Mageth

Question: could a being that claimed omnipotence demonstrate/prove its omnipotence, even to itself? I think it's obvious that it couldn't demonstrate it to us, but I also think it couldn't prove, even to itself, that it was indeed omnipotent.

Likewise for its other omni-attributes; omniscience, for example. Could an omniscient being prove its omniscience to us? I don't think so. Likewise, how could it prove its omniscience to itself? Could it prove to itself that there was no knowledge that it didn't possess? Could it prove to itself that there is not a fact X that it does not know? How could it claim to know anything about something it does not know? (This ties back in with the first paragraph; how could a being know or demonstrate that there was not a power (positive or otherwise) it did not possess?)

Unbeliever

Well, as a matter of fact, I did read the Tipler, but I was thinking along these lines twenty years ago. The P of I was just another angle of approach to things I was already considering. I think Tipler had a lot of good ideas, but his terminology was definitely too religious. His book would probably have gone over better if he had stuck to a more scientific paradigm, sans "God". In stating my question, I made the same mistake, an inexcusable faux pas.

Keith Russell

Greeings:

But, to say that the universe is becoming 'God' is to reverse all the characteristics usually ascribed to 'God'--Creator, the alpha (not just the omega), the 'Beginning', that which should be worshipped, etc.

Sorry, the 'universe'--whatever it is, is just the universe.

Keith.

The_Ist

Well, I would disagree. Here is a webpage that presents an interesting take on the issue of whether the inability of God to perform evil limits his power. I am inclined to agree with its basic argument (though not with some other things on that site).

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/gcde.htm

However, supposing you dismiss this argument, there are other reasons that seem to show that it would be better for a being to not be able to perform evil as opposed to the alternative. An evil act is, I think you would agree, unjust. So if a being has the ability to commit evil acts, it has the ability to be unjust. The question then is whether a being that can act unjustly has more power and is better off than one who cannot, all else being equal. This question is not easily answerable; Plato’s Republic is devoted mainly to this very problem, with him drawing the conclusion that it is better to always be just.

And even if you still disagree, it seems to me that, in this case, the burden of proof is on the atheist. I understand that the theist has the burden of proof in showing God’s existence, explaining to some extent his attributes, etc., but if the atheist is attempting to show incoherency in one of God’s attributes, or incompatibility between two or more of them, he assumes the burden of proof. And insofar as there is good reason (and I think there is) to think that God is greater and more powerful because he cannot perform evil, or at least insofar as the question is in doubt, there is nothing illogical about holding the position that God is both all-powerful and that he cannot do evil.

It would seem as though arguments centering on the compatibility of God’s omnipotence with other attributes need to address the issue of which abilities are superior to their alternatives. IOW, I think such judgments are necessarily part and parcel of this discussion.

As I said in my last post, I do not hold the position that God cannot hate.

While I agree that man surely cannot comprehend everything about an omnipotent being, we have every reason to believe that, if a personal God actually does exist and wants us to know/worship him, he would give us the capabilities of at least understanding some basic things about him. After all, had he not given us this ability, knowing/worshipping him would be impossible. So I don’t think attempting to discuss his attributes is necessarily futile.

The first being. Also, the reason I utilized positive attributes is to protect against parodies, such as the one given by Philosoft. I think if you skim through his discussion with me on this issue, you will have a better understanding of my definition and the point I’m trying to get across.

I think this is basically the same argument you’re making on the other thread in GRD, so I will handle it there.

Mageth

Yes, it is basically the same argument. I threw it in here to see if it would survive the intense scrutiny of the Philosophy forum.

Philosoft

There doesn't seem to be anything novel in that article. Mr. Koukl's argument amounts to 'I don't like what the word 'omnipotence' entails, so I'm just going to redefine it without any real justification.' He admits as much by claiming that moral superiority is more "powerful" than moral inferiority. But it is not clear why moral superiority is a necessary component of omnipotence, other than to square with the Christian God concept.

You seem to be conflating "better" and "more powerful," or at least insisting that one entails the other. Again, I see nothing to support this connection.

I think Plato was talking about non-omnipotent heads-of-state, not all-powerful creator beings.

Well, a word like "omnipotent" has a particular prima facie meaning. If it does not mean 'omni' (all) - 'potent' (powerful), then I think it's up to you to explain what it does mean and, more importantly, why it means something else. Up to now, I thought this was what you were trying to do. I'm not sure why you think a burden-of-proof shift is in order now.

A "good reason" would probably need to include why "more powerful" entails "morally superior." Thus far, I don't think you've done that.

Moral judgements are only relevant if there is a moral component to "omnipotence."

Fair enough. That doesn't much affect my argument.

mhc

The_Ist:
Since when is understanding a necessary condition for worship?
Your assertion assumes that there must be a real God, of whom people must understand some attributes he actually holds.
Since there IS NO GOD, there is NOTHING THERE to understand. All God-worshippers "understanding" of God exists only in their minds, and refers to nothing real. Yet worship they do.
There is a BIG difference between knowing something and believing you know something. The former is verifiable; the latter is self-referential fantasy.

Nowhere357

Do you know you believe? Or do you believe you know? IMO a better way to look at it: We have two ways of forming 'belief'. Rational belief, and intuitive belief. Left brain and right brain, I guess. They're just different, is all. One works really good when dealing with physical matter and the like, the other works best when dealing with feelings, and stuff like that.

Dr. Retard

So hate is not incompatible with love. Humans are able to pull off both. A single being can both hate and love, no problem.

Hate is incompatible with another attribute: hatelessness. God is supposed to have hatelessness, I guess. But hatelessness looks like a negative attribute.

Bonus: Your 'omnipotence' (I think) means that an omnipotent being can be unable to do something that other beings can do. That looks funny.

mhc

Nowhere357:
Why must it be couched in such ambiguity? Do you suggest that one cannot say "I know"?
I know there is no God in the same way I know there are no unicorns--there is zero evidence for the existence of either. Mere belief is in all cases less certain than knowledge. Shall we start an epistemology thread?