To an omnipotent mind...

[Willum]

I am going to take a strong position:

If something is omnipotent, then the universe consists of that creature's beliefs and opinions about the universe.

Is there any possible way to suggest this position is wrong?

[Willum]

If an omnipotent being believed something wrong about reality, it would be reality that got it wrong.

Frail reality would change to align itself to the being's all-powerful thoughts, not the other way around.

As near as we can tell, you just made that up. You haven't given any support for your claim.

If it wants something to be different, it will be different, right?

Sure, but you've given no reason to think that it wants all its misapprehensions to become true.

If it wants to affect anything at all in the universe, which it must be capable of doing, then it must know about that anything to be able to do it.

Omnipotent things are able to be omniscient, but that doesn't mean they automatically choose to be omniscient.

To repeat I cannot understand why not.
For example, if an omnipotent creature thinks something is true, how would it not be?
Which is stronger, its thoughts or reality?

How could it be ignorant?
I can think of no scenario where what it thought wouldn't change to become reality.

Just saying there is a case isn't helping me. Provide an example.
Sarah believes the Moon is made of green cheese.

When she goes to look, what does she find?
That is is made of silicates, or green cheese?

If silicates, then it is defying her will, no? So she is not omnipotent.
If it is green cheese, then there you are.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 38 by wiploc]

Since you don't support your claim, the stronger position is that your claim is unsupported. We have no reason to believe it. It may be false. It even seems false on its face.

I don't think you have followed the conversation. I don't see your default position.

Suppose Joe asserts that there is an odd number of coins in the universe.

The default position will be this: Maybe that's true, and maybe it's not. Until Joe proves it is true, we have no reason to believe it, and we withhold judgement.

That's the default position. Joe cannot prove his case by saying, "How could it be an even number? I can't imagine that. How could that be?" That's not an argument. His claim remains unsupported. We have no reason to believe it. The default position therefore remains the position of reasonable people.

You certainly have not described how it could be false, except to make a false premise: Sarah is omnipotent, but not omniscient. I fail to understand how this could be.

Personal incredulity is not an argument. There's no logical contradiction between being omnipotent and being not omniscient. If you couldn't be omniscient, that would be a contradiction. But if you couldn't be not-omniscient, that would also be a contradiction.

An omnipotent being gets to choose whether or not to be omniscient. Maybe it likes surprises, and therefore chooses to be not omniscient. That isn't a logical contradiction, therefore some possible omnipotent gods are like that.

I have described why something omnipotent would be omniscient...

You have not explained how Sarah could have misapprehensions... as I mentioned, any misapprehensions she had, should change to become reality.

That's your claim. It is not support for your claim.

Anything she didn't know about would mean she couldn't do anything about it, therefore wouldn't be omnipotent, therefore the strong case is that she does know... can do, and is therefore omniscient.

It's her choice, to know or not to know. She's omnipotent; she can do what she wants.

As for you invoking Jehovah: Invoking imaginary gods with imaginary omnipotence so that its imaginary properties can be consistent, just falls flat as an argument. That's why I am not having the conversation in the religious section.

Your claim, in effect, is that every possible omnipotent god is also omniscient. I've given an admittedly fictional--but all gods are fictional, so don't hold that against me--example of one that isn't.

Your other claim is, again, in effect, that every omnipotent-and-omniscient god changes reality to match it's mistakes every time it makes a mistake. There's no reason to believe this. An omniscient god couldn't make mistakes in the first place. But, if we imagine an omnipotent god who is not omniscient (and therefore can make mistakes) then we still have no reason to think that its mistakes somehow rule the universe.

Being omnipotent means it gets to choose. If it wants its mistakes to rule the universe, then they will. But, if it chooses to have its mistakes be powerless, then that would happen.

Personally, that's how I'd do it. I wouldn't want my mistakes to rule. I'd have my active choices rule, not my misapprehensions. I don't see any grounds for your invocation of personal disbelief. I don't see any reason for you to not see how that's possible.

How could someone want her mistakes to all become true? That's just weird. It's not the only possibility.

You have given us no reason to think that any given omnipotent god would choose that option, let alone all of them.

[wiploc]

To repeat I cannot understand why not.

And Joe can't understand how there could be an even number of coins in the universe. That's still not an argument.

For example, if an omnipotent creature thinks something is true, how would it not be?

Still not an argument.

Which is stronger, its thoughts or reality?

That's just weird. Which is stronger, irrational numbers or organic honey?

How could it be ignorant?

An omnipotent god (assuming it was even smart enough to realize that it was omnipotent) would have whatever degree of ignorance it chose to have.

I can think of no scenario where what it thought wouldn't change to become reality.

That's your position. We understand that that's your position. Some people can think of no scenario in which the earth is round.

Just saying there is a case isn't helping me. Provide an example.
Sarah believes the Moon is made of green cheese.

When she goes to look, what does she find?
That is is made of silicates, or green cheese?

Silicates, unless she's one of your weird my-mistakes-rule-everything gods.

If silicates, then it is defying her will, no?

No, a mistake isn't an act of will. "I thought we had another bagel," isn't an act of will. "I didn't realize that you had cleaned the garage," isn't a decision that the garage should be dirty again.

So she is not omnipotent.

Or she doesn't choose to have every mistake she makes written into law.

If it is green cheese, then there you are.

Right. If that were the case, there I'd be.

But it isn't automatically the case for every omnipotent god.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 43 by wiploc]

Oh, so you are just wrong, and don't understand why.

Let's walk you through it.

Omnipotent means the capability to do anything.
Well, for some reason you think that isn't that power to know everything. But if Sarah didn't have the power to know everything, it she wouldn't be omnipotent.

That's a QED.

So your only straw to pull is that she chooses not to know everything.
But if there was something she didn't know, then there as easily could be something she coudn't DO as a result of that ignorance.

Therefore she must be omnipotent.

Now the capability to do anything means you must be more powerful than anything, diamonds, and stars and such, therefore your will must be more powerful than anything.

Therefore Sarah's will is more powerful than stars and such, and therefore her will is more powerful than a star.
Her beliefs must also be more powerful than a star, therefore what she believes about a star would overwhelm and change the star.

Therefore her beliefs shape the universe, and means, once again, the universe is shaped by her beliefs, and not the other way around.

So whatever Sarah believes about the universe is true.

Now it is your turn to demonstrate otherwise.
Try without being demeaning this time, it's less embarrassing that way.

[wiploc]

Now it is your turn to demonstrate otherwise.
Try without being demeaning this time, it's less embarrassing that way.

I think we're done here.

[Willum]

Now it is your turn to demonstrate otherwise.
Try without being demeaning this time, it's less embarrassing that way.

I think we're done here.

We're done because you don't have a counter, or done because I didn't buy your counter assertion without self-same justification?

I mean, the entire premise was to make a demo. about omnipotence. I imagine the only conclusion is if an omnipotent creature is not omniscient, it is because it does not want to be, and that its will, belief and thoughts are identical, and its will is reflected in reality.

Your only counter-premise seems to be applying limits to the unlimited. There you have no justification to do this. The OP is not about God or other omnipotent gods, but omnipotence.

You don't seem to understand that if Sarah wanted the Moon to be green cheese, the entire universe would change according to her all-power, and it would suddenly be consistent throughout the entire universe. She would no longer be wrong or have a misapprehension. But everyone would suddenly understand that the Moon was green cheese and a logic and history for it to be that way.
That is what omnipotent means...

Before you scoff... consider this: It is much easier to make a moon of green cheese then it is to do a resurrection. A resurrection may not even be possible period.

An omnipotent entity not only shapes matter, but concepts even logic - it is desires to do so.

[William]

I think that my post # 30 had some good arguments which haven't been addressed yet.

[wiploc]

Now it is your turn to demonstrate otherwise.
Try without being demeaning this time, it's less embarrassing that way.

I think we're done here.

We're done because you don't have a counter, or done because I didn't buy your counter assertion without self-same justification?

Partly because I don't see the point of going around again. My arguments wouldn't change. What you're saying wouldn't change either.

And partly because we're not playing well together. You say I've been demeaning, and, regardless of whether that's true, I certainly feel the impulse to be demeaning. Maybe we'll get along better in another thread.

You don't seem to understand that if Sarah wanted the Moon to be green cheese, the entire universe would change according to her all-power, and it would suddenly be consistent throughout the entire universe.

No, I get that. But there's a difference in thinking that something is true and deciding to make it true.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 48 by wiploc]

No, I get that. But there's a difference in thinking that something is true and deciding to make it true.

Now you see, that is getting somewhere.

To some creature that is omnipotent, what is the difference between thinking something is true and making it true?

Perhaps it is my failing, but I can not see how an omnipotent creature could possibly believe something that weren't true...

What would be the scenario, whereby feeble reality wouldn't bend to its all-powerful thoughts?

Also,please accept my apologies.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 30 by William]

These had been covered elsewhere:

I cannot see a connection with your reasoning that something all knowing would create a universe which consists of the creators 'beliefs and opinions.'

They don't create a universe of ephemeral beliefs and opinions, but rather the beings beliefs and opinions would shape reality. Reality being so much weaker than the being is.
If it had an opinion that clashed with reality, it would simply change reality so that its opinion was true.
For example, this being wants to create a flood, then changes all reality to cover all evidence except for one Book. Reality takes second string to this being's will, despite the impossibility.

The way I see it, the type of GOD you are presenting is problematic. In the case of turning the moon into green cheese, this might require a whole new universe, because the instability of the moon transforming into green cheese would most likely immediately create.

Absolutely.

Prudent is not a part of the argument (nor is God) - I agree that turning the moon to green cheese has a huge logistics chain, but it is an example. If it helps, imagine some "more prudent," change - like a global flood.