Gods omnipotence?

[Shade]

@Meatros

I was summing up three paradox’s (?). Such as, God is said to be immaterial-right? If that’s so, then how does an immaterial entity act on the material? How could something immaterial possess any omnimax abilities?

Also, how does something eternal act on the temporal? To put it another way, when does the eternal act on the temporal? Where does this being reside, since we no of nothing that is not temporal.

Well, the second one is entirely possible. Imagine a flip-book, with each page a frame of a story. A human flicking the pages sees a little story play through at the speed they choose. But they could look at them backwards, or alter them, if they chose. Yet to the people inside, they live in a world with time and causation that’d make sense to them (assuming the story does) – perhaps excepting an occasional miracle which the human drew on one page.

If we’re in the flip book, and God is outside writing it, then from our point of view he is outside time, but able to manipulate it at will. It makes sense to me. (Though I don’t belive that’s really the case with the universe.)

The point I was making about omnipotence is that for you to be asking a question of me I have to know what it means, or you might as well be gargling nonsense.

Some people use omnipotence to mean “For any ‘foo’, it’s true to say ‘God can foo’”, which seems daft to me – if foo is ‘flurbling a warghle’ I don’t see how you can say God can do it, and the same goes for superficially reasonable but actually meaningless statements, or logical impossibilities.

Some people use ‘omnipotence’ to mean ‘alter the universe in any way’, and assume God is outside the universe, in which case ‘creating a rock so heavy…’ isn’t part of omnipotence, because that has to encompass power over God.

Some people use ‘omnipotence’ to mean ‘anything that anything can do, God can do’, which is likely to be tricky, but I think non-paradoxical.

The intent of my answer was that I can say if God has the properties I described (well, actually, I can’t, but I could in principle), but only answer the original by assuming which one was meant.

And finally, how does something whose essence is good (which supposedly gets rid of Eurythropo’s dilemma) and perfect create/allow evil to exist?

I’m not touching this one

The point of logic is that it’s axiomatic and has to be consistent. If it’s not then nothing would make sense. Frankly, I can’t even imagine what it would be like if logic was any different. It necessarily has to be what it is.

If this is so, then how would it be ‘just’ to condemn someone for using a brain that God has intentionally made faulty in the most important area? Throughout the rest of the person’s life, his brain operates normally, so he has no reason to doubt it when applying it to higher concepts-yet when he does, God inserts faulty wiring, thereby interfering with free will and in some religions damning the guy to hell.

If we can’t apply logic to the God concept then we can’t say anything meaningful about God at all-how could we? So the God concept becomes meaningless.

Some people do just that, but it’s not a rational position. Keep in mind, I’m not saying it’s ‘wrong’, because after all, everything I know (or think I know) could ultimately be wrong.

OK, I’m sorry I brought this up. I thought it should be included for completeness, since it is the answer many people use to answer this sort of paradox, and I made it in a bit of a flippant way. Mentioning it is all that can be said, because as you so rightly point out you can’t reason any further assuming logic doesn’t work: for instance, condemning people could be both just and unjust.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@bup

Absolutely. God doesn’t have to play by out universe’s logic rules.

God doesn’t, but we do :). I designed the question specifically to invalidate this answer.

With the rock question, then sure–God doesn’t have to play by the Universe’s rules of logic.

But with the “surprising Himself” question, there’s no paradox: either God can or cannot surprise itself. Logical paradoxes don’t enter into it at this step.

If God can surprise itself, then we humans, characterizing Its actions, must conclude that God is not omniscient.

If God cannot surprise itself, then we humans, characterizing Its actions, must conclude that God is not omnipotent.

If we say that God can (or cannot) surprise Itself and is both omnipotent and omniscient, then what we are really saying is that we are redefining one or the other terms so that they mean something else. Which is not a legitimate debating technique.

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@yBeayf

You don’t consider it possible that there are beings that transcend our ability to comprehend them as much as we transcend a jellyfish’s comprehension, to say nothing of Him Who transcends everything else?

That’s absolutely possible. But I don’t expect a jellyfish to spend its time trying to understand me, or to structure its life about what I might want it to do. Although I might affect a jellyfish, it won’t be aware of my power, even when I affect it in the most drastic of fashions. My existence is meaningless to a jellyfish.

If an omnipotent being exists, it might want what’s best for me. Or it might have constructed this universe to cause maximum anguish, and after we die, we get to experience the hell for which it’s been preparing us. Or maybe we’re a breeding farm for its snacks. Or maybe it’s forgotten all about us. Or maybe we’re a means for it to study bacterial reproduction.

It seems weird for me to make specific decisions about how to live my life based on something that I categorically can know nothing about.

Daniel

[Meatros]

@Shade

Well, the second one is entirely possible. Imagine a flip-book, with each page a frame of a story. A human flicking the pages sees a little story play through at the speed they choose. But they could look at them backwards, or alter them, if they chose. Yet to the people inside, they live in a world with time and causation that’d make sense to them (assuming the story does) – perhaps excepting an occasional miracle which the human drew on one page.

So when does the story get started? The problem with eternity is that it would have to be stationary; otherwise you have actions-which occur in time.

@Shade

If we’re in the flip book, and God is outside writing it, then from our point of view he is outside time, but able to manipulate it at will. It makes sense to me. (Though I don’t belive that’s really the case with the universe.)

The thing is, there is no outside the flip book-where is it? When is it? When would God alter the flip book?

@Shade

The point I was making about omnipotence is that for you to be asking a question of me I have to know what it means, or you might as well be gargling nonsense.

Some people use omnipotence to mean “For any ‘foo’, it’s true to say ‘God can foo’”, which seems daft to me – if foo is ‘flurbling a warghle’ I don’t see how you can say God can do it, and the same goes for superficially reasonable but actually meaningless statements, or logical impossibilities.

That suggests to me that the concept of omnipotence is actually meaningless and that a being could not possess that attribute.

@Shade

Some people use ‘omnipotence’ to mean ‘alter the universe in any way’, and assume God is outside the universe, in which case ‘creating a rock so heavy…’ isn’t part of omnipotence, because that has to encompass power over God.

Some people use ‘omnipotence’ to mean ‘anything that anything can do, God can do’, which is likely to be tricky, but I think non-paradoxical.

The intent of my answer was that I can say if God has the properties I described (well, actually, I can’t, but I could in principle), but only answer the original by assuming which one was meant.

See this is the thing; people say God is omnimax, but to be truly omnimax is impossible, so we need to know more about God to determine it’s attributes-but there isn’t any more to know, so we can’t truly say anything meaningful about God.

@Shade

OK, I’m sorry I brought this up. I thought it should be included for completeness, since it is the answer many people use to answer this sort of paradox, and I made it in a bit of a flippant way. Mentioning it is all that can be said, because as you so rightly point out you can’t reason any further assuming logic doesn’t work: for instance, condemning people could be both just and unjust.

True that.

I don’t claim to be right, I just claim that I think I understand what I think I understand.

…

sometimes…

[Shade]

@Meatros

So when does the story get started? The problem with eternity is that it would have to be stationary; otherwise you have actions-which occur in time.

The thing is, there is no outside the flip book-where is it? When is it? When would God alter the flip book?

“When” from the point of view of the people in the flip book, or the person manipulating it? There is a mini-world with its own time, which is under control of an author in a larger universe, subject to time there, but not the time which, fromhis point of view, is merely fiction.

From the point of view of the people inside, the universe appeared at time=“page 1”, and remained rectangular until it suddenly stopped. Of course, they couldn’t know for sure; maybe the author drew dinosaur bones on the first page to make the people inside think “we’ve been here for millions of pages” when they hadn’t really.

From the point of view of the author, he can see the people inside thinking “wow! our time makes sense!” and then he changes half the story. Now there’s a big discontinuity, and people inside thinking “Eh? Why did our universe change on page 57?” but if the author changes the rest of the book there’ll be a new timeline with no links to the one with puzzled people.

Is this making sense?

That suggests to me that the concept of omnipotence is actually meaningless and that a being could not possess that attribute.

Yes, that’s what I meant! I said I thought it was daft. For that definition, I’d say nothing is, for one of the others I’d say ‘maybe’: it was an example to illustrate the point that the question needs to specify which it’s asking.

True that.

I don’t claim to be right, I just claim that I think I understand what I think I understand.

…

sometimes…

LOL. Well said.

[bup]

@Meatros

An axiom in logic is a necessity, not just an assumption. Were it not true we would be talking gibberish to each other. Since we can communicate, ie, since the words we write are intelligable and they stand for whatever they mean, the law of identity is intact.

Back up. You used the fact that the law of identity is an axiom in order to “prove” that God must adhere to that law. I posited that an axiom is merely an assumption, because every logical construction needs some assumptions to get started. What those assumptions are depends on the framework being constructed. I provided an example where different axioms can be thrown in in different cases.

You don’t need the identity axiom in particular for any sort of logic to exist.

In fact, I’m not sure it does exist 100% in our universe. I think a ‘mostly is true’ is in order, especially in light of the quantum model of physics. We mostly can communicate and the words are mostly intelligible. Language is inherently flawed, though. (In our universe) you can’t create a logical framework that can talk about all meaning and not be internally inconsistent.

@Meatros

As I’ve said though, all you need to do in order to show that I’m wrong is to think of a way the universe could be different, where the law of identity didn’t hold.

As I’ve said, the onus is on you to show that the law of identity does hold in other universes.

But I think the example I threw out - a universe with one entity only - does make the question undefined. I know you said the law of identity still holds in that example. I think though, in that case, the law is meaningless - even though the universe is not.

And I’m not willing to say the law of identity holds as an absolute in our universe. Something equals itself to a very, very high degree, and in most real-world situations we can behave as though it equals itself exactly.

[bup]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

But with the “surprising Himself” question, there’s no paradox: either God can or cannot surprise itself. Logical paradoxes don’t enter into it at this step.

Why can’t He do both?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@bup

Why can’t He do both?

Why can’t he can and cannot surprise himself? What does that even mean?

Daniel

[bup]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Why can’t he can and cannot surprise himself? What does that even mean?

OK, maybe I shoulda said, “Perhaps he can do both,” which would have made your substitution, “Perhaps he can and can’t surprise himself.”

My point was that logical paradoxes already have entered. Perhaps God lives with paraconsistent logic.

He is omnipotent, after all. He could if He wanted.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

That post is flawed six ways from Sunday; lemme see if I can address some of them.

@bup

OK, maybe I shoulda said, “Perhaps he can do both,” which would have made your substitution, “Perhaps he can and can’t surprise himself.”

Then that means he’s neither omnipotent nor omniscient. If he can surprise himself, then he’s not omniscient; if he can’t surprise himself, then he’s not omnipotent.

Still, it makes no sense. Either:
It is the case that God can surprise himself, or
It is not the case that God can surprise himself.

If both statements are true, then I can prove to you the truth of any other statement you can come up with.

Rather, I can’t, but a good logician can. (There’s a principle that says, in any system in which both P and ~P are true, any statement Q can be proven to be true).

My point was that logical paradoxes already have entered. Perhaps God lives with paraconsistent logic.

He is omnipotent, after all. He could if He wanted.

Or perhaps not. Basically you’ve tried to answer the question by saying, “The concept of God is logically incoherent, but that’s not a problem.” I disagree: if the concept is logically incoherent, then any argument for the being’s existence is fatally flawed.

In any case, the idea that a being both can and cannot do something seems an incoherent concept to me.

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Lemme try this a different way:

God tries to surprise himself. Does he succeed?
Daniel

[bup]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

If both statements are true, then I can prove to you the truth of any other statement you can come up with.

Rather, I can’t, but a good logician can. (There’s a principle that says, in any system in which both P and ~P are true, any statement Q can be proven to be true).

That’s easy.

P is true, therefore P|Q is true.

Therefore ~P & ~Q is false (it’s the converse of the first statement).

But ~P is true, therefore ~Q is false.

Therefore Q is true.

But [nitpick]That’s depends on P and ~P both true all the time[/nitpick]. I’m claiming they could be. Sometimes. Sometimes they are both true at the same time; sometimes they are not.

If my post is flawed, it’s because Aristotelean logic is inherently flawed. Your assertion hasn’t shown that God is impossible, only that logical constructs are lacking.

Let’s take the oldest paradox. I say “I’m lying.” Does that mean that I can’t exist? No, it means that inherent Aristotelean inconsistencies can and do exist in our very own touchable universe.

But using the same limitations of logic, you conclude the inexistence of an omnipotent, ominscient being.

[bup]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Lemme try this a different way:

God tries to surprise himself. Does he succeed?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If He chooses to prove his omnipotence and omniscience, He may do both simultaneously.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@bup

If my post is flawed, it’s because Aristotelean logic is inherently flawed. Your assertion hasn’t shown that God is impossible, only that logical constructs are lacking…

No, it’s shown that the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient being is logically incoherent.

The “I’m lying” example is similar, but at its base it’s different: we can resolve this by saying that your statement is meaningless.

If our only resolution for the concept of God is to say that the concept is meaningless, then that casts a rather severe light on religion, dontcha think?

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@bup

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If He chooses to prove his omnipotence and omniscience, He may do both simultaneously.

Okay, so sometimes when God tries to surprise himself, he succeeds? That means he’s not omniscient.

Sometimes when God tries to surprise himself, he fails? That means he’s not omnipotent.

So you’ve dodged the question by redefining God as a being that’s neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

Try again: Once, and only once, an omnipotent, omniscient being attempts to surprise itself. Is the being surprised?

Daniel

[bup]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

The “I’m lying” example is similar, but at its base it’s different: we can resolve this by saying that your statement is meaningless.

No, you can’t. At least not fairly. It’s not meaningless. It means that the contents of the sentence are false. It leads to a contradiction, but it’s not meaningless. The contradiction’s resolutions have nothing to do with simply dismissing the statement with a flip of the hand. One of the proposed resolutions has to do with the concept of something that is neither false nor true; another has to do with the concept of something being both false and true.

@Left Hand of Dorkness

If our only resolution for the concept of God is to say that the concept is meaningless, then that casts a rather severe light on religion, dontcha think?

The concept is not meaningless, but neither is God the same as religion.

[bup]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Okay, so sometimes when God tries to surprise himself, he succeeds? That means he’s not omniscient.

Sometimes when God tries to surprise himself, he fails? That means he’s not omnipotent.

So you’ve dodged the question by redefining God as a being that’s neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

Try again: Once, and only once, an omnipotent, omniscient being attempts to surprise itself. Is the being surprised?

Both.

That’s a possible resolution I see. There may be others.

My larger points are that

-things that are inherently contradictory exist, as the “I’m lying” statement shows.
-Logic is really a construct - a model. When it is at odds with reality, we may not conclude that reality is the thing at fault.
-Contradiction is not the same thing as meaninglessness.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@bup

Both.

Explain how an omniscient being may be surprised, then.

That’s a possible resolution I see. There may be others.

It’s not a resolution unless you can support your conclusion.

My larger points are that

-things that are inherently contradictory exist, as the “I’m lying” statement shows.
-Logic is really a construct - a model. When it is at odds with reality, we may not conclude that reality is the thing at fault.
-Contradiction is not the same thing as meaninglessness.

No, that statement doesn’t show anything; it just shows that there needs to be a category besides true and false. I prefer to call it meaningless, but there are other terms for it. That category doesn’t have a bearing on this situation, or if it does, you’ve not demonstrated how.

As for logic’s being a construct, sure, it is. However, we may say that a concept is logically incoherent; I’m saying that the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent being is logically incoherent, and addressing this by saying that logic is limited does nothing to change my assertion.

It is possible that the universe we are in allows for P and ~P together to be true, which seems to be what you’re arguing. However, all evidence points toward that not being the case; and if belief in God means believing in an incoherent universe in which any Q is true, well, I’m not sure how happy most religious folks are gonna be with that conclusion.

Daniel

[Meatros]

@bup

Back up. You used the fact that the law of identity is an axiom in order to “prove” that God must adhere to that law. I posited that an axiom is merely an assumption, because every logical construction needs some assumptions to get started. What those assumptions are depends on the framework being constructed. I provided an example where different axioms can be thrown in in different cases.

An axiom is necessary, not just an assumption. The fact is, there is no possible way that another universe could exist where A did not equal A. The thought itself is a paradox.

@bup

You don’t need the identity axiom in particular for any sort of logic to exist.

Yes, actually you do; otherwise what would you exist as? It would be a totally meaningless statement to say ___ exists, since you can’t saying anything comprehendable about ____.

@bup

In fact, I’m not sure it does exist 100% in our universe. I think a ‘mostly is true’ is in order, especially in light of the quantum model of physics. We mostly can communicate and the words are mostly intelligible. Language is inherently flawed, though. (In our universe) you can’t create a logical framework that can talk about all meaning and not be internally inconsistent.

As I’ve said, the onus is on you to show that the law of identity does hold in other universes.

No, actually the onus isn’t on me, because the fact that we can have this conversation and understand each other supports the assumption that the assumptions of the axioms of logic are universal.

The fact is, you can’t think of a situation where A does not equal A.

We all make assumptions in this universe, in fact, they are essential. One assumption is that existence exists, for example. The difference is that some are necessary assumptions, such as the axioms of logic-because with those we can’t have coherent conversations.

Yet we do have them.

@bup

But I think the example I threw out - a universe with one entity only - does make the question undefined. I know you said the law of identity still holds in that example. I think though, in that case, the law is meaningless - even though the universe is not.

The law of identity applies to entities that can exist. As I said, to exist you have to exist as something-do you deny this? If you do then precisely what does it mean to exist as nothing?

@bup

And I’m not willing to say the law of identity holds as an absolute in our universe. Something equals itself to a very, very high degree, and in most real-world situations we can behave as though it equals itself exactly.

If you aren’t willing to say that then you accept nihilism, in that this universe is unknowable, and you can’t say anything positive about anything.

[Meatros]

The thing is, the three axioms of logic can’t be proved or disproved and if they are denied then you end up contradicting yourself.