Normal

So if god lacks the ability to learn, it violates the law of omniscience? That is no different then saying "God cannot create a stone he cannot life, therefore he is not omnipotent". God, being omniscient, also "lacks" the ability to forget. Is this a deficiency?

God also can't forget. Are we to assume these are deficancies taking away from his supposed perfection and omnipotence?

What does it mean for god to "commit suicide"? To go from a living state to a non-living state? Even if you commit suicide, you still "exist", you give up only the attribute "alive". Is god alive in this concept? Does it make sense for god to "commit suicide"?

It is a logically incoherent idea. I assume perfection would entail only that which is logical.

"Part of his creation" in what sense? What influence do you assume he possibly has on his creation?

Spenser

om·nip·o·tent adj.

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Mr. M's argument is an off shoot of classical attacks on omni-anything. Theists say all-powerful, can do ANYTHING. Then atheists point out that something can't be done. Then Theists claim powerful, can do anything BUT THAT.

A very difficult God to disprove would be one that is pretty-powerful, awfully-smart, can see almost anywhere, he digs us and shucks, he sure is good.

Does not God seem to get closer and closer to this last statement the more science and philosophy question?

NonContradiction

I don't see the conflict if you believe that it's logically impossible for an omniscient being to learn anything. I am sitting in the health club right now writing this message to you. Since I am already in the health club, it would be logically impossible for me to go to the health club. Does that indicate any weakness on my part? If I was at home, I would certainly be capable of going to the club. Similarly, if God cannot learn anything because He already knows everything, does that indicate weakness? Certainly, if God is a perfect being, then ignorance and weakness cannot be attributed to Him. I don't see why perfect knowledge and perfect power must be in conflict with each other.

It appears as though you are grasping at straws here to demonstrate that there is a conflict. Surely there are paradoxes in life, but not all paradoxes are logical absurdities. As a matter of fact, it's quite possible for many paradoxes to have logical explanations. Depending on what side of the fence you are on, one man's logical absurdity is another man's paradox.

curbyIII

Hi Thomas. Although your arguments are very interesting I think they are a bit dodgy.

I will first address your 2nd, 3rd, and 4th points as I think they can be answered in the same way. You seem to assume that just because someone will never do something, they are CONSTRAINED not to do it. For example I will never paint a purple cactus on my bedroom wall. Does this mean that I am incapable of doing this? You may argue that there is a possible world where I do indeed paint a purple cactus on my bedroom wall so it is possible for me to do this. But suppose that I have a deep moral, spiritual, ethical, aesthetical etc. objection to purple cacti. Suppose that my hatred towards purple cacti is a fundamental part of who I am. Now there is no longer a possible world where I (as I know myself) would paint a purple cactus on my bedroom wall. Yet I would still hesitate in saying that I am CONSTRAINED from doing it. I would say that a better definition would be that I can do it, but I choose not to. Similarly one can say that God CAN do evil, he CAN commit suicide, he CAN leave your closet, but he just CHOOSES not to (and will always choose not to).

I personally don't believe in free will but I think you should make this clear in your argument.

I don't think that a being that knows less than another is thus able to do more. Let's have a being A that knows X (where speaking French is in X). Now suppose there is a being B that knows everything that A knows except for speaking French. Now you argue that B is more powerful than A because B has the capability of learning French where as A cannot do this. But A has the capability of speaking French while B cannot. This means that A is at least as powerful as B (although I would argue that a being that can speak French can do more than a being that can learn French).

So although God cannot learn anything new, there is no other being (imaginable) that could possibly be more powerful. So God can be both omnipotent and omniscient.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Normal :

It is different, because the paradox of the stone is a criticism of omnipotence itself, whereas God's inability to learn is a conflict with his omnipotence via another attribute.

It's a limitation on omnipotence. If you have a different definition of "omnipotent" than Flint and Freddoso or Hoffman and Rosenkrantz, please present it.

Yes. To commit suicide would be to end his existence.

Making a rock God can't lift may be incoherent, but learning is not. Again, I urge you to present your own definition of "omnipotent," because the two on the table right now are undeniably not going to allow for God to be omnipotent.

He brings about states of affairs that have to do with him. I think that's the sense of "create" we've been using.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by NonContradiction :

If you were permanently stuck at the health club, you would be unable to go to the health club, and that would indicate weakness. You could try presenting a different definition of "omnipotent," but "some person freely goes to the health club" is a logically possible bring-about-able state of afairs.

If "omnipotent" is defined the way we've been using it, it indicates a lack of power. There is something God can't do that I can do.

Which makes this an argument from incoherence.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by curbyIII :

Maybe, but I would not hesitate to say you are unable to paint the cactus, or unable to decide to paint the cactus.

Then how do you define capability? What's wrong with my analysis, other than that it yields my conclusion?

This is not an analogous case because there is no isomorphic more power-granting task available to God in virtue of his omniscience. Omniscience only grants power because it allows a person to bring about a greater quantity of states of affairs, but I think in every case, for every power God's omniscience grants him, there is an isomorphic power that a non-omniscient being has, and there are more of the latter -- they include forgetting, wondering, speculating, etc.

Normal

The "ability" to learn is a sign of deficancy, in that you need to learn to know something you do not know. It is no more an ability an omnipotent god needs then the "ability" to forget.

Omnipotent: a being who does not lack the power to bring about any logically coherent state of affairs

If god necessarily exists, then it is logically incoherent for him to end his existence. Besides that, it is logically incoherent for you to end your existence. All you can do is become not-alive from a state of being alive.

See above.

He can bring about states of affairs that are logically incoherent to him, but not to his creation.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Normal :

So you're using a different definition of "omnipotent," then...

...Or not. That's essentially the same as Flint and Freddoso's and Hoffman and Rosenkrantz's. And "some person freely learns" is a logically coherent state of affairs.

Read my paper again, when I talk about McEar. If McEar can only scratch his ear, it is logically incoherent for him to scratch his nose and do anything other than scratch his ear.

I don't think anyone will find this anything other than wildly implausible. You're saying no matter what I do, I will continue to exist. That's good news for me.

Normal

But it is not god that learns, it is his creation that learns.

Maybe I'm just not getting the McEar example, but you could explain it further? It seems to me "existing" and "scratching your ear" are two wholly different speices of concepts. "Existing" is not an action, it is a property.

How do you propose to end your existence? Killing yourself will make you dead, but your body still exists. Define "you" in this case.