Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"There is no formal discourse concerning elves and fairies. Elves and fairies do not have religious traditions. So, may I ask that we exclude them from consideration. The argument concerns the existence of the 'God of the apologists', as you stated in the OP. We may ascribe whatever arbitrary label your prefer. For now, I am using the term 'Creator'."

I don't think so. If your definition shows elves and fairies to be omnipotent, I think that's good reason to reject it. That's why I brought up elves and fairies.

"Omnipotence = having unique supernatural creative power."

Once again, I find this inadequate. Elves and fairies, if they create anything, have supernatural creative power. The one elf with the most creative power might be omnipotent then. Sure, God might create such an elf, but no one's shown that created beings can't be omnipotent as you define the term above.

Or do you mean creation ex nihilo? I could just define a being such that all it could do is supernaturally create and destroy toast, ex nihilo. Would this being be omnipotent? Or do you mean can create anything ex nihilo and destroy it? I have already shown that this being would not be omnipotent by the way our usual intuitions would indicate. Remember, it couldn't necessarily do several things, such as communicate with humans, and it still couldn't directly create the state of affairs in which someone or other freely chooses good; it has only set things up so that such a choice might happen in the future.

I'm not looking for a quick and easy definition of "omnipotent." I'm looking for one that will include everyone we'd think to be omnipotent, and exclude everyone we wouldn't think to be omnipotent, with no exceptions. I simply suspect that no such definition exists that will apply to God, and I would like to read a strict definition that I can evaluate rigorously.

Vanderzyden

Yes, I mean ex nihilo. Let's take that to be the definition of genuine creation. But no, let's not limit this creative power to just toast, since toast is not all that exists. If you are going to provide counterexamples, then they should comport with "our intuitions", as you indicate. Ditto for the McEar entity. Please elaborate if you don't agree.

I do not recall that you have shown that the Creator is necessarily incapable of communicating with humans. Also, I have requested several times that you demonstrate how the existence of the "God of the apologists" is inconsistent with the existence of free agents--whether they choose good or evil. It does seem, however, that we may discard the "strong" and "weak" definitions, since those definitions support things that cannot possibly exist. No being can make a square circle (anything), and no being B can make a rock so big he can't lift it (logically possible).

Nor am I. But we may invoke, say, Ockham's principle and insist upon the simplest definition. Such approach helps us conduct an efficient dialogue. I am arguing that the Creator, who is alone in possessing creative power, is necessarily all-powerful. At any instant, all of creation could be annihilated by the One who brought it all into BEING. The very author of BEING--the I AM THAT WHICH I AM--has the ultimate power: that of life and death itself. The more I think about it, the more I realize that nothing more is necessary for a definition of omnipotence.


Vanderzyden

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

K

Unique supernatural creator says absolutely nothing about the ability to communicate with humans. So if the totalitiy of God's power is summed up in "unique supernatural creator" then He has no ability to communicate with humans. If He does have the ability to communicate with humans, then "unique supernatural creator" is not sufficient to describe His power.

Vanderzyden

From one perspective, I agree with you. Perhaps you don't realize that this supports my contention. Since it does not "say anything" directly about communication, it also does not exclude the possibility or the likelihood of it.

However, it may be argued that creative power implies the ability to relate with the creature, since, if communication is at all possible, it has necessarily been established by the Creator.

Vanderzyden

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

K

Vanderzyden:

Thomas requested a definition of all-powerful that described the power of God. If it doesn't describe all of the power's of God, then it is a full definition. "Unique supernatural creator" also says nothing about being able to do the logically impossible, but we've already determined that that is not one of an all-powerful God's abilities. That's why the definition was requested.

Creator could imply the ability to create communications with people. It could also imply the ability to create logically impossible situations. That's why it's so important to have a precise definition. Without it, debate is meaningless.

Vanderzyden

And my suggestion is that we satisfy ourselves with a simple, adequate definition of omnipotence. For, while we may know many things about God, we can only comprehend some portion of any of his particular characteristics.

Perhaps you could comment on why it is necessary to attempt a "comprehesive" definition of omnipotence.

How about a parallel? Here is a simple "traditional" definition of omniscience: "possessing knowledge of any fact that can be known, and believing none of these facts to be contradictory." Though it is simple, adequate, and consistent with our intuitions, it is still impossible for us to comprehend its implications.

Job 11:7 -- "Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?
8 They are higher than the heavens-what can you do? They are deeper than the depths of the grave-what can you know?

(emphasis mine)

Vanderzyden

Dr. Retard

I'd also like to propose a definition of omnipotence:

X is omnipotent iff X is not a parrot.

Any counterexamples you might bring up are quite beside the point. God is not a parrot, after all. I believe my analysis to be both simple and adequate.

K

Vanderzyden:

There are two reasons I would want a precise definition. One is reason practical, but there is also an ulterior motive.

The first reason is just because it makes absolutely no sense to assign an attribute like omnipotent to God if we can't really say what omnipotent means. We might as well call the computer I'm typing on omnipotent. Or we could instead say that God is glimg, a description that we humans can not define. Why would we bother calling God all-powerful if we can't say what all-powerful means?

The second reason is that I am clearly looking to disprove the existence of your God. I have yet to see a consistent definition of the Christian God that doesn't lead to a logical contradiction internally or with our external observed universe. As far as I can tell, only deists and pantheists have such consistent God descriptions.

Please don't take personal offense at the fact that I would seek to disprove your position. That is the nature of debate.

Vanderzyden

K,

No offense taken, whatsoever. In fact, I'd like to say that I appreciate your courtesy and some of the points that you've made here.

I agree. But we ourselves have very limited power. Our imagination fars exceed our actual capabilities. Necessarily, we cannot possibly provide an exhaustive description of what it means to be all-powerful. My contention is that genuine creative power is sufficient to define omnipotence. Please explain--in detail--why this is inadequate.

But you and I know that we will never "disprove" or "prove" the existence of the Creator. Persuasion is the best that we will be able to do.

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


Vanderzyden

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

You seem to be saying, then, that God can create or destroy anything, and ex nihilo. I would say this does not match our intuitions as adequate for a definition of God; most people seem to believe God also has the ability to bring about any logically possible bring-about-able state of affairs, or perform any logically possible action. Your definition says nothing about that. Specifically, it does not claim that God is able to communicate with humans, or to perform some miracles that do not include creation ex nihilo. I'm asking for a way for us to know how powerful God is. One way would be a comprehensive definition.

"Also, I have requested several times that you demonstrate how the existence of the 'God of the apologists' is inconsistent with the existence of free agents--whether they choose good or evil. "

That is not my position, nor has it ever been. My position is that "someone or other freely chooses to do evil" is a logically possible state of affairs, and a state of affairs that it is possible to bring about. I claim that God cannot directly bring this state of affairs about, but many humans can. Most people seem to think God can do anything humans can do, and more.

"But we may invoke, say, Ockham's principle and insist upon the simplest definition."

Ockham's Razor is intended for use on theories and hypotheses, not on definitions. We might formulate a similar principle to avoid superfluous terms in definitions, but so far, your definitions haven't told us exactly what God can or can't do. I'm asking for a way by which we can take some action a and decide whether or not God can perform it, or some state of affairs s and decide whether God can directly bring it about.

"The very author of BEING--the I AM THAT WHICH I AM--has the ultimate power: that of life and death itself. The more I think about it, the more I realize that nothing more is necessary for a definition of omnipotence."

This does not appear to be the God of the Bible or the God of evangelical Christianity. This God can do more than simply cause anyone to live and cause anyone to die. If we imagine that the Grim Reaper character could also create living things (call him the "Grim Reaper/Sower" or "GR/S"), then GR/S would be omnipotent.