Silent Acorns

Vander,

I admit that I am coming in at the end of a long exchange, and that I have not read all of this thread. My original reason for posting in this thread was to clarify whether or not "the most powerful" meant the same thing as "able to enforce his will anywhere and always". Unless I am mistaken, you have agreed that it does. My position is this:

- that "able to enforce his will anywhere and always" is equivalent to "able to do whatever he wants"

- that "god can do whatever he wants" does not resolve the problem of evil

- that if you go back and re-read Thomas' original post, the problem of evil ("suffering") is a part of this thread (i.e. it's not tangential).

If someone has raised these points together before in this thread, then I apologize for wasting your time. I also realize that in the exchange that followed my original post we moved into territory you have probably already covered elsewhere in this thread.

I also have a problem with your use of "unique creative power" as equal to omnipotence, but I realize that this is the focus of your discussion with Thomas, and so I'll leave this issue to him. I just have one more question here: if no being has any creative power, would the being with the most power still be omnipotent? A simple yes, no, or "some being has to have creative power" will suffice to satisfy my interest.

My calling the supreme good an "ability" was a slip up on my part. I was going to edit it to "feature", but I thought my intent was clear so I didn't bother. I just want to be clear about one thing, is being the "supreme good" part of being omnipotent, a result of being omnipotent, or independent of being omnipotent?

Thank you

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Silent Acorns ]</p>

mibby529

First off, the GA is too one-dimensional. Any alien being - essentially what deities are - would be, well, alien.

And you gotta love how apologists enjoy telling about how great their faith is, and then they use a fallacious pseudo-logical argument. (My favorite has always been Pascal's Wager: So God isn't one-dimensional; he's also incredibly stupid and insecure. LOL)

Philip Osborne

I see your argument now. But if we've abandoned states of affairs, I think we can imagine Sam as a necessary existent who can learn. This power struggle seems to turn on something as potent as the ability to cause someone else not to exist, but we can avoid such an important state of affairs and stick to learning, eating, etc. Sam can bring about the lpsoa "Sam causes Sam to eat" but there is no parallel in God's repertoire.

Concerning God not being able to eat, there is significant precedent, at least in the Christian religion, of God being able to eat. Jesus is a Person of the Trinity who is clearly able to eat; I see little reason why other religions would not want to postulate that God can manifest Himself as a man and can eat. Concerning learning, I think it is taken for granted that God cannot do this. There seems little reason why omniscience cannot be defined as the ability to know all things knowable. As I've said before, there seems little reason to think of God as a being which thinks, "Geez, there's all this knowledge pouring into my head, and I can't do anything about it!" [edit] Hence, there may be possible worlds in which God did not choose to know all things knowable; perhaps in world w, he chose not to know X; in that case, God can learn X, in virtue of His omnipotence (i.e. God can instantiate the state of affairs in which God knows X).

I'm not convinced your state-of-affairs argument about God losing powers and yet being just as powerful is successful. For instance, suppose you are right and God cannot learn or eat. Then, if God gains the ability to learn and eat, then according to the state-of-affairs model of omnipotence, he is now more powerful than before, because He can now instantiate more states of affairs than before, namely, the SOA in which God learns, and the SOA in which God eats. You haven't given any examples in which your argument holds, so it would be helpful if you could.

Sincerely,

Philip

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Philip Osborne ]</p>

Vanderzyden

I stand with Aristotle (and Anselm) in their particular arguments which lead us to believe that there must be an Unmoved Mover. And, necessarily, this being has the greatest power, since nothing exists (and is sustained) apart from the creative power of this Being.

Thanks for raising this issue. I haven't thought very deeply about this one. It would seem that goodness is independent of creative power. I welcome you to pursue any inquiry regarding this relationship (in another thread).


Thanks,

John


John

Xixax

I still have yet to see you ( VZ ) make a convincing argument that the power to create ( not craft, I know what you mean when you say create ) also provides the power to destroy.

Until I see that proven, I am resting safe in saying that a being with destructive power is greater than one with creative power.

You continued to confuse knowledge with function.

Vanderzyden

X,

Yes, this is a good point, as I have said. However, I have covered this in various detail throughout the thread. Was it you who said you were going to go back and read the second half of the thread? Well, you can go right to the post at the very top of page 10 to see a summary (along with an illustration of the "Rock-Maker")


John

Vanderzyden

Melting lava to FORM a rock is not the same as CREATING the rock. Please recall the dictionary definition: create = BRING INTO EXISTENCE. Again, the is completely and utterly distinct from construction or formation. Your analogy, therefore, is unsuitable for our purposes here. In fact, we must set aside any illustration you employ which takes pre-existing material to fashion another object. This is not creation.

Your inability to lift a house that you have constructed is, again, a WEAKNESS. This weakness is far greater than your power to use tools to construct the house. Your feebleness (and mine) is clearly demonstrated by comparing the inability to lift the house with the being that is responsible for bring the matter into existence (of which the materials of the house consist).

I notice that you want to have it both ways. On the one hand you use the example "God can not create an object too heavy for him to lift" to support the inapplicability of weak omnipotence to God. On the other hand, you say that "God CAN INDEED construct an object too heavy to lift", as you have done above. So, which is it?

When I say abilities without power, I mean that we cannot count as a power an ability that is not also a power. Such abilities are intrinsically powerless, and add nothing to the potency of a being. If an ability is also a power, then let us just call it a power and combine it with the other powers that being possesses. Let us not confuse ability with power. Yes, I think we have covered this before.

Thomas, please stop counting how many times we are going over the same point. I am well aware of the count, but am also well aware of my responses to you. If you would persuade me, then you must do more than reply with two-sentence rebuttals. I have asked you to provide me with the authors or the teachings from which you have learned to equate the merely "logical" with the "actual". You have not given them.

Permit me to suggest that we are allowing ourselves to get bogged down in semantics and pettiness. "Logically possible" has many <a href="http://www.sandiego.edu/~baber/logic/possibility.html" target="_blank">flavors</a> and must be reconciled with our intuitions concerning the actual world.


Instead of messing with these sticky issues, let's continue to deal with a unique, easily conceivable and demonstrable power: Creative power.

With the example of removing other powers, you have given an example of a power that overwhelms (i.e. supersedes, encompasses, trumps) other powers. An overwhelming power is one that is more powerful than its competitor.

I see that you are echoing what I have been saying is part and parcel of creative power. The being who creates all other creatures necessarily has the power to remove (i.e. negate, destroy) the powers of the creatures. Furthermore, the creator may "remove" the existence of any creature, along with its powers. He is the author of their existence, and of the powers they possess. Since the creator has such supreme power--the power that is responsible for all other powers--he is therefore "immune" from any creature power.


John

His wisdom is profound, his power is vast.
Who has resisted him and come out unscathed?

He moves mountains without their knowing it
and overturns them in his anger.

He shakes the earth from its place
and makes its pillars tremble.

He speaks to the sun and it does not shine;
he seals off the light of the stars.

He alone stretches out the heavens
and treads on the waves of the sea.

He is the Maker of the Bear and Orion,
the Pleiades and the constellations of the south.

He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed,
miracles that cannot be counted.

When he passes me, I cannot see him;
when he goes by, I cannot perceive him.

If he snatches away, who can stop him?
Who can say to him, 'What are you doing?'

-- Job 9:4-12

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

K

According to this definition, there is no evidence that anything in the universe was created. Is that what is really meant by the word "create"? If I can't create music, or a sand castle, or my offspring, or an original theory, then everything that exists is just another manifestation of things that previously existed.

Silent Acorns

Vanderzyden,

Would this be a complete summary of your definition of "omnipotent":

An omnipotent being must have ALL of the following traits:

1) unique creative (something from nothing) power
2) unique destuctive (something to nothing) power
3) the ability to enforce his will anywhere and always

Is this accurate?

Xixax

I saw that post, and found it unconvincing. Note that even you use the words "may be used". Just because that knowledge can be used doesn't mean it is. You must prove that it not only has the possibility to destroy, but the necessary function of destruction as well.

You haven't shown that as a power that is automatically given to a being that can create. If you want to give your being both powers, fine, continue on, but don't say they cannot exist without each other.