A square circle? Oh, you mean a WWE Ring

@kwamecharles6037

4 жыл бұрын

😂

@hewhositsuponfroggychair5722

4 жыл бұрын

O>2 Problem solved

@ramblingrob14

4 жыл бұрын

Sean Spahr ya dead ass no if an atheist asked we can say that

@dubzilla6978

3 жыл бұрын

Dude. Nice.

@putyourideas

3 жыл бұрын

Pretty much any entertainment wresting wring. For actual wrestling, like mat wrestling, they do have a circle/ring, but the squared ones in entertainment use a younger definition of ring, that I think is exclusive to them.

"Can God microwave a burrito so hot even He can't eat it." -Homer Simpson

@davidhatcher7016

5 жыл бұрын

no

@brianlamptey4823

5 жыл бұрын

But then it wouldn't be a burrito, we call it a burrito because it'snot too hot for God to eat.

@davidhatcher7016

5 жыл бұрын

@@brianlamptey4823 um ok

@angeliquaserenity5009

5 жыл бұрын

LOL

@etvitneomfrelse2049

5 жыл бұрын

XD

Im an atheist and im glad that i found this channel. I have many doubts of the common atheist arguments especially the definition that both sides uses.

@davidhatcher7016

5 жыл бұрын

how?

@robloxcris9461

5 жыл бұрын

Even without the definition of omnipotent. The paradox backfired its own argument if God was beyond logic.

@roargathor

5 жыл бұрын

@@robloxcris9461 Saying something is beyond logic is fine... It's completely worthless in an argument, but you can do whatever mental gymnastics you want, won't make it valid.

@gasmimoha1957

5 жыл бұрын

What i understand from his video is that God is beyond logic and we can't use logic to prove his existence or not. So we go back to the question of how theists believe in his existence if they are not using logic ?

@kenim

5 жыл бұрын

@@gasmimoha1957 actually we dont need to asume he is beyond logic. Regarding His miracles, just because we dont understand how he does or did some things, doesnt expell it from the realm of logic. Also manipulation of all that is in existense is withing the "limited" first description.

Never thought I’d see Thanos in a video regarding Christianity, lol.

@InspiringPhilosophy

5 жыл бұрын

he will be in a couple more

@aramkaizer7903

5 жыл бұрын

Yeet

@TheBrunarr

5 жыл бұрын

IP's a Marvel fan

@InspiringPhilosophy

5 жыл бұрын

A huge marvel fan.

@justifan

5 жыл бұрын

What is interesting is that many times Thanos has became nearly what he, and some others, would define to themselves as omnipotent...unfortunately Thanos runs into his own contradictions and logical fallacies, which ultimately causes him to fail. The definition of "omnipotence" really has to be determined correctly for it to have any meaning, and therefore Thanos has yet to run into God's definition of it, lol.

As CS Lewis said. Nonsense remains nonsense even if we speak it about God :D

@davidhatcher7016

5 жыл бұрын

so?

@Junnepie

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidhatcher7016 rövlob

@alphaecho3875

3 жыл бұрын

What do you mean? Sorry no hate pls

@d.j.cassidy1642

3 жыл бұрын

Sounds like someone who is so bias and so arrogant that he will never try to understand other opinions. Instead he will ignore every single argument out there. That's not realistic, that's just stubborn.

@Nameless-pt6oj

Жыл бұрын

Was that a C. S. Lewis quote or was it John Lennox?

I love how you put “debunked”, and actually debunked something. Unlike other KZreadrs......

@tylerx099

5 жыл бұрын

Arturo Sparages Viced Rhino? Lol

@DudeFromOregon

5 жыл бұрын

Tyler X09 I think he's referring to Rationality Rules haha

@tylerx099

5 жыл бұрын

Scared Noel oh yeah that guy. Well actually both him and Viced Rhino do rather poor jobs in trying to debunk these people. Rhino actually did a debunk video of Ip’s ontological argument and he was basically trying to say the same thing of what these atheist here on the comments are saying. In fact he doesn’t even mention scholarly sources or even a set up a premise to make his case. He and Rationality Rules are both sell outs imo

@DudeFromOregon

5 жыл бұрын

Tyler X09 I'm not too big on philosophy, but seeing how atheists repeat the same questions and arguments, I'll take your word for it

@tylerx099

5 жыл бұрын

Scared Noel yeah listen to their videos more often and you’ll see what I mean

I see people define omnipotence, and I am like... "You can't accurately comprehend how powerful omnipotence is. It is so ridiculous that, if it is real, it is above any understanding and reasoning that any of us can ever come up with. We are not omniscient after all." I personally prescribe to the belief that an omnipotent being can do anything they want. They can change all of reality and existence to make their whims and wishes come true. They could make a square circle if they wanted to. They could break reality to accomplish their goals. But why would they do that? There is no reason to prove you wrong. You are a tiny insignificant nothing burger to them. So is "reason" and "logic". If a being is omnipotent then they are the ones who made"reason" and "logic". Then I keep spouting incomprehensible nonsense for the rest of the night, and nobody cares.

@Jspore-ip5rk

3 жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣🤣

@MaxyTv123

3 жыл бұрын

i care

@alexwalsh1172

3 жыл бұрын

True. If God created laws of logic as we know them , there’s no chance he’d have to be bound by his own creation

@Pinkstrawbrrys

3 жыл бұрын

that's a really good point you just made

@mrmoth26

3 жыл бұрын

God didn't make logic though. No one did and no one can manipulate the rules of logic.

Even if omnipotence did mean the ability to do everything (even the logically impossible), there still wouldn't be anything wrong with an omnipotent being creating a stone so heavy that even he can't lift it, and then him lifting it. Although that is logically impossible, if omnipotence includes the ability to do the logically impossible, that is not a problem.

@dmx7329

5 жыл бұрын

EXACTLY

@moebadderman

5 жыл бұрын

# "if omnipotence did mean..." ...but it does not mean a damn thing.

@rogaldornthefortified6404

5 жыл бұрын

Valid point my friend, I’ll have to remember this one

@descartergosum

4 жыл бұрын

God can sin

@shadowone01x99

2 жыл бұрын

Incorrect!!!! 1) Can an omnipotent being commit suicide ABSOLUTE DEATH of itself it's totality and finality?.....NOPE!!!!.....humans and animals can EASILY do this, yet such a powerful being lack the ability to do it. 2) Can such a being lie which equals moral imperfection?.....NOPE!!!! 3) Can it create many other omnipotent beings in equal and greater power?...in a manner of how humans have created a.i which is believed and/or anticipated to supercede humans IF restrictions are NOT implemented into the a.i. (Isaac Asimov- Laws of Robotics)...NOPE!!!!...an omnipotent being is not capable of creating more powerful beings. All the above would be a direct contradiction of it's own nature therefore omnipotence itself has limits. Thus, I favor the definition that omnipotence is to be the most powerful within logical possibility.

If your omnipotent, You can make the impossible possible. It's simple.

@unarmilion457

5 жыл бұрын

PrestoAnimations/ GroomTV actually no I recommend watching a video by the imaginary axis called “the seven dark gods of dc”

@vegeta2800

3 жыл бұрын

@@unarmilion457 lmao, thats exactly what it means, making the impossible, possible. Are you saying your god has limits?? If so, why call it omnipotent?

Thanks for this video. I will be assigning it to my 100-level Introduction to Ethics course at the University of Maryland for our week on Divine Command Theory. We talk about the idea that God's so-called "inability" to make 'murder for fun' morally permissible isn't a limitation just like his so-called "inability" to make a circle-square or to make a rock so heavy that even he couldn't lift aren't really inabilities or violations of his/her/its omnipotence. You cover nicely in your video why neither of these are true inabilities or problems for omnipotence.

@InspiringPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

What an honor, thank you. Check out my video on virtue ethics if you like: kzread.info/dash/bejne/l2mpqat_m66YmLw.html

@shadowone01x99

2 жыл бұрын

Anything that definitively states or implies "can not" is inherently a limitation.

@Adrian-10

Жыл бұрын

@InspiringPhilosophy I have a genuine question, doesn't Matthew 19:26 and plenty of other Bible verses say that God can do anything

If God is omnipotent in the case He can do anything with an unfathomable power, then one of two things is true. God is either able to do anything that has a logical reasoning or coherency, or, due to his overwhelming and comprehendible power he can defy logic anyway. Problem solved

@charlestonian7110

2 жыл бұрын

@Andrew Ramshaw Well, what do we define "existed" as? The typical definition will also involve an "exit" or "death" from the state of "existing", so to speak. If God is beyond time, He simply "is", which is a state that is pretty contradictory to logic in and of itself. If we tie Creation into things (whether you believe in literal creation all at once or theistic evolution), making anything out of simply willing it to exist or of power that doesn't exactly "intersect" with our own time and space, we can, again, see that omnipotence wouldn't just be limited to our logic, if that's what you meant.

@charlestonian7110

2 жыл бұрын

@Andrew Ramshaw My point with mentioning that God "is", rather than "exists", was to say that the nature of "is", in itself, is, at least, somewhat contradictory to our own logic, in terms of comprehensible thought. Simply, we cant fathom how God is able to perceive time and information in respect to us/our world, making that trait beyond our logic, itself. Going by the Christ story, we also see that God not only displayed *power* in the physical world, but He could also manifest in it - spiritually - with his power, which, again, is something we can theoretically say "should be possible" with omnipotence but is beyond our logic, as we can't reasonably deduce how a spirit that has been said to be triun-ally God, can remain fully God, when entering a human body, while the other "characters" of God are elsewhere.

@AesirUnlimited

2 жыл бұрын

@@charlestonian7110 I always saw it as god being a higher dimensional being. We know (or theorize) that multiple dimensions exist, so it wouldn’t be a stretch to assume that the being that is God would be in whatever the highest dimension.

@charlestonian7110

2 жыл бұрын

@@AesirUnlimited Personally, I think so, to some extent, myself, as well, since we can't really perceive many things, even in our physical world, as it is. We have a very limited number of cones, compared to some other creatures, meaning they perceive colors we can't really begin to imagine unless they are somehow just more defined, but the problem comes in the form of lack of knowledge. Anyway, yes, I believe God is of a higher dimension and a higher dimensional perception, but I don't exactly think that means that a spiritual reality we cannot physically peer into is out of the question, though. It would seem, to me, according to my own belief, that God is a few things: a watcher, an influencer, a maker, and, at times, a helper. Odd to think about how He would perceive us and His interactions with us, though.

@AesirUnlimited

2 жыл бұрын

@@charlestonian7110 Lots of people act like science and faith can’t coincide. I see it like this. Science is the blueprint of the universe, faith and religion are the blueprint of the soul, the answer to why. Science can explain how, but it can’t always explain why. Why does quantum theory exist, why does gravity and all the other laws of physics work in the way that they do? Whether there’s a god or not, there’s some reason for it all. To me, there’s simply no way that all of this came from nothing, out of pure chance. If there truly was absolutely nothing before the universe came into existence during the big bang, why didn’t it just stay that way? If some outside influence or force is the thing that decides, then wouldn’t that be god?

As an atheists and seeker I would say, you have provided a very good argument. You changed my mind in this issue. Keep it up. Subscribed to your channel.

@josephbrandenburg4373

5 жыл бұрын

Something I like to do when I think about God is try to pick out what are the limits I impose on him. Often, in my mind there exists a god that finds its being in time and space. God is a lot easier to understand when you think of him as the unchanging touchstone of reality. God told Moses that his name was "I AM THAT I AM" -perhaps you could even translate it as "I will cause to be that which I will be" (I don't speak Hebrew, but If I remember correctly, it's a causative verb which we don't have in English). Thinking of God as existing outside of (or at least independent of) time and space is important to understanding God in a consistent way. It's a good exercise to examine what kind of limits we place on our mental understanding of God. You don't have to believe in God to do this sort of philosophical exercise- if something like God should exist, what are the logical ends of this idea? There must be something that exists independently, being able to say "I AM" and _really mean it, _ or else where did the universe come from? If the universe is self-existent, does it make sense that it is bounded by time and space? Wouldn't time and space be self-existent, instead? The question that really matters to the human is: what is the nature of this ultimate, self-existing reality? Is it like a mind? Or is it inanimate, like a physical law?" Anyways, I'm presenting this idea because you described yourself as a "seeker," so I think it might be interesting for you to ponder or discuss.

@josephbrandenburg4373

5 жыл бұрын

@GDDM sam I don't know if you're replying to me or the other guy, but it seems like you're playing semantics, here. Of course he didn't debunk your peculiar conception of the problem- you've framed the definitions to preclude the possibility of being wrong.

@josephbrandenburg4373

5 жыл бұрын

KZread is glitching and I can't see your other comment, except the first few words in my notification. Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree since I can't see your side of the conversation.

@GabrielLopez-pi4xs

4 жыл бұрын

@@josephbrandenburg4373 Couldn't you have juat said the same for space and time both the (biblical god) and the universe are paradoxes in there inherent nature . Me seeing space and time as a "touch stone of reality." Has as much validation as you seeing god as such.

@josephbrandenburg4373

4 жыл бұрын

@@GabrielLopez-pi4xs No

You know, I was thinking the same thing. It’s just you say it way better XD

I remember how someone presented this argument to me back when I was 14. I knew it was fallacious, but I couldn't put words to it. But a few years later I realized what you just said right now: people misunderstand what omnipotence means

@Zanta100

3 жыл бұрын

no he just redefines it and then pretents that his definition was always used

@awesomefacepalm

3 жыл бұрын

@@Zanta100 IP or the atheist I talked about?

@Zanta100

3 жыл бұрын

@@awesomefacepalm IP

@awesomefacepalm

3 жыл бұрын

@@Zanta100 taking the Bible as a source for God's omnipotence IPs definition of omnipotence is more accurate than "can do all things"

@Zanta100

3 жыл бұрын

@@awesomefacepalm but that is literally what the bible says it says he can do anything also what IP defines wouldnt allow creation and therefore cant fit

Question, how did you start your .org website and is it free to do? I want to make a website like yours where I lay out arguments for things like God, morality, idealism, philosophy etc.

@InspiringPhilosophy

5 жыл бұрын

I went through GoDaddy, but it can be complicated. They do have ways that make it easy.

It's very helpful to know how omnipotence is expressed in greek e.g. in Nicean Credo. There is word "Pantokrator" which means "Ruler of all" so we can see there is nothing about ability, but the intuition that God is supreme Ruler who is holding everything in his hands.

@paaklapi

5 жыл бұрын

Everything except the laws of logic.

@YugenOfficial

5 жыл бұрын

Omnipotent is "pantodinamos".Not "Pantokratoras". These words are not the same whats so ever.

@Paweł_Krakowski

4 жыл бұрын

@@YugenOfficial right, I mean in Credo -- which I think is a most important set of propositionts about God -- there is nothing about pantodinamos but pantokratoras. And these words are often translate in the same way as Almighty. I'm aware of the fact that pantodinamos is also used to describe God, but I think pantokratoras is a primary way to talk about powerfulness of our Lord.

@edcorps2876

2 жыл бұрын

It's also a really good, but not well know metalcore band. From Poland I think.

@emperorofyoutubedebates8909

2 жыл бұрын

@@paaklapi god made logic

We should be careful to define the unknown by our standards of what we know and deem possible.

@goranmilic442

3 жыл бұрын

If saying God is good or all-knowing or all-possible doesn't mean good, all-knowing and all-possible by our standards, then we can't use those words. You can't say God is good, if good means something else.

@ina7084

3 жыл бұрын

IP should be careful with defining the phrase "all powerful" as something non - recogniseable from its original meaning. Now all he needs to do is let the other countries know what omnipotence actually means since they seem to not have caught up to what has apparently been known since forever. In my language the phrase "all powerful" when referring to God is made up out of two words "all" + "(he)with the ability to do" which translates to "he with the ability to do all" And you cannot prescribe any other meaning except "the ability to do" to the word that is in that place. There's no dilemma between the meaning of powerful (strong or able to do) because those would be two completely different words which are not even similar. "He who can do all" is the only phrase we have to refer to omnipotence. And there's no space for confusion whatsoever. But I'd like to see IP try really.

@knightofwangernumb2998

Жыл бұрын

@@ina7084 God can simply change what it means to be logic. He can do anything.

Thank you so much IP this is amazing!

A video game developer is omnipotent from the perspective of their game world. They are free to add, change or modify everything in existence within that world. That does not mean that they are free to magically make the video game exceed the boundaries of the computer it's running on, but it does mean that they can alter its rules or add new things or take things away.

@absolstoryoffiction6615

11 ай бұрын

Logical Omnipotence is what you're describing. I designed every facet of Omnipotence before. I know every iteration of it. (... Well... I don't go around designing Existence anymore. The real world is just one of the many iterations.)

@Lord9Genesis

Ай бұрын

Jumanji 🐘 🐅 🐒

If the atheist wishes to rebut logic consistency by way of arguing that God ought to be able to do the logically impossible/ is "beyond" logic, they still don't get anywhere. God could create a rock so heavy that he can't lift and then lift it- it doesn't make sense (i.e. logically impossible), but that's fine remember? God can do the logically impossible/ is "beyond" logic. Even if you suspend logic to contrive your way to a paradox; there is no paradox.

@davecirlclux

5 жыл бұрын

Why do you believe in Yahweh when you know that Moslems believe in Allah?

@Reason_over_Dogma

5 жыл бұрын

I don't know if your being serious but you're proving the point. Why attempt to create sophomoric arguments for good and try to train if he can ascend above reason? What's the difference between that and saying god was a prexistent fish that lived before the existence of the cosmos and recreated likeness of himself among himself ?

@moebadderman

5 жыл бұрын

# "it doesn't make sense" Exactly.

@davecirlclux

5 жыл бұрын

@xxAlexFogxx so you say there are errors in the Qur'an but yet no errors in the Bible? Why can't you be critical about your religion the same way you are critical of Islam? Is it because you are emotionally blinded by one and not the other?

@davidhatcher7016

5 жыл бұрын

@@davecirlclux what?

Literally the definition of power is the ability to do.

@zaywyd5463

3 жыл бұрын

So omnipotence = omnicapable?

@lorenioooooas

3 жыл бұрын

@@austin3789 the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way. "the power of speech" Similar: ability capacity capability potential potentiality faculty property competence competency Opposite: inability incapacity 2. the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events. "a political process that offers people power over their own lives" verb 1. supply (a device) with mechanical or electrical energy. "the car is powered by a fuel-injected 3.0-litre engine" 2. move or travel with great speed or force. "he powered round a bend"

@lorenioooooas

3 жыл бұрын

Nowhere does it say do anything, it says do 'something'. For example if i can lift 1000kg im powerful, but i might not be able to ride a bike, im still powerful. I have the capacity to do something, that's really amazing, but i dont have the power to do other things. Im still powerful, nowhere does it say, must be able to do ALL things, it's just something. Besides a 'thing' assumes that it exists, a paradox is 'nothing' by definition. So having the power to do all 'things' implies that the 'things' must be logically possible or exist.

@nemanjanikolic636

3 жыл бұрын

If you read Bible you will find that God can't lie(Bible Is very vlear on that)Doesn that mean he Is not omnipotent?No.Why?1.potent=ability 2.potent=power Christians use 2. definition bcs it says in Bible that God can't lie.So there really Is no "paradox".God simply has more power than anyone or anything.He is NOT capable of doing everything,thas would be something that Bible doesnt teach.(its pretty clear you dont want to know the real answer,bcs this guy made very good explanation.P.S. if you arent Christian that doesnt mean you have to be pussy about evidence.

@chrisyoung5929

3 жыл бұрын

@@nemanjanikolic636 Yahweh lies by chapter 4 of Genisis. Yahwe tells Adam and Eve that they will die if they eat the fruit but they don't. He tells Abraham a lie, saying he will not accept human sacrifice in the future then happily accepts Jephthah killing his daughter as a sacrifice in Judges 11-12. There are a number of others. They are just more of the made-up nature of all of it.

Even if you go with the second definition of omnipotence, one could say that God can defy logic, because he is omnipotent. Therefore, if he created a limit to himself (like the famous rock), he could still remain omnipotent, even if it is illogical. He could create a married batchelor, even if it does not make sense, and humans cannot immagine such a creation just because they are bound by logic.

@silencemeviolateme6076

2 жыл бұрын

Plenty of husbands are married bachelors. That's what cheap efficiency apartments are for.

Then what do u do with the verse nothing is impossible to god

How could God be all powerful if he needs angels and is struggling in a war and final battle with Satan yet to come?

@godsservant1109

2 ай бұрын

That's Christian belief

@sydeweizgt

Ай бұрын

​@@godsservant1109yeah, that is the problem with the whole god buisness

@DistortedEmpath

29 күн бұрын

​@@sydeweizgtbut that's just Christianity islam doesn't have this narrative

@dhenreycorpuz2951

8 күн бұрын

God doesn't NEED the angels. He just created them because He wants to. Remember before the Angels, God already exists. And He is not struggling in a war with Satan, WE christians are. God already condemned Satan to an eternal defeat in hell.

@sydeweizgt

8 күн бұрын

@@dhenreycorpuz2951 I dont see how that matters. Christianity and Islam have both their own problems that they need to solve. Based on my research, Christianity has fundamental problems that it cannot solve. So their God, I don't see as anything but fiction. Islam, well it has its own problems, and I wont research it. You guys do what you do.

Hey IP, great video as always. You are really helping to equip me to hold my ground against my philosophy professors. One quick question: will you ever make a video on foreknowledge? I'm surprised you haven't made one yet, it's a pretty big topic. Thanks!

@InspiringPhilosophy

5 жыл бұрын

That will be my next video.

I love this channel! It is a blessing to me and many others. I hope you are blessed and pray you keep doing what you do.

@scambammer6102

2 жыл бұрын

Except he is wrong. Most theists think god can do anything. And "omnipotent" means "all powerful" not just more powerful than anything else.

Omg please help please i am questioning my faith because Joseph atwills theory on the romans creating jesus please help because why would jesus say to pay Caesar unless they made him? If you knew the answer please help sir

@InspiringPhilosophy

5 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZIF8l6mtZ5ydpsY.html

@paperfoldingmachine5730

5 жыл бұрын

@@InspiringPhilosophy what is your argument/view on this?

@InspiringPhilosophy

5 жыл бұрын

It is silly, no scholar is threatened by the rambling of Atwill.

@paperfoldingmachine5730

5 жыл бұрын

@@InspiringPhilosophy okay thanks. It does sound like a silly conspiracy theory, but i guess i thought it made some sense. Nice video

@paperfoldingmachine5730

5 жыл бұрын

@@InspiringPhilosophy sorry to question this again, but i have multiple things that i cant find answers for on the internet, so i was hoping you could address them: 1) OT: Joseph goes to Egypt NT: Joseph goes to egypt OT: mass killing of babies (pharoh) NT: Herod mass killing of babies Question 2) Doesn't it make sense that a peaceful messiah who basically said: "You dont have to follow sabbath, circumsise, etc, sacrafice, all you need to do is believe and you get ETERNAL LIFE"? Also, he says to pay rome, and in peter it says to commit to your harsh master. The question being: wouldnt it make sense that the romans made an appealing messiah to get people to not rebel? 3) last question: besides tacitus, what evidence do we have of christianity in the FIRST half of the 1st century AD? Thanks, it would really help to hear what you have to say. Also, not to annoy you, but can you answer in your own words, not a link? I just want to hear your thoughts. Sorry if that is annoying, but you can also give a link to if you have one. Have a good day.

Is there a video that IP or whoever connecting the theist god to the Christian god?

@InspiringPhilosophy

5 жыл бұрын

we do that through the resurrection argument: kzread.info/dash/bejne/c2SdprCFqNC9hrA.html

So what does "power" in all powerful refer to?

@rogaldornthefortified6404

5 жыл бұрын

Power in this case is best described I find, as authority over all existing things he created, which in our case would just be our universe, not making any assertions beyond that so take it as you will within the confines of how I’ve defined it

You got omnipotent wrong yourself in a certain way. All- in omi- doesn't mean anything akin to "top of the leader board" it literally means all. As in, omnipotent means one can move with the fury of the entirety of creation times infinity, or move with the gentleness of an electron quantum tunneling.

@_DiJiT

3 жыл бұрын

@@keithtorres5743 No he doesn't. He doesn't mention this whatsoever the whole video. He never questions the meaning of the prefix Omni- and uses a single "top of the charts" definition for omnipotent and omniscient that DOESN'T equate to it's usage in omnipresent.

@_DiJiT

3 жыл бұрын

@@keithtorres5743 if you think what he says at 6:45 has anything to do with my comment, you either have failed to understand IP's video or failed to understand my comment.

@_DiJiT

3 жыл бұрын

@@keithtorres5743 no, my logic does not work that way. My argument is not the Etymology fallacy. I'm not arguing it's logically impossible to be Omnipotent, which is what the argument would entail. I'm saying that in this video, IP got the biblical definition of omnipotent incorrect, and is using the modern American definition, not how the ancient people of the near East would have used the word.

@_DiJiT

3 жыл бұрын

@@keithtorres5743 ... Yes, you have certainly misinterpreted what I was commenting. Because I am very confused as to why you're commenting such irrelevance haha You're not accurately describing what I'm saying at all. No part of my argument has to do with dismissing Christianity, like you seem to think. The definition I use is BETTER argumentation for God. It's LESS self-contradictory, takes FEWER presumptions, and makes MORE sense with BETTER internal consistency with the language and descriptions of God than the definition IP uses. It also fits the historical context better, as well as it better fits the context of Greek translations omnipotent is not a Hebrew word, but Greek, after all.

@_DiJiT

3 жыл бұрын

@@keithtorres5743 you can stop putting atheist words in my mouth at any time.

I principally disagree with the idea that “it is logically impossible to be able to do anything.” The “Logic” here is not bounded to the confines of our understanding of mechanics, reason, or existence, and assuming it is is doing a great disservice to a being that fundamentally usurps the essence of the reality we know. Can God create a square circle? Why sure, maybe not in this reality, but God is intrinsically unbounded by our “reality.” Generally speaking, if you have to counter a logical paradox with the redefinition of terms, the paradox still stands for the terms you excluded. These cases do not disintegrate because you decided to limit God to our experience of the physical universe

@davidhatcher7016

5 жыл бұрын

really?

@Fealorin

4 жыл бұрын

Sorry, but anyone that says it's possible to make a square circle has a fundamental misunderstanding of language, logic, reason, and mathematics. By definition, both circles and squares are two-dimensional in nature. To add extra dimensions in order to make a "square circle", one would have to change the very definition of a square or the very definition of a circle, thus creating a new entity altogether. This applies to anything. Once the definition of an term or entity is altered, it ceases to be that entity and actually creates a new entity. Anyone who has studied calculus, linear algebra, and discrete mathematics would understand what I'm saying. And no, logic cannot just be redefined at a whim or else it loses coherence, and when coherence is lost, collapse follows.

@davidnewhart2533

4 жыл бұрын

@@Fealorin Omnipotence is beyond logic. He can make a square circle regardless.

@dazaiel8081

2 жыл бұрын

​@@davidnewhart2533 Omnipotence is not beyond logic. To claim it is, is to claim it is illogical. Things that exists are capable of such because existence simply is; God was, is, and will always be. Hence God's name, "YHWH," which translates to "I be that I be" or "I am who I am." The name shows a continual nature that simply is. "I be" leads into "I be," and "I am" leads into "I am." God is a necessary being, therefore His non-existence is impossible, as God is existence itself. Which logically follows as God is logic itself, too. For example: God cannot make Himself not exist, that is logically impossible to do. God cannot do anything that does not follow logic, which is Himself. God cannot contradict His own nature, or He wouldn't be God. To say "omnipotence is beyond logic" is to say God is beyond Himself, and if God is beyond Himself then He wouldn't be bound by who He is. Therefore, He wouldn't exist and He wouldn't be Him. You're proposing a scenario where God contradicts Himself which is logically impossible. God being existence itself means God is omnipotent, no thing is beyond God, therefore existence, as they are bounded by it, hence their existence. Their being is contingent on God. Everything in existence, that is contingent, combined would not be greater than God ever. He cannot be defeated by anything that relies on Him to be.

@onlyechadtherebellious2467

2 жыл бұрын

@@dazaiel8081 Yet God can exist but not exist at the same time, that’s Omnipotence.

Didn't you already do this one? I remember you used a triangle with 4 sides as an example.

You cannot win an argument by redefining the given terms. If they specify something, then that is what they are claiming. You cannot alter their claim to make yourself right! So good to hear it here. Thank you very much! God Bless

@davidhatcher7016

5 жыл бұрын

what?!

@lukasa620

3 жыл бұрын

roasted pancakes both I think

@mackdmara

3 жыл бұрын

@roasted pancakes So, IP gave you a definition of omnipotent that is consistent with how it has been understood classically. Even if not, this would be his claim. When you redefine it from, 'having power over all things' to, 'the power to do the illogical', then it isn't rational. Of course, you defined it as such. Thus, when someone defines omnipotent to mean the latter, you have an incoherent definition. Your definition is wrong, but in philosophy it is what the person defines it as, not the strawman of the latter definition. That is a circular definition, you mistaked it, not IP. *A clever mind can always make a definition that appears to be false, but if that isn't what it originally means, you cannot redefine your way to victory.* Omnipotent is power over all things, not power over things that logically couldn't exist. The stone to heavy to lift is incoherent as an idea, given the unpower of being stronger then all stones. It is only a paradox if you misconstrued the claim. Stones like that cannot logically be made. Just because you can say & conceptualize, a married bachelor, doesn't imply you can logically say such a person exists. Same with the stone.

The ability to do anything does admittedly sound cooler

If God created the whole universe by speaking it into existence, I think he can handle your little married bachelor. That puts God at 1, and you at 0.

@amortality999

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed!

@Zoolthar

3 жыл бұрын

But these are words that humans invented and if god would make someone like you are saying, by the definition his creation wouldn't apply for one of them (bachelor or husband)

@ThomWillis

2 жыл бұрын

@@Zoolthar Yep. Logical contradictions are just tricks of language. Just because you can put two words together doesn't mean they have to refer to anything at all.

The Bible says in Luke 1:37 :"For there is nothing which God is not able to do." Or Job 42:2 says :"I see that you are able to do every thing, and to give effect to all your designs." And Psalms 115:3 says :"But our God is in heaven: he has done whatever was pleasing to him." So I perfectly understand why an atheist can believe that God can do anything. When I read these verses my understanding is God can do whatever he wants. So I will be happy to see the verses who support your understanding of the omnipotence of God because you don't give any. (sorry if I make mistakes, English is not my mother tongue)

@lysoutrighter8260

4 жыл бұрын

Yes he can do anything because he's beyond the realm of logic.

@mkmkkml

4 жыл бұрын

@@lysoutrighter8260 @Lysout Righter But the video said,i f something is illogical, god cannot do it.🤔🤔🤔 So that means that god is not beyond logic. Or maybe I completly miss the point of the video.🙄🙄🙄

@ezekielguy402

4 жыл бұрын

Not serious hiberbaly

@HarryPairatestes363

2 ай бұрын

​@@mkmkkmlIf it is in the nature of God to be logical, does this necessarily mean that He is bound by it? It could be that God, in that He is a necessary, omnipotent and omniscient being, consists-- or is otherwise comprised of--the attributes and characteristics that give rise to logic, and can and has employed this with respect to His creating a rationally intelligible universe, but is not Himself limited by its laws, in the same way that He brought a contingent universe into being, yet is not contingent upon anything for his own existence. Forgive the more speculative tone of the comment, as I'm still in the process of formulating a syllogism.

8:05 "...shows you don't know what you're talking about (pause)." I feel like a worse version of you put pictures of about a dozen KZread personalities on screen.

@InspiringPhilosophy

5 жыл бұрын

I thought about it.

@UnratedAwesomeness

5 жыл бұрын

@@InspiringPhilosophy Hahaha

To be fair, the second definition of omnipotence comes directly from the bible itself: Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27, Luke 1:37, Jeremiah 32:27, Job 42:2, Philippians 4:13

@emv1309

Жыл бұрын

Haha he didnt respond :)))

Please tell me what to do. I keep seeing people say thr bible is just a myth. What do i say to this? Thanks good video

@BvG-ck2ry

5 жыл бұрын

The best thing to do is to hear them out and listen to why they say the bible is a myth. You might learn something.

@fogheaded3866

4 жыл бұрын

You except that it's true and you all are listening to a random author from over 300 years ago who'd long since dead

THANKS BROTHER. I REALLY LEARNED SOMETHING FROM THIS. CAN I USE THIS TO FURTHER EXPLAIN THIS SUBJECT? GLORY TO GOD IN CHRIST JESUS!

If God has power over all things in existence, that would mean that he has power over all things in existence, including the laws of logic. If he has power over the laws of logic, he can make “God doesn’t exist” or “Truth doesn’t exist” a true statement. If he can’t, then he doesn’t have power over the laws of logic. Thus, does not have power over all things in existence & still wouldn’t be all-powerful. Would love to hear any objections.

@IAmAlpharius20

6 ай бұрын

Yep, He can. He can exist while simultaneously not existing. He's GOD.

@Kyle72396

6 ай бұрын

@@IAmAlpharius20 are you trolling or do you actually believe that?

If a being is bound by logic then the being is not omnipotence.

I pose to be able to categorise God as this or that is to know God, which is an entity that can not be known, right? So everyone is wrong according to what we're taught, right?

Great video! I already had a rough idea as to why the omnipotence paradox is ridiculous, but listening to someone articulate it better gives further clarity.

I may get some hate for this. God can save you from your sins (only if you want him to), but he CANNOT save you in your sins.

Your videos are so good! Thank you for doing these!

If I can lift any weight, tell me what physical object I can’t lift

What about the writer and his story theory?

This is very interesting glad I ran into this video My friend and I had a huge discussion about this subject

I agree with your main points but I have to disagree with a minor point up top. It rustles my jimmies when someone says "it's logically impossible to be able to do anything"; like you, they always give examples of "things that cannot be done" which are simply incoherent pseudo-statements (I think "incoherent statement" is sort of a contradiction in terms; calling it a statement implies that it has some level of coherence). The favorite philosopher examples of "square circle" or "married bachelor" clearly aren't things, or even concepts. No one can conceive of them in any detail, because they are just incoherent mashups of two contradictory words. Saying "God can't create a square that is round" is equivalent to saying "God can't amckjeugidhgng." You're not saying anything at all; it just tricks our brains because we know what the words mean individually. Therefore we assume that they must also have a meaning when put together, but they don't, because their individual meanings are fundamentally at odds. Same deal with God creating a stone so big that he can't lift it. The answer is, the concept of "stone so big that an omnipotent being cannot lift it" is simply incoherent. The weight of the stone is defined so as to outweigh omnipotence itself; yet the very concept of omnipotence nullifies weight as a relevant factor as to whether or not it can be lifted. It's just contradictory words strung together, with the incoherence cleverly disguised. I guess I would suggest replacing the term "logically impossible" with "logically incoherent." Even evaluating a phrase's possibility implies that you have a phrase worth evaluating, but incoherent non-concepts like "square circle" don't qualify; they're like darkness, they are nothing, just a lack of sense disguised as english words. I would like for philosophers to stop confusing nonsense with impossibility.

@bigben7518

5 жыл бұрын

exactly, they're not even asking a meaningful question

@sukritmanikandan3184

5 жыл бұрын

It is precisely the contradictory nature of the whole scenario that proves the definition impossible. After all, it is perfectly possible for a normal human to create something it cannot lift. Just pile up a bunch of pebbles in a truck and see how you fare. This means that 'creating a thing you cannot lift' is 'a thing that can be done'. If omnipotence = 'Can do anything' then 'creating a thing you cannot lift' is necessarily one of them, as it is 'a thing that can be done'. but of course, the problem is, 'Lifting anything' is part of 'Anything can be done' , including the very 'thing you cannot lift'. If you in fact an lift it, it is no longer a 'thing you cannot lift'. If you can, 'you cannot 'lift anything'. as in either case, there is something you 'cannot do', which necessarily implies you cannot 'Can do anything'. Thus, you cannot be omnipotent

@benreinicke560

5 жыл бұрын

@@sukritmanikandan3184 "creating a thing you cannot lift" and "creating a thing you _can_ lift" are both "things that can be done". The paradox implies that. This just kicks the can down the road.

@sukritmanikandan3184

5 жыл бұрын

@@benreinicke560 As is 'Lifting anything', which contradicts 'creating a thing you cannot lift'. A logical framework is invalid if it has contradictions like these

@benreinicke560

5 жыл бұрын

@@sukritmanikandan3184 Yes, that is the whole point of the contradiction. Did you watch the video?

If a person is not omnipotent (by our very nature we are not) they would not be able to imagine a rock so heavy that it cannot be lifted OR even imagine what an omnipotent being actually is. The omnipotent paradox...we cannot imagine a being so unimaginable...

Can you cross upload to Odysee so I can add you to my RSS feed?

Well done, sir. I salute you!

Is it bad I laughed when he showed a pic of Richard Dawkins

@christophekeating21

4 жыл бұрын

No. Laughter is good for your health. 😉

@SpaceDin0

4 жыл бұрын

Christophe Keating especially when it’s a funny picture.

what about superposition

Genuine question from statement @ 11:35: is this suggesting that God, as all-powerful, has "necessary" limits? I'm sure I'm missing the point...

So you think that redefining what "omnipotent" means debunks the omniscience paradox? What part of "The ability to do anything" do you not understand? You debunked yourself when you said god could not create a rock he could not lift.

@InspiringPhilosophy

5 жыл бұрын

I did not redefine it, I used the old traditional definition. You didn't watch the video.

@davenchop

3 жыл бұрын

good call roargathor... whole video is just nonsense... if someone read the bible versus it contradicts everything this video painstakingly tries to imply....

@davenchop

3 жыл бұрын

wow religious people believe any nonsense if they think it helps their cause... fantasyland is callling ...

2:49 Saitama fanboys don’t like that

@onlyechadtherebellious2467

2 жыл бұрын

Hey lol

So you're saying god must exist within the context of a logical system. How did god create that system if he lives within it?

@blusheep2

3 жыл бұрын

How can we say that he lives in it as opposed to it flowing from him?

@m0hamed_kamz70

3 жыл бұрын

@@blusheep2 exactly only he has knowledge of such things and we should leave it at that. That's why hen it comes to God, belief is key because 'proof' and 'logic' would only get you so far, even if one doesn't believe in God...

IP, Do you agree with Dr. Craig that Logic is one of God's qualities?

@davidhatcher7016

5 жыл бұрын

evidence for that?

Personally I was thinking that if God created logic and the way things work that would mean that he doesn’t have to be affected by them meaning God can create a square circle and he can make a rock that he can lift and can’t lift.if God created logic then why does it apply to him ?

@putyourideas

3 жыл бұрын

Aristotle created Logic, but an omnipotent being is still a paradox.

I had to stop this video about 2 minutes in. If your power is infinite, then you can create paradoxes. End of discussion. Why is this so hard to understand? If I am omnipotent then, YES, I can make married bachelor, even if your simple mind doesn't understand. God can make 2 + 2 = 5. Simple as that. God created the laws of physics. God created time. God created the human mind. And God created logic. So ... God. Can. Do. Anything. ... and what is funny about everything I said, is that all makes logical sense. lol!!!

@grantlangkamp1909

3 жыл бұрын

This^

@theflashdcuniverse

3 жыл бұрын

Yup

@ElijahRyan-sx9kk

18 күн бұрын

When it’s time to define what they actually believe and show the reason behind it they simply change their definition😂. How convienent the all powerful and very active god of the Old Testament now is very “limited” in things he can do not that every human being has a camera in their pockets. 😂😂😂

@josephdu1952

7 күн бұрын

@@lymphoid ...you can certainly imagine/define "all powerful" that way but that is how how the Bible defined or meant by "all powerful" (which was kinda the point) So the best you can argue against the Bible from there is "I disagree with what the words means, but sure by your definition you would be right"

Greetings IP. Recently, a channel named "Dave S" made a series debunking your resurrection arguement. Do you think you can watch it and maybe reply your rebuttle or possibly make a video response? That would be really helpful. Thank you.

@InspiringPhilosophy

5 жыл бұрын

I've seen it and he doesn't really address my point. Part 2 is about prophecies, which doesn't address my series and part 3 is a really absurd video because it cherry picks 1 Corinthians 15 and ignores verses 12-19. There is not much substance there.

@PokemonTeleV

5 жыл бұрын

@@InspiringPhilosophy cool thanks.

IP I have an idea.so many atheists and even Christians thinking that willam lane craig had lost the debate against sean carol. hope you watched it already.it would be a great idea to make a video review on that debate.could you please do it?

If you can do anything that means you can break the rules of logic. So logically you can break logic.

@chrisotse6029

5 жыл бұрын

I totally agree. So in reality the question is "Is God subjected to human logic ?". If theists say no to this then they have to stop applying logic when interpreting the bible. If God can truly do things that are out of our capacity to comprehend, then people shoud stop trying to demonstrate things when it comes to the bible. It will only be about faith now. Eiher you believe it or you don't. Let's live together in peace.

This reminds me of the infamous 'paradox' of, "This statement is false." The statement, "This statement is false." CANNOT be a paradox simply because it is a nonsensical construct of words for the same reason that saying God is not omnipotent because He can't create something nonsense.

@InspiringPhilosophy

4 жыл бұрын

I have a video on that: kzread.info/dash/bejne/poKAr7BydKWsgJM.html

@chrisxdeboy

Жыл бұрын

I don't think you understand what a paradox is.

Jeremiah 32:17 - “Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you.” I admit i haven't looked at the argument like this before. It is because the bible actually seems to acknowledge that god could do anything, ''Nothing is too hard for him''

how would one have free will to choose an option other than that which an all-powerful being allows?

Some of you have to realize what omnipotence really mean. If one is omnipotent, they would be above the laws of logic as we know it. So yes, an omnipotent being would be able to make a square circle, they would be able to make the biggest finite number, they would be able to make an evil person simultaneously morally perfect. Please, stop contradicting omnipotence.

@putyourideas

3 жыл бұрын

If He's able to make self-contradions, then He is in of Himself impotent.

@notsam9528

3 жыл бұрын

No because the square circle can't itself exist. The category of circle (all points equally distant to a single central point) and that of a square (polygon with 4 equal sides and 4 equal angles) can't coexist in a single entity. That's a property of the entity. It can't exist as actuality nor as potential. God itself being defined as all perfections (see Leibniz) means he is the potential (a necessary being). Thus omnipotence is incompatible with logical impossibility. Potential can't be realized if it is not potential. What you're actually doing is creating an impossible definition of power which is just flatus vocis.

@Mehmet-sm8vr

3 жыл бұрын

@@notsam9528 We're assuming God is all powerful and can do anything in this hypothetical situation. This would include transcending the idea of logic and simple mathematical equations we currently have. You're trying to apply our current laws of physics to someone who is already omnipotent. We know this is consistent because God is a necessary existence (I can explain what that is) which makes him eternal. That would already contradict your debunk by definition, since our laws of physics suggest everything that has a beginning also has an ending.

@notsam9528

3 жыл бұрын

@@Mehmet-sm8vr but this definition of omnipotence isn't part of a necessary being. In fact this definition is inconsistent and is what we call flatus vocis, a.k.a it has no real relationship with reality. All ability has to be logically possible. The impossibility of a circular triangle is a "property" of the circular triangle. Meaning IT can't exist, not that you can't draw it. There's a reason why no professional great philosopher ever made this argument. You'll only see this coming from amateur youtube atheists, never from David Hume, or Leibniz, or Dscartes.

@Mehmet-sm8vr

3 жыл бұрын

@@notsam9528 I'm going to stop you there. "All abilities has to be logically possible". I disagree, since the specific argument we're discussing right now is if God can make a square circle, or a triangle square etc. By my definition of omnipotence, its the ability to do anything, and being all powerful. Now, when you say "all abilities has to be *logically* possible", it completely contradicts my definition of omnipotence anyway. Essentially, a square circle can not possibly or logically exist, yes. However, what I'm talking about is the existence of a square circle outside the laws of logic. If an omnipotent being couldn't create something logical or illogical, again, it'd contradict my definition.

Shakes my head. The fact that you believe that you can null/debunk the paradoxes when none really has managed to do so, is beyond me. You said an all powerful being=Meaning all of existence combined is weaker than omnipotent being. And you showed on your video "to have power over everything else in existence". When you say power over everything else in existence, you mean to surpass their power or to to actually have power/control/manipulation ect ect over everything else in existence? From the context of your video I understand you just mean being stronger than everything else in existence(combined). Which on it's own must be proven in order to be accepted. Meaning that the all powerful being must destroy all existence combined. But if he/she/it destroy all of existence, it will only be proving such to himself/herself/itself. Unless he/she/is able to recreate existence and somehow found a way to prove that he/she/it destroyed it before. So it remains that omnipotence can not be proven and it's a purely theoretical thing. Further obviously if someone or something else came up whom is stronger/more powerful than omnipotent being, then that being would no longer be omnipotent. Or if all existence combined was stronger or was able to withstand the power/attack of an omnipotent being, then that being would no longer be omnipotent. Now going over to the 2nd definition. They are not shooting themselves at all. Because a being having all power and all abilities ect ect, is supposed to be able to do everything you can and can't imagine(or so they say). So the paradoxes stand true and again it's impossible to prove a being omnipotent. As an example to this, let's take "The One Above All" who's considered to be omnipotent or the author of a fictional verse who's also considered to be omnipotent within fiction. Both of them are limited. The One Above All is limited to be only within fiction and is also limited to do only what the actual author/real life person knows and can imagine. Which in turn is also limited, as a person does have a limit to his knowledge and imagination. So yet again, we don't really have omnipotent beings. I noticed you shown Thanos on your video. Someone whom has been called omnipotent or nigh omnipotent. Yet again Thanos has shown to be able to be defeated and be weaker than others. And I am not talking about Living Tribunal or The One Above All or other beings in Marvel more powerful than Thanos. But I am talking even about Thanos and IG's(infinity gauntlet's) own universe. Multiple times combined forces of heroes ect has came close to defeating or actually defeated Thanos and saved the world. You may answer "Hence why nigh omnipotent", but the thing is, is even "nigh" good to say? Since it wasn't ALL EXISTENCE going against Thanos. It was less than that, much less than that. And further, there was also this time that he considered himself unworthy. Anyhow. Probably rumbling now so I will stop. My point is. Something to be accepted as omnipotent or existing or any other thing. It must first be proven as such. And since it can't be proven, then it will simply not be accepted. There is still none and nothing truly omnipotent whether you go by the first definition you spoke about or the second. And obviously when you don't have a proof about something existing, you don't go by "What if it exists? Let's behave as if something does exist"(religions in a nutshell), you go by "There is no proof about that existence. So we act as if it doesn't exist". With your video you prove nothing other than the fact that you simply don't agree with paradoxes and their existence~But they do exist for the 2nd definition and could possibly even exist for 1st definition if we give it enough thought. And at the end of the day none of that(God and omnipotence) can be proven. Last but not least that came to me right now. You said that the definition of "all powerful being" is being stronger/more powerful than all existence combined. Right? And you mentioned God. But God is not supposed to simply be more powerful than us/being able to destroy all existence. He is also the one who created it~supposedly the one who created it. So obviously the "omnipotent/all powerful" is not limited to just being stronger/more powerful. It does have a connection to more things/more abilities, such as being able to create life, objects ect. So the video feels more or less meaningless.

@LawlessNate

5 жыл бұрын

I've read a bit of what you wrote; it's absolutely incoherent. Your first paragraph, when summarized, essentially suggests that God, in order to be all powerful, would have to prove prove he's all powerful by destroying all of creation; you then also point out that he would only be destroying all of creation to prove his power to himself.. You're just spouting what you think, and what you're thinking is absolute nonsense.

@Reno

5 жыл бұрын

@@LawlessNate No, I am saying that if we are to accept that he is all powerful he should be able to do that and demonstrate it for us to witness it. Which at the same time is not possible because we'd all be dead. So I am saying that unless there was some way for God to prove to us that he is "all powerful(by destroying all creation)" then we can not accept that he is "all powerful". So there is no point. It sounds like nonsense to you because you lack the depth of thinking and are unable to follow the process of the thought. Aside from the problems about proving to be a God, proving to exist, proving to be "all powerful" ect ect, there are also issues with his points in general because if the "all powerful" just meant that God wins in a " fight against all creation"/able to destroy all creation put together in one go. Then what about religion saying that God created the universe, life ect ect ect? That's clearly something not related to just power/destruction and goes towards abilities and such. So basically the meaning that he claims to be wrong/misconception(which obviously isn't).

@LawlessNate

5 жыл бұрын

@@Reno - "...if we are to accept that he is all powerful he should be able to do that and demonstrate it for us to witness it." 1: God can both be able to prove his omnipotence to us and have good reasons for not doing so. 2: Where did you get the idea that there's no other way God could prove his omnipotence than to destroy all of creation? 3: What gave you the idea that unless God personally proves his omnipotence to you that you cannot conclude logically that he's omnipotent? 4: God already proved his omnipotence to humanity 2,000 years ago when he came to Earth as a man, was killed, and then came back to life. There's amazing historical evidence to back this up. Is that not good enough for you? Your loss. Again, God has good reasons to not constantly prove his omnipotence to everyone.

@Reno

5 жыл бұрын

@@LawlessNate 1: Tet if he does not prove his existence or omnipotence then we have no reason to believe it. In fact we would be fools to believe in something not proven. 2: We talked about all-powerful and all powerful specifically meaning that God is more powerful/stronger than all creation put together. So that's where we get it. 3: Cause if he doesn't prove his omnipotence, then we can't consider him having it. That's like believing that demons or ghosts exist without ever seeing one/have proof of such. Basically you are stupid. 4. Bullshit. You are such a sheep/herd. Yes listen and believe to the stories of religion while witnessing them not following their own religion and their preaching. Be a good puppet :)

@LawlessNate

5 жыл бұрын

@@Reno 4: "You are such a sheep/herd." "Be a good puppet :)" You don't seem to realize you're being a hypocrite by making such a suggestion. The easiest way to make idiots believe something stupid is by convincing them that they'd be stupid if they didn't believe it; atheism is the quintessential example of this. People have been convinced that unless they believe God doesn't exist then they are mindless sheep; like the mindless sheep they are, they then profess atheism so that they fit in with the rest of the herd. Also note that this was your reply to me pointing out the historical evidence. What is your response to this evidence? You've clearly never examined it for yourself. Here's both a video of someone doing a pretty good job covering the evidence I'm referring to and a quote from one of the top comments. First the quote "Striking how KZread atheists simply don't understand the arguments put forth by scholars. You're like mindless football fans, you pick a side and blindly cheer. Atheists are the undisputed kings of blind faith." and second the link kzread.info/dash/bejne/k62TpsRtgtrAj7A.html . 1: "...if he does not prove his existence or omnipotence then we have no reason to believe it." If you require proof in order to believe something then I suppose you deny all science then, right? After all, science, in all its various forms, is a study which deals exclusively in evidence rather than proof. That, and why does God have to be the one to go out of the way to prove his existence? His existence can be proven without his help via logical argumentation (example, the Kalam Cosmological Argument). 2: " We talked about all-powerful and all powerful specifically meaning that God is more powerful/stronger than all creation put together." But why, in your mind, is destroying all of creation the only way he could prove his omnipotence? Surely performing an act which is physically impossible would be sufficient to show that he's not bound by and, in fact, completely controls the physical world. 3: "Cause if he doesn't prove his omnipotence, then we can't consider him having it." Are you trying to make the suggestion that it's logically impossible for God to be omnipotent and not have proven it to us? If you're not, then you'd at least be open to the suggestion that it's logically possible, and if it's logically possible then we can consider whether or not he is.

What if you rephrase it to match the "all-powerfull" definition, then can god kill himself?

Can you please do a video on how a world flood and a guy building a ginormous ark in a area without a lot of wood? Thanks inspiring philosophy

@InspiringPhilosophy

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, I plan to do that next year. You can see this: kzread.info/dash/bejne/apl11ZKQnNPNgJc.html

Personally I believe it is the 3rd one. A being capable of making all of existance just cause they wanted to would probably not be bound (at least not bound in a way that creates actual limits for it) by the logic and reasoning of the existance it created. But even if I'm wrong about that, it would make no functional difference if the being is still omnipotent by the other definition. Just makes it slightly less unfathomable.

@absolstoryoffiction6615

11 ай бұрын

Think of omnipotence as drawing on paper. Sure, some entities suck at drawing out Existence but few can master it. Oh... And Omnipotence doesn't mean literally "one person". That idea is a very human level of comprehension. ... Well... Omnipotence is a limiter for me. Given the Origin, the true home of "our" kin. The Akashic Records holds what remains of that Data.

This is one of the best videos ever. The Omnipotence Paradox never made sense.

@chrisyoung5929

3 жыл бұрын

"The Omnipotence Paradox never made sense." When you show something is a parados you are showing that it is nonsensical. Paradoxes can not make sense or they are not paradoxes! This video failure breaks its own definition within the first 2 minutes.

@jasonanderson7232

3 жыл бұрын

@@chrisyoung5929 I’m confused

@chrisyoung5929

3 жыл бұрын

@@jasonanderson7232 We all are Jason. It is part of being human I guess

@jasonanderson7232

3 жыл бұрын

@@chrisyoung5929 I think God being omnipotent doesn’t make sense, but I do think that it doesn’t make it untrue. After all, God’s knowledge is “greater” than ours. That’s how I understand the scripture. Not that I believe in it though.

@chrisyoung5929

3 жыл бұрын

@@jasonanderson7232 This all comes down to how you define the word omnipotent. Many definitions lead to paradox. This video tries to say if you use a different definition of omnipotent then there is no paradox. The problem is that the only example we have of the claim of omnipotence is certain deities. So god is omnipotent and omnipotence is what god is. We have no examples of any deity to examine to work out what omnipotence is. We do not have an omnipotent being to examine so we can not work out what a god is. We are left with meaningless word play.

I'll give my argument: If God wishes so, he will create a stone that is heavy, and he, by wishing a stone that he cannot lift, will give himself the inability to lift that stone.

How about defining it as "Being able to do all actions"?

Omnipotent doesn't have weakness.

@Dahstin5311

3 жыл бұрын

After thinking about God for a long time, I created this question. Has God sinned? My answer was and still is yes. A jealous God, an Angry God that kills. According to the bible God has lied at least once, wether it was a test or not. People take after their parents, so we must have gained sin from our creator, and we're sent to hell for punishment so as not to follow his misdeeds/ not believing in him and so on. I rambled a bit but if you consider a sin as weakness then in your eyes God does have a weakness. When I read the bible now, I see God made errors that he had to fix as well. Like killing off the entire human race with a flood. God's are a pretty fun subject.

@dakotad.8609

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dahstin5311 No you just have not done enough research and have come to some faulty conclusions based on ignorance. If you have any specific example where you think God sinned in the Bible then I am sure you could easily find an answer online or I could try to answer.

So by admitting an omnipotent being has limits, you just debunked the concept of omnipotence.

@timmy2taps625

3 жыл бұрын

What he was arguing is that an omnipotent being is a being that is the most powerful. May not be the smartest or the healthiest but the strongest? Yessir

@lukasa620

3 жыл бұрын

TimmyYT om·nip·o·tent /ˌämˈnipəd(ə)nt/ Learn to pronounce adjective (of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything. So yeah, the definition means having the ability to do anything

@putyourideas

3 жыл бұрын

@@timmy2taps625 except the problem with his reasoning is omni means "all," ergo, he can't by the physically strongest but also dumbest being, because that isn't omnipotence.

@davenchop

3 жыл бұрын

@@timmy2taps625 ...no. an omnipotent being can do whatever it wants... not just do better than anyone but be able to do things and all things no other being can do....in this videos definition tom brady must be omnipotent

Are you ever gonna do a video on the Proto-Evagelon of James? It's an early source of a lot of Catholic heresies.

@tafazzi-on-discord

2 жыл бұрын

Who are you to declare heresies, heretic?

In Matthew 19:26, Luke 1:37, Job 42:1-2, it says that God can do anything. It doesn´t say that God can do anything except logically impossible things. Did God forgot to mention that in the Bible? Does he have memory problems? If he is omniscient, then he already knew that we would one day wonder about whether he can literally do anything or if he can only do what is logically possible, so why did he not clarify that in the Bible? These days, it´s becoming increasingly common for theists to assume that omnipotence means the ability to do anything that isn´t logically impossible, but that wasn´t always the case. Many theists in the distant past believed that omnipotence meant that God could do literally do anything one could think of. Religious pople in modern times seem to have a tendency for redefining what certain nwords mean in order to solve problems. It´s dishonest. No type of argument annoys me more than arguments based on wordplay. But regardless of any of that, the omnipotence paradox can´t be used to prove that Atheism is true. It can only be used against Gods wo are believed to be omnipotent.

@InspiringPhilosophy

5 жыл бұрын

So when President Obama said American can do anything does that mean you think Obama was making logically absurd claims, or was he just using hyperbole? obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/09/weekly-address-america-can-do-anything

@luisalmeida8275

5 жыл бұрын

@@InspiringPhilosophy The difference is that all human experience shows that Obama is only a human being, and human beings are by definition beings that have limited powers. Governments are institutions created by humans and everything that a government does relies on human manpower and what humans can physically achieve. Since what humans can achieve is by definition limited and since governments cannot achieve something that a well-organized group of human beings can´t achieve, it therefore logically follows that neither Obama, nor the american government, nor the entire human population combined can LITERALLY do anything, and everyone with an I.Q. above 35 knows it. As a result, whenever we hear someone saying that he or she can do anything, we automattically conclude that such statement is not to be taken literally. However, Gods have been historically described as superpowerful, living, intelligent,sentient organisms. Most Gods thoughout history were not believed to be omnipotent, but the Christian God has. A God is considered to be very different from a human. Humans can´t violate the laws of the Universe, while Gods were historically believed to be capable of doing such things. If God can only do what is logically possible, then why didn´t he just pointed that out in the Bible? On a sidenote, each of the individual steps of the stone paradox is logically possible. It´s possible to create a stone that no one can lift and it´s possible to lift any stone . It´s just not possible to do both. Sorry for not responding sooner. Your comment didn´t appear on the notification bell for some reason.

@luisalmeida8275

5 жыл бұрын

@What’s Up What about Job 42: 1-2? Also in Matthew 19, Jesus statement that " With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” meant that God could do anything, INCLUDING granting salvation to humanity. Jesus wasn´t saying that the ONLY things God was capable of doing were related with the issue of salvation.

@InspiringPhilosophy

5 жыл бұрын

I didn't say he could, I said his claim can't be hyperbolic using your own logic. Why can't Jesus use hyperbole as well, especially when the context suggests that?

@luisalmeida8275

5 жыл бұрын

@What’s Up Mathew 19 is related to the topic of forgiveness, but nowhere in that chapter does it say that God can only do anything when it comes to the issue of salvation. As for Job 42, i don´t see which verses can possibly lead one to conclude what you concluded. You are seeing things that aren´t there. Obviously a God should have the power to ensure that no one ever manages to thwart his goals, but that´s perfectly logically possible. But Job 42: 1-2 doesn´t say that there are certain things that even God can´t do. If God is omniscient and he already knew in advance that in the future some people would be confused about these verses, why didn´t he clarify exactly what he can and cannot do?

Looking between different sides of the argument for and against this paradox, it seems to me like it's become a debate over what the meaning of certain words are to fit the different narratives. It's pretty ironic that language created by humans has become the focal point of a debate around the existence of a being supposedly incomprehensible to humans. For example, the first definition of power on Google is "the ability to do something or act in a particular way". Going by that definition would support the stone and lying paradoxes. Whether or not these paradoxes prove god doesn't exist comes down to how you define the words, AKA human language.

@goranmilic442

3 жыл бұрын

Well, the question could be - can God do anything? That would draw interesting answers.

@scambammer6102

2 жыл бұрын

@@goranmilic442 almost all theists say yes, thus making the omnipotence paradox valid

But in Matthew 19:26, it says: “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”.Meaning HE has the ability to do anything. Which means he can create a rock that he cannot lift. Which also means that something is impossible to God.

@InspiringPhilosophy

5 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/e32XkqircbCZqKw.html

@josephgetnet5662

4 жыл бұрын

@Maxsteel 42 you are a human, you are made of proteins, proteins come from food, food comes from plants and animals( which in turn comes from plants), plants make food from minerals in the soil. So yea you are what you eat and what you est is soil, directly or indirectly you are made of soil either way.

@davidnewhart2533

4 жыл бұрын

Except that contradicts omnipotence. Omnipotence means your more powerful than everything else. God would still lift the rock because his beyond logic and illogic.

@Hury209

3 жыл бұрын

@@josephgetnet5662 Well soil comes from star dust, and star dust comes from bing bang, and bing bang probably comes from quantum fluctuations, and quantum fluctuations comes from... well nature itself I guess and nature comes from... You can do that endless times and never stop. So your provided answer, that man is made from clay, is pretty weak. :)

@kewienferenc6524

3 жыл бұрын

Read it in context, what Matthew meant by that is that what is logically impossible for men is possible for God.

Got it. God cannot make sense of things that make no sense. God is omnipotent the same way I am.

@davidhatcher7016

5 жыл бұрын

yep

I think of power as the ability to effect change or the potential behind the motion. By this definition, an omnipotent being would be all the force behind the motion in existence.

This entire "omnipotence paradox argument" is on par with Zeno's logic tricks. They are all nonsense, but can be fun to play around with. For example: it's impossible to move across a room, because you always have to move to the halfway point first, and since we can divide space indefinitely, it's impossible to cross the room.

@absolstoryoffiction6615

Жыл бұрын

For a mortal in the 3rd dimension, yes. But teleporters exist... Not that humans can use it.

If I experience the impossible, do I become the impossible? As my new invisible friend says?

My husband and I were just discussing omnipotence and what that means the other day. This helps!

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” ― Epicurus

IP out here playing chess while these Atheists play checkers. 😛 Great video IP! Thank you!

@AIVSRelilgion

5 жыл бұрын

It might help if he actually earned how to play chess. 'Cuz .... IP just makes things up as he goes along. Here ... take a look at what GOD says about himself in his OWN words... And then compare that with the B.S. that IP claims. Luke 1:37 ESV For nothing will be impossible with God.” Matthew 19:26 ESV But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

@roggoz6624

5 жыл бұрын

@@AIVSRelilgion This would only work if you took the bible literally. The bible is full of hyperbole. For example, Matt. 5:29: “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out…” Now, we're not actually told to pluck out our eyes but simply that we must avoid what would cause us to sin. Another example is Mark 1:4-5: “John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins." Quite obviously not everyone in Judea and Jerusalem were baptized, but a lot of them were. Remember, taking the bible literally is not good!

@Adeptus_Mechanicus

5 жыл бұрын

@@AIVSRelilgion Blatantly using quotes biasedly without understanding it's meanings makes you clearly dishonest. As most 15 year old basement dweller anti-theists I'd say.

@davecirlclux

5 жыл бұрын

@@roggoz6624 why do you believe in Yahweh when you know that Moslems believe in Allah?

@jedibattlemasterkos

5 жыл бұрын

​@@AIVSRelilgion That moment when you're too much of a simpleton to comprehend the very clear arguments presented in this video. He's making himself quite clear. I think you need to reexamine the context of those quotes you mined and the data presented in these videos. God is not logically inconsistent, unlike the concept of "doing anything". God is beyond physical limits, therefore you could have the most incomprehensibly massive rock and it would STILL not be possible for it to be beyond His ability to lift.

Then this means that god is preceded by the laws of logic. In which case God isn’t the basis of reality he isn’t the first cause because logic preceded him. His actions are bound by logic and his nature in which case he’s actually completely impotent god is a robot who is simply obeying his programming

@artemisiachristodoulaki6305

3 ай бұрын

No it doesnt mean that. As he said logical absurdities do not exist. Even if we could fabricate one , that does not mean that it exists!

@thegreen2504

3 ай бұрын

@@artemisiachristodoulaki6305 So god can't create logical absurdities so he's not omnipotent. He's weaker than logic.

@artemisiachristodoulaki6305

3 ай бұрын

@thegreen2504 Omnipotent doesn't mean the ability to do anything it means to have power over everything else in existence. But nonetheless, logical absurdities DO NOT EXIST AND CANNOT EXIST. They are not a part of existence .

@thegreen2504

3 ай бұрын

@@artemisiachristodoulaki6305 so again then the Bible is wrong, the Bible says in the beginning there was only god. If god didnt invent the laws of logic, that means they predate him. Which means the true god is the laws of logic not god

@artemisiachristodoulaki6305

3 ай бұрын

@thegreen2504 In the beginning there was only God. Yes . And God did create the laws of logic . Yes .

So All powerful does not mean that you can do anything so what is stopping you

Please do a livestream to take our questions!

@InspiringPhilosophy

5 жыл бұрын

Maybe around Christmas if enough people want it.

2:46 IP: *Unlimited is not synonymous of omnipotent.* Many of the definition of Omnipotent and All-powerful Include *Unlimited* Here is the definition from differences source. Feel free to corroborate if they are correct. *Omnipotent:* having virtually *unlimited* authority or influence Def2: one who has *unlimited* power or authority Def3: (of a deity) having *_unlimited_*_ power_ ; *able to do anything* . Def4: almighty or infinite in power, as God. Def5: having very great or *unlimited* authority or power. *All-powerful:* having complete, absolute, supreme, *unlimited* or sole power def2: having or exercising exclusive and *unlimited* authority; omnipotent. *Power:* (Power has the to many definitions to post them all so I will only use the one related to the context on video) def1: ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something. def2: possession of controlling influence def3: The capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events. def4: The ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a faculty or quality. So It can be correctly assumed that all-powerful being can be described as an unlimited in some kind of way. What I'm noticing is that IP is using Omnipotent and All-powerful in such manner that is vague enough that he can always have the option to back out of any logical contradiction by saying: " _That not what I mean_ ". He needs to give us a definition for Omnipotent because All-powerful tells us nothing about omnipotence. What I don't understand with his argument is that If Omnipotent mean All-powerful, what "Power" mean in all-powerful?

@davidhatcher7016

5 жыл бұрын

he's wrong

Omnipotent definition: having unlimited power; able to do anything

@Leviathan0707

4 жыл бұрын

Yep, right out of Oxford dictionaries. Who's making up ( slicing off ) definition now =))))

@ethanm.2411

4 жыл бұрын

Sir, the theist is making the claim that God is omnipotent, so the theist must define what he means. The Oxford dictionary does not get to do that. “Omnipotent” derives from the Latin omnis meaning “all” and potens or “powerful.” This means all-powerful, not the ability to do anything. Knowing this, it follows that anything that limits His all-power cannot be done. These terms do not mean that God can do anything. Rather, they describe the amount of God’s power. Power is the ability to effect change - to make something happen. God (being unlimited) has unlimited power. Therefore, God can do whatever is possible to be done. God cannot, however, do that which is actually impossible. This is because true impossibility is not based on the amount of power one has, it is based on what can actually occur. The truly impossible is not made possible by adding more power. When Christians say “God can do anything” we don’t mean literally everything. When we say that God can do the impossible, we don’t mean he can do the _logically_ impossible. By impossible, we mean things like creating things out of nothing, keeping people in a fire from burning, having a guy walk on water, or make a 90-year-old woman get pregnant and give birth to a healthy son, and things like that. We do not mean God can do absolutely everything. We mean only what is logically possible (that is to say, things that are not contradictory concepts). There are some things God cannot do simply _because_ He is omnipotent. If God is infinitely powerful than it’s impossible to create a rock so large He cannot lift it. For if there was anything He couldn’t lift, that would prove Him a being of finite strength. But a being of infinite power could create a rock of infinite size and infinite weight and still be able to move it. It is because God is infinitely powerful (i.e omnipotent) that He cannot create a rock too hard for Him to move. This little riddle is akin to asking “Can God’s infinite power overwhelm His infinite power?” Or it’s like asking “Can God beat Himself in a fistfight” or “Can God think up a mathematical equation too difficult for Him to solve”. It’s sheer nonsense. C.S Lewis once said, “Nonsense is still nonsense even when we speak it about God.” You’re basically asking if a Being of unlimited power can produce something to limit Him. But His unlimited power, by definition, rules out that possibility. An unlimited being cannot create limits for Himself.

The simplest objection to the omnipotence paradox is that omnipotence isn't the ability to anything, but rather the ability to do ALL *things* . Notice I highlighted things. God is by definition the most powerful being there is. As such, there is no thing that God can't do. Hence, the question "Can God create a stone so heavy that it can't be lifted?" makes no sense. There is nothing that God can't lift, so the very concept of a stone heavy enough that God can't lift it doesn't exist, not even hypothetically. It's a non-thing, thus not falling under the category of all *things* that omnipotent beings can do.

What about the idea that God could transcend our logic? I understand the idea would be useless in a debate about God’s existence, but do any theists hold to this? It is an honest question and I am not trying to be a troll. It is just something I am interested in though I have no background in philosophy.

Great video and great channel. I have spent a great deal of time listening to KZread atheist (and their armchair logical arguments against God) for the sole purpose of arming myself and having answers. I am pleased and delighted to find that your channel is a virtual arsenal of intelligent and logical responses to the most common (and superficially logical) arguments against God. I also find your "Quantum God" series to be quite extraordinary and it has really helped me to understand some of the apparent contradictions between what science actually reveals and what scientific philosophy has to say about it. Well done and thank you.

What do you think of this?: God just IS logic itself. Logic and coherence is just part of Gods nature. Why? It follows from the concept of a maximally great being. For without logic a maximally great being could not exist. But since a maximally great being exists necessarily, logic also must exist necessarily, being part of the maximally great being's nature. Furthermore, if God's nature did not include logic we could imagine something greater than God, namely a God which nature did include logic. But we could not imagine a being greater than a maximally great being, therefore a God which nature did not include logic must be false.

@akosikuyzak

5 жыл бұрын

Unoriginal Thoughts That's a great way to think about it. On that note, there's a great article entitled "The Lord of Non-Contradiction" in Philosophia Christi arguing similar lines as yours. You may want to check it out.

@justifan

5 жыл бұрын

Excellent. One can also come to the conclusion, based on Proverbs 8, that if God created Wisdom before the universe began, then one can extrapolate that God created Logic itself, at least how we in our limited fashion can understand it.

@akosikuyzak

5 жыл бұрын

justifan I wouldn't say that God created logic since it would entail that God can change it but it seems that the nature of logic is unchangeable. Perhaps it's more appropriate to say that logic is a reflection of God's thoughts.

@unoriginalthoughts796

5 жыл бұрын

@@akosikuyzak Yes. Although I would be more inclined to say that God is identical to logic. If logic is a reflection of Gods thoughts then one might still ask why God could not think up a different logical system and hence change logic. It's the same as with morality. If morality where just part of God's commands or thoughts then that would make morality arbitrary since God could command or think something else by whim. If morality is instead part of God's unchanging nature then it reflects our intuition that morality can't change, which is a lot better.

@AIVSRelilgion

5 жыл бұрын

"God just IS logic itself." It is an OLD idea. It is a good one but the problem with that idea is that the Biblical perspective of God is one who has thoughts and desires. AND - The only way for a being to have desires is to be lacking that something for which it desires. Logic doesn't have thoughts and desires and thus is not lacking and thus is greater than God. Therefor - God cannot be logic.

I have a question said like this. 1.God is all powerful being. 2. Powerful being have power that no things or combination of these can greater than god. 3. It is logically posible that god can create two robots, each one have only 60% power compare to god. Again, it it totally posible for all powerful being. 4. Two robots when combine has a power greater than gods. 60% + 60% = 120%. 5. premise 4 contradict to premise 1. 6. Therefore, always has chance that maker can create things when combine that over power than him. 7. Therefore, all powerful being ( a being have a power greater than anything he create combines) cant not exits. 8. Show me one case in reality that one being not only greater than one individual, but also greater than anything combine. Always have a chance that creator can create two thing when combie have power greater than himself. I just normal people, not phylosopher. Can anyone tell me where i get it wrong???

I'm watching you on here and on my phone lol. Good stuff.