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).

[Angel]

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.

We've covered the meanings before but I only keep repeating it because you haven't factored that into your points. You still keep making points about omnipotence as if it only have one meaning, and if anything I call that misleading.

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.

Well word meanings change from time-to-time, and I don't mean someone just taking it upon themself to always keep changing the meaning of words to fit their every point, because otherwise "meaning" or "definition" would really be reduced to nothing and have no standards at all. I could simply say that an apple is a car and a car means fruit or some other arbitrary thing. The words atheism and omnipotence have not been changed under those conditions but are established or accepted as common meaningS (more than one) in the English language and in philosophy. Apart from it's general use in the English language, I've already mentioned the philosophical factors for defining "omnipotence" in less than absolute terms.

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.

What I'm saying is that power has its limits. Power can only be applied to "something" rather than "nothing". So it is a misnomer in my view to even understand the meaning of omnipotence in an absolute sense, that is, since "power" or capability can only be applied to "something" (which are logically possible things) and not "nothing" (which are logically impossible) things. Asking if God can do a logically impossible whatever would be like asking if He can create a !@$%@!%l90ukaljdfklujiauf (translation: That's babble for "nothing").

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

And just what form you think this relative relationship takes?

The word "all" in the meaning of omnipotent is relative to "power". In other words, omnipotent means "all-power". Some have added to that all-power to do anything including what's logically impossible but other meanings only add all-power to do anything that's logically possible. You can refer to my previous response that's right above this one because it's relevant here as well as far as why power can only be applied to "something" rather than "nothing".

[Miles]

What I'm saying is that power has its limits. Power can only be applied to "something" rather than "nothing". So it is a misnomer in my view to even understand the meaning of omnipotence in an absolute sense, that is, since "power" or capability can only be applied to "something" (which are logically possible things) and not "nothing" (which are logically impossible) things.

Your two previous responses cover issues already addressed, which is why I'm skipping to this one.

In the god-omnipotence problem, power is being applied. The power (ability) of making rock: "Can god make a rock . . . ." And the power (ability) to lift ". . .too heavy to lift."

Asking if God can do a logically impossible whatever would be like asking if He can create a !@$%@!%l90ukaljdfklujiauf (translation: That's babble for "nothing").

No one is asking god to do the logically impossible. In their construction of god, Christians posit one with this paradoxical ability. It's their doing. No one else's. If you want to claim round is square you have no ground to blame others for pointing out your error, much as you may not like it.

The word "all" in the meaning of omnipotent is relative to "power". In other words, omnipotent means "all-power"

Just so we're clear; all powerful.

Some have added to that all-power to do anything including what's logically impossible but other meanings only add all-power to do anything that's logically possible. You can refer to my previous response that's right above this one because it's relevant here as well as far as why power can only be applied to "something" rather than "nothing".

As pointed out above, no one has added anything. The impossibility arises as a result of the Christian conception of god.

[Angel]

What I'm saying is that power has its limits. Power can only be applied to "something" rather than "nothing". So it is a misnomer in my view to even understand the meaning of omnipotence in an absolute sense, that is, since "power" or capability can only be applied to "something" (which are logically possible things) and not "nothing" (which are logically impossible) things.

Your two previous responses cover issues already addressed, which is why I'm skipping to this one.

In the god-omnipotence problem, power is being applied. The power (ability) of making rock: "Can god make a rock . . . ." And the power (ability) to lift ". . .too heavy to lift."

Factor in WHAT is being made, and not just the act of making itself. To make something that is too heavy for God to lift is logically impossible and thus amounts to nothing, just as a square circle is nothing, or 85jafj90u459qj.

Asking if God can do a logically impossible whatever would be like asking if He can create a !@$%@!%l90ukaljdfklujiauf (translation: That's babble for "nothing").

No one is asking god to do the logically impossible. In their construction of god, Christians posit one with this paradoxical ability. It's their doing. No one else's. If you want to claim round is square you have no ground to blame others for pointing out your error, much as you may not like it.

I never mentioned that anyone can do a logically impossible task.

Some have added to that all-power to do anything including what's logically impossible but other meanings only add all-power to do anything that's logically possible. You can refer to my previous response that's right above this one because it's relevant here as well as far as why power can only be applied to "something" rather than "nothing".

As pointed out above, no one has added anything. The impossibility arises as a result of the Christian conception of god.

As I've mentioned before, the impossibility arises depending on which definition of omnipotence you use.

[Miles]

I never mentioned that anyone can do a logically impossible task.

Let's not be disingenuous now. You put it out there as a straw-man so you could say "That's babble for 'nothing,'" and I merely called you on it: Thrust--Parry--Reposte.

Because your other remarks are rehashes of previous issues I think this just about does it for me. If you have something new to say it is possible I'll reply. In any case it's been interesting.