Omniscience and Omnipotence are incompatible

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

It certainly includes that, but is not limited to that, which is what you seem to want to do.

Way to go with the limiting of the infinite.

Every being has the will and capacity that suits his ability, so it stands to reason that Gods' Will matches His infinite ability.

If God is all-powerful, he should be able to do anything he likes. But he should also be able to anything else as well.

Who say's there IS anything else?
How can you even contemplate there being anything else?

Or is your argument that "omnipotence" is merely "able to do what one wishes to do"?

Back to the first point.

It would certainly be an interesting interpretation of the term, and one that might avoid the paradox.
But it is what is meant by "all-powerful"?

Obviously I caught you by surprise with the OP quote, and now you're trying usuccessfully to incorporate it into your reasoning. But to no avail.

Regarding ''square circles''.

If everybody from birth was taught that a hexagon, or pentogon, was called a ''square circle'', would it be a ''square circle''?

jan.

 

[Big Chiller]

Concepts like square circles or absolutely strictly immovable objects are ultimately meaningless because even with many scientific observations we begin to see that even objects at rest are never devoid of motion.

 

[gmilam]

Concepts like square circles or absolutely strictly immovable objects are ultimately meaningless because even with many scientific observations we begin to see that even objects at rest are never devoid of motion.

Got to agree. People who resort to "can god make a square circle" or "can god create an object so large that he can't lift it" need to revaluate their objections, as these are meaningless concepts.

 

[kx000]

It is commonly claimed that God is both omniscient and omnipotent. I don't think that God can be both at the same time.

Omnipotence means that God is all-powerful, and is able to do anything he likes. Omniscience means that God knows everything.

I think God is all-powerful, and I think he knows everything except the knowledge stating the God knows everything.

Now, if God is omniscient, then He already knows at any given time what he will do in the future, because he can see the future. He's all-seeing, after all.

But if God already knows what he will do at every moment in the future, then God has no free will. He cannot choose to do something different from what he already knows he will do. And therefore, he is not all-powerful. In fact, it could be argued that He has no power at all.

Your thoughts?

It was his free will that he made his choices. He choose to act originally, he choose to look into the future. He knows he will do it in the future so maybe the future is determined, but he still has to freely choose to do all those things that lead to the future.

 

[DaveC426913]

You really like to put words into people's mouths, and assume yourself victorious, eh?

I put words in your mouth? I quoted you. Here it is again:

Given that everything God does, is good, then there is no need for Him to change His mind.

(For someone making an accusation about putting words in other people's mouths, why would you then put words in my mouth, as if I "assumed myself victorious"? This is a discussion. You should respect how they work. You made a claim. I showed how it was fallacious. That is not a "victory". You're trying to evade the discussion with this meta. ...Getting back on topic now...)


God not "needing" to change his mind does not resolve the issue of a God that can't be all-powerful and all-knowing.

In a nutshell: If he is all-knowing, then he knows the next action he will take. If he knows it, then he cannot (whether or not he chooses to) do something different. It is a direct contradiction. The OP's postulate still stands as valid, both before and after your addition of there being "no need to change his mind". Thus, it has no bearing.

Anyway, it doesn't really require you conceding the point. As long as it has been pointed out, everyone else here knows your statement doesn't address the OP's conjecture.

We can move on.

 

[wynn]

I put words in your mouth? I quoted you. Here it is again:

(For someone making an accusation about putting words in other people's mouths, why would you then put words in my mouth, as if I "assumed myself victorious"? This is a discussion. You should respect how they work. You made a claim. I showed how it was fallacious. That is not a "victory". You're trying to evade the discussion with this meta. Getting back on topic.)


God not "needing" to change his mind does not resolve the issue of a God that can't be all-powerful and all-knowing.

In a nutshell: If he is all-knowing, then he knows the next action he will take. If he knows it, then he cannot (whether or not he chooses to) do something different. It is a direct contradiction. The OP's postulate still stands as valid, both before and after your addition of there being "no need to change his mind". Thus, it has no bearing.

Anyway, it doesn't really require you conceding the point. As long as it has been pointed out, everyone else here knows your statement doesn't address the OP's conjecture.

We can move on.

Heaven forbid that the OP be discussed!!!!!!

 

[wynn]

Others, who wish to use omnipotence as a meaningful concept, have to define it in such a way as to avoid such issues.
And as applied to God I don't think it is any different - that it needs to be defined so as to avoid paradoxes and remain meaningful.

Because pursuing an irrational, paradoxical line of reasoning is really meaningful and is really proof of the pursuer's supreme intelligence ...

 

[DaveC426913]

He knows he will do it in the future so maybe the future is determined,

Which means he is not all-powerful. He is constrained by having to do what his future holds. He sees himself turn left instead of right. He is constrained from choosing to turn right.

 

[DaveC426913]

Frankly, I think my MWI conjecture holds the answer.

He sees his future holding all possible actions (he sees himself turning left, right and neither, and all points in between).
He is free to choose his future(he can choose to turn left, right, neither, or any point in between) without invalidating what he saw.

QED

 

[Sarkus]

Way to go with the limiting of the infinite.

Limiting the infinite does not necessarily produce a finite... if we limit the infinite set of whole numbers to just the even numbers, it is still infinite.

Every being has the will and capacity that suits his ability, so it stands to reason that Gods' Will matches His infinite ability.

So you are saying square circles are possible for God? That he can create a rock he can't lift etc?

Who say's there IS anything else?
How can you even contemplate there being anything else?

If you are claiming that there is only what God likes, then your choice of words are misleading - not to mention anthropomorphic.
To use a term such as "like" implies there is also "dislike".

Obviously I caught you by surprise with the OP quote, and now you're trying usuccessfully to incorporate it into your reasoning. But to no avail.

Not at all. You merely fail to understand your own words.
To include something does not necessarily limit it to that.

As said, if you wish to define omnipotence in a way that does limit it, then do so. Your issue then would be whether your definition is accepted, or whether there is scriptoral reference to it, etc.

Regarding ''square circles''.

If everybody from birth was taught that a hexagon, or pentogon, was called a ''square circle'', would it be a ''square circle''?

It would be labelled as such, yes, but it would no longer refer to the concept in question. And it is the concept, not the label, that is significant here.

 

[Sarkus]

Because pursuing an irrational, paradoxical line of reasoning is really meaningful and is really proof of the pursuer's supreme intelligence ...

First one must conclude that, as defined, the line of reasoning does lead to a paradox or not.

Then one can try to establish a solution, or merely conclude that it is a paradox (with the terms as currently understood by those claiming the paradox).

If one wishes to conclude that it is a paradox, but that it doesn't apply to God... again, feel free to argue that.


But maybe I missed your point.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Limiting the infinite does not necessarily produce a finite... if we limit the infinite set of whole numbers to just the even numbers, it is still infinite.

Limiting the infinite means knowing the infinite in its infinite capacity.
Doesn't it?

If you are claiming that there is only what God likes, then your choice of words are misleading - not to mention anthropomorphic.
To use a term such as "like" implies there is also "dislike".

I don't recall using the term ''like''.
I prefer to us the term ''Will''. The OP post used the term ''like''
But could God act as though He dislikes? don't see why not.

Not at all. You merely fail to understand your own words.
To include something does not necessarily limit it to that.

You said It's not a matter of "want to" but of being able to.
If He can do anything He likes, which the OP agrees, then it is you who fail not only to understand the post, subject matter, but form concepts based on this failure.

As said, if you wish to define omnipotence in a way that does limit it, then do so. Your issue then would be whether your definition is accepted, or whether there is scriptoral reference to it, etc.

It would be a waste of time to put a limit on Gods' abilities. One can only assume with all that power, He has at least the greastest of human abilities, and then some.

So you are saying square circles are possible for God? That he can create a rock he can't lift etc?

Yes. He can create any illusion.
Some Christian believe Jesus was God Himself in the flesh, and it was therefore written that God had died on the cross (from christian perspective), yet God didn't die on the cross.
So God died, which is accepted as real, while simultaneosly not dying, which is also accepted as real.

It would be labelled as such, yes, but it would no longer refer to the concept in question. And it is the concept, not the label, that is significant here.

2 questions.

How would anyone know it would no longer refer to the concept?
And can you imagine a square circle?

If you cannot even imagine one, then it purely a label. A putting together of 2 symbols for no purpose other than to trick.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Limiting the infinite means knowing the infinite in its infinite capacity.
Doesn't it?

Does it? How so?

I don't recall using the term ''like''.
I prefer to us the term ''Will''. The OP post used the term ''like''
But could God act as though He dislikes? don't see why not.

Then we're getting somewhere.

You said It's not a matter of "want to" but of being able to.
If He can do anything He likes, which the OP agrees, then it is you who fail not only to understand the post, subject matter, but form concepts based on this failure.

How do I fail to understand? Where in my posts have I demonstrated a misunderstanding?

It would be a waste of time to put a limit on Gods' abilities. One can only assume with all that power, He has at least the greastest of human abilities, and then some.

You don't want to put a limit on God's abilities, yet you can't show how he can be both omnipotent and omniscient, at least without limiting those terms. :shrug:

Yes. He can create any illusion.

Not talking about illusions, but about the reality.

Some Christian believe Jesus was God Himself in the flesh, and it was therefore written that God had died on the cross (from christian perspective), yet God didn't die on the cross.
So God died, which is accepted as real, while simultaneosly not dying, which is also accepted as real.

And this is a square-circle... how?
When one accepts that the same person is in three forms simultaneously (father, son and holy-spirit) and is also one, then the apparent death of the physical form of one of them is no longer illogical, because you have set the parameters on which the logic works.
You have yet to do that with the square-circle, and not with omnipotence/omniscience.
I'm not saying you couldn't do it... just that you haven't.

2 questions.

How would anyone know it would no longer refer to the concept?
And can you imagine a square circle?

1. Because the concept is of a logical impossibility, and if we use the label for a logical possibility then it no longer refers to the concept of impossibility. :shrug:
2. No.

If you cannot even imagine one, then it purely a label. A putting together of 2 symbols for no purpose other than to trick.

Not to trick but to highlight logical impossibilities... two things that are incompatible. The concept is of logical impossibility, not of a square-circle per se.

 

[Rav]

Reality supersedes any individual or collective speculation. And guess what? That includes yours. More so than most, actually.

Oh! So you know reality? Not just yours, everyone else's?
Spill!

I'm not claiming that I possess definitive answers to some of the age old philosophical questions relating to the ultimate nature of existence. I was simply pointing out that reality is what it is, regardless of any religious ideas that someone like yourself wants to project onto it.

In other words, having a particular definition of God doesn't mean much. All you have is a collection of ideas that ultimately derive from a greater collection of ideas developed over thousands of years, which themselves derive from the more primitive religious ideas that were developed among the small hunter/gatherer groups that were roaming the planet before the neolithic revolution.

That's all you have. Reality, on the other hand, continues to be what it is (whatever that may be).

Then explain to me my conception of God, from a religious perspective?

What a ridiculous question. The only way your personal conception of God can be explained comprehensively, is from your perspective. But that doesn't somehow demonstrate that those ideas don't derive from religious ones. Of course they do. That was my point.

Both omni's represent the ultimate state of being, with or without the notion of God.
One needs not know anything about God to consider them.

Sorry, pretending that omnipotence and omniscience are concepts that can be considered separately from the being who possesses them is absurd. Such an abstract exercise is not nearly as useful, or relevant, as dealing directly with the fullness of the hypothetical reality that is being proposed as a true state of affairs.

If God knows everything, and is the most powerful, He precedes everything. It's as simple as that.

That does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that the qualities of omniscience and omnipotence are necessarily present as part of some transcendent reality. Try again.

 

[wynn]

But could God act as though He dislikes? don't see why not.

Then we're getting somewhere.

Not talking about illusions, but about the reality.

To be clear:
God could act as though He dislikes,
but that would still be to His liking.

 

[wynn]

I'm not claiming that I possess definitive answers to some of the age old philosophical questions relating to the ultimate nature of existence. I was simply pointing out that reality is what it is, regardless of any religious ideas that someone like yourself wants to project onto it.

In other words, having a particular definition of God doesn't mean much. All you have is a collection of ideas that ultimately derive from a greater collection of ideas developed over thousands of years, which themselves derive from the more primitive religious ideas that were developed among the small hunter/gatherer groups that were roaming the planet before the neolithic revolution.

That's all you have. Reality, on the other hand, continues to be what it is (whatever that may be).

So you're basically saying that he is wrong and that nobody could possibly know what reality really is - except you.
While all along, reality is whatever it is, regardless even of what you think about it ...

 

[wynn]

First one must conclude that, as defined, the line of reasoning does lead to a paradox or not.

Then one can try to establish a solution, or merely conclude that it is a paradox (with the terms as currently understood by those claiming the paradox).

If one wishes to conclude that it is a paradox, but that it doesn't apply to God... again, feel free to argue that.


But maybe I missed your point.

A lot depends on one's basic approach to conversation: does one conceptualize a conversation
as debate (each party is trying to defeat the other),
as dialectic (all parties, even though they disagree, work toward a resolution),
as rhetoric (each party simply is talking at the other party, not with them), as sophistry (conversation is a matter of showing off and manipulating others),
or as something else.


I think whether something is seen and argued about as a paradox, a contradiction, an equality, or truth, or any other potentially problematic issue, depends precisely on how one conceptualizes the very act of communicating.

That is something Schopenahuer pointed at in his "Art of Being Right." Logic is one thing. But in practice, it comes down to conversation between two (or more) individuals, and that changes the terms.

 

[wynn]

As said, if you wish to define omnipotence in a way that does limit it, then do so.

And you think that to exclude such things as square circles is to define omnipotence in a that limits it?


One can also think of it like that:
How much horsepower does it or would it take to create a square circle?
How much ore, work hours, electricity, HR managers, etc. etc. does it or would it take to create a square circle?
Does this kind of question really make sense to you?



If anything, it's those who believe that if God can't create square circles, this means that He is not omnipotent, that are devoted to magical thinking.

 

[Rav]

So you're basically saying that he is wrong and that nobody could possibly know what reality really is - except you.
While all along, reality is whatever it is, regardless even of what you think about it ...

As someone who often cracks the shits when you feel that people aren't reading your posts properly, perhaps you should take care to avoid committing the same offense.

Originally Posted by Rav
I'm not claiming that I possess definitive answers to some of the age old philosophical questions relating to the ultimate nature of existence. I was simply pointing out that reality is what it is, regardless of any religious ideas that someone like yourself wants to project onto it.

In other words, having a particular definition of God doesn't mean much. All you have is a collection of ideas that ultimately derive from a greater collection of ideas developed over thousands of years, which themselves derive from the more primitive religious ideas that were developed among the small hunter/gatherer groups that were roaming the planet before the neolithic revolution.

That's all you have. Reality, on the other hand, continues to be what it is (whatever that may be).

 

[Rav]

I'm very strongly inclined to agree with you.

But an argument can also be made we humans can't think about anything, in conceptual terms at least, unless we imagine the object of our thoughts as having some qualities that individuate the concept and make it distinct from other concepts. Even if we are operating by pure ostension, by the equivalent of pointing at something and saying 'THAT, whatever the hell it is', we still have to have some means of fixing the reference so we aren't just pointing at random.

Those kind of semantic processes work well enough with the everyday objects of experience. But can they work with transcendent beings?

It's conceivable that the world's contemplative traditions might possess meditative techniques to 'tune into' - how can we say it?... reality's Source or something (if such a thing exists) - in non-conceptual and non-cognitive ways. In these cases, ostensive reference, the direction we are pointing, might be established by the technique.

I tend to think that as products of nature ourselves, it is not unexpected that we would have the capacity to bring our faculties to bear on questions relating to the nature of existence, and have at least some success in divining certain truths. But we are not products of the universe at large so much as we are products of a particular environment within it. So in order to tackle greater or more fundamental realities that didn't have such a direct and specific impact upon shaping the scope and depth of those faculties, we need to teach ourselves some new tricks, and hope that they become valid extensions of those faculties for the purpose of divining greater truths. As we've learned, once we start investigating outside of the scope of our direct experience, our intuition often leads us wildly astray. Thank God, then, for the scientific method. How many claims have been made in the history of science that have been viciously dismissed as total nonsense, utter absurdities, because they conflicted so completely with what people already knew in their bones had to be true.

But you already know all this. The point I want to make at the end of all that however, is that we really have no reason to expect that the truth about whatever transcendent reality might exist will be any less counterintuitive, any less completely foreign to us. In fact I think there are good reasons to believe that it would be much more so.

But I do, in principle at least, agree that if there is some aspect of our being that is somehow analogous to a quality present as part of an actually existing transcendent reality, that perhaps 'tuning into' it somehow, would indeed be possible.

Here are some of the reasons why I tend to like the religiously motivated agnostic non-cognitivism that we sometimes encounter in the world's mystical traditions. They are taken from an earlier thread about theistic agnosticism. Of course, my saying that I'm fond of this kind of religiosity doesn't necessarily commit me to believing that its supposed transcendent object actually exists or that the mystics indeed have established some kind of non-conceptual contact with it. I'm actually still kind of skeptical about that. But I don't 100% reject the idea either. I haven't experienced the Jhanas or the Samadhis for myself.

I will say that I consider the mystical and contemplative traditions to be a higher and more sophisticated form of religiosity than the more familiar, highly conceptual doctrinal forms.

Why do I like them?

Believing that God is ultimately unknowable in a cognitive, propositional sense, they typically make fewer claims about God than other theists do.

That involves them in fewer epistemological difficulties.

They are less likely to set themselves up as God's earthly mouthpiece, proclaiming the minute details of what God supposedly thinks and commands.

They are less likely to proselytize.

Their emphasis on personal experience means that they often recognize that everyone needs to experience things for themselves and hance has their own path to follow.

They are far less apt to anthropomorphize God, to imagine God as if God was a human personality blown up really large.

Hence their non-conceptual concept of God (so to speak) seems to me to be more likely to be true and accurate when it's applied to the transcendent dimension of life and to whatever it is that may or may not ultimately account for the universe and Being itself. Whatever lies out there (if anything does) is probably something very unlike us and unlike anything we've ever imagined.

They acknowledge and speak to the emotional and spiritual side of life in ways that others don't.

They help show us a hermeneutical way to 'read' the world's various religious traditions in such a way as to preserve what's good in them, their art, their beauty and their wisdom, without throwing it all away in a fit of atheistic anger.

They show a way that the worlds religions, so different and so inconsistent on the doctrinal level, can be reconciled at a higher experiential level that transcends words.

There's less chance of them getting into any turf-battles with science.

They teach and practice contemplative and meditative disciplines that I think can be very valuable.

Perhaps as a result of that, their inner peace and calm, their depth and emotional resonance, and their ethical behavior sometimes impress me.​

I'd have to agree with most (perhaps all) of that.