Infinitely Powerful

[Just thinking]

Right off I'll start by saying that I am an atheist -- vollying back and forth between strong and weak. But that said, let me ask why is it necessary, for the believers, to go along with God being infinitely powerful?

Does a God, even one that created the universe, have to be infinitely powerful? What good does it serve to be more powerful than ever needed? How did it evolve (the idea) that God was infinitely powerful? When would anything, even a God, need to have an infinite reserve of power?

 

[bruto]

Right off I'll start by saying that I am an atheist -- vollying back and forth between strong and weak. But that said, let me ask why is it necessary, for the believers, to go along with God being infinitely powerful?

Does a God, even one that created the universe, have to be infinitely powerful? What good does it serve to be more powerful than ever needed? How did it evolve (the idea) that God was infinitely powerful? When would anything, even a God, need to have an infinite reserve of power?

I think that's a worthwhile point to consider, especially if you intend to try approaching God with any kind of logic. I really don't know why it is the default position of theists, or when it became so, along with the notion that God must be perfect. If I were less lazy about it I'd research it, but I suspect you'll find it in the early scholastics. Augustine might be a good start. Omnipotence and perfection both strike me as having insurmountable logical difficulties. For example, if God is perfect, how can he act or change, and how does he relate to the world? Is he diminished or enlarged by creation or the changes in it? If he's omnipotent, can logical necessity even be said to apply? etc. etc. One answer to some of these difficulties would seem to be to suggest that an omnipotent perfect being is not logically possible, and that God is neither perfect nor omnipotent, but just really really great. This doesn't of course solve the problem of actually finding evidence of this god, or proving his existence, but at least in theory it might remove some of the obstacles to God being reasonable, and in theory at least it might make theology accessible to something other than faith and revelation.

 

[Iacchus]

Omnipotence and perfection both strike me as having insurmountable logical difficulties.

Yet the fact that anything exists at all has insurmountable logical difficulties.

 

[arthwollipot]

Really? Things exist - I think those of us who are not solipsists will agree - and this therefore does not seem terribly illogical to me.

If your logic suggests that things actually don't exist, then I think it's time to rethink your definition of "logic".

A good starting point would be "Cogito, ergo sum".

 

[Iacchus]

If your logic suggests that things actually don't exist, then I think it's time to rethink your definition of "logic".

Guess again. Am merely asking why there is something, in the absolute sense, as opposed to nothing in the absolute sense.

 

[David Swidler]

[/derail]

I don't see the impossibility. An infinite, omnipotent God decides to limit "him"self locally/temporarily to allow for the existence of something else upon which to bestow benevolence. It doesn't change that God's overall omnipotence; it's just a useful description for his relationship with the universe.

 

[arias]

[/derail]

I don't see the impossibility. An infinite, omnipotent God decides to limit "him"self locally/temporarily to allow for the existence of something else upon which to bestow benevolence. It doesn't change that God's overall omnipotence; it's just a useful description for his relationship with the universe.

What?

An infinite being deciding to limit itself temporarily? So, how does the finite being then return to its infinite state?

Positing a transition of omnipotence to limited potency and then being able to toggle between these two modes is quite bewildering. So, in the limited potency state, if god were able to switch back to omnipotence, doesn't it mean that it was always omnipotent? And that it was never really limited in any way at all? I really don't quite understand how positing this could ever be a solution to anything at all. It only gives rise to more conceptual problems.

 

[David Swidler]

It's not complicated at all. For purposes of relating to the physical universe, such a being sets certain rules for itself, and chooses to operate within those rules in that context. Does your playing Scrabble by the rules have any bearing on what happens outside the context of the game?

 

[Johnny Pixels]

Right off I'll start by saying that I am an atheist -- vollying back and forth between strong and weak. But that said, let me ask why is it necessary, for the believers, to go along with God being infinitely powerful?

Does a God, even one that created the universe, have to be infinitely powerful? What good does it serve to be more powerful than ever needed? How did it evolve (the idea) that God was infinitely powerful? When would anything, even a God, need to have an infinite reserve of power?

I think it was/is to distinguish God from earthly kings. Rulers can seem to have immense power, in that they control the country, have power of life and death over people, that sort of thing, but it's not infinite power. If God is truly thought to be all powerful, then this makes him more than just another monarch, hence Jesus being the king of kings. If you're gonna be praying to someone for salvation, you'd want it to be the top dog, because he's probably got the best heaven too.
It also helps do away with the arguments, "Who created God?", and "Who does God obey?" as he is all powerful and so is not subject to anyone else, although this isn't always a satisfactory answer, much like "God did it!" when you get stumped by something.
Well that's what I thought anyway.

 

[Beerina]

I think it was/is to distinguish God from earthly kings. Rulers can seem to have immense power, in that they control the country, have power of life and death over people, that sort of thing, but it's not infinite power. If God is truly thought to be all powerful, then this makes him more than just another monarch, hence Jesus being the king of kings.

Yes, but I'd go further than that. It's just the inevitable result of one-upsmanship as various priests vied for followers. "My god can kill you god, which is actually just a demon or devil..." eventually results in the petulant "Oh yeah? Well my god is infinite!"

If He's infinite, then no more powerful god could possibly be.

Except that that's mathematically nonsense. Not only could there be a more powerful god, there could be an infinitely more powerful god, who is to another infinite god what that god is to you, or to nothingness. There's no upper limit on this, it's "turtles all the way up".

 

[Genesius]

[/derail]

I don't see the impossibility. An infinite, omnipotent God decides to limit "him"self locally/temporarily to allow for the existence of something else upon which to bestow benevolence. It doesn't change that God's overall omnipotence; it's just a useful description for his relationship with the universe.

Well, since no one else has trotted out that old chestnut. . .

If you accept the possibility of an infinitely powerful God, you then run into questions like. . .

(Everybody say it with me now. Deep breath, and. . .)

"Can God make a rock so big even He can't lift it?"

Iacchus, don't waste our time trying to develop a metaphysical definition of a rock. We all know what a rock is.

The believer's cop-out would be that it's a mystery that our limited minds can't solve, but God in His Infinite Wisdom knows the answer.

 

[jjramsey]

If you accept the possibility of an infinitely powerful God, you then run into questions like. . .

(Everybody say it with me now. Deep breath, and. . .)

"Can God make a rock so big even He can't lift it?"

Yawn. The typical response to that is that being omnipotent does not require that one be able to do the logically impossible. Go and read: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/

This has also been discussed at length on another thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1226057#post1226057

 

[bruto]

Yawn. The typical response to that is that being omnipotent does not require that one be able to do the logically impossible. Go and read: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/

This has also been discussed at length on another thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1226057#post1226057

It obviously depends on how one defines the word, but it seems worth considering the "Ockhamist" view, that if omnipotence is omnipotence proper, it cannot be trumped even by logical necessity. Now if you are willing to agree that it can, I am not averse to the idea, but I would then add that God cannot be omnipotent in the absolute sense that absolutely everything is contingent on him, because it's clear that logic is not. He may have all the power that is possible, but not all the power that is conceivable.

 

[Genesius]

om·nip·o·tent
adj. Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

If one cannot do the logically impossible then one cannot claim "unlimited power" since constraining your power to the logically possible places limits on said power. It's easy to win arguments if you redefine terms in the middle to match what you want them to mean.

 

[jjramsey]

If one cannot do the logically impossible then one cannot claim "unlimited power" since constraining your power to the logically possible places limits on said power. It's easy to win arguments if you redefine terms in the middle to match what you want them to mean.

Doing the logically impossible is not even a coherent concept, so referring to the "power" to do the logically impossible is simply meaningless. As ceo_esq pointed out on the thread that you obviously didn't read,

Ossai, omnipotent is a philosophical term of art. At least since the days of Aquinas and Maimonides - in other words, well before the term technically even entered the English language - the prevailing usage has specifically excluded the sorts of things you're insisting it must include.

General awareness of the semantic untenability of interpreting omnipotent to cover the accomplishment of logical impossibilities is extremely old and well-established (albeit not universal). You (rather than everyone else) are being unreasonable by insisting that everyone should use a common philosophical term in an alternate sense that is not only inconsistent with its most customary traditional meaning, but which ultimately makes the term unintelligible to boot.

It is only because language makes it possible to construct sentences that are grammatically correct but semantically void that it is even possible to discuss the "power" to do the logically impossible. Asking "Can God make a rock so big even He can't lift it?" is little different than asking "Can God make colorless green ideas sleep furiously? The only apparent difference between the two questions is that we think we know what the first question is asking, while the second is transparently nonsensical.

 

[Tricky]

Doing the logically impossible is not even a coherent concept, so referring to the "power" to do the logically impossible is simply meaningless. As ceo_esq pointed out on the thread that you obviously didn't read,



It is only because language makes it possible to construct sentences that are grammatically correct but semantically void that it is even possible to discuss the "power" to do the logically impossible. Asking "Can God make a rock so big even He can't lift it?" is little different than asking "Can God make colorless green ideas sleep furiously? The only apparent difference between the two questions is that we think we know what the first question is asking, while the second is transparently nonsensical.

Exactly correct. However, many concepts of God entail just such nonsensical statements. For example, some say that "God exists outside of time", a concept that violates the very principles of existence. Another example of logically impossible beliefs is the theodicy problem of an infinitely powerful, infinitely good God who allows evil to exist.

 

[jjramsey]

However, many concepts of God entail just such nonsensical statements. For example, some say that "God exists outside of time", a concept that violates the very principles of existence.

You are going to have to back that up with what you mean by "principles of existence." As it stands, it looks like what is really happening is that you cannot quite imagine what an existence out of time would be like, so you presume it cannot be. I do hope, though, that you are doing more than using "principles of existence" as a fig leaf to cover an argument from incredulity.

Another example of logically impossible beliefs is the theodicy problem of an infinitely powerful, infinitely good God who allows evil to exist.

As pointed out on the Evil/hypothetical thread, it is easy to simplistically declare that an omnipotent God is in contradiction with the presence of evil, but it is questionable whether such a contention can be proved.

 

[Tricky]

You are going to have to back that up with what you mean by "principles of existence." As it stands, it looks like what is really happening is that you cannot quite imagine what an existence out of time would be like, so you presume it cannot be. I do hope, though, that you are doing more than using "principles of existence" as a fig leaf to cover an argument from incredulity.

The word "exist" has a time-based definition. It means "to be". Existed, exists, will exist. If you say "exists" you are implying present tense. You cannot separate it from time.

A timeless God could not "do" anything, because "do" is also a word that implies a process. It is just as illogical as God making the rock that is too heavy for him to lift. It is not an argument from incredulity. It is a logical impossibility.

As pointed out on the Evil/hypothetical thread, it is easy to simplistically declare that an omnipotent God is in contradiction with the presence of evil, but it is questionable whether such a contention can be proved.

LOL. Well, any contention about God is gonna be a little difficult to prove wouldn't you say?

But the illogic is simple.
Premise one: God can do anything.
Premise two: God does not want evil.
Premise three: Evil exists.

If evil exists, God doesn't hate it. If he does not want evil but evil exists anyway, then he can't do anything. It is totally circular and therefore nonsensical.

You might modify premise two to say that God prefers that men don't do evil, but He recognizes that evil is necessary in order for free will. However if He recognizes it as necessary, then He must grudgingly admit that he wants it around.

 

[Just thinking]

... But the illogic is simple.
Premise one: God can do anything.
Premise two: God does not want evil.
Premise three: Evil exists.

If evil exists, God doesn't hate it. If he does not want evil but evil exists anyway, then he can't do anything. It is totally circular and therefore nonsensical.

You might modify premise two to say that God prefers that men don't do evil, but He recognizes that evil is necessary in order for free will. However if He recognizes it as necessary, then He must grudgingly admit that he wants it around.

Not to derail your argument, but perhaps instead of saying that God wants evil (as we apply it) to exist, it might be more accurate to say that He tollerates it being around. Again, in order to have "free will".

 

[username]

Right off I'll start by saying that I am an atheist -- vollying back and forth between strong and weak. But that said, let me ask why is it necessary, for the believers, to go along with God being infinitely powerful?

Well, if the Christian diety isn't all powerful then many of the other attributes of the Christian diety become unsupportable. This diety is also said to be all knowing/seeing. If this diety isn't all powerful, can it be all knowing? If it isn't all knowing, is it a proper judge of all mankind? The idea is this diety knows everything about us, even the stuff we don't like to think about so he, alone, is a proper judge.

Also, creation of all that exists is attributed to this diety. When we think of the complexity and interdependancy of the universe that xians believe is held together by the active will of their diety, what would happen if this diety were slightly less than all powerful? It would mean that 'out there' somewhere a problem could occur that this diety couldn't fix or fix fast enough and all matter would unravel. Promises of eternity in paradise would be empty promises if this deity wasn't all powerful and thus couldn't guarantee anything for eternity.

So, I don't know where this idea of an all powerful deity first developed, but within the teachings of xianity it does seem to fit, even be a required attribute of this diety given the other claims made.