Darkblade

In the future, when theists or atheists alike use the term “omnipotence”, I’d suggest that they either picking one of the following terms instead, or properly define beforehand what they mean. This would make it easier to understand just what they meant.

Classical omnipotence: The dictionary’s definition; “Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.” This would mean having the ability to do anything that is conceivable, even in just an abstract or completely creative sense; God created a unicorn that is simultaneously, in full lighting, both invisible and pink. Perhaps this could be abbreviated as either “C omnipotence” or “COP” (we have to know which omni is being used (true, omnipresence also could be abbreviated as “OP“, but is it seldom used, relative to omnipotence, and there is no need for clarification) (perhaps omniscience could be “OS“, and omnibenevolence could be “OB” (if really necessary, omnipresence could be either “OPr” or “OPS”, or “UBQ” or “UQ” (from ubiquity)))).

Logically limited omnipotence: Having the ability to do anything that is conceivable, even in just an abstract or completely creative sense, that does not have any (surface-level, at least) contradictions with the laws of logic; God created a flaming donkey that is infinitely large and infinitely happy. Perhaps this could be also known as neo-omnipotence, or abbreviated as “LL omnipotence”, “LLOP”, or “NOP” (from neo-omnipotence). This type of omnipotence still has problems.

Finite logically limited omnipotence: Having the ability to do anything that is conceivable that does not have any contradictions with the laws of logic (I argue that only finite things are truly conceivable; properties such as infinitude could not be ascribed to anything that could be created (unless time traveling was also possible in conjunction with this type of omnipotence), because they are not really conceivable (they can’t even be properly perceived in the mind’s eye)); God created a star the size of a grade AA egg. Perhaps this could also be known as hypermodern omnipotence or Darkblade’s (or Darkbladian) omnipotence, or abbreviated as “FLLOP” (maybe “FLOP“ for even shorter?), “HMOP” (maybe “HOP” or “MOP” for even shorter?) (from hypermodern omnipotence), or “DOP” (from you-know-what).

Of course none of these types of omnipotence explain how a theoretical god got its “hands” on it, or how it implements its omnipotence.

fishbulb

Why would you want to define omnipotence in this way? Not only is it much harder to understand than the traditional definition, but it is just as utterly useless as a descriptive tool. You still really can't determine whether or not an omnipotent God has the power to do something as simple as commit suicide, or whether he is too powerful to be destroyed by a mere supreme being.

God and omnipotence have a bit of a backwards relationship. Believers in the omnipotent God idea simply assume that God is omnipotent and then only worry about what that really means when they are questioned on it. Even then, it is usually easier and more comfortable to avoid the issue by using nonsensical definitions than it is to seriously address the problem: if God exists, are there things he cannot do? If so, what are they, and how do we know? If not, how does one account for the logical paradoxes that omnipotence creates?

In short, omnipotence is, like free will, a lazy concept put forward by lazy people who find it far more important to believe that something is true than they do to understand what that something actually is.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Darkblade :

Here's my definition, straight from the horses' mouths, so to speak:

There are some important qualifications, but they mostly just have to do with s being "unrestrictedly repeatable" (can happen, then not happen, then happen again, ad infinitum) and possibly brought about by someone. This is the definition presented by Hoffman and Rosencrantz in their recent The Divine Attributes (Blackwell, 2002), and I have no problem taking them to be the authorities, especially because they're theists.

The problem is that, while this definition is internally consistent, there are quite a few attributes that God is taken to have that are incompatible with His omnipotence. The best known is probably necessary moral perfection; see Morriston's "Omnipotence and necessary moral perfection: are they compatible?" in a recent Religious Studies and "Omnipotence and the Anselmian God" in a more recent Philo. God can't bring about the state of affairs "all innocent persons are maliciously tortured forever" because He is necessarily morally perfect.

Darkblade

Thomas Metcalf: God is a ridiculous and self-destroying concept, of course.

fishbulb: Yes, “omnipotence is, like free will, a lazy concept put forward by lazy people who find it far more important to believe that something is true than they do to understand what that something actually is.” However, I was trying to improve upon this confusion. In response to your question, “whether or not an omnipotent God has the power to do something as simple as commit suicide, or whether he is too powerful to be destroyed by a mere supreme being,” I would say that all of my proposed definitions of omnipotence allow God to destroy itself, excepting it having another, unspecified, quality. I do not know how to answer the second part of your question, as you not defined “supreme being”. Is it not omnipotent? Is it not a god? (which would mean?) Is it neither of these things? What is it?

I’m sorry, also, if you found my terms confusing. I’ve found that I can confuse some people here (through inductive reasoning). I do try to say things clearly, but there is often too much to say, so, in the interest of maintaining a reasonable order in my posts, I often use layers of parenthetical statements to express the entirety of my ideas (I do not want to leave things out, and thus expose myself to attacks, or waste time explaining what I meant.).

fishbulb

Darkblade:

Yes, when I said supreme being, I was referring to the inability of our hypothetical God to destroy itself.

The question I have is this: why bother to create a new definition of omnipotence? Does it have any practical value? A being has powers which are either limited or unlimited. A being with unlimited powers is, in traditional terms, omnipotent. The answer to the question, "can this being do X" is, "yes" for all values of X.

If a being has limited powers, then there are things it can do and things it cannot do. This being could have very few powers or very many. There are an infinite number of possible combinations of powers that a non-omnipotent being could possess. It is not at all interesting to speculate as to what some of the more impressive combinations of powers might look like, because there is no reason to think that a being might possess that combination of powers.

Suppose that there is a God and that this God, while not omnipotent, is supernatural and has many impressive abilities. One of these abilities may very well be the power to end its own existence. But perhaps one of its powers is immortality: not even it can destroy itself, no matter how hard it tries. That may be its nature. But which, if either, power does it have? We wouldn't know, and couldn't know, because supernatural beings are, by their very nature, not open to being empirically examined and understood. Therefore, it is pointless to even speculate about what powers it has, over and above those it actually demonstrates. If this god were immortal, how could it demonstrate this? By making us sit and watch while he lived for all eternity? If this god could lift any stone, how could it demonstrate this fact? No matter how heavy a stone it lifted for us, it is always possible that there could be a heavier stone.

I don't see too much point in talking about omnipotence in its traditional meaning because it is an illogical concept. But I see even less point in talking about arbitrary combinations of limited powers when there is no basis for thinking that those limits represent the minimum limits that can be placed on a being's power without causing a paradox.

betzerdg

Omnipotenced:

The ability to create and define what is called reality.

ONly G-d is omnipotent.

Shalom,

Betzer

Darkblade

fishbulb: I was trying to get people to proffer some defined definition of omnipotence, so that others could understand them. I know theists refuse to say what they mean, and then limit omnipotence to suit their goals, but I had hoped that perhaps people could have their confusion reduced even slightly if people would stop using the word "omnipotence" and start using the phrases I listed. Now, as to whether the being could demonstrate its "omnipotence" to us, or even itself, I guess that's just one more problem for the theists to "worry" (ignore) about. Yes, omnipotence is ridiculous and idiotic, but I hoped that even one theist would properly define what they meant by it.

betzerdg: Your post in this thread had no (argumentative) value.

fishbulb

Darkblade,

In that case, I wish you luck in your quest, but I don't hold out much hope: it seems that omniptoence is almost always used as a dodge rather than a cogently defined position.

Darkblade

Agreed.

Theli

Then what defines god?
Would this mean that god is not real?