What if God wasn't omnipotent...

[Beleth]

Who said anything about being consistent with the logical laws of the universe?

All I said was that God was consistent with logic.

Are you saying that there is a being who is so absurdly powerful that he can do things he can't do?

 

[Yahzi]

Re: Is god really omnipotent, or does he exist outside of logic?

How do I respond when someone says to me that God exists outside of logic?

By pointing out that unicorns exist outside of logic. And elves. And pixies. And dragons. And Santa Claus. And the Easter Bunny. Etc.

Upchurch is right - the term "omnipotent" is inherently meaningless. Applying it to God renders God meaningless.

 

[Yahweh]

A circle is a regular polygon with an infinite number of corners.

Trivial! Give God something harder.

A circle has no corners... some kind of 90-side-a-gon might eventually look like a circle, but it is not.

 

[Upchurch]

Aaaand we start the definition game:

Omnipotence means "as powerful as possible", not "powerful enough to do logically absurd things".

No, omnipotence means "an agency or force of unlimited power". Unlimited meaning "not bounded by exceptions". So, omnipotent means an agency or force of power not bounded by exceptions.

These kinds of questions all boil down to the question
"Can God do something He can't do?"

The answer, of course, is "no". But that is not to say that there's a limit on God's power. If one can do anything, then the set of things you can't do is the empty set.

And thus the reason that the concept of "omnipotence" is logically inconsistant. If an omnipotent being can't do something, there is a limit to that being's power and thus, the being isn't omnipotent. If there is nothing an omnipotent being can't do, then we get "Rock so heavy he can't lift it" type paradoxes.

In other words, God can't make a burrito so hot that even He can't eat it because no such burrito can be made.

This, then, would be a limitation, thus negating God's claim to omnipotence.

Not by God, not by anyone. Not even by a hypothetical being with more power than God.

This is not an argument against God or for a more powerful being but rather it is an argument against the concept of omnipotence.

It's not that it's "merely" really, really hard to make such a burrito; it's unimaginable to make such a burrito.

There is a difference between things that are impossible and unimaginable. Something that is impossible is something, in this case, that is incapable of being or of occurring. Something that is unimaginable is something that can not be conceived. I can imagine a rock or a burrito with special properties, but they are impossible of occuring.

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: Is god really omnipotent, or does he exist outside of logic?

Applying it to God renders God meaningless.

Applying it to God doesn't render God meaningless, per se. Defining God as omnipotent or using omnipotence as one of the premises of God renders God as meaningless.

But otherwise, thanks.

 

[Tricky]

Who said anything about being consistent with the logical laws of the universe?

All I said was that God was consistent with logic.

Are you saying that there is a being who is so absurdly powerful that he can do things he can't do?

No, just noting that if God is constrained by anything (either logic, or TLOP or whatever you like to call it), then He is not all-powerful. Of course it is nonsense, but that is because the concept of an omnipotent god is nonsense.

Other concepts of god, which do not include omnipotence, may not be nonsense. Some deists views of a god created along with the universe may be internally logical.

(But you and I have already been through this "God as The Creator", business, Beleth. I think we agreed to disagree. )

 

[whitefork]

If god is omnipotent, and omnipotent is unlimited, then god is by definition undefinable, since de-finit-ion means the making finite of something by showing the limits around it.

Same as making god infinte - no finitude - no definition.

So, if you're going to do any theology beyond "oh wow", you have to be speaking of the finitude of god - otherwise, you're merely throwing sounds around hoping that someone will think you're actually making an assertion.

If god's a thing that you can talk about and assign attributes to, then you might as well worship an idol.

If god's not a thing, then your assertions about his nature have no referent.

 

[Beleth]

If an omnipotent being can't do something, there is a limit to that being's power and thus, the being isn't omnipotent. If there is nothing an omnipotent being can't do, then we get "Rock so heavy he can't lift it" type paradoxes.
This, then, would be a limitation, thus negating God's claim to omnipotence.

The set of things that an omnipotent being cannot do is the empty set.

An omnipotent being cannot do things he cannot do. This is a tautology. It is not a limitation of omnipotence. It's a difficult concept to grasp. You have to look at the problem from the other side.

This is not an argument against God or for a more powerful being but rather it is an argument against the concept of omnipotence.

Actually, it's an argument against the definition of omnipotence. I suggested "maxipotence" as a more accurate term in a previous thread.

 

[Tricky]

An omnipotent being cannot do things he cannot do. This is a tautology. It is not a limitation of omnipotence. It's a difficult concept to grasp. You have to look at the problem from the other side.

I can't do things I can't do either. So at some level, the omnipotent being constrained similarly to the way I am constrained.

Actually, it's an argument against the definition of omnipotence. I suggested "maxipotence" as a more accurate term in a previous thread.

That is a much better word, (though it byasses the topic of this thread) and falls in with what I was talking about with deists. Such a being would be the most powerful of all the entities which were subject to the caprice of the universe.

 

[Upchurch]

Actually, it's an argument against the definition of omnipotence.

Is there a difference?

I suggested "maxipotence" as a more accurate term in a previous thread.

M'kay. I assume that by maxipotent" you mean, "that which is most potent (or powerful)"? Or do you mean, "that which has most possible potency (or power)"?

Actually, even that might even lead to some sticky paradoxes. Consider, that which is most potent should have, at least, the potency of those which are less potent than itself. Correct? However, a human has the potential, or ability, to die. Does God have the power to die?

 

[MartinGibbs]

what if this "god" is just some race of beings quite a bit more intelligent than we are, who created this universe in a jar and just haven't taken the lid off yet?

They're just watching this whole thing evolve....

or... whatever, nevermind.

 

[Upchurch]

what if this "god" is just some race of beings quite a bit more intelligent than we are, who created this universe in a jar and just haven't taken the lid off yet?

Well, the first question would then be, are they the most powerful beings in the universe? The second question would be, do they possess all the power that is possible?

If they meet either or both of those criteria, they would meet the conditions of being maxipotent. Whether or not they meet the condition of being "God" depends on whether or not the sole criteria for "God" is being maxipotent.

 

[Beleth]

I assume that by maxipotent" you mean, "that which is most potent (or powerful)"? Or do you mean, "that which has most possible potency (or power)"?

The latter.

There's quite a hierarchy of -potencies, isn't there?

Actually, even that might even lead to some sticky paradoxes. Consider, that which is most potent should have, at least, the potency of those which are less potent than itself. Correct? However, a human has the potential, or ability, to die. Does God have the power to die?

I wouldn't call death a power. I'd call it a lack of power.

Consider two beings. One will die no matter what he does. The other can prevent himself from dying for as long as he wishes. Which one would you say is more powerful?

Consider two other beings. They both have the ability to kill themselves at any time. One chooses to kill himself, and does so. The other one chooses not to kill himself, and so does not. Which one of these two would you say is more powerful?

 

[MartinGibbs]

They would be the most powerful beings "in" our universe, but what about theirs?

See, they aren't really "in" ours, but in another "dimension" so to speak and now I have a headache.

 

[Upchurch]

I wouldn't call death a power. I'd call it a lack of power.

I disagree. As your following example shows, it is an ability, a degree of freedom if you will, that an immortal would be incapable of.

Consider two beings. One will die no matter what he does. The other can prevent himself from dying for as long as he wishes. Which one would you say is more powerful?

Consider two other beings. They both have the ability to kill themselves at any time. One chooses to kill himself, and does so. The other one chooses not to kill himself, and so does not. Which one of these two would you say is more powerful?

Both are very excellent situations to consider. Obviously, you are correct in each. As long as death is a choice, it is an ability. Interestingly, if God is maxipotent, then God must have the ability to die, because if God were truly immortal and incapable of dying, then we mortals would have one ability that God does not. You're definition of maxipotent excludes that possibility.

 

[Upchurch]

They would be the most powerful beings "in" our universe, but what about theirs?

See, they aren't really "in" ours, but in another "dimension" so to speak and now I have a headache.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. Since the "gods" who made our universe are, themselves, in a universe, our universe would be a subset of theirs. When I refered to "the universe" in my questions, I was refering to the entire universe, not our subset of the entire universe.

 

[MartinGibbs]

Understood.

But that doesn't cure my headache.

Bottom line:

God seems to fail when logic is applied. I'm comfortable living with that thought.

 

[justsaygnosis]

Perhaps god attempted to make a burrito too hot to eat and kept on going exponentially ad infinututm.
Finally a fart of immeasurable proprotions burst forth and thus came the big bang.
It's a plausible guess at where s**theads came from.

 

[Beleth]

Both are very excellent situations to consider. Obviously, you are correct in each.

How can I be correct? I merely stated questions, I didn't answer them. Don't infer that I stated the answers just because I posed the questions.

As long as death is a choice, it is an ability. Interestingly, if God is maxipotent, then God must have the ability to die, because if God were truly immortal and incapable of dying, then we mortals would have one ability that God does not.

I have to admit that I do not know where you are going with this one.

First off, I'm not sure whether "death" is a term that can apply to God. If we are talking about physical-body death, then I do not think that it applies to a being who can exist without a physical body. If we are talking about soul death, then I do not think that it has been shown that such a thing exists to begin with.

 

[Upchurch]

How can I be correct? I merely stated questions, I didn't answer them. Don't infer that I stated the answers just because I posed the questions.

My appologies. I took them for retorical questions.

To answer:
The being who can prevent himself from dying for as long as he wishes is more powerful than the being who will die no matter what he does.
The being who chooses to kill himself and the being who does not, even though he has the ability to, are equally powerful.

I have to admit that I do not know where you are going with this one.

It is more of an explorative conversation for me rather than a debate where I am trying to prove a specific side. I just think that it is interesting that a "maxipotent", or even omnipotent, being logically must have the capacity for mortality, i.e. God is mortal.

First off, I'm not sure whether "death" is a term that can apply to God.

Well, now that is my point. If we are to ascribe maxipotency to God, then God must be mortal or else wouldn't be "that which has most possible potency (or power)" because God would be lacking a possible potency.

If we are talking about physical-body death, then I do not think that it applies to a being who can exist without a physical body. If we are talking about soul death, then I do not think that it has been shown that such a thing exists to begin with.

Well, if we're going to split hairs, I do not think it has been shown that a soul exists. How does one show that a soul ends if it hasn't been shown that there is such a thing in the first place?

Regardless, if a maxipotent being is to have all the potential that is possible and some beings have the potential for mortality, the maxipotent being must also have the potential for mortality, unless you want to revise the definition of maxipotent (it being your word, after all)?