diana

But can you do it, Scotty?

I don't know Captain. It's never been done.

d

Taffy Lewis

fishbulb,

The power to "create a stone that cannot be lifted by a being that can lift any stone" is logically impossible.

If God has unlimited power then his stone lifting and stone creating powers are unlimited. Thus a stone which is so heavy that God cannot lift it is logically impossible. And omnipotence does not include the ability to do that which is not logically possible.

As to above example, I fail to see how one could have the ability to write .2 yet lack the ability to write 2. The example is of doubtful coherence.

fishbulb

This is exactly my point. You are trying to escape the burden of having to define omnipotence by saying that it can include certain powers and exclude others, but you fail to explain which ones are in and which ones are out. There are many things which are possible individually but are paradoxical taken together, but you provide no means for determining which, if either, powers an omnipotent being could have.

If you are so confident that you are right, why don't you try actually defining what omnipotence does entail, rather than simply stating one feature that it does not entail? Fundamentally, you have no argument because you have not even defined what you really mean by omnipotent. I assert that the reason you do not is because you cannot; your notion of omnipotence is incoherent and cannot be defined.

Since we are going around in circles, I will put this discussion on hold, pending a proper definition of omnipotence from you.

Thomas Metcalf

Pay attention to me!

I already solved this problem, I thought, on page 2. I hope I didn't miss any responses. Here's what I said:

So what I said is, this definition appears to be close enough to what we think of when we think of omnipotence. For any logically possible bring-about-able state of affairs s, God can bring it about. Why would this definition be unacceptable?

Answerer

Then allow me to suggest that the rock is in the vaccum and free of gravitional force. And to 'lift' a rock that heavy in the vaccum of zero net gravitional force might be super slow but not totally impossible. Don't believe? F=ma tell the whole story for finite masses.

fishbulb

What does this equation say? What do your variables (t, d, and f) represent? And what does it have to do with the second part about being able to bring about s at t?

I'm afraid I really don't understand the definition, but if you can fill in the gaps in my understanding, I shall endeavour to respond.

This is a little clearer. If I may paraphrase: you are suggesting that we take omnipotence to mean the ability to bring about any non-paradoxical state.

Let me propose two completely separate states which contain no paradoxes. Remember, these are different possible states, not two aspects of a single state of affairs:

State 1: there exists in the universe a stone so resilient that no force, not even an omnipotent God, will ever be able to alter or destroy it.

State 2: God exists in a form so powerful that he can destroy any stone.

Suppose that God, being omnipotent, brings about state 1. Is it now impossible for God to ever bring about state 2? If he cannot, then we seem to have a problem: state 2 is not a paradoxical state of affairs, but omnipotence requires that he be able to make it so. But if he does make it so, then he didn't really bring about state 1, because one of the clauses of state 1 is that God will never be able to lift that particular stone.

An alternative interpretation of what you say could be that God can bring about any state of affairs that does not cause a paradox. I.e., it is not enough that the new state be non-paradoxical, but it cannot conflict with events that have already happened. In that case, God might have the power to bring about state 1, but he would permanently lose this power if he were to bring about state 2. This is an interesting concept of omnipotence, because it allows God to become less powerful over time: by using certain powers, he could lose others. He could take away his divine powers, and be unable to restore them. That's a rather unusual way to look at an omnipotent God.

We're getting pretty far out into hypothetical territory here. While metaphysics may be an interesting intellectual exercise, I have a hard time seeing any valid connections between it and the real world. The fact that you can define something says nothing about whether or not that definition actually applies to anything.

In the end, though, the whole issue seems rather pointless, since believers in the omnimax God first define God as omnipotent and only later do they really worry about what that might mean. And, of course, they have no way of knowing if their definition is right. (Assuming, for argument's sake, that God indeed exists.) If you are going to believe in a supernatural being who transcends (and, indeed, is responsible for) nature, why is it so hard to believe that this being can do things that contradict logic as well? It seems to me that rational comprehensibility is a trait assigned to God by peole who feel a need to have him be that way.

7thangel

I, for one, defined the omnipotence of God as actually finite, consisting of all potence that exist. But I was amazed, how atheists did not want to agree with me. Rather, I was told that my God is weak.

Brother Fred

7thangel:Well first of all. You see this? :boohoo: It's the world's smallest violin........

Second, My god can kick your god's ass. I define my god as, not only consisting of all potence that exists, but also of all potence conceivable.

The force be with you,

Brother Fred

PS. Isn't it amazing how we can just define gods? And there is no way you can prove my god no to exist because I can just turn around and give you some ad hoc revision of the definition of my god. THis is cool.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by fishbulb :

Well, I won't say there aren't problems with this definition as well. But I think theists, at least Anselmians, would say that God is maximally great and therefore incorruptible, and therefore can never lose his omnipotence. It follows that any state of affairs that, if instantiated, would cause God to lose his omnipotence, is logically impossible.

People don't want to abandon logic. And if you do abandon the practice of limiting God's power to the logically possible, then the deductive argument from evil is sound, and that's also something theists want to avoid.

Let's be sure we mean the same sort of rational comprehensibility. If we can say God is omnipotent, then there must be something about him that's comprehensible, because we get to choose what our words mean. If we were wrong about God being omnipotent, it would be because God wasn't omnipotent, not because we don't know what "omnipotent" means.

But a case can be made that some things about God are knowable. I think God would be a better being if aspects and characteristics of him were understandable, because it would better help humans to come to believe in him, or fit in with his perfectly rational and sensible character, or something like that. I'd probably have to let an actual theist fill in the gaps. But if that's so, then we can say that God is partially understandable, because a maximally great being would have to be.

fishbulb

Thomas Metcalf:

The trouble is, they end up doing it anyway. Once you move away from the idea that a god is basically a human being with phenomenal powers to the idea of a formless entity that transcends all space and time, you create a very difficult world to reconcile rationally. In no small part, I suspect, because many of the core characteristics of this being tend to be either abstract or not really defined.

It is possible to reconcile parts of this transcendant god notion with one another, and certainly there has been a long history in the West of trying to do just that. But I've never seen, heard, or read any argument that comes close to making a logical whole out of the entire mess, except for one explanation: God can do anything, even things that seem illogical or impossible to us. As far as I am aware, that is the only complete, self-consistent explanation ever made.

In truth, I don't think any of it even matters. I admit that I got drawn into this particular metaphysical debate, something I usually try to avoid because of the inherent uselessness of fabricating entire realities from whole cloth. (Which is why I am presently trying to extricate myself from the conversation without outright ignoring any responses or criticism.) If someone did present to me a completely self-consistent, rational hypothesis of the nature of god, I would be impressed at the intellectual effort, but would have to wonder why they bothered. We can't even demonstrate empirically that there are grounds to believe that there might be a god, so what's the point in speculating about what such a god could be like, or whether it is comprehensible or transcends rational thought?