Stephen T-B

I like your analogy, LWF, and I think we are certainly very presumptuous if we think that our view of the “totality” is anything like complete, or can ever approach completeness.
I’ve thought of it in terms of two-dimensional beings having no way of conceptualising anything outside a two-dimensional universe; when entities existing in a four-dimensional universe intersect with it, their conjectures as to what they are must necessarily be confined to the two-dimensional.
Perhaps we, in our four-dimensional universe, interpret an “intersecting entity” in a 19-dimensional universe as God, but this doesn’t get us very far because no matter how much we think about it and try to define it, we cannot get even remotely near the truth.
To attribute it with any human-like qualities would be absurd. Terms we can comprehend like “Love,” “Justice” and “Obedience” are rooted in a socialising process which has occurred in a particular environment in a particular universe of which a Super-Entity might not be aware.
It does not alleviate the harshness of the harsh realities we experience for the simple reason that it doesn’t know about them.
In other words, our existences are not relevant to one another.

long winded fool

This is true. However if the Super-Entity is actually the creator of the four dimensional universe, then the space-time continuum can be assumed to be relevant to "it" in some way. (At least by those bound to it.) The interesting thing is that, as evidenced by the analogy, there are an almost infinite number of other factors, infinitely incomprehensible to any consciousness limited to four dimensions, which are also relevant to the creator. Maybe God is, "gone" because he had to go to the office and had to leave his program on standby? Maybe Genesis occurred at seven o' clock in the super-dimensional morning, and the crucifixion at nine? Maybe His prophesied return is merely five o' clock in the super-dimensional evening?

But you're right. The harshness of the four dimensional reality may be foremost in our minds, and at the same time completely irrelevant to the creator without contradicting its omnibenevolence. This is actually somewhat evidenced in the Bible. Jesus said he'd abandon his entire flock (to the wolves, it is presumed) to save one lost lamb. This indicates to some extent that there is more to reality than suffering and death. That the existence of these two great four-dimensional evils is not incompatible with omnibenevolent "19-dimensional" good. That because we don't like it doesn't ultimately label it evil, if we base our concept of a creator Super-Entity on the God of the Bible. "His flock" supposedly goes to "heaven," whatever that is, when they are horribly torn apart by wolves. The "lost lamb," after a long and pleasant life away from the flock and a peaceful death, supposedly does not. If this were the case, for the sake of argument, it would be understandable from a "higher being" point of view, but not one which necessitates subjective, humanly understandable qualities and emotions on a being that cannot exist as a human by our very definitions of both 'human' and 'exist.'

Thomas Metcalf

The paradox of the stone goes: God should be able to make a stone he can't lift. But he can't. So he doesn't exist.

The apologist will deny the first premise: A stone God can't lift is a logically impossible object, because God can lift anything. So creating a stone God can't lift is akin to drawing a square circle. And we shouldn't require God to do the logically impossible.

Yet if we take a survey of the accepted definitions of omnipotence, we find that no being could satisfy them. Flint and Freddoso's definition, Wierenga's definition, and Hoffman and Rosenkrantz's definition, all are roughly: A being S is omnipotent iff S can bring about any bring-about-able state of affairs.

So consider the bring-about-able state of affairs, "a stone is created that its creator cannot lift." This is certainly a bring-about-able state of affairs, but no omnipotent being can bring it about. For "[stone x] is lifted" is a bring-about-able state of affairs too, for any stone. Stone x might happen to be unliftable by its creator, but there's no contradiction in saying a particular stone is lifted, as long as the stone is not unliftable, but rather only unliftable by its creator.

These considerations might show that omnipotence is impossible.

long winded fool

But "a stone is created that its creator cannot lift" is only a bring-about-able state of affairs for non-omnipotent beings. Once you presume omnipotence this becomes impossible. "Being limited" is possible for all non omnipotent things. Being limited is impossible for omnipotent things. It's worded like it's a limitation in itself (this is why the stone question sounds like an actual paradox) but in reality it is not. If God is omnipotent, he is unlimited and therefore limited only and absolutely by his unlimited nature. We, as non-omnipotent beings, are limited by our ability to comprehend logical things. The only thing one can conclude from the above argument is that omnipotence is impossible for non-omnipotent beings in space-time. God isn't limited by logic if He is the creator of logic. We, however, are. God cannot be said to do the illogical because this makes no sense to beings who use logic, and by implication space-time ("if, then" statements) to function. God can only be said to do things in this universe which are capable of being perceived by beings in this universe, i.e. no circular squares, no elimination of all evil without the elimination of free will, and no rocks so big that He can't lift them. The limit would be on us due to our non-omnipotent nature, not on Him/Her/It.

Quantum Ninja

It actually depends on what kind of "infinity" you're subtracting from both sides. Infinity isn't really a unique value; some "infinities" grow faster than others.

For instance:
lim(x --> infinity) [ x^2 - x ] = infinity - infinity

Which is an indeterminate form, but since lim(x --> infinity) [ x^2 ] grows at a faster rate than lim(x --> infinity) [ x^2 ], it is a "bigger" infinity. Thus, the final limit is just "infinity," which really means the limit doesn't exist.

On the other hand, consider this:
lim(x --> infinity) [ x - x ] = infinity - infinity

Again, infinity - infinity is an indeterminate form, but after you simplify the expression, it becomes:

lim(x --> infinity) [ 0 ], which is just 0. In this case, both "infinities" are equal to each other.

Or you can also have:
lim(x --> infinity) [ x - x^2 ] = infinity - infinity = - infinity

Thus, you can subtract two infinities and obtain either infinity, a finite value, or negative infinity.

So even though it doesn't make much mathematical sense to subtract infinity from both sides of an equation, I still think my previous example is still a correct possibility.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by long winded fool :

Well, yes, but you're straying dangerously close to McEar territory here. To say it's only bring-about-able for non-omnipotent beings is just to say that omnipotent beings can't bring it about. And I agree to that; that's precisely why there's a conflict.

Indeed, that's why I'm suggesting that omnipotence, unlimitedness, is impossible.

You don't want to go that route, either, because it allows the deductive argument from evil to be sound. I can explain more if you want.

Sylvan Wizard

Omnipotence itself is impossible, even if you define it as the power to bring about only logically possible events. It can be shown that there are logically possible events such an onmipotent being cannot bring about (see here).
When an argument is logically valid, and the premises are true, the conclusion is true. When something is true, it is not simply a figment of the imagination. Logic always works because it covers all bases.
Don't you mean "anything is possible"? If not, the statement has no meaning. It's blatantly obvious that everything possible is possible. If not, then I would point out that "anything is possible" is false. Push on an immovable object with an irresistable force, and what happens? Nothing, not possible.
Fundie babble? Hardly. There is no supernatural, by definition it doesn't exist. When something in nature behaves unexpectedly, that doesn't mean it's illogical, it simply means the premises were incorrect, or the logic wasn't valid.
That is exactly what it does.
If logically impossible things could happen or exist, everything would be absurd. All meaning would be absurd. There'd be no point in trying to prove or know anything, not just if God exists, but even if you exist. But some truths are self evident. One is that you exist. Logic is another.
Perfection can exist, only it's relative.
I think a theist would argue that God is necessary, and so such a question is logically incoherent. But one could still argue otherwise.
That does not assume the illogical in the premise, it assumes the opposite.
I think "Uhh..." is the best answer you can give. If something can't be illogical (in reality), then it can't be both, now can it?
Above logic? What would this mean? Makes no sense. I would argue that God didn't create logic, but his creation was created within the laws of logic, and couldn't be any other way.
In such a scenario the programmer, computer and program operate under the same fundamental laws. The programmer and computer cannot break these laws, they must operate within them. Learn enough about how the program works from within and you can learn how the computer that runs it operates, and the fundamental laws that it and the computer operate by. You cannot seperate something from existance and still have it exist.
The laws would not prohibit the existance of the programmer if he existend.
Even if one is the greatest, what prevents one from getting better? As soon as someone becomes the best at something they can no longer improve? I think not. Unless you meant the greatest possible, in which case the question becomes meaningless.
No, not necessarily. Just because they can't achieve a mental conception of it doesn't mean their conjectures or understanding is limited by that. We know we live in an 11 dimensional universe, yet our conception is limited to 3 spatial dimensions. Our understaning and conjectures aren't though.

Calzaer

God creates stone he does not have the power to lift.

God then imbues himself with the extra power required to lift the stone.

Where's the paradox?

xorbie

I don't think God can imbue himself with more power. If God could, God would not be omni-potent.

With regards to what Sylvan Wizard said, I still think that omnipotence is logically possible. FThat that essay only regarded the incompatibility between omnipotence and other characteristics of God, not omnipotence by itself. Omnipotence is logically possible when defined as "having the capability do bring about any logically consistent state X is acheived." Thus, the "rock being created that God can lift" state is impossible. The "an omniscient God can't learn" objection is similiarly handled. First off, we must assume that learning is possible for any being without a brain (which there is no real reason to do, but what they hey). Even so, I believe that the state of affairs "something exists that an omniscient being does not know" state cannot exist. Thus, it is logically impossible that there exist something for God to learn (but not logically impossible for God to actually learn, I believe).

Sylvan Wizard

See the part about McEar.
"Something exists that an omniscient being does not know" is not a logical state of affairs, no, but I would argue that omniscience is impossible. Lets start with an actual logical state of affairs: Someone learns. This is a logical state of affairs that (as far as I know) any person can achieve. It is also something God cannot do because it contradicts his nature (omniscience). This means he is not omnipotent. A theist might argue that since it contradicts his nature it's logically incoherent. That's where McEar comes in. McEar is defined as someone who can only scratch his ear. Anything else is against his nature and logically incoherent. By the same rules one could claim McEar is omnipotent. Clearly he is not though, as he cannot bring about any other logical state of affairs that another being could. The fact that it is against his nature is not an argument, just like omniscience being in God's nature is not an argument that saves his omnipotence. There are things that a supposedly omnipotent being cannot do, and his nature does not help him.