Omnipotence

[JGL53]

Let's just say that I've never seen a definition or explanation of omnipotence that included self contradiction, or the simultaneous existence of contradictory concepts, such as an omnipotent god making an object both all white and all black.

You're trying to figure out things that can't be figured out because they people who conjured them up way back when didn't give a fig about logic. This will only give you a headache.

Their imaginary god can do anything, including the self-contradictory. Take Jesus for example - he was both totally god and totally man at the same time. It's like something being totally an avocado and totally a regulation NFL football at the same time. So unless you want your head to explode don't spend a lot of time trying to make sense of something like this.

Ditto the concept of omnipotence. For an "entity" to be omnipotent, it would have to be omniscient and omnipresent.

The meaning of the word "omnipresent" is "ALL present". Thus any existing omnipresent entity would be all that exists, logically speaking thus producing pantheism, or maybe just monism - certainly not monotheism with a creator god who creates a creation. But monotheists, e.g., orthodox Christians, are bound to accept on faith that the bible god is omnipresent.

Trying to figure such out and understand it in logical terms is the closest your brain will ever get to experiencing hell.

Merry Christmas.

 

[Washington]

You're trying to figure out things that can't be figured out because they people who conjured them up way back when didn't give a fig about logic. This will only give you a headache.

You mistake rhetoric for purpose.

 

[JonF]

My question - couldn't a truly omnipotent god create a universe in which people had truly free will but also didn't kill children?

(Not trying to incite a crisis of faith or anything. I'm genuinely curious.)

Just about everyone believes in casual determinism. But to claim that this means any possible event could have been caused at some point in the past is very close to the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

 

[Washington]

Just about everyone believes in casual determinism. But to claim that this means any possible event could have been caused at some point in the past is very close to the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Not close at all because the antecedent is never identified, and the argument is more of a modus ponens argument.

 

[JonF]

Not close at all because the antecedent is never identified, and the argument is more of a modus ponens argument.

Not at all.

We agree, that for any given even E_f that has actually happened there exist a causal chain: ...E_n...E_3 => E_2 => E_1 => E_f, and E_n has happened.*

But given a possible (possible with the execption of being exempt from current causal determenism) E_f, how does we know there exist a possible casual chain exist which would bring about E_f, where some E_n just failed to happen?

Assuming that one exist because of * is guilty of a series assuming ((A=>B)^A)=>B iff ((B=>A)^B)=>A, which is false and close to the fallacy of afirming the consequent. Unless you have another reason to suppose the causal chain exist? The author of the OP seem to suggest this is why he believes it exist.

 

[JGL53]

Not at all.

We agree, that for any given even E_f that has actually happened there exist a causal chain: ...E_n...E_3 => E_2 => E_1 => E_f, and E_n has happened.*

But given a possible (possible with the execption of being exempt from current causal determenism) E_f, how does we know there exist a possible casual chain exist which would bring about E_f, where some E_n just failed to happen?

Assuming that one exist because of * is guilty of a series assuming ((A=>B)^A)=>B iff ((B=>A)^B)=>A, which is false and close to the fallacy of afirming the consequent. Unless you have another reason to suppose the causal chain exist? The author of the OP seem to suggest this is why he believes it exist.

Causality, in the final analysis, is based in assumption. Does the name David Hume ring a bell?

Merry Christmas. And please have a pleasant Kwanzaa tomorrow.

 

[JonF]

Causality, in the final analysis, is based in assumption.

I agree the analysis of casuality is based on assumption (atleast in most cases), but where are we talking about analysis?

Does the name David Hume ring a bell?

You really adopt hume's casual model? Is this because of his arguments or more modern ones?

 

[JGL53]

I agree the analysis of causality is based on assumption (at least in most cases), but where are we talking about analysis?

You really adopt Hume’s casual model? Is this because of his arguments or more modern ones?

The subject of causality came up and I merely pointed out that the idea of causality is based in assumption.

The idea of an omnipotent transcendent being that created the universe - a potter and pot sort of thing - is also a mere assumption.

You have nothing but assumptions to offer, and no warrant I can discern to assume them correct.

That is all.

 

[Washington]

We agree, that for any given even E_f that has actually happened there exist a causal chain: ...E_n...E_3 => E_2 => E_1 => E_f, and E_n has happened.*
But given a possible (possible with the execption of being exempt from current causal determenism) E_f, how [do] we know there exist a possible casual chain exist which would bring about E_f, where some E_n just failed to happen?

But E_n was established as a given. If E_n never occurred then E_f could not have materialized. The only alternative is that E_f materialized out of nowhere and from nothing.

Assuming that one exist because of * is guilty of a series assuming ((A=>B)^A)=>B iff ((B=>A)^B)=>A, which is false and close to the fallacy of afirming the consequent. Unless you have another reason to suppose the causal chain exist? The author of the OP seem to suggest this is why he believes it exist.

I'm sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with the "^" operative.

 

[JonF]

The subject of causality came up and I merely pointed out that the idea of causality is based in assumption.

The idea of an omnipotent transcendent being that created the universe - a potter and pot sort of thing - is also a mere assumption.

You have nothing but assumptions to offer, and no warrant I can discern to assume them correct.

That is all.

It is also an assumption that impressions reflect reality. If all you can offer is that fundamental universal assumptions are fundamental, you aren't offering much. Also the merits of causality are kind of irrelevant to this discussion since they are assumed in the OP.

 

[JonF]

But E_n was established as a given.

E_n has it's own casual chain, that's what the "..." before it means

If E_n never occurred then E_f could not have materialized. The only alternative is that E_f materialized out of nowhere and from nothing.

Also not true.

Suppose E_f Sally is sad
E_1 is Sally saw her dog dead
E_2 Sally's dog died
E_n Sally's dog was old and sick

Then we have

Sally's dog was old and sick, this caused it to die, this causes sally to see her dead dog, which caused her to be sad. What we know is that E_n was sufficient for E_f, not necessary

Now suppose E_n is Sally's dog got hit by a car. Notice the causal chain is mantained with a different E_n.

I'm sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with the "^" operative.

Logical conjunct i.e. "and"


But the point of my post is why because E_f is theoretically possible at a given time, do we assume there must exist some E_n with a casual chain leading to an E_f at a given time before the first time?

 

[bob135]

Let's just say that I've never seen a definition or explanation of omnipotence that included self contradiction, or the simultaneous existence of contradictory concepts, such as an omnipotent god making an object both all white and all black.

Would it be enough to say that a being is omnipotent iff it is able to actualize any coherent proposition at will? It seems you'll always have to have some "restriction" on an omnipotent being, but really that's just part of the definition of omnipotence...I would think any definition has to be consistent or you aren't describing anything.

It doesn't make sense to say "omnipotent beings are beyond logic" because then you don't know what omnipotence means, so you can't know what that statement means.

Well what Im saying is that when you have faith in God the evil we may suffer in this world is nullified in the end, as he has promised us Heaven. For some reason he did choose for children being murdered to exist. Horrible in this world yes, but God has a covenant with us, that covenant is eternal life. Really it just boils down to trust in God.

It seems like simply "trusting god" begs the question. There are certain events in the world which have both rightmaking and wrongmaking properties (good aspects and evil aspects). In many situations, the known wrongmaking properties outweigh the unknown rightmaking properties. In other words, to us, the event appears to be a net evil.

However, the event could have an unknown rightmaking property (some good that we don't know of, but God does). Here theists usually say something along the lines of "God can work any situation for the good." However, they are forgetting that there could also be unknown wrongmaking properties. Without simply repeating one of our premises (God is good) we have no way to show that the unknown rightmaking properties of an event outweigh the unknown wrongmaking properties, plus known net evil. Thus, the existence of such events which have known net evil do constitute evidence against God's existence; it begs the question to say "God is good" and simply dismiss this issue.

 

[-Vincent-]

It doesn't make sense to say "omnipotent beings are beyond logic" because then you don't know what omnipotence means, so you can't know what that statement means.

I have no trouble understanding that omnipotence is beyond logic. There are many questions which go beyond logic. The verbs of logic are not the only verbs. I have studied more than one kind of logic. There is no universal logic, according to Whitehead, and I believe he was right...

 

[Shane Roach]

Alright, so. I've been thinking.
Most modern religions, including Christianity, postulate an omnipotent god.
Furthermore, Christianity and many other religions say God has given humans free will.
Most of these religions say that this free will is the reason for a number of evils - why children are raped and killed, why sexism is so prevalent, and so forth.

My question - couldn't a truly omnipotent god create a universe in which people had truly free will but also didn't kill children?

(Not trying to incite a crisis of faith or anything. I'm genuinely curious.)

Of course He could have. Clearly He did not. It seems that if God exists (and I believe Christ is the Lord), He does not equate the absence of innocent suffering with the single best of all possible realities. After all, the only truly innocent man in History was crucified for the sins of everyone else, and this was foreknown by God before the foundation of the Earth.

How fair is that?

Nevertheless, this is what He created.

Anyhow, this discussion, while interesting, has little bearing on the Christian faith in my view. What is, is, and it is easily within the realm of logic.

 

[-Vincent-]

One could say that God created heaven...