Philip Osborne

The point of my example is that it shows that God can intelligibly be said to be more powerful than Sam, even if not strictly in terms of states of affairs. I think it can be plausibly said of any pair of beings A and B that if A can freely cause B not to exist, B cannot cause A not to exist, and A and B are otherwise similar in terms of causal ability, then A is more powerful than B. This makes sense even if the non-existence of A is an impossible state of affairs.

Now, even if God is able to perform an infinite number of actions, this still seems to suggest that if God "lost an ability" an infinite number of times, there would still be no beings more powerful than He.

Recall my example of learning. The argument says that God cannot learn, but this does not make beings which can learn more powerful than Him. This is so because if Sam can bring about the SOA in which Sam learns, so can God, and if God cannot bring about the SOA in which Sam learns, then neither can Sam. If God begins to lose His powers, however, this will not always hold. Note that the example will clearly fail if God loses the ability to bring about the SOA in which Sam learns; there would be an SOA which Sam can bring about and God cannot, and in that sense, Sam could be said to have some power God does not. So it does not seem that my argument leads to the consequences you suggest.

It seems to me that "to continue being morally perfect" is always a correct course of action. If this is so, then we can say that God will never perform an evil action in the actual world. Isn't this equivalent to saying that if God is ever morally perfect in the actual world, then at that point, He's morally perfect in all possible worlds?

That's basically the idea of necessary moral perfection, which is what we are discussing. Necessary moral perfection says outright that God is morally perfect in all worlds.

Sincerely,

Philip

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Philip Osborne:

"I think it can be plausibly said of any pair of beings A and B that if A can freely cause B not to exist, B cannot cause A not to exist, and A and B are otherwise similar in terms of causal ability, then A is more powerful than B. This makes sense even if the non-existence of A is an impossible state of affairs."

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.

"Note that the example will clearly fail if God loses the ability to bring about the SOA in which Sam learns; there would be an SOA which Sam can bring about and God cannot, and in that sense, Sam could be said to have some power God does not."

Well, yes; this is an extreme case. I think God could lose a lot of abilities and still remain as powerful as He was before, however. This just doesn't seem to make intuitive sense to me. Far more intuitively appealing is the idea that if a being is unable to perform some action, this does limit it somehow. I mean, it makes sense to me that if we adopt sophisticated state of affairs omnipotence, some essential limitation will show through somehow.

"That's basically the idea of necessary moral perfection, which is what we are discussing. Necessary moral perfection says outright that God is morally perfect in all worlds."

My goal here is to argue that in some cases there's no such thing as contingent moral perfection. If God is morally perfect in the actual world, He'll always be morally perfect in the actual world. This is in direct opposition to the idea that God might only be morally perfect in this world. And if God is necessarily morally perfect, it makes sense to say that there is no possible world in which God commits an evil act -- and this seems to be in direct opposition to libertarian free will.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Metcalf ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"There is nothing illogical about either of these statements. They are both coherent and conform to the rules of modern logic. Hypothetically, they are possible. Therefore, they are logically possible. However, neither of these are ACTUALLY POSSIBLE, since unicorns do not exist."

We're talking about actions, not propositions. The two are propositions with fictional referents, and are both true. I still haven't seen an example of a logically possible action no hypothetical being could ever perform. See my post of 10/23/02 8:52 pm: "I still don't agree that they can't possibly apply to any being. Name for me a logically possible action that no being could possibly perform, and I will believe you that no being could be 'weakly' omnipotent."

"You see, Thomas, I am quite familiar with philosophy. But I am unaware of your equivocation of the terms 'logical' and 'actual'. Please tell me from whom you have learned that it is proper to equate these terms with one another."

Let us say an action is actually possible if it possible for the actor to perform, then. I think that's your definition. If that's so, then actual possibility won't work for omnipotence because any being can do anything it is actually possible for it to do.

Vanderzyden

I have already given you an example: creating--ex nihilo--an object too heavy too lift. This is impossible for any being, including the Unmoved Mover (i.e. the Creator). You have countered with a hypothetical Rock-Maker, but portray this being as merely a button pusher. Again, the example I am giving you is: No being can create an object it can't lift. It is logically possible. It would be an action. But it is not actually possible.

Anyway, Thomas, you have modified your definition. As I said, I think you are forced to do so. I do not, however, agree with your conclusion. Previously I have argued that the being with the greatest power is the Omnipotent One. I have indicated that this power is creative power. You have not countered with a stronger power, nor can you do so. In fact, I will say that it is impossible for a human to conceive of a greater power. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the All-Powerful, Almighty Lord of all creatures. His power is Absolute, and all other powers flow from it.

I submit, yet again, that you have your robust definition of omnipotence.


John

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"No being can create an object it can't lift."

You are using an extremely rare definition of "to create." Nonetheless, to create something its creator can't lift is either logically possible or logically impossible. If it's logically impossible, then it's irrelevant. Now, if it's logically possible, then it's not the case that the creator of an object can always lift such an object, for "to create an object the creator can't lift" would be logically impossible if all object-creators can lift their objects. I think you're still stuck. I could ask, though: in virtue of what is it actually impossible? If it's just because any created object can be lifted by its creator, again, "to create an object unliftable by its creator" would express a contradiction and therefore be logically impossible.

"Previously I have argued that the being with the greatest power is the Omnipotent One."

I was just showing that your definition, the "actually possible" one, is inadequate.

"In fact, I will say that it is impossible for a human to conceive of a greater power."

How do we tell when one power is "greater" than another? What does that even mean? And I am not required to show that a greater power exists, only that a being with more abilities is more powerful than a being with fewer abilities, ceteris paribus.

Vanderzyden

Thomas,

Again, this is not my doing. I am not inventing. The primary definition from Webster's is:


create: to bring into existence


The act of creating entails origination and instantiation. Something comes to be where it did not exist previously. Matter (energy), Information, and Mind have all been created from the non-natural. This concept is wholly distinct from crafting, fabricating, fashioning, or constructing.

Well, I don't feel "stuck". I think, again, we must distinguish "logically possible" from "actually possible". In fact, it might be best to remove the "possible" qualifier from the former. That way, we clearly distinguish the merely "logical" from that which is indeed "possible" in the real (actual) world. Recall my last example: Hypotheticals or categoricals for fictional unicorns may be fully logical and coherent. And yet, no such statements could be actualized because unicorns do not exist. Similarly, the statement "a being can create a rock too heavy to lift" is indeed logical, but it is not actually possible. If we make this distinction, Thomas, then the "actually possible" definition is surely adequate.

Now, you ask for the basis upon which the "rock-lifting" action is impossible. The key is in the understanding the concept of creation. As I have said previously (taking Rock-Maker to be "Rock-Creator"):


Now to your last question:

All things being equal, abilities without power cannot possibly compare to genuine power. I think we have been over this extensively. However, you have not shown that mere abilities increase relative power. Again, when we seek to determine the all-powerful being, we must compare all classes of being to find which particular category has absolute power. In performing the analysis, we must remember foremost that, if an ability cannot be actualized, then it is not a power. A greater power is one that supersedes a competitor. So, if a single--or collective--power can overwhelm another, then that is, by definition, the greater power of the two.

Our task is quite easy. We need not pursue all of the combinations of abilities and powers that may possibly be candidates for characterizing omnipotence. There is one power that is immeasurably greater than all others. When we consider creative power, it becomes readily apparent that it is the Supreme Power. All other powers originate with that power.

I notice that you continue to avoid--perhaps unintentionally--my suggestions concerning the supremacy of creative power. Despite my repeated requests, you will not provide an example of a power that is greater. Nor have you admitted that it is indeed supreme, and vastly superior to all other contenders. So, please take a moment to address this point directly:


Is there a power greater than--or remotely comparable to--creative power, as it has been explained in my posts?


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

-- John 1:1-3


John

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

Silent Acorns

Vanderzyden,

You seem to have abandoned our little talk about the practical difference between "god can do anything" and "god can do anything he wants". I take it that we've agreed to disagree for now ...

I have a couple of other questions about your definition of "omnipotent". You have talked a lot about "unique creative ability". Is this part of you definition of omipotent, or is it an extra ability? Also, you have mentioned that god is "the supreme good". Is this a part of your definition of "omnipotence" or is it an extra ability?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"The act of creating entails origination and instantiation. Something comes to be where it did not exist previously. Matter (energy), Information, and Mind have all been created from the non-natural. This concept is wholly distinct from crafting, fabricating, fashioning, or constructing."

1. Then to create x is to cause x to exist when x did not exist before. If I were to melt a lot of lava down and reform it into a rock, r, too big for me to lift, then we have a situation where r did not exist at t1, r did exist at t2, and it was I who caused this change. Your position requires either (A) that if I build a house, the house still existed forever into the past, or (B) that if I build a house, I was still not the cause of the change from the house's non-existence to the house's existence. Both of these positions are absurd.

2. God cannot build a house too heavy for Him to lift. I can. There's a logically possible action God cannot perform, and therefore, by "weak" omnipotence, He is not omnipotent.

"That way, we clearly distinguish the merely 'logical' from that which is indeed 'possible' in the real (actual) world."

No. We have already been through this at least six times. This makes #7. "Logical" means something far different in the vernacular than "logically possible" means.

"Recall my last example: Hypotheticals or categoricals for fictional unicorns may be fully logical and coherent."

I don't care whether they're logical. I repeat yet again: we are talking about whether actions are logically possible, not whether situations are "logical." Give me an example of an action (in the form "to [verb]..."), the performance of which does not entail a contradiction, that no possible being could perform.

"If we make this distinction, Thomas, then the 'actually possible' definition is surely adequate."

I have already shown it to be inadequate because it means that everyone is omnipotent. You only answered that creative power indicates omnipotence, which looks like a concession that "can do anything actually possible" does not indicate omnipotence.

"All things being equal, abilities without power cannot possibly compare to genuine power."

Please read my posts. I said nothing about abilities without power. Again and again, I have referred to abilities in addition to creative power. Do you or do you not believe that abilities do not come into play when we're trying to decide how powerful a being is? That is, a being with a trillion more abilities is no more powerful than a being with a trillion fewer.

"So, if a single--or collective--power can overwhelm another, then that is, by definition, the greater power of the two."

What does that even mean? How do powers "overwhelm" other powers? I'd say the power to remove other people's powers and to become immune from other people's powers supersedes creative and destructive power.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Metcalf ]</p>

Vanderzyden

SA,

I haven't intentionally abandoned our discussion: it's a combination of (1) giving primary attention to Thomas and (2) realizing that your inquiry has been covered well in my previous posts. Have you read the last half of this thread?


I'm not sure I have agreed. Please clarify your meaning of "God can do whatever he wants". In anticipation of your reply, let me summarize my position:

-- Yes, he may enforce his will.
-- And yet, his will is consistent with his character.
-- God has desires.
-- His desires will be, again, consistent with his character.
-- The creatures may know the core truth concerning some of God's desires, but the may not fully comprehend his essence
-- It does not follow that because a creature cannot know all, or some, of God's desires, that God can do "anything".

What God wants is an entirely separate topic. Here in this thread, we are discussing power.

In your last post, you wrote:

I am equating unique creative power with omnipotence. It is the supreme power; not merely an ability. Furthermore, all creature powers come from this power. Did you read my very last post to Thomas? Goodness is an essence, a condition, a trait. It seems difficult to categorize what is good as an ability. Certainly, it is not a power.

SA, I may be wrong, but it does seem that you are raising issues that are (1) tangents or (2) have been covered well in my previous posts to Thomas. Please indicate that you have read them carefully, or kindly go back and read them. I am more than happy to dialogue with you, but I would rather investigate subtleties or additions the material that has already been covered well here.

Thanks!

John

Kharakov

Straw man alert. I am saying that the concept of infinity does not entail a defined number, therefore you cannot count to infinity because it is not a specific number.

Ok. An omnipotent being can create an object that it cannot lift. However, the being is no longer omnipotent after it limits itself.