Omnipotence

[Ossai]

ceo_esq

Ossai, you keep saying this, but you don't explain why in any plausible fashion.

1. Answer Robin first.
2. You still haven’t defined ‘intrinsically impossible’.

Ossai

 

[ceo_esq]

No. An unliftable rock, is NOT, as so many have said, a contradictory. A contradiction is A and ~A. An rock is a contradiction if it is both liftable AND unliftable. Properties of omnipotent beings have nothing to do with the rock until the being tries to lift the rock.

[snip...]

4. Pr |Premise
An unliftable rock is intrinsically possible (What properties of the rock make this untrue?
intrinsic: Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent )

It is not clear to me that an absolutely unliftable rock is intrinsically possible. The reason for my skepticism on this point is not any alleged property of God's (such as, perhaps, the inherent ability to lift anything). Rather, I'm concerned that the rock by its nature is a created thing, and a material one at that - and thus whether it could possess any inherent infinite property (such as infinite resistance to lifting) seems philosophically doubtful.

 

[ceo_esq]

ceo_esq

1. Answer Robin first.
2. You still haven’t defined ‘intrinsically impossible’.

Ossai

1. I'll sum up what I've already said on this point. Robin's basic question, which he recently rephrased, seems to be: "If two absolute abilities X and Y form an intrinsic impossibility then which one of X or Y does God have?" I have not yet seen proffered two coherent absolute abilities X and Y, neither of which produces a contradiction individually with respect to the potentia absoluta or otherwise, but which taken together form an intrinsic impossibility. I've already discussed why the "create an unliftable rock" vs. "lift anything" scenario appears to me not to fit the bill.

2. No, but Robin already described the traditional sense of those words early on in the thread, and why would anyone assume that I would depart from the classical definition of any word or term without signaling my intent?

 

[ReFLeX]

It is not clear to me that an absolutely unliftable rock is intrinsically possible. The reason for my skepticism on this point is not any alleged property of God's (such as, perhaps, the inherent ability to lift anything). Rather, I'm concerned that the rock by its nature is a created thing, and a material one at that - and thus whether it could possess any inherent infinite property (such as infinite resistance to lifting) seems philosophically doubtful.

...rather, I would say the rock by its nature is a hypothetical thing, and an imagined one at that. Plainly, God transcends matter (or is that really plain...?), but anyway, why does the rock have to be made of atoms? I suppose, to make it more palatable to an ideal perspective, you could substitute "problem" for "rock" and "unsolvable" for "unliftable". Does this resolve your objections to the argument?

 

[ReFLeX]

Intrinsic impossiblity is the result of semantics, pure and simple.
Stamen

...how so? Can't I imagine an intrinsic impossibility without using words to describe it? I would say, instead, intrinsic impossibility is expressed through semantics, but does not stem from them.

 

[stamenflicker]

Can't I imagine an intrinsic impossibility without using words to describe it?

Most linguists would say no you can't imagine it without words. Granted you are speaking them, but the word rock is only a linguistic "sign" that defines the thought you are thinking. You are basically carrying the definitions (or the semantic rules) into your thought processes, spoken or not. Even if you could imagine something without words, the imagination would be nonsensical if it couldn't be articulated in a way that made logical sense or fit the rules of language. It is like saying I can imagine a world where 2+2=5.

Stamen

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Intrinsic impossiblity is the result of semantics, pure and simple.

No, this is what I have been showing. It is semantics when you talk of four-sided triangles and married bachelors, but that is trivial. What I am talking of is when two absolute abilities are mutually exclusive. That is real, not semantic.

It is the same method applied to infinity, only because the problem is language it can't look exactly the same nor can it be repeatable. It is basically taking a meaningless concept and making it work for you. In a sense it is a rule change. Is there something about this you find displeasing, I don't understand why one would take the liberty in one area but not another. Maybe I've misunderstood you.

As I said before, in mathematics I will not use infinity as a value but will deal with the concept using the rigorous and consistent method of limits. Thus I am not taking liberties and I am using no meaningless concepts. I know exactly how to deal with the concept and I can prove every stage, I find that extremely pleasing.

Theological intrinsic impossibility is in no way comparable to infinity, it is neither rigorous nor consistent, it comes down to opinion in the end - "does free-will trump justice?" and so on. I find that somewhat less pleasing, and the difference is precision.

I thought of a better way to explain where I'm coming from. Math is the language of numbers and it has its own sets of intrinsic impossibilities. For example, 1+1 is not going to equal 13, at least not without generate a new set of rules.

Maths does have it's own intrinsic impossibilities, but not as you describe. Again maths harnesses the intrinsic impossibility in a rigorous and consistent manner - the method of proof by contradiction.

Language too has its own set of rules. They can't look exactly like math's rules, but they are there as any linguist will tell you. One of those "rules" is that intrinsically impossible language constructions are non-sensical. Just like 1 + 1= 13 is nonsensical in the mathmatical language.

Let's get away from semantics. Are you really saying that every impossibility is simply a language construction? No, nonsensical is not the same as impossible, we need to stop confusing these terms.

I thought of a better way to explain where I'm coming from. Math is the language of numbers and it has its own sets of intrinsic impossibilities. For example, 1+1 is not going to equal 13, at least not without generate a new set of rules.

It would be like me saying to you, ok now unbreakable objects can now break because I just added this special new dimension of reality where they can.

If it was just a language construct then it would not be a new dimension of reality and we would simply disregard it. If it was really a new dimension of reality then it would not be semantics but we could hardly debate a condition where a=!a can we?

No lets agree that unbreakable means unbreakable and that we are talking about real unbreakability and not just linguistic unbreakability. That will make things a lot easier.

 

[Robin]

Most linguists would say no you can't imagine it without words. Granted you are speaking them, but the word rock is only a linguistic "sign" that defines the thought you are thinking. You are basically carrying the definitions (or the semantic rules) into your thought processes, spoken or not. Even if you could imagine something without words, the imagination would be nonsensical if it couldn't be articulated in a way that made logical sense or fit the rules of language. It is like saying I can imagine a world where 2+2=5.

Stamen

Nonsense! You just need to observe a young child who does not yet have language. He will hide a toy and then later go back to the place he hid it. He has clearly imagined the toy and the hiding place even though he has words for neither. Signs? Don't get me bloody started on semiotics!

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
It is not clear to me that an absolutely unliftable rock is intrinsically possible. The reason for my skepticism on this point is not any alleged property of God's (such as, perhaps, the inherent ability to lift anything). Rather, I'm concerned that the rock by its nature is a created thing, and a material one at that - and thus whether it could possess any inherent infinite property (such as infinite resistance to lifting) seems philosophically doubtful

Can you make that objection more precise? Are you saying that it is impossible for something created to possess inherent infinite properties? We must allow that an omnipotent being can create an infinite object (infinities not being mutually exclusive). So why not an object with some infinite property?

Of course I refer to the rock to keep consistency with the original paradox, but the argument is easier with the unbreakable object (since a rock that rests upon anything is by definition already "lifted").

Can God say of some object - "I have made this and it shall never be broken"? If so are there any circumstances whatever under which the object can be broken? That sounds like an unbreakable object to me.

How God might achieve this is not the issue, it is not a physics problem. God's own volition in creating the object is irrelevant since he no longer has volition to break it. And it makes no difference that God might have achieved the feat by binding his own agency to the object, since if there is an omnipotent, omnipresent God then everything that happens in the universe is through God's agency. Who else?

If God cannot make that statement then we have identified something that God cannot do. If God can make the statement then we know that God does not have the ability of breaking any object that there can be limitations on his power.

But this is only one example, I have identified others - God cannot possess infinite justice and exercise infinite punishment (for what infinite offence can a finite being do?). God cannot possess infinite justice and not be able to exercise an infinite punishment (as infinite justice implies an infinite sanction). God cannot prevent all evil from happening and allow free will to his creation. God's creation cannot have free will if threatened by an infinite punishment.

The intrinsic impossibility clause means that the nature that we can give to God is limited only by our imagination and our own nature. Can anybody find an actual logical fault with my dual omnipotence theology proposed earlier?

 

[Robin]

OK, for the post modernists let me make the difference between semantics and reality clearer. I can easily make 2+2=5 by the simple expedient of using the symbol '5' to stand for the concept formerly represented by '4'. Easy.

But if I have one hen that lays 2 eggs and another hen that lays 2 eggs, and one customer that wants 1 egg and another customer that wants 4 eggs then I simply do not have enough eggs. No use substituting '3' for the '4' symbol, because my customer has two children, himself and his wife who all want an egg for breakfast.

He cannot make one of his children disappear by substituting '1' for '2'. So for all the millions of words and pretend words that linguists and semioticians write they are wrong, language does not condition reality.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Just like 1 + 1= 13 is nonsensical in the mathmatical language

Let me again stress '1+1=13' is not 'nonsensical' in mathematics, it is simply false. It is not nonsensical because it is a properly constructed equation. For example we might encounter such a construction at the end of a proof by contradiction. If it were nonsensical then we wouldn't understand it and could draw no conclusions from it. We could not say if it were true or false. But since it makes sense and is false we could conclude that whatever assumption that led to this was negated.

 

[stamenflicker]

It is semantics when you talk of four-sided triangles and married bachelors

And an unbreakable items that resist an "infinitely powerful" attempt at breaking them is a four-sided triange. It really is that simple, but go ahead.

As I said before, in mathematics I will not use infinity as a value but will deal with the concept using the rigorous and consistent method of limits. Thus I am not taking liberties and I am using no meaningless concepts. I know exactly how to deal with the concept and I can prove every stage, I find that extremely pleasing.

What you prove is that you need a special set of rules to deal with the concept that doesn't make sense inside your pre-existing rules. So you expand your rules to make it fit, and it fits well as my cell phone and other electronic items will testify.

Again maths harnesses the intrinsic impossibility in a rigorous and consistent manner - the method of proof by contradiction.

And the same is true in language, you just don't accept the language rules nor the matter of proven contradiction.

Let's get away from semantics.

Why? Because it doesn't fit your theory?

Are you really saying that every impossibility is simply a language construction?

No, I'm saying that logical impossibilities exist whether in both math and language, and that at least in the case of a "rock so big God can't move it" we are dealing with a four-sided triangle.

No lets agree that unbreakable means unbreakable and that we are talking about real unbreakability and not just linguistic unbreakability

You can't "talk" about real unbreakability outside of linguistic unbreakablility. Nor can you use semantically speaking an un-"ANYTHING" in relationship with an all-"ANYTHING". It is exactly like saying an un-three-sided all-triangle. Because the "un" and the "all" specially refer to infinite descriptors.

You just need to observe a young child who does not yet have language. He will hide a toy and then later go back to the place he hid it

And all I'm saying is that he just took his four-sided triangle and hid it next to his married bachelor and will return to it on the 8th day of his week.

Let me again stress '1+1=13' is not 'nonsensical' in mathematics, it is simply false. It is not nonsensical because it is a properly constructed equation.

But why is it false? Because you have determined through observation that one does not equal 6.5. You have to redefine 1 to make this be anything but false. So why would you take the definition of the word "omnipotent" and describe it as

"the power that can accomplish anything [except for that which cannot be accomplished]."

I don't particularly care if you use non-sensical or false, either way, the rules of semantics make this a four-sided triangle.

Stamen

 

[stamenflicker]

In this case the intrinsic impossibility is not X and it is not Y, it is X and Y.

I fail to see how this differs from "married" X "bachelor" Y or "four-sided" X triangle "Y"

Stamen

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
And an unbreakable items that resist an "infinitely powerful" attempt at breaking them is a four-sided triange. It really is that simple

No it is not, because the definition of "infinitely powerful" is the very matter we are trying to decide. So you cannot use the definition to say something is a nonsense statement as though the matter had already been decided. You are assuming your conclusion - it is a little thing called petitio principii. In this case you have decided in advance that an "infinite power" must be capable of breaking any object. The point I have made all along is that an infinite power might equally be supposed to be able to create an unbreakable object.

And the same is true in language, you just don't accept the language rules nor the matter of proven contradiction.

If you think that the rules of language is in any way comparable with the rules of mathematics then you don't understand either. The rules of language are something that evolves informally to suit a culture and may be ambiguous and in fact the very ambiguity of language adds to it's beauty but causes problems. Mathematics on the other hand is rigorous and clearly defined - ambiguity defeats it. It has evolved, but alway according to formal rule. The rules of language are only what linguists have tried to impose on it after the fact.

quote:
Let's get away from semantics.

Why? Because it doesn't fit your theory?

No because it is irrelevant as I have explained many times.

No, I'm saying that logical impossibilities exist whether in both math and language, and that at least in the case of a "rock so big God can't move it" we are dealing with a four-sided triangle.

Please don't alter my statements to suit your argument. I didn't say "so big". I said a rock unliftable by God and have explained in detail why this is not an impossibility.

You can't "talk" about real unbreakability outside of linguistic unbreakablility. Nor can you use semantically speaking an un-"ANYTHING" in relationship with an all-"ANYTHING". It is exactly like saying an un-three-sided all-triangle. Because the "un" and the "all" specially refer to infinite descriptors.

What are you saying here? That you can't use "un" in front of anything if you have previously used "all"? So if I say that my argument is "all-true" you cannot say that it is "untrue"?

But why is it false? Because you have determined through observation that one does not equal 6.5. You have to redefine 1 to make this be anything but false.

No, because I am interpreting widely agreed symbols to stand for concepts that have clearly defined rules. But you are missing the point about it. If it was "nonsensical" then it would be no use to me - I could not determine if it were true or false. That it is false implies that is is sencical but not true. An important distinction that you seem determined to obfuscate.

And all I'm saying is that he just took his four-sided triangle and hid it next to his married bachelor and will return to it on the 8th day of his week.

Well you are then talking nonsense by your own rules. I made the very clear point that pre-language children can imagine things without having any words for them. The fact that you can put nonsense words to those concepts does not affect his ability in any way. Language - reality - they are different things.

quote:
Robin: In this case the intrinsic impossibility is not X and it is not Y, it is X and Y.

Stamenflicker: I fail to see how this differs from "married" X "bachelor" Y or "four-sided" X triangle "Y"

Because in four-sided triangle and married bachelor the impossibility arises from the definition. In omnipotence the definition will depend on the resolution of the contradiction. If you say "Candidates for this job may be married or they may be bachelors" is possible but does not tell you whether the successful candidate is married or not. If you say "Candidates for this job must be married bachelors" then you don't have any candidates at all.

So to say "an object unbreakable by a force capable of breaking the object" then of course you have an oxymoron. But that is assuming the conclusion, we are saying that God may be able to create an unbreakable object, or to break any object, but not both. And this statement does not tell us which God can do.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
So why would you take the definition of the word "omnipotent" and describe it as

"the power that can accomplish anything [except for that which cannot be accomplished]."

I don't particularly care if you use non-sensical or false, either way, the rules of semantics make this a four-sided triangle.

It wasn't me that said that. I don't know where you got that from but it sounds a lot like the Aquinas definition. Not a four-sided triangle but: "A triangle that has as many sides as you like as long as it is three".

 

[ReFLeX]

Robin... I like your style.

 

[Kumar]

Re: Re: Omnipotence

*Snip*
The following list of properties are attributed to God by Catholic dogma:

Omnipotent

Omniscient

Omni-benevolent

Impassable

Infinitely Just

Infinitely Merciful

Eternal

Knowable by Nature

Omni-present

Absolutely Perfect

Absolute Immutability

The First Efficient Cause



If we are to answer the question, "Does the Christian God exist?" we must analyze the properties attributed to God and see if they are at least philosophically sound. In this first essay on God’s qualities I wish to consider God’s omnipotence (God’s power) and some of the difficulties with the idea of God’s omnipotence.

There are two major difficulties with an all-powerful being. The first problem has to do with the extent of God’s power. Does omnipotence allow God to redefine logic or break the laws of logic? Does God’s omnipotence mean that he is capable of sin? The second major difficulty is the apparent conflict between God’s power and his omni-benevolence. Namely, if an all-good, all-powerful God exists, why does evil exist in the world he created? These questions are real problems for Christianity, and I wish to address each of them carefully.

Another definition;

"God creates, nurses and destroys the universe. God is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent and almighty, beyond description, beyond imagination, and beyond calculation"

There can be Goddess/God at prime/basic level, specific purpose level, alike God/son of God's level. He can be source of everything or being, both good or bad as both can be balancing to each other which can serve purpose to "balance" or "nature balance"---really like & desired by nature/HIM & to serve purpose of creation, maintainance & destruction. Every knowledgable person tells that supreme power creates, operates & destroys this universe. This cycle repeats again & again. There is no start & end to this process. Everything is infinite.

Under your quoted qualities & this, what can we find?

 

[ceo_esq]

Plainly, God transcends matter (or is that really plain...?), but anyway, why does the rock have to be made of atoms? I suppose, to make it more palatable to an ideal perspective, you could substitute "problem" for "rock" and "unsolvable" for "unliftable". Does this resolve your objections to the argument?

If the thing isn't composed of atoms, I don't see how it can be made to fit within the meaning of "rock". As for whether this difficulty can be mitigated by substituting "problem" for "rock" and "unsolvable" for "unliftable", let me ponder that for a moment.

To relate the switch back to Robin's question, we would then be considering how to decide whether to attribute to God (X) the ability to create a problem unsolvable even by him or (Y) the ability to solve any problem, since he clearly can't possess both - assuming first of course, that neither X nor Y individually is an intrinsic impossibility.

My first observation would concern some ambiguity, not necessarily insurmountable, about the notion of "creating an unsolvable problem". I can understand, of course, the more or less colloquial sense of "creating problems", but I'm not sure whether it applies here. Are we talking about inventing logical or mathematical problems, or something else? Are such things really "created"? I'd welcome your thoughts.

I'll assume for the moment that "creating problems" should in this case probably mean something closer to "inventing logical or mathematical puzzles" than to "causing difficulties". I'll grant then, that power X does not by itself involve impossibility. But power Y, the ability to solve any problem, does involve impossibility - because some problems don't have solutions. I would never ascribe to an omnipotent being the ability to solve, for example, the pair of equations 2x=3 and 5x=4.

So I would submit that substituting "problem" for "rock" and "unsolvable" for "unliftable" does not resolve the difficulty; it only transfers it from X to Y. To wit: creating absolutely unliftable rocks strikes me as inherently impossible, though the ability to lift anything is unproblematic. On the other hand, I have no objection to the notion of creating absolutely insoluble problems, but the ability to solve any problem seems like an irrational concept.

Can you make that objection more precise? Are you saying that it is impossible for something created to possess inherent infinite properties?

Yes, I'm strongly inclined to say that's the case, although I'm open to revising this position. By the way, after rereading the encyclopedia article you originally linked (setting forth what you elsewhere alluded to as the "classical" philosophical view, I believe), I note that it makes virtually the same point: an "infinite creature" (which I take to mean a created thing possessing inherent infinite properties) is given as an example of an impossible concept, uniting as it does two mutually repellent elements (createdness and infinitude).

We must allow that an omnipotent being can create an infinite object (infinities not being mutually exclusive). So why not an object with some infinite property?

As I said, I'm inclined to favor the classical view: finitude is an attendant condition of the term "created object".

Can God say of some object - "I have made this and it shall never be broken"? If so are there any circumstances whatever under which the object can be broken? That sounds like an unbreakable object to me.

I think an omnipotent being worthy of the name ought to be able to say this, and the result would be an object that was to all intents and purposes unbreakable because if it then were broken another paradox would result (the reversal of a divine decree). We agree, it seems, up to that point at least. But here again, while I don't buy into any of the theology, the Scholastic distinction of powers seems philosophically persuasive and relevant. The object remains theoretically breakable by God's absolute power, since no object can be inherently unbreakable, but in the regulated order of the potentia ordinaria no force, including God, can break it.

If God cannot make that statement then we have identified something that God cannot do. If God can make the statement then we know that God does not have the ability of breaking any object that there can be limitations on his power.

But a limitation placed by the omnipotent will on itself appears to me to be a qualitatively different affair than an external limitation, and I hope I do not overstate matters when I suggest that most philosophers of religion have concluded that it is a unique case that does not defeat omnipotence. At any rate, however you qualify this apparent "limitation" on omnipotent power, it is arguably one that has so thoroughly been absorbed into philosophical/theological discourse that it should be regarded having been already internalized in the definition of the concept "omnipotence" for purposes of standard usage.

To return to the notion of the distinction of powers, I gather that this was devised specifically in order to be able to deal conceptually with the uniqueness (among all omnipotent faculties) of God's ability to make irreversible statements of the sort "I have made this and it shall never be broken". And I think that, in fairness, the Scholastics must be credited with a great deal of subtlety and philosophical sophistication for this.

But this is only one example, I have identified others - God cannot possess infinite justice and exercise infinite punishment (for what infinite offence can a finite being do?). God cannot possess infinite justice and not be able to exercise an infinite punishment (as infinite justice implies an infinite sanction). God cannot prevent all evil from happening and allow free will to his creation. God's creation cannot have free will if threatened by an infinite punishment.

I'm not sure I agree with this, but I need to think on it further. Perhaps, though, you could clarify relevance of the infinite punishment point to our omnipotence discussion? As I see it, we are not examining the "God" of Christian theology so much as the "God" of philosophy of religion (notwithstanding the substantial overlap of those concepts). I can see how worldly evil may be admitted into that discussion, but not (purely?) theological doctrines like Hell.

The intrinsic impossibility clause means that the nature that we can give to God is limited only by our imagination and our own nature. Can anybody find an actual logical fault with my dual omnipotence theology proposed earlier?

I'm going back over this and hope to revert to you later.

 

[Ossai]

ceo_esq

To relate the switch back to Robin's question, we would then be considering how to decide whether to attribute to God (X) the ability to create a problem unsolvable even by him or (Y) the ability to solve any problem, since he clearly can't possess both - assuming first of course, that neither X nor Y individually is an intrinsic impossibility.

You are placing qualifier on it.
Start from the basics again:
1 God creates an unsolvable problem – in and of itself not intrinsically impossible given that god is omnipotent.

2 God can solve any problem – in and of itself not intrinsically impossible given that god is omnipotent.

Separately both are possible. Together is where the impossibility arises. Does one take president over the other thereby limiting omnipotent and if so which one?

Ossai

 

[stamenflicker]

The point I have made all along is that an infinite power might equally be supposed to be able to create an unbreakable object.

This is the crux of our disagreement. You think this statement is meaningful or sensical, I think it is absurd and wrecked with semantic inconsistency. You are bascially saying that a limitless X should be able to generate states that extend beyond its own limitation-- and in the very semantics of your sentence you are generating logical incoherence. In other words the married man can generate a state in which he is both married and a bachelor.

I really don't see how to argue that kind of logic. Maybe married doesn't really mean married and we can redefine it to say it means bachelor in given circumstances.

Stamen