Video: the incoherence of omnipotence

[jab]

No, we agreed that omni means omni and potent means potent.

by that simplistic definition, the male Christian God gets a hardon for everything--sort of like Zeus.

 

[jab]

So, uh, how did we get off the topic of the definition of omnipotence? Sorry for not reading the entire thread.

Did we all agree that the Christian definitions of omnipotence are incoherent and just moved on to other topics?

I posted a definition that I found in Wayne Grudem's systematic theology: "God is able to do all his holy will." I think that is defensible, and avoids the various conundrums proposed in the video.

Regards,
Lee

If that definition holds, then there is no God, because if this world is part of his will, his will is not wholly holy.

 

[ruby sparks]

Recently, on this forum, I came across a comment by another poster (forget which one, sorry) who said something that made sense, in a way that I personally had not exactly thought of it before.

When these texts were written, societies had rulers, that required subjects to have allegiance to them, obey them, possibly even worship and love them. It was a transgression not to. The rulers were very powerful (Roman emperors were said to be omnipotent for example, I believe). Trust and faith in the justness of the ruler was necessary, or, if it was doubted, one had to either keep quiet about it, obey out of fear, or risk a very nasty punishment otherwise. That was, by and large, the zeitgeist.

Could the writers have understood or envisaged the comparatively free democracies that exist today in many countries? I don't think so, any more than they could envisage an end to slavery, or the knowledge gained through modern science, including for example the age of the world, etc.

It seems to me an act of folly to get one's 'facts' (or morals) from such sources, and as atheists, we believe we can see enormous amounts of hard work being done to fit round pegs into square holes in texts.

Of course, it would be possible (and I believe I've read as much) to have an interpretation that the content of god's message was (had to be) appropriate to the level of understanding of humans living in those times. Otherwise they (a) wouldn't have had a chance of understanding and (b) even if they had understood, might have found the content too radical to adjust to (homosexuality is not wrong, it's not a capital offence to curse your parents, women can vote - what would 'vote' even have meant to them? etc etc). Yes I know there are still flaws in that, but it is at least a way of looking at it. It could, by a not dissimilar thought process, extend to omnipotence too (or whatever term was used originally) and the other omnis.

 

[Lion IRC]

...re definition 2: An omnipotent being cannot be an being with limited powers--that would be illogical. re creating unliftable rocks or stating truthfully "I am not omnipotent".

Well duh!
A being that (truthfully) says I am not omnipotent is therefore exempt from the requirement to explain why they can't hypothetically do a given thing. There's no need for biblical theists to defend non-omnipotence or diluted definitions of omnipotence.

 

[bilby]

So God as stalker.

Creepy. As. Fuck.

I don't follow the logic of this attempted riposte.

If someone reasons that because they have chosen to love you, you are therefore in a relationship with them and are obliged to love them in return or suffer their wrath, then that someone is a creepy stalker.

This remains true regardless of the stalker's name or rank.

 

[jab]

So God as stalker.

Creepy. As. Fuck.

I don't follow the logic of this attempted riposte.

If someone reasons that because they have chosen to love you, you are therefore in a relationship with them and are obliged to love them in return or suffer their wrath, then that someone is a creepy stalker.

This remains true regardless of the stalker's name or rank.

creepy yes, but this doesn't necessarily involve stalking--which is an action, not simply an idea or an emotion.

 

[bilby]

If someone reasons that because they have chosen to love you, you are therefore in a relationship with them and are obliged to love them in return or suffer their wrath, then that someone is a creepy stalker.

This remains true regardless of the stalker's name or rank.

creepy yes, but this doesn't necessarily involve stalking--which is an action, not simply an idea or an emotion.

I was told that this God character watches everything we do, and punishes us for failing to return his love. Those are actions, not emotions.

 

[Underseer]

No, we agreed that omni means omni and potent means potent.

The entire point of the video was to talk about the meaning of those words, and how the three Christian interpretations of those words results in incoherent definitions of omnipotent.

Let's make this easier: which of the three Christian definitions of omnipotent do you agree with? One of the two logically impossible definitions, or the definition under which rocks would also count as omnipotent?

Pretty sure Lion IRC already picked his poison.

Ah, so Lion IRC believes that God is a logical impossibility. Well, it seems that he and I agree on something, although perhaps not in the way he imagines.

 

[Lion IRC]

You can't simply assert something like God/omnipotence being logically impossible and expect that your special pleading will just be accepted.

Omni = all
Potent = powerful

 

[Underseer]

...re definition 2: An omnipotent being cannot be an being with limited powers--that would be illogical. re creating unliftable rocks or stating truthfully "I am not omnipotent".

Well duh!
A being that (truthfully) says I am not omnipotent is therefore exempt from the requirement to explain why they can't hypothetically do a given thing. There's no need for biblical theists to defend non-omnipotence or diluted definitions of omnipotence.

Whatever you think you need to defend or not, you have defined god to be logically impossible, hence there is no reason for anyone to accept your claim that god (or at least your version of god) exists.

The video covered the logical incoherence of your preferred definition of omnipotence.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't simply assert something like God/omnipotence being logically impossible and expect that your special pleading will just be accepted.

Omni = all
Potent = powerful

You have defined god to be logically impossible.

Our discussion here is pretty much done. There is no reason for anyone to take your truth claims seriously.

 

[Jobar]

You can't simply assert something like God/omnipotence being logically impossible and expect that your special pleading will just be accepted.

Omni = all
Potent = powerful

We aren't simply asserting the logical impossibility of omnipotence, we're trying to demonstrate it. At the least, I think this thread has shown none of the theist's definitions of omnipotence are coherent, when they attempt to apply those definitions to an existing being.

As I asked in post 25, Does God have power over logic, or does logic have power over God? If the former, then God can both exist and not exist; can make a rock too heavy for Him to lift, then lift it. And that renders all attempts to talk about him in human languages meaningless, since language depends on logic. If the latter, then God cannot do the logically impossible; which imposes limitations on his power.

 

[Underseer]

You can't simply assert something like God/omnipotence being logically impossible and expect that your special pleading will just be accepted.

Omni = all
Potent = powerful

We aren't simply asserting the logical impossibility of omnipotence, we're trying to demonstrate it. At the least, I think this thread has shown none of the theist's definitions of omnipotence are coherent, when they attempt to apply those definitions to an existing being.

As I asked in post 25, Does God have power over logic, or does logic have power over God? If the former, then God can both exist and not exist; can make a rock too heavy for Him to lift, then lift it. And that renders all attempts to talk about him in human languages meaningless, since language depends on logic. If the latter, then God cannot do the logically impossible; which imposes limitations on his power.

It really does sound like a variation on the "god is beyond logic" argument, doesn't it?

If god is beyond logic, then we have no means of discerning good arguments from bad arguments. If we cannot tell good arguments from bad arguments in a discussion about god, then not only has the claim of god's existence not been proven, but it can't be proven, and thus it is never reasonable to accept the claim that god is real.

 

[Lion IRC]

Since God created (what we call) logic it stands to reason that He is not involuntarily subordinate to it.

 

[Lion IRC]

You have defined god to be logically impossible...

No I havent.

Gee. Gainsaying is fun.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Since God created (what we call) logic it stands to reason that He is not involuntarily subordinate to it.

Which is the only sensible definition of omnipotence. God is constrained by logical paradoxes in the same way that Superman is constrained by a pair of handcuffs.

That doesn't help with questions about why he just sits back and watches while children get raped and murdered and things like that, but it does define questions like whether he can create a rock too big for him to lift and stuff. The answer to that one that yes, he can. He can then go ahead and lift that rock, too.

 

[Jobar]

Since God created (what we call) logic it stands to reason that He is not involuntarily subordinate to it.

Do you see how that renders all theology meaningless, and all apologetics nonsense? We simply cannot talk, cannot think, about something which makes hash of logic that way.

 

[Atheos]

To expound further, it would then be impossible to make any positive claim about this being, including the claim that it is omnipotent. Tossing all referential logic out the window it can at the same time be the most powerless thing in all existence. To claim that it is "good" is also meaningless. One can't even claim that it "is what it is" because that would require it to be something, and with these constraints it doesn't have to be anything. It is powerful enough to be non-existent. These are all considerations when discussing the problem of incoherence.

 

[Lion IRC]

Since God created (what we call) logic it stands to reason that He is not involuntarily subordinate to it.

Do you see how that renders all theology meaningless, and all apologetics nonsense? We simply cannot talk, cannot think, about something which makes hash of logic that way.

No.
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.

You know, instead of rocks so heavy God can't lift them, 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.

Could He re-boot His prior state of omnipotence? No.

But that isn't really relevant. Because it's hardly controversial that non-omnipotent beings can't do certain things.

 

[Learner]

I'd also add ... The rules or requirements to be omni-potent (other than our own as in the OP ) is I think, a little beyond our understanding to fathom.

I'll use the below:

[we just don't know (how to explain it) because of our limited abilities to understand..."]

 

[Learner]

It really does sound like a variation on the "god is beyond logic" argument, doesn't it?

If god is beyond logic, then we have no means of discerning good arguments from bad arguments. If we cannot tell good arguments from bad arguments in a discussion about god, then not only has the claim of god's existence not been proven, but it can't be proven, and thus it is never reasonable to accept the claim that god is real.

Logic (we've so far gained) is logically limited to the natural world (experience etc...) I say obviously. We have scientific mind bogglers with questions that defies logical understanding.

Edit: Would the human logic as it is, in the physical world,think it will (or not) understand "more than" just the natural world?