Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"Well, I suggest that it is only necessary for the definition to characterize his power. This would seem to be a reasonable approach, since we cannot possibly catalog (or fathom) all of God's abilities."

Then I think we do differ here. I think a definition that tells us more is better than a definition that tells us less. Also, if we don't understand what God is, we don't understand the statement "God exists." Is that your position?

Even so, I'm not strictly required to wait for the theist to offer a definition of "omnipotent." I can say this. God cannot be "all-powerful" because He does not have the power to learn, to delude Himself, to surprise Himself, to wear clothes, to eat, or to perform an evil action. These are all powers that God lacks. If I say this, the ball is in the theist's court to say why God shouldn't need to be able to perform these actions to be omnipotent.

I'm still disputing that all we can say about God's power is that He can create ex nihilo or destroy anything. This simply does not seem to be omnipotence to me. Theists who believe in this sort of God, however, are welcome to maintain that belief; it's just that most theists probably believe in a God Who is far more powerful than that. Would you concede that theists who believe in a God Who can perform any logically possible action, and theists who believe in a God who can bring about any logically possible state of affairs, are mistaken?

Vanderzyden

But the definition must tell us some intelligible. We must understand it. You would go further to insist that the definition comport completely with our intuitions. On these grounds, it doesn't make sense to formulate definitions that are unnecessarily extraneous, with respect to our comprehension or experience. Agreed?

I would also argue that many things exist of which we are unaware. We can easily imagine that God may be empircally verifiable and yet we are unable to detect him because he is "hidden". Generally speaking, God may exist and it could be impossible for any of his creatures to understand even one small aspect of his nature. So, I would insist that it is possible that God exists, and yet we cannot comprehend him. Of course, the theist would go on to claim that there is compelling evidence that he does exist and that he has communicated a glimpse of what he is like.


Allow me to address your examples:

1. Yes, suppose God does not have the power to learn. This is the necessary consequence of the view which claims that God is static, or timeless. But of course, God may learn of the new things that occur in "time" as each of his free will creatures make choices. I realize that there are implications here for his omniscience, but that is another thread! But let's suppose, for the moment, that God was indeed intrinsically and extrinsically timeless, and had full knowledge of every event that will occur from eternity past. As such, he could not learn anything. Some creatures would still have free will, but he would know every single detail beforehand. Does this make God less-powerful? No, not at all. He still possesses creative power. It could be that, after a duration of 50 billion years, God will annihilate the entire universe. Men, angels, planets, galaxies would be gone. God creates, he destroys. His "inability" to learn does not diminish one bit from this supreme power.

2. The ability to delude himself is not a consideration for omnipotence. Delusion is, by definition, a weakness. It therefore cannot be classified as a component of power. Similarly, the potential for surprise and the performance of evil are also weaknesses. And again, how could the Creator, having power over life and death, be "surprised" by anything?

3. Clothes and food are perishable. The Creator is imperishable (another attribute = eternal/uncaused). He sustains himself, requiring no assistance, sustenance, or protection. The Creator is the very author of Being.

With these examples, we can clearly see the inadequacy--and insensibility--of the definition of "weak omnipotence". Logical possibilities entail weaknesses as well as powers.

Yes, the "logically possible" and "anything goes" theists must surely be mistaken, for it seems that difficulties arise immediately upon inspection of such fantastic definitions. I still maintain that these concepts are not biblically founded.

Again, I will ask: What is possibly more powerful than creative power?

Vanderzyden

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"But the definition must tell us some intelligible. We must understand it. You would go further to insist that the definition comport completely with our intuitions. On these grounds, it doesn't make sense to formulate definitions that are unnecessarily extraneous, with respect to our comprehension or experience. Agreed?"

Definitions that add to our understanding more are better than definitions that don't add to our understanding more. Therefore, a definition that gives us more information about what God can do is better than a definition that gives us less information about what God can do. I simply doubt that we don't know what the word "omnipotent" means. Whether or not God Himself is omnipotent is a different story.

"So, I would insist that it is possible that God exists, and yet we cannot comprehend him."

If we don't know what "omnipotent" means, and God is taken to be omnipotent, then we don't know what "Possibly, God exists" means. To deny that we understand how God is omnipotent is either to deny that we know what "omnipotent" means (strange, because we get to choose what it means; it's a word), or to deny that we know whether God is omnipotent.

You have conceded that God cannot learn. Delusion is a weakness, sure, but "to delude oneself" is still a power. Maybe it's not particularly useful, but that's not part of what it is to have a power. And to wear clothes is still impossible for God, whether or not they're perishable. You seem to have conceded that there are logically possible actions God cannot perform.

"Again, I will ask: What is possibly more powerful than creative power?"

"Creative power + any power x where x is not creative power" is more powerful than "creative power." This being would be more powerful than God.

Vanderzyden

I'm not saying that we don't know what omnipotence means. Rather, I'm insisting that the definitions you have given here are nonsense, and do not adequately describe omnipotence. Both of them lead to contradictions and impossibilities. We need a definition that is not too much, and not too little.

If everything is known, then learning isn't possible. In such a context, learning is not a power. It simply is irrelevant. For humans, learning is necessary to compensate for a particular lack of power: knowledge. As such, learning is not intrinsically a power. It is a mere ability.

Please explain how deluding oneself could be construed as a power. Delusion is deception; to deceive oneself is to weaken oneself. Similarly, please explain why the wearing of clothes is a power. And yes, I have conceded that God cannot perform any logically possible action. Again, this does not mean that he is not all-powerful. You are conflating logical possibility with power. By so doing, I think you are attempting to show that the existence of God is illogical since such a being would be able to do anything logical, which leads to contradictions. However, I declare that the "traditional" definition is fundamentally flawed as I have explained and illustrated. (As I remember, you did not refute my counterexamples.)

What other being is this, that has a power that supersedes creative power? Can you describe this power? Notice that I am not asking for you to catalogue all the attendant, derivative, and implicative powers that follow from or are superseded by creative power. No, I am asking you to conceive of a power that is greater than creative power. If you cannot do it, as I think, then we may be satisfied with the definition I have given.

You say that you don't believe in God, and that you don't need to "wait" for the theist to offer a definition. Fine. What's your definition? The "strong" and "weak" definitions have been shown to be nonsensical, and the don't apply to the God of the Bible. So, then, what is your alternative definition? If you cannot offer an alternative, then you must explain why unique creative power is inadequate. So far, you have no done so. You have only given examples of "powers" that are infinitesimally small in comparison with creation itself. Let me be so bold as to say that you cannot describe a power that will nearly approach it.

Note: We are constrained to consider omnipotence in relation to other potential powers. How can we do otherwise? The one who has the creative/destructive power is necessarily the all-powerful one. No other being, despite its imagination, may overpower the Omnipotent. And yet, all-powerful does not mean any-powerful. Surely you can understand this distinction, now.

Note 2: Furthermore, if we are to consider the existence of God, we cannot take the characteristic of his power in isolation. As I have indicated previously, his actions are regulated by his omniscience, justice, merciness, and supreme goodness.


Vanderzyden

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"I'm not saying that we don't know what omnipotence means. Rather, I'm insisting that the definitions you have given here are nonsense, and do not adequately describe omnipotence. Both of them lead to contradictions and impossibilities. We need a definition that is not too much, and not too little."

The definition "can perform any logically possible action" does not lead to any contradictions, as far as I can see, except with certain of God's attributes. This does not mean that "omnipotent" is meaningless, only that God is not omnipotent. Please refresh my memory, but it seems that as long as we call "omnipotent" "the ability to perform any logically possible action," with an understanding of those terms, we do not run into any contradictions.

"If everything is known, then learning isn't possible. In such a context, learning is not a power. It simply is irrelevant. For humans, learning is necessary to compensate for a particular lack of power: knowledge. As such, learning is not intrinsically a power. It is a mere ability."

What is the difference between a power and an ability?

"What other being is this, that has a power that supersedes creative power? Can you describe this power?"

I'm not saying there is a power greater than creative power. I'm saying a being who has creative power and some powers God doesn't have would be more powerful than God, and therefore, God is not omnipotent.

Vanderzyden

Here, again, is an example of counterexample to your defintion:

Being A can make a rock so big he can't lift it.

It is logical, but nonsensical and contradictory.

Here's an example of a problematic logical action:

Being B can count to infinity.

No actual infinites can possibly exist.

Though these statements are "logical", both lead to contradictions, since no being is capable of doing either action.


I have the ability to blink my eyelids, while I simultaneously possess managerial power over my direct reports. I may also have lethal power in my skills as a marksman.

From the dictionary...

ability: the quality or state of being able

power: possession of control, authority, or influence over others; physical might


Again, I would ask you to describe this hypothetical being. Would you agree that no other power can even approximate creative power? If not, why?


Vanderzyden

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

HomoSapien

An amazing thread that takes one in many directions.

Thomas has mentioned that no where does the Bible actually say God is omnipotent. However, It does say with God all things are possible (Luke) and God's answer to Job is clearly a statement of omnipotence.

God can in fact do anything, but choses not to do them. This of course leads us into the area of release from human suffering..from leg cramps to the holocaust...where is God?

Two standard answers follow...the Garden of Eden produced free will, the by product of which is evil. God cannot interfere with man's larger actions.

The other is more eastern in temperment..that all our suffering is somewhat equal to a teenger with pimples compared to the great cosmic plan.
Well, lets take or leave that one, eh?

The Bottom Line..does suffering make you noble.
I don't think the ancient Greeks bought this idea, but certainly the medival mind did; and Buddhism certainly delves into it...all existince and desire is suffering...even laughter..becasue you have to stop sometime.

Nietzche pointed out that every great culture is built on cruelty..and there seems to be some historic proof for that statement.

Finally, we are not built to last....
I have more to say on all these things..but must compose my thoughts on them....

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: HomoSapien ]</p>

Keith Russell

Vanderzyden said:
I have already argued that free decision to choose evil is consistent with an all-knowing God. What other inconsistencies do you find troubling?

'Creation', for one.

Energy is all that exists. (Matter is a form of energy.) Energy can change forms, but it cannot be created or destroyed. Energy is eternal; its forms, are not.

Because of this, 'Creation', as theists view it, has never actually taken place.

Yet you suppose a 'Creator'.

Why?

Keith.

Vanderzyden

Tell that to big bang cosmologists.

"Why?", you ask.

Leibniz asked what is perhaps the most profound question:

WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?

(Isn't it more logical to expect that nothing should exist?)

Vanderzyden

Devilnaut

Uhh... earth to vander, but something does exist. This means that it is clearly more logical to expect that something should exist rather than nothing.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>