Jack the Bodiless

It may be a "profound" question, but it is also an irrelevant question to this debate.

You believe that God is "something", right?

If so, then why is there a God rather than no God?

(Isn't it more logical to expect that no God should exist?)

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"Here, again, is an example of counterexample to your defintion:

Being A can make a rock so big he can't lift it.

It is logical, but nonsensical and contradictory."

I understand what it means. Where does it contradict itself?

"Here's an example of a problematic logical action:

Being B can count to infinity.

No actual infinites can possibly exist."

Right, so that's not a logically possible action. It's all fairly clear to me.

"Though these statements are 'logical', both lead to contradictions, since no being is capable of doing either action."

We've been through this before. Logically possible actions are actions that do not produce a contradiction when they are performed.

"From the dictionary...

ability: the quality or state of being able

power: possession of control, authority, or influence over others; physical might"

This is not the sense that philosophers of religion use, and if we say God need not possess all abilities (just all powers), then He might not even be able to determine the sum of two and five. I think the theist must believe God has all logically possible abilities, too.

"Again, I would ask you to describe this hypothetical being. Would you agree that no other power can even approximate creative power? If not, why?"

What do I still have to describe? Imagine a being that has all power and all abilities. This being would be more potent than God, because God does not have all abilities. To be a theist, by your account, one would have to believe it's possible to have more ability than an omnipotent being. I doubt very many philosophers will accept this.

Autonemesis

Don't need to. They already know it.

I see no reason or basis to decide that either possibility is more or less likely than the other, except that there does indeed appear to be something, rather than nothing. That would seem to favor something existing being more logical than nothing existing.

Why do you think that the existence of nothing is more logical than the existence of something?

Keith Russell

Vander:

What Devilnaut said, I second.

Keith.

Vanderzyden

Philosopher or not, you would not ascribe the word "power" to a elementary child who has just learned arithmetic. No cognition is a power. Only actions are powers. I am asking you to compare the ability to perform mathematical calculations to the power of creation. It would seem that you cannot bring yourself to do it. Why is that?

Well, you don't have to do anything. I'm not forcing you. Let's just think it through for ourselves. We don't need to rely on those "philosophers of religion". You and I seem capable enough on our own. What you are not offering is a power that is greater than creative power. That is the ultimate power; nothing comes near to it. Therefore, God's unique creative power makes him the All-Powerful One.

Remember, omnipotence, as I define it, is the unique possession of creative power. God is the only one to have this power. This says nothing about the minor abilities, but that is unnecessary. Why? Because the supremacy of power comes not from the collection of all of the abilities. It seems that we are not concerned with a multiplicity of powers, but rather the greatest power(s). A definition of omnipotence need not catalogue every power, but only describe the essence of the power which is far and away above all other powers.

Imagine that there exists a being, Zog, which has an incredible plethora of powers--all but the creative power. Now, imagine that God only possesses creative power. God alone may create ex nihilo, sustain, and destroy. He only has this one power. Now, many other beings exist with various subsets of the powers of Zog. However, none but God has creative power. Who is all-powerful over all of the others in this illustration? Well, of course, it is God. While God doesn't have the power to, say swim in a lake, he does have the supreme power. He created Zog, the other beings, and the lake.

Now, if you imagine another being that has a single power that is greater than creative power, I definitely want to hear about it. Our discussion can advance no further if you simply describe a being which has creative power + power X + power Y. That is because the creative power trumps every other power. The other powers are minor; they are not the essential power. Furthermore, creative power implies all of its derivative and attendant powers. Nothing other than creative power is required in the consideration of omnipotence, because no other power can withstand or compare to creative power.

Vanderzyden

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Primal

Where is the universe located?

The question is senseless. Why?

Because the universe would be the overall thing all locations are in.

Likewise to create existence a causal mechanism would have to first exist. At least one thing could be around forever, and energy seems to have this property.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"Philosopher or not, you would not ascribe the word 'power' to a elementary child who has just learned arithmetic. No cognition is a power. Only actions are powers. I am asking you to compare the ability to perform mathematical calculations to the power of creation. It would seem that you cannot bring yourself to do it. Why is that?" (Italics original.)

You define power as,
"power: possession of control, authority, or influence over others; physical might"
It is a simple matter to derive that every power is an ability or is interderivable with an ability. Again, it seems that God might not be able to determine the sum of two and five, even if He has all power -- and if He has all logically possible abilities, too, then He doesn't exist.

Remember, the definition "can perform any logically possible action" is internally consistent and can (with slight modification) apply to some possible beings. Your job would be to show that you have a better definition.

"What you are not offering is a power that is greater than creative power."

No, I am not, nor have I ever been. You seem to be saying that God has a power that is better than everyone else's power. I would offer the idea of this being; call Him "God'":

God' = df. "A being who possesses total creative power and the ability to perform every logically possible action."

God' is either as powerful as God or more powerful than God; if He is as powerful as God, then God does not exist, because there are logically possible actions God cannot perform. If He is more powerful than God, then God is not omnipotent, because one can't be more powerful than an omnipotent being. Either that, or you must hold the position that an omnipotent being might be lacking in any or every ability to perform any action. I do not think this is a suitable definition of "omnipotent" in that case.

Vanderzyden

Yes, this definition is "internally" coherent. However, I have provided counterexamples which show that this definition cannot define any being. It cannot possibly apply to anything that possibly exists. Perhaps you could demonstrate conclusively that this is not the case.

You're right, either God or God' exists, but not both. However, God' prime cannot possibly exist, since your definition of omnipotent cannot apply to any being (see above). Not everything that is logically possible is actually possible. Can you count to infinity? Can God?

I wonder why won't you attempt to answer my question:

What power supersedes creative power?

Being G is alone in possessing creative power. Please describe a power that being X could use against, or to avoid, the power of being G.

Until you address this issue, I will maintain that creative power serves as a singularly sufficient qualification for omnipotence.


Vanderzyden

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

sir drinks-a-lot

There are lots of them:

The Power to Destroy Being G, The Power to Prevent Other Beings from Using their Creative Power, The Power to Avoid All Powers of Being G, The Power to Take Being G's Creative Power Away, etc...

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: sir drinks-a-lot ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"Yes, this definition is 'internally' coherent. However, I have provided counterexamples which show that this definition cannot define any being. It cannot possibly apply to anything that possibly exists." (Italics original.)

I do not recall you doing so; I apologize if I have missed something. Could you tell me why this sentence is incoherent? "There exists a being who can perform any action such that the existence of this action does not require a contradiction." If "weak" omnipotence can't apply to any being, then that sentence must contain a contradiction somewhere.

(Note: There is always the trivial logically possible action "To perform x where x was not performed by an omnipotent being," but we can leave that aside in our definition of "weak omnipotence.")

"Not everything that is logically possible is actually possible. Can you count to infinity? Can God?"

I assert everything that is logically possible is actually possible. "To count to infinity" is not a logically possible action. This is the third time we've gone over this point.

"What power supersedes creative power?"

I am not required to answer this question for my position to remain consistent. I must only maintain that it's possible to imagine a being more powerful than God, if it is not the case that God can perform any logically possible action. I must only show that there is a power that is not identical to creative power, that God does not have. A being such as God' would have creative power plus whatever power this is; it need not supersede creative power, just be non-identical with it.

God has total creative power. God' has total creative power plus the abilities to perform logically possible actions x, y, and z, that God can't do. I say God' is more powerful than God.