Jesus Christ doesn't exist (with logic)

[Glaucon]

First to answer your question, I do not have much of any background in physics. This is my first year university and I am not currently taking classes on physics.

Allow me to rephrase my objection to the omnipotence paradox by quoting C. Wade Savage:

“we might imagine one being (y) who cannot lift a stone heavier than seventy pounds. If some other being (x) cannot create a stone heavier than y can lift, then obviously x’s power to create is limited. But suppose that y can lift a stone of any weight; in other words, imagine that y’s lifting power is unlimited. Then it follows that if x cannot create a stone heavy for y to lift, x’s power to create is not limited. What then has our theologian surrendered? Is it the unlimited power to create stones? No doubt. But what stone is it which God is now precluded from creating? The stone too heavy for Him to lift., of course. But…nothing in the argument required the theologian to admit any limit on God’s power with regard to the lifting of stones. He still holds it to be unlimited. And if God’s power to lift is infinite, then His power to create may run to infinity also without outstripping the first power. The supposed limitation turns out to be no limitation at all, since it is specified only by reference to another power which is itself infinite. Our theologian need have no regrets, for he has given up nothing. The doctrine of the power of God remains just what it was before.”

Now allow me to clarify what is meant by God not being able to be inconsistent with any of his basic attributes. Let’s begin with a basic attribute that it is not omnipotence. According to Hebrews 6:13 God cannot swear by a being higher than himself. This is no limit to his power because God is the greatest conceivable being (This phrase is taken from Alvin Plantinga’s form of the Ontological argument using possible worlds) and there is no being higher than himself to swear by. The phrase that God cannot do anything that is inconsistent with his attributes is therefore used because much of the discussion surrounding omnipotence deals with how it relates with his other attributes. God not being able to be inconsistent with his attributes does not limit his power and debate on this would need to be an attribute by attribute basis.

Further, your argument that Rowe’s definition of omnipotence makes everything omnipotent within its own attributes fails because human beings do not have absolute defining attributes. For example, Sam (this was the first name that came to my mind) may be a very honest person, therefore it could be said that honesty is one of Sam’s attributes. However, Sam’s honesty is not absolute, while Sam may be a very honest person, it would not break the law of non-contradiction for him to tell a lie, though it would be inconsistent with his attribute of honesty. God’s attributes are absolute and therefore if he is inconsistent in any of his attributes it breaks the law of non-contradiction. Think of it as the difference between a person being the embodiment of all truth and a person who speaks true things. It is possible that this type of attribute is not what you meant. In that case, I would ask for you to give a definitive example of what you mean.

Therefore, I am arguing that any contention that omnipotence can be reduced to the power left behind after certain attributes subtract from one’s power is to misunderstand what is meant by Rowe’s definition. To better understand why I reject the omnipotence paradox as a means to show that there is a contradiction in the attributes of God I would recommend InspiringPhilosophy’s video on the ontological argument. For the specific argument that I’m referring to skip to 6:59 if you’d rather not watch the entire video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_411430&feature=iv&src_vid=ixqsZP7QP_o&v=RQPRqHZRP68#t=6m59s

I have two final points. First, I believe that the doctrine of omnipotence is justifiable through Scripture alone, however, it can also be inferred through philosophy alone (see Plantinga’s Ontological argument.) However, the discussion is not on whether or not the doctrine is justifiable, but rather on whether the concept of omnipotence is incoherent because of the omnipotent paradox. My answer is “no”, but I’m willing to change my mind if I can be shown otherwise. However, I would like to suggest that there is a reason why this objection to theism is widely rejected by theists and non-theists alike in academia. J.L Mackie, an Australian philosopher and avid atheist, writes in his book Omnipotence,

"Once we have decided that omnipotence is not to include the power to achieve logical impossibilities--and it must not include this, if it is to be discussable--there cannot be any contradiction within the concept itself. (pg. 24-25)"

Note that I am not committing the fallacy of an appeal to authority or majority here because I am not claiming that my position should be accepted as true because of these observations. I’m still willing to be shown to be wrong. Also I'd be interested in reading your arguments about physics put into layman's terms.

[brimstoneSalad]

First to answer your question, I do not have much of any background in physics. This is my first year university and I am not currently taking classes on physics.[...]Also I'd be interested in reading your arguments about physics put into layman's terms.

It could take a dozen posts or more, and a lot of reading on your part, to understand, so I'll have to ask you to accept the premise for the sake of argument for now.

1. Propagating information (through space or from space to space) faster than the speed of light means that information travels back in time. This is not just according to some limited laws of physics or interpretations; this is the substance of space time and its interrelation. It's how the math works, and it has been determined through rigorous deduction and the premises involved experimentally verified many times (it may be hard for you to understand, but we know it as surely as we know the Earth is a spheroid and orbits the sun; it's probably the most established fact in physics, so to deny it is an extreme absurdity). Because of what the basic logic behind it implies, it's an absolute for everybody everywhere, and there's no way around it.
2. Closed time-loops (time machines that allow travel into our own past) are logically impossible. These occur very easily and it's hard to explain, so the simplest version to understand is "nothing carrying information can travel faster than c (the speed of light in a vacuum) or arrive at a destination in a shorter time from leaving than c would suggest (whether traveling through intervening space or not)". Although the statement is a crude approximation, it serves these purposes.

This is an absolute attribute. And the way the math works out, we arrive at something like the principle of explosion in physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

When you violate even the smallest law of physics, it imbalances the equations and allows any absurdity you want. This goes down to quantum physics and all the way up to conservation laws. Everything is interrelated, and establishing one impossibility defines possibilities for everything else.

You might call it a divine mathematics to the universe. It's complex yet elegant and emergent, and based absolutely on a fundamental logic of what time and space is and how wave mechanics function.

We can not violate it, and if god can not do logically impossible things, god can not violate it either.
You could conceive of a very advanced being that, with great knowledge, could use the laws of physics to its advantage. But violating them: no. Just as an airplane doesn't violate gravity; it is subject to it and overcomes the force with other forces.

Just because you can imagine something, and in ignorance of physics you do not understand how it is truly logically impossible, does not mean it can be done. I can not emphasize enough that these things are logically impossible in the most absolute and genuine sense. Not just something we haven't figured out yet. Not apparently impossible due to our limited understanding. They yield irreconcilable logical contradictions.

Allow me to rephrase my objection to the omnipotence paradox by quoting C. Wade Savage:

That's not something I ever misunderstood.

Further, your argument that Rowe’s definition of omnipotence makes everything omnipotent within its own attributes fails because human beings do not have absolute defining attributes.

They do, though. I never gave the example of "honesty" as an absolute attribute, and for good reason: that is not one of them.
Our nature with respect to the laws of physics is absolute. We can not travel faster than the speed of light, we can not quantum tunnel through walls by our own wills, we can not choose to fly unassisted by our wills (unassisted by physical objects obeying the laws of physics to help us create lift, negate our weight, yield buoyancy, etc. We are subject to laws of equal and opposite forces, conservation of momentum, energy, etc.).

It may be a revolutionary idea to you that something that is physically impossible is such simply because it is logically impossible. Most people don't understand that violations of physics are also violations of logic, because they don't understand how the core of physics relates to mathematics and logic. There are a limited number of things we have arrived at and deduced to be logically impossible due to a true contradiction, and those are the modern cornerstones of physics.

You're trying to argue against a straw man here by replacing the absolute attributes I highlighted with very subjective and occasional character attributes.

It is possible that this type of attribute is not what you meant. In that case, I would ask for you to give a definitive example of what you mean.

I did, though. I gave several examples. I'm definitely talking about absolute attributes. Things that are absolutely logically impossible because they create true logical contradictions.

Therefore, I am arguing that any contention that omnipotence can be reduced to the power left behind after certain attributes subtract from one’s power is to misunderstand what is meant by Rowe’s definition.

My point is that there is virtually nothing left behind after you subtract the logically impossible.
Omnipotence (as an attribute) is meaningless if is't limited to the logically possible, because I am omnipotent within the bounds of the logically possible. I can do anything I can physically do.
Omnipresence contradicts the quality of possessing ANY discrete knowledge or thought
Omniscience contradicts itself or forbids thought and discrete knowledge

When you deal in infinities, you frequently arrive at logical contradictions. Even attempting to quantify god's power in physical terms -- like in Watts -- yields absurdities and contradictions when you try to plug in an infinite number.

I have two final points. First, I believe that the doctrine of omnipotence is justifiable through Scripture alone,

An unrelated question: Do you believe scripture is infallible and without error or contradiction? And if so, what translation, and interpreted by whom?

however, it can also be inferred through philosophy alone (see Plantinga’s Ontological argument.)

This is more interesting. I appreciate attempts at philosophical/logical arguments because I find scriptural arguments riddled with special pleading and subjective interpretations and cherry picking.

However, the discussion is not on whether or not the doctrine is justifiable, but rather on whether the concept of omnipotence is incoherent because of the omnipotent paradox.

Do you believe God is omnipotent? And if so, what's your certainty?
If your certainty is 100%, will you disavow your belief in god if this one aspect is shown to be impossible and/or semantically meaningless?

However, I would like to suggest that there is a reason why this objection to theism is widely rejected by theists and non-theists alike in academia. J.L Mackie, an Australian philosopher and avid atheist, writes in his book Omnipotence,

"Once we have decided that omnipotence is not to include the power to achieve logical impossibilities--and it must not include this, if it is to be discussable--there cannot be any contradiction within the concept itself. (pg. 24-25)"

It can be meaningless, and applicable to anything and everything on a whim. Which is also what I'm arguing. It's one or the other.
I would call that an impossible attribute, since it isn't an attribute; it contradicts itself by claiming to have meaning (which an attribute must have) when it can have none.

at·trib·ute
a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.
"flexibility and mobility are the key attributes of our army"
synonyms: quality, characteristic, trait, feature, element, aspect, property, sign, hallmark, mark, distinction; informalX factor
"he has all the attributes of a top player"

You can talk about the concept of omnipotence, but it falls apart on inspection and becomes meaningless. If you want it to be an attribute you've failed because it's incapable of distinguishing one thing from another, or even telling us anything at all about that thing.

If J.L Mackie hadn't died 25 years ago I'd be inclined to school him on the meaninglessness of the concept. That seems to be an unusual claim for a modern professional Atheist philosopher to make, and of an expert would indicate an unacceptable lack of contemplation on physics (which is very metaphysically relevant).
I doubt he was versed in physics, or aware of relativity or quantum mechanics. That he did most of his work in the 50's apparently, he can probably be forgiven that oversight.