Omnipotence as a Sum Process
This is my take on the unliftable rock contradiction mentioned so much.
Bartricks breaks down the problem pretty well and I find her argument compelling on its face: god must be able to divest themselves of their omnipotence by making an unliftable rock to be actually omnipotent. Put formally by Bartricks:
1. If a person is omnipotent, they are able to do anything.
2. If a person cannot divest themselves of some power, they are unable to do something.
3. Therefore, if a person is omnipotent they are able to divest themselves of some power.
To this I ask: do we view the act of divestment in two discrete spans of time - the span of time in which god is omnipotent and the span in which god has divested themselves of their omnipotence by creating the unliftable rock, or do we view it as a process spanning the sum of those two spans of time as they reflect a past and a possible future? If the latter, then I think there is a contradiction.
I say this because omnipotence likely transcends time and different futures; god must have virtually unlimited authority or influence in different possible worlds to be actually omnipotent.
Example: surely an omnipotent god would have to be able to, say, make you get smited by a bolt of lightning in a possible future as well as the present to be omnipotent?
I would say yes according to the common definition: having virtually unlimited authority or influence. Even according to more obscure definitions there is no stipulation that god’s power is restrained by time. So it seems to me that God cannot be omnipotent over the sum process described above if they divest themselves of their omnipotence.
You might say: omnipotence is a characteristic tied solely to god’s nature, not immutable, and not the actual ability to have unrestrained influence/authority/power over everything in different possible worlds, including themselves; but then you must admit that god stops being god if god does make the unliftable rock and divests themselves of their omnipotence as a characteristic, because it then means god loses that characteristic insofar as it defines God, without respect to god’s ability to have unrestrained influence/authority/power over the things that are left to them after making the unliftable rock.
Bartricks breaks down the problem pretty well and I find her argument compelling on its face: god must be able to divest themselves of their omnipotence by making an unliftable rock to be actually omnipotent. Put formally by Bartricks:
1. If a person is omnipotent, they are able to do anything.
2. If a person cannot divest themselves of some power, they are unable to do something.
3. Therefore, if a person is omnipotent they are able to divest themselves of some power.
To this I ask: do we view the act of divestment in two discrete spans of time - the span of time in which god is omnipotent and the span in which god has divested themselves of their omnipotence by creating the unliftable rock, or do we view it as a process spanning the sum of those two spans of time as they reflect a past and a possible future? If the latter, then I think there is a contradiction.
I say this because omnipotence likely transcends time and different futures; god must have virtually unlimited authority or influence in different possible worlds to be actually omnipotent.
Example: surely an omnipotent god would have to be able to, say, make you get smited by a bolt of lightning in a possible future as well as the present to be omnipotent?
I would say yes according to the common definition: having virtually unlimited authority or influence. Even according to more obscure definitions there is no stipulation that god’s power is restrained by time. So it seems to me that God cannot be omnipotent over the sum process described above if they divest themselves of their omnipotence.
You might say: omnipotence is a characteristic tied solely to god’s nature, not immutable, and not the actual ability to have unrestrained influence/authority/power over everything in different possible worlds, including themselves; but then you must admit that god stops being god if god does make the unliftable rock and divests themselves of their omnipotence as a characteristic, because it then means god loses that characteristic insofar as it defines God, without respect to god’s ability to have unrestrained influence/authority/power over the things that are left to them after making the unliftable rock.
Comments (156)
Quoting 180 Proof
This is not a self-contradiction, it is a contradiction that presents a challenge of creation vs actualizing.
"I'm lying right now" is a self-contradictory statement. We can't ask God to say if this is true or false.
But with no self-contradiction, we can ask if a statement is true or false. And we expect an answer of yes or no, true or false.
In the irresistable force / immovable object example, each question can be answered with a "yes" or "no", or else with a "true" or "false". None of the tasks presented is unimaginable. All of the tasks presented can be answered.
Therefore I claim that the example does not violate Quoting 180 Proof
Moving a stone is not impossible. Creating a stone is not impossible. Not being able to move a stone is not impossible. There is no self-contradiction anywhere; the denial of the possibility of omnipotence is not self-contradictory. It is a straightforward proposition. Its main thrust is that omnipotence can only exist if omnipotence does not exist. Therefore the NOTION of omnipotence, the meaning of it, is what is impossible, because it and by itself is a self-contradictory concept..
You forget that it is the same authority, being, or god, that CREATES that stone. You are not mentioning creation in your example and argument. That is a violation, since the CREATION of the stone is also done by an omnipotent being.
Suppose I can't lift a stone weighing 30 kg.
So, I take a sledegehammer and break this stone into 3 pieces, each weighing 10 kg.
I now lift each of the 10 kg pieces one by one. I can manage 10 kg.
Question: Did I lift the original stone weighing 30 kg?
Perhaps if it is, there really would be no way tell the difference between God and a supercomputer (super AI?), programmed to be always and perfectly logical.
This God is omnipotent in relation to Her creation, but not necessarily in relation to Her own being. She might even create an avatar, and give it super-powers and intervene in the world, appearing as a wise prophet and miracle-worker.
But to imagine that our piles of words, even most logically arranged, can oblige God to be like this or like that is magical thinking.
Whenever I come across the old omnipotent God/immovable object argument I always want to ask "In a fight between Superman and Santa Claus, who would win." Your response is better.
Your definition is far more narrow than any definition of omnipotence I've seen. And while it might be convenient for your argument, the fact remains that if we go by the common definition - virtually unrestrained power of influence, as tied to God's nature - God should be able to do anything, including divesting themselves of their own omnipotence, or any of their other characteristics. No longer being omnipotent does not necessarily mean that god could never have been omnipotent.
I mean, why isn't it possible for God to make a rock too heavy to lift it and divest themselves of their omnipotence? That's the claim you're making, and you need to back it up. I backed up such an argument in the OP and no one has addressed it directly. Bartricks was right about this one (almost).
Quoting god must be atheist
Exactly.
But this actually matters sort of - at least to philosophers of religion.
Not when our piles of words reflect the nature of reality - which they often do. You could say the equations reflecting the motion of a projectile moving through space do not oblige said projectile to follow a parabolic path, but they do express a consistent pattern regardless.
While I'm at it, why do you always have to quote yourself from other threads? Why not actually engage with the OP? Is it even fun to copy paste yourself?
Seems like a pretty good definition to me. Anyway, it doesn't matter what you think or what @180 Proof thinks the right definition is.
Quoting ToothyMaw
That just shows how silly philosophers can be - trying to trick God into a contradiction rather than worshiping him.
I would say most philosophers of religion spend their time trying to fix the plethora of contradictions associated with the idea of an omnibenevolent/omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient god.
If you are referring to me, however, I am flattered.
I don't really understand. God created us in the image of the world? Could you elaborate on what you mean?
I was referring to the argument, not you.
The gods live in a similar world as ours. With animals, mountains, stars and seas. An eternal world which they (re)created. If we can't lift huge stones, they can't. Being omnipotent is being omni-impotent, for what should you do with infinite possibilities? They are bound just like us. The difference being that they have the power of creation. Which they used to create the universe.
I meant the "silly philosophers" bit, not what you said about the argument. I would be flattered to be considered even a "silly" or misguided philosopher. That's what I was saying.
.
Why are there so damn many repeated OP-topics??? When I quote from my old posts it's because I've already engaged the topic multiple times before. Why don't you (and others) use the forum's search function before starting a thread on a topic which has been done to death – or at least come up with new and interesting ways of beating a dead horse? Is it laziness or lack of imagination? Probably both. :roll:
There is a common definition of omnipotence and more narrow ones. What makes yours superior to any other? It seems to me you are bereft of the capability to engage in anything even resembling honest debate or actual engagement with ideas, preferring to skirt around it with sophistry and bizarre comment formats.
Look - no one likes Bartricks or the idea of God on the forums, but you shouldn't deny that some arguments are cogent on the grounds of a cherrypicked definition.
I read the thread in which you made that comment, and I made a novel argument in this one. How about actually reading it and engaging with it?
Every theistic conception of "God" I'm familiar with, TC, is "a contradiction" personified, which is why "God" can only be "worshipped" and/or misunderstood. After all, "God" is an anxiety (i.e. placebo-fetish), not an entity (i.e. "invisible friend"). :gasp:
Quoting ToothyMaw
:chin: I can't say it any clearer than I already have on this thread:
Quoting 180 Proof
I've engaged your "argument", TM, by providing a rationally speculative alternative. You're free to engage the alternative, of course, or not to engage it and carry on with the old time – not novel at all – sophistry you propose. :confused:
I think this nails it.
I don't consider your opinions about religious believers' beliefs or psychological motivations credible. You're just too biased.
The more common definition of omnipotence is magical thinking? What? The one I provide is coherent. And even according to your own, the formal argument in the OP still stands. And what about this:
Quoting god must be atheist
Do you have a response to that?
So God can create a 4 sided triangle.
It doesn't, because if God cannot divest themselves of their omnipotence, they are not truly omnipotent. Unless it is impossible for god to do so? But why would it be impossible? No one is addressing that.
"Omnipotence" does not entail 'doing what's logically impossible to do'; that's an ad hoc, arbitrary assumption – magical fiat. :sparkle:
Come on, 180, if we didn't repeat threads ad nauseum, we'd have nothing to talk about. I once counted six threads about free will active at the same time. It's the same as it ever was. It would be nice if people waited a couple of weeks between copycat threads, but don't hold your breath.
Bartricks makes the argument that the unliftable rock isn't a contradiction because God being able to divest himself of his omnipotence does not contradict the fact that he is - or once was - omnipotent. If he made the rock he would just cease to be omnipotent. Its that simple. You might point out that at that point god wouldn't be able to lift the rock, but that doesn't matter; no one is claiming he is still omnipotent.
That's my understanding of it.
But he makes that argument too, yes.
I aspire to be a pretty smart guy with pretty good ideas who expresses them pretty well. From what I've seen, you meet those criteria pretty frequently. We don't need no stinking philosophers.
Thanks.
Nonetheless, I'm more willing to submit my statements and arguments to rational, evidence-based cross-examination than you 'woo-of-the-gaps bible-thumoers'. Again, more than mere "bias" ...
Quoting 180 Proof
How about a little more philosophizing and a lot less rationalizing 'fetishes & fairytales'? :eyes:
Quoting T Clark
Ah yeah, the reek of sophistry. :sweat:
Sweet Jesus, dude, just stop. You don't need to smash every religious person you come across.
How about a little more philosophizing and a lot less fetishizing rationality fairytales?
Did you see that, how I turned that around. Now that's philosophy!
It's addressed by this;
Quoting 180 Proof
And if you think differently then it is just a question of us holding different presuppositions. We differ. Which means we can move on.
Personally, I think the idea of omnipotence is incoherent to begin with, but for the purposes of these kinds of theoretical discussions I'm willing to play along, as far as it goes. :wink:
Are there any philosophers on this site?
Is it logically impossible for god to lift an unliftable rock? Of course. What Bartricks is saying is that the unliftable rock contradiction doesn't mean God isn't omnipotent.
I only "smash" dogmatic, irrational, fideistic apologists – so no, in good Socratic Pyrrhonian Spinozist Humean Nietzschean or Zapffean fashion I will not "stop", sir. We're here to philosophize, not proselytize. Ecrasez infâme! :fire:
:roll:
At least you have a sense of humor, sort of.
We agree on this. Generally when I speak with Christians on omnipotence they generally hold to the view that god is 'maximally omnipotent'. Which means that the impossible or contradictory isn't even in scope. It takes a special kind of fanaticism to hold otherwise.
Why should God be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent monster in the first place?
I agree: God, if they exist, is a monster.
"If" they exist? How else can it be?
You are trying to elicit some sort of response from me. But I'll go along.
We have no reason to believe that God exists. No one has ever come up with a compelling argument for God's existence that hasn't been shot full of holes. So, I just disregard supernatural claims. It's that simple.
Isn't the fact that we and the universe exist proof?
No.
Then where did we and the universe come from? Even when eternal?
There are some very smart people with very good ideas who express them very well here on the forum. Yes, I am avoiding your question.
I don't think that's true. Also, I've never thumped a bible. If you were paying any attention to my arguments at all, you'd know I don't make any claims about God. My only claims are about your and your cohort's arguments.
Quoting 180 Proof
Calling oneself a philosopher doesn't make your ideas better.
If it came from God, who created God? Is it turtles all the way down? Have you done any research on this?
Thank you for the new word:
Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths.
Again I could be misrepresenting B, but as I understand him/her (don't know preferred pronoun) God can simultaneously divest herself of her omnipotence yet still be omnipotent. How is that possible? Because God is not bound to LNC.
God could do that, or just actually divest themselves of their omnipotence. I think he (they identify as male I think) is saying god could do both those things (one of which is become omnipotent again). I did a search of "law of non-contradiction" and couldn't find B mentioning it.
Do you think that this has ramifications for the argument I make in the OP?
Quoting T Clark
You claim "there is evidence of God" and then call my request for you to present it "anti-religious bigotry". Typical apologetics. Evidence-free claims = woo-of-the-gaps = Humpty Dumpty's "it is what I say it is" blah blah blah. Sophistry (bs) replies with word salad when confronted with How do you know that? or Show me your evidence. That's pathetic gassing, not dialectic. :shade:
Hash this out somewhere else please. This is totally unrelated to the OP. I made no fideistic claims in this thread and neither did TC. No one is proselytizing.
Gods weren't created. They have always existed. Why should they be created? How can you research this?
I know people who have experienced God's presence in their lives. My wife has. I have heard of many others.
Why does the universe need an original cause rooted in supernatural creators?
Because laws of nature can't create themselves.
Why couldn't the laws of nature have been eternal and have given rise to the universe?
Because it's tantamount to asking whether a circle can be squared.
The answer to 'whether or not "God" can "divest" itself of its "omnipotence"' amounts to a distinction that makes no difference so long as your conception of "omnipotence" admits of logical impossibility / self-contradiction (i.e. magical thinking). Not "controversial", but conceptually incoherent; thus, I proffered a coherent alternative ... which you've petulantly rejected. :sweat:
On the contrary, the OP exemplifies magical thinking and defense of it in the face of a rationally speculative alternative amounts to proselytizing. Good job, Toothless. :ok:
They in fact are. But there is an intelligence needed to bring that eternal infinity into existence. The laws themselves are to dumb for that.
A circle can in fact be squared. Take four points between thumb and finger, and stretch the curved lines straight. Now that's philosophy!
But it doesn't. If you were reading the posts and read the OP you would see that I don't think God can do something logically impossible. You are being very stupid for someone with such a great vocabulary.
Ha! :up:
So do I, members of my family included; and yet ...
[quote=Freddy Zarathustra]A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.[/quote]
:fire:
Where did I say or imply that a circle cannot be squared? No, son, that's just trolling, not "philosophy".
Quoting ToothyMaw
Another illiterate who cannot read what I wrote. :roll: Where the fuck did all of you D-Kers come from?!
Maybe there is an element of randomness that brought the laws into existence, or is baked into the laws that could give rise to the universe? I'm no physicist, or even a philosopher, so I'm kind of pulling this out of my ass.
Likening religiosity to mental illness is taking it a little too far. And since when is mental illness characterized as having faith? Where is the connection there? Do you even know a mentally ill or religious person?
Besides earning a graduate degree in cognitive psychology, I had an ex-gf who killed herself from bipolar disorder, and my retired, psychiatric nurse mother is probably the most devoutly religious person I've known (besides the priests & nuns who taught me from elementary school through high school), so G-F-Y, kid.
It's an aphorism - it's not meant to be taken as a law of physics.
Incidentally, I have often worked in psychiatric hospitals (on and off for decades) and have met dozens of dozens of people who hear God's commands, and feel the presence of divinity every day and talk to Krishna or even claim to be God, Moroni or Jesus in the flesh. Mental illness often expresses itself in religious terms.
:100:
In fact there is. Every new big bang spawns a different universe. But where does the element of randomness come from? If all gaps are closed, what else can be concluded than gods created it? There are gods of the gaps but also gods after the gaps. Not filling the gaps but creating the stuff we have gaps about.
Why the fuck does that garner a :100: ? You come across as a genuine sociopath, 180. I'm done with you. Shit all over this thread if you want, you'll be getting no more attention from me.
Thinking about laws of physics is often a sign of mental illness. As an aphorism, that is.
lmao
Especially flights of fancy about God proven by Quantum Mechanics. :joke:
Maybe it's all farted in existence accidentally. The farter apologized to their fellow gods for that... "prrrrr... bang!" "Sorry guys!"
Ha! It's God luring behind the wavefunction...
What was your question again?
You asked for evidence, I gave you evidence. Now, if we wanted, we could discuss the quality of that evidence. That's not what I'm interested in. As far as I'm concerned, just establishing that there is evidence is all I need to do. You indicated that is what you required. You wrote "I can't consider something "good evidence" (or not good) when there isn't any evidence given (by you et al) to consider."
What they mean is mental illness, mostly schizophrenia, but often manifests itself with religious symbology and themes. I dont think they meant religiosity is a mental illness, nor saying religious people are mentally ill.
I mention it because “sociopath” seems a pretty drastic take on the comment.
I'm on the witness stand, you're on the jury. I say "I saw the defendant shoot Joe Smith. No one else was there, so no one else saw it." Is that evidence? Of course. Is it good evidence? That depends. Is my testimony convincing? Do I have any reason to lie? Do I have good eyesight? Am I trustworthy?
:up:
Now you're just playing games. What a shoddy argument. Nuff said.
Well I guess so, seeing as you cannot, with any intellectual integrity, answer this
Quoting 180 Proof
I don't think he is actually a sociopath, I just think that his intense desire to be regarded as a big brain atheist manifests as verging on anti-social behavior.
I regret creating this thread, especially since no one has addressed the original part of my OP.
In principle, God is publicly accessible. The ancient Greek saw them living on Olympus Mountain. I have seen them in the shape of clouds, three horses jjumping over the setting evening sun. Quite impressive!
Quoting ToothyMaw
I was just about asking what the core of your question is. About God undoing his omnipotence?
I mean, what sum process you refer to?
:up:
Btw, you know what D-kers are?
Doesn't the same hold for scientific facts? We never measure bare facts.
Quoting ToothyMaw
So my point here is that the ability to break/ignore LNC defeats the OP - i.e. God can simultaneously be be omnipotent over the sum process and divest Herself of Her omnipotence.
But maybe I have misunderstood the OP.
I think my argument stands so long as God is bound by LNC, but yes, otherwise it appears to defeat the OP. I'll have to think about this. Thanks for reading and understanding the OP.
Quoting EugeneW
No, what are they?
I think it is less so that God is omnipotent and not omnipotent over the sum process, but rather that God can restore her omnipotence at any time, regardless of current status. If God decided to make a contradiction such as: "God is both omnipotent and not omnipotent" true, the principle of explosion would follow and we could then prove any statement or its negation true. Or maybe I'm wrong - I just read about deductive explosion today for the first time.
edit: Whether or not the deductions would be true, I don't know. But it seems to me some logical systems would be all messed up.
second edit: rather, the systems wouldn't be messed up; we would just not be able to rely on logical deductions anymore, I think.
Dunno... 180booze said I am a "D-ker". We are "lil D-kers" (not understanding the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics). But WTF are lil D-kers???
What can gods do with omnipotence? Wouldn't they be omni-impotent?
Who knows. I don't really even care.
You are not the first person to point this out . . .
I'm sure I'm not, I just didn't read it anywhere, not trying to plagiarize or anything. I don't know if hardly anything I've written is truly original.
Part of the fun is trying to figure this out on my own, at least partially.
Because an omnipotent being can do anything, he can simultaneously create a rock and divest himself of power such that the rock he creates is one he can't lift. Then it would be true that God created a rock he can't lift. When a bachelor says "I do" he thereby ceases to be a bachelor. But that is something a bachelor can do. If we were to ask "can a bachelor get married?" the answer would be 'yes', even though upon doing so the bachelor would no longer qualify as a bachelor. (We might ask at what point in the process of saying "I do" he ceases to be a bachelor, and it may be that there is no point as such but just a twilight period in which he is neither married or a bachelor...but none of this applies to God and the rock, for God can do both - divest himself of power and create the rock - simultaneously).
Of course, because God can do anything, God can also create a rock too heavy for him to lift and still be God. But in that case God would achieve this feat by rendering the law of non-contradiction false - which is also something he can do.
So God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift in the same sense in which a bachelor can take a wife.
God can also create a rock too heavy for him to lift and remain God after he has done so (in this case he'd be making the law of non-contradiction false).
An omnipotent being can do all these things:
1. Cease being omnipotent
2. Cease being omnipotent but retain the ability to become omnipotent again in the future
3. Be omnipotent and not be omnipotent at the same time.
It is also the case that as an omnipotent being can do anything, then there are no necessary truths. For a necessary truth is a truth that cannot be false, yet an omnipotent being can falsify any true proposition.
As such if God made it the case that a contradiction was true, then this would not necessarily imply anything further whatever.
That God makes it true that there exists an omnipotent being and that there does not exist an omnipotent being, does not commit God to making anything else true or anything else false.
To put it another way, God is no more bound by the principle of explosion than he is by any other principle. He can make the law of non-contradiction false. So he can make the principle of explosion false too.
You don't seem to have grasped the concept of omnipotence. If a person can do anything, then there is nothing they can't do. So to assert that if you were omnipotent you would be unable to walk is to assert a contradiction. And contradictions are not true.
I don't say you can't walk. You could walk in infinite ways! Try choosing... Omnipotence paralyzes. "But if he's omnipotent, he could choose". He could. But he could choose infinite ways. Which is the best way? "But he could, if he's omnipotent". Yes. But then who says we are not omnipotent too? I just don't wanna show it... What use is omnipotence if not using it? Why not walking in all possible ways if he could? How does he even know he's omnipotent? So either he's human, meaning he could walk normally, or he's an inhuman monster, shape-shifting and being all over the place. You have read to many superman stories...
Yes you did.
Quoting EugeneW
You said that if you were omnipotent, you "wouldn't even be able to walk".
Quoting EugeneW
Again! No. It. Doesn't. It wouldn't be omnipotence if it did. You clearly do not know what you're talking about.
And it does not involve having infinite options. It involves being able to do anything. So, anything an omnipotent being attempts to do, it will succeed in doing.
There are a lots and lots of things I have the ability to do right now. Most of them I am not considering. FOr instance, I have the ability to collect all the teaspoons in my house and arrange them in a nice pattern on the floor. That's something I was not - am not - considering doing. Yet I have the ability to do it. Yet by your faulty reasoning, anything I have the ability to do I must constantly be considering doing. That's simply false. Not that it would be a problem for an omnipotent being to do that, of course - they can do anything and so they can just as easily entertain a billion options as two. But the fact remains that having the ability to do something does not entail actively entertaining the option.
But what about the argument that she must be omnipotent in possible worlds too in order to be truly omnipotent? I'm making the argument that if she divests herself of her omnipotence she must necessarily have never been omnipotent - but only in the possibility of her actually taking the route of making herself not omnipotent. It seems to me my argument still stands, unless God violates LNC or chooses to be omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time.
I also address the contingency in which God violates LNC and makes herself omnipotent again in another thread. I haven't gotten any feedback on it, so I don't know if my reasoning is solid, though.
Quoting Bartricks
But the principle of explosion would be true globally, if not for god, right? How would logical deductions suddenly become valid if LNC doesn't apply for a pair of mutually exclusive propositions? Would God not have to fix the contradiction to make the principle of explosion not true?
Thanks for responding, Bartricks, I appreciate you.
No. I said you could walk in infinite ways. Im not talking about all possible things you could do, like smoking a cigarette or arranging spoons, but one thing in particular, You wouldn't know how to choose the right way. Your omnipotence would destroy itself. Your omnipotence would paralyze its potency.
I don't think the ability to choose between infinite options would render one incapable of choosing. Like you said, one could walk straight in infinite directions starting from a center point, but one would always be walking a measurable distance, and could say at what angle one was walking at if a circle was projected with its center at the center point from which one began walking, with the radius being the line along which one walks.
The existence of infinite options does not mean that one cannot choose a course of action, or could not have chosen a different course of action, or could not have chosen no course of action. After all, you could have chosen a different angle or distance.
I guess what I'm saying is that if the consequences or parameters of a decision or course of action can be measured, we could theoretically have chosen otherwise; it could have been different.
To say that there is a possible world in which she does x is just a rather exotic way of saying that it is possible for her to do it. It's possible for an omnipotent being to not be omnipotent, for she would not be omnipotent otherwise. So, if one likes, one can say "there is a possible world in which the omnipotent person is not omnipotent". I do not understand why being omnipotent would require being omnipotent in all possible worlds - for that's just another way of insisting that an omnipotent being is necessarily omnipotent rather than contingently omnipotent. But insisting that an omnipotent being is necessarily omnipotent is to insist that being omnipotent essentially involves an inability - the inability to not be omnipotent. That just seems incoherent to me - indeed, it asserts a contradiction. For how can one say that an omnipotent being is able to do anything if at the same time one insists that there is something that the omnipotent being cannot do, namely divest themselves of their omnipotence? How is that not to assert P and not P? We agree, I take it, that no contradictions are true.
Quoting ToothyMaw
I don't think I follow. Let's say that God has made it the case that he is omnipotent and not omnipotent. Well, now he has made it the case that there a proposition that is true and false at the same time. But it could remain the case that all other true propositions are not also false.
If an omnipotent being exists, then there are no necessary truths. And thus no conclusion of any argument follows of necessity. All conclusions follow contingently. This is not a problem. I don't have to think the conclusion of this argument:
1. If P, then Q
2. P
3. Therefore Q
follows of necessity in order to think it follows. So I don't see a problem. I don't see any explosion. i just see God having the ability to create exceptions.
No, you said that if you were omnipotent "Quoting EugeneW See? You did not say "I could walk in infinite ways". You said "I wouldn't even be able to walk".
Quoting EugeneW
Like I say, you're confused and you don't respect words.
If you could lift every stone and have infinite power, your behavior would be random. You couldn't discern a heavy stone from a light one.
Quoting Bartricks
So we just dismiss this contradiction because it goes against our preconceptions? Doesn't it mean god can't be omnipotent? Or something? I mean, surely the principle of explosion or something like that wouldn't follow. But then again God could just make this contradiction not true, or so you claim.
Maybe God exists, has thought about this, and has smoothed it over?
To be omnipotent is to be able to do anything. Clearly it is contradictory to insist that a person who can do anything can also not do a thing. Thus it asserts a contradiction to say that an omnipotent being is incapable of divesting themselves of their omnipotence. And contradictions are false. So, it is false that an omnipotent is incapable of divesting themselves of their omnipotence.
So, in reality there is an omnipotent being. And in reality there are no true propositions that are also false. None of this is necessarily true. It's just true.
To generate 'explosions' and other such logical dramas one would have to assume the reality of necessity. Yet the reality of necessity is incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent being. Not necessarily incompatible, of course. Just actually incompatible. And thus as an omnipotent being exists, we can safely conclude that there are no necessary truths (including that one). And so if - if - the omnipotent being made a true proposition false at the same time, this would not create any explosion, for it remains down to the omnipotent being whether any other propositions are true and false at the same time.
So God could theoretically just choose to make there be no other contradictions, or could choose to make any contradictions they want to be true, true. Got it.
Now it's getting confusing. Allright. Let's consider the stone to lift. You could lift every possible weight. There is no boundary between what you can lift or not. This means there are no heavy or light stones for you. All stones would weigh the same for you, rendering you uncapable of lifting it.
You are pretty clear in your reasoning, I don't get why some of the smart people on this forum don't understand your arguments.
Yes. Those who try and create puzzles here are working with the wrong picture - a picture in which the laws of logic are above God and operate as a constraint on what he can do.
Yeah, just too bad God is a monster who lets people suffer gratuitously. :joke:
Not to me it isn't. You said you'd be unable to walk if you were omnipotent. That's false. An omnipotent being is able to walk. You can walk, yes? It is clearly confused to think that an omnipotent being is unable to do something that even you can do. That would make them lack an ability you possess - yet they're omnipotent and so anything you can do, they can do too.
Quoting EugeneW
What? An omnipotent being can lift any stone. How are you getting to the conclusion that he's incapable of lifting one? You just asserted that, apropos nothing.
By definition he's not a monster. He's morally perfect.
I you could walk in infinite ways to the supermarket, your omnipotence would make it impossible. So the very fact that you do anything makes you incapable of actually doing it.
They're not very smart.
A monster, that is.
What? That makes no sense at all. God can walk to the supermarket if he wants to.
But we have no idea what logical deductions are valid or not according to your view of God. Any random deduction could be absolutely worthless because its negation could also (secretly) be true. We are just groping in the dark, really.
If he could do it in every way he couldn't.
Nonsense. Are you a Buddhist?
Then how does he walk to the supermarket? No I'm not a Buddhist.
Eugene, you aren't making sense. Read my reply to you earlier in the thread.
To do only good is just as bad as to do only bad. Both ways are monstrous.
Its over, Eugene, Bartricks has the high ground.
Exactly. And having no measures means impotency.
God could make my head explode right now, if she wanted. That's pretty measurable.
What is that supposed to mean? Her arguments haven't convinced me. Maybe they convinced you but not me. Everything can be argued away with omnipotence. And that includes omnipotence. Simple as that.
That yes. But how he would do it not. She would not even know how to start.
It was a joke.
Quoting EugeneW
So why wouldn't God's actions be measurable? It's like the walking/circle example I gave. Infinite choices doesn't imply that one cannot deliberately choose a course of action, provided there are parameters or measurable consequences.
That's a false comparison. All ways to walk are equal. If you can walk without measure you can't walk at all.
Why can't God walk with measure?
Because they need music to walk on.
They can walk with all measures, if omnipotent. And that's the problem.
And that's the difference with your example. You can walk in infinite ways to the circle. But not with infinite measures. You're body-bound.
You need to explain why omnipotence implies that God cannot deliberately select a measurable course of action. God could know that if they stimulate my brain the right ways, I'll black out and smack my face against my desk. Or they could stimulate my brain so that I feel intense pleasure. I perceive those things, so, to me at least, the consequences of God's actions are measurable. Or they could do anything to my brain, and I will likely perceive it, and, thus, it is measurable to me.
Really God could make me have any brain-state, but that doesn't mean that all of those brain-states are the same.
He could, if OP, stimulate your brain in all possible ways. And that paralyzes him. Just imagine. You could walk to the other side of the street in all possible ways. Not via all paths, but actually walking in all possible ways. Which way would you apply?
Any way I please, I imagine.
Which is?
At a 45 degree angle to piss off the motorists, obviously.
Ha! Yes! So God is human after all!
Can't. We would never be able to tell if a being that came to us was just ultra-powerful, or truly omnipotent. A sufficiently powerful being could just seem omnipotent.
There you go...
How does that follow? I am sure - as sure as you are or the next person - that there are no true contradictions. I think that's contingently true, but contingently true doesn't mean 'uncertainly' true.
I exist contingently. Yet I am certain I exist. So I think you are confusing 'necessary' with 'certain' and 'contingent' with 'uncertain'.
THe laws of logic - all of them - are contingent. But that doesn't make them any less certain than they would be if they were necessary.
Note as well that nothing stops the laws of logic changing on any view, so far as I can see. I mean, if you think they're just floating around - an incomprehensible view, but one that some seem to hold - what's to stop them changing? If you think they're being emitted by a Platonic Form what's to stop them changing?