hinduwoman

God cannot banish anyone from his kingdom ---

Indian folktale: this what a minister said to a king explaining why the king is more powerful than God.

TheJesusConspiracy

One thing I pointed out in the Incompleteness Theorem discussion thread is that omnipotence is an empty idea.

If you start by the most naive definition of omnipotence, which means capable of doing literally anything, it entails absurdity. Can God make a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it?

So you might alter the definition a little, and state that God can do anythinglogically possible. But I can construct a statement G of a certain form that I can prove and God can't.

So might alter the definition a little, and state that God can do anything which is possible for him to do (since the incompleteness theorem of God shows that there are things that can be done that he can't do).

But then it's striking that
1. Any being is capable of doing anything which is possible for that being to do.
2. Even non-existent beings are capable of doing anything that it is possible for them to do.
3. The statement that God is able to do anything which he can do doesn't imply that God can do anything.

For example, a unicorn is capable of doing anything a unicorn can do. But what is a unicorn capable of doing? Nothing--unicorns don't exist.

'Omnipotence' is an empty concept, sort of like 'God'.

demrald

Considering the screen name of the poster, I'd say she's probably not using the classical Western concept of theism.

Not to say this makes the existence of a deity according to eastern conceptions more likely; it's just not always refuted in the same way.

As her first post pointed out, the Hindu conception of God may not see God as pre-eminent(for instance, Hindu myths where Vishnu, the "true" God, comes into existence, but is not self-created) or having other qualities of deity that a god would be thought to have in Western theology.

hinduwoman

I don't understand how the concept of an omnipotent God differs from classical Western theism. The Universe belongs to Jehovah, including heaven and hell. If he wanted to banish someone where would he send him? Even Satan is under God's rule.

Jobar

Hinduwoman, as a regular poster I will respect your decision to post this on EoG- it does relate to several other current posts. But if you are referring specifically to a non-Abrahamic conception of God, might this not be more appropriate on that board, with links to the relevant posts here? I don't want to pick nits- this board does not say anything about 'Existence of *Western* Gods' but it does mostly address the Western concept. If you are addressing a Vedantic concept it would be better to state that.

Mr. Sammi

How about banish to non-existence. Something like - you no longer apply. Hasta la visa baby.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

hinduwoman

But Jobar, I am not referring to any non-Abrahamic God. I am speaking about God in general, to show that omnipotence is logically contradictory.
I repeat --- is not the whole universe Jehovah's? So how can He throw out someone from his territory, as a human ruler can do?

ashibaka

Makes sense to me, Hinduwoman. Although I haven't seen a god do anything recently. They really ought to get off their arses and start up with the anti-Christs, rivers of blood, etc.

By the way, towards everyone else in this topic, why is a Hindu god any different from a Western god in the respect the original post talks about?

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: ashibaka ]</p>

Jobar

I'm glad you asked that question, ashibaka- the answer, as I see it, is that the Western conception of God=good. Omnibenevolence, right? It is the aspect of godhood which most distinguishes the Abrahamic from the Vedantic concept, where God=Existence. Hinduwoman, do you agree with this?

hinduwoman

Yes Jobar, you are right.
But I stick to the original point: is the whole universe Jehovah's or not?