Danpech

If logic requires that omnipotence is properly defined as power that has absolutely no limits (the ultimate extent of power imaginable, including the power to make 2+2=5), then does logic require that omnibenevolence is defined as benevolent toward absolutely everything no matter how good or bad? This poses the problem of whether power (not to mention all-power), and even benevolence, is a real thing in itself, or is only relative to other things. If power exists only in relation to other things, then how does it exist at all? Is power and benevolence like the problem of the 'horseness' of a horse? And, if benevolence is necessarily partly a subjective feeling inside yourself regarding something of which you approve, then would omnibenevolence include approving of logically (truthfully) self-contradictory arguments against omnipotence?

leonarde

Danpech,
I hate you: you make me think too much

Answerer

WEll, I think that omnipotent is the ability to do possible things not impossible things like 1+3=6.

John Page

Were you using the omnibenevolent numbering system?

Datheron

Danpech,

For the record, most theists would argue that omnipotence does not step into the realm of the logically impossible. I.e. God cannot do something that is logically inconsistent.

Is anything existent if not relative to other things?

I made an argument a while ago that God must have not been able to think in a state of nothingless, for he had no relative position to conceive thought. Similarly, I do not think that there is such a thing as power without an object to assert that power to, as well as an established "standard of power" by which we can judge whether that power is great or otherwise. As a matter of fact, I do not believe that any thought or language can be conceived absolutely, without some sort of relative measure; obviously, this encompasses benevolence and every other subject that I can think of.

Danpech

Ok. But, that reminds me:

It's entirely possible to get a case of occupational stress disorder of the mind regarding any subject or way of thinking that you have been made to unpleasantly feel is your unpleasant duty to think.

As for the question here, the usefullness of making people's minds tie themselves in knots
is so that they will see how they are tied and how not to end up doing so themselves and thinking that they have proven something. Not every wire can be joined to every other wire, and when Mr. Logic and Ms. Parallel break up, the condition is known as crossed wires.

Danpech

LOL!

Danpech

More questions for ya!:

Does that mean that logic is more powerful than God? What is this word: "cannot"? Does "cannot" have a meaning in itself, or is it, too, relative, i.e., relative to the object to which it is applied?


Are you assuming there that God is nothing? Like, is God a being without anything of which he is? Like, say he is simply omnipresent without there being anything present? Is God to be conceived of as a person without anything of which this person is?


Yet, some power must simply exist of itself, otherwise....

Same problem, it seems to me, as the one above. Something must exist of itself, even though there are (or can be) things which are made of it. It gets in theoretical physics and the debate between particle physicists and solid state physicists. For instance: Is time a particle??!!! (Where's a beat-up looking smiley when you need one?) Maybe there is something we are missing in supposing that the only things which exist are particles and fields, or else only one or the other but not both.

kctan

If god is so omnipotence that he cannot make the impossible possible, then how can you say that he is omnipotence ?

Semi-potence, maybe.

Impotence, most likely. If not the flood won't be required.

Datheron

Danpech,

My reasoning is that it is more powerful than God, and if that is the case, then God is not omnipotent as advertised, or he is powerless under a "greater law" which would than allow for a greater creator of these laws, etc. However, I have had trouble advancing this argument, so be wary.

I'm not getting how you're questioning the definintion of "cannot". My definition is simply: "the inability to perform a feat or task". If you mean that each individual has a different set of limits and abilities, then that's obviously the case. Otherwise, you'll have to clarify.

Depends on what you define "being" as. If we accept the idea that God willed himself into existence, then there was nothing except God. There is nothing to reference other than himself; hence, there can be no other references possible, hence making thought itself not possible.

...otherwise what? Are you implying some sort of a causality of power that we must trace back to the "ultimate standard" of power?

Then you're making an appeal to causality, which is fine...except that the "something must exist of itself" itself is for some reason not subject to causality. This horrible catch-22 makes your position incoherent.

You're building a strawman; naturalistism does not equate to materialism, and even materialism only addresses spacial dimensions. It would be quite easy to disprove both if all we have to do is show that time exists, right? Fortunately, it's not that simple, and we have a very rough understanding of the temporal dimension itself.