Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Thomas Metcalf · 07-30-2002, 09:04 AM

Versions of omnipotence describe God's ability to perform some action or God's ability to bring about some state of affairs. Formulations of the latter variety are more popular because they avoid the questions such as "Can God learn?" or "Can God change Himself?" to which the answers are no and no.

It bothers me, however, that no essential property could possibly conflict with state-of-affairs omnipotence except "the inability to bring about any state of affairs." This is related to my worry that we don't really understand what it is to bring about a state of affairs, at least divorced from the actions involved.

Is it possible to express some doubt about this version of omnipotence based on its so-to-speak unfalsifiability? That is, is there some practical reason to abandon this definition because almost no essential property could ever conflict with it? And is there some statement from the apologist that would convince me that we have a good intuitive grasp of what it means to bring about a state of affairs rather than to perform some action?

banditoloco · 07-30-2002, 09:16 AM

I am not familiar with "state of affairs" omnipotence. All i can tell from your explanation is that it's the same as saying god can do anything, except the logically impossible (such as learning since god already knows everything). Is there more to it than that? Please explain.

Philip Osborne · 07-30-2002, 10:01 AM

Actually, omnipotence might be defined as the ability to bring about any possible state of affairs through one's intentions. This is consistent with the idea that God's will is what brings about Creation, the Flood, etc. And it seems clearly observable that most beings do not have this ability, and so are not omnipotent.

Sincerely,

Philip

Koyaanisqatsi · 07-30-2002, 10:38 AM

But neither the creation by an anthropomorphic supernatural being in six days possible, nor would a global flood be possible.

How are you defining "possible?" Whatever God can do is therefore possible?

Thomas Metcalf · 07-30-2002, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by banditoloco:
I am not familiar with "state of affairs" omnipotence. All i can tell from your explanation is that it's the same as saying god can do anything, except the logically impossible (such as learning since god already knows everything). Is there more to it than that? Please explain.

Well, there are really two possible definitions of omnipotence.
1. God can perform any logically possible action.
2. God can bring about any logically possible state of affairs.

The first one is obviously false, because there are logically possible actions that God cannot perform (to learn, to change oneself, etc.). Therefore, modern apologists go for a version of the second. This doesn't run into the same problem, because there is no logically possible state of affairs in which God learns.

I'm wondering whether the second version is problematic because it makes it impossible for any essential property to conflict with God's omnipotence. God's essential properties of omniscience and changelessness conflict with the first version.

Thomas Metcalf · 07-30-2002, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philip Osborne:
Actually, omnipotence might be defined as the ability to bring about any possible state of affairs through one's intentions. This is consistent with the idea that God's will is what brings about Creation, the Flood, etc. And it seems clearly observable that most beings do not have this ability, and so are not omnipotent.

Sincerely,

Philip

Well, let's try to adopt this definition for now. There are still possible states of affairs that God cannot bring about; God can't bring it about that an omnipotent being never existed, or bring about any state of affairs that wasn't brought about by an omniscient being.

Further, it is possible to think of a more powerful being. Consider a being who can bring about any possible state of affairs, and do any logically possible action. This being would, paradoxically, be more powerful than an omnipotent being.

My real question here, however, is whether it's useful to have a definition of "omnipotent" that wouldn't let any essential property conflict with it. It seems intuitively problematic to me.

Thomas Metcalf · 07-30-2002, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
But neither the creation by an anthropomorphic supernatural being in six days possible, nor would a global flood be possible.

How are you defining "possible?" Whatever God can do is therefore possible?

I think "possible" is a far more primitive notion than "God" or "omnipotent." A possible state of affairs is a consistent and maximal proposition. A state of affairs is impossible if it's self-contradictory, and possible if it's not impossible.

So any state of affairs is possible if it's not self-contradictory. "A global flood happens" does not contain any contradictions, so it is in fact a possible state of affairs.

Koyaanisqatsi · 07-30-2002, 11:08 AM

What a pointless, rhetorical standard.

The only question to ask is whether or not the Earth can be globally flooded by the will of a supernatural, anthropomorphic fictional character from ancient mythology.

The answer is then abundantly and irrefutably simple and the debate ends as it should; before it begins.

A global flood caused by the "will" of an imaginary supernatural creature is not possible in the only context that makes any possible difference.

Thomas Metcalf · 07-30-2002, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
What a pointless, rhetorical standard.

The only question to ask is whether or not the Earth can be globally flooded by the will of a supernatural, anthropomorphic fictional character from ancient mythology.

The answer is then abundantly and irrefutably simple and the debate ends as it should; before it begins.

A global flood caused by the "will" of an imaginary supernatural creature is not possible in the only context that makes any possible difference.

I don't agree. You've defined God as nonexistent, so those states of affairs are indeed logically impossible. I'm talking about a possible state of affairs and whether an existent God could bring it about.

Koyaanisqatsi · 07-30-2002, 12:25 PM

And how will you define this "possible" supernatural creature?

One who can flood the Earth through an act of "will," perhaps?

It is not possible to do this (setting aside the "will" part and the "forty days and forty nights" nonsense), the Earth could not possibly be globally flooded--and then have those waters magically "recede"--due to the volume of water required; the position of the Earth in its orbit around the sun; the mass/inertia of the earth and how that would be altered; etc., etc.

So what do you intend on doing other than simply defining a being as "capable of doing this?"

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]

07-30-2002, 09:04 AM	#1
Thomas Metcalf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 1,009	State-of-Affairs Omnipotence Versions of omnipotence describe God's ability to perform some action or God's ability to bring about some state of affairs. Formulations of the latter variety are more popular because they avoid the questions such as "Can God learn?" or "Can God change Himself?" to which the answers are no and no. It bothers me, however, that no essential property could possibly conflict with state-of-affairs omnipotence except "the inability to bring about any state of affairs." This is related to my worry that we don't really understand what it is to bring about a state of affairs, at least divorced from the actions involved. Is it possible to express some doubt about this version of omnipotence based on its so-to-speak unfalsifiability? That is, is there some practical reason to abandon this definition because almost no essential property could ever conflict with it? And is there some statement from the apologist that would convince me that we have a good intuitive grasp of what it means to bring about a state of affairs rather than to perform some action?

07-30-2002, 12:25 PM	#10
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	And how will you define this "possible" supernatural creature? One who can flood the Earth through an act of "will," perhaps? It is not possible to do this (setting aside the "will" part and the "forty days and forty nights" nonsense), the Earth could not possibly be globally flooded--and then have those waters magically "recede"--due to the volume of water required; the position of the Earth in its orbit around the sun; the mass/inertia of the earth and how that would be altered; etc., etc. So what do you intend on doing other than simply defining a being as "capable of doing this?" [ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-30-2002, 09:16 AM	#2
banditoloco Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kansas City, Missouri, USA Posts: 61	I am not familiar with "state of affairs" omnipotence. All i can tell from your explanation is that it's the same as saying god can do anything, except the logically impossible (such as learning since god already knows everything). Is there more to it than that? Please explain.

07-30-2002, 10:01 AM	#3
Philip Osborne Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cherry Hill, NJ Posts: 147	Actually, omnipotence might be defined as the ability to bring about any possible state of affairs through one's intentions. This is consistent with the idea that God's will is what brings about Creation, the Flood, etc. And it seems clearly observable that most beings do not have this ability, and so are not omnipotent. Sincerely, Philip

07-30-2002, 10:38 AM	#4
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	But neither the creation by an anthropomorphic supernatural being in six days possible, nor would a global flood be possible. How are you defining "possible?" Whatever God can do is therefore possible?

07-30-2002, 11:08 AM	#8
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	What a pointless, rhetorical standard. The only question to ask is whether or not the Earth can be globally flooded by the will of a supernatural, anthropomorphic fictional character from ancient mythology. The answer is then abundantly and irrefutably simple and the debate ends as it should; before it begins. A global flood caused by the "will" of an imaginary supernatural creature is not possible in the only context that makes any possible difference.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.