Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Thomas Metcalf · 03-31-2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by 7thangel :

Quote:

Can God create omnipotent beings? No, right? So He cannot therefore create perfect beings. If God can only create imperfect beings, then God is by itself allowed to do that which is evil; for to create imperfect beings is to create beings that are subject to suffer evil.

Here's your argument, as near as I can tell:

1. If God creates something, then that something isn't omnipotent.
2. If something isn't omnipotent, then that something isn't perfect.
3. If something isn't perfect, then that something will suffer evil.
4. Therefore, if God creates something, then that something will suffer evil.

The problem is that 3 is false. God could have created non-omnipotent beings who did not suffer evil.

Mageth · 03-31-2003, 10:16 AM

And by the way, your arguments had me realized that I should have had mentioned omniscience and omnipresence.

If god is omniscient, then it can't learn - it already knows everything. Not being omniscient, I have the ability to learn. Thus, I have a power that God doesn't possess!

Further, if god is omnipresent, god can't not be some place. I, on the other hand, can not be some place. Another power god doesn't have that I do. If you claim god has the power to not be some place, then pardoxically god could choose not to be omnipresent, i.e. not be "perfect."

Omniscience is tightly coupled to omnipotence (and omnipresence). To claim omnipotence, God would have to know it was omnipotent. In other words, it would have to know it possessed all possible powers/abilities. To claim omnipresence, God would have to know it was present everywhere. To claim omniscience, God would have to know it knew everything.

This leads to a problem I've mentioned a couple of times around here lately. How can God know about something it doesn't know about? In other words, how can god know (or prove) that there is not a fact X that it doesn't know? How could god know or prove that there is not a place where he is not present if he doesn't know about the place? How could god know or prove that there is not a power that he doesn't possess if he doesn't know about the power? And I'm not just talking about to us; these things would be impossible for a god to prove to itself.

But allow me to work on omnipotence, which I think it is more easier to relay about Godhead.

It's relatively easy to conceptualize, perhaps ("God knows everything". Okay...), but entirely impossible to demonstrate. Not even god could demonstrate to us finite beings that it was indeed omnipotent (or omniscient, or omnipresent).

7thangel · 03-31-2003, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by diana
Anytime a person prematurely points me to the conclusion he wants me to draw, I get internal flashing lights and klaxon-like warning sounds.

You just did it.

I'm wondering how you get from A to B.

You've thus defined "perfect" as "including omnipotence," yes? If not, I fail to see how you leapt so nimbly from "God can't create omnipotent beings" to "therefore, he can't create perfect beings."

And thus, "imperfect" implies "evil"? Again...you just made another logical cataclysmic leap that I don't follow.

Quite the oversimplification. To create imperfect beings is simply to create beings that lack perfection. They may be entirely good, but unable to leap tall buildings in a single bound. If you've included "leap tall buildings in a single bound" in your necessary qualities of "perfect," then beings without that quality are imperfect. Good and evil needn't enter into it.

I think it's drivel.

d

Omnipotence is having all power. That is perfect because it does not lack any power. An non-omnipotent, as HRG said, is not perfect. In any case, my simplest difinition of perfect is not lacking of anything.

diana · 03-31-2003, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 7thangel
The flaw of theists-atheists arguments is that both judge God on human perspectives.

Yes of course.

In lieu of human perspectives, you're suggesting we use...what?

Quote:

This is God's perpective. Because God is not subject to any undesirable outcomes.

Do you see my point?

Um, no. But I see a problem.

If we're so subject to human perspectives--I'd go so far as to say we're bound to them--how is it you know God's perspective?

Don't you mean, rather, "This is what my opinion--which is of course based on my human perspective--of God's perspective"?

Which of course boils down to just your opinion.

d

diana · 03-31-2003, 11:23 AM

7thangel,

In reply to your last post to me, I refer you to many of the in-depth and thoughtful replies above. See, specifically, the thoughts of Mageth, Thomas Metcalf, and braces_for_impact.

You've given the typical simple definition of "omnipotence." It is, unfortunately, incoherent. It is impossible to simply "have all power." If it was, then God could make a rock so heavy that he himself couldn't lift it. See?

You might consider refining your definition. However, I've seen many attempts here by those who have apparently made a life of this pursuit, and all definitions I've yet seen have inherent logical flaws.

I personally am of the opinion that it's impossible to define a logically possible "omnipotence" that, in the end, still sets it apart from simple "potence."

My point about perfection was that what qualifies as "perfect" and "imperfect" depends entirely upon what qualities you assign to the word "perfect." It would appear that you assign "omnipotent" as a necessary quality of "perfect." Is this correct?

Your simplest definition of perfect, you said, is "lacking of anything." I assume you meant, "lacking nothing." Yes?

This is another impossible concept. Take the characteristic of a specifically shaped physical body. Either God has it or he doesn't. If he has it, then it perhaps has ten heads. If this is the case, then it lacks the quality of having only five heads. Therefore, it lacks something.

If God has no specifically defined physical body, then clearly, he lacks that.

d

Hawkingfan · 03-31-2003, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 7thangel
Omnipotence is having all power. That is perfect because it does not lack any power.

You seem to have ignored happyboy's post. You said god cannot create an omnipotent being. That would mean he lacks the power to create an omnipotent being. Therefore, god could not have all power (using your own reasoning).

7thangel · 03-31-2003, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
On the contrary, what ever actions where both disagreed and had not done it, had by itself set limitation of their powers.

Voluntarily setting a limit on a power is entirely different from not having a power. I would assume even a "solo god" would choose not to exercise all of its powers for one reason or another.

Whether voluntary or involuntary, when one had "limited" powers, he is non-omnipotent. At any point, such power cannot exist, because it is hindered by the limitation being set. It will turn out that such power is illusory.

Quote:

Further, if you're a Trinitarian Xian, the bible has an example of one god subjecting himself to another god's will (or one god subjecting itself to another portion of itself): "Not my will, but thine."

Fortunately, I am not a trinitarian.

Quote:

In order that one be omnipotent, his actions should not be influenced by another entity.

Why not? As I said above, choosing to limit use of one's powers is not the same as not having the powers. One doesn't have to exercise a power to possess the power. Further, both entities could possess the power to annihilate each other, but for one reason or another choose not to exercise that power (it gets lonely at the top).

If one chooses not to exercise, then one loses the power to exercise the power. I think what clouds the argument is the implied will. If man's will be under another's will, then he loses power over his own will. So, such being is not anymore omnipotent.

7thangel · 03-31-2003, 01:36 PM

To all:

Bear with me for being slow. I will try as much as possible to address your questions.

Thanks

Mageth · 03-31-2003, 01:51 PM

Whether voluntary or involuntary, when one had "limited" powers, he is non-omnipotent. At any point, such power cannot exist, because it is hindered by the limitation being set. It will turn out that such power is illusory.

So, if god chooses to limit his own powers, he is no longer omnipotent? Therefore, I guess, him not being able, not having the power, to limit his own powers makes him what, omnipotent or not omnipotent? I'm confused by your argument.

Fortunately, I am not a trinitarian.

Good for you, I guess. Fortunately, I'm not a theist.

If one chooses not to exercise, then one loses the power to exercise the power. I think what clouds the argument is the implied will. If man's will be under another's will, then he loses power over his own will. So, such being is not anymore omnipotent.

The logical conclusion of your argument, it seems to me, is that god must be constantly using every power in his reportoire to keep from losing them. He can't even choose, on his own, to not use of any one of his powers, not even for a nanosecond, as that would be voluntarily limiting his use of that power. That makes absolutely no sense.

But I like it. Since god has failed to exercise his power to vaporize us all, apparently voluntarily, he has now apparently lost the power to vaporize us. So I guess we're all safe. Not to mention all the other countless powers god must have lost over the eons for failing to constantly exercise them.

Once again: voluntarily choosing not to exercise a power is not losing that power. The U.S. has chosen, so far, not to use tactical nuclear weapons in Iraq. Unfortunately, we still have a stockpile available for use if we decide to use that power in the future.

7thangel · 03-31-2003, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by happyboy
wow, 7th! :notworthy i feel such awe standing your presence! you have proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that God is not omnipotent! omnipotence implies the ability to do ANYTHING, not "anything but this." if your God was truly all-powerful, then the making of other all-powerful entities ought to be a cakewalk.

of course, this raises the question, "can God create a boulder so heavy even He can't lift it?"

a very amused happyboy

The stone that God cannot carry is just illusory. It does not exists. For God to create the illusory is like creating and IPU.

The problem is where do we draw what is real and unreal. The word "all" is only subject to real things.

03-31-2003, 11:23 AM	#15
diana Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 6,471	Re: Re: Re: Omnipotence and Being Perfect 7thangel, In reply to your last post to me, I refer you to many of the in-depth and thoughtful replies above. See, specifically, the thoughts of Mageth, Thomas Metcalf, and braces_for_impact. You've given the typical simple definition of "omnipotence." It is, unfortunately, incoherent. It is impossible to simply "have all power." If it was, then God could make a rock so heavy that he himself couldn't lift it. See? You might consider refining your definition. However, I've seen many attempts here by those who have apparently made a life of this pursuit, and all definitions I've yet seen have inherent logical flaws. I personally am of the opinion that it's impossible to define a logically possible "omnipotence" that, in the end, still sets it apart from simple "potence." My point about perfection was that what qualifies as "perfect" and "imperfect" depends entirely upon what qualities you assign to the word "perfect." It would appear that you assign "omnipotent" as a necessary quality of "perfect." Is this correct? Your simplest definition of perfect, you said, is "lacking of anything." I assume you meant, "lacking nothing." Yes? This is another impossible concept. Take the characteristic of a specifically shaped physical body. Either God has it or he doesn't. If he has it, then it perhaps has ten heads. If this is the case, then it lacks the quality of having only five heads. Therefore, it lacks something. If God has no specifically defined physical body, then clearly, he lacks that. d

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

03-31-2003, 10:16 AM	#12
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	And by the way, your arguments had me realized that I should have had mentioned omniscience and omnipresence. If god is omniscient, then it can't learn - it already knows everything. Not being omniscient, I have the ability to learn. Thus, I have a power that God doesn't possess! Further, if god is omnipresent, god can't not be some place. I, on the other hand, can not be some place. Another power god doesn't have that I do. If you claim god has the power to not be some place, then pardoxically god could choose not to be omnipresent, i.e. not be "perfect." Omniscience is tightly coupled to omnipotence (and omnipresence). To claim omnipotence, God would have to know it was omnipotent. In other words, it would have to know it possessed all possible powers/abilities. To claim omnipresence, God would have to know it was present everywhere. To claim omniscience, God would have to know it knew everything. This leads to a problem I've mentioned a couple of times around here lately. How can God know about something it doesn't know about? In other words, how can god know (or prove) that there is not a fact X that it doesn't know? How could god know or prove that there is not a place where he is not present if he doesn't know about the place? How could god know or prove that there is not a power that he doesn't possess if he doesn't know about the power? And I'm not just talking about to us; these things would be impossible for a god to prove to itself. But allow me to work on omnipotence, which I think it is more easier to relay about Godhead. It's relatively easy to conceptualize, perhaps ("God knows everything". Okay...), but entirely impossible to demonstrate. Not even god could demonstrate to us finite beings that it was indeed omnipotent (or omniscient, or omnipresent).

03-31-2003, 01:36 PM	#18
7thangel Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Queens Village, NY Posts: 613	To all: Bear with me for being slow. I will try as much as possible to address your questions. Thanks

03-31-2003, 01:51 PM	#19
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Whether voluntary or involuntary, when one had "limited" powers, he is non-omnipotent. At any point, such power cannot exist, because it is hindered by the limitation being set. It will turn out that such power is illusory. So, if god chooses to limit his own powers, he is no longer omnipotent? Therefore, I guess, him not being able, not having the power, to limit his own powers makes him what, omnipotent or not omnipotent? I'm confused by your argument. Fortunately, I am not a trinitarian. Good for you, I guess. Fortunately, I'm not a theist. If one chooses not to exercise, then one loses the power to exercise the power. I think what clouds the argument is the implied will. If man's will be under another's will, then he loses power over his own will. So, such being is not anymore omnipotent. The logical conclusion of your argument, it seems to me, is that god must be constantly using every power in his reportoire to keep from losing them. He can't even choose, on his own, to not use of any one of his powers, not even for a nanosecond, as that would be voluntarily limiting his use of that power. That makes absolutely no sense. But I like it. Since god has failed to exercise his power to vaporize us all, apparently voluntarily, he has now apparently lost the power to vaporize us. So I guess we're all safe. Not to mention all the other countless powers god must have lost over the eons for failing to constantly exercise them. Once again: voluntarily choosing not to exercise a power is not losing that power. The U.S. has chosen, so far, not to use tactical nuclear weapons in Iraq. Unfortunately, we still have a stockpile available for use if we decide to use that power in the future.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.