon evaporates, which should take care of all the elements that evaporate ate a lower temperature (i.e., all but carbon).

[@PerpetualTiredness]

That's from The Simpsons.

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

A competent automobile mechanic - but isn't that the definition of a Demi-God.....?

[@keithplayzstuff2424]

The problem is that they TIRE easily.

[@studmalexy]

a fractal can create a replica of itself with the exact same nature and characteristics of the "father" or "parent" fractal............the "son" fractal is the exact same as the parent fractal in every single way, and yet, not the same as the father...................I think this can explain the apparent paradox of Jesus claiming to be God almighty, and the son and also being the same as the father at the same time "if you have seen me you have seen the father". John 14:9.........................................so please,,,stop criticising Christians and making straw man arguments about us saying we are both "poly theists and monotheists and are just stupid Christians that cant make up our minds".................do you seriously think we have come to the revelation of our faith so lightly withought critical thinking?!................................also onto the issue of "sons of God".....and "only begotten son of God"....................we, humans, are sons of God,,we are his children....but we are not his "begotten" children......we don't have the exact nature, characteristics and abilities...............we can "beget" others like us and continue our family line,,,,,but at no point can our "begotten" children ever be like anything else apart from us(which is why I think evolution is a satanic blasphemy and mockery of Gods word since it implies we are on an "ascending path" through the generations)...............Jesus wasn't accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be a son of God,,,,,if he did,,the Jews would have been like "meh, ,,whatever,,,,no big deal"......Jesus was accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be the "BEGOTTEN" son of God.....a son of God after him in complete likeness, character and ability...........the Hebrews understood that a BEGOTTEN son takes on his fathers name, (normally profession), his inheritance and continues his family line.....................at to me, sounds like a fractal and explains why Jesus is both man, both God and yet "the son"....................ive only ever seen evidence of life coming from other life,,,,,,,,,,ive never seen life come from non life(but I'm willing to be proven wrong with evidence if you can).

[@keithplayzstuff2424]

studmalexy this is your comment in a nutshell: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,.........,,,,,..,,..,,,,,,,,,,.................

[@squirrelfish8200]

Only when you add "in a reasonable amount of time" they transcend to Godhood if you add "affordably" because if you are good at something you shouldn't do it for free

[@timkramar9729]

That would be something that doesn't exist

[@zenithquasar9623]

"Flargle a snuffin" is my favourite action phrase now!

[@samppakoivula9977]

But frankly isn't the problem here more of that YOU don't know the omnipotent being had completed the task? I mean since it is a sentence that doesn't mean anyhthing, then ANYTHING that omnipotent being should complete said task and then "flargle a snuffin" would come to mean that thing. Also, maybe "flargle a snuffin" DOES mean smthing in some other language, who knows...? So maybe absolutism IS possible Also, the rock problem assumes that God could materialize, as clearly an immaterrial beig can't lift something material? Also immaterial being lifting an immaterial rock makes even less sense, since immaterial rock wouldn't have mass and density, which are needed to it to be "heavy" or "light"

[@Shindai]

To be fair, if John de Lancey knocked on my door I'd probably start bowing from instinct, that guy's awesome

[@sirMAXX77]

See. This guy gets it.

[@mavendeo]

As would I.

[@dontcheckmychanel]

Hail Q, for he saved the Picard, and knew saints Sisko and Janeway.

[@TheJurnalyst]

Daniel Gould who is that?

[@ralphgoodman4670]

I'd kick his ass for ripping off Trelane and the Great Gazoo.

[@AlexReynard]

I could create a married bachelor. Not perfectly, but just whip up a situation where a drunk guy marries a stripper in vegas, has no memory of it, and goes back home thinking he's still single.

[@JamieAllen1977]

Try Shroedingers Bachelor : The divorce papers were either approved or not by the courts; it's in a sealed envelope; no one knows till it's opened.... and so he is either both or one or the other; so we see the quantum married bachelor..............it's a hell of a state to be in......

[@AlexReynard]

That example works a lot better. Touché.

[@AlexReynard]

That's pretty clever, actually.

[@marclaclear6628]

No amount of power could make a married bachelor so it is completely irrelevant as far as omnipotence is concerned.

[@marclaclear6628]

That would just be equivocation.

[@adrienfourniercom]

god can say he's a potato if he transforms him into a potato. But if he says it while a potato, he's not a geniune potato, because potatoes don't talk.

[@johannaweichsel3602]

I'M POTATO GOD!!

[@squirrelfish8200]

If christian god is everything then it is also part potato...

[@manowartank8784]

potatoes also don't transform themselves back into God -> end of God

[@aaronlandry3934]

Jaroslav Jůza Way around that paradox: the omnipotent being suspends the rules to turn himself back into his original form and reinstates the rules immediately after. Thus, being able to truly turn himself into a potato, and still remaining omnipotent.

[@theloffikilli4794]

So if he turn he turn into a potato he can't tell lie

[@petabrain]

As a programmer, to a program that lives in my computer, one which I would happen to be developing, I am an omnipotent being. I am capable of amending every sort of thing in that program's universe (being my computer). I could mock inputs, change time, terminate the "universe", change the rules in that "universe", create interruptions, and amend the shape of that program itself. I could even simulate things that would be paradoxical to the universe that I myself live in. From the perspective of that program, the possibilities are endless, regardless of the given rules that it is currently run in. So an omnipotent being to you as a human, would be that engineer to a computer program. It's not a self refuting concept, it's just not falsifiable or testable, and for that reason it's not worth spending our time in examination of it. Just like any other terminology, senseless people would nonsensically define this term. Despite these people not being able to accurately or coherently express what they mean like little babies, we are perfectly capable of understanding what they mean. What you are doing here, despite the good will, is sophistry. Rather than enlightening people with actual meanings to produce philosophical progress, you're running a play of words which mostly results in confusion and misunderstanding, and mockery of less philosophically educated or literate people. None of this has value. In fact occupying the minds of your viewers with this huge mess has negative value. Good philosophy simplifies problems to greater clarity. It's just that philosophy wouldn't have much to say about this except for "Yeah, these people can't express what they mean correctly." and move on to something worth thinking about.

[@Elohist2009]

Ben Barkay well said bro; I would only disagree in that omnipotence is in my personal opinion, something worthwhile to pursue the meaning of, and your programmer analogy is spot on the reason why I think so; I want to know the “engineer”

[@childrenofmayhem7667]

Well put

[@Gunth0r]

And yet simply choosing to believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent, creative "force-entity", even without all the religious baggage, is looked at as being stupid. There's no point in approaching the heat death (or surviving in some techno-magical way only to do it all over again in the next universe), or to try to survive the universe if the universe is in all respects infinite, but there's very much a point in trying to approach God through science, philosophy and meditation.

[@NabPunk]

So basically you are saying that the omnipotent being might have created a universe that has laws but is not itself bound by those laws. As sound as that might sound, it totally disregards the problem, and in fact disregards all problems. Thinking of the universe in that light makes it meaningless, it just means we are a program going as the programmer wants us to go, that line of thinking makes all action, or lack there of, absolutely meaningless. Meaning itself has only any meaning in human imagination. Thinking of something that is beyond human limitations is the meaningless thing, as there is nothing to gain from it. If the said version of god exists, all is as it planned, and WE don't mean anything. Otherwise we mean what we think we do. Either way, no use thinking of that, only despair is at the end of that road. I have walked that path, trust me.

[@Gunth0r]

@@NabPunk 1) Despair for me personally is a total lack of free will and while I'm a big proponent of science (the part that doesn't wish to destroy belief and imagination) the most popular theories in neuroscience, psychology, sociology and even leading theories in quantum physics (concerning relativistic, granular localized time) are all slowly pushing us into an increasingly deterministic model (aiming to disprove free will or even asserting it outright in many cases). Based on the prevailing theories in most fields (including QM and astrophysics), we will never be able to escape this black box called the universe, save for the intervention of whatever entity encompasses it (or whatever else they would have you believe in the place of God, like 'we're a simulation'). Now, supposing there's no such entity, no God, where would you find meaning? What's the point of legacy in an infinite determined universe? To eventually die out when the universe ends and having made our mark? For whom? For what? To try and jump into the next higher-tier universe (simulation theory) or the adjacent one (multiverse theory)? Then what? Same thing over and over again? Where does it stop? It has to stop somewhere doesn't it? Perhaps there's some sort of chirality or fractal nature to it, in which case the pointlessness is again inherent in the infinite quality of existence. There's no point in infinite space-time. In the infinite, all finite things lose meaning. ([*]but in the finite, the infinite gains meaning? see point (2)) 2) Given my intermediate understanding of cosmology and quantum theories, as well as a good understanding of many religious and mystical texts, I believe Everything is but a projection from an absolute (dimension-less?) substrate. Now, with projection, I don't mean hologram like in star trek or something, but our material world and light and gravity are all natural interference patterns resulting from a deceptively chaotic but very much absolute and willful substrate. That substrate is the absolute force-entity I'm talking about. God, if you will. Now that you know what I mean, concretely, by this entity (for simplicity's sake and because of the overlapping qualities I mostly refer to this entity as God). [*] I believe said entity willed Everything, in order to see something refracted/reflected back. Or maybe its just a logical consequence of any system, in-universe or over-universe, no matter how 'perfect' it may be, to produce anomalies (resulting in our reality). As I said, the infinite may find meaning in the finite, which would explain why it willed/caused a self-partition of sorts (material projection of our universe, granularity, QM theory). I believe this substrate, this absolute entity, this God we speak of, finds meaning in our universe and in us. A dialogue between the self-less and the self. Between chaos and order. Between the infinite and the finite. Anyway, I'm ranting. What it comes down to is this: I believe in keeping both the avenue of science and logic; and the avenues of the wise, the mystical and religious experience open. They go hand in hand, regardless of what militant atheists would have you believe. We find more and better meaning and knowledge WITH these narratives than without, and to me it makes life not only worth living, but unconditionally GOOD.

[@Griexxt]

I just flargled a snuffin. He wasn't happy about it.

[@munstrumridcully]

Fuath maybe buy it dinner?

[@maingun07]

My snuffin turned around and flargled me right back. It tickled. Now I'm confused. There must be hentai to clear this up.

[@geshtu1760]

When you're all finished I'd like my snuffin back. It needs new batteries anyway.

[@thamasteroneill]

Griexxt You weren't doing it right then.

[@borisvandruff7532]

Did you just assume the snuffin’s gender?

[@klutterkicker]

24:35 With two omnipotent beings, you can make them enact the spear vs shield paradox!

[@axis4813]

well ya, thats why there are never two omnipotent beings within one fictional continuity.

[@axis4813]

The Q arnt omnipotent ya know they are just very very advanced

[@professionalmemeenthusiast2117]

When everything's omnipotent, no-one will be

[@sodacitymoto9283]

YOU GOT ME MONOLOGUING!

[@ratholin]

No capes!

[@incorrectlypolitical9525]

And when will this be? The singularity? Yay, can't wait..

[@Magnogen]

Dear Que, please define "Omnipotent". Thanks

[@SoundblasterYT]

agree see: inspiring philosophy

[@Xgya2000]

Loved this video! The third definition of omnipotence (Doing everything consistent with one's nature) was one I found funny even existed when I first encountered it. My first thought was: "Wait, you think everyone and everything's omnipotent? Everything I can do is consistent with my nature, and everything I cannot, isn't!"

[@tylerjones6683]

No, people usually define it in that way as the ability to do within God's nature, so you would not be omnipotent.

[@Xgya2000]

But then it becomes a tautology. "God can do everything within God's nature", or "God can do everything God can do" So can I do everything within my own nature.

[@CRAFTE.D]

Xgya2000 The definition was about god for one thing. Secondly, definition are tautological, aren’t they?

[@robertosinger5727]

They're not tautological... They're definitional. They're assertions... Is that too difficlut to wrap your brain around?

[@CRAFTE.D]

Roberto Singer Definitions are strings of words that are meant to reflect what a thing is, by being a referent to that thing. A man, is a man is a perfect definition of what a man is is- and that’s a tautology.

[@Thx1138sober]

My cousin flargled a snuffin and he got 6-months house arrest, 5 years probation and a lifetime ban from all SeaWorld and Universal Studios theme parks.

[@josephdavis9234]

I'm not much of a legal expert; is it normal for the probation to be so much longer than the arrest?

[@filipsperl]

I can do anything that I'm able to do, so I'm omnipotent, wow.

[@p.v.rangacharyulu241]

God: I'm omnipotent Me:prove it. God:gimme a task Me: bow down and become a slave for me for eternity. God: whaaaaaaaaat?

[@bluefiremarkii]

He is omnipotent. People seem to assume omnipotent means forced to do something. He has the ability to do anything but his agency (choice) does not allow it... obvious solution..

[@mr.knightthedetective7435]

God will just clone Himself and give you the clone. As if He would listen to you anyways...

[@pedunsound]

@FAT cat woah. the god clone wars

[@vitiated001]

@FAT cat r/wooooooosh

[@bigcat5984]

@@vitiated001 do you know what wooosh means???

[@Martymer81]

Omnipotence: n. See plot hole.

[@nateslovebug]

Martymer 81 A wizard did it!

[@ericklopes4046]

It's called "Holly bible" because it has holes in the plot.

[@Martymer81]

Erick Lopes: Yup, that would explain it.

[@guytheincognito4186]

Martymer 81 Love your videos, looking forwards to more debunkes of FlatEarthers and spirit science BS 👍😎👌

[@guytheincognito4186]

Martymer 81 Omnipotents also known as Plot armor lol

[@DeconvertedMan]

Its been years since my gargle was snuffened :( #stillsingle

[@Yorker1998]

A new ACX video? What a treat this is! Thank you.

[@seafoamspirit3484]

i really like philosophy stuff like this, and here's another; how would an omniscient (all-knowing) deity know that there is nothing they do not know? if there is a box representing that which the deity knows, how would they know that nothing falls outside that box?

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

You assume such as omnipotent entity is limited to the human comprehension. But to answer... Yes and no. Omniscience is what you're looking for. And not all omnipotent entities fully understand omniscience. Why?... Free Will is why... Very few can see beyond Free Will. So most omnipotent entities are lead by their own soul, by their own desires. Kind of like religion... Humans amuse me.

[@kinyutaka]

A married bachelor - A man named Bachelor and his wife. Easy.

[@Sei783]

I accept.

[@bonemeat3917]

It would be grammatically incorrect.

[@kinyutaka]

TheBritishTwat Not really. Just an uncommon use of the phrasing. "A married man" is a man who is married. "A married Bachelor" could be a man, named Bachelor, who is married. Or a man with a Bachelor's Degree.

[@airarret]

Gerald Bieniek then he needs to make the actual married (the state of wife and husband) and bachelor (single) you can’t avoid it

[@kinyutaka]

StemSale the point is that if you only ask for "a married Bachelor", he can get around it with this word game of "a man named Bachelor who is married". You have to be more specific to catch him in a contradiction. He could even pull someone from an alternate universe where "bachelor" is the word for "a married man".

[@TyDie85]

This was just a ploy to show off how much you can lift, isn't it? :p great video! :)

[@davidhatcher7016]

lol

[@technopoptart]

i'm not hearing a "no"......

[@timkramar9729]

If you have a long enough lever, and a fulcrum, you can lift everything.

[@James4038-gaming]

I would think that a omnipotent with absolute power would be able to change the universe so any task you set them could be completed. As for your examples he could create something we would call a snuffin and create a meaning for the word flargle.And as for create a married bachelor he could simply change the meaning of the word bachelor to mean a married man. if a being holds true omnipotence he would be able to do all thing even things that are not logical as he could just change the universe to make them logical.

[@charkopolis]

So, what if an OB said "I have never been omnipotent, and have never existed. Including right now, while speaking this sentence."

[@James4038-gaming]

if it was truly an OB then surly removing themselves from existence could be done, the ability to chance reality and logic are kind of the point if were talking true omnipotence. so while your correct by our logic the OB could not be omnipotent and say what you said the OB could simply change reality and logic to a point he could say it and it would be true.

[@charkopolis]

Ok. I see what you mean. But I fear this doesn't resolve the issue. What would you expect to happen if an OB that does exist must continue to exist to utter the phrase? For me, this is reason enough to say that it is simply impossible for an OB to exist as defined with absolutism.

[@James4038-gaming]

I understand what your saying completely but think of this. we as humans can only imagine things in 3 dimensions but mathematics and computers can calculate using many more. a computer can plot a graph in 8 dimensions and interpret the results. so just because we as humans are not advanced (or smart) enough to understand something, that in in its self isn't reason to say it cant exist.

[@charkopolis]

I don't think anyone can purport to say they know everything. But what we can say is that, as defined, an OB must logically not exist. Maybe there is a OB-like being out there, but (in a very technical sense) that being is not what we're talking about. This is all about definitions. And, how a poorly defined word can show us that either the thing isn't logically consistent, or we simply need a better, more precise definition in its place.

[@amybrooks4669]

Quick warning: This is a huge comment with no easy TL;DR. Please read through it thoroughly and tell me what you think. I disagree with the comparison of an omnipotent being and a mechanic. Omnipotence is the power to do anything (which you later talk about in the video) but a mechanic is a profession that one works to achieve; Omnipotence is an ability that cannot be earned (At least not by any known method that humans possess). So by saying, "Basically the exact same situation as before" you're either implying that one must be born a mechanic and that one can't learn to become a mechanic, OR, you're saying that omnipotence is something that can be earned through hard work and dedication. Of course, neither of these are correct. On the topic of your challenges of "Flargle a snuffin," and "Create a married bachelor," you are forgetting that the definitions of words that we use are ever changing, and to a hypothetical omnipotent being those tasks may very well be achievable because there may be a period in time where either the words, "Flargle," and, "Snuffin" exist; or the terms, "Married," and, "Bachelor," may mean different things than what they do now. You touched on that the request that has been proposed is faulty, saying that, "That’s not a limitation on our subject, but another limitation on language itself." By requesting an omnipotent being to perform a logically contradicting action, such as, "Create a married bachelor," you do not disprove omnipotence, or even absolutism: all you reveal is a fault in language, or show a trait of human thought where we seek to challenge authority, even if it means we create impossible scenarios within our own minds. I disagree with the assumption that words need to be, "coherent, logical, and verifiable," since words often convey meaning, even if they are not logical. Words such as, "Yeet," or other words that often come with meme-culture are not logical, as they often convey no meaning at all; or if they do convey meaning, it is often inconsistent. However, even though these words don't convey meaning in a strict definition, they often have an alternate meaning that isn't tied to the word itself. For example: by saying, "Yeet," a word with no conventional meaning in and of itself, you are signalling to people that know about the culture of the word, which then creates a meaning to those people. Within this video, you often reference the Christian God and the Bible. You are also choosing to interpret the bible as strictly and as literally as possible, seemingly forgetting that it was people that wrote down what they believed was God and his actions, adding their interpretations to the text. "It is impossible for God to lie," is a sentence that was written down by a human on earth, and therefore included their interpretation of God. By saying that an omnipotent being should be able to lie, and then referencing a Bible passage that claims God cannot lie, does not prove that God isn't omnipotent, just that the author of that passage interpreted God as such. By issuing the challenge of, "Create a finite rock that its own maker cannot lift it," is a logical action that a human with a finite degree of strength can perform. Just because a challenge logically applies to humans, that does not necessarily mean that the same challenge would be able to logically applicable to an omnipotent being. This idea comes from the differences between animals on earth. For example: an ant can withstand 5000 times its own body weight of pressure, and a human cannot. The ant being able to withstand that much pressure is logically verifiable, but the same challenge being applied to a human is impossible for the human to perform. The assumption that an omnipotent being and a human being the same creature, and therefore obeying the same rules and logical outcomes, is a dubious idea at best. I'm currently at 13:38 in the video, and the attacks on Christianity are becoming tiresome; as many of your arguments against them are strawmen, being set-up simply so you can knock them down. Not every Christian believes that God is entirely omnipotent, or that God is, "Perfectly honest," or even, "Perfectly good," and you seem to be treating the situation as such. This video would have been much more enjoyable if it was more focused around the subject of omnipotence, and not just a slew of attacks on Christianity: pandering to atheists. 15:24 yet another strawman argument. By claiming that, "This may sound like a somewhat reasonable point at first," after previously calling those that would disagree with you on the nature of the challenge as, "Hack philosophers," is simply you stroking your ego. By setting up someone as a, "Hack," and then proceeding to misrepresent their argument, is extremely dishonest. You are setting someone who disagrees with you to fail, discouraging dialectic: the core requirement of philosophical discussion. The changing of a definition when the previous definition was inadequate is not a, "Sign of defeat," it is a sign of progress in the philosophical conversation. It is more of an admission of, "You're right, there was a flaw with the definition I gave, perhaps this new definition will more properly explain what I mean." The changing of definitions over time is an age-old feature of language, and not a sign of you winning an argument. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you in saying, "The ability to do all that is consistent with one's 'essential nature'," is a bad definition of omnipotence, as it means that literally anybody has the potential to be omnipotent. On a positive note, I actually really like the definition of omnipotence you have presented, "The capacity to create, destroy, and rearrange matter/energy in accordance with arbitrary whims.," it's simple, yet completely contains the power that an omnipotent being, such as the Christian God would bear. Good job. Overall the content you have presented was thought provoking and interesting to discuss. Your issue was presentation: by attacking Christians relentlessly you have distracted the audience from the topic at hand, and you have made the topic of the video, "Why Christians are stupid," instead of the more inviting topic of, "The logical failings of omnipotence." I'm not a Christian, and I'm not an atheist either. I hope this huge comment will invite you to think about the subject further.

[@lanikai5688]

Thoroughly enjoyed reading through all this

[@MrVeaka]

You honestly need to work with darkmatter2525. Make a short video with him over this idea.

[@MKTyphon]

i love darkmatter2525

[@rancorjoy5412]

The thought alone made me N U T

[@FIAWOLpi]

I consider myself a Christian with a great faith in God and I agree with what you've said. Christians have a very difficult problem defending their faith logically. I have struggled with this problem myself, my own use of language has hobbled me in discussions with much more intelligent people that understand philosophy. It would be hard to satisfy you with accounts of experiences with God or witnessing miracles because those things would be outrageous arguments that could not be used as proofs. Most of the study I have done has been to better understand my own beliefs and to clarify the feeling of truth that I feel and contrast that with my own life in the physical world. I honestly believe any intelligent Christian should have either an atheist or agnostic friend that they can discuss just these types of arguments. A friend tho, for real, not some stranger just to prove a point. I believe that that type of argument often will end up embarrassing that Christian and could hurt the overall view of or Christian beliefs.

[@AntiCitizenX]

I think you must be the first Christian on this forum to realize that all we're doing here is defining words. It's not an attack on God. It's a clarification of the words used to describe God. Just because some definitions are bad, that doesn't mean God has to die with them. It just means we have to find better words to talk about him.

[@shadrachemmanuel1720]

Why are you a Christian though?

[@thebatmanover9000]

But Q is Q spelled backwards so why is he not returning to his home dimension after he says his name?

[@ABaumstumpf]

Pronunciation. 'Q' is spelled - 'kew', spelling that backward would sound more like 'week' imo.

[@arthurjeremypearson]

Mix yee spit lick kill tip zee zim.

[@NFITC1]

I think they spelled it that way on purpose. Because he is a being that can't really be contained in 4 a dimensional continuum his name wouldn't be described correctly on 2-dimensional paper. :)

[@NoNameAtAll2]

ABaumstumpf Kjuu Uuik

[@darlalathan6143]

You're thinking of Mr. Myxzptlk.

[@RayMak]

I came here because people kept calling me omnipotent

[@sunlightloversss]

Ray Mak you again?

[@sycophantic0]

pog

[@MrChiangching]

You mean impotent.

[@sfyan5392]

@Venkat Karyala Hey

[@kooIaidcats]

You are.

[@crab-likegargoyle]

I stopped understanding what you were talking about at the 20 minutes mark but I still enjoyed the way you talked about it.

[@vert3432]

Can I give a fair definition of god? God - "The Man Named Gabe Newell (Also Known as GabeN) who create the company known as "Valve Incorporated" and is the owner of the service Steam"

[@jmoranleiva]

Too bad Lord GabeN is not omnipotent! How do I know? An omnipotent being can create Half-Life 3!!!

[@vert3432]

God does not have to be omnipotent, Gaben is love, Gaben is life, Gaben is god!

[@jmoranleiva]

But who do we pray for HL3 then? Who can make that happen?? What is the meaning of life???

[@vert3432]

Gaben only knows...

[@milkywegian]

Vert343 I would rather worship that guy, because atleast that can motivate him to create HL3 or keep improving valve. If I worshiped god he wouldn’t do shit.

[@Archronis]

I'm an atheist, but I would argue that the theist argument about type/token is actually valid and the correct way of looking at this. If you were to create a rock so heavy you couldn't lift it, no matter how heavy that rock is, an omnipotent being could easily replicate that rock. By asking an omnipotent being to perform a linguistically similar (but practically entirely different) task, "Create a rock so heavy you cannot lift it," you are specifying a logically impossible task. The being isn't negating his own omnipotence by doing it (or failing to do it), at least by the second definition. Rather, you are asking him to do something inconsistent with logic: saying "Create a finite rock so heavy [an omnipotent being] cannot move it," is the same as saying, "Create a finite rock that cannot be moved by a being that can, by definition, move any finite rock." This isn't impossible just for an omnipotent being, but for any being. By failing to do it he may still meet the definition of omnipotence if he succeeds at all logically possible tasks. Now, your argument about all actions being inherently self-referential hinges on implicit language, not formal logic. "Eat a taco" implicitly means, "Put a taco in your own mouth and swallow it." When a person performs a task on himself, "replicating" the task is mirroring it, and we are wired by social convention to infer that is what is intended. If, however, I drop a taco into a trash can and tell you to replicate the action, you would have no trouble realizing that you were meant to drop a taco into the same trash can. If we replace the trash can with a human mouth that isn't that of the person manipulating the taco, (ie, feeding that third person a taco) then the replication act is likewise obvious. It is thus only SOME actions that are self-referential in this particular way, and only implicitly (not inherently) so. The fact that, for want of implicit language, you would have to specify all of the tokens in the act of eating a taco is irrelevant to the question of whether the task of creating a rock so heavy a regular human can't lift it is the same thing as creating a rock so heavy an omnipotent being can't lift it (it isn't). For some challenges, achievement requires the token to shift, and for others it doesn't. Acknowledging this isn't pedantic. Hiding it behind language conventions is false equivocation and weakens your overall argument, which is otherwise very good.

[@NoNameC68]

*By asking an omnipotent being to perform a linguistically similar (but practically entirely different) task, "Create a rock so heavy you cannot lift it," you are specifying a logically impossible task. The* Precisely. That was the point of the video regarding the first interpretation of omnipotence. You're reiterating what was already said in the video and treating it as a criticism of the video...

[@Archronis]

NoNameC68 I'm afraid you've missed both AntiCitizenX's and my points. This is NOT in regards to the first definition of omnipotence, but to the type/token discussion amid the SECOND definition, wherein AntiCitizenX argues that the second definition is violated not because God has failed to do something impossible, but because he's failed to do something POSSIBLE (creating an object so heavy it's creator cannot lift it). He then uses some linguistic similes to justify this. I've argued that he is in error (as is the formulation of the challenge) in moving the weight token when the task is replicated by a different entity. It is a subtle but important point being made, on both parts, and I don't blame you for not seeing it. I urge you to re-watch the section from 13:30-16:35, then re-read my first comment.

[@froklan]

Thank you, I'm not atheist, but the second definition really bothered me because of that argument. By challenging an omnipotent being to lift a rock a potentially omnipotent being cannot lift, YOU the CHALLENGER are creating a logical inconsistency through which you are determining if a logic-bound omnipotent being is omnipotent. In this case, your challenge becomes void and you've made it impossible for them to complete. The same logic can also apply to the liar's paradox. The challenger's perception is a part of the equation and undermine's the validity of an OB (Omnipotent Being) being able to "honestly declare that [they are] not omnipotent." It is not logical for them to do such a thing, why is it logical to challenge them to do it? So, why would it be logical to challenge them to create, then lift, a rock even an omnipotent being can not lift? Also, I think making a "rock" big enough that a supposed OB cannot lift it using everything within the OB's power would destroy the universe as we know it... So it's also an irrational challenge, even theoretically, as being able to observe, and thus verify, the completion of such a feat requires the (presumably living) presence of the challenger.

[@patnewbie2177]

I came back a year later just to say that this reminds me of when, in Madoka Magica, Madoka makes a paradoxical wish along the lines of Russell's paradox. The universe implodes and she becomes a god. (Because anime logic.)

[@patnewbie2177]

This implies that, before the events of the series, nobody decided to troll the series' genies with "I want this statement to be true and false at the same time" or "I want to create a rock so heavy I can't lift it".

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Who else misread the title of this video as "The Problem of Impotence"?

[@SeekTheLordJesusChrist7]

The Ultimate Reductionist. Me:(. I must on to the next video to solve my problem...

[@NickRoman]

Well, to put it figuratively, the claim of anyone being omnipotent is impotent and ignorant.

[@shanestrickland5006]

The Ultimate Reductionist That's what it says.

[@TheKyrix82]

Can God create a penis so flaccid even he can't arouse it?

[@AlexandruSD]

The use of squirrels for philosophical demonstrations is the cherry on top.

[@robertosinger5727]

AlexandruSD Im adding them to my final thesis

[@arthurjeremypearson]

Squirrels are essential. How else are you going to catch the attention of -dog- god?

[@studmalexy]

the Christian God is not concerned with doing the impossible for the sake of impossibilities sake to "prove himself".....and its a strawman to set God and Christians up like that.........................ill tell you what God is concerned with though............SIN,,,,,,and bringing his creation back to an eternal infinite state...a state of LIFE...and solving this issue through his Son(who took the curses meant for us upon himself) name the chapter text and verse where God is capable of all things at once with all possibilities?.........when Christians say he is "all powerful", they are meaning he has a nature(which cant be compromised) but also complete control of this reality with a specific order to it..............so its stupid to say stuff like "I wont believe in God if God doesn't manifest 1000 pink unicorns in front of me right now"..........that's not the nature of God..........yes he performs miracles, but normally his miracles have a double/symbolic meaning behind them, as well as the purpose of actually helping humans(who are in need or sick..etc)............hes not going to magically manifest Godzilla from the ether and do the impossible just for the sake of impossibilitys sake to "prove" to a bunch of atheists that he is "all powerful" he creates a false narrative of the Christian faith(or uses people weak in faith and scripture then debunks them)...........regarding the "trinity issue"... a fractal can create a replica of itself with the exact same nature and characteristics of the "father" or "parent" fractal............the "son" fractal is the exact same as the parent/father fractal in every single way, and yet, not the same as the father...................I think this can explain the apparent paradox of Jesus claiming to be God almighty, and the son and also being the same as the father at the same time "if you have seen me you have seen the father". John 14:9.........................................so please,,,stop criticising Christians and making straw man arguments about us saying we are both "poly theists and monotheists and are just stupid Christians that cant make up our minds".................do you seriously think we have come to the revelation of our faith so lightly withought critical thinking?!................................also onto the issue of "sons of God".....and "only begotten son of God"....................we, humans, are sons of God,,we are his children....but we are not his "begotten" children......we don't have the exact nature, characteristics and abilities...............we can "beget" others like us and continue our family line,,,,,but at no point can our "begotten" children ever be like anything else apart from us(which is why I think evolution is a satanic blasphemy and mockery of Gods word since it implies we are on an "ascending path" through the generations)...............Jesus wasn't accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be a son of God,,,,,if he did,,the Jews would have been like "meh, ,,whatever,,,,no big deal"......Jesus was accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be the "BEGOTTEN" son of God.....a son of God after him in complete likeness, character and ability...........the Hebrews understood that a BEGOTTEN son takes on his fathers name, (normally profession), his inheritance and continues his family line.....................at to me, sounds like a fractal and explains why Jesus is both man, both God and yet "the son"....................ive only ever seen evidence of life coming from other life,,,,,,,,,,ive never seen life come from non life(but I'm willing to be proven wrong with evidence if anybody can)......................................it all comes down to the paradox of eternity and infinity(as being the key to why I think the Christian faith is the one true faith),,and I think fractals are the answer to the divine(meaning to branch) nature of God, and I think the Christian faith best explains our reality and true nature of God and what he is......................now,,,im not trying to take anything away from God(just because the spirit has revealed these truths to me in a way that we can now conceptualise), it doesn't change the fact God the father loved us so much he sent his only begotten son(in his own likeness, character in image) to die on a Roman cross(taking the curses upon himself) 200 years ago in Jerusalem that we may be "brought back" to our eternal "fractal" state at one with God almighty.

[@AbsoluteStorm]

How about if omnipotence were defined as “the ability to do any meaningfully-defined task that doesn’t require the actor to have limits to their abilities”, or something along those lines? Honestly, I find arguments about creating a married batchelor to be just word games.

[@Skylancer727]

That's just philosophy as a whole. It's basically word salad to mess with the mind. In fact you'll also find that most schools teaching philosophy will more waste time teaching the history of it and odd voodoo the people believed in and practiced over actual intellectual training and studies. This is kinda how its always been.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

@@Skylancer727 Dreams and video games are the best examples for all omni factors. But dreams are difficult for humans to control and video games require true omniscience in order to show omnipotence. Humans are limited machines...

[@Skylancer727]

@absolstoryoffiction6615 I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a response to my post. In fact I question how that's a response to the master post too. Also I'll intergect that omnipotence is basically an abstract construct. We see a lack of perfection in things and people therefore assume a perfect example must exist. An example is the perfect steam engine requires absolute 0, but absolute 0 is physically impossible. Just because something can be imagined doesn't make it possible even if the logic is consistent; that's the flaw of philosophy. This is why research has nearly entirely moved onto science as it seems more consistent with being accurate.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

@@Skylancer727 True... But technology has an almost perfect state, given omniscience. Since nothing has infinite durability nor infinite energy. Dreams and video games are an example of omnipotence in a more realistic context since both are actual things which exists.

[@Skylancer727]

@absolstoryoffiction6615 I mean if black holes are a singularity then they technically have infinite energy in an infinitly small space while also being nearly indestructible. The only thing that can break a black hole is age after the stars all die off. Also dreams can't really be said to "actually exist" they're also a construct of our minds, all be it unintentionally. They also tend to be byproducts of things we already know. Not sure what you mean by technology having a perfect state. I'll say there's a threshold which improvements become irrelevant, diminishing returns, but I've yet to see a "perfect technology". I mean I'm sure at one time the candle was seen as nearly perfect, yet today we don't just use the light bulb, we use LED. Soon we'll likely move to something else. The more we know the more we know what can be improved. But I don't know of any perfect end goals in technology. It is a slow progression of adding old ideas together to get new ones and adding new understanding to old concepts.

[@realityrealized8370]

26:02 The closing statements here are the absolute key factor to any kind of successful communication ever being achieved when you have a difference of opinion about anything. If you constantly defend something that by definition can't be what it's defined as, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist nor that we should completely disregard it... It means we need to be more precise with our use of language to define things in the exact circumstances which the words are used. For instance all scientific books have a key factor to them being of any use it's called a glossary and it will have words that are common words we use every day but they mean entirely different things depending on the reference frame you choose. So in my opinion if god actually were actually able to be figured out and then put into words we can use to accurately describe and understand... Wouldn't it be pretty important to clarify the reality of the claims you make by using words that accurately depict this being that you say is the one true whatever instead of literally choosing to continue to back up something that clearly cannot be true... Again the word itself doesn't change the existence unless the existence isn't what you say it is. It's way more likely that we don't have the ability to know and saying that you do is your belief and nothing more so how about try to express your belief based on reality instead of legitimate loopholes that cause logical people to dismiss your obviously bias world view and then you act like you are being attacked when in reality you should be thanking the people pointing out the literary inconsistencies because by acknowledging and fixing them you will have a stronger case... If it were based on you actually understanding anything which unfortunately they don't they just read a 2,000 year old book written by bias people many years after with accounts not of their own witness without proper sighting to the sources and countless other simple facts all require an insane amount of either "faith" or ignorance to still not even slightly see the problems in dogmatically defending words that you didn't write and claim to know the meanings after it was translated numerous times... I would love for a god that makes sense to exist and the only way I can see that being a thing is if man is totally wrong about it. That's why there are so many religions because if it were possible to ever prove any of them eventually they all would have to slowly either get proven as reality or shown to be not accurate... Our desire to label things and turn them into representations of beings and have one be considered the right one is impossible because we are always going back to a presupposed criteria that can't be proven if you care about trying to find validity in religion you should ditch any idol representation of any kind and express the value in not knowing all the answers because then you can have faith which is what you're supposed to have if that's what you believe in... With everything being answered and no questions to be asked you wouldn't need faith because it would be obviously apparent... It's really difficult having to argue over things that literally are irrelevant because everyone wants to stay comfortable in their own little world instead of make it a better one for everyone else...

[@anthonyprimm1107]

Well played sir.... Annnnnnnnnnd.... you get a slow clap!👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾

[@outsider344]

I'm real late to the party here and most likely no one will see this, but if we define omnipotence to mean "ability to do anything logically possible" then is it not logically IMPOSSIBLE to create a rock so big an omnipotent being cannot lift it? Isn't that the entire point of the paradox? That we can logically prove its impossible for an omnipotent being to create a rock so large that they cannot lift it? So if we are logically proving its impossibility, then why is it a strike against a being able to do anything logically possible, that they are unable to do it? I'm not trying to make a case for god here, but I see this argument all the time. How is the logically impossible rock any different than the logically impossible married bachelor? Certainly I can prove the possibility of creating a rock pile so large that _I_ cannot lift it by doing so in real life, but I cannot similarly create a rock pile so large that a so defined omnipotent being can't lift it. In the same way I can truthfully say that I am not omnipotent, but I can't truthfully say that an omnipotent being is not omnipotent. Therefore I would conclude that it is logically impossible for an omnipotent being to truthfully proclaim _themself_ to be omnipotent. ------------Edit----------- Summarized for clarity: If we define omnipotence as the ability to do anything logically possible Creating a rock of any arbitrary size no matter how big is logically possible so an omnipotent being must be able to do it -let this group of rocks of any size be "set 1" Lifting any object of any arbitrary size no matter how big is logically possible so an omnipotent being must be able to do it -Let this group of all objects be "set 2" Therefore all of set 1 is fully encompassed by set 2 because all "rocks of any size" are definitively within the scope of "object of any arbitrary size". Since set 1 encompasses all possible rocks and set 1 is entirely encompassed by set 2, a hypothetical rock from set 1 but not encompassed by set 2 is logically impossible. Therefore a rock so large that a so defined omnipotent being cannot lift it is not logically possible Therefore, a being able to do anything logically possible cannot create a rock so big that the being cannot lift it. In the same way that a married unmarried man cannot exist, an object unlift-able by something able to lift any object cannot exist. The set of all possible objects is lift-able, so the set cannot contain any unlift-able objects; The set of all bachelors is unmarried, so it cannot contain any married men. The creation of something from a set, but with attributes definitionally excluded from the set, is logically impossible. Just like creating a fractional integer.

[@metzen0]

The point isn't to solve the paradox, but to create a satisfactory definition for omnipotence that we could reasonably be able to apply to a god should he make himself known.

[@outsider344]

@@metzen0 I get that. What I am saying is that "able to do anything logically possible" is a satisfactory definition. The objections to that definition in this video all seem to be things that are logically impossible, so I don't see how they are really objections at all.

[@coolkusti]

This needs some explanation, then. Let there be two minimal logically possible things one can do: A and B. Suppose that a being having the ability to do A makes it impossible for it to do B, and having the ability to do B makes it impossible to do A. Now, I ask you: which one can your omnipotent being do? Having the ability to do A is logically possible, and having the ability to do B is logically possible, but having the ability to do both is not. Which one can your being do? We can easily construct real examples for A and B by choosing A to be "make a rock so big that its maker cannot lift it" and B to be "lift a rock of arbitrary size". Because we can even choose such actions A and B at all, we've already shown that being able to do anything logically possible is logically impossible.

[@outsider344]

@@coolkusti "being able to do anything logically possible is logically impossible"? I feel like you made a massive jump there in the end and lost me. I don't see how our ability to come up with logically impossible challenges to be failed is a problem for something we define as able to do only the logically possible .

[@Random-rs9bl]

@@outsider344 then you need to reason better dude..

[@Jayanky]

According to Urban Dictionary, to flargle a snuffun is to "Wiggle the arms of a cookie".

[@FlatWorld_Jomhuri_Regime]

META RULES META RULES META RULES *SERIOUS PHILOSOPHY STUDENTS STAY AWAY* You cannot break meta rules, in other words you’re coming up with your own particular definitions. As you study philosophy more seriously the solutions to the problems that you don’t realize you’re bringing up will come to light.

[@spincitysd]

Thanks, but for reasons unknown many here want to hug the idea of Omnipotent and not let go. Several, even a possible workable one, were offered up with the last not fully explored. But I guess we got a lot of Thanos fan bois out there who really love themselves some Omnipotent beings that can do anything; logic or the laws of physics be damned. "Nope, I'm going to put on my Infinity Gauntlet and make your pesky logic go away."

[@FlatWorld_Jomhuri_Regime]

James Ala BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA eye like that.

[@shawnford6421]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/opObl4qLir2Yga8

[@shawnford6421]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/opObl4qLir2Yga8

[@paulschuckman6604]

The episode Death Wish answers many of these questions. Q says, "but you mustn't think of us as omnipotent, no matter what the continuum would like you to believe". This episode does a very good job of explaining a 4 dimensional being, even taking us to the Q continuum to see quite likely the best interpretation of the 4th dimension I have seen.

[@davidarias5648]

Is there any theories,processes that explain how a omnipotent being is created?

[@caiheang]

Okay I have several things (not necessarily negations) to some of the points made in this video: 1. Consider the number line of integers, clearly there are an infinite number of integers. I create a set where all integers are included, except the number "10". Despite so, the set of incomplete integers is still infinite; just as a being who is infinitely powerful, who couldn't accomplish just 1 task, is still infinitely powerful. The being is not all-mighty, but he is mighty all-except-one. The example of the ear guy is a converse of "mighty all-except-one", which is "all-incompetent except one". It is equivalent of saying a set of the integer containing only the number "10", is about as numerous as the set of integers containing all numbers but "10". It is a good argument against "essence", but it cannot negate the possibility of a being that can perform infinitely many tasks except for one. 2. There's a misunderstanding of conditional logic/definition. Suppose I say: "Everyone get out of the room now, except me." That is a perfectly logical sentence, just as "Everything that can be done I can do, except this." But if I were to say: "I want the room completely empty, except I'll be in the room", that starts to sound illogical. I haven't figured out why that is the case, but this could be relevant to how we define "Omnipotence". I still have more stuff, but I'll edit them in later. Oh, and I'm an atheist, and I do not believe in Omnipotence.

[@determinedhelicopter2948]

1. There are infinities larger than others, but even if there were not, if a number set is to include all numbers, then not including 10 would make it not contain all numbers. 2. Why, yes, that is reasonable however: suppose that a omnipotent being is to 'Create a finite rock too heavy for it's own maker'. What exactly is meant to happen? No matter what, it would be seen as a logical contradiction of omnipotence as defined by 'ability to do all that is logically possible' Now let's say that omnipotence is 'the ability to do all that power can do' well... what is power and what can it do? 1. Physics definition: Well, then an omnipotent being is dependent upon time to do anything, but how much power? The more power you have, the less time/more force so the only way to have infinite power is infinite force but.... force is mass×acceleration, so that means they must have infinite mass, or infinite acceleration. that much mass would destroy the universe instantly so it cannot be that, so all we are left with is either position or distance since everything else does not work, and I think you can figure those out 2. Power as in authority: So the being just has authority over everything, which means they can by virtue of authority revoke authority from themselves but doing so removes their omnipotence, also this meaning means they have authority over what free will is and over whether or not you will go to hell which most theists don't like that their free will can be arbitrary If there are other meanings of power bring them over

[@JackDanyaKemplin]

A Catholic priest is a married bachelor, as they are married to the Church.

[@yakobengel1410]

I found your channel about a year ago from the Jekyll and Hyde demos you uploaded. Small world, I guess.

[@Scortch-lo3xy]

BUT wait actually that does in an insane way kinda work i guess cool

[@FennecTECH]

the problem is not with god but with our rules of language.

[@AntiCitizenX]

This guy gets it.

[@samsmith1580]

As I stated in another comment. Kurt Godel explained all this a long time ago. It's not a problem of our rules of language. It's a problem of any system of rules that has any descriptive power. Paradoxes are in the very nature of any logical system.

[@theoneinboots6668]

That's the biggest problem with trying to define the powers of gods (an abstract concept in of itself, which becomes more abstract as their "logic" is far past our reach) within logical boundaries. Its kinda like trying to grade Pablo Picasso's work based on how realistic it is. Great video. Though Constructive criticism: "The Bizzare Mental Gymnastics of Christian Apologetics" at 1:45. That's a very isolating statement.And frames your video as if it were going to disprove the concept of Christianity and any other faith through the use of the English language. I mean, as a Christian I found the statement kind of jarring. I had to stop the video and remind myself to stay open minded before proceeding. I would suggest a better word choice in the future. Edit: Also, did it only have to be the Christians 100% of the time? Arent there like... 100 other different religions you could have chosen as examples to spice it up? Why did you need to focus on Christianity entirely?

[@theoneinboots6668]

Still liked the video though, pretty good content. You raise a lot of good points about the problems with language and 'Omnipotence' as a whole.

[@FennecTECH]

Its like trying to explain colour to a blind person. (Born blind). They have no frame of reference and all our discriptions of colour are far too subjective to transfer by language. Its more like two people may see two colors differently but associate them with the same word. Because for all intents and purpouses And to the outside world. They are.

[@ghostnoodle9721]

1:06 Top squirrel getting some smash. *AND HE'S LUVIN IT*

[@zachsin2411]

I like the idea that God is just some guy who wrote a story down on something or just a guy who set the seed for the universe and we just happened as a unintended result of those fundamental actions

[@manowartank8784]

then it is easy to remove God at all and let the universe be itself... boom! reality explained.

[@ryanalving3785]

I'd be more worried if that were the case, when most people plant a seed in their garden and something unintended grows on their crop or garden; its usually labled a weed or a parasite, both of which have a nasty habit of getting exterminated.

[@slim420-e8v]

Have you ever seen life come from an explosion ?

[@manowartank8784]

well, then where did the God came from? ... you can't explain existence of universe with God since both end in same question: What was before? ... God is not solution, just excuse.

[@bravo2278]

Can god flargel a snuffin so completely, that even he could not unflargle it?

[@neroargen1032]

Bro... I'm calling the police.

[@Andres64B]

"Potatoes, boil 'em, mash 'em, put 'em in a stew."

[@AntiCitizenX]

They're taking the Hobbits to Isengard!

[@blazerightby7073]

omg, I just watched Lord of The Rings for the first time, why do I keep seeing references to it?

[@Lady8D]

BlazeRightBy Divine intervention, obviously. 😆 Every now and then my wife will be watching/listening to something for the millionth time and at the exact same moment both say: "huh, Ive never noticed that part before now" fucking crazy how that shit goes sometimes isnt it? Coincidences are fun!

[@LORDSofCHAOS333]

can you spell it in English or i you disable

[@jasonwooster50]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/p6O0h3mQrZyLjpY

[@oromain]

I feel like these examples fail to meet what is "logically possible." It is logically possible for _someone_ to truthfully say "I am not omnipotent", but it is not logically possible for an _omnipotent_ being to truthfully say "I am not omnipotent", so it fails to meet that definition of omnipotence. The not telling a lie thing definitely isn't all powerful though. I am not religious, but I do have a fondness for omnipotent beings in fiction.

[@AntiCitizenX]

*It is logically possible for someone to truthfully say "I am not omnipotent", but it is not logically possible for an omnipotent being to truthfully say "I am not omnipotent", so it fails to meet that definition of omnipotence.* That's why it's called a PARADOX, man! It is *both* logically possible and *not* logically possible for an omnipotent being to perform that task. The definition of "omnipotence" itself is the problem, here. It forces you to accept both.

[@oromain]

@@AntiCitizenX paradoxes are not logically possible, so in the definition in which omnipotence is limited by what is logically possible, paradoxes are automatically ruled out. It is not both logically possible and logically impossible for an omnipotent being to truthfully say they're not omnipotent. It's just logically impossible. It is logically impossible to truthfully say a lie, just as it is to create a married bachelor.

[@joalampela8612]

@@oromain So you're telling me it GOES AGAINST HIS ESSENTIAL NATURE? Watch the video before commenting, please.

[@oromain]

@@joalampela8612 It has literally nothing to do with essential natures. The lying thing does, and I agree that the lying thing is dumb. But if you're arguing against the definition of "what is logically possible", using things that are not logically possible to debunk it make for a poor argument.

[@ryanbyrne8730]

@@oromain the problem doesn't come from any omnipotent being constrained by logic, it comes from the Christian bibles interpretation of God, who is unable to lie. We cant just ignore the paradox of a logically omnipotent being who is unable to lie because that itself would mean that the Christian god is illogical, meaning he doesn't fit the criteria itself. Or if you mean that things logically possible for one being shouldn't be expected from other beings, then omnipotence becomes anyone, because anyone can only do what is logically possible for that being to do, which makes omnipotence weak and meaningless

[@PressEnter42]

Wait. So if omnipotence now meanings doing anything within one's nature then wouldn't that make us all omnipotent? I've never done anything that I wasn't able to do. Therefore I am omnipotent

[@rabbidguy5]

Uh i.....hmm.... Well yeah.

[@MegaMichael122]

Yeah, thats what he said

[@marclaclear6628]

Omnipotence is having sufficient power to do anything and everything power can accomplish.

[@studmalexy]

he creates a false narrative of the Christian faith(or uses people weak in faith and scripture then debunks them)...........regarding the "trinity issue"... a fractal can create a replica of itself with the exact same nature and characteristics of the "father" or "parent" fractal............the "son" fractal is the exact same as the parent/father fractal in every single way, and yet, not the same as the father...................I think this can explain the apparent paradox of Jesus claiming to be God almighty, and the son and also being the same as the father at the same time "if you have seen me you have seen the father". John 14:9.........................................so please,,,stop criticising Christians and making straw man arguments about us saying we are both "poly theists and monotheists and are just stupid Christians that cant make up our minds".................do you seriously think we have come to the revelation of our faith so lightly withought critical thinking?!................................also onto the issue of "sons of God".....and "only begotten son of God"....................we, humans, are sons of God,,we are his children....but we are not his "begotten" children......we don't have the exact nature, characteristics and abilities...............we can "beget" others like us and continue our family line,,,,,but at no point can our "begotten" children ever be like anything else apart from us(which is why I think evolution is a satanic blasphemy and mockery of Gods word since it implies we are on an "ascending path" through the generations)...............Jesus wasn't accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be a son of God,,,,,if he did,,the Jews would have been like "meh, ,,whatever,,,,no big deal"......Jesus was accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be the "BEGOTTEN" son of God.....a son of God after him in complete likeness, character and ability...........the Hebrews understood that a BEGOTTEN son takes on his fathers name, (normally profession), his inheritance and continues his family line.....................at to me, sounds like a fractal and explains why Jesus is both man, both God and yet "the son"....................ive only ever seen evidence of life coming from other life,,,,,,,,,,ive never seen life come from non life(but I'm willing to be proven wrong with evidence if anybody can)......................................it all comes down to the paradox of eternity and infinity(as being the key to why I think the Christian faith is the one true faith),,and I think fractals are the answer to the divine(meaning to branch) nature of God, and I think the Christian faith best explains our reality and true nature of God and what he is......................now,,,im not trying to take anything away from God(just because the spirit has revealed these truths to me in a way that we can now conceptualise), it doesn't change the fact God the father loved us so much he sent his only begotten son(in his own likeness, character in image) to die on a Roman cross(taking the curses upon himself) 200 years ago in Jerusalem that we may be "brought back" to our eternal "fractal" state at one with God almighty.

[@tesseracta4728]

Just like anything else, Omnipotence is a relative characteristic.

[@HotPinkst17]

If you were omnipotent and you made a paradox then the mutually exclusive events fracture reality into divergent occurrences, that depending on the setting on your flux capacitor cause a temporal distortion field around the events, a fork in the time stream, or large explosion. Most Flux capacitors are set on forked times stream for safety purposes (possibly reversible) but temporal distortions are way too fun if you can get away with them. Large explosions can be their own reward and can be safety mechanisms when preventing conditions you know your flux capacitor should never continue doing. Being omnipotent is fun but it is more fun to create technology that anyone can use and watch limited beings wield power beyond their comprehension.

[@nagilumx6715]

Intriguing, Alimiel.

[@exactly7788]

My favorite version of the rock thing is, can god microwave a burrito so hot that he cant eat it

[@Justology]

It's not logically possible to state a truthful lie. Since "I am not omnipotent" would be a lie for an omnipotent being, it's logically impossible to truthfully state it. The problem is your question, since adding the modifier of "truthfully" slips in the assumption that the speaker is not omnipotent.

[@AntiCitizenX]

You apparently didn't pay attention to the second-half of the video wherein I specifically address this exact criticism.

[@Justology]

AntiCitizenX no, you don't address that. I'm not saying I have to put the taco in your mouth. One can only truthfully state something that is true. You're confusing a state of being with a "state of doing". Truthfully stating something about oneself requires it to be true. So you're saying "State X while not being omnipotent". Stating X is the task. Being not omnipotent is a state of being that you've tried to force into the task.

[@Justology]

AntiCitizenX in other words, your "task" is logically equivalent to saying "Claim to not be omnipotent while also not being omnipotent". You're slipping a state of being into the task and that's your fault. Perhaps use the word action instead of task and it'll make more sense. An omnipotent being can do any logically possible action. The action is to say the words "I'm not omnipotent". Truthfully stating this isn't an action, it reflects a state of being.

[@Dorian_sapiens]

Justus Cade: Yep, I agree with you.

[@uploader109]

What is the difference between a state of being and state of doing in this context? The ability to be something is the same as doing something. It's a verb. As a deity, a god should be able to be anything it wants to be because it can simply make itself to be that. Now instead of changing the definition of omnipotent, you are changing what it means to make a sentence. Good job, theist. You really hit the ball out of the park with this one.

[@TrackedHiker]

There was never any *official* definition of omnipotence. You can’t complain that people are changing “the definition” when the word was merely an attempt to understand God in the first place. There’s no discredit to anyone for developing a better definition for a word that attempts to describe the power of God. What else did you expect? If God exists, would you expect it to be easy to describe him? It’s clear that you are attacking Christians. You are full of scorn. You didn’t make this video to merely come up with a good definition of omnipotence, but also to criticize and denigrate Christians. You act like you’re squeaky clean, but in the way you are attacking, you reveal your own irrational attachment to something unreasonable-to mock for reasons that have nothing to do with logic or any noble pursuit. And you sure make a lot of sweeping generalizations about “all Christians” which is just a tad arrogant and dismissive. How do you know what Christians are willing to discuss or accept? Also, you need to take a step back from the essential nature thing. It perhaps was not phrased well, but there’s a huge aspect you seem to be overlooking. You act as though anything that can be negatively framed is a lack of omnipotence. But you aren’t seeing that this is just a language problem-the very thing you knock Christians for supposedly not understanding. Let me give you an example. The fastest racecar in the world cannot ever lose a race, right? And don’t you agree that this confers superiority upon that car? Perhaps we could even say, it has a power no other car has? But you know what power every other car has that it doesn’t? The power to lose a race! The inability of God to lie isn’t merely some arbitrary ridiculous thing, but an ability that we don’t have-the ability to always tell the truth. Suddenly, your disdainful treatment of such a thing is exposed as just being poor analysis. God can’t be both a creature that can lie but also can always tell the truth, so all you have here is a simple issue of logical contradiction and a binary choice. Which sort of being is God? Now, a being merely having omnipotence doesn’t necessarily say which one it has to be (always- truthteller or sometimes-liar), but it is clear that such a being can only be one of the two. When Christians say god is omnipotent, they aren’t just thinking in the category of mere power, but are also putting forth other propositions about what God is like, and furthermore are suggesting that these characteristics are the most perfect, the most good, or the best of all possible characteristics. Not being able to lift a car cannot be considered the most perfect/good/best that a being can be. Essential nature is just a red herring here. You can get all mad that the fastest race car in the world can’t even lose one race like all the other cars, but merely framing this positive capacity in negative language doesn’t make that car worse-it actually makes that car the best one.

[@misanthropicgestures]

*Hisses in Aramaic* something something multiverse something something time doesn't exist something something essentialism

[@JohnSmith-ox3gy]

Malachy M. Classic.

[@KiranasOfRizon]

>create, destroy, and rearrange matter/energy in accordance with arbitrary whims Could such a being create a hard drive containing a computer program which solves the halting problem?

[@AntiCitizenX]

Nope. That probably means "arbitrary whims" is a little too loose of a term.

[@KiranasOfRizon]

@@AntiCitizenX Could probably specify that matter/energy can be created/destroyed/rearranged subject to the condition that said arrangement of matter/energy is physically capable of existing in some universe. So thus, the halting problem hard drive can't exist because no configuration of matter and energy would produce such a hard drive.

[@wachyfanning]

I'm an atheist, however I believe that our understanding of language and reality as a whole doesn't allow us to comprehend omnipotance. A being could logically create something which is by definition contradictory such as a married bachelor, as it could at any time bend the definition to it's will. At any time, the being could just make you never have seen it, or never had existed at all, so it's fair to say that all meaning is irrelevant when it is the sole dictator of meaning. I think the true problem comes from determinism. As it's fairly certain that all the things we do are determined by our surroundings, psychological effects, and all, a true omnipotent being would be entirely free from any desire or will, and therefore would never do anything.

[@sebastiantschatordai]

A married man who has the nickname "bachelor".

[@Crimsonraziel]

I have an issue to see why requesting to "truthfully tell a lie" isn't already excluded by the "logically possible" rule.

[@IronicTB]

I think it's reasonable to assume that a logically omnipotent being is capable of permanently limiting himself such that he could create a rock and then never be able to lift it, but this being would obviously never choose to do so because that would be absurd. Or to take your example of an omnipotent being truthfully claiming to not be omnipotent, he would be fully capable of reducing himself to not being omnipotent and then speak the words truthfully, but again would never choose to do this because that would be absurd.

[@unknownwarrior9775]

So wait , if an omnipotent being has to permanently limit themself to be able to create a rock in which he cannot lift then doesn't that prove that it's not possible to be omnipotent and create a rock in which you cannot lift ? Since they would have to limit themselves to the point of not being omnipotent to complete the task ? At that point it would be like asking any regular non - omnipotent being to complete that task and avoid the logical impossibility altogether.

[@joecreek6038]

I mean, God did limit himself to a body that could die so I don’t get a rock is an issue

[@shadrachemmanuel1720]

​@@joecreek6038 Why do you believe that story anyway?

[@shadrachemmanuel1720]

​@Kenny Yes and so is Santa Claus. We simply can't understand how he disappears into the North Pole without a single shred of evidence for his existence.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

@@unknownwarrior9775 It's a dimensional question. Humans failed to understand. Just like... Ending Gods... Of which I have done before. I created Omnipotence. I am its Precursor. And I am its End.

[@Fjuron]

Very interesting. I like your definition of omnipotence! That's also why I like the idea of polytheism: A bunch of very powerful, thought not omnipotent, and sometimes not even entirely immortal beings. ...Though the christian God is also an interesting piece of mythology. 😘😝

[@M1Abrams-HEDP-loaded]

Fjuron From what I have gathered from your response, I have determined that you do not believe in the Christian God. That leads me to the question, what do you believe in?

[@magnusanderson6681]

@@M1Abrams-HEDP-loaded Just to venture a guess, Fjuron probably believes he could get a starbucks coffee for a decent price when he sees the iconic logo over a storefront. Stop trying to convert people in comments sections.

[@doe-dw9lo]

@@magnusanderson6681 that comment doesn't suggest that he wants to convert people so much does it show how uneccisarily wordy and slightly pretentious people can sound.

[@Nissenov]

I am real, regardles of what you think or believe.

[@blessedisyou]

@@doe-dw9lo well may e he doesn't mean to do it but still anyone can believe in what he want and is not forced to say it ...

[@revcrussell]

Absolutism is the correct way to see it from the religious perspective. If you limit it to logically possible things then the liar problem and the rock problem go away too. This is because these are logically impossible.

[@emmaliejade]

I have always defined omnipotence as being able to control all material of the universe; physics, space, time, ya know. The idea of being able to do "anything" sounds like an incredibly juvenile way to describe great power to me.

[@charkopolis]

Yet, many people still hold to the "anything" version.

[@tristan4175]

The key thing of omnipotent is being able to make material from nothing. So only being able to control and change material that already exists, would be viewed as a limited form of omnipotence.

[@athulchandran2737]

Omnipotence is the ability to have complete infinite control over power, mind, soul, space, time and reality itself... Basically the infinity stones from those movies

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

@@charkopolis The "anything" version is a reflection of the feeble mind. The humans cannot even slay Gods if this is all they comprehend. And this world is not alone.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

@@tristan4175 Define Nothingness... Because Nothingness and Existence are two sides of the same coin. Well... At least to me... "I" am the Precursor of Absolute Omnipotence. Mankind simply lacks the technology to master the 3rd dimension.

[@thoughtsuponatime847]

Genuine question. Could I get your credentials please? Do you have any professionally published literature I can read?

[@scotte4765]

That's just a question out of idle curiosity, right? Because I'm sure you realize that everything he said here can be evaluated on its own logical merits, regardless of the educational background or publishing history of whoever says it.

[@Reformed_Borzoi]

You wish to become an intellectually dishonest,and fallacy repeater disciple?

[@k71829]

@@Reformed_Borzoifruitcake spotted

[@blame7121]

An absolute omnipotent being, wouldn't something like that defy logic itself? -Flargle a snuffin Doesn't matter what he does, it ends up being exactly what it was supposed to be, even if we didn't know it beforehand. -Create a married bachelor Simply changes the definition of bachelor. If he can do anything, then surely changing a meaning of a word shouldn't be impossible. Or, even more simply, an omnipotent being could just make us believe that he indeed is omnipotent without having to lift a finger. Maybe at the mere sight of him we would know. Maybe even before the knowledge of his presence we would know that he is omnipotent. Why should something, that can do anything, be constrained by logic?

[@Vario69]

Yes. Omnipotent being is basically a reality warper. Someone gets it

[@Ilyena]

But if the being needs to change the definition of a bachelor to perform the task of creating a married bachelor, then it couldn't perform the initial task of creating an unmarried bachelor, and therefore still can't be omnipotent in the sense that it could do literally anything. Or atleast that's how I see it.

[@blame7121]

@@Ilyena or could be both married and unmaried. Again, omnipotence would defy logic and at its full capacity (as if it were to have a full, since we're talking about infinity) it's simply beyond our compréhension.

[@Ilyena]

Okay. New challenge: Make a married bachelor without defying our logic, or redefining the words, and make it within our comprehension. If the omnipotent being is truly omnipotent, and can do literally anything, it should be able to do that. I feel like when talking omnipotence there's a point where there's no way around these things. Something needs to break. Our definitions are steadfast and need to be agreed upon, because they need to be, otherwise what does anything mean. How would we communicate here? You understand me, because we, in way of communicating, agreed to communicate in english, and trust that the other understands the definitions of the words we use. Otherwise fjjrlal kdlfbjalg. ksifo-€7kfksl. Ueigkla Dkkfl. Am I right? Or does that mean literally nothing, because we didn't, consciously or just by means of communicating, agree on the meaning of fjjrlal kdlfbjalg. ksifo-€7kfksl. Ueigkla Dkkfl. Ich könnte jetzt einfach anfangen auf deutsch zu schreiben. Vorausgesetzt du kannst nicht zufällig deutsch, was bedeuten diese Zeichen hier überhaupt für dich? Sie haben keine Definition (außer das vielleicht) die du kennst. Das ganze hier hat genauso viel Bedeutung für dich wie fjjrlal kdlfbjalg. ksifo-€7kfksl. Ueigkla Dkkfl, solange du nicht die Definitionen, und/oder Übersetzungen nachschaust. That's German btw, if you don't coincidentally speak it. Point is: That paragraph has no meaning for you if you don't speak German. Maybe it isn't even German. You don't know. And neither is an omnipotent being able to do things within our logic that are without our logic. If the omnipotent being just does whatever it wants, then what meaning does it have for us? You say it's beyond our comprehension, but that's kinda the point. If it can't make these things within our understandable rules of what we mean when we say things, then it can't be omnipotent, it can't be omnipotent in the sense of being able to do literally anything. In a sense, and paradoxically, which is exactly the point of the omnipotence paradox, an omnipotent being can't be omnipotent. I would call it ironically, the meaning we give words are more "powerful" than a being that can do literally anything. Omnipotence by definition of being able to literally anything must be able operate within our window of logic, if it can't, which it can't, it can't be able to literally anything, because it can't.

[@z2153]

The jokes on you. The 1959 Cadillac weighs 5,000 lbs, not 1,000 lbs.

[@AntiCitizenX]

Jokes on you. I made mine out of aluminum :D

[@cdgonepotatoes4219]

jokes on you, mine is made out of nothing I don't have one

[@animagi6844]

9:02 uh oh, the wall just got higher

[@trousersnake81]

paradox is rarely deeper than the faultiness of the definitions you use to craft it

[@DidivsIvlianvs]

The rock lifting problem is just a second order of the language problem due to contradictory reflexivity.

[@michaelwinter742]

God makes two rocks asymptotically approaching the needed size, then welds them together.

[@DidivsIvlianvs]

You are obviously not familiar with Relativity, i.e. 0.99 C (speed of light) + 0.99 C = 0.9999 C, not 1.98.

[@lovescomedy619]

OMG!! Laughter bursted out of me at 19:10. I loved it 😂 Btw I’m Christian myself, thanks for the new definition and providing me with good food for thought and some oh so necessary logic. First video I’ve ever seen by you and I hope to see equally stimulating content on your channel and in the future. Keep on the good work. Thank you

[@phishreaper8126]

Jordan Coronado I agree. Thank God for this man!

[@999deaths]

Honestly I didn't care too much about this... there are too many flaws! However I don't blame him for this since he is only looking at the logical idea of Omnipotence. I don't believe an Omnipotent being is logically impossible to comprehend. The Definition of Omnipotent is that a being can do ANYTHING, logical or not... all the things in the video that he said are impossible... are! simply because they are Omnipotent! Illogical or impossible tasks are made so because the Omnipotent being wills it so. Reality isn't a solid, unchangeable thing for Omnipotent beings like it is for us, it is FAR beyond our comprehension what they could do... and as for 'God cannot lie'... i hate getting involved in discussions of the bible but if i wrote a book saying that 'AntiCitizenX cannot tell a lie' can he tell a lie? of course not! I just wrote down that he cannot. (this is sarcasm if you weren't following along) Even if God himself said 'I cannot lie' how do you know he is telling the truth? he could be lying... well i'm done for now. Have fun discussing the incomprehensible!

[@phishreaper8126]

999deaths Interesting reply

[@Requiem005]

999deaths but can he do these "impossible" things without changing the reality?

[@999deaths]

Requiem who knows? I'm not omnipotent... I'm just saying that it would take an omnipotent being to know how an omnipotent being does things, to us it's unlikely we will ever be able to understand it let alone imagine it

[@shaydowsith348]

another difference with philosophy, the xtian is challenged to eat a taco. if you pose the question to a Jewish philosopher they will first question if said taco is kosher.;)

[@noticias6111]

I was kind of hoping for Alfred North Whitehead’s objections to omnipotence to be brought up b/c he intrigues me and I am skeptical about where to start when it comes to spending my time studying him. Even putting aside the potential for heated religiously based diatribes, I enjoy seeing really old philosophical problems engaged with formal logic in mind.

[@AntiCitizenX]

Link? I'd be interested to see what you're referring to.

[@noticias6111]

@@AntiCitizenX "I consider Christian theology to be one of the great disasters of the human race"--Alfred North Whitehead's 'philosophy of organism' as he called it was eventually called 'process philosophy' which contributed to 'process theology'. He developed it sometime after his earlier mathematician days. Before watching this video I tried reading this www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/opth.2014.1.issue-1/opth-2015-0013/opth-2015-0013.pdf and after watching this video I gave a try at watching an 'Ontologistics' video kzbin.info/www/bejne/r3rNY2CiiNOEa68 . I would hope you would have more success than I did in trying to understanding and go through the entirety of either 'AntiCitizenX'. Not to say your video was 'illuminating' as well '_' d..

[@metolse475]

@@noticias6111 very interesting.

[@ThisNameIsBanned]

In the end thats correct, as the wording of the task is simply not explicit enough, it has room for interpretation and can be true at some point and false at another. If an omnipotent being is not bound by time and space at all, it could create a rock it cannot lift, as it can change and define what "lift" even means, and how you define all the parts in your task. It starts by what is a rock, you have an idea what a rock is, but it might already be wrong or flawed. What does it mean to "lift" something, if there is no gravitation anymore and the rock just floats away, does that satisfy your task? If a omnipotent being isnt just a singular being, but a collective, some of them might be able to lift a rock, and others cannot. So you could argue that this sums up to it can, or it sums up to not all of it can. Maybe it can lift a rock for that moment but is totally incapable of doing it the other moment. So the time matters. If you want to lift the rock and not lift the rock at the same time, it might just create a perfectly valid parallel universe to do it at the same time, or go far and beyond the restrictive imagination of a human being to accomplish such a task. Logic is restrictive to the living beings. True omnipotence would just define its own rules and create its own logic, that can change at any moment. So the assumption that omnipotence can be "proven" is already impossible. But that also does not mean it cannot exist at all, its just not possible with logic to define it in any reasonable manner.

[@icm3523]

Well, I can define words and rules too. In other words... There is no omnipotence at all.

[@linregalian7979]

@@icm3523 For ancient humans you can't divide 3 by 2. For those a thousand years ago you can't square root -1. An omnipotent being simply make up new rules to make the impossible possible.

[@joalampela8612]

@@linregalian7979 Notice how people invented math. You can't just come up with things that break logic this basic down the line.

[@linregalian7979]

@@joalampela8612 It's illogial that 3 can be divided by 2 if we're referencing atoms. Notice how math is simply a means for us to comprehend concepts. There are many exceptions and we simply make up new rules as we go.

[@unknownplayer9203]

5:38 If an omnipotent being was asked this, then they could simply create 2 new "titles" for Flargle and Snuffin. So flargle could be tap on the nose and snuffin can be a cat which always changes colors. Because this is an omnipotent being, he can eradicate the english language and make everyone forget about the english language, and then insert these words into the english language and world and ta dah, it works. Works the same with the mashing of your keyboard, same process. And yet to make a married bachelor, just change the definitions of married and/or bachelor. Also am I the first person in the world to think of this? Because apparently nobody else has thought of this as you have said

[@RougenTCG]

I mean, my grandma can do that. Doesn't make her God... I think.

[@alexzander7629]

@@RougenTCG I get your point, but your grandma can not single handily replace, modify, or erase the entirety of human knowledge of the english language (including that found in people's already existing memories).

[@RougenTCG]

​@@alexzander7629 To be fair, there's literally no way that we could know that God was doing that, 'cause we'd all think it was always like that! so for all intents and purposes, my Grandma made the definition of the word "pyromaniac."

[@IconoclastX]

Wow

[@IconoclastX]

You solved I think

[@NinjaKuma]

The Force is strong with this one

[@katamas832]

26:00 If the omnipitent being is comprised of matter and energy, it can kill itself or create another of itself. But if it's not, no, it cannot.

[@Gxlto]

If it isn't comprised of matter and energy it is kinda hard for it to.... exist, by definition. Besides, if it isn't comprised of matter and energy how would it create things? How would it interact with the physical world or create physical things?

[@elifrank6701]

I've watched this video a couple of times & I love this definition of omnipotence, but then, as you point out that with your definition a being can be omnipotent without being omniscient, I wondered. What would be a good definition for Omniscience. So, here's my answer, tell me what you think if you can. Omniscience: An acute awareness of everything that is presently happening in any given point in space down to the atomic & sub-atomic level &/or lower, & an acute, vivid, unalterable past memory of such

[@AntiCitizenX]

That’s probably similar to how I’d define it. Would be fun to play with it.

[@sbunny8]

Very interesting video. I liked it. You made a good point about self-referencing. That was part of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, developing a way for math to talk about itself. BTW, the musical Oklahoma has a line where a Muslim is described, "He has only one wife. He's a bachelor." Ah, 1930s humor.

[@jasonjackson3114]

So Donald Trump is a Canadian 9:04. Got it.

[@OptimusPhillip]

One major problem. Skeptic: "If you're omnipotent, can you flargle a snuffin?" Omnipotent Being: "Yes." Skeptic: "How? Snuffins don't exist, and flargling isn't a thing?" Omnipotent Being: "Let me show you. This is a snuffin." *creates snuffin* "And this is called flargling." *invents the action of flargling, and performs said action on the snuffin.* Another minor issue, is that when the Bible says that it is impossible for God to lie, they don't mean He is physically incapable of lying. He actually is capable of lying, as can be seen in Genesis 2:17 "but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die." Rather, it means that God, as a rule, does not lie (of course, that contradicts the Genesis passage, but that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and I'm sure an explanation can be found)

[@AntiCitizenX]

*This is a snuffin---creates snuffin* That's not how words work, dude. I can scoop a pile of dirt together and say "this is a snuffin." You also have to AGREE to that definition first before we can move on. Your entire argument is predicated on the hilarious notion that words have objective meaning that extends beyond mere human convention. *when the Bible says that it is impossible for God to lie, they don't mean He is physically incapable of lying* So impossible does not mean "impossible." Gotcha. It really means "possible." Do you not see a problem with that?

[@michaelproctor8100]

If Picard really wanted to get rid of Q once and for all, he should have challenged him to create a stone that not even Q could lift.

[@trollymctrollface2376]

then thrown it at him

[@tesseracta4728]

There was an episode when Q was able to create a Peter Pan universe and even Q could not bring them out of it.

[@AntiCitizenX]

LOL! :D

[@ixiahj]

Picard never wanted to get rid of Q. They were like frenemies, right?

[@tesseracta4728]

Picard thought Q reckless and consistently criticized Q for his lacking sense of integrity to the balances of a place and time, as well as Q's interference with many personal/mission affairs.

[@Firestar-rm8df]

The reason people reject your definition is because there are many other things a omnipotent being should be able to do. Like putting things into a state of macroscopic superposition, which might be more than simply controlling matter and energy. Also, manipulation of time. There is simply a lot that your definition either ignores or poorly covers. I would argue that an omnipotent being can do anything that is logically possible, but we seem to have different understandings of what that means. I would argue, that if something by it's nature creates a logical paradox, then it is not logically possible. Now if you want to put it into a superposition, mess with alternate world lines, or change the very laws of causality themselves, then that ceases to be true, but at that point it is hardly meaningful to attempt to attribute any definition to the word omnipotent in our current framework of understanding. You seem to be saying that theists are arguing over petty semantics rather than accepting reality and clinging blindly to faith, yet you are the one here making a video with vague over generalizations, claiming that those who argue to the other to definitions are the stubborn religious bigots while simultaneously having an ego big enough to think that you can solve this with a provocative and ANTI-religious video poorly thought out with your own half assed definition, that you yourself have clearly given very little though to, immediately after accusing theists and philosophers of doing the same. The hypocrisy of such a thing genuinely astounds me. And honestly if the definition is still not explicit enough for you simply append it to this: "An omnipotent being can do all things which are logically possible that do not create a logical paradox." Though I would argue this is implied, and it is a semantics issue, much as you go off ranting about the implied pronoun of "you" in English speech and reference points with your argument for who maker refers to. You yourself admit this is a cheap trick to misdirect others to discussing semantics rather than addressing the issue.

[@jeffc5974]

Until someone provides evidence of something that meets his definition, I think it is an adequate starting point for the bare minimum to even consider that something might be omnipotent.

[@AnaseSkyrider]

Reversing the flow of time would simply be reversing the direction of the flow of matter and energy in the universe. By his improved definition, this is possible.

[@Firestar-rm8df]

Reversing time involves more than just that. They would also have to be able to warp space-time to reverse the expansion of the universe. Additionally, Quantum particles are cross-temporally entangled, so their counterparts all along the time axis of space time would need to be accounted for and modified. And again, while you COULD say this is merely manipulation of matter and energy, the second you start involving the subatomic/quantum world, that becomes very flimsy in my opinion.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

"there are many other things a omnipotent being should be able to do" Does not matter. Since this uploader has provided examples of things this alleged "omnipotent" being cannot do, then it is no longer omnipotent.

[@ralphshively808]

I concur, a paradox is intentionally meant to be a contradiction of logic and therefore is a poor standard to test this type of situation. Also I feel like people have a very hyperbolic understanding about what should constitute omnipotence. granted, having "omni" anything is extreme to begin with, still omni doesn't imply limitlessness. it implies total freedom within the limits.

[@lcvamp242]

Essential Godness is the core concept of the Trinity. It's the shared essence of godness that makes Father, Son, and Spirit the same essential entity. I'm not sure you can have trinitarianism without essentialism.

[@bdf2718]

The trinity is to theology what wave-particle duality is to quantum mechanics. Except the maths in quantum mechanics *works* and gives us awesome, almost magical, devices (like the one you're using to read this). Nobody has ever constructed anything useful, or even sensible, using trinity theory. Also, wave-particle duality is simpler than the trinity because it only involves two things, not three.

[@chrissonofpear3657]

Conceive, create, receive.

[@studmalexy]

he creates a false narrative of the Christian faith(or uses people weak in faith and scripture then debunks them)...........regarding the "trinity issue"... a fractal can create a replica of itself with the exact same nature and characteristics of the "father" or "parent" fractal............the "son" fractal is the exact same as the parent/father fractal in every single way, and yet, not the same as the father...................I think this can explain the apparent paradox of Jesus claiming to be God almighty, and the son and also being the same as the father at the same time "if you have seen me you have seen the father". John 14:9.........................................so please,,,stop criticising Christians and making straw man arguments about us saying we are both "poly theists and monotheists and are just stupid Christians that cant make up our minds".................do you seriously think we have come to the revelation of our faith so lightly withought critical thinking?!................................also onto the issue of "sons of God".....and "only begotten son of God"....................we, humans, are sons of God,,we are his children....but we are not his "begotten" children......we don't have the exact nature, characteristics and abilities...............we can "beget" others like us and continue our family line,,,,,but at no point can our "begotten" children ever be like anything else apart from us(which is why I think evolution is a satanic blasphemy and mockery of Gods word since it implies we are on an "ascending path" through the generations)...............Jesus wasn't accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be a son of God,,,,,if he did,,the Jews would have been like "meh, ,,whatever,,,,no big deal"......Jesus was accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be the "BEGOTTEN" son of God.....a son of God after him in complete likeness, character and ability...........the Hebrews understood that a BEGOTTEN son takes on his fathers name, (normally profession), his inheritance and continues his family line.....................at to me, sounds like a fractal and explains why Jesus is both man, both God and yet "the son"....................ive only ever seen evidence of life coming from other life,,,,,,,,,,ive never seen life come from non life(but I'm willing to be proven wrong with evidence if anybody can)......................................it all comes down to the paradox of eternity and infinity(as being the key to why I think the Christian faith is the one true faith),,and I think fractals are the answer to the divine(meaning to branch) nature of God, and I think the Christian faith best explains our reality and true nature of God and what he is......................now,,,im not trying to take anything away from God(just because the spirit has revealed these truths to me in a way that we can now conceptualise), it doesn't change the fact God the father loved us so much he sent his only begotten son(in his own likeness, character in image) to die on a Roman cross(taking the curses upon himself) 200 years ago in Jerusalem that we may be "brought back" to our eternal "fractal" state at one with God almighty.

[@merwwrem9595]

11:45 what if he weakens himself so much that he couldn't lift even a pepple for an instant?

[@ruthacury7351]

You're entire definition of a logical action is flawed, it may be logical for a person to be doing an action, but the same doesnt apply to an omnipotent being. An omnipotent being couldnt say truthfully that they are not omnipotent as that is a logical contradiction even if a normal person could easily complete the task. 12:30

[@sirmudkipiii1159]

i think a better description of omnipotence would be "something with the ability to do anything that is not paradoxical in nature"

[@ralphshively808]

honestly, the "can do anything that is logically possible" is a good enough parameter. A paradox is not logical. So an omnipotent being wouldn't be able to do anything paradoxical anyway. There's no way to know for sure what such a being would end up looking like. But without paradoxes. Omnipotence actually holds up pretty well. For instance, present it with the grandfather paradox and you run into time travel not being logically possible. therefore the being is not subject to it. Lifting something that is more than what you can create would also be within logic. Since either the being could be in opposite states at two different times, or, more likely, a logical limit would present itself at one of the extremes and make it viable. Of course, just the fact that all these things would have to be true violates the principle of occam's razor and just feels wrong in general. But I think it's essential to thought process to play devil's advocate and to do it with the same zeal as you would with your own point.

[@ralphshively808]

btw, I liked the comment, I replied cause I felt like your definition was in the ball park of what i thought it should be, lol. Sorry if I came off as a debater

[@ralphshively808]

You're mistaken Jim. A paradox isn't something with an unsolvable answer. The answer is only unsolvable because we don't know it. As for the "making an immovable rock" The reason that is not logical is because there is no such thing as an immovable rock. All rocks can be moved. Spouting off a fantastic task is not a good test for whether or not something is all powerful. All powerful simply means that the being can work within the total limits of physics. As for the time travel thing. That's a little off topic from the rest of this but time doesn't actually exist, we're not travelling through time at this very moment. Time is a construct of man thought up using math. Math is just a way to give tangibility to things that don't have it. If everything in the universe suddenly stopped moving at all levels, then what we perceive as time would "stop" because it's an illusion. The notion that other times exist and we're blinking through it like the langeleers or a movie film or something is ridiculous. I never understood why people think that crap is possible.

[@ralphshively808]

I never agreed to anything and everything, I agreed to anything physically possible. An immovable rock is not physically possible.

[@ralphshively808]

actually I said what you perceive as time would stop. Wormholes cannot create time travel because they would kill anything that went through them with the exception of maybe some kind of weird space bacteria. Moving faster than the speed of light is not time travel. That would just cause you to perceive something on a delay.

[@alrafikri]

Ah I found a gem. It's weird to think that you only have 33k subs