Vanderzyden

Thomas,

I wrote that the definition is indeed coherent. However, the "logically possible" definition can't apply to any being, since counterexamples nullify it's application to any agent (e.g. making a rock too heavy to lift).

This is what I have been trying to get you to see, but I don't recall that you have made this acknowledgement previously. You indicate it now, but you do not carry your analysis far enough to realize that you must modify your definition. Allow me to restate it for you:


Omnipotence = possession of the power to perform any actually possible action.


That's a bit better, isn't it? So, we agree that no being can do something that is not actually possible. This renders both the "strong" and "weak" definitions wholly impotent (although they remain coherent). Now, you can see where this leads: Many of your previous objections dissolve. But let's go further.

Additionally, we must realize that actually possible actions are those that are consistent with the nature of the being performing the act. No being can do what is not actually possible for itself. For example, God is the Supreme Good, so he will not do anything evil, etc. On this view, then, we must modify the definition further:


Omnipotence = possession of the power to perform any actually possible action, provided that possible action is possible for for that being.


You can probably see some problem with definition. Primarily, it doesn't help us compare the powers of beings. As I have argued previously, this definition is inadequate, since we are considering a definition of potency. That is, we are looking at a definition of force or power. But again, we do not characterize a power by all of its abilities, nor by the potential actions that may be performed. Rather, power is characterized by strength. The strength of a being comes not from its trivial abilities or performances. Overall strength is relative, both to its own catalog of powers and those of other beings.

We can see, then that the definition is also superfluous. In comparing two beings, we need not laboriously catalog all of the powers. All that is necessary is to consider the greatest powers of each. The one who has the most overwhelming power(s) is the omnipotent One. That is why I ask:


"What power supersedes creative power?"


To which you replied:

Here's another analogy: From the perspective of an ant, I am all-powerful. In an instant, the weight of my foot can crush the ant, killing it instantaneously. I may lift the ant into the air almost effortlessly, whenever I choose. Now, I do not possess the abilities that the ant does; I can't crawl into tiny crevices after the ant. But my power is far and away supreme over the ant.

To imagine a being that is more powerful than God, you must imagine a power that supersedes creative power. If no other power is stronger than the strongest power, then the being possessing the strongest power is omnipotent. In relation to all other beings, this being has the most power. Whether it has additional powers or abilities is essentially irrelevant with respect to its potential omnipotence, since it is not these powers that make it all-powerful.

Humans and angels would not characterize God's power by his other attributes, nor by his powers to "move mountains". In fact, most would readily substitute the word "Creator" for God, recognizing that it is the creative power that is The Power.

Therefore, I maintain the definition that we arrived at previously:

Creative power (to create from nothing and take anything out of existence) is omnipotence.

(Since you have greatly assisted me, you may take all the credit, if you wish )


Vanderzyden

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Philip Osborne

I haven't been following this thread for quite a while, but I thought I'd put in some new insight on an argument mentioned at the beginning of this thread ("....one can conceive of a more powerful logically possible being.") and used on Thomas Metcalf's thread "State of Affairs Omnipotence."

The argument says that if God is defined as a being who can instantiate any possible state of affairs, we can conceive of a more powerful being, which can instantiate any possible state of affairs and do any logically possible action. So God would fail the "maximal power test" used in Wes Morriston's paper "Omnipotence and Necessary Moral Perfection: Are They Compatible?"

Morriston alludes to the following Anselmian argument which can be used as a response to this argument. Let's say this being which is more powerful than God is called Sam. Sam can do things that God can't, such as learn, forget, change (if one subscribes to divine timelessness), etc. Therefore, Sam is more powerful than God, so the argument says. But the conclusion is not at all that obvious. To say that Sam can learn is merely to say that Sam can bring about the state of affairs in which Sam learns. Presumably, God can bring about a state of affairs in which Sam learns as well. God cannot bring about the state of affairs in which God learns. But Sam can't bring about the state of affairs in which God learns either. So the argument has not actually given an example of a state of affairs which Sam can bring about but God can't. That being the case, it does not seem that the argument proves Sam to be more powerful than God.

Sincerely,

Philip

Vanderzyden

Hi Philip,

I agree with your conclusion, but perhaps you could respond to these points I have been making to Thomas:

-- It would seem that notions such as learning, forgetting, changing, etc are mere abilities, not powers. Is cognition, in and of itself, a power?

-- Sam's ability to learn is not brought about by Sam. Sam himself came into being. He began to exist, and not of his own doing. Therefore, he is not responsible for bringing about the critical state of affairs in which he has the potential to learn. His capacity to learn comes from outside of himself.

-- God may or may not learn. If he does not, then this is not a limitation, if he already knows every knowable fact (and thinks none of them contradictory).

Your thoughts?


Thanks,

Vanderzyden

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"However, the 'logically possible' definition can't apply to any being, since counterexamples nullify it's application to any agent (e.g. making a rock too heavy to lift)."

There is nothing impossible about making a rock too heavy to lift. There is only something impossible about making a rock too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift. I'm still not seeing how "can perform any logically possible action" is a problem.

"Omnipotence = possession of the power to perform any actually possible action, provided that possible action is possible for for that being." (Italics original.)

I think we've been over this one, too. If I define a being as unable to perform action x, then to perform x is not possible for that being. In fact, to perform all the actions I can't perform is impossible for me, so I am omnipotent, by this definition.

"To imagine a being that is more powerful than God, you must imagine a power that supersedes creative power. If no other power is stronger than the strongest power, then the being possessing the strongest power is omnipotent. "

Imagine there are two beings, Jones and Smith.
Jones can create or destroy anything, ex nihilo, but cannot do anything else. Smith can create or destroy anything, ex nihilo, and can also talk to humans, transform anything into anything else, solve any math problem instantly, bake a pie, tie her shoes, and feed her dog. Who is more powerful?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Philip Osborne:

"To say that Sam can learn is merely to say that Sam can bring about the state of affairs in which Sam learns. Presumably, God can bring about a state of affairs in which Sam learns as well. God cannot bring about the state of affairs in which God learns. But Sam can't bring about the state of affairs in which God learns either. So the argument has not actually given an example of a state of affairs which Sam can bring about but God can't. That being the case, it does not seem that the argument proves Sam to be more powerful than God."

Morriston points out that God cannot bring about the state of affairs "someone or other freely commits an evil action." We can expand on this; God cannot bring about "someone or other learns under his or her own power" while many people (including Sam) can bring about this state of affairs. It's therefore logically possible and bring-about-able. Essentially, I think performing actions and bringing about states of affairs, if they are interderivable in a way, will not help the theist. I should also point out that performing actions is very intuitively appealing as a component of omnipotence, moreso than bringing about states of affairs.

I think there's more to say, but this should be a start.

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Metcalf ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Ah, but what being can make a rock too heavy to lift? The trouble, as you previously agreed, is in the performance of the logically possible action:

That is not so. You are not all-powerful because you can do what you can do. What matters is what you can do in relation to others. If I have more forceful power than you do, though I do not possess your powers, then, necessarily, I am more powerful than you. Do you deny this?

Please note that I agreed that this definition is inadequate, and I developed my argument further. However, you do not follow me through to my conclusion. That's fine, for the moment. For now, are you at least in agreement that this is your new definition?

Omnipotence = possession of the power to perform any actually possible action.

I ask this because you explicitly stated "I assert everything that is logically possible is actually possible." Are you saying that everything termed "logical" must be actually possible?

Neither. Both are equally powerful. The other "powers" are subsumed beneath creative power. We would characterize the power of Smith and Jones by their creative power.

Anyway, who created Jones and Smith? How did they come into being? Can Jones destroy Smith? On what basis? Which one has more strength, and why?

Let me ask another question: Why is it necessary to catalogue--or somehow capture--all of the "powers" of being to determine if it qualifies for omnipotent status?

Vanderzyden

K

Vanderzyden:

Because you have claimed that omnipotent doesn't mean what the dictionary claims it does - all powerful. If we are going to assign a word, omnipotent, to this deity's power, we should know what that word means. If we don't, it makes no sense to describe God as omnipotent. To avoid enumerating the limits (or at least somehow capturing the powers) associated with omnipotence is to handwave away many of the logical reasons why an omnipotent God can not exist.

Vanderzyden

K,

You raise an important consideration that I should've dealt with previously.

I am not avoiding the enumeration of all the powers. My argument is that it is unnecessary. Relative power is the characterization factor in the attempt to formulate a definition of omnipotence. I find strong support for this contention in Webster's definition:


Omnipotent

1 : ALMIGHTY
2 : having virtually unlimited authority or influence


What is the definition for "almighty"?


Almighty:

1 : often capitalized : having absolute power over all &lt;Almighty God&gt;
2 : relatively unlimited in power
3 : great in magnitude or seriousness


Please observe the emphasis on power, not power(s). Omnipotence is defined as relatively unlimited, absolute power. We see no indication of the greatest number of powers in either of the above definitions.

So, my definition is consistent with a very common definition. Creative power is absolute power. Nothing is greater, therefore the Creator is omnipotent.


Vanderzyden

K

Vanderzyden:

Why is creative power greater than destructive power? If God can create all people and Satan can corrupt the vast majority of them to a point where God can't even have them in His presence, who is more powerful?

I think by enumerating the powers or restrictions on the power of God would allow a distinction between the Christian God and the god of deism. When God is described as "original supernatural creator", I see no difference at all.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"Ah, but what being can make a rock too heavy to lift? The trouble, as you previously agreed, is in the performance of the logically possible action:"

I don't know. Imagine a being named The Rock-Maker, who can make rocks of various sizes and masses. I'm sure this being could make a rock too heavy for it to lift. It's not logically impossible.

"I ask this because you explicitly stated 'I assert everything that is logically possible is actually possible.' Are you saying that everything termed 'logical' must be actually possible?"

No. This is, I believe, the fourth time we've been over this point. A logically possible action is any action that does not produce a contradiction when it's performed. So what do you mean by "actually" possible? I can think of several, well, possibilities. There's logical, physical, nomological, technological, etc. If this --

"Omnipotence = possession of the power to perform any actually possible action."

-- is your definition, then either God is not omnipotent (because "to learn" is actually possible) or I am omnipotent (because "to perform action x" is either possible or impossible for me).

"Neither. Both are equally powerful. The other 'powers' are subsumed beneath creative power. We would characterize the power of Smith and Jones by their creative power."

Then all I can say is you're working with an unpopular (among philosophers) definition of "power." To you, "I have the power to tie my shoes" is false independent of the referent of "I".

"Let me ask another question: Why is it necessary to catalogue--or somehow capture--all of the 'powers' of being to determine if it qualifies for omnipotent status?"

That's like asking why it's necessary to catalogue all wavelengths of light that bounce off an object to determine whether it qualifies for "red" status. To find out whether something is all-powerful, we must know what it can or can't do.