Omnipotence

[ceo_esq]

ceo_esq
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

What's the qualifier you think I've placed? That "solve any problem" means "solve any problem, including one with no solution"? That's not a qualifier, it's a necessary implication of the statement.

Logically, the application of any amount of power, whether finite or infinite, will not solve a problem with no solution. So given that we know some problems have no solutions, the power to solve absolutely any problems is a contradictory concept. It is, in other words, intrinsically impossible to be able to solve all potential problems. Your statement #2 above is impossible all by itself.

 

[ceo_esq]

Can anybody find an actual logical fault with my dual omnipotence theology proposed earlier?

Let me state what I understand to be your "dual omnipotence theology": it is possible for two omnipotent beings to exist simultaneously because a case where one would overrule the other would be intrinsically impossible, thereby clearing the way for coexistence.

If I've misunderstood or misstated it, just tell me so.

I suppose it would be impossible for O1 to "overrule" O2. However, it appears logically unobjectionable that any possible being ought to be able to "cancel out", by opposition, the act of any other possible being of equal power (e.g. I apply my full power to move a stone to the left, and my double applies his full power simultaneously to move the same stone to the right; we cancel each other out).

Yet if I am capable of applying an irresistible force to the rock, it seems logically impossible for me not to be able to move it. This suggests that a second omnipotent entity pushing in the opposite direction is not a possible being, for otherwise my force could be cancelled out, making it simultaneously irresistible and resistible.

This leaves us only with the prospect of a second omnipotent being who is not merely contingently but necessarily never in opposition with the first. That seems a highly dubious proposition to me. For any two possible sentient independent beings, a disagreement between them is conceivable even if it is never actualized. That, for me, would take a second omnipotent being out of the category of "possible beings".

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
quote (From Robin):

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.

Where did I say that "a limitless X should be able to generate states that extend beyond its own limitations"? Or anything remotely like it. I didn't - that is your own straw man. My argument is clear:

- God can create an object and say "this can never be broken"
- If the object is broken then God is wrong or a liar, both are intrinsically impossible
- Therefore it is intrinsically impossible to break the object - thus even God cannot break it.

Now if you object that God would never make the original claim then you have stated a limitation on God - the inability to create permanence.

This seems to me to be a theologically important point. If God chokes on a simple unbreakable object how is he going to cope with a Kingdom that "shall never be destroyed"? If an unbreakable object is "absurd and wrecked with semantic inconsistency" then why would an "indestructible Kingdom" be any more meaningful?

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
That seems a highly dubious proposition to me.

And so it is, but then I would say that of most mainstream religious claims. A contradictory action is conceivable but since it is intrinsically impossible then it does not count as a contradiction, just as the unliftable rock is conceivable but (according to some) intrinsically impossible. As I said, "overrule (or cancel out) an omnipotent being" is what Lewis would term a nonsense statement. The argument for one must be allowed for the other.

Yet if I am capable of applying an irresistible force to the rock, it seems logically impossible for me not to be able to move it.

On the contrary if the object has been made unmoveable by an omnipotent being then it is logically impossible to move it, since moving it would lead to the intrinsically impossible condition of an omnipotent entity lying or being wrong about something.

O1 and O2 do not cancel each other out, as you suggest, nor is one contingent. They are both equal and work in perfect harmony. They each have every 'potentia absoluta' with an orderly demarcation of 'potentia ordinaria'. Since they both act according to perfect reason and both have access to perfect knowledge then they can never disagree. Hence they will never push in opposite directions.

 

[stamenflicker]

My argument is clear

Your argument is logically flawed and not clear. Semantically, your logic breaks down this way:

[Limitless adjective A] to [Noun A] [Verb] non-exclusive and logically contradictory [Limitless Adjective B] [Noun B].

[Limitless adjective B] [Noun B] and [Limitless adjective A] [Noun A] are no longer limitless because one limit must trump the other.

All I'm saying is that you are internally inconsistent because your noun adjective combinations are mutually exclusive based on the stipulative defintions of each combo. Some how you find this logical that limitless doesn't really mean limitless.

So... by your logic:

The undefeatable hockey team will always win any game.

The unwinnable game can be played but never be won.

The undefeatable hockey team plays in the unwinnable game.

Therefore either the undefeatable hockey team is defeatable, or the unwinnable game is really winnable.

Your logic: Either the hockey team is defeatable, or the game is winnable.

My logic: An undefeatable team can never play in an unwinnable game.

Stamen

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Your argument is logically flawed and not clear. Semantically, your logic breaks down this way:

[Limitless adjective A] to [Noun A] [Verb] non-exclusive and logically contradictory [Limitless Adjective B] [Noun B].

[Limitless adjective B] [Noun B] and [Limitless adjective A] [Noun A] are no longer limitless because one limit must trump the other.

Exactly what logic is supposed to break down this way? You have directly misquoted me twice and presented a stupid straw-man version of my argument. Now this.

I am pretty sure I never said anything like this. But show me up. Defend your credibility. Show me the statement I made where you can map any of my exact words to this alleged semantic break-down. If you cannot then this is another straw man.

Please deal with the argument I actually presented rather than your own misrepresentations of it.

Just answer me this, is the following statement true or false in relation to an omnipotent God?:

- God can create an object and say of it "this can never be broken"

If you say false state why God's limitless power cannot prevent the object from being broken.

 

[ceo_esq]

Since they both act according to perfect reason and both have access to perfect knowledge then they can never disagree. Hence they will never push in opposite directions.

I find it difficult to characterize a being incapable of pushing in any given direction as omnipotent in the first place, so I suspect that neither O1 or O2 is omnipotent in your example.

I do not see how O1 and O2 can both retain the potentia absoluta to move the rock. And it also appears to me that your scenario depends on the perfect concordance of the potentia ordinaria being a necessary condition, whereas it would seem logical that an omnipotent being's choice to bind its own power is a contingent matter.

Do many philosophers and logicians share your view on the possibility of multiple omnipotent powers?

 

[Ossai]

ceo_esq

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

Logically, the application of any amount of power, whether finite or infinite, will not solve a problem with no solution. So given that we know some problems have no solutions, the power to solve absolutely any problems is a contradictory concept. It is, in other words, intrinsically impossible to be able to solve all potential problems. Your statement #2 above is impossible all by itself.

So god is all powerful except for the things that god cannot do.
Essentially it means "God can do anything, except what God can't do."
Which makes us all omnipotent. – which is exactly what Robin said earlier.

Ossai

 

[ceo_esq]

So god is all powerful except for the things that god cannot do.
Essentially it means "God can do anything, except what God can't do."
Which makes us all omnipotent. – which is exactly what Robin said earlier.

Ossai

No, an omnipotent being can do anything except for things that can't be done, period. Can you do anything except things that can't possibly be done by anyone? No? Neither can I. Accordingly, I conclude that neither of us is an omnipotent being. How you justify drawing the opposite conclusion is mysterious, to say the least.

 

[LW]

Here is some predicate logic to back up Robin:

I don't see any intrinsical problems with your proof (with the exception of one small detail and I personally prefer slightly different syntax).

However, the external problem there is that all logical proofs depend on definitions. And you will not get everyone to agree with yours. (Or anyone's, for what it is worth). In particular, in this case your argument rests on this sentence:

4. Pr
An unliftable rock is intrinsically possible (What properties of the rock make this untrue?

Well, someone might say that a fundamental property of a rock is that if you apply enough force to it, it will move into that direction (the Newtonian F=ma stuff). Under that interpretation an unliftable rock is an intrinsic impossibility. And there is really no formal reason to prefer one interpretation from another, so you can't really use logic to prove it in a direction or another.

Not that I wan't to get inside this discussion since my prior experiences on various forums have left me with the belief that omnipotence is one of those subjects (along with gun control and abortion) where reaching any sort of agreement is an intrinsic impossibility.

And now for the minor beauty error:

Cxy = x can create y
5. Cxy > Ey |Premise
If x creates y then y exists.

Here either your notation clashes or you are in a semantic error. Since even if x can create y, it doesn't mean that x will create y. It might be that x decides against creating y. But, like I said, this is a minor detail and easily fixable.

 

[stamenflicker]

Robin:

God can create an object and say "this can never be broken"

Your assumption here is that omnipotence can create an object and say "this can never be broken." Tell me if I have misquoted you thus far please.

Here it is:

You: God can create an object and say "this can never be broken"

Me: The undefeatable hockey team plays the unwinnable game.

Underlying Sematics: Limitless A [VERBS] with a contradictary limitless B.

The two limits are logically exclusive by definition and yet you still believe that linking them is reasonable. "This can never be broken" is a direct contradiction to "omnipotence." Your argument is just as absurd as saying that undefeatable hockey team could logically play an unwinnable game. I surprised you don't see it this way. You've taken basic language to the level of absurdity, which is what Lewis and others have demonstrated countless times.

Stamen

 

[Robin]

Stamenflicker,

So let's put aside analogies that compare God to a hockey team. What you are saying is that the statement:

God can create an object and say "this can never be broken"

is absurd. I doubt you would find any theologist anywhere who would agree. I doubt that Lewis would agree.

But you didn't complete the question. I asked you why God's limitless power could not prevent the object from being broken.

Don't forget the previous question - if an unbreakable object is an absurdity, is an indestructible Kingdom also an absurdity?

 

[Robin]

I find it difficult to characterize a being incapable of pushing in any given direction as omnipotent in the first place, so I suspect that neither O1 or O2 is omnipotent in your example.

Just as I find it difficult to characterise a being incapable of creating an unbreakable object as omnipotent in the first place. But notice how quick you are to conclude non-existence or non-omnipotence at the first sign of contradiction. If the same standard was applied to the single omnipotent being then all theology would come to a stand still.

I do not see how O1 and O2 can both retain the potentia absoluta to move the rock.

Can you state your objection? It seems to me that each could move any rock in any direction just so long as the other did not object. In other words they can move the rock except when moving the rock would lead to an intrinsic impossibility.

Just as God can say "this Kingdom shall never be destroyed" (it's in Daniel somewhere I think). God retains the potentia absoluta to destroy any kingdom at any time, but to do so would lead to the situation where God lied or was wrong, which are both intrinsic impossibilities. So when Kingdom comes God cannot destroy it, even in theory, even if he chose to do so. But he still retains the potentia absoluta to do so. I only claim the same playing field.

And it also appears to me that your scenario depends on the perfect concordance of the potentia ordinaria being a necessary condition, whereas it would seem logical that an omnipotent being's choice to bind its own power is a contingent matter.

Perfect concordance is inherent since anything else is inherently impossible. Even if O1 and O2 were in eternal conflict they could never outmanoevre another omnipotent being. Think of two reasonably smart kids playing nought and crosses (tic-tac-toe). After a short time they will understand every strategy and counter and it becomes pointless to continue playing. O1 and O2 are as evenly matched as the two players and having perfect understanding would realise the futility of trying to best the other before any conflict begins.

Do many philosophers and logicians share your view on the possibility of multiple omnipotent powers?

As I have just made up the idea I don't know. I am sure that this line of thought must have been tried previously, but I am not aware of it. It does not make any difference, appeal to authority is well known as a fallacy - it would not matter if nobody agreed on the possibility if the concept is internally consistent - which it is if put on the same playing field as the single omnipotent entity.

 

[Robin]

You (ie Robin): God can create an object and say "this can never be broken"

Me (ie stamenflicker): The undefeatable hockey team plays the unwinnable game.

Here you have made the rather basic semantic blunder of equating a positive connotation (winnable) with a negative connotation (breakable) in which case the "un-" prefix will modify the meaning in an opposite sense. To maintain comparability you must chose the equivalent negative connotation (loseable) so your sentence becomes "The undefeatable hockey team plays the unloseable game".

You must also maintain as far as possible the syntactic structure of the first sentence, so from a technically correct standpoint the closest comparable sentence must be:

Me: God can create an object and say "this can never be broken"
Analogy: The undefeatable hockey team can say "we will never lose a game".

So even if such an analysis was relevant, from a correct semantic analysis, comparing like with like, my sentence is valid.

From a theological view point a God that cannot prevent some object from being broken cannot be omnipotent.

From a logic view point my premise is valid - of course an omnipotent being can create an object that will endure and resist being destroyed.

Try this exactly equivalent sentence:

God can create an object and say "this will endure forever"

How is a limit implied by that?

Where exactly are you coming from?

 

[stamenflicker]

Where exactly are you coming from?

Logic and semantic consistancy.

Here you have made the rather basic semantic blunder of equating a positive connotation (winnable) with a negative connotation (breakable) in which case the "un-" prefix will modify the meaning in an opposite sense.

Would it make you feel better if I called it an ever winning hockey team and started again? How about the omni-victorious hockey team? I fail to see the difference because at the semantic level we are talking about limitless adjectives.

So even if such an analysis was relevant, from a correct semantic analysis, comparing like with like, my sentence is valid.

In and of itself it certainly is. But if that is truly a pure logic, then there is no such thing as a genuine semantic limitlessness, because I, like you can easily construct a counterstatement given the structure of your sentence.

Even so it is faulty logic. Because undefeatable teams can exist, or omni-victorius teams, or ever-winning teams. Likewise, unwinnable games can too exist. So apparently there is such a thing as semantic limitlessness.

The problem is undefeatable teams cannot co-exist within unwinnable games... not because they can't exist, but because the semantics of each limitless adjective is mutually exclusive of the other.

You don't have a logical problem with omnipotence here. You have a semantic problem with language. That's where I'm coming from.

Stamen

 

[Robin]

Stamenflicker,

If you are coming from a position of semantics and logic then answer the questions you have dodged twice:

- If God has limitless power why can't he prevent an object from being broken?
- If an unbreakable object is a semantic absurdity then is an indestructible kingdom also a semantic absurdity?

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by LWNot that I wan't to get inside this discussion since my prior experiences on various forums have left me with the belief that omnipotence is one of those subjects (along with gun control and abortion) where reaching any sort of agreement is an intrinsic impossibility.

But let's face it, on this forum the proposition that "one plus one equals two" can lead to pages of furious and acrimonious debate. So in thinking we could get a start on such a complex topic as omnipotence I was exhibiting pure optimism.

 

[stamenflicker]

If God has limitless power why can't he prevent an object from being broken?

The same reason an omni-victorious hockey team could never logically play unwinnable hockey match.

If an unbreakable object is a semantic absurdity then is an indestructible kingdom also a semantic absurdity?

It is not a semantic absurdity. Neither is an unwinnable game. However you cannot use two limitless adjectives that are mutually exclusive in relationship with each other and remain in the realm of logic.

As I said before if we take this logic at it's face value then:

Either the hockey team is defeatable, or the game is winnable.

In which case, we redefine one limitless or the other. I find it equally disturbing that you would rather debate omnipotence than unbreakable items. One limitless is just as absurd to debate as the other. So why put the limits on omnipotence? Why not say that unbreakable things really are breakable?

My point is only that logically and semantically speaking:

An undefeatable team can never play in an unwinnable game.

Stamen

 

[Robin]

Robin: If an unbreakable object is a semantic absurdity then is an indestructible kingdom also a semantic absurdity?



Stamenflicker: it is not a semantic absurdity. Neither is an unwinnable game. However you cannot use two limitless adjectives that are mutually exclusive in relationship with each other and remain in the realm of logic.

I think you knew what I meant but if you want to be difficult - is the statement "God can create an indestructible Kingdom" an absurdity?

Can God create a Kingdom and say of it "this shall never be destroyed"? Or is God somehow semantically prevented from defending the Kingdom?

 

[Robin]

Robin: If God has limitless power why can't he prevent an object from being broken?

Stamenflicker: The same reason an omni-victorious hockey team could never logically play unwinnable hockey match.

Ok, so an omnipotent God lacks the power to prevent an object from being broken. Could he create an object that will last even an hour? One second?

I find it equally disturbing that you would rather debate omnipotence than unbreakable items. One limitless is just as absurd to debate as the other. So why put the limits on omnipotence?

You have just said that God lacks power to prevent an object from being broken and you say I am putting limits on omnipotence? As though the power to break things were more important than the power to prevent them being broken. As though omnipotence implies unlimited destructive capacities rather than unlimited creative capacities.