Thomas Metcalf

The being determines whether a definition applies to it. I'm talking about "define" as in "formulate a definition." Sure, the being might also define itself, but not all beings define themselves with this use of "define." If God exists, we may not have come up with an acceptable definition of Him yet, but that's a different matter entirely.

Then we're not talking about the same God. Most theists would say that God is partially definable.

Yes. Good thing I'm not talking about that being. I'm talking about the God Who is partially definable; that is, we can correctly apply some predicates to Him.

Koyaanisqatsi

If you define me as "female," then you would be one hundred percent incorrect in your definition on all levels, for I am not a female.

How would you know this prior to making any definition? Well, you would either have to ask me and take my word for it, or see me in person or see a nude photo of me that hasn't been altered in any way.

In other words, your definition of me comes from me, not the other way around.

And I'm explaining to you that it is the factual existence of the being that formulates said "definition," not anyone else, unless, as I pointed out prior, you simply wish to engage in trivial, pointless mental masturbation or write a work of fiction.

So, again, have fun with that.

I think you fully compehend what I'm talking about by now, but just in case you do not, again, the, shall we say, "essential definition" of a being comes from the factual existence of the being and not from anyone else, unless you're engagin in trivial, pointless mental masturbation or writing fiction.

No, actually it is not, for if God exists, then only "his" existence can provide us with an "essential definition," not anybody else, unless, again, you are merely engaging in trivial, pointless mental masturbation or writing fiction.

Then every single one of them would either be engaging in trivial, pointless mental masturbation or writing fiction, since it is not up to them to define another factually existing being.


And how would you possibly know a thing like that?

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

rainbow walking

The primary way I try to refute 2 is to point out that it is possible to conceive of a much more powerful being than such a being, and this is paradoxical. An omnipotent being should be the most powerful conceivable being, but imagine a being that can bring about any logically possible state of affairs and do any logically possible action. Such a being would be far more powerful than God.

rw: I think contradictions are much more difficult to defend against than paradoxes.

Theli

One thing that people kind of forget when contemplating about omniscience, is the actual being performing the actions. Is it possible for a being flood the earth? With what means would it do that? If a being had the means to do that, wouldn't that force the being to "take form", wich would limit/prevent other abilities?

I mean, it's easy to think "allpowerfull" as a mere ability, but when the being performs an action it also limits itself. Like in the old "create a rock he cannot lift" example.
I wouldn't see "create a rock he cannot lift" as a direct contradiction/paradox (as the both doesn't contradict eahother) but rather displays a problem with ability -&gt; action -&gt; ability.

Koyaanisqatsi

The problem is that it's an ill-conceived construct to begin with, for the simple fact that it was initially only used as a means to terrorize exceedingly ignorant, superstitious, innocent people into following the leaders of a cult. Instead of admitting this obvious fact, cult apologists go to the greatest lengths logically possible to obfuscate it for the exact same reason.

I'm sorry to be the one to inform you, but while we're on the topic of what is or is not "logically possible," carpenters build furniture, not universes and burning bushes just burn. They don't talk or issue commandments or any of that childish nonsense.

So, that's the end of that.

Thomas Metcalf

Well, I agree. It's just hard to demonstrate contradictions when we're shuffling definitions around rather than working with an inviolate definition. I guess I could go stronger and say a being is not omnipotent if there is a more powerful logically possible being.

Koyaanisqatsi

nevermind...

this is pointless (for me)...

you guys have fun

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

I don't see how. Whether my definition is correct depends on you, certainly, but I could try to define you without knowing anything about you. I'd probably be wrong, of course, but how I define you does not depend in the least on what sort of being you are.

We don't know whether we're writing fiction or not when we produce some definition, unless we already know the being exists. We do not know whether God exists, in most cases, so we do not know whether this being is "factually existing."

This is how definitions "happen." We stick some words together to form a sentence or two. Now, these sentences contain certain predicates. If there is a factually existing being that satisfies these predicates, then the definition applies to it. If not, then the definition is of a fictional being.

We do not know whether the being who can perform any logically possible action is fictional or not. Whether my definition of a particular person is correct surely depends on that person, but such is not my purpose here. Rather, I'm talking about a putative being who can bring about any logically possible state of affairs. We do not know whether this being exists. My aim is to discover whether that will be enough to call such a being "omnipotent."

Because we're defining it as such! With a definition such as "predicates can correctly be applied to it," I'm saying that maybe such a being exists -- if it did, what else could we say about it? This has always been a putative being, about whom we can ask questions in the hypothetical. We define the being as "predicates can correctly be applied to it," and then we try to figure out whether such a being exists or not.

Thomas Metcalf

It is true that to define a being at all means its abilities are limited somewhat. For example, an omnipotent being cannot bring about any state of affairs that was not brought about by an omnipotent being. That's why, if we are to formulate a rigorous and defensible version of "omnipotence," we usually take such things into account. For example, "omnipotent" won't be "can perform any logically possible action" but instead "can perform any logically possible action that does not have a defined actor."

Theli

This was not what I meant.
What I meant was that there must be something there to perform the actions. And in order to perform those actions it limits itself for future actions.
"Create a rock as large as you cannot lift it" isn't in itself contradictory. As you can (prior to creating the rock) lift any rock. Therefore, in order to be allpowerfull youmust be able to do both. But once you done the first, you cannot do the second anymore.
It's merely an example that ability always brings lack of ability. There are probably a near infinite amount of other examples.
And I think that when people who try to defend the notion of omnipotence and acknowledges these inconsistencies/faults, only to limit omnipotence to everything accept X, are not being sincere. But rather tries to be flexible enought to let the notion of omnipotence pass, and save face.
They should chance the description of god from allpowerfull to just powerfull, as they have already changed the definition/idea of god's power.

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>