Video: the incoherence of omnipotence

[Copernicus]

Learner, Lion, or Tom, do any of you believe that an omnimax God can create a four-sided triangle? Why or why not?

Well, it depends what definition of omnipotence you use.

If you define omnipotence as being able to override the rules of logic then yes, he can create a four-sided triangle because that's a thing now as a result of his deciding that it's a thing. If you define omnipotence as being able to do anything that's logically possible, then he cannot because a four-sided triangle is not a thing which is logically possible. Either way, there's no issue.

Well, I totally disagree with your claim that there is no issue, if you attribute radically different senses to omnipotence. If you claim that God can do anything that is logically possible, then you run into all sorts of problems with the way that its meaning interacts with the concept of omniscience. We've been discussing in detail about what some of those problems are. However, Lion seems to take the bizarre position that omnipotence means that God can do logically impossible things. In that case, one ends up with a proof that God does not exist.

Here's the problem. Logic operates independently of physical reality, which is what omnipotence is all about. The rules of logic depend on the way we define words and symbols. So you can define the word "triangle" to refer to a four-sided figure, but that doesn't require omnipotence, only a willingness to change the meaning of a word. Anybody can change a convention. But triangles cannot have four sides by virtue of how we conventionally define the concept of a triangle. Presumably, God can force people to believe that triangles have four sides, but that would not actually be contravening the laws of logic. It would just be making people change a convention of word usage.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Learner, Lion, or Tom, do any of you believe that an omnimax God can create a four-sided triangle? Why or why not?

Well, it depends what definition of omnipotence you use.

If you define omnipotence as being able to override the rules of logic then yes, he can create a four-sided triangle because that's a thing now as a result of his deciding that it's a thing. If you define omnipotence as being able to do anything that's logically possible, then he cannot because a four-sided triangle is not a thing which is logically possible. Either way, there's no issue.

Well, I totally disagree with your claim that there is no issue, if you attribute radically different senses to omnipotence. If you claim that God can do anything that is logically possible, then you run into all sorts of problems with the way that its meaning interacts with the concept of omniscience. We've been discussing in detail about what some of those problems are. However, Lion seems to take the bizarre position that omnipotence means that God can do logically impossible things. In that case, one ends up with a proof that God does not exist.

Here's the problem. Logic operates independently of physical reality, which is what omnipotence is all about. The rules of logic depend on the way we define words and symbols. So you can define the word "triangle" to refer to a four-sided figure, but that doesn't require omnipotence, only a willingness to change the meaning of a word. Anybody can change a convention. But triangles cannot have four sides by virtue of how we conventionally define the concept of a triangle. Presumably, God can force people to believe that triangles have four sides, but that would not actually be contravening the laws of logic. It would just be making people change a convention of word usage.

No, the one type of omnipotent person could actually override the laws of both reality and logic and have four sided triangles be a thing - logic just kind of works that way now. The other type could not because that's logically impossible and not being able to do that doesn't detract from his omnipotence.

So, when you use the word "omnipotent", what is it that you mean? Are you talking about somebody who can do anything that's logically possible or are you talking about somebody who can do anything at all, regardless of whether or not it's logically possible? They are two extremely different words, so which one are you using - or are you using some other definition of the word?

It's the same with omniscience. You either know everything or you know everything that it's logically possible to know. If you come up with a situation where it would be logically impossible to know something, then the answer to whether the omniscient guy would know it would be either yes or no, depending on which word you're using and it works fine within the definition either way.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Learner, Lion, or Tom, do any of you believe that an omnimax God can create a four-sided triangle? Why or why not?

Well, it depends what definition of omnipotence you use.

If you define omnipotence as being able to override the rules of logic then yes, he can create a four-sided triangle because that's a thing now as a result of his deciding that it's a thing. If you define omnipotence as being able to do anything that's logically possible, then he cannot because a four-sided triangle is not a thing which is logically possible. Either way, there's no issue.

There never was, just a choice between faith or reason.

 

[Underseer]

The various definitions of omnipotence is kind of the point of the video.

These are their definitions and most of them lead to definitions that either make god impossible, or make every existing thing (including rocks) gods.

How so? (Can't watch videos)

If God has the power to override logic, then saying that God is impossible is as trivial as saying God is wearing a red shirt and isn't any kind of argument against him. He just sits there being impossible in a completely possible manner because he decided that's a thing he can do.

If God does not have the power to override logic, then he's simply the most powerful being that can possibly be. More powerful than a rock, a locomotive, a quasar or even Superman. Although, Batman could probably still find a way to kick his ass if he had time to prepare ... because he's Batman.

A link to the full transcript is provided in the video description:

http://casualentropy.blogspot.com/2017/12/omnipotence-is-not-thing_26.html

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The various definitions of omnipotence is kind of the point of the video.

These are their definitions and most of them lead to definitions that either make god impossible, or make every existing thing (including rocks) gods.

How so? (Can't watch videos)

If God has the power to override logic, then saying that God is impossible is as trivial as saying God is wearing a red shirt and isn't any kind of argument against him. He just sits there being impossible in a completely possible manner because he decided that's a thing he can do.

If God does not have the power to override logic, then he's simply the most powerful being that can possibly be. More powerful than a rock, a locomotive, a quasar or even Superman. Although, Batman could probably still find a way to kick his ass if he had time to prepare ... because he's Batman.

A link to the full transcript is provided in the video description:

http://casualentropy.blogspot.com/2017/12/omnipotence-is-not-thing_26.html

Well, that doesn’t make any sense. They say he can logically impossible things but then prove that false by saying that therefore these things would ... logically impossible?

For the logically possible one, who cares if we can verify it or not? It’s a theoretical ability given to the guy for the purpose of a discussion. Nobody’s putting it to a test.

 

[Underseer]

A link to the full transcript is provided in the video description:

http://casualentropy.blogspot.com/2017/12/omnipotence-is-not-thing_26.html

Well, that doesn’t make any sense. They say he can logically impossible things but then prove that false by saying that therefore these things would ... logically impossible?

For the logically possible one, who cares if we can verify it or not? It’s a theoretical ability given to the guy for the purpose of a discussion. Nobody’s putting it to a test.

It's hilarious because these are their definitions.

Two of the definitions would make god an impossibility, while the third would make everything that exists a god, including rocks.

 

[Subsymbolic]

A link to the full transcript is provided in the video description:

http://casualentropy.blogspot.com/2017/12/omnipotence-is-not-thing_26.html

Well, that doesn’t make any sense. They say he can logically impossible things but then prove that false by saying that therefore these things would ... logically impossible?

For the logically possible one, who cares if we can verify it or not? It’s a theoretical ability given to the guy for the purpose of a discussion. Nobody’s putting it to a test.

But that’s precisely the point. Logic doesn’t require you to physically do anything and observe the results. You just have to run through the implications.

All I’m saying is that it’s a choice between faith and logic. Christians can have God or logic. Not both. There’s a word for people who are committed to a thing when it is convenient but ignore it when it is not. More to the point, any evangelising that purports to be rational is self defeating as it uses a tool that would be broken if such a deity existed.

Or, to put it another way, Christians are formally irrational.

 

[bilby]

A link to the full transcript is provided in the video description:

http://casualentropy.blogspot.com/2017/12/omnipotence-is-not-thing_26.html

Well, that doesn’t make any sense. They say he can logically impossible things but then prove that false by saying that therefore these things would ... logically impossible?

For the logically possible one, who cares if we can verify it or not? It’s a theoretical ability given to the guy for the purpose of a discussion. Nobody’s putting it to a test.

But that’s precisely the point. Logic doesn’t require you to physically do anything and observe the results. You just have to run through the implications.

All I’m saying is that it’s a choice between faith and logic. Christians can have God or logic. Not both. There’s a word for people who are committed to a thing when it is convenient but ignore it when it is not. More to the point, any evangelising that purports to be rational is self defeating as it uses a tool that would be broken if such a deity existed.

Or, to put it another way, Christians are formally irrational.

So, in summary:

If they were right, nothing could sensibly be described as 'right', and anything (no matter how wrong) could equally be described as 'right'.

So they are only 'right' if being right is meaningless. In which case they are also avocado werewolf, and I am a married bachelor standing prone in a square circle. Which frankly, smells a very funny colour, so stop looking at me in that tone of voice.

 

[Learner]

But that’s precisely the point. Logic doesn’t require you to physically do anything and observe the results. You just have to run through the implications.

All I’m saying is that it’s a choice between faith and logic. Christians can have God or logic. Not both. There’s a word for people who are committed to a thing when it is convenient but ignore it when it is not. More to the point, any evangelising that purports to be rational is self defeating as it uses a tool that would be broken if such a deity existed.

Or, to put it another way, Christians are formally irrational.

And of the "logic" of the "intelligent designer" group who are not religious but debate on the interpretation of the same data; that there is a valid argument to "design" i.e. CREATION?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

A link to the full transcript is provided in the video description:

http://casualentropy.blogspot.com/2017/12/omnipotence-is-not-thing_26.html

Well, that doesn’t make any sense. They say he can logically impossible things but then prove that false by saying that therefore these things would ... logically impossible?

For the logically possible one, who cares if we can verify it or not? It’s a theoretical ability given to the guy for the purpose of a discussion. Nobody’s putting it to a test.

It's hilarious because these are their definitions.

Two of the definitions would make god an impossibility, while the third would make everything that exists a god, including rocks.

But why is his being an impossibility some kind of issue? If the premise is that God can do impossible things, how does the conclusion that you find God doing impossible things something which invalidates the premise?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

A link to the full transcript is provided in the video description:

http://casualentropy.blogspot.com/2017/12/omnipotence-is-not-thing_26.html

Well, that doesn’t make any sense. They say he can logically impossible things but then prove that false by saying that therefore these things would ... logically impossible?

For the logically possible one, who cares if we can verify it or not? It’s a theoretical ability given to the guy for the purpose of a discussion. Nobody’s putting it to a test.

But that’s precisely the point. Logic doesn’t require you to physically do anything and observe the results. You just have to run through the implications.

All I’m saying is that it’s a choice between faith and logic. Christians can have God or logic. Not both. There’s a word for people who are committed to a thing when it is convenient but ignore it when it is not. More to the point, any evangelising that purports to be rational is self defeating as it uses a tool that would be broken if such a deity existed.

Or, to put it another way, Christians are formally irrational.

Right, and if reality changes because an omnipotent guy changed it, running through the implications leads to a different result than one would find before the change to reality.

If the rules of reality are that three sided things can only have three sides, then running through the logical implications leads to the conclusion that anything with three sides cannot also have four sides. If an omnipotent person changes reality and makes it so that three sided things can have either three or four sides, then running through the logical implications would now lead to the conclusion that anything with three sides can also have four sides at the same time.

If your definition of omnipotence includes the ability to change the rules of reality to allow for currently impossible things, then the fact that different logical conclusions would result from his doing so is as trivial as saying that God just put on a new shirt so now his shirt is red. If your definition of omnipotence does not include that ability, then that never happens and it's not any kind of issue.

 

[Subsymbolic]

But that’s precisely the point. Logic doesn’t require you to physically do anything and observe the results. You just have to run through the implications.

All I’m saying is that it’s a choice between faith and logic. Christians can have God or logic. Not both. There’s a word for people who are committed to a thing when it is convenient but ignore it when it is not. More to the point, any evangelising that purports to be rational is self defeating as it uses a tool that would be broken if such a deity existed.

Or, to put it another way, Christians are formally irrational.

And of the "logic" of the "intelligent designer" group who are not religious but debate on the interpretation of the same data; that there is a valid argument to "design" i.e. CREATION?

That's a different argument. If you want, I can explain how that one doesn't work either...

 

[Subsymbolic]

But that’s precisely the point. Logic doesn’t require you to physically do anything and observe the results. You just have to run through the implications.

All I’m saying is that it’s a choice between faith and logic. Christians can have God or logic. Not both. There’s a word for people who are committed to a thing when it is convenient but ignore it when it is not. More to the point, any evangelising that purports to be rational is self defeating as it uses a tool that would be broken if such a deity existed.

Or, to put it another way, Christians are formally irrational.

Right, and if reality changes because an omnipotent guy changed it, running through the implications leads to a different result than one would find before the change to reality.

If the rules of reality are that three sided things can only have three sides, then running through the logical implications leads to the conclusion that anything with three sides cannot also have four sides. If an omnipotent person changes reality and makes it so that three sided things can have either three or four sides, then running through the logical implications would now lead to the conclusion that anything with three sides can also have four sides at the same time.

If your definition of omnipotence includes the ability to change the rules of reality to allow for currently impossible things, then the fact that different logical conclusions would result from his doing so is as trivial as saying that God just put on a new shirt so now his shirt is red. If your definition of omnipotence does not include that ability, then that never happens and it's not any kind of issue.

It's got nothing to do with reality per se. There are two sorts of thing: those you discover through observation and those you discover through reason. If the fundamental rule that something cannot be both p (in this case, has three sides) and not P (in this case has not three sides (because it has four)) If you violate this rule then logic is no longer a tool, because it P is the same as not P then Logic loses its ability to ensure that starting with true premises leads to true conclusions.

Now, if such a God really existed, rather than being imaginary then the costs would be high. Logic wouldn't work. Logic is what makes your computers, internet and so on function, not to mention anything at all that contains a chip or does any sort of maths at all. In addition, science relies upon a world that is regular and unchanging. The effect of a deity changing the rules all the time by being all powerful would mean that induction wouldn't work. No one could predict or explain anything.

So really it's a choice. Either God doesn't exist and logic, science and so on are possible or it does and science doesn't work, computers can't work and so on. Given the choice, I'd say that the evidence suggests that God doesn't exist. If he did, he'd leave a mighty big footprint which is entirely lacking.

Even then it's perfectly fine to have faith that such a god could exist. Just don't try to use rational or scientific tools to demonstrate it.

 

[Underseer]

But that’s precisely the point. Logic doesn’t require you to physically do anything and observe the results. You just have to run through the implications.

All I’m saying is that it’s a choice between faith and logic. Christians can have God or logic. Not both. There’s a word for people who are committed to a thing when it is convenient but ignore it when it is not. More to the point, any evangelising that purports to be rational is self defeating as it uses a tool that would be broken if such a deity existed.

Or, to put it another way, Christians are formally irrational.

And of the "logic" of the "intelligent designer" group who are not religious but debate on the interpretation of the same data; that there is a valid argument to "design" i.e. CREATION?

Are you trying to interject a teleological argument here?

If you want to say that God created the universe, then you have to provide proof of God, then provide proof of God creating the universe. Saying "how else do you explain it?" doesn't count as proof of either. In fact saying that is at best an admission that you know you can't prove either.

 

[Underseer]

But that’s precisely the point. Logic doesn’t require you to physically do anything and observe the results. You just have to run through the implications.

All I’m saying is that it’s a choice between faith and logic. Christians can have God or logic. Not both. There’s a word for people who are committed to a thing when it is convenient but ignore it when it is not. More to the point, any evangelising that purports to be rational is self defeating as it uses a tool that would be broken if such a deity existed.

Or, to put it another way, Christians are formally irrational.

Right, and if reality changes because an omnipotent guy changed it, running through the implications leads to a different result than one would find before the change to reality.

If the rules of reality are that three sided things can only have three sides, then running through the logical implications leads to the conclusion that anything with three sides cannot also have four sides. If an omnipotent person changes reality and makes it so that three sided things can have either three or four sides, then running through the logical implications would now lead to the conclusion that anything with three sides can also have four sides at the same time.

If your definition of omnipotence includes the ability to change the rules of reality to allow for currently impossible things, then the fact that different logical conclusions would result from his doing so is as trivial as saying that God just put on a new shirt so now his shirt is red. If your definition of omnipotence does not include that ability, then that never happens and it's not any kind of issue.

A thing can't be P and not P at the same time no matter what changes are made to reality.

 

[bilby]

But that’s precisely the point. Logic doesn’t require you to physically do anything and observe the results. You just have to run through the implications.

All I’m saying is that it’s a choice between faith and logic. Christians can have God or logic. Not both. There’s a word for people who are committed to a thing when it is convenient but ignore it when it is not. More to the point, any evangelising that purports to be rational is self defeating as it uses a tool that would be broken if such a deity existed.

Or, to put it another way, Christians are formally irrational.

Right, and if reality changes because an omnipotent guy changed it, running through the implications leads to a different result than one would find before the change to reality.

If the rules of reality are that three sided things can only have three sides, then running through the logical implications leads to the conclusion that anything with three sides cannot also have four sides. If an omnipotent person changes reality and makes it so that three sided things can have either three or four sides, then running through the logical implications would now lead to the conclusion that anything with three sides can also have four sides at the same time.

If your definition of omnipotence includes the ability to change the rules of reality to allow for currently impossible things, then the fact that different logical conclusions would result from his doing so is as trivial as saying that God just put on a new shirt so now his shirt is red. If your definition of omnipotence does not include that ability, then that never happens and it's not any kind of issue.

A thing can't be P and not P at the same time no matter what changes are made to reality.

Tell that to Schrödinger's Cat.

 

[Subsymbolic]

A thing can't be P and not P at the same time no matter what changes are made to reality.

Tell that to Schrödinger's Cat.

Would that be the Schrodinger's cat that was designed as a reductio ad absurdum of thirties QM, precisely because it would violate the law of the excluded middle?

 

[bilby]

A thing can't be P and not P at the same time no matter what changes are made to reality.

Tell that to Schrödinger's Cat.

Would that be the Schrodinger's cat that was designed as a reductio ad absurdum of thirties QM, precisely because it would violate the law of the excluded middle?

Well after making all that fuss, I presume that Schrödinger at least had the common courtesy to perform the experiment.

I asked our cat; she said 'Mao'. Which is rather inconclusive, unless we know what the founding Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party had to say about the law of the excluded middle.

 

[Jobar]

Lion, Learner, Tigers- have any of you heard of  Fideism?

Those who hold their beliefs fideistically basically say that reason and logic have naught to do with their beliefs, and no argument pro or con matters at all. There have been some well respected scientists and philosophers who considered themselves fideists; probably the best known in recent times was  Martin Gardner, who wrote the "Mathematical Games" columns, which appeared for twenty-five years in Scientific American. You should check out the 'theism and religion' section of his Wiki article.

Penn and Teller once did one of their "Bullshit!" shows on religion; at the end, Penn talked about fideism, and how we who argue against theistic beliefs can't touch fideists. But he also points out that fideism and evangelism are mutually exclusive, and that fideists ought to admit their faith is not held as a rational proposition.

I should add that the Roman Catholic Church considers fideism a heresy.

 

[Lion IRC]

Lion, Learner, Tigers- have any of you heard of Fideism?

Yes
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...s-not-is-too-)&p=366729&viewfull=1#post366729