Video: the incoherence of omnipotence

[James Brown]

Sounds like situational ethics. The bugaboo of Evangelical Apologists.

 

[Learner]

I can't walk on water.

 

[Juma]

I can't walk on water.

Of course you can. It just have to be frozen.

 

[Juma]

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.



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.

Logic is not part of the real world other than as a behaviour of minds: it is an artifact of the way we (and probably any intelligent agent) models the world. Thus omnipotence doesnt include being ”above logic”.

Its like saying that god can make things appear in another color without changing the frequency of the light or how our eyes works... yeah, then its just a question of how we represent what we see. Just a mind bender, nothing else.

 

[Lion IRC]

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

This concept of omnipotence does not depend on a theological framework.
This could be an entirely secular discussion if only there weren't so many counter-apologists hanging around.

 

[Atheos]

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.

Einstein didn't have a train that could travel at or near the speed of light in order to conduct a thought experiments about what would happen if he did. We may not have any omnipotent beings to observe but it is still possible for us to conduct thought experiments in order to explore the implications of omnipotence. That's all I'm trying to do here. I don't believe any such being exists but it is in part because I have not yet seen a coherent definition of omnipotence that doesn't break down once we begin this exploration. If you are unwilling to participate in this process of exploration, by all means just say so and there will be no hard feelings.

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?

If you had simply been clear from the beginning that your definition of omnipotence excluded logical contradictions we could have saved a lot of electrons. When you said, "All means all, no exceptions" and "god can flaggle a snuffin" it sounded to me like you were asserting the absolutism position.

I would agree that it would be possible for an omnipotent being to change the meaning of a word such as "married" to include people who are not currently married in the sense of current use. But to answer your question above, it is absolutely possible for two men to be married to each other as husband and husband. People do it all the time now. Some people don't like it but it is logically possible.

It would also be possible for an omnipotent being to give meanings to the words "flaggle" and "snuffin" and then proceed to flaggle a snuffin.

But that is not the point that the presenter of the argument in the video was attempting to make. If it is your position that an omnipotent being can only accomplish these things through vocabulary manipulation (as you seem to be suggesting) then it is (ironically) you who have been arguing a strawman all along.

So if you're willing to proceed with the thought experiment I'll ask again, but this time with clearer parameters. Can an omnipotent being create a person who is both married and not married at the same time without changing the common usage definition of the word "marriage?" Can an omnipotent being create a square circle without changing the definitions of square and circle? Can an omnipotent being engender a logical contradiction?

It's honestly no problem if these are not possible for an omnipotent being in your view of the meaning of the term. All I'm doing here is trying to understand what definition you espouse.

 

[Lion IRC]

There you go again.
You are asking me to defend whether God can flaggle a snuffin - words you invented - and when I say yes you accuse ME of vocabulary manipulation.

 

[Learner]

I can't walk on water.

Of course you can. It just have to be frozen.

Then do you think it now being plausible : Jesus did it and therefore is real?

 

[Learner]

There you go again.
You are asking me to defend whether God can flaggle a snuffin - words you invented - and when I say yes you accuse ME of vocabulary manipulation.

Indeed with words. Reminds me of the scenario - the "adversary" trying to get a poor soul (not realising) to say from his/or her "own mouth",that God is not all that. Similar with the example in a courtroom scenario and clever lawyer who asks for limited YES or NO answers only. (I'm not making any accusations btw).

 

[Juma]

I can't walk on water.

Of course you can. It just have to be frozen.

Then do you think it now being plausible : Jesus did it and therefore is real?

Of course not.

 

[Atheos]

There you go again.
You are asking me to defend whether God can flaggle a snuffin - words you invented - and when I say yes you accuse ME of vocabulary manipulation.

It is evident to me that you didn't read my post. I didn't bring "God" into the discussion other than referring to a claim you made on the first page of the thread (which seems ironic given you recently wagged your digital finger at anti-apologists who can't just let this be a secular discussion - something I'm trying to do). I didn't ask you to defend whether anyone can flaggle a snuffin and I didn't invent the words. You used them in this thread before I ever did, not that I'm accusing you of inventing them either.

I am not asking you to defend anything. Admittedly I did before when I thought I understood your definition of omnipotence. Right now (as I stated in my previous post) I'm just trying to understand what you mean when you use the word. I freely admit that I evidently misunderstood you before. Mea Culpa.

So I'll repeat the question:

Can an omnipotent being create a person who is both married and not married at the same time without changing the common usage definition of the word "marriage?" Can an omnipotent being create a square circle without changing the definitions of square and circle? Can an omnipotent being engender a logical contradiction?

 

[Jon Osterman]

As much as I wanted to like the video, it is just really really naive. If a being did have the ability to alter reality (which I would say was actual omnipotence) then none of these objections hold water.

For example, can you move an unmovable rock? Well, in our current universe, there is no such thing as an "unmovable rock" because movement is relative, so this is really just "flaggle a snuffin" again. But even laying that aside, you will have to define the words "move" and "unmovable" as you ask the question. I am fairly certain that you can't come up with a definition that an actual omnipotent being couldn't get around. (In fact, I would argue that even I can move an unmovable rock. All I need to do to move it is redefine my coordinate frame, while simultaneously it is in the same position relative to all the other objects and thus unmoved.)

But even if you could, this wouldn't disprove an omnipotent being because maybe your definitions (as explored in the video) are just too limited. For example, I can certainly imagine the possibility of a being that created our universe and left himself the ability to directly circumvent physical laws (which he laid down). It is certainly logically consistent to leave backdoors in your own physical laws so that particular operations can bypass them. These would be invisible to scientific enquiry since they would only be available to the omnipotent being.

 

[Jon Osterman]

So I'll repeat the question:

Can an omnipotent being create a person who is both married and not married at the same time without changing the common usage definition of the word "marriage?" Can an omnipotent being create a square circle without changing the definitions of square and circle? Can an omnipotent being engender a logical contradiction?

Let me take these:

1. This is fairly easy since it already exists. A gay couple is married in some jurisdictions while unmarried in others. So this already exists.

2. I am not sure how you are defining square and circle to be honest. Let's go with square having four straight sides and circle having all points equidistant from a single point. All I need to do now take a square and play with the geometry of the space so that the distances along the sides remain unchanged but he distances to the centre point become equal. It is a slightly weird space, but I could certainly do this in a computer simulation and actually give you a working metric.

3. This one is "easy". Just create a second universe with different logical laws. Then you will have logical statements in one universe which are logical contradictions in the other. You could even do this locally, wherever and whenever needed via little bubble universes.

 

[Atheos]

Jon,

While I applaud your efforts I feel like each of these is an attempt to find a semantic loophole rather than a solution. I would also argue that creating an alternative universe or bubble universes in which opposite truths exist are not logical contradictions. Like arguing that a same-sex couple can be married in one jurisdiction but not in another they do not represent logical contradictions, but rather mutually exclusive local situations.

Bear in mind that I still have no dog in the hunt. I'm fine with the definition of omnipotence including the ability to do that which is logically impossible. I'm just trying to explore the implications of such a state of affairs via thought experiments. Sometimes an experiment blows up in your face. Doesn't mean you should stop experimenting.

Finally (and I promise this is not meant to sound snarky) I was asking those questions specifically of Lion IRC in hopes of getting a better understanding of that one poster's personal definition of the word "omnipotence." While your input is welcome I really wasn't looking for explanations of how it could be done so much as whether these are all things Lion IRC believes an omnipotent being would be able to do.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Jon,

While I applaud your efforts I feel like each of these is an attempt to find a semantic loophole rather than a solution. I would also argue that creating an alternative universe or bubble universes in which opposite truths exist are not logical contradictions. Like arguing that a same-sex couple can be married in one jurisdiction but not in another they do not represent logical contradictions, but rather mutually exclusive local situations.

Bear in mind that I still have no dog in the hunt. I'm fine with the definition of omnipotence including the ability to do that which is logically impossible. I'm just trying to explore the implications of such a state of affairs via thought experiments. Sometimes an experiment blows up in your face. Doesn't mean you should stop experimenting.

Finally (and I promise this is not meant to sound snarky) I was asking those questions specifically of Lion IRC in hopes of getting a better understanding of that one poster's personal definition of the word "omnipotence." While your input is welcome I really wasn't looking for explanations of how it could be done so much as whether these are all things Lion IRC believes an omnipotent being would be able to do.

But if the being is omnipotent, then the thought experiment would never blow up in anyone's face. It would always work out fine. Whatever happens, no matter how illogical or nonsensical, would always happen in a logical and sensible manner because that would just be how reality works now.

 

[Lion IRC]

So I'll repeat the question:

Can an omnipotent being create a person who is both married and not married at the same time without changing the common usage definition of the word "marriage?" Can an omnipotent being create a square circle without changing the definitions of square and circle? Can an omnipotent being engender a logical contradiction?

Let me take these:

1. This is fairly easy since it already exists. A gay couple is married in some jurisdictions while unmarried in others. So this already exists.

2. I am not sure how you are defining square and circle to be honest. Let's go with square having four straight sides and circle having all points equidistant from a single point. All I need to do now take a square and play with the geometry of the space so that the distances along the sides remain unchanged but he distances to the centre point become equal. It is a slightly weird space, but I could certainly do this in a computer simulation and actually give you a working metric.

3. This one is "easy". Just create a second universe with different logical laws. Then you will have logical statements in one universe which are logical contradictions in the other. You could even do this locally, wherever and whenever needed via little bubble universes.

So glad I saw your excellent response before I attempted what would have been a relatively clumsy reply.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

Who said that we were arguing over that? Omnipotence and omniscience are assumed properties of your omnimax god.

...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?

God's omniscience prevents him from doing doing anything other than what he knows he will do in the future. Beings who do not know the future must still do what God knows they will do, but they have the luxury of not being omniscient in that respect.

...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?

As Atheos pointed out, you yourself have explicitly claimed that omnipotence entails omniscience, so I don't see why you are trying to argue this point. Anyway, if God could somehow render himself ignorant at some point in time, then he could not possibly be either omniscient or omnipotent. God would never know, at any given point in time, whether he actually knew the future or had rendered himself ignorant of some aspect of it. The fact is that God cannot logically cancel his omnipotence or omniscience. He is stuck with those properties, like it or not.

 

[Lion IRC]

...God's omniscience prevents him from doing doing anything other than what he knows he will do in the future

Rubbish.
If God knows He will do stuff in the future, He is still nonetheless the controller of what He will do.

Take some time and process the idea that an omnipotent being doesn't have to decide in advance everything they are going to do. They can, if they want, do nothing and ipso facto there is nothing to know.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Jon,

While I applaud your efforts I feel like each of these is an attempt to find a semantic loophole rather than a solution. I would also argue that creating an alternative universe or bubble universes in which opposite truths exist are not logical contradictions. Like arguing that a same-sex couple can be married in one jurisdiction but not in another they do not represent logical contradictions, but rather mutually exclusive local situations.

Bear in mind that I still have no dog in the hunt. I'm fine with the definition of omnipotence including the ability to do that which is logically impossible. I'm just trying to explore the implications of such a state of affairs via thought experiments. Sometimes an experiment blows up in your face. Doesn't mean you should stop experimenting.

Finally (and I promise this is not meant to sound snarky) I was asking those questions specifically of Lion IRC in hopes of getting a better understanding of that one poster's personal definition of the word "omnipotence." While your input is welcome I really wasn't looking for explanations of how it could be done so much as whether these are all things Lion IRC believes an omnipotent being would be able to do.

Omnipotence and omniscience and god are examples of semantics, notions without objective reality. Perhaps god is the greatest semantic loophole ever invented.

 

[Juma]

There you go again.
You are asking me to defend whether God can flaggle a snuffin - words you invented - and when I say yes you accuse ME of vocabulary manipulation.

It is evident to me that you didn't read my post. I didn't bring "God" into the discussion other than referring to a claim you made on the first page of the thread (which seems ironic given you recently wagged your digital finger at anti-apologists who can't just let this be a secular discussion - something I'm trying to do). I didn't ask you to defend whether anyone can flaggle a snuffin and I didn't invent the words. You used them in this thread before I ever did, not that I'm accusing you of inventing them either.

I am not asking you to defend anything. Admittedly I did before when I thought I understood your definition of omnipotence. Right now (as I stated in my previous post) I'm just trying to understand what you mean when you use the word. I freely admit that I evidently misunderstood you before. Mea Culpa.

So I'll repeat the question:

Can an omnipotent being create a person who is both married and not married at the same time without changing the common usage definition of the word "marriage?" Can an omnipotent being create a square circle without changing the definitions of square and circle? Can an omnipotent being engender a logical contradiction?

Are you still doing this? I thought you where too intelligent to think omnipotence should include illogical.