Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     6 years ago 

    You totally skipped my argument - it is possible to have both power to self destruct and power to resist such destruction. If omnipotence is A, lack of omnipotence is ~A. Indestructibility is not ~A, it is different dimension of existence (omnipotence tells about potential - what can you potentially do, indestructibility tells about practice - assured continued existence). Being that is both omnipotent and indestructible is not self contradictory.

    There is also scope to be considered. You can only view omnipotence/indestructibility within the defined set of axioms that build certain reality. F.e. if you have 2D plane and flat objects that move around it, if you add a 3D object to the mix it forms a new 2D object through intersection - that object can vanish (be destroyed) in reality of 2D plane, but its 3D existence is intact.

    Other example of scope: I can potentially stop the flow of time for any computer application, analyze and correct its behavior, change its data (memories), modify its environment - I am omnipotent in that scope. Yet due to the nature of my reality I can only influence application reality via proxy - other applications (angels/demons). I "emanate my omnipotence" to my proxies, inside computer I am my proxies and they are me - there is no other me in that scope. My proxies are therefore omnipotent. They are also destructible yet I am not, I can always return to that reality with new proxies that will be just as "me" as previous ones.

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       6 years ago (edited)

      Yes, they are different dimensions, but they are linked/related. The structure of the argument is sound:

      Omnipotence = A, Indestructible = B.

      A -> ~B
      A -> B
      Therefore, ~A.

      Generally, the scope of this argument is existence (that which exists)...if we wish to suppose some dimension beyond existence, then we are no longer doing logic.

      $0.00
        Reply