Thomas Metcalf

Well, I agree that there is nothing for God to learn. But I think this entails that God cannot learn. The lack of things for God to learn is an explanation for why God can't learn, but He still can't learn.

Well, yes. There are some actions that are logically possible for some beings and not for others. But we can't have omnipotence as "can do anything it is logically possible for it to do," because then certain beings who have essential properties of inability are still omnipotent. The classic example is McEar -- I define this hypothetical being only to be able to scratch her ear. She can only scratch her ear, but she can do everything it is logically possible for her to do! Therefore, she is omnipotent.

It seems much more useful to preserve omnipotence as "can perform any logically possible action," because then beings such as McEar wouldn't be omnipotent. But then an omniscient being wouldn't be omnipotent, either. This is the problem for classic monotheism.

I must make an important distinction about humans flying, however. Most people would say it is logically possible for humans to fly, just not physically possible. That is, there's nothing in the definition of "human" that prevents it from flying. If a human suddenly flew, we probably won't doubt whether she was a human. However, it is an essential property of humans that they have certain DNA, a certain general shape, etc. If we encountered a being without these, we would consider calling it something other than a human. If we define humans as unable to fly, then it is logically impossible for humans to fly.

ishalon

Olorin made a very good point, but now we can't use that argument any more

and Thomas; what's wrong with McEar being omnipotent? I agree that she is.

Theli

Olorin...

I don't know if I agree with this.
To say that logic is relative just because it produces different conclutions based on different premises, would be like saying that mathematics is relative because 2*3=6 but 3*3=9.

Thomas Metcalf

It just seems rather strange to say that a being who can't perform miracles, can't talk to humans, can't write holy books, can't send its son to die for humanity, can't create the universe, etc., would be "all powerful" or "limitlessly powerful." We're defining this being to have very strict limits to her power, and yet, she's omnipotent? One even more striking way to make the point is this: The being McNothing, who essentially cannot do anything, would also be omnipotent.

I doubt most theists would say that a being with no power would be all powerful.

Olorin

In hindsight, I don't think I agree with it either.

These are my latest thoughts:

If logical relativism obtained, then the term omnipotence would be rather useless, as Thomas pointed out. I mean, both the JC deity and myself could be omnipotent, in that we are both able to do everything that is logically possible for us to do.

That said, I find myself at a loss as to what the Bible means by "all-powerful".

Perhaps one of the Christians here might be able to clear this up for me. Or perhaps not.

I need to know exactly what is meant by the term, before I can think about such meaningless concepts as square circles being created by such a being. I mean, if God is all-powerful, but cannot create square circles, then what is the limiting factor? Perhaps the conclusion is that God can perform all meaningfull actions, but not meaningless actions.

I don't know. My brain doesn't normally get used this much.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Once God is defined as possessing any of the 'omni' characteristics, it's pretty easy to see that such a God cannot exist.

If there is anything that isn't God (such as 'sin', or 'evil') then God isn't omnipresent.

If there is anything God cannot do (such as provide salvation to non-believers, or stand in the presence of 'sin', or make a rock to big to lift) then God isn't omnipotent.

If human beings have free will (and we do) then the future is not known. The future is created in the present in part by our freely-chosen actions. God isn't omniscient, since God could not know an as-yet-uncreated future.

An undefined God cannot be known to exist, and a defined God cannot exist.

Keith Russell.

Thomas Metcalf

I hope one of the Christians here could offer his or her definition of "omnipotence," because I'm rapidly beginning to believe that there isn't a coherent one that can apply to God. "Can perform all meaningful actions" won't work because God still can't learn or change or wear clothes. So let me just call for any apologist reading this to submit his or her definition for examination. And, I suspect, ultimate rejection.

hinduwoman

Not neccessarily. Human beings have the free will to do whatever they want, and thus create the future. But because God knows their nature, he also foreknows what they will do.

God Almighty

[QUOTE]Originally posted by banditoloco:
[QB]I apologize, but perhaps I did not ask my question clearly enough, David. I am not asking if it is possible for god to be omniscient and/or omnipotent. What I am asking is:

1) If god is omnipotent, must he also be omniscient, because of the definition of omnipotence.

My reply: I never thought of it that way, but now since you bring it to my attention, then I think that omniscience is a subset of omnipotence. If god can do anything, then he must be able to acquire all the knowledge there ever exists. In which case his omnipotence allows him to be omniscient.


2) If god is omniscient, must he also be omnipotent, because of the definition of omniscient.


My reply: Yes this also makes sense. Omniscience means more than having all the knowledge. It means that god knows everything...he knows how to do anything and that ability or knowledge to be able to do anything he wants gives him the characterisitcs of omnipotence.

So omniscience and omnipotence are inseparable.

Theli

I don't know if I agree with this.
If you claim that god knows everything (omniscience) because he can know everything (omnipotence) then you must assume that god wants/chooses to know everything.
This raises the question, should unwillingness to perform an action be considered an inability?
It prevents you to perform the action just like any other inability, but it can change (as many other inabilities).