Infinitely Powerful

[kuroyume0161]

Something to consider - brought about by that 'Argument from free will' link:

Let's say that omniscient god (OG) has imparted freewill cleverly (which should be easy for such a being). OG imparts true freewill (not the illusionary, determinate type) by the very virtue that OG can see everything - all actions taken (or not taken, in our limited sense of limited choice). This echoes the idea in science as the Multiverse hypothesis - that for each 'quantum choice', two new bifurcational universes come into being. The good thing about this is that OG has imparted freewill. The bad thing is that OG is no longer omniscient in a controlling sense - although OG can see everything, OG can no more determine any of the paths to be 'real' than we - since all paths are just as viable.

This removes any purpose - except maybe seeing the results of every action in every configuration. The idea of salvation or destiny is completely removed from the purview of OG since there are no singular paths to a result - only myriad paths of every conceivable cause-effect.

A god of this type is not doing anything but running infinite series of simulations.

 

[Bri]

That is perhaps a possiblity, but certainly not the only possibility.

-Bri

 

[kuroyume0161]

Oh yes, this is just meandering on my part. I am not reducing the options here, but exploring the possibilities.

But if you really are to say some being is 'omniscient', then there is an immediate paradoxical situation. OMNI - all ... SCIENT - knowing. This word has a particular meaning. If a being is all-knowing, then putting qualifications and restrictions on the extent of that knowledge defeats the qualification.

Therefore, all-knowing and imbuement of freewill to some creation thereof are contradictory. There is one situation, as noted, where the two coexist in a sort of compromise. The all-knowing being knows more than that which would preclude freewill and therefore allows freewill. But this comes with restrictions on what the all-knowing can do with that knowledge. It cannot know that one outcome is more important than any other since it knows all outcomes.

Sorry, but you will need to try very hard to find a way around this...

 

[jjramsey]

You have inverted the sentence order, but not the order of events. You could not conclude that A=C and hope that sometime in the future you would be able to establish A=B and B=C. See the word "because"? That means that those two premises were established first. Cause precedes effect.

Except here, it is questionable to even refer to "A=B" and "B=C" as events. They are mathematical statements not tied to any particular timeline.

But I think we might have beat the glue out of this ol' dead horse. Shall we end this hijack?

Fair enough.

 

[jjramsey]

Question: Why would an omnipotent God have to settle for a tradeoff?

It depends on what the logical possibilities are. If it is logically possible for there to be a universe with maximal good but no suffering, then there is no need for a tradeoff. If isn't possible, well, then tradeoffs are of course necessary.

The catch is in determining what is logically possible. As I wrote earlier,

... we can think of alternative scenarios that would seem to produce less suffering than we see. The catch, however, is that we don't necessarily have the capability to fully trace out the results of the scenarios to see if they have hidden problems that would actually make them worse than our current one.

As you can see, the argument depends on how ignorant our limitations make us.

 

[Bri]

But if you really are to say some being is 'omniscient', then there is an immediate paradoxical situation. OMNI - all ... SCIENT - knowing. This word has a particular meaning. If a being is all-knowing, then putting qualifications and restrictions on the extent of that knowledge defeats the qualification.

If you're saying that an all-powerful god must be able to do the logically impossible, you may be right. Such a god may very well be able to do the logically impossible since he presumably created logic, but then we have no basis for even discussing such a god since we are ourselves limited by logic. Conversation over.

Expect an illogical answer to an illogical question like "Can an omnipotent god create a square circle?" This is due to our inability to fathom that which is outside of logic, not necessarily due to any restriction of such a god. It is far more productive to limit the discussion to powers that results in logical answers, which may mean changing the definition of "omnipotent" to "able to do all that is possible" rather than "able to do anything."

-Bri

 

[Just thinking]

... This removes any purpose - except maybe seeing the results of every action in every configuration. The idea of salvation or destiny is completely removed from the purview of OG since there are no singular paths to a result - only myriad paths of every conceivable cause-effect.

A god of this type is not doing anything but running infinite series of simulations.

And which "You", from the myriad of possible universes, goes to Heaven? ...and when? Are you now in heaven after dying from Universe 67442-A, while burning in Hell from Universe 88113-C? ... while still waiting to die in this Universe? With only one God and one Heaven (???) this can be quite a dilema.

Perhaps we should wait until all of your possible lives have terminated and take the outcome that occurs most (going to Heaven or Hell). And tie-breakers result with reincarnation.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Question: Why would an omnipotent God have to settle for a tradeoff?

It depends on what the logical possibilities are. If it is logically possible for there to be a universe with maximal good but no suffering, then there is no need for a tradeoff. If isn't possible, well, then tradeoffs are of course necessary.

The catch is in determining what is logically possible. As I wrote earlier,

... we can think of alternative scenarios that would seem to produce less suffering than we see. The catch, however, is that we don't necessarily have the capability to fully trace out the results of the scenarios to see if they have hidden problems that would actually make them worse than our current one.

As you can see, the argument depends on how ignorant our limitations make us.

Why would it depend on what the 'logical possibilities' are? Doesn't the omnipotent God set the rules?

Your arguments seem to reinforce the idea that 'we' have created 'God'.

 

[jjramsey]

Why would it depend on what the 'logical possibilities' are? Doesn't the omnipotent God set the rules?

Ah, there's the downside of referring to the "laws of logic" as laws at all. It obscures that these laws are not contingent and could not be any other way, unlike the laws of physics. An omnipotent God cannot set the laws of logic because the laws of logic aren't things to be set at all; they simply are. Put another way, nonsense does not become sense simply because the words "God can" are put in front of it. The reason that the statement "God cannot make colorless green ideas sleep furiously" isn't a limitation on omnipotence is because the statement is meaningless, so it can't be a limitation on anything.

Another way to look at it is that, as Bri pointed out, if one allows that God can do the logically impossible, then no rational discussion about God can take place. This would make any discussion of the merits of theodicy arguments moot, since that is rational discussion about God. This means that you have two choices:

• Accept that it makes no sense to say that being omnipotent means that one can do nonsense, in which case you can meaningfully discuss the Problem of Evil.
• Allow that being omnipotent means that one can do nonsense, and forfeit discussion of the Problem of Evil and any other rational discussion about God.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Ah, there's the downside of referring to the "laws of logic" as laws at all. It obscures that these laws are not contingent and could not be any other way, unlike the laws of physics. An omnipotent God cannot set the laws of logic because the laws of logic aren't things to be set at all; they simply are. Put another way, nonsense does not become sense simply because the words "God can" are put in front of it. The reason that the statement "God cannot make colorless green ideas sleep furiously" isn't a limitation on omnipotence is because the statement is meaningless, so it can't be a limitation on anything.

Another way to look at it is that, as Bri pointed out, if one allows that God can do the logically impossible, then no rational discussion about God can take place. This would make any discussion of the merits of theodicy arguments moot, since that is rational discussion about God. This means that you have two choices:

• Accept that it makes no sense to say that being omnipotent means that one can do nonsense, in which case you can meaningfully discuss the Problem of Evil.
• Allow that being omnipotent means that one can do nonsense, and forfeit discussion of the Problem of Evil and any other rational discussion about God.

Thanks, that's the best argument I've heard against an omnipotent God.

 

[Tricky]

Allow that being omnipotent means that one can do nonsense, and forfeit discussion of the Problem of Evil and any other rational discussion about God.

I feel like you can define omnipotent just about any way you like, and it is incompatible with the Problem of Evil.

If God is all powerful, then humans have no power. No power to do good. No power to do evil. No power at all. If there is evil, then God is doing it, because He is all powerful.

Some have suggested that God deliberately gives up some of His power so that we may have free will. But if He does so, then, regardless of whether or not He did so willingly and regardless whether or not he could take it back if He chose, God is no longer all powerful as long as humans have free will. God cannot give away power and still keep it. That would be one of those nonsense things.

 

[jjramsey]

God cannot give away power and still keep it.

One can, however, hold back power and still keep it. Indeed, holding back power presumes that one is keeping the power, just not using it.

 

[Tricky]

One can, however, hold back power and still keep it. Indeed, holding back power presumes that one is keeping the power, just not using it.

I disagree. If you can make a decision, but God can overrule that decision whenever he decides to stop "holding back" that power, then you really don't have the power to make that decision. In order for you to truly have free will, God must give up the power to override your decision.

 

[jjramsey]

If you can make a decision, but God can overrule that decision whenever he decides to stop "holding back" that power, then you really don't have the power to make that decision.

Nonsense. If I can make a decision, then I have the power to make a decision. That's a tautology. Whether God can revoke that power later on is irrelevant to whether I have the power now.

 

[Tricky]

Nonsense. If I can make a decision, then I have the power to make a decision. That's a tautology. Whether God can revoke that power later on is irrelevant to whether I have the power now.

Well then, if you made the decision and God couldn't do anything about what decision you made, then He's not omnipotent. Choose your poison.

 

[jjramsey]

Well then, if you made the decision and God couldn't do anything about what decision you made, then He's not omnipotent. Choose your poison.

Again, you are eliding over the difference between "couldn't do" and "chose not to".

 

[kuroyume0161]

While I agree with jjramsey, there is a certain problem (endemic to all of this 'omni' this and 'omni' that) on restriction, application, and dealing with infinities.

As I see it, something 'defined' to be omnipotent can 'choose not to', but in so making the choice not to exhibit any portion of its omnipotence, has in effect reliquinshed that portion thereby. Now, I'm using omnipotent as in 'infinitely powerful' - and that stretches over whatever we might assign 'space and time' for such a being. Thus, even if the being only relinquishes a portion for a very limited time, the very perfect notion of omnipotent no longer applies - or does it?

Of course, we're now talking infinities; never an easy and precise topic. For instance, if party A were to say (hypothetically) that they had an infinite number of jelly-babies and by some impossible means we were able to verify this, would giving one jelly-baby to party B reduce the number of jelly-babies had by party A. Ohhh, infinite fun with infinite things!

In essence, the very notion of a real omni-anything is a logical impossibility. Ideally, like infinity, we can ponder it. For deific purposes, I think it just gives deity final qualifications as a sort of stop-think procedure for any real pondering on the 'real' deity's existence and qualifications. This just allows open and even contradictory attributes to be accepted without reasoned merit. Sort of like, "I have 1!", "I have 1000!", "Yeah, well, I have Infinity!" That ends any discussion succinctly - well, except for the obvious rejoinder.

 

[jjramsey]

For instance, if party A were to say (hypothetically) that they had an infinite number of jelly-babies and by some impossible means we were able to verify this, would giving one jelly-baby to party B reduce the number of jelly-babies had by party A.

Actually, Georg Cantor already answered this one: No. There's is even a sig to this effect, which you can probably Google:

Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall, aleph-null bottles of beer!
Take one down, pass it around.
Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall.

Aleph-null ([latex]$\aleph_0$[/latex]) is the number of integers and rational numbers. Marvin Gardner had a book called aha! Gotcha, which had various fun discussions of puzzles and paradoxes. He pointed out that if you add aleph-null to aleph-null, you get aleph-null ([latex]$\aleph_0 + \aleph_0 = \aleph_0$[/latex]), and that if you subtract aleph-null from aleph-null, you get aleph-null ([latex]$\aleph_0 - \aleph_0 = \aleph_0$[/latex]).

Not sure that this has much to do with theology, except perhaps as a reminder that counterintuitive and illogical are not the same thing.

In essence, the very notion of a real omni-anything is a logical impossibility.

I think you are going to have to spell out what you mean by logical impossibility. With apologies to Rob Reiner, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

[Iacchus]

Well then, if you made the decision and God couldn't do anything about what decision you made, then He's not omnipotent. Choose your poison.

So, if God has the capacity to remain consistent, why shouldn't He employ it? Now, if He did not have that capacity, there would be no point in bothering about it would there?

 

[Tricky]

Again, you are eliding over the difference between "couldn't do" and "chose not to".

If he could and chose not to, then it is HIS will, His choice, not yours. If you can only choose what God allows you to choose, then you are not really choosing.