99Percent

Vanderzyden, I am not very acquainted with you because you wander on the forums I don't moderate here in II.

But I can right away kick you out of your so called logic with two simple questions:

How could you know if a being is omniscient if you are not omniscient yourself?

How could you know if a being is omnipotent if you aren't omnipotent yourself?

As simple as that.

Your turn, and stick directly with my questions please.

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

Ikea

Vanderzyden,

I think Thomas is reminding you of definitions because you sometimes get them a little confused.

I do not see how creative power is relevant to Thomas' argument. Can you explain to me where it needs to be incorporated and why?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"It would seem that you are taking great pains to inform me of philosophical definitions (most of which I am already familiar), and yet you continue to evade the question of creative power"

I only inform you when you evidently are not familiar with it. If you would just ask me what terms mean, I would be happy to tell you, but I'm less willing to be charitable when you mistake them for objectionable points.

I have already dealt with the question of creative power. I assert that creative power is indeed a form of power, but so is the power to learn. Your position requires that "I have the power to learn" is nonsense. Anyone who thinks it is not nonsense must accept my argument, right?

"Consider the case where all beings possessed only one ability: to think. If this was the only ability, then no power could be exhibited by these beings. None of these beings could act upon their thoughts. Agreed? If so, then you ought to also agree that 'power' is an inappropriate descriptor in the the above sentences."

I don't agree. Thinking itself is a form of action. A world where beings could only think or not think would still contain beings with power, unless "I have the power to think" is nonsense.

"On the one hand, Thomas, you want to appeal to precise philosophical definitions, but alternatively appeal to what the masses will think."

We're talking about definitions here, so of course what the masses think is important. Definitions are purely subjective. I'm saying most people will agree that learning is a power, and therefore, most people will agree that God is impossible.

As I see it, it comes down to this. Is "I have the power to learn" nonsense, or does it make sense? I think if it makes sense, you must accept my argument. Further, "I have the power to do evil" seems, again, to be sensical. Certainly, to be able to learn indicates that a person is not omniscient, but that a person is not omniscient does not indicate necessarily that she is less powerful.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Ikea:
"You went and covered everything I wanted to post but wasn't able to articulate properly. That's a relief. "

I think my original formulation, and therefore some of the responses, could get pretty involved. The article was largely intended as a way to tie up a few loose other threads of argument here and there on this board, so way to go for jumping right in and finding an objection, and thanks for reading in the first place.

Vanderzyden

Definitions are subjective, but should be relevant, accurate, intelligible, and as precise as possible. Agreed?

If thinking is an action, then how are we to distinguish between a thought and an action? Again, not only does this not seem right, but it simply isn't true that thinking is an action. It is cognition, pure and simple. I can think all I want about moving my hand, but if I do not move it, then no action has taken place, no power has been demonstrated.

OK, if you want to appeal to popular opinion, that's fine. However you must properly inform those whom you would survey. Please answer my question: Why should we not be more accurate in saying "I have the ability to think", rather than "I have the power to think"?

Here are the common definitions for Power:

1 a (1) : ability to act or produce an effect (2) : ability to get extra-base hits (3) : capacity for being acted upon or undergoing an effect b : legal or official authority, capacity, or right

2 a : possession of control, authority, or influence over others b : one having such power; specifically : a sovereign state c : a controlling group : ESTABLISHMENT -- often used in the phrase the powers that be d archaic : a force of armed men e chiefly dialect : a large number or quantity

3 a : physical might b : mental or moral efficacy c : political control or influence

(efficacy is the ability to produce and effect)

Regardless of the foregoing, your conclusion does not follow from a demonstration that learning is a power. If "I have the power to learn" is accurate, it does not follow that God does not exist. Remember what Ikea and I have said: an omniscient being has no need of learning. More importantly, learning is a relative weakness, compared with omniscience.

I just realized something. Consider this, Thomas: Omniscience itself is not a power, all by itself. This follows from my arguments, I think. If a hypothetical being is only omniscient--if it was only a mind--we could not say that this being is powerful at all. This is because the being could not act. Such a being would indeed have knowledge of all truths, but could not produce any effects!

I can't resist: When will we get to talk seriously about a power that supersedes creative power?


John

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"Why should we not be more accurate in saying 'I have the ability to think', rather than "I have the power to think'?" (Italics original.)

My position does not require that "I have the power to think" is more accurate, only that "I have the power to think" is intelligible. If it is, then thinking can count as a form of power.

"Regardless of the foregoing, your conclusion does not follow from a demonstration that learning is a power. If 'I have the power to learn' is accurate, it does not follow that God does not exist. Remember what Ikea and I have said: an omniscient being has no need of learning. More importantly, learning is a relative weakness, compared with omniscience." (Italics original.)

My argument does not talk about having a "need" of learning anywhere. And learning itself can never be a weakness or a strength; the ability to learn might be one or the other.

I do not think omniscience itself grants a person more power than non-omniscience, to any nontrivial degree. Consider two beings, God and Jane. God knows how many hairs are on my cat's head at time t is ten thousand, and t is just one second out of all of eternity. Jane correctly believes that the number of hairs on my cat's head at t is ten thousand, and believes that she's correct about it. I don't see how Jane is significantly less powerful than God, when she correctly believes all the same things God believes and correctly disbelieves all the things God disbelieves.

"When will we get to talk seriously about a power that supersedes creative power?"

I have explained this to you over and over and over again. My position does not require that any power supersedes creative power. Please read my posts.

Finally, even if you have answered S1, you have still failed to answer my point about lpsoa S2.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I have posted this concept before, but I don't believe anyone has responded.

'Omnipotent' means 'all-powerful'. An 'omnipotent' being or thing would have all the power: there could be no other power than that possessed by such a thing or being.

So, if 'God' gave human beings 'free will': the 'power to choose' from any of the available options, that would be 'power apart from 'God', power that was given up by 'God', in order that human beings could have it.

If so, 'God' cannot be 'all-powerful'.

(Of course, there are numerous other problems with omnipotence.)

Keith.

Keith.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Keith Russell:

"'Omnipotent' means 'all-powerful'. An 'omnipotent' being or thing would have all the power: there could be no other power than that possessed by such a thing or being." (Italics original.)

That's a good way to look at it. All possible powers would be possessed by this being.

"So, if 'God' gave human beings 'free will': the 'power to choose' from any of the available options, that would be 'power apart from 'God', power that was given up by 'God', in order that human beings could have it."

I don't understand this step. Are you saying that God does not have the power to choose between all of the available options, or that God must give up something to allow humans the power to choose between all of the available options?

AtlanticCitySlave

God is, by definition, maximally powerful.

Philosoft

What does this mean? How does it help us decide what God can do and what he can't?