Omnipotence

[hightreason]

I was just thinking of this and so I thought I'd search out a forum on which I could post it and see what people think.

One of the leading criticisms of the Christian conceptualisation of God is that he is omnipotent. Without omnipotence, Christians would have to admit to a much less powerful God than what they suppose exists. There have been various arguments for the impossibility of omnipotence.

Most of them boil down to this: Can God create a rock that is too heavy for God to lift?

That seems on its face to completely disprove omnipotence. The answer to the question has to be yes or no. If it's yes, then God would not be able to lift the rock and would therefore not be omnipotent. If it is no, he would not be able to create the rock and would therefore not be omnipotent. Airtight argument right? I thought so too until yesterday. Today, however, I'm actually going to disprove that argument.

The first thing I need to do is address the point of logical impossibility. For example, can God create a round square? The answer to this question clearly seems to have to be no. This, however, unlike the above argument, is not very compelling evidence at all against God's omnipotence. Despite the fact that the two look very similar on the face, they are, in fact, very different.

Our first argument (about the rock) talks about something that is a contingent truth. God's ability to lift a rock is contingent (unless you except St. Anselm's argument which brings with it baggage you probably don't want). A square not being round is a necessary truth. It is defined in the definition of the square that it is not round (in Euclidean geometry).

Therefore, when you ask the first question, you are referring to a possibility which really exists, the possibility that someone or something (God) could lift someone or something else (a rock). When you ask the second question, you are just speaking gibberish. The term "round square" doesn't actually refer to anything. It is akin to asking "Can God create a guettedoojazzle?" The answer to that question, therefore, is not "no," but rather "what the hell are you talking about?"

God cannot create logically impossible things because logically impossible things are not really things at all but merely silly combinations of words.

The question I really came here to talk about though was that as to whether God can create a rock that he can't lift. I contend that he can create such a rock, and that his ability to do so does not disprove his omnipotence.

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything. However, it is not by definition a permanent ability. Someone could conceivably have omnipotence at one point and then cease to have it. That means that God, if omnipotent right now, could create the rock that he can't lift. After creating it, however, he would cease to be omnipotent as there would be one thing that he could not do.

Now, I know what some of you Christians are thinking. You're thinking that you don't believe in a God that could, at some point, cease to be omnipotent. You believe in a God that is, and always will be, omnipotent. Well, this is not that difficult of a problem to solve, actually.

If God does not want to stop being omnipotent, he will never stop being omnipotent. That's because his omnipotence, will allow him the ability to stop anything from happening that would take away his omnipotence. If this were true, there could be only one being in the world that was omnipotent. Multiple omnipotent beings would screw it up because what if one of them wanted to take away the omnipotence of the other and the other didn't want that... But the good news is that, if you're Christian, you probably already believe that God is the only omnipotent being, so we don't have a problem.

In order to accept this explanation, you would also have to believe that God is fundamentally the type of guy who wants to be omnipotent forever. This doesn't seem that incompatible with Christian beliefs, either, so it shouldn't cause too much problem. It might make him seem a little bit like a megalomaniac, but he kind of is anyway what with creating an entire world full of people who's sole purpose is to worship him.

So, there you have it, folks. It is entirely possible for God to be omnipotent (if there were a God).

[McCulloch]

Assuming for sake of argument that "omnipotent" doesn't really mean having absolute power; "omnibenevolence" doesn't really mean having absolute benevolence; "omnipresence" doesn't really mean being absolutely everywhere;" and "omniscience" doesn't really mean knowing absolutely everything

Suppose that omni does not mean omni? I don't follow.

[ChaosBorders]

The lack of a physical body and only having a 'spiritual presence' is the obvious work around, but it's still a qualification. Just because it's a more obvious one to you doesn't make it any less so.

A quick turn around here for a moment if you will.
Assuming for sake of argument that "omnipotent" doesn't really mean having absolute power; "omnibenevolence" doesn't really mean having absolute benevolence; "omnipresence" doesn't really mean being absolutely everywhere;" and "omniscience" doesn't really mean knowing absolutely everything ( e.g. Genesis 3:9 "But the LORD God called to the man, 'Where are you?'"), then what are Christians doing using a term over and over again that denotes an unqualified "all" when this isn't the case at all?

Not appearing in the Bible, I can only assume these "omni" terms were invented to fool the unquestioning believer by imputing more grandeur to god than is warranted. After all, in the war for believers, a religion does well to present its god(s) in the best light possible, even if it means a bit of deceptive advertising. Of course if you've got a better reason explaining why Christians are so fond of using such misleading terms, I'd be happy to listen.

Because God may be spiritually omnipresent but not physically so. God may also be all good in the sense that everything God does is for a greater good, but not all good in the sense of just overwhelming everything with good.

As such, God fits the definitions of the words from some perspectives and not from others. Because the definitions fit in some ways, it is perfectly reasonable to label God as such. However, people such as yourself seem to take issue with it when God clearly cannot fit the particular definition you choose to use for whatever 'omni' is being discussed.

The first mistake is then trying to say such and such 'omni' is impossible, as such arguments are false dichotomies in their fullest sense.
The second mistake is that the only people who will believe such arguments are sound are those who do not know the other definitions, making these arguments 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' fallacies.
The third mistake is calling people who label God as these 'omni' dishonest as:
A) By many definitions of the words they are perfectly entitled to do so and
B) I doubt many (if any at all) are intentionally trying to mislead anyone in the least with their usage. Even if they are using an invalid definition they are almost certainly themselves doing so out of ignorance and not out of any desire to pull one over on you.
Which makes your assertions of dishonesty an ad hominem attack.

If you genuinely believe your claims of dishonesty I would urge you to reconsider such a view, as the vast majority are not intending to mislead you. (They may themselves be in some way ignorant or misled, but few mean you any harm and most earnestly believe whatever it is they are saying).

[Miles]

As such, God fits the definitions of the words from some perspectives and not from others. Because the definitions fit in some ways, it is perfectly reasonable to label God as such. However, people such as yourself seem to take issue with it when God clearly cannot fit the particular definition you choose to use for whatever 'omni' is being discussed.

You may find it acceptable to redefine an unequivocal combining prefix as needed, I do not. When someone uses the word "two" it's not acceptable to claim he means three. Likewise, when someone uses the word, "all" it's not permissible to then claim he means only,"some," which is what you're doing. And you're not even being consistent in this unjustified redefinition, one not grounded in any previous usage or definition of the term, but created solely for the purpose of extricating a claim from its logical inconsistency. "It means "three" when I need it to."

If you genuinely believe your claims of dishonesty I would urge you to reconsider such a view, as the vast majority are not intending to mislead you. (They may themselves be in some way ignorant or misled, but few mean you any harm and most earnestly believe whatever it is they are saying).

It may not be an intentional dishonesty, but it is certainly an intellectual one. However, this is not surprising considering how uncritical believers are of their beliefs. In fact, such an accepting approach to religious claims has to be far more comforting and reassuring than a questioning one, so this approach is understandable.

[ChaosBorders]

As such, God fits the definitions of the words from some perspectives and not from others. Because the definitions fit in some ways, it is perfectly reasonable to label God as such. However, people such as yourself seem to take issue with it when God clearly cannot fit the particular definition you choose to use for whatever 'omni' is being discussed.

You may find it acceptable to redefine an unequivocal combining prefix as needed, I do not. When someone uses the word "two" it's not acceptable to claim he means three. Likewise, when someone uses the word, "all" it's not permissible to then claim he means only,"some," which is what you're doing. And you're not even being consistent in this unjustified redefinition, one not grounded in any previous usage or definition of the term, but created solely for the purpose of extricating a claim from its logical inconsistency. "It means "three" when I need it to."

Faulty analogy. Two has a far more restricted definition than all does: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/all

Just because people aren't using the word how you think they should, does not make them wrong.

[Miles]

Suppose that omni does not mean omni? I don't follow.

This is the claim Chaosborders is trying to sell. I merely accepted it for the sake of argument and tried to show him where such a bogus redefinition would lead.

Faulty analogy. Two has a far more restricted definition than all does: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/all

Not faulty at all (all emphases added).

From Dictionary,com

all

adjective
"the whole of" every:

pronoun
everything:

adverb
wholly; entirely; completely:



And from your Freedictionary.com

all

adj.
Being or representing the entire or total number, amount, or quantity:

Constituting, being, or representing the total extent or the whole:

Every:

pron.
1. The entire or total number, amount, or quantity; totality

adv.
1. Wholly; completely

In other words, "all" represents every fraction of a thing: not 5/6, as in deciding that six really means five, but 6/6, and 27/27, and even 12,876/12,876. You can't fudge "all" to mean anything less than the entire whole, just as indicated in the dictionary you link to. It means: entirely/completely. So "two" does NOT have a more restricted definition than "all" ("omni").

Just because people aren't using the word how you think they should, does not make them wrong.

It's not because of how I think they should, but because of what they've done to the word: bastardized it to conform to their needs so as to suit their purpose. Such a deliberate ruse is not only dishonest but a disgraceful deception.

[ChaosBorders]

all



adj.
Being or representing the entire or total number, amount, or quantity:

Constituting, being, or representing the total extent or the whole:

So you see no distinction between "Being or representing the entire or total number, amount, or quantity" of power and "Being able to do absolutely anything, including logically impossible things?" I see no reason, using the available definitions, that all-powerful should be taken to mean something past power that is logically possible. If you're going to use fractions as the analogy, then saying that all powerful implies doing logically impossible things sounds like saying it's not All because it's not 2000/10 (a more precise analogy would be using infinities in some manner I'm sure, but hopefully this illustrates my basic point).

[Miles]

So you see no distinction between "Being or representing the entire or total number, amount, or quantity" of power and "Being able to do absolutely anything, including logically impossible things?"

You're asking non sequitur; like the distinction between good and Mt. Everest. It doesn't compute. All that can be said of your distinction is that one is quantity and the other an ability. And this leaves us at the issue hand, one of meaning. What does the prefix "omni" signify? Does it mean all/entirely/complete, or does it mean some/limited/incomplete? The dictionary and common usage sides with the former while only Christian apologetics opts for the later.

I see no reason, using the available definitions, that all-powerful should be taken to mean something past power that is logically possible.

But that's the problem with using "omni" to describe the power of an entity; it inevitably leads to just the contradiction under discussion. It's an inappropriate designation because by its very nature omnipotence is an impossibility. Like omnimorphic; having all shapes. Something that's a square cannot also be a circle. Some concepts are simply contradictory by their very nature, and omnipotence is one of these.

If you're going to use fractions as the analogy, then
saying that all powerful implies doing logically impossible things sounds like saying it's not All because it's not 2000/10 (a more precise analogy would be using infinities in some manner I'm sure, but hopefully this illustrates my basic point).

This would be a misuse of the "analogy." The comparison to the fraction is only meant to illustrate an unwarranted departure from the established concept of "all" (0mni) to signify something else.

[Angel]

So you see no distinction between "Being or representing the entire or total number, amount, or quantity" of power and "Being able to do absolutely anything, including logically impossible things?"

You're asking non sequitur; like the distinction between good and Mt. Everest. It doesn't compute. All that can be said of your distinction is that one is quantity and the other an ability. And this leaves us at the issue hand, one of meaning. What does the prefix "omni" signify? Does it mean all/entirely/complete, or does it mean some/limited/incomplete? The dictionary and common usage sides with the former while only Christian apologetics opts for the later.

Sir, honestly, what don't you get about omnipotence in philosophy and even in our modern day being defined in varying degrees? It's really not difficult at all to understand that omnipotence means a) Being able to do anything, even logically impossible tasks which are NOT really tasks at all that power could be applied to

b) Being able to do all that which is logically possible

Keep in mind that another definition for omnipotence is having the greatest power.
source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotent refer to #2.


When someone tells you they're an atheist, you do understand nowadays that can either mean not believing in a god and another meaning is that you believe that no gods exist?

I see no reason, using the available definitions, that all-powerful should be taken to mean something past power that is logically possible.

But that's the problem with using "omni" to describe the power of an entity; it inevitably leads to just the contradiction under discussion. It's an inappropriate designation because by its very nature omnipotence is an impossibility. Like omnimorphic; having all shapes. Something that's a square cannot also be a circle. Some concepts are simply contradictory by their very nature, and omnipotence is one of these.

Not only can something square not be a circle but it's also NOTHiNG so the question of power can't even apply to it. That's precisely why omnipotence is also defined as being able to do everything that is logically possible to do, otherwise can you tell me if God can make a akdjfkajdfakfjdkalfj3uq0958u9048569025?
Is that something to you? Can you honestly say that power can be applied to a task that you don't even know what it is?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotentIf you're going to use fractions as the analogy, then
saying that all powerful implies doing logically impossible things sounds like saying it's not All because it's not 2000/10 (a more precise analogy would be using infinities in some manner I'm sure, but hopefully this illustrates my basic point).

This would be a misuse of the "analogy." The comparison to the fraction is only meant to illustrate an unwarranted departure from the established concept of "all" (0mni) to signify something else.

The word "all" can be a relative term as well. So one definition for omnipotence is "all-powerful" but then you have to ask what does power apply to? It applies to "something" right rather than nothing? Is a logically impossible thing something or just as good as babble, e.g. akdjklajfd912040959048???

[ChaosBorders]

I think I will let Angel handle trying to persuade you further, given Angel's responses are thus far close enough to what I'd say that I don't mind exiting this debate. You may view using omnipotence as dishonest. For a very few people maybe they are using it in such a way, but mostly I think that is just an unfortunate and incorrect view to have that will do nothing but foster unnecessary negative feelings. But if you wish to persist in it, that is up to you.

[Miles]

Sir, honestly, what don't you get about omnipotence in philosophy and even in our modern day being defined in varying degrees? It's really not difficult at all to understand that omnipotence means a) Being able to do anything, even logically impossible tasks which are NOT really tasks at all that power could be applied to

b) Being able to do all that which is logically possible

Keep in mind that another definition for omnipotence is having the greatest power.
source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotent refer to #2.

Sorry, but you're starting to go over old territory, something I'm just not up to.

When someone tells you they're an atheist, you do understand nowadays that can either mean not believing in a god and another meaning is that you believe that no gods exist?

When someone tells me they're an atheist I take that word at its accepted meaning:

• 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
  2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
  source: the freedictionary.com

That someone chooses to redefine the term, as people do with "omnipotent," is up to them, but then they're obligated to qualify the word with their new meaning, and not simply let others assume they're using it in its accepted meaning.

Not only can something square not be a circle but it's also NOTHiNG so the question of power can't even apply to it. That's precisely why omnipotence is also defined as being able to do everything that is logically possible to do, otherwise can you tell me if God can make a akdjfkajdfakfjdkalfj3uq0958u9048569025?
Is that something to you? Can you honestly say that power can be applied to a task that you don't even know what it is?

You lost me, both in what you're saying and the trust of whatever it is.

The word "all" can be a relative term as well.

And just what form you think this relative relationship takes?