K

Vanderzyden:

This is inadequate for two reasons. First because it is not anywhere close to the accepted definition of omnipotent. If you want to leave all-powerful and omnipotent out of the description of God and replace it with "genuine creative power", I would not have the same problem.

Also, "genuine creatime power" does not differentiate God. I have the the "genuine creative power" to make my own saliva. A bird has the "genuine creative power" to make its own distinctive song.

Vanderzyden

Well, I haven't encountered these people. Certainly, it's not biblical. Tell me, are the "people" to whom you are referring, are they deist or agnostic philosophers? I am not aware of Christian philosophers who "seem to believe" in such a god.

Now you appear to insist that the definition of omnipotence must explicitly catalogue each of God's capabilities. Perhaps you could explain why this is necessary.

Also, the examples that you mention are implicit in my definition:

-- Communication: As I indicate to K, communication is made possible by the Creator. The ability to communicate is itself created by God. If he desires to communicate with some of his creatures, he would necessarily have the ability to do so.

-- Miracles: It is safe to say that an act of creation, ex nihilo, is the foremost Miracle.

OK. But you are still alluding to the "weakly omnipotent" defintion. I thought we agreed to set that aside. God is not "weakly omnipotent" as you define it. I have provided another satisfactory definition. Your only rebuttal so far is that it does not go into great detail. But you have not demonstrated that this is a defect in the definition. Rather, you've insisted that it's not popular. That's OK, we don't need to try to make a name for ourselves.

I am quite familiar with the Bible, and know of no scriptural counterexample that would demonstrate the insufficiency of my definition concerning God's power. Perhaps you could help me by bringing one to my attention.


Thanks for the opportunity to think this through!


Vanderzyden

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

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

Vanderzyden

What is the "accepted" definition? Who accepts it? Anyway, many popular ideas are easily shown to be faulty.

As I explained before, you do not have creative power. No, you can't create from nothing (ex nihilo). You are unable to bring anything into being. You didn't bring you children into being. You had sex, and everything from there was not under your control. Your saliva example is no better: Do you even know all of the details concerning saliva production, and why it is the way it is instead of something else?


Vanderzyden

K

Vanderzyden:

And that is precisely why a tighter definition is required. "Genuine creative power" says absolutely nothing about ex nihilo or knowing the details. Just like it says absolutely nothing about the ability to communicate. I did say that the description of God should separate Him from me and simply saying "genuine creative power" doesn't do it.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

Versions of the logically possible action/logically possible and bring-about-able state of affairs conceptions of omnipotence are accepted in the literature of philosophy of religion. See for example Morriston's "Omnipotence and Necessary Moral Perfection: Are they Compatible?" (Religious Studies June 2001), Wierenga's The Nature of God (Cornell University Press, 1989), Flint and Freddoso's "Maximal Power" in The Existence and Nature of God.

As for the Bible, it claims that with God, all things are possible. See Matthew 19:26.

"Now you appear to insist that the definition of omnipotence must explicitly catalogue each of God's capabilities. Perhaps you could explain why this is necessary."

I only insist that it must implicitly catalogue God's abilities. We must be able to tell from the definition whether God can perform any particular action a.

"-- Communication: As I indicate to K, communication is made possible by the Creator. The ability to communicate is itself created by God. If he desires to communicate with some of his creatures, he would necessarily have the ability to do so."

Then God can create an ability to perform any logically possible action, or any action, or any action it is possible for Him to perform? If He has absolute creative power, I would guess the second option.

"-- Miracles: It is safe to say that an act of creation, ex nihilo, is the foremost Miracle."

That's just one miracle. From simple creation and destruction, we can't infer that God can perform any miracle that doesn't explicitly involve creation or destruction. For example, God's moving of a mountain does not seem to involve creation or destruction.

Vanderzyden

OK, thanks for pointing out these philosophers of religion. This is not, however, "most people", as you had previously said. Most people, when asked, would likely not say that God can "do anything logically possible", once provided a full explanation of what this means.

Yes, this familiar passage does say "all things". We should, however, examine the context:

The rich young ruler has just left the scene, dejected because Jesus had just told him what stood between him and real life. Jesus tells his hearers that it is impossible to cling to material possession and yet know God. To the question concerning salvation, Jesus responds that "God can do the impossible." In fact, in the same conversation, Jesus tell us what man is incapable of doing for himself:

Man cannot reconcile himself alone to God. This is the impossibility that Jesus is addressing. He says that one must follow him to experience the "impossible". Jesus is not indicating that God can do "anything". In fact, he indicates elsewhere that the Father does specific things, and Jesus does them also:

I wonder, Thomas, are you saying that you have seen this verse cited by the authors you mention above? If so, then I would be most interested in how they use it.

Why should we be able to do that? I find it strange that you should be so confident that you would be able to fathom all of the abilities of God. I surely can't, and I believe that he exists. You deny his existence, is that not correct? If so, then consider the immensity of the universe itself. Can you grasp it with your mind? How, then, would you be able to understand the totality of the Creator.

Creation ex nihilo is more than "just one" miracle. It is the uber-miracle. The Top Act. All the other miracles of which we are aware are superseded, and preceded, by creation. Even the regenerative act of resurrection does not rank as high as creation itself.

The example that you use is directly supportive of my definition. A mountain, which is a physical created thing, may be easily "moved" by its Creator. The mountain alreadyexists. To move it would be "child's play", and would not be indicative or comparable to the comprehensive creative power of the One doing the moving.


Note: I noticed that you have posted a new topic, which I plan to address soon.


Vanderzyden

Devilnaut

VZ:
Actual biblical quote:
You are aware that you just changed the actual words that Jesus spoke to fit with your preconceived notion, right? Why did Jesus say "with God all things are possible", if he meant "with God, the impossible is possible"?

Why does the fact that Jesus indicated that God does specific things contradict that he can "do anything"? This is a non-sequitur.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"OK, thanks for pointing out these philosophers of religion. This is not, however, 'most people', as you had previously said. Most people, when asked, would likely not say that God can 'do anything logically possible', once provided a full explanation of what this means." (Italics original.)

Well, yeah, but I'm not talking about after a full explanation. I'm saying most theists, if asked "Can God do any possible action?" or something similar, would answer in the affirmative.

"I wonder, Thomas, are you saying that you have seen this verse cited by the authors you mention above? If so, then I would be most interested in how they use it."

I'm not understanding why the verse doesn't imply that "all things" are possible if God's working on them.

"Why should we be able to do that? I find it strange that you should be so confident that you would be able to fathom all of the abilities of God. I surely can't, and I believe that he exists.

Remember, either we understand what "omnipotent" means, or we don't. If we do, it should tell us what actions God can perform, and if we don't, "God exists" is unintelligible. I'm not asking fully to fathom all of God's abilities -- but if you think I ought to believe that God exists, you'll have to tell me what that statement means first.

"The example that you use is directly supportive of my definition. A mountain, which is a physical created thing, may be easily 'moved' by its Creator. The mountain alreadyexists. To move it would be 'child's play', and would not be indicative or comparable to the comprehensive creative power of the One doing the moving."

Non sequitur. Nothing in your definition of "omnipotent" tells us that God could move the mountain, only that He could create or destroy it. In fact, we don't even know whether God could move a pencil across my desk, by your definition. You'd ask me to worship a being that might not be able to do literally thousands of things I can do?

Vanderzyden

I think I understand why we don't seem to connect here, Thomas. You are you saying that the definition of omnipotence must encompass all of God's capabilities. Well, I suggest that it is only necessary for the definition to characterize his power. This would seem to be a reasonable approach, since we cannot possibly catalog (or fathom) all of God's abilities. We are, after all, discussing the Creator. Furthermore, we need only discover a power from which all other power derives. Once we find that power, we may confidently call that omnipotence.

Agreed. I see your point. However, knowledge that God can move a pencil across your desk would not convince you that he is all-powerful. Correct? So, it would seem best to seek a definition which characterized the essence of his power. We find this in the term CREATOR. God alone has the ability to create. It seems that you are willing to accept this notion for the sake of discussion.

Now, if he can create from nothing, then he may be able to move a pencil across your desk. But we would understand that his creative power provides him the ability to materialize a pencil on your desk where one did not presently exist. This goes way beyond his potential ability to move the pencil. We also understand that the Creator has established the fundamental physical laws by which things are able to exist at all. He could, for example, alter the nuclear forces and all matter would slowly come apart.

If you knew with certainty that God had such power, then perhaps you would agree that supernatural movement of pre-existing objects is a trivial exercise of power compared to creation ex nihilo. This is the ultimate power. No other power can be used against it, nor compare to it. In fact, any other power necessarily depends upon this Great Power, for no other power--outside of God--would exist without this power. So, from the human perspective, it is sufficient to say, minimally, that omnipotence is defined as creative power. To possess the power to create is also to possess of all the power.

Vanderzyden

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Primal

Most of this seems to be a debate about what the word omnipotent "really means."

In which case the absolute argument from evil stands, in the case of omnipotent meaning infinite power.

The probable argument from evil stands where omnipotent means extremely or supernaturally powerful. Though then still, one must say what it is that is limiting God.

In any case disproving God is still easy provided no one starts redefining omnipotence, just as proving a rock exists is easy provided nobody defines a rock as a "perfect geometric shape."