Video: the incoherence of omnipotence

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Sure, but that's hardly saying much. We may want to think in terms of the powers that exist. And sure, all of them. Big deal.

Otherwise, would God have even a power that doesn't exist?! A power that isn't a power?! The power not to exist at all, ever?!

And if He has never existed, has He got any power nonetheless?

Whoa, blows my mind!

Me, I think the challenge is for believers to come up with a notion of omnipotence that would be the best fit for the intuition we have about omnipotence (whether we believe in God or not).

Less than intuitive notions won't work in the long term outside Jesuit circles.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I loved the married bachelor conundrum.
SCOTUS can change the definition of marriage in the blink of an eye.
Can Jesus have two dads? No. That would be a (skeptics annotated) error in the bible.
But the LGBTQI lobby says that having two dads is quite possible.

Not good. Could God make me both a married and a non-married man?

Oh, yeah, sure, He can just change the meaning of "non".

Not good, no.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

For that matter, how does God know that he knows everything?

I would have said that if you know something, surely you know that you know it. In our case, we have to think about it but if we do, we know whether we know or not. Let's see... Do I know the name of the street where I lived as a child? Ah, yes, I do. And if I had known this name but forgotten it, I couldn't be said to know it now. And I sure couldn't tell how many things I know but I would assume God would just have to think about everything and He would know he knows everything. He may just as well have everything in mind all the time for that matter. No biggy for Him I suppose.

Now, obviously, if there's something I certainly don't know, it's how God would know things. But that's no argument except as to my ignorance of things to do with God.
EB

 

[Tom Sawyer]

For that matter, how does God know that he knows everything?

I would have said that if you know something, surely you know that you know it. In our case, we have to think about it but if we do, we know whether we know or not. Let's see... Do I know the name of the street where I lived as a child? Ah, yes, I do. And if I had known this name but forgotten it, I couldn't be said to know it now. And I sure couldn't tell how many things I know but I would assume God would just have to think about everything and He would know he knows everything. He may just as well have everything in mind all the time for that matter. No biggy for Him I suppose.

Now, obviously, if there's something I certainly don't know, it's how God would know things. But that's no argument except as to my ignorance of things to do with God.
EB

Also, if you're omniscient, knowing that you know everything would be one of the things that you know.

 

[James Brown]

For that matter, how does God know that he knows everything?

I would have said that if you know something, surely you know that you know it. In our case, we have to think about it but if we do, we know whether we know or not. Let's see... Do I know the name of the street where I lived as a child? Ah, yes, I do. And if I had known this name but forgotten it, I couldn't be said to know it now. And I sure couldn't tell how many things I know but I would assume God would just have to think about everything and He would know he knows everything. He may just as well have everything in mind all the time for that matter. No biggy for Him I suppose.

Now, obviously, if there's something I certainly don't know, it's how God would know things. But that's no argument except as to my ignorance of things to do with God.
EB

Also, if you're omniscient, knowing that you know everything would be one of the things that you know.

Yeah. "IF" you're omniscient. Which raises the question--how do you know if you're omniscient?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Also, if you're omniscient, knowing that you know everything would be one of the things that you know.

Yeah. "IF" you're omniscient. Which raises the question--how do you know if you're omniscient?

The same way you know that nobody's going to be pushing that immovable object you just created across the room. It's just a power you have.

 

[Underseer]

If you ask me, the ancient theists were more intelligent. They never tried to attribute omnipotence nor omniscience to human logic sense.

FIFY

To some point I would agree with you only that I would point this to non theists (like the above in bold).

Ah, so it makes no sense to human logic, but there is some other logic by which this makes sense?

Great. What is this other logic and how does this other logic work? You're going to have to prove that this other logic exists and explain how it works, and teach us all how to use it to prove things and how to support conclusions with it. Otherwise, your excuse is nothing more than a  just-so story (ad hoc fallacy), and a pretty sad and desperate one at that.

 

[bilby]

Also, if you're omniscient, knowing that you know everything would be one of the things that you know.

Yeah. "IF" you're omniscient. Which raises the question--how do you know if you're omniscient?

The same way you know that nobody's going to be pushing that immovable object you just created across the room. It's just a power you have.

I'm not so sure. Lots of people think they know things, but are wrong. How do you tell the difference between being an omnicognisant entity, and having the universe's worst case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome?

It's even worse when talking about a third party. The claim "God knows everything" is indistinguishable from Dunning-Kruger-by-proxy. How could the claimant possibly be competent to make such an assessment?

 

[jab]

Ditto my post about defining omnipotence if you want to define omniscience in a way that compels God to know every single thing He will ever do (and not do) in advance.

I may have misconstrued your use of the term "omniscience", although you don't seem to have been very clear on how...

I will say it again one last time.
God's future optional prerogatives are not constrained because He has not, and does not need to, pre-commit to things against His will. God is completely free to wait until Thursday morning to decide what He wants for breakfast on that day. He is not 'ignorant' of what He will have for breakfast on that day. His omniscience isn't in question and it's not like God is getting anxious as the day approaches because He 'needs' to know everything single He will ever possibly have for breakfast every day from now into infinity.

Omnipotence is the ability to do things, not the compulsion to do things. And omniscience is a subset of the ability to do anything. "To know" is a verb. Yes God can know in advance what He will have for breakfast on Thursday - anything He wants to have. And if God wants to wait till Thursday to decide what He feels like having on that day He can because He is....wait for it
...able to do anything He wants.

Copernicus - if you come back one more time claiming not to understand what I'm saying, or misstating my position, or accusing me of holding a position which is tantamount to God lacking some ability or lacking knowledge of events that will never happen, then I'm going to have to conclude that we have a communication problem.

All I can say, is that regardless of whichever definitions of omnipotence and omniscience one goes with, your dick-endowed god is a bitch. So cruel that if he exists, the average human has a greater moral sense than that bitchy old he. Morality, thrr Judeo/Christian/Islamic God and humans are analogous to chess, humans, and computers: In one endeavour, the creation has outpaced the creator.

 

[Underseer]

If you ask me, the ancient theists were more intelligent. They never tried to attribute omnipotence nor omniscience to human logic sense.

FIFY

To some point I would agree with you only that I would point this to non theists (like the above in bold).

The problem is, is it that the majority of today's theologians that hold to the claim that God is omnipotent. It is an idea that doesn't work as a rational hypothesis, so naturally, it is going to be attacked because it is unreasonable. A few theologies, such as Open Theology and Proces Theology have abandoned the claim.

One can fill libraries with theology books trying to explain how it is God is omnipotent and trying to square that with the existence of evil et al. Much of the claims about omnipotence started to be made during the era of Augustine and other theologians. Nobody wants to have to develop a hypothetical lesser God and fill out the details of why that must be so, and what is God's nature as far as his abilities and powers are if he is not.

Aquinas and others argued, God cannot do the illogical, others, such as Descartes argued God creates the logic of the Universe and could change it if he desired. So he could do the illogical. Theologians are stilltrying to maximize God's omnipotence and avoid the paradoxes and incoherences surrounding that idea.

And hence this thread.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The same way you know that nobody's going to be pushing that immovable object you just created across the room. It's just a power you have.

I'm not so sure. Lots of people think they know things, but are wrong. How do you tell the difference between being an omnicognisant entity, and having the universe's worst case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome?

That's the kind of reasoning that should have you worried about you having this Dunning-Kruger thingy. I would consult if I were you.

It's even worse when talking about a third party. The claim "God knows everything" is indistinguishable from Dunning-Kruger-by-proxy. How could the claimant possibly be competent to make such an assessment?

Ah, that's much, much better. If only God is all powerful and omniscient then we're incompetent to assess whether He, or anything else, might be. At the very least, yes, we should ask how we would know.

Oh, well, too easy this one. God just thought we better be au courant.

Nothing's impossible to God except that which is impossible.
EB

 

[Learner]

A good summary: the theistic mind
Is nothing but a brainfart...

I .... I... disagreeeeee!

(couldn't hold it any longer)

 

[Atheos]

Nothing's impossible to God except that which is impossible.

That's fine until you start thinking it through.

It is possible for me to put enough rocks in a wheelbarrow that I can no longer lift the wheelbarrow. Can god put enough rocks in a wheelbarrow that he can no longer lift it?

It is possible for me to learn a new skill tomorrow that I cannot do today. Is it possible for god to learn a new skill tomorrow that he cannot do today?

 

[Phil Scott]

How do you tell the difference between being an omnicognisant entity, and having the universe's worst case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome?

That's now my favourite invocation of "Dunning-Kruger."

It connotes with the idea of the God of Plato having self-doubt. I like it.

 

[Lion IRC]

...Can god put enough rocks in a wheelbarrow that he can no longer lift it?

Yes, He can fill it with an infinite number of rocks - so high that there is nowhere for it to be lifted 'up' to.

...Is it possible for god to learn a new skill tomorrow that he cannot do today?

Yes, God can decide not to do something new/novel today and instead wait til tomorrow.

God can, if He wishes, render Himself ignorant of how to play guitar and then go on to experience the sensation of novelty when He picks up a guitar.

Yes but maybe, you ask, has God previously invented and played that guitar and perhaps this isn't the first time He has ever done such a thing? Well so what if He has? Can He not easily travel back in time? Why must God impose 'memory' upon Himself unless He wants to remember?

It is a human definition of omnipotence and omniscience which attempts to shackle God with the handicaps of predestination and limited free will. (Typical atheists anthropomorphically defining God)

 

[Speakpigeon]

Nothing's impossible to God except that which is impossible.

That's fine until you start thinking it through.

It is possible for me to put enough rocks in a wheelbarrow that I can no longer lift the wheelbarrow. Can god put enough rocks in a wheelbarrow that he can no longer lift it?

It is possible for me to learn a new skill tomorrow that I cannot do today. Is it possible for god to learn a new skill tomorrow that he cannot do today?

Hush! You're not to talk about God as if He was one of us, just bigger!

You need to think outside the box of our own empirical and very limited human experience of reality.

Start by asking yourself why would God have to comply with all the contingencies associated with space and time to begin with. Why would God be bound or obligated by something as futile as "reality"? Sure, in this case, He's not omnipotent. He's just a slob, even if not exactly like one of us. So, if we're to think of Him as omnipotent at all, we need to put Him somewhere our own mind cannot reach. So, wheelbarrows are irrelevant.

Still, that's a very, very, very distant kind o' God. Nothing like the God of the Bible. Such a God would have not reason to care much about us. Not something too alluring to the little child in us.
EB

 

[Atheos]

...Can god put enough rocks in a wheelbarrow that he can no longer lift it?

Yes, He can fill it with an infinite number of rocks - so high that there is nowhere for it to be lifted 'up' to.

...Is it possible for god to learn a new skill tomorrow that he cannot do today?

Yes, God can decide not to do something new/novel today and instead wait til tomorrow.

God can, if He wishes, render Himself ignorant of how to play guitar and then go on to experience the sensation of novelty when He picks up a guitar.

Yes but maybe, you ask, has God previously invented and played that guitar and perhaps this isn't the first time He has ever done such a thing? Well so what if He has? Can He not easily travel back in time? Why must God impose 'memory' upon Himself unless He wants to remember?

It is a human definition of omnipotence and omniscience which attempts to shackle God with the handicaps of predestination and limited free will. (Typical atheists anthropomorphically defining God)

Neither of these are answers; they are only resting points. And I personally find it tiresome when a theist puts words in atheist's mouths, but atheists are often equally guilty.

I'm not personally trying to anthropomorphically define "god" whatever that is. I have no reason to believe such a thing exists.

First, you say,

Yes, He can fill it with an infinite number of rocks - so high that there is nowhere for it to be lifted 'up' to.

If the definition of omnipotence excludes things that are impossible I would argue that it is impossible to create an infinite number of rocks. I would further argue that for any given finite pile of rocks an omnipotent being would be able to create more space into which to lift the pile.

Answers like this aren't answers at all. They're meant to sound like answers but they don't resolve the underlying problem of the incoherence of omnipotence.

God can, if He wishes, render Himself ignorant of how to play guitar and then go on to experience the sensation of novelty when He picks up a guitar.

That's not the same as learning a new skill tomorrow that it cannot do today. It is nothing more than play acting if the reality is that god can already play a guitar, which an omnipotent being would by definition be able to do, provided the definition was "the ability to do all things possible to be done." I will concede that an omnipotent god would be able to share this experience in a Neuromancer-style simstim manner, but it would be as a voyeur, not as an exercise in self-improvement. Temporarily jettisoning some power or knowledge so it can relearn or re-acquire it is a hollow substitute for the real thing if the individual in question can instantaneously have back that which was set aside.

I'm fine if folks want to believe in a drama-queen god who toys with existence in such a fashion. I'm sure having everything for all eternity would be infinitely boring. I just see no reason to think such a being exists.

 

[Learner]

Would GOD know much more and be able to do, more than HIS creations (all entites) - better knowing omnipotent and omniscience than HIS creations would know?

Yes of course!

Various theories with continous study - all that is so-far known of the universe - is not enough knowledge, basically.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Would GOD know much more and be able to do, more than HIS creations (all entites) - better knowing omnipotent and omniscience than HIS creations would know?

Yes of course!

Various theories with continous study - all that is so-far known of the universe - is not enough knowledge, basically.

So, if we accept the hidden assumption that things that are created are always less capable than things that create them, can you explain this:

https://slator.com/technology/big-tech-using-machine-translation-ai-proxy/

The fact is that you can either accept logic as your route to truth or faith. If you accept faith then that's just dandy. I respect your decision and your faith. However, if you want to move beyond simply stating that you have faith, whatever the logic or evidence, then you have a problem.

Obviously, your faith is premised upon expansion, upon convincing others. Now if faith demonstrably made people better people, happier people or more moral people then perhaps you'd be pulling in the punters, but that fact is that it doesn't. If prayer worked in a way that science could detect then, again, you'd have all the followers you want. However, once again, prayer makes no objective difference whatsoever (apart, perhaps from making you feel a little better until it doesn't work... Bad things happen to good and bad alike.

This leads to the fundamental problem, as faith is basically unconvincing, you want to use the tools that work. Logic, science and so on. The problem is that the moment you want to use them it's a double edged sword and they can be used on you. You want to believe in an omnimax God then I'm sorry you are just going to have to put up with people pointing out that such a God violates the law of the excluded middle. This is at the heart of logic and is why things like the internet, your computer and Air traffic control work.

Ironically a system not unlike the internet was proposed by Teilhard de Chardin a century or so ago sadly it was meant to be powered by faith and prayer which turned out not to work as well as logic an electricity, So now the noosphere was made by atheists and the Omega Point is the singularity. It's the same millennial bullshit, but just a bit more, you know, secular.

So, please carry on using a double standard, render up to Caesar your modern world in which people don't die in childbirth, we can all communicate freely and so on, but at least have the good grace to admit that Christianity is hitching a free ride on the modern world while sticking its fingers in its ears, screwing up it's eyes and chanting 'lalalala' as loud as it can.

In the same way, If you want to critique logic, at least learn how it works and why it's a problem for an omnimax god. Don't just pull the 'it's a mystery' line as that got old back when we thought that Gods lived up mountains...

 

[Atheos]

From my perspective this thread is more about the meaning of the word "omnipotent" than it is about whether or not this or that fairy tale includes a fictional character who fits that description. Therefore to me it's kind of like arguing whether or not Superman is really invulnerable.

It's hard for believers not to bring the baggage of whatever myth they happen to believe in into this discussion, and I respect that. But it is logically possible for an omnipotent being to exist and not be the creator of all things (human beings included). Speculating about how it compares to creatures it may or may not have created is pointless. An omnipotent being would by definition have no peer.