is omnipotence logically possible?

[Orihalcon]

omnipotence. the ability to do everything.
then we hit the rock problem... can an omnipotent being create something so large he can't move?

next, we go on to omniscience. if you're omnipotent, the ability to see the future should easily be one of your powers, right?
but if you know the future, then that means the future is fixed. if the future is fixed, and cannot be changed, that means you have no choice. if you don't have the ability of choice then... what happens to omnipotence?

so... we're left with a logical impossibility for anything to be omnipotent. the only ability for an omnipotent being to do is to defy logic...

 

[tcampen]

yes, the "omni" everythings are illogical, and can't be adequately explained by any scripture, cute analogies, or cutting edge scientific theories. The concepts themselves create inherent contradictions that cannot be resolved. I've heard them all, from "god chooses not to use that knowledge so that we can have free will" or "god is outside our linear concept of space/time" or "god elects to use his power only for good and according to his word, for god cannot contradict himself", etc. etc. etc.

The only real argument that can withstand scrutiny is accepting the concept on faith alone, as a mystery. It's like the trinity itself. It can't be adequately explained and appears to create inherent contradictions to have a "godhead" of three individuals, but still all the same, one god.
And since personal revelation and faith is just that, personal, it really doesn't do much good to try and have an argument based on logic about it. It just doesn't work.

Personally, that isn't my personal spiritual experience, but I have to respect individual religious revelation.

 

[TScott]

It seems that since faith transcends logic, it is only logical (ahem) that the object of that faith would also transcend logic.

Is love logical?

To a lover, love conquers all and is therefore omnipotent. No amount of logic will change that.

The same goes for believers and their gods.

 

[pariah]

It seems that since faith transcends logic, it is only logical (ahem) that the object of that faith would also transcend logic.

Is love logical?

To a lover, love conquers all and is therefore omnipotent. No amount of logic will change that.

The same goes for believers and their gods.

Love is an attachment based on the emotion of empathy, which is a result of evolution of humans as a social animal, coupled with the individuals particular upbringing. (In the typical human, the upbringing that yields most success, the child is nurtured and developes his own emotion of empathy. Certain events may raise/lower this. For example, many killers who do not experience empathy were physically/mentally abused as children).

Its basic psycology, and seems logical to me.

 

[TScott]

Love is an attachment based on the emotion of empathy, which is a result of evolution of humans as a social animal, coupled with the individuals particular upbringing. (In the typical human, the upbringing that yields most success, the child is nurtured and developes his own emotion of empathy. Certain events may raise/lower this. For example, many killers who do not experience empathy were physically/mentally abused as children).

Its basic psycology, and seems logical to me.

I don't want to hijack this thread into a "define love" thread, if you want you could start a thread on that. Lets just say that I don't agree with your 1 sentence definition, and that "basic psychology" should have taught you that empathy is certainly not an emotion, indeed it is a cognitive process. You could probably have a thread dedicated to defining empathy as well.

I'm not sure that you got my point, though. Love may seem logical to you, because you may be in love. You have all of your feelings in order and are at peace with the rationality of it all. People who put their faith in a certain deity may do the same thing, they can even acknowledge that their deity defies logic, in fact they sometimes count on it. For example in his treatise explaining what we now know as the Trinity, St. Basil wrote that three seperate entities sharing the same essence may make no sense to us at all, but that it really only shows that there are many things about God that people will never understand.

Arguing matters of faith from a purely logical standpoint is futile, IMO.

 

[Hunose]

omnipotence. the ability to do everything.
then we hit the rock problem... can an omnipotent being create something so large he can't move?

next, we go on to omniscience. if you're omnipotent, the ability to see the future should easily be one of your powers, right?
but if you know the future, then that means the future is fixed. if the future is fixed, and cannot be changed, that means you have no choice. if you don't have the ability of choice then... what happens to omnipotence?

so... we're left with a logical impossibility for anything to be omnipotent. the only ability for an omnipotent being to do is to defy logic...

The concept of "omnipotence" only becomes a problem if you allow it to be used in that precisely nonsensical way. If by "omnipotence" you mean "can do ANYTHING AT ALL", you're right. If by "omnipotence" you mean "can do anything that CAN be done", then there is no logical contradiction. If "omnipotence" means "possesses ALL POWER", then the second definition makes sense. No clear thinking Christian can logically argue that God can do ANYTHING, since our own Bibles indicate He can't do things like change, lie, sin, etc.

The concept of "omniscience" is not nearly the problem some would like to make it, because the problem presupposes two things. First, if all things are foreknown, while they are certainly fixed, they are not necessarily forced. Thus, while the Creator would know what would occur, the creature would not and would be making "free" choices by his own standard. It would not require that the Creator intervene. Second, for omniscience to be a problem requires the much-touted notion of "Free Will", in which people are supposedly capable of making any decision whatever. This is, logically, impossible on its own. No creature has the ability to make unaffected ("free") choices. So if omniscience ultimately negates "Free Will", it has only negated a non-existent concept.

 

[tcampen]

The concept of "omniscience" is not nearly the problem some would like to make it, because the problem presupposes two things. First, if all things are foreknown, while they are certainly fixed, they are not necessarily forced.

This distinction is a fiction. "Force" is irrelevant. If I am powerless to do anything other than that which is already known I will do, how can I do otherwise? What is the distinction?

Thus, while the Creator would know what would occur, the creature would not and would be making "free" choices by his own standard. It would not require that the Creator intervene.

Ok, this means the free choices made by the creature are just an illusion. So much for objective reality.

Second, for omniscience to be a problem requires the much-touted notion of "Free Will", in which people are supposedly capable of making any decision whatever. This is, logically, impossible on its own. No creature has the ability to make unaffected ("free") choices. So if omniscience ultimately negates "Free Will", it has only negated a non-existent concept.

Free will does not require "unaffected" free choice, but rather just the opposite. The infinite number of variables we encounter everyday as individuals affects the choices we make. We all make choices that are both dependent and independent from one another, and may or may not affect any other particular person, and so on. Plus there are infinite variables that have nothing to do with thechoices made by humans, such as the weather, machines working or not, road conditions, animals' behavior, lunch disagreeing with our stomach, etc.

Furthermore, if what you say is true, then then the salvation concept held by most christians is wrong - i.e. it is up to the individual ask for forgiveness and accept Jesus as their lord and savior. Sounds like you're siding with the predeterminists there. Interesting.

 

[Philosoft]

The concept of "omnipotence" only becomes a problem if you allow it to be used in that precisely nonsensical way. If by "omnipotence" you mean "can do ANYTHING AT ALL", you're right. If by "omnipotence" you mean "can do anything that CAN be done", then there is no logical contradiction. If "omnipotence" means "possesses ALL POWER", then the second definition makes sense. No clear thinking Christian can logically argue that God can do ANYTHING, since our own Bibles indicate He can't do things like change, lie, sin, etc.

Or learn. Or scratch his nose. None of the purportedly overarching definitions can adequately deal with the things God can't do. Clearly, something more complex is necessary.

The concept of "omniscience" is not nearly the problem some would like to make it, because the problem presupposes two things. First, if all things are foreknown, while they are certainly fixed, they are not necessarily forced. Thus, while the Creator would know what would occur, the creature would not and would be making "free" choices by his own standard. It would not require that the Creator intervene.

But that creature's "standard" doesn't actually exist. It's illusory, because it countermands God's "standard." God's standard and the creature's standard cannot both obtain.

Second, for omniscience to be a problem requires the much-touted notion of "Free Will", in which people are supposedly capable of making any decision whatever. This is, logically, impossible on its own. No creature has the ability to make unaffected ("free") choices. So if omniscience ultimately negates "Free Will", it has only negated a non-existent concept.

I don't know anyone that supports such a strongly libertarian interpretation of free will. No wonder your refutation looks so easy.

 

[Hunose]

The "predeterminists". Never heard that one. Interesting indeed.

Anyway, I disagree that my presentation of freedom of choice is "an illusion". Knowing something in advance doesn't mean that a person didn't make a free choice. That would be the difference between knowing and determining. If I accurately predict the choices my child makes, for instance, it doesn't mean that I determined what their choices would be. If a thief pulls a gun on you and says, "Your money or your life," it's fairly clear what your choice will be, although the outcome is pretty certain at the outset. If we humans can successfully determine outcomes without actually forcing them, why would it be impossible for God to do so (assuming He exists)?

Oh, and I agree with your final conclusion that the salvation concept offered by most Christians wherein an individual simply chooses Christ is in error. But, then, I'm not "most Christians".

Interesting that you made no comment on the "omnipotence" thing.

 

[Hunose]

<<I don't know anyone that supports such a strongly libertarian interpretation of free will. No wonder your refutation looks so easy.>>

You clearly (and to your good fortune) run in much more thoughtful circles than I do. I've seen this view so many times it hurts. I'm glad to know they are in the minority.

 

[Philosoft]

Anyway, I disagree that my presentation of freedom of choice is "an illusion". Knowing something in advance doesn't mean that a person didn't make a free choice.

Yes, it does. If it is true at time T that person B will choose S at T+1, then B cannot choose ~S at T+1 and free will evaporates.

That would be the difference between knowing and determining. If I accurately predict the choices my child makes, for instance, it doesn't mean that I determined what their choices would be.

If you are truly omniscient, or prescient, it doesn't matter. If you know the choice in advance, it is determined, whether you are the determiner or not.

If a thief pulls a gun on you and says, "Your money or your life," it's fairly clear what your choice will be, although the outcome is pretty certain at the outset.

Terrible analogy. Just awful. I hope I don't have to explain why.

If we humans can successfully determine outcomes without actually forcing them, why would it be impossible for God to do so (assuming He exists)?

Because we don't have epistemological access to the future, as would an omniscient being.

 

[Philosoft]

You clearly (and to your good fortune) run in much more thoughtful circles than I do. I've seen this view so many times it hurts. I'm glad to know they are in the minority.

Well, whatever. It's a stupid view no matter who promotes it. Our choices are obviously at least influenced by external factors.

 

[ByGrace]

Silly, you are just being silly. Those in darkness can NOT comprehend the light. Accept Jesus in order to understand Jesus. Otherwise you are just flailing in darkness. Ask HIM to reveal the wisdom to you and then open HIS book. All of this other stuff in non-sense

 

[Philosoft]

Silly, you are just being silly. Those in darkness can NOT comprehend the light. Accept Jesus in order to understand Jesus. Otherwise you are just flailing in darkness. Ask HIM to reveal the wisdom to you and then open HIS book. All of this other stuff in non-sense

Thanks. I'll be sure to take this into consideration. If it's God's will that I do so, of course.

 

[tcampen]

The "predeterminists". Never heard that one. Interesting indeed..

Calvinists believe the same thing. The idea gets around the omniscience vs. free will issue, but leaves us as pretty hopeless individuals.

Anyway, I disagree that my presentation of freedom of choice is "an illusion". Knowing something in advance doesn't mean that a person didn't make a free choice. That would be the difference between knowing and determining. If I accurately predict the choices my child makes, for instance, it doesn't mean that I determined what their choices would be. .

But if you knew with absolute certainly exactly what your child would do down to the last breath, then how could your child do otherwise? You're child must be able to act without your (or anyone else's) precise knowledge of what she will do in order to have free will by its very definition.

If a thief pulls a gun on you and says, "Your money or your life," it's fairly clear what your choice will be, although the outcome is pretty certain at the outset.

Says who? I don't see it. Your choices are many. You could hand over your money, try to negotiate with the robber, attack the robber, or just sit there and do absolutely notion despite his demands. And with any one of those choices you make, the robber has a variety of options on how to respond. There is nothing predictable about your example at all.

[/QUOTE] If we humans can successfully determine outcomes without actually forcing them, why would it be impossible for God to do so (assuming He exists)? [/QUOTE]

I think you're missing the point. It's not about predicting outcomes, but absolute, perfect knowledge of future events. I can roll the dice at the craps table and know with certainly all the possible combinations of rolls, including their respective odds of occurring. But I do not know the result of each individual roll without any error. That is the difference. If I did know precisely what each roll would be, would you still believe the results were random? Of corse not. We're not talking about god knowing all the possibilities of what could happen, but rather perfect and absolute knowledge of what actually will happen.

Interesting that you made no comment on the "omnipotence" thing.

Omnipotence embodies the same problems as omniscience. Besides, one issue at a time .

 

[MsAnne]

(Sigh)

I am so grateful I have a God who is not limited by man's finite way of thinking.

Do I comprehend omnipotence or omniscience in it's fullest sense? No.
Do I need to? No.
I have a God who can handle that for me.

 

[tcampen]

(Sigh)

I am so grateful I have a God who is not limited by man's finite way of thinking.

Do I comprehend omnipotence or omniscience in it's fullest sense? No.
Do I need to? No.
I have a God who can handle that for me.

While I don't necessarily disagree with this position, I must say that if carried to its logical conclusion, it is little more than sticking one's head in the sand. True, finite beings cannot fully comprehend omni-anything. But to the extent that we CAN comprehend it, it must make sense. I believe it is wrong to abandon reason simply because it conflicts with what we want the truth to be. Sorry, but if god gave me a mind, I intend to use it.

 

[ByGrace]

is omnipotence logically possible?


Nope. Nothing of God is logical to the lost man with a finite mind. You must first come to faith in Jesus and recieve the gift of Gods spirit to start understanding the deeper mysteries of God. He will give you the faith to recieve him but this is a must to go further in Him.

 

[tcampen]

is omnipotence logically possible?


Nope. Nothing of God is logical to the lost man with a finite mind. You must first come to faith in Jesus and recieve the gift of Gods spirit to start understanding the deeper mysteries of God. He will give you the faith to recieve him but this is a must to go further in Him.

Nice try, but that ain't gonna fly. Sorry.

This demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of logic. Logic is totally independent of any religious belief. It is essentially mathmatical in nature. By saying "Nothing of God is logical to the lost man," you are implying that there is a new logic that only born again christians can comprehend.

If the mysteries of God relating to omniscence have been revealed to you and now you can understand how it is logically possible, then you should be able to articulate that logic. However, if that logic cannot be articulated, then, by definition, you aren't dealing with logic. Do you see?

Perhaps what you're really trying to say is that saved individuals are able accept the illogical as a mystery of God based on faith alone. If that's the case, fine. But please don't push the "it's logical if you hold a particular religious belief" concept, as it totally misrepresents the whole idea of logic and rational thinking.

 

[EltronRangamma]

Nice try, but that ain't gonna fly. Sorry.

This demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of logic. Logic is totally independent of any religious belief. It is essentially mathmatical in nature. By saying "Nothing of God is logical to the lost man," you are implying that there is a new logic that only born again christians can comprehend.

If the mysteries of God relating to omniscence have been revealed to you and now you can understand how it is logically possible, then you should be able to articulate that logic. However, if that logic cannot be articulated, then, by definition, you aren't dealing with logic. Do you see?

Perhaps what you're really trying to say is that saved individuals are able accept the illogical as a mystery of God based on faith alone. If that's the case, fine. But please don't push the "it's logical if you hold a particular religious belief" concept, as it totally misrepresents the whole idea of logic and rational thinking.

We're faced then with a conundrum then huh? If the God we call aint omni-anything, it ain't much of a God.

It's cool that you're questioning these kinda things, but some things in life that ARE INSOLUBLE ... like WHY I AM THIS, WHY I AM THAT, WHY DO MORALS EXIST, WHY DO I LIVE, WHY DIDN'T GOD MAKE JESUS EUROPEAN, HOW CAN AN OMNIPRESENT/OMNISCIENT/OMNIPOTENT GOD EXIST WHEN IT FAILS TO MEET STANDARDS OF LOGIC?

I CONSIDER ALL THESE TO BE PERIPHERAL ISSUES BECAUSE KNOWLEDGE ON ALL THESE WOULDN'T BE CONDUCIVE TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF SALVATION, ANYWAY!!!

to a skeptical mind, there will be issues upon issues, heaps of em, to resolve...and unless THEY ARE WHOLLY RESOLVED, a conception of GOD or to push the issue further, a JUST GOD, will ALWAYS appear INCONCEIVABLE to a skeptical mind ...

Wasn't it Einstein who MADE THE MATHEMATICAL APPROXIMATION that we possess 1 percent of the 1 percent of knowledge ther is to attain????? MIND YOU, this is the very man who ENGINEERED THE ATOM BOMB!!!