Video: the incoherence of omnipotence

[Lion IRC]

Language is constantly evolving, which means new meanings become attached to words on a regular basis.

...yes, and then there's empirical science where we don't really want to be changing the meaning of words. #repeatability

...Ruby Sparks has already pointed out that "omni" doesn't necessarily mean "all" in the absolute sense that Lion IRC keeps insisting on.

I don't insist that everyone use my definition.
But as for me, I prefer consistency.

...An animal can be an omnivore even if it can't eat cyanide.

You see? Omni has been used incorrectly.
Thankyou for making my case.
God could eat cyanide.

If it is true as she stated (I haven't bothered attempting to research it) that the word "omnipotent" was applied to ancient Emperors then it is (ironically) such people as Lion IRC who is changing the meaning.

If those ancient emperors WERE omnipotent then it would be correct to use the word omnipotent.
If they were not, then, once again, thankyou for proving my point.

But all that is irrelevant. Words are tools, not our masters.

Agreed. And when we multiply the ambiguity of words we are making work for ourselves.
I would argue that if words like 'married' or 'bachelor' or 'fidelity' can mean different things to different people then we are losing control of the tools we thought were our slaves.

...Lion IRC, I'll just ask you directly: Can the god you believe in tell a lie? Or do you believe in the god described in Titus 1:2 who cannot lie?

It is God's will not to lie. No matter how hard anyone tries nobody can make Him lie.
And if God can't will Himself not to lie then He is not omnipotent.

Could He change His mind? Sure. But don't hold your breath waiting. God means what He says.

 

[Kharakov]

Folks are changing the definition of words pretty often these days.

Well, the veracity of that statement really depends on how one defines "words".

It depends on what the word word means.


How many words mean themselves?

Only 'themselves'.

That's an interesting answer to the phrase "How many"- the implication is that themselves means at least one, but if it meant one, then one would also mean themselves. So it must mean two, in addition to its meaning themselves.

Two words in that sentence mean themselves. I'm not telling you which two. You have to guess.

Which themselves words in that sentence mean themselves?

 

[Atheos]

...Lion IRC, I'll just ask you directly: Can the god you believe in tell a lie? Or do you believe in the god described in Titus 1:2 who cannot lie?

It is God's will not to lie. No matter how hard anyone tries nobody can make Him lie.
And if God can't will Himself not to lie then He is not omnipotent.

Could He change His mind? Sure. But don't hold your breath waiting. God means what He says.

That's all well and good, but the god you're talking about isn't the god described in Titus 1:2. It doesn't say "god, who cannot be forced to lie." It says "god, who cannot lie."

If you believe in a god who can lie that's fine. The question is how would you know if it lied to you? And if it can flargle a snuffin it can will itself not to lie and then lie until its pants are on fire without ever doing anything against its will.

That's the problem with the incoherent version of omnipotence (absolutism) you're espousing. You cannot possibly know anything about the god you're describing. Your claim that it doesn't want to lie is merely baseless assertion. Your claim that it means what it says is too.

 

[Lion IRC]

It does not say God is involuntarily constrained from lying

 

[Lion IRC]

"I'm sorry I can't have dinner with you tonight."
That does not necessarily mean it is absolutely impossible for me to have dinner with you tonight.
It means I can't have dinner with you because of...etc etc.
The reason God can't lie (tons of translations say won't lie) has nothing to do with omnipotence or otherwise.

Stop straining at gnats.

 

[Atheos]

I'm not straining at gnats. You seem to be missing the point.

From what I read you're saying is that the god you believe in can lie. I'm simply wondering how you'd know if it did. You cannot be sure of anything about it if it can flaggle a snuffin. As I said earlier, if that is the ground you want to occupy your god can will itself to never lie and then proceed to lie with every utterance and not compromise its will not to lie. There is no such thing as a contradiction because logic doesn't apply. You cannot know anything about this god, let alone be so cocksure that it won't ever lie. That's why your definition of omnipotence is incoherent.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm not straining at gnats. You seem to be missing the point.

From what I read you're saying is that the god you believe in can lie. I'm simply wondering how you'd know if it did. You cannot be sure of anything about it if it can flaggle a snuffin. As I said earlier, if that is the ground you want to occupy your god can will itself to never lie and then proceed to lie with every utterance and not compromise its will not to lie. There is no such thing as a contradiction because logic doesn't apply. You cannot know anything about this god, let alone be so cocksure that it won't ever lie. That's why your definition of omnipotence is incoherent.

Also, if it does lie, does the lie then become truth? For instance, if an omnipotent being asserts that 2+2=5, then it seems to me that not only does 2+2 start equalling 5, but that this would have now been the case since the beginning of the universe. Reality would rework itself in order to conform to the omnipotent being's assertion.

This would make an omnipotent being incapable of lying (unless he decides he wants to lie) since whatever he decides to be true immediately becomes true.

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm not straining at gnats. You seem to be missing the point.

From what I read you're saying is that the god you believe in can lie. I'm simply wondering how you'd know if it did.

That's NOT the test of omnipotence.
How I would know or if I could know or whether God would want me to know...

...You cannot be sure of anything about it if it can flaggle a snuffin.

So what?
Reality doesn't depend on whether a slug or a termite or a flea is certain of everything that happens everywhere.

... As I said earlier, if that is the ground you want to occupy your god can will itself to never lie and then proceed to lie with every utterance and not compromise its will not to lie.

Wait. Where did I say God has to lie with every utterance? Or that God has schitzophrenia?
The potential to change His mind does not compel God to do anything.

...There is no such thing as a contradiction because logic doesn't apply.

If God says I'm going to do x and then changes His mind and does y He is contradicting Himself.
That doesn't violate logic.

... You cannot know anything about this god, let alone be so cocksure that it won't ever lie.

Why do keep labouring the point that won't equals can't

...That's why your definition of omnipotence is incoherent.

Your specially customised definition of omnipotence seems designed to stop anything being truly omnipotent.
How about you give a secular definition of omnipotence that you think works.

 

[Lion IRC]

[Also, if it does lie, does the lie then become truth? For instance, if an omnipotent being asserts that 2+2=5, then it seems to me that not only does 2+2 start equalling 5, but that this would have now been the case since the beginning of the universe.

That might be how it 'seems' to you but God would know that He had changed the value of 5

Reality would rework itself in order to conform to the omnipotent being's assertion.

Yes, if that's what God wanted.

[This would make an omnipotent being incapable of lying (unless he decides he wants to lie) since whatever he decides to be true immediately becomes true.

If 2+2=5 it's not a lie to say 2+2=5.
Could God lie and say 2+2 has always equalled 5 and never 4 ?
Yes, if He wanted to.
Could God make everyone believe that 2+2=5 has always been true - yes, if He wanted.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That might be how it 'seems' to you but God would know that He had changed the value of 5



Yes, if that's what God wanted.

[This would make an omnipotent being incapable of lying (unless he decides he wants to lie) since whatever he decides to be true immediately becomes true.

If 2+2=5 it's not a lie to say 2+2=5.
Could God lie and say 2+2 has always equalled 5 and never 4 ?
Yes, if He wanted to.
Could God make everyone believe that 2+2=5 has always been true - yes, if He wanted.

Right, that's all my point. Omnipotent means omnipotent.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm not straining at gnats. You seem to be missing the point.

From what I read you're saying is that the god you believe in can lie. I'm simply wondering how you'd know if it did. You cannot be sure of anything about it if it can flaggle a snuffin. As I said earlier, if that is the ground you want to occupy your god can will itself to never lie and then proceed to lie with every utterance and not compromise its will not to lie. There is no such thing as a contradiction because logic doesn't apply. You cannot know anything about this god, let alone be so cocksure that it won't ever lie. That's why your definition of omnipotence is incoherent.

Also, if it does lie, does the lie then become truth? For instance, if an omnipotent being asserts that 2+2=5, then it seems to me that not only does 2+2 start equalling 5, but that this would have now been the case since the beginning of the universe. Reality would rework itself in order to conform to the omnipotent being's assertion.

This would make an omnipotent being incapable of lying (unless he decides he wants to lie) since whatever he decides to be true immediately becomes true.

I believe that LionRC has already conceded elsewhere that an omnipotent being cannot do something that results in a contradiction or cancels out its omnipotence. Being able to "do anything" can just be shorthand for "do anything logically possible". The expression "2+2=5" is false because of the way we define the symbols that make up the expression, so God could not, in theory, make that be a true statement while still retaining its defined meaning.

Telling lies are a form of deception, and there is no reason at all why God could not lie. Indeed, there is such a thing as lying by omission. One criticism of theism is that we ought to know of the existence of a deity if such a being really did exist (see  Argument from nonbelief). There would be no reason for such a being to hide or remain silent. Theists come up with various explanations of divine silence or hiddenness. The upshot is that God exists but chooses to provide us with scant evidence of his existence. Perhaps he worries that we might not truly love him or obey him if it were made plain that he was watching. So people who "keep the faith" are somehow more devoted than those who stray from faith. In any case, divine silence is a form of deception.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm not straining at gnats. You seem to be missing the point.

From what I read you're saying is that the god you believe in can lie. I'm simply wondering how you'd know if it did. You cannot be sure of anything about it if it can flaggle a snuffin. As I said earlier, if that is the ground you want to occupy your god can will itself to never lie and then proceed to lie with every utterance and not compromise its will not to lie. There is no such thing as a contradiction because logic doesn't apply. You cannot know anything about this god, let alone be so cocksure that it won't ever lie. That's why your definition of omnipotence is incoherent.

Also, if it does lie, does the lie then become truth? For instance, if an omnipotent being asserts that 2+2=5, then it seems to me that not only does 2+2 start equalling 5, but that this would have now been the case since the beginning of the universe. Reality would rework itself in order to conform to the omnipotent being's assertion.

This would make an omnipotent being incapable of lying (unless he decides he wants to lie) since whatever he decides to be true immediately becomes true.

I believe that LionRC has already conceded elsewhere that an omnipotent being cannot do something that results in a contradiction or cancels out its omnipotence. Being able to "do anything" can just be shorthand for "do anything logically possible". The expression "2+2=5" is false because of the way we define the symbols that make up the expression, so God could not, in theory, make that be a true statement while still retaining its defined meaning.

No, he's explicitly stated that God could make 2+2=5 if he wanted to and that logic is subservient to his will.

Telling lies are a form of deception, and there is no reason at all why God could not lie. Indeed, there is such a thing as lying by omission. One criticism of theism is that we ought to know of the existence of a deity if such a being really did exist (see  Argument from nonbelief). There would be no reason for such a being to hide or remain silent. Theists come up with various explanations of divine silence or hiddenness. The upshot is that God exists but chooses to provide us with scant evidence of his existence. Perhaps he worries that we might not truly love him or obey him if it were made plain that he was watching. So people who "keep the faith" are somehow more devoted than those who stray from faith. In any case, divine silence is a form of deception.

Not really. The Christian position seems to be that while God could very well reveal his existence to us, he chooses not to and, most importantly, he has a good reason for that choice. They may not understand the thought processes which went into that, but they are trusting that he knows what he's doing. That answer may be unsatisfying to you and me, but if they're ok with it, that's really all that matters. It's not some kind of logical conundrum, it's just a choice to believe that the guy is doing so with their best interests in heart and it'll all make sense to them on the other side of the Pearly Gates.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Language is constantly evolving, which means new meanings become attached to words on a regular basis.

Ruby Sparks has already pointed out that "omni" doesn't necessarily mean "all" in the absolute sense that Lion IRC keeps insisting on. An animal can be an omnivore even if it can't eat cyanide. If it is true as she stated (I haven't bothered attempting to research it) that the word "omnipotent" was applied to ancient Emperors then it is (ironically) such people as Lion IRC who is changing the meaning.

But all that is irrelevant. Words are tools, not our masters.

Lion IRC, I'll just ask you directly: Can the god you believe in tell a lie? Or do you believe in the god described in Titus 1:2 who cannot lie?

In Hebrew, El shaddai meant El (God), usually translated as God almighty. The origin of the word shaddai is obscure.
In Greek, pantokrater is usually translated as omnipotent. It literally means ruler of all. Omni potents, all powerful was applied to Gods and Roman emperors.

 

[Atheos]

That's NOT the test of omnipotence.
How I would know or if I could know or whether God would want me to know...



So what?
Reality doesn't depend on whether a slug or a termite or a flea is certain of everything that happens everywhere.

... As I said earlier, if that is the ground you want to occupy your god can will itself to never lie and then proceed to lie with every utterance and not compromise its will not to lie.

Wait. Where did I say God has to lie with every utterance? Or that God has schitzophrenia?
The potential to change His mind does not compel God to do anything.

You don't have to say it if it is a logical conclusion that can be derived from the premises you've asserted. Mine is a  Reductio Ad Absurdum, a valid form of debate wherein an attempt is made to demonstrate that a statement leads to an absurd or impractical conclusion.

All you must do to demonstrate that my argument is invalid is to demonstrate how it is possible to be sure that the claims you keep making about your god are true. It is you who are claiming that this omnipotent being who can flaggle a snuffin doesn't want to lie. These are two positive claims you've made about this god in this thread, yet if the god in question is unbound by logic it stands to reason that no positive claim can be made about it. Not even the claim that it is unbound by logic.

I am simply using as an example that a god which is not subject to logic can tell a lie that is the truth. Any trust one might place in such a being is unwarranted. Nothing can be known about it, which means the bible is irrelevant and anything anyone claims to know about what this being wishes is nothing more than mere conjecture. I might just as easily talk of building a pile of rocks so big it can't move it and moving it anyway. Absolutism such as you are advocating requires that your god be able to do both.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

In his letters to Mersennes, Descartes claims God creates the laws of the universe and could make 2 + 2 = 5 if God so desired, or any state of affairs he wanted. Of course, if one denies this, then the question is, where do the laws, the metaphysical necessities of the Universe, the logic of the Universe come from? If these things are so powerful God must bow to them, what are they and where do they come from? This points to naturalism being the basic foundation of the state of existence of the Universe. If we accept that the foundations of the Universe are outside and beyond God and limit God, we must ask, does God really serve any purpose at all? Theologians try to posit that God is the necessary being that is the foundation of all that exists. But that seems to not be true if they abandon Descarte's dictum. If God is good, and Descartes accepted that dogmatically, one would expect God to use his infinite super-omnipotence to banish all moral evil. But we have moral evil, quite a bit of it actually, so that idea seems to be falsified.

Descarte's dictum is one of those questions that once we think about it seriously, cannot just be brushed away as if we had not seen it. From the theologians we get the usual ear wiggling, hand waving and tongue waggling and attempts to evade the issue, but no real solution to this dilemma. Leibniz's Best Of All Worlds theory seems to be a victim of a super-omnipotent God idea.

Medieval theologians spoke of potential vs actual potency of God, but that does not solve the issue. What God could do is potential, what he does is actual.

 

[Learner]

Theologians try to posit that God is the necessary being that is the foundation of all that exists. But that seems to not be true if they abandon Descarte's dictum. If God is good, and Descartes accepted that dogmatically, one would expect God to use his infinite super-omnipotence to banish all moral evil. But we have moral evil, quite a bit of it actually, so that idea seems to be falsified.

We know what "righteousness" is because this can be falsified by the same context , as well as "telling the truth" or being "truthful" being compassionate and kind and forgiving. Falsified (being obvious) by appilying these same things to ourselves. Therefore we know what it means and know it exists ... using the example that God says (decides) 2+2=5 which should therefore be law etc...

 

[Lion IRC]

I believe that LionRC has already conceded elsewhere that an omnipotent being cannot do something that results in a contradiction or cancels out its omnipotence. Being able to "do anything" can just be shorthand for "do anything logically possible". The expression "2+2=5" is false because of the way we define the symbols that make up the expression, so God could not, in theory, make that be a true statement while still retaining its defined meaning.

No, he's explicitly stated that God could make 2+2=5 if he wanted to and that logic is subservient to his will.

Yes. That's right, and I explained that if God wanted to make Himself no longer omnipotent then, as a Being with limitations - He would tyerefore not have to account for His inability to lift infinitely heavy rocks.
It's only the atheist counter-apologist who warps the definition of omnipotence in order to ask whether an 'omnipotent' God can simultaneously have limitations on His omnipotence.

To mind you are either omnipotent or youre not. Simple.
But if humans want to redefine omnipotence that isn't a failure of logic, it's a failure of language.

 

[Lion IRC]

I've interacted with a good number of Christian apologists who tell me, no Lion IRC, don't be stupid, God cannot do something which is "logically impossible"^TM

And I say...
"Oh, maybe then the muslims are right about the logical impossibility of God having a Son"

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I've interacted with a good number of Christian apologists who tell me, no Lion IRC, don't be stupid, God cannot do something which is "logically impossible"^TM

And I say...
"Oh, maybe then the muslims are right about the logical impossibility of God having a Son"

How would that be logically impossible? We can impregnate virgins today and omnipotent people have more ability than us. He just splices an aspect of his divinity into a sperm cell and pops it into Mary's uterus and fertilizes her egg. It's way less difficult than making a platypus.

 

[ruby sparks]

Imo, god should be careful with the idea of making himself no longer omnipotent. At the very least, he should retain the option to make himself omnipotent again just in case. Can a non-omnipotent entity make itself omnipotent? I guess god could find a way. I'm just sort of warning him about possible complications, I guess.

Worth noting that elves don't have this problem in the first place. It's among the reasons that many elves are happy with their limited superpowers, and not seeking promotion to the top job in the supernatural entity game, even with all the perks it offers.