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?

[ttruscott]

Not thinking, believing.

What is your proof that belief causes creation...? If it does, then our creation started when HE first believed it to be... In other words HE had to change HIS belief from no belief in a non-physical reality to a belief in a physical reality... with no stop gap HE would be at the mercy of any wayward thought, blatantly absurd.

No, I reject that HIS thoughts are automatically manifest as reality and contend that HIS intent to create caused creation.

[William]

[Replying to post 31 by ttruscott]

No, I reject that HIS thoughts are automatically manifest as reality and contend that HIS intent to create caused creation.

I do not see lack of correlation between thought and intent. Can you expand on this idea please.

For the record, why would the idea of an all knowing GODs thoughts being instantly manifested as a reality which can be experienced be problematic?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 29 by wiploc]

Well, if you have a stronger premise, I'd like to hear it. I am open to suggestions.
And no, I didn't make it up.

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

On the other hand, I can not conceive of Sara having misapprehensions. Please elucidate me.

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

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

[Willum]

[Replying to post 31 by ttruscott]

What you are saying is circular, it doesn't really make sense.
I am not claiming belief caused creation...
I am saying if Sarah believed something, it would be, if it weren't already, true.

No, I reject that HIS thoughts are automatically manifest as reality and contend that HIS intent to create caused creation.

So? You reject it, can you give any reason for it? I can't think of one.

V/R

[Willum]

AlexxcJRO said:

God is suposedly all powerful-omnipotent. God has therefore the means to instantly uncover any and every fact, so God is also omniscient.

I think this premise of omnipotence being omniscient is agreeable to all...

Is there any way it can be wrong?

[ttruscott]

AlexxcJRO said:

God is suposedly all powerful-omnipotent. God has therefore the means to instantly uncover any and every fact, so God is also omniscient.

I think this premise of omnipotence being omniscient is agreeable to all...

Is there any way it can be wrong?

This is a secular philosophical definition of GOD's attributes which do not take into account HIS revealed attributes at all. HE is righteous in HIS loving kindness. This argument supports the pagan Greek definition that HE must know all things from eternity past to eternity future which is given the lie because it leads to the inevitable blasphemy that therefore HE KNEW WHO WOULD END IN HELL BEFORE THEIR CREATION BUT THEN CREATED THEM ANYWAY!!! The GOD who is love would never create people knowing they would just choose to be evil and then go to hell.

Secularists might know something of logic and theology but they obviously do not know GOD.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 36 by ttruscott]

Ummm, no, none of those propositions refute the claim.

It just says, that if this God of your were truly omnipotent, that he has the power to discover who is going to Hell, etc..

Certainly another way about would be time travel... which, I assume you will claim God is timeless, therefore able to sneak peeks at anytime and know that before and after the effect.

This should also be possible, right?

(As this is philosophy, I am mildly trying to keep God out of it, and use a more agreeable 'Sarah,' but I know what you mean...)

Respectfully,

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 29 by wiploc]

Well, if you have a stronger premise, I'd like to hear it. I am open to suggestions.

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.

On the other hand, I can not conceive of Sara having misapprehensions. Please elucidate me.

I cannot make you lucid, sorry. That has to be your job.

As for Sara's misapprehensions, let's consider two possibilities:

Possibility 1:

Sara is both omnipotent and omniscient. She never never guesses, never makes mistakes, never is wrong. As for reality conforming to her mistaken thoughts, then, that never comes up, so this thread is pointless from the start.

Possibility 2:

Sara is omnipotent but not omniscient. There are things she doesn't know. She can guess wrong. If she makes assumptions, she can be mistaken. She can have misapprehensions.

Only in this case can Sara have misapprehensions, so only in this case can "Frail reality ... change to align itself to the being's all-powerful thoughts, not the other way around." Admittedly, you also claim that you can't conceive of your claim being true: "I can not conceive of Sara having misapprehensions." But when you do conceive of what you say you can't conceive, you claim that reality would adapt to her misapprehensions.

Maybe that's true, for some possible omnipotent gods. But it's not true for all of them.

Let's consider Jehovah. Jehovah says, "Let there be light," and there's light. He wills light to exist, so it exists.

With the god you envision, she doesn't say, "Let there be light." She doesn't will it. She never wills it.

It goes more like this: She says, "There's light, isn't there? Ah, yes, I see that I was correct."

You see the difference, right? And both are possible? That is, neither involves logical contradiction? (Okay, Jehovah is traditionally shot thru with logical contradictions, but this isn't one of them.)

Both kinds of omnipotent gods are logically possible, then. But your claim is that any omnipotent god would be of the Oh-I-see-I'm-right kind. Which is to say that you claim that Let-there-be-light type gods are not logically possible. You are in effect claiming that there is some logical contradiction in gods who will changes into existence rather than mistaking them into existence.

But, when we ask for support for or explanation of your obviously false claim, you give us nothing. And now you're trying to move the goalposts so that it's on us to prove you wrong.

Well, you're wrong.

There's no logical contradiction to an omnipotent god who wills changes rather than mistaking them. Jehovah could say, "There's light, isn't there? No, it's still dark. I'd better make light. I haven't made it yet, because it's still dark, but I'm about to will light into existence."

Since there is no contradiction there, the claim that "reality conforms to the mistakes of omnipotent gods" is false. It could be true for some omnipotent gods, but there is no presumption to that effect.

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

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

Really? It isn't a contradiction, so it's obviously true.

Of all the infinity of possible omnipotent gods, some are also omniscient and some not. This is true by definition. A "possible god" is one that doesn't involve contradiction.

Examples:

- Assume a god who would prevent all evil if he could, and who can, but who doesn't prevent all evil. That's a contradiction. We know that god does not exist.

- Assume a god who would prevent all evil if he could, but who can't, and who therefore allows some evil. That god is possible. No contradiction, so it is possible.

Okay, back on topic: Is there an inherent logical contradiction in an omnipotent god not being omniscient? No. There's not. Therefore, such gods are possible. They are not impossible; they are possible.

Therefore, the claim that all omnipotent gods are omniscient would be false if someone were rash enough to make that claim.

[Willum]

[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. 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.

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.
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.

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.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 28 by The Tanager]

I am sorry, to make your argument work, you need two beings with impossible properties. They can't interact, I suppose?

If Quinn wanted to be omniscient, and was all powerful, what would stop him from being all-knowing? If Quinn couldn't be all-knowing, then Quinn wouldn't be all powerful.

I don't see how Rachel fits at all.
Quinn could always assimilate the omniscient character of Rachel and be all-knowing.

Let's approach this differently:
What is something that a omnipotent creature doesn't know? and then what would be the impacts.

I put forward that if a omnipotent creature believed something that wasn't reflected in reality, reality itself would change to the creatures whim... making the whim correct over feeble matter.

The only counter-argument seems to be a counter assertion, which hasn't been backed up to any degree I understand.

Which was, what if an omnipotent creature wasn't omnipotent?
and my imagination fails to understand a scenario where this would be the case...

William said:

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

So understand - it doesn't create a a universe of ephemeral beliefs and opinions.

An omnipotent creatures beliefs and opinions are stronger than reality. It's beliefs and opinions change reality, not the other way around. That is the premise we resolved on page 1.