Neither do I, but the general trend among atheists, as well as some theists, are impersonalist notions of God. Many consider personalist notions of God to be primitive, outdated.
The omnipotence paradox
- Thread starter TFL
- Start date
Neither do I, but the general trend among atheists, as well as some theists, are impersonalist notions of God. Many consider personalist notions of God to be primitive, outdated.
generally people consider it outdated if they base a personal conception on their own fallible existence.
IOW having a marginal existence and an omni capacity makes for a fanciful idea.
News to me, at least in the sense you appear to be using the term.
Nope. I've responded to other people invoking logic as binding on God, and pointed out how problematic this is.
That's not "free will" at all then, if God gets to decide not only the options presented, but also whether we get to act out our "choices."
So? The point was that the question is a closed one, confined to a specified formal system, and without reference to observed facts about nature, or whatever else it is that said system is supposed to describe.
How would that bear on anything that I said there, either way? The point was that "omnipotence" is logically inconsistent in its definition. If you want to assert that God's nature is inconsistent with logic, so be it. This was in response to people trying to retain both logical consistency and omnipotence.
I didn't apply it to a person. I applied it to a definition; i.e., an element in a proposed formal system.
Attempts to define God's properties are exercises in formal logic, and so are subject to considerations of consistency. There's really no point in a definition that results in an inconsistent formalism; you're no better off than if you'd never bothered to formalize the matter in the first place. Inconsistent systems are of no use for anything.
How would including all of that stuff remove the presence of evil?
Sure, but you aren't God. Is it outside of God's power to decide what is and what is not meaningful? Isn't God supposed to have created the concept of a square, and that of a circle, and the system that would relate them? If so, why can't he change those rules, if he likes?
Alternatively, if God can't alter logic or create meaning where there was none, then how can he be called "omnipotent?" It seems that there is some other force constraining God, and forcing him to obey set rules of logic. So how, then, can God be the omnipotent creator, if there's some prior universe of logic that he inhabits and cannot affect?
Of course. I'm just pointing out that definitions of "omnipotence" that leave God constrained by (unexplained, prior) rules don't add up to the sort of omnipotence that the creator of the universe ought to exhibit.
In which case, God can't have created logic. God cannot be the creator of the "ultimate and only reality." So we're left with precisely the same gaping mystery that atheists contend with: where did this reality come from, if not the Creator? And if God didn't create reality, then isn't he simply some kind of really, really, really powerful entity, as opposed to an omnipotent one?
It is also our everyday experience to have such limited free will.
Whose definition of omnipotence, and why should that definition be prefered over others?
But such an approach presumes that humans can know the truth about God on their own, independently of God.
If God is the Creator, Controller, Maintainer, then knowing the truth about God, independently of God, is not possible.
Apparently, you haven't included all of the above. If you did, I am sure you would have a very different view of the problem of evil.
And I can't do your homework for you!
I'm not saying that God did create logic. I'm saying that he is logic. And I am not saying that God is the creator of the "ultimate and only reality". I am saying that He is the ultimate and only reality. Within that ultimate and only reality, He created the universe, which is just a physical extension of Himself.
A zero-radius circle? I'm afraid that is impossible. Circles must have a circumference and a radius or they are not a circle. A square must have four sides.A zero-radius circle is round, and also happens to be the exact same size and shape as a zero width and height square. And as this is isomorphic to a 0-dimensional point, I can project it onto a 2-dimensional space.The only way a god could do better is if he forcibly stimulated the portions of your brain that experiences 'round' and 'square' simultaneously.
I'm afraid that even for the Gods, it's not possible to make rounds squares.
LG, I'm still curious about this "processing" that's taking place. Explain what is happening. Because, I'm pretty sure when "processing" is happening in or brain, new information arises. This "processing" doesn't happen for Gods that can not learn new information. You see, unlike us, God doesn't learn. It just knows-all.
That is precisely what prompts some people to conclude that God is therefore not omnipotent. Creating a round square is something that he can't do, and an omnipotent being should be able to do anything. To get anywhere in this thread, we're going to have show that this contradiction is not actually a contradiction at all.
To that end, I'm going to come at this from a different angle. I'm going to ask whether or not creating a round square actually counts as doing something. A circle is something. It's defining characteristic is that it's round. A square is also something. It's defining characteristic is that it has four sides of equal length. If you created either of these two things, you've created something. A round square on the other hand, isn't anything. It has two completely contradictory defining characteristics, which should make it clear to anyone that such a thing is nothing more than a conceptual error. Because a round square isn't anything, it doesn't count as something that God can't create.
I've pulled the following from Wikipedia. It is a passage from C.S Lewis's "The Problem of Pain":
"His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."
Logical consistency is an essential and fundamental feature of anything that is actually real. Like I've said before, paradoxes do not exist in reality. They only ever appear due to errors that we make.
Last edited:
Much like there are problems of logic with a round circle, there are problems with an absence of learning and knowledge.
As I mentioned before, I don't think you will be able to understand it (mainly because you are convinced that consciousness is a contingent quality of the brain (which raises the question of what's going wrong with brains that aren't conscious ... or what is it exactly that is getting worn out that makes it inevitable for all brains to eventually be unconscious). In short though, there is no need for god to learn anything about the material energy (which is something we like to give each other pats on the back for). - I think you might also being making that assumption also.
I just think it's interesting the things we can say about a creature that knows all and is all powerful (within the limits of logic). It should be noted some people do think God can make a round square. They usually just say something like: Our mind is too small to understand such an object.
OK, with this is mind.
- Do you think that God knows everything that will happen in the future?
- Do you think that God can learn something new? (aka: is there something it doesn't already know?)
- Can God forget? Does God ever forget? Has God ever forgotten?
LG, wait one minute, do you think that consciousness exists outside of the brain? It doesn't. René Descarte may have popularized Dualism but we now know the pineal gland secretes melotonin and is not a link to the rational soul.
Just like any organ in the body the brain can lose function and while we may not fully understand how consciousness arises we're 100% sure its a product of the CNS. Most likely the outer 3 mm of cortex is where "LG" exists. We've learned more about the brain from 1990 than in the 5000 years before 1990. There's a lot still to learn but one thing we do know for a fact: Consciousness arises in the brain.
When you think you consume ATP and oxygen as you burn sugar and make metabolic water. All of this is creating "new" information for the cells that make up your brain. God doesn't do this because there is no "new" information for God. Is there?
It's a complex consideration. But I feel that the answer must necessarily be yes. However I do not believe that this implies that everything is predestined, otherwise we would of course have to suddenly reconcile this with free will. I simply believe that God is beyond time and space and He therefore has the ultimate relative vantage point. From our perspective, everything is still happening. From His, the fullness of time has always been laid out before Him. Every choice that we make is completely free, it's simply that God can see what each of those choices were/are/will be. There are some further puzzling implications here, but I don't claim to have it all figured out.
No. God necessarily knows all that there is to know. I'm sure that you've got something up your sleeve for this one, so instead of trying to guess what it is, I'll just wait for you to put it on the table.
If you are asking if knowledge can be lost, the answer is obviously no.
Well, some people just like to take it that one step further and embrace illogic, don't they? Ok, fine. I'll chip away at this one some more. Perhaps God could create something that seemed to embody both the essence of a square and a circle. But it still wouldn't be a square and a circle simultaneously. It would be something else.
Last edited:
The major handicap I see in your reasoning is that you restrict yourself to a paradigm where the human experience is the apogee and the standard for God's actions, even though we know that our perceptual reality is the only one we can experience. Forget about God, we cannot even replicate the perceptual reality of a bat!
Only when you abandon these self imposed strictures will you recognise why your questions are irrelevant.
Is this before or after you start praying to Xenu?
Gee SAM have you abandoned your self imposed Islam yet? Until you realize there are no Gods and Goddesses (or Alien Overlords) really your questions are irrelevant. I mean, we cannot even replicate the preceptual reality of a twinky!
lol
Michael
PS: The major handicap I see in your reasoning is that you restrict yourself to a paradigm of theism. While I'm athiest I will admit you SAM may be right. Your arse hole of a God may exist and I may burn in Hell for eternity. This is possible. I have thought it over and I accept you may be right and I may be dead wrong. Of course I don't think you are right, but, do think you may be right. Now, what about Atheism SAM? Is it possible you are wrong? Could it be possible that I am correct? See, this is the real mental restriction. Not a twinky or the fact we can't model a fea brain ... yet. It's about accepting possibilities and admiting when they may or may not exist.
Last edited:
You are telling me you think the Human consciousness exists somewhere OTHER than the CNS? Well LG, yoy may be correct
And one day Pigs may fly All available data and good evidence suggests you are wrong. Consciousness resids in and only in, the CNS.
Last edited:
Actually I am saying that your search for an "otherness" is relegated to gross matter, so it leaves you with a gross generalization that it lies in the CNS.
Kind of like saying that electricity is generated within a glowing light bulb because one doesn't have the know-how to locate the generator.
(IOW you have to meet a tougher standard of inquiry if you want to talk of a "source" as opposed to "presence")
PS - Your edit doesn't warrant a different answer
Last edited:
I'll take that as a desire to continue to go around in circles on your part. :shrug:
You should read Rav's posts again, and very carefully.
LG,
Every shred of scientific evidence demonstrates, robustly, that consciousness is a product of the CNS.
Any objective examination of the subject will conclude the CNS gives rise to consciousness.
Until you realize you may be wrong, we can't really go any further can we :shrug: