ishalon

who says Jehovah can't remove someone from his universe? He is God.

Answerer

Well, I always thought of omnipotent as the ability to do anything that is possible, not impossible events.

Syphor

Isn't it God that defines what is possible and impossible. If there are things God cannot do (logic or otherwise) then God is confined by boundaries beyond his control. This is not the all powerfull, can-do-everything being described by the three major wastern religions.

Jobar

Hmmm.

Assuming an omnipotent, extratemporal God, He can uncreate as well as create. Isn't that what some Xtians say will happen to sinners on Judgement Day? Also, if He chose to do away with someone before then, seems as if He could simply 'erase' them. They would never have been.

Which of course makes one wonder why he doesn't just erase all sinners now, and get the suffering of his supposedly beloved mankind over with...

Pomp

Uncreation is not banishment, though. I think the idea is that the JCI creator god cannot "banish" anyone because there is, and can be, nowhere to send someone where the JCI god is not sovereign. I don't think that this proves anything, but it's a fun little oddity.

Tercel

I've been reading the writings of St Origen recently, and I think he's got an interesting take/definition on Omnipotence.
He writes:
"God the Father is omnipotent, because He has power over all things, ie over heaven and earth, sun, moon, and stars, and all things in them." -De Principiis 1.10

I thought it was an interesting way of looking at it: Rather than having all-power (whatever that might be), God has power over all things...


But at anyrate, I don't see the problem with the more standard definition of Omnipotence. TheJesusConspiracy has demonstrated how self-referencing systems can wreck two-valued logic. Trying to draw implications from that to Omnipotence I feel is rather dodgy. To say Omnipotence is self-contradictory is simply absurd.
eg God is capable of doing absolutely anything that is logically possible for a being to do.
or God is capable of performing any logically possible task that does not refer to Himself.

To say Omnipotence is self-contradictory only demonstrates a lack of imagination

Answerer

This is what I'm trying to say. Power over all the existing things doesn't mean limitless power to do anything including impossible events. I think that this is what the definition of omnipotent is all about and that the christian God is not hyper-power as some believed after all.

Synaesthesia

Answerer,

An additional consideration is that a putative God's conception of what is and isn't impossible, likely diverges radically from our own.

Tercel,

I agree that the tactic of shoving God into the role of a formal system is basically misbegotten.

Typhon

Normally I would not enter the field as a “god’s advocate” as it were... However, I like this little mental puzzle. Nice work Hinduwoman.

Well, one can also look at it this way: An earthly king, no matter how small or how large, can only rule over a finite kingdom. Because such a king has no power over any territory not his own, it is thus easy for one such as this, to banish a subject entirely from his kingdom. Yet all this means is that his subject is able to travel, even if in this case it is unwillingly, outside his former ruler’s sphere of influence. In a way, this is not a power or an ability on the side of the king, but rather a lack of completeness to his rule, and over his subject.

An omnipotent god however, can not by definition banish one of his subjects to an area not under his rule, because he is so great that is rule encompasses everything. In a way, this is a demonstration that no subject no matter how far he or she might travel, voluntarily or otherwise, could ever reach a portion of the multiverse where god was not the all-mighty ruler. Thus he is more powerful, rather than less.

Of course, this still doesn’t remove the nice word/paradox puzzle that Hinduwoman has set up for us. Even though, or in a sense, because an omnipotent god is not limited like an earthly finite king is by comparison, it remains that god can not banish a subject from the sphere of his influence, while a king can.

However, what about something like this: Say your hypothetical omnipotent god desires for whatever reason to truly banish a subject beyond the reach of his influence, he could create, being omnipotent, a realm that existed beyond his influence. By doing so, he either becomes no longer omnipotent or perhaps, being TRULY omnipotent, he is immune to paradox, which could be argued, might well be a function of causality that only affects finitely potent beings, how could we be sure not being omnipotent ourselves? Thus he could create a realm that is beyond his sphere of influence, banish a subject there beyond his reach, and yet at the same time, not lose his omnipotent status, which would seem to be a logical paradox, and perhaps is, but being immune to logical paradoxes, god remains able to do the otherwise impossible.

I guess this mental puzzle depends on whether or not an omnipotent god could hypothetically add immunity to logical paradox to his fanciful list of assumed imaginary powers.

Thank goodness it is unlikely either god or we, need worry about such nonsense, as all the hypothetical abilities or problems of imaginary creatures need not bother the rest of us.

.T.

The IPU loves you, and that love is pink.

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>