Philip Osborne

"Then it seems God's moral perfection limits Him; there are logically possible states of affairs He cannot bring about. It may be that theists prefer a God who chooses to be good, but I think this is compatible with an essential property of omnibenevolence; if God chose to do something evil, He would not be...."

It is true that God cannot do evil as long as He chooses to not do evil, but this does not necessarily constitute a limit, for it merely seems to be a logical truth; if God did evil, then obviously, He would not choose not to do evil. This does not entail that God cannot choose to do evil; it merely says that if God does not choose evil, then He is not doing evil, which is trivial. Contingent omnibenevolence means there are possible worlds in which God is not omnibenevolent. I think you are conflating God's essence qua being worthy of worship and God's essence simpliciter. God may not be a being worthy of worship in all possible worlds; as long as He is deserving of worship in the actual world, that is enough.

Sincerely,

Philip

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Philip Osborne:

"Contingent omnibenevolence means there are possible worlds in which God is not omnibenevolent. I think you are conflating God's essence qua being worthy of worship and God's essence simpliciter. God may not be a being worthy of worship in all possible worlds; as long as He is deserving of worship in the actual world, that is enough." (Emphasis original.)

Then it is not an essential property of God that He is omnibenevolent?

Olorin

Oops. The definition that we agreed upon was actually "...not extending to illogical scenarios". My bad.

Take one illogical scenario: the creation of a square circle. Since a square circle is an incoherent concept, whatever scenario it is involved in becomes illogical. When thinking of an omnipotent deity, no impact is made on the omnipotence when we say that God cannot create square circles. If it did, then we would require that omnipotence extend to illogical scenarios, and we would be guilty of equivocation.

Consider an omniscient being, i.e. a being that possesses all knowledge. That being, by definition, cannot acquire knowledge, because it already possesses all of it. Knowledge acquisition, as a hypothetical ability, is logically coherent. There is nothing about it on its own that is illogical.

Now, we might say the following: if a being is all-powerful, then it can acquire knowledge. However, if that being is also omniscient, then the previous statement refers to an illogical scenario. No being can acquire knowledge if there is no knowledge to be acquired - it is an illogical scenario to say that a being must acquire knowledge that it already possesses.

Therefore, if a being is omniscient, then the fact that it cannot learn (an ability that most humans - if not all - have) does not negate omnipotence, since omnipotence is the ability to perform all actions not extending to illogical scenarios.

Now, we have taken into account the additional attribute of omniscience, which is a limiting factor. Any additional attribute, it seems, will limit the potency of an omnipotent being.

Take omnibenevolence, for example. If God is all-good, then when we say that God cannot sin, we are not negating omnipotence, since we have taken into account the fact that omnibenevolence is a factor that diminishes the logical extent of the omnipotent being's abilities. It is the nature of God, for example, to be omniscient and omnibenevolent, therefore, even if God cannot sin or acquire knowledge, it remains omnipotent.

And this is where I have progressed to. It is my nature to have certain limiting factors (in God's case, limiting factors are derived from attributes). Once my limiting factors are taken into account, like God, I can still do anything that remains in my pool of abilities.

My conclusion is that, since I have the ability to perform all actions not extending to illogical scenarios, I am omnipotent.

The illogical scenarios vary from case to case, and are determined by the limiting factors (which can be derived from defined attributes).

Am I making any sense?

That's the one thing. The other is this: certain theists have obviously used the Bible to conclude that their deity is "omnipotent". Here are the passages that I know of:

Nothing to "hard"? It is questionable as to whether the person who wrote this actually sat and thought about what he was writing. Ofcourse some things are too "hard"! Sinning is too "hard", as is knowledge acquisition, etc. This mess is left for the apologetics of theologians to sort out, by their exclusion of illogical scenarios, in order to do away with the paradox. This is cute - coming from an omniscient being. "Jeremiah" should have asked "the God of all flesh" to learn something new that day. All things? This is misleading. I can sin, but God cannot. Therefore, unless we say that God can do all things that his nature allows, we have to conclude that with God all things are not possible.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Olorin ]</p>

Taffy Lewis

Olorin,

This assumes that nothing new ever happens. If the future is indeterminate then there is nothing to know about it other than that it is indeterminate. God can be aware of everything that is the case and not know what will happen. So a being can know everything there is to know and learn something new all the time.

If you are omnipotent that means you can perform every logically possible action which is consistent with perfect benevolence. Creating a universe that contains only five fundamental particles is a logically possible action that is consistent with perfect benevolence. Since you cannot create such a universe then obviously you are not omnipotent. Something must be wrong with your analysis.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Taffy Lewis ]</p>

Olorin

Why have you assumed that I am perfectly benevolent? If I am omnipotent, I can perform any action that does not extend to an illogical scenario (which are derived from external incoherencies [i.e. square circles] and internal limitations). Since my nature entails many, many limitations, the extent of my logical capabilities is pretty small. Anything that surpasses these logical boundaries is an illogical scenario, and is not required in the set of abilities that I have. Therefore, taking into account what I can't do, I can do everything else. I am omnipotent, because I can perform any action that does not extend to illogical scenarios (i.e. what can't be done by me, as entailed by my nature).

Olorin

If omniscience is the knowledge of the truth value of all propositions, and if propositions make reference to the future, then surely an omniscient being will know the future?

Eg. John will crash his car tomorrow.

That is either true or false. An omniscient being, if it is to know all things, must know the truth value to that proposition. So, today, God knows that tomorrow John will crash his car (assuming that proposition to be true).

K

Taffy:

I believe Olorin is omnipotent, omnihuman, and omniself. He/she can do absolutely anything as long as it doesn't lead to logical absurdities when combined with his/her omnihuman and omniself traits.

I am omnipotent, omnihuman, and omniself also - bow before me.

Philip Osborne

Then it is not an essential property of God that He is omnibenevolent?

That is exactly what I meant from the beginning when I said that God has His omnibenevolence contingently.

-Philip

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Philip Osborne:
"That is exactly what I meant from the beginning when I said that God has His omnibenevolence contingently."

Okay. In that case, God might still be omnipotent, although I suspect many apologists would not agree that God is accidentally omnibenevolent.

Bible Humper

The "square circle" issue shouldn't be allowed to be dismissed as quickly as the theologians tend to like, the assertion that omnipotence doesn't include the logically impossible is fundamentally self-contradictory.

One of the most important attributes of Yahweh is his alleged omnipotence, his stature would be extremely diminished if it were to be proven that there are inviolate parameters beyond the deity's nature and power to influence.

The problem I see is that the "square circle" problem is not adequately met by the "omnipotence doesn't include the logically impossible" defense because of the same issue raised by "creating a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it" problem.

Basically, the assertion is that Yahweh can create, and has created, parameters that even he can't violate. Omnipotence cannot be claimed for Yahweh whether he can or can't, the very concept of omnipotence is ultimately illucid.

Related to this are the uncomfortable implications of accepting that there are fundamental parameters within which Yahweh must operate. A popular line of Xian argument towards the naturalist is the "infinite whys", eventually questioning the naturalist regarding why there are factors which caused the laws of physics in the first place which in turn allowed our universe to happen.

The same question applies to the parameters within which Yahweh must operate, much less exist. Why are there factors which caused the parameters which allowed Yahweh and also limits him instead of nothing?

Yahweh isn't at all an answer to the ultimate "whys" even after ignoring the silliness of presupposition, is that Occam's razor I see?