Video: the incoherence of omnipotence

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

It would make sense to create something along the lines of an omnipotence button which he can press to make himself omnipotent again in the event that he finds himself in a Spider-Man 2 type of scenario where he needs his powers again because Satan is threatening the city or something.

 

[Atheos]

The only escape clause the omnipotent being who had made itself non-omnipotent would need would be its past self who by definition would have the power to travel into the future and make itself omnipotent again.

But I think we've got Lion IRC now. We have video evidence that god cannot violate anyone's free will.

 

[Learner]

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.

The only escape clause the omnipotent being who had made itself non-omnipotent would need would be its past self who by definition would have the power to travel into the future and make itself omnipotent again.

HE could get around it and be TWO, where "one" of the "two" would STAY ominpotent and the other of the two.. may not be. ( reminds me of Jesus being one with God e.g. Jesus was non-omnipotent and God is omnipotent and so forth)

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.

We can compare imo and stating the obvious: what science-fiction is to science and fairytales is to Biblical Gospel.

 

[Learner]

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"

Interestingly enough Lion, as you know.

Muslims acknowledge the "virgin birth", and the term "anti-christ".



(ahh chores chores chores BB later)

 

[Lion IRC]

The only escape clause the omnipotent being who had made itself non-omnipotent would need would be its past self who by definition would have the power to travel into the future and make itself omnipotent again.

Now you're quibbling over what a non-omnipotent being can and can't do.
I don't have to defend that!

Is being simultaneously omnipotent and non-omnipotent gonzo theology? Yes.
But Atheos is the only person claiming that's what God entails.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The only escape clause the omnipotent being who had made itself non-omnipotent would need would be its past self who by definition would have the power to travel into the future and make itself omnipotent again.

Now you're quibbling over what a non-omnipotent being can and can't do.
I don't have to defend that!

Is being simultaneously omnipotent and non-omnipotent gonzo theology? Yes.
But Atheos is the only person claiming that's what God entails.

No, God having the ability to make himself non-omnipotent is what has them exist simultaneously, since he can travel forward in time to restore his omnipotence at any point before he takes it away.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

My apologies for trying to attribute a more rational position to you. So you believe that God can make contradictions come true. I'm guessing that you also believe that God could make himself ignorant without cancelling his omniscience.

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.

Either that or your failure to understand the nature of logic and language.

 

[Tars Tarkus]

Omnipotence allows god to break any promises he makes, no?
Prepare for Hell ye faithful!

 

[Lion IRC]

...So you believe that God can make contradictions come true.

No. Show me where I've said God makes contradictions come true. (Use examples from my posts)
I've only seen atheists asserting that using their diluted strawman definition of omnipotence.

...I'm guessing that you also believe that God could make himself ignorant without cancelling his omniscience.

Why are you trying to change the topic from omnipotence to omniscience?
But since you ask, I think God can selectively access knowledge at will. And He can afford not to worry or think about how an infinite number of factual variables will eventually play out in the future. So, yes, He can be willfully ignorant.

 

[bilby]

Isn't it amazing how Gods always so closely resemble their believers.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Isn't it amazing how Gods always so closely resemble their believers.

That's not true. The platypuses have a god who's more of a chicken than anything else.

 

[Atheos]

...So you believe that God can make contradictions come true.

No. Show me where I've said God makes contradictions come true. (Use examples from my posts)
I've only seen atheists asserting that using their diluted strawman definition of omnipotence.

...I'm guessing that you also believe that God could make himself ignorant without cancelling his omniscience.

Why are you trying to change the topic from omnipotence to omniscience?
But since you ask, I think God can selectively access knowledge at will. And He can afford not to worry or think about how an infinite number of factual variables will eventually play out in the future. So, yes, He can be willfully ignorant.

Omni
Potent

This is so easy to understand.
What part of 'omni' needs explaining? It literally means ALL
There is no wiggle room. No exceptions.

Some of us poor old atheists are having trouble understanding what "no exceptions" means. If an omnipotent being cannot make contradictions come true then the being is subject to logic and we have to make exceptions for anything that violates the rules of logic. What am I missing here?

You made a snarky post about the "married bachelor" problem but I notice you never answered it. Can an omnipotent being create a married bachelor, or is that another exception to the things it can do?

While I'm at it I might also point out that you already brought omniscience into this thread.

It's easy to assert stuff. Anyone can do that. The hard part, and what you seem to find terribly inconvenient, is defending it.

 

[Underseer]

why not shut down the conversation by asking if God can (in theory, if He wanted,) render Himself no longer omnipotent? The answer is yes. Because if God can't do that then He isn't omnipotent QED.

LOL. That is truly godlike logic.... circularbat least.
Why dont you simply state that you dont care about logic at all? You believe in god and reason doesnt come into it. So why arguing?

If he cared about logic, he wouldn't be making arguments this bad.

 

[Kharakov]

Because God does not go around defying the laws of logic, confusing us and rendering them nonsensical.We CAN have meaningful ontology, epistemology, necessary inference, etc. precisely because He is the intellectual Architect of those laws. And it is God's will that we are aware of the difference between epistemological chaos and its opposite - that we can perceive an apparent 'law' pointing to a transcendent law-giver.

Transcendent boner giver. I mean, really. What would you rather have, a being that you can bang for eternity, or a being that you can bang for eternity?

Is your goal the creation of a non-falsifiable God image for yourself that will last until you die?

What about reality (disease) and the possibility of a God that is not all powerful, that needs your help and willing sacrifice (which means a willingness to sacrifice your false belief in an omnipotent omnibenevolent God)?

Whence hunger, psychological distress, anger, pain, drama, and Hollywood movies?
Either

 

[Copernicus]

...So you believe that God can make contradictions come true.

No. Show me where I've said God makes contradictions come true. (Use examples from my posts)
I've only seen atheists asserting that using their diluted strawman definition of omnipotence.

OK, but why ask me to show you anything, if you immediately dismiss it out of hand as a "diluted strawman"? You ought to at least wait to hear what I have to say. If you think it is a straw man, then you must tell me where I have misrepresented your position.

Let's just take your claim that "...if God wanted to make Himself no longer omnipotent then, as a Being with limitations..." Your conditional begs the question by assuming that an omnipotent being can make itself vulnerable. However, that is actually the question that you have yet to establish an answer for. So what does it mean to be able to do anything? If an all-powerful being can render itself powerless at any point in its future, then it is, in fact, not all-powerful. It cannot control its future, because it is subject to its own whims in that future. Oops!

...I'm guessing that you also believe that God could make himself ignorant without cancelling his omniscience.

Why are you trying to change the topic from omnipotence to omniscience?

First of all, because you claim your god to be simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient. Secondly, because you run into exactly the same problem with any "omni" property--the possibility that it is inherently limited by future events. Thirdly, because omnipotence actually entails omniscience. Being ignorant of the future would render an omnipotent being vulnerable to events in that future--e.g. a whimsical decision to cancel or limit its power of omnipotence. The supreme irony of being a supreme being is that it cannot be anything less than supreme. Limited beings are, by definition, not supreme.

But since you ask, I think God can selectively access knowledge at will. And He can afford not to worry or think about how an infinite number of factual variables will eventually play out in the future. So, yes, He can be willfully ignorant.

Thank you for confirming my point. You believe that there is something an omniscient being cannot know, because it cannot know whether it has at some point in the past decided to render itself ignorant of some fact. God could be deceiving himself and not even know it.

 

[Lion IRC]

Why are you trying to change the topic from omnipotence to omniscience?

First of all, because you claim your god to be simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient.

No, we aren't arguing whether God actually is omnipotent.

...Secondly, because you run into exactly the same problem with any "omni" property--the possibility that it is inherently limited by future events.

How is an omnipotent being "limited" by future events over which it has absolute control?

...Thirdly, because omnipotence actually entails omniscience. Being ignorant of the future would render an omnipotent being vulnerable to events in that future--e.g. a whimsical decision to cancel or limit its power of omnipotence.

Why does an omnipotent being have to worry about "future events"? What? An outbreak of measles scares God?

 

[Lion IRC]

Some of us poor old atheists are having trouble understanding what "no exceptions" means. If an omnipotent being cannot make contradictions come true...

Show me a hypothetical example of a contradiction caused to become true by an omnipotent being. Until then your circular straw arguments are merely saying...omnipotent beings can't do things which are impossible for omnipotent beings because they aren't really omnipotent.

You made a snarky post about the "married bachelor" problem but I notice you never answered it. Can an omnipotent being create a married bachelor, or is that another exception to the things it can do?

Yes an omnipotent being can make a married bachelor in the same way as SCOTUS can change the definition of marriage.
Logically impossible for two men to be married to each other? Husband and husband?

While I'm at it I might also point out that you already brought omniscience into this thread.

Wut? James Brown raised it.
Go back and check your link.

It's easy to assert stuff. Anyone can do that. The hard part, and what you seem to find terribly inconvenient, is defending it.

I'm happy defending my own claims about omnipotence.
And I don't need to defend other peoples' definitions - especially when they entail a priori assumptions and false dilemmas

 

[jab]

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.

...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.

omnipotence is an incoherent concept, unless one has a non-secular (i.e. religious) faith that it isn't incoherent.

 

[jab]

...So you believe that God can make contradictions come true.

No. Show me where I've said God makes contradictions come true. (Use examples from my posts)
I've only seen atheists asserting that using their diluted strawman definition of omnipotence.

...I'm guessing that you also believe that God could make himself ignorant without cancelling his omniscience.

Why are you trying to change the topic from omnipotence to omniscience?
But since you ask, I think God can selectively access knowledge at will. And He can afford not to worry or think about how an infinite number of factual variables will eventually play out in the future. So, yes, He can be willfully ignorant.

what is a "diluted strawman"? A mixed metaphor, or a mixed drink?

 

[Learner]

Isn't it amazing how Gods always so closely resemble their believers.

I would hope believers would resemble God or Jesus by being good as best they can etc.. (depending how you see it).