Vanderzyden

Yes, "all else equal" is a critical caveat. I have argued previously that it is nonsense for us to neglect other characteristics when we are attempting to formulate a definition of omnipotence. However, rather than taking time to cover that issue again, let me point out another problem.

For a being to be all-powerful, its collective power must supersede that of the next most powerful being (or class of beings). If the greatest powers are equal, then no being is all-powerful. This is true whether or not a particular being has additional abilities which do not contribute to their strength.

Note: if you entertain the notion of actual beings that are equal in power over all other beings, then you must address the difficulty that arises in considering their existence. In particular, we must ask: How did either one of them come into being?


Here is our exchange concerning the "Rock-Maker":

To say that the Rock-Maker can create rocks assumes that it has creative power (even if it is only over rocks). This is power to bring a rock into being. Such power entails the most elementary, essential knowledge concerning the existence of any rock that is created. If this knowledge may be employed in the creation of rocks, it necessarily follows that the same knowledge may be used in the destruction of the same rocks. Therefore, the Rock-Maker is also a Rock-Unmaker.

If the Maker is also an Unmaker, then there is nothing the Maker can make that is immovable by the Maker. Again, the Maker possesses the most basic power over the very existence of rocks. This Maker has power over rock-matter itself. In fact, it must be the case that the Maker completely understands the metaphysics underlying the "environment" in which rock-existence is possible. With such power and understanding, it follows directly that no rock is immovable by its Maker.


John

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Keith Russell

Greetings:

If a being is 'all-powerful', wouldn't that mean that it has all the power?

If anyone or anything posesses any power, then there isn't anything that is 'all-powerful', no matter how much power the thing itself might possess.

Keith.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Silent Acorns

If the rock-maker "completely understands the metaphysics underlying the "environment" in which rock-existence is possible", would it not follow that that the rock-maker also has the knowledge required to make a rock he can't move?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"If the greatest powers are equal, then no being is all-powerful."

Let me just get this statement from you one more time. You genuinely believe that if God gained 1,000,000 more abilities, His power would not have increased at all?

"Note: if you entertain the notion of actual beings that are equal in power over all other beings, then you must address the difficulty that arises in considering their existence. In particular, we must ask: How did either one of them come into being?"

Hmmm? I neither know nor care how these beings came into existence. In fact, my argument doesn't require that they be actual; all it requires is that if they existed, they'd be more powerful than God. An all-powerful being, I trust, must be as powerful as it is possible to be.

"If the Maker is also an Unmaker, then there is nothing the Maker can make that is immovable by the Maker."

Non sequitur. We've defined this being simply as being able to create rocks. It doesn't follow that this being has any knowledge of how to lift rocks. Maybe the being just pushes a button and a rock appears. All this is unnecessary, actually, because we may simply modify this example to encompass something independent of creative power. God cannot write a book so long that He can't read it in an hour. I can. That's a logically possible action, "to write a book so long that its author cannot read it in one hour," but God cannot perform it.

Xixax

VZ, you're just saying it's so. You haven't shown it to be so. If you want to say that the being has both powers ( create and uncreate ), that's fine. You can say that, since you don't even have to prove this being exists for your theology to acheive it's goal. However, saying that it logically follows that being able to uncreate comes from the power to create is a fallacy.

Silent Acorns

If I understand you correctly, Vanderzyden , you are defining "an omnipotent being" as the most powerful being in existence. I just want a few clarifications.

1) does this mean that said being's powers are superior to all other beings by all objective measures?

If the answer to (1) is no, then you're just describing a really powerful being. This would make George Bush, in a sense, the omnipotent god of the Planet Earth. I assume that this is not what you intend.

2) If the answer is yes, is the said being more powerful then all other beings combined?

If the answer to (2) is no, then conceivably we could gang up on this "omnipotent" god and cast him out. Again, I assume that this is not what you intend.

3) If the answer is again yes, would your god be able to enforce his will at all times in all places.

If the answer is no, then this implies that under a co-ordinated attack we lesser beings could prevent god from completely enforcing his will. We would thus have some power over him, and he would cease to be omnipotent. Again, I assume that this isn't your intention.

If yes, then your god has all the power of the classic "I can do anything and everything" god, and I fail to see how your definition does anything to resolve the "omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent" paradox.

(edited to fix minor typos)

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Silent Acorns ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Silent Acorns,

Thanks for that analysis of the consequences of Vanderzyden's position. I was too lazy to do so and I think you got a lot of stuff I would've missed.

Philip Osborne

Really? Even if we're talking strongly actualize? This is only the case if God is not necessarily morally perfect (which is under discussion below).

I think even if we are saying that God strongly actualizes the state of affairs in which someone freely chooses evil, then God can do so, so long as He has sufficient moral reason. You might say that there can be no such reason, but that is to presuppose the failiure of all theodicies; other ways of reaching your conclusion would probably be more desirable.

Also (and this seems to be a premise of your second argument) no being can strongly actualize a state of affairs in which someone else freely chooses anything, for if some being did, that action would not be free.

God cannot bring about the state of affairs "someone or other learns under his or her own power." Sam can bring about this state of affairs. If God were to cause me (or Sam) to learn, it would not be under my own power. So it just looks as if we have a logically possible bring-about-able state of affairs that God can't bring about, but other beings can.

This is an interesting argument. Outside the notion of free will, I'm not sure the idea of bringing about a state of affairs under one's own power is even intelligible. If you are referring to free will, my response is above.

I am taking your argument to be thus: God can not bring about the SOA (state of affairs) in which Sam does x under his own power, because if God did, then it wouldn't be true that Sam did x under his own power. Supposing you have been so far correct, it is true that no being other than Sam can do this. This is true for any being, even Joe, who can barely do anything. But it is also true that Sam cannot bring about the SOA in which God does x under His own power; so if God is said to be lacking in something, it must also be true that Sam is lacking in something. Hence, it is not immediately made clear by the argument that Sam actually is more powerful than God.

That's an interesting response. But I think it might help to think of Leibniz's "infinitely analytic" situation here. The "full" concept of God includes His moral perfection, and if we possessed infinite knowledge, we would indeed know what He would do in any situation, except if there are two equally morally good choices. But this situation seems rare, and if it's not always the case, it suggests not all of God's decisions are the product of free will.

This is also an interesting argument. My response would be in terms of the idea that there is no "best possible world." Perhaps for any moral decision God could make, there is some decision that God could make which is better. This seems to make sense, since God has infinite power. However, God would not then be flustered into total inaction by this phenomenon; He would be free to choose any of the options available to Him and which fulfill His purposes in some respect.

Sincerely,

Philip

Vanderzyden

That would depend on the additional powers, if any, that are associated with the new abilities. Your suggestion is puzzling: I wonder, how would the all-powerful Being suddenly acquire these new abilities?

If your Rock-Maker is simply a button-pusher, then he makes (i.e. creates) nothing. Something else is ultimately responsible for the creating the rocks. What being would that be?

This analogy seems wholly inadequate. A Creator could instantaneously create a book of any length, the complete contents of which would already be in his mind. Anyway, your ability to write a book whose reading duration exceeds one hour is not a power. The act of writing a lengthy book is not even a separate ability apart from writing a book of modest length. Some temporary influence might, however, come from the ability to produce special content in a book.

At this point Thomas, I think it is fair to say that your original challenge has been met:

I have submitted this definition:

Omnipotence is unique creative power.

You have not shown one power that exceeds this power. This power agrees with our intuitions and is fully compatible with God's other attributes (as we find them in the Bible). This definition does not lead to a contradiction which shows that such a being cannot exist.

Please tell me what remains to satisfy your original challenge.


John

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Hello SA,

The answer to all three is "yes".

However, your conclusion does not follow from your premises. He cannot do "anything" or "anything logically possible" simply because his power is greater than the sum total of all other powers and that he may enforce his will everywhere and always. It is still the case that he cannot do something that he can't do, such as lie, nor can he create something which he does not have complete power over. He is The Creator--the only one. He is the unmoved mover, as Aristotle inferred. He creates. He may destroy. All other beings are creatures, none of which has power over its own existence.

Regarding omniscience: His creative power is in no way in conflict with his power to know all truths that may be known.

Omni-benevolence is not an attribute of God.

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000597&p=" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000597&p=</a>

John