Mageth

I don't think this is a good argument against god(s) alleged omnipotence.

You're right, of course. I'm not hanging my hat on that argument, anyways.

But it would perhaps be a valid reply to 7thangel's rather odd claim:

since, being omniscient, the lack of anything to learn would limit god's power to learn, thus rendering him non-omnipotent.

But he seems to have amended that claim since then.

7thangel

No, you already change the discription of God into "equal in might." And the discription "none is mightier" loses its meaning. Presume we compare 200 bags which each weighs a pound. You cannot say, in comparison to the other 199 bags, there is no one heavier than bag #1. Because when we use the word "heavier" is to mean there is none equal and none greater in weight that exist among those in comparison. My concept of the almighty is mightier than "all."

No. Does that justify that you should not believe my God?

Every word has its distinctions, and limitations. When I say perfect, you cannot just add all the discriptions you could imagine because there are implied distinctions and limitations about it, else, I would have had said "all" instead of perfect.

7thangel

Why do you think that because God does not learn, he loses His omnipotence? Does it because God does not have your human qualities it limits His omnipotence? Does omnipotence should also have the quality of weakness? Should God do the impossible to be omnipotent? Does because I said God does not have the power to make a "pure lie" without good reason limits His omnipotence?

Not at all. Omnipotence is not ability to do any imaginable actions.

Mageth

Why do you think that because God does not learn, he loses His omnipotence?

Well, I was basing that on your comment, which seemed to indicate that any limit on god's power, voluntary or otherwise, would make him omnipotent. So if god has the "power" to learn, but is limited from using it because of his omniscience, then by your definition he would not be omnipotent.

Your theory, not mine.

Does it because God does not have your human qualities it limits His omnipotence?

As far as learning goes, I would consider it not just a human quality, but even a good quality for a deity to have.

How did god become omniscient? Did he just always know everything, or did he have to learn some things?

Does omnipotence should also have the quality of weakness?

I didn't say that. I sure wouldn't consider the ability to learn a weakness.

Should God do the impossible to be omnipotent?

Why is learning impossible for god? As someone else mentioned above, god could have the power to learn, even if he could not exercise it because he knew everything.

Does because I said God does not have the power to make a "pure lie" without good reason limits His omnipotence?

No.

Not at all. Omnipotence is not ability to do any imaginable actions.

Sorry, I forgot that the working definition of "omnipotence" was "what 7thangel deems it to be."

7thangel

Thanks, Amie. May all the praises be in the furtherance of God's name.

God Bless,
7thangel

7thangel

It is my fault why you misunderstood me about my belief of omnipotence. I understand if you equate me to common theist's conception of omnipotence.

God cannot learn because he has nothing to learn. Man can learn because his knowledge can increase.

God is the creator of all things. Nothing exist without Him knowing. He is the author of what is to be known.

As long as there is none powerful than him, and we define his strenght weak. Then yes.

The Bible said, "the foolishness of God is wiser than men." But the truth is that He is not foolsih, right? Same as speaking of weakness.

It is becasue of his nature, as I have stated above.

[quote]Does because I said God does not have the power to make a "pure lie" without good reason limits His omnipotence?

No.

I apologize of my weakness on my part, I just fully realized it when I was answering Diana's post. Yet I did not, even at the start, thought of omnipotence according to the common theist's concept. You can notice that even when I was answering your previous post.

Answerer

So, Is your belief that God is omnipotent based on your own experience or what the bible said?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by wordsmyth :

I think it does. How do you define capability? If someone asked you to learn how to drive a car, could you possibly succeed? Is there a possible world in which a being with all your properties learns how to drive a car?

I don't think you have that power until the cookies have been replaced in their original position. Suppose I stick you in a room with no books. Do you have the power to perform "to read a book without first leaving the room"? Maybe. But suppose I lock the door permanently, so that you will never get out. In that case, it doesn't seem you have the power to read a book.

Jinto

This thread has gotten a little sidetracked, can we get back to the original topic?

I am thinking you are wrong. Your argument relies on three assumptions:

1. All perfect beings must be omnipotent.
2. All imperfect beings must suffer evil.
3. God cannot create another omnipotent being.

You yourself, though, provide the perfect argument against #1:

And similarly, if the perfect image is given to a non-omnipotent being, then we cannot say that being lacks for not being omnipotent. Thus, it is logically possible to have a non-omnipotent perfect being.

2. All imperfect beings must suffer evil.

This argument also fails. Let us assume, for a moment, that perfection nessecarily includes omnipotence. Then, since it is only that quality that is contradictory with God's existence, then logically it should be possible for God to make a being (lets call it Q) where Q posesses every property of God except omnipotence, which shall be replaced by simple potence. Since this logically includes the property of omnibenevolence, then Q would never perform an evil act, and thus would not suffer from evil. Thus, your second premise also fails. Even if we grant your third premise for the sake of not getting into a semantics discussion about what omnipotence actually entails, your arguments fail to establish that theists have any excuse for claiming God to be omnibenevolent when evil exists in the universe.

Darkblade

You seem to be confusing the concept “greater than or equal to” with “greater than”. As HRG said, almighty (or omnipotent) just means “there is no one mightier”. Mightier is obviously completely homologous to “greater than”. Not admitting this is nonsensical special pleading. Also, yes, there is no bag heavier than bag #1. Look at this set; {4, 4, 4, 4}. All of the terms in that set are the greatest.