Originally posted by vishvahetuOmnipotent is unlimited infinite power
Omnipotent is unlimited infinite power, and what is power, its the energy, potency, intelligence, creativeness to act or do, and for God, (without limit or boundries.)
vishva
Similar question to what I asked josephw: would "unlimited infinite power" include the power to bring about logically impossible states of affairs?
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloIt is logically possible that an actual, brand new dollar bill will be created tomorrow. But if God attempts to create a dollar bill, it will be a counterfeit. It is logically possible that I remember my recent visual experience. But God cannot remember my recent visual experience. These are two examples that were given to me, way back in an introductory philosophy course, in an attempt to make waves for notions of omnipotence like O1. I take it the idea is that some performances can only be successful when the performer bears a certain type of relationship to something else. The creator of the dollar bill has to be sanctioned by the treasury. To remember an experience (rather than merely seeming to remember, or having a state phenomenologically indistinguishable from an actual memory) requires that one be the person that actually had that experience.
How should we formulate the notion of 'omnipotence'. And, for those theists who hold that God is omnipotent, what exactly is meant by this?
I have been thinking about it, and I have many concerns for the prospects of formulating the notion in terms of either the power to bring about certain states of affairs or the power to do certain things.
For e
-----------
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat is it that you are claiming cannot be done? Creating something that has the property that its creator cannot lift it? That's easy enough – I can do it. I'm sure you could, too. Wouldn't that mean an omnipotent being could not do everything that we can do? But I guess one of my points here is that this is neither a slight to the omnipotent being, nor is it a credit to us. Our "power" to do this actually means that our lifting powers are limited (it's a negative disguised as a positive).
It is no different than saying I can draw a square circle....it cannot be done so it
isn't anything anyone can do no matter how much power or knowledge they have.
If it can be done, if it can be known, than you have omnipotent, if it cannot be
done than why bring it up? 🙂
Kelly
My forays into logic, for what they're worth, have yielded the insight that the solace of logic is often deflationary in kind. (The logical demolition of the Argument to Design is quite something).
Here, I'd say something like it is always true that G is in possession of every power, including the power to resolve logical contradictions like unliftable rocks.
Originally posted by bbarrI think there are a lot of interesting examples to consider. In the Stanford encyclopedia link I posted, the article has some interesting examples that it claims makes problems for, say, the idea that an omnipotent being should be able to bring about any contingent states of affairs.
It is logically possible that an actual, brand new dollar bill will be created tomorrow. But if God attempts to create a dollar bill, it will be a counterfeit. It is logically possible that I remember my recent visual experience. But God cannot remember my recent visual experience. These are two examples that were given to me, way back in an introductory philosophy course, in an attempt to make waves for notions of omnipotence like O1.
Originally posted by LemonJelloYes, but you will probably never be the witness of such an event on this planet....remember existence is infinite and there are inumerable universes out there, and who can go to everyone looking for that particular occurance.
[b]Omnipotent is unlimited infinite power
Similar question to what I asked josephw: would "unlimited infinite power" include the power to bring about logically impossible states of affairs?[/b]
vishva
Originally posted by vishvahetuBut, to be clear, you are saying that there are possible worlds wherein logically impossible state(s) of affairs obtain? Seems self-contradictory to me.
Yes, but you will probably never be the witness of such an event on this planet....remember existence is infinite and there are inumerable universes out there, and who can go to everyone looking for that particular occurance.
vishva
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhat of the notion of "bring about"? Are we talking about bringing some state of affairs about directly, via an act of will? Are we talking about bringing some state of affairs about indirectly, through typical causal channels?
I think there are a lot of interesting examples to consider. In the Stanford encyclopedia link I posted, the article has some interesting examples that it claims makes problems for, say, the idea that an omnipotent being should be able to bring about any contingent states of affairs.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhy would the answer to B be no?
The problem I have is in the formulation of 'omnipotence'. I have no real problems with the so-called paradox of the stone itself because I think there simply is no paradox. I think arguments centered on the paradox of the stone are unsound. For instance, the argument could be delivered in the following way:
(1) Either it is the case that X can crea blem. I suppose the answer to (A) would be yes, and the answer to (B) would be no.
Why can't an omnipotent being bring about that it becomes an amoeba? (Yes, I know it sounds silly, but I don't see it as being logically impossible).
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut I'm not sure why an infinite rock would be logically impossible. What contradiction would follow from an infinite rock?
Would an infinite rock be logically impossible? If so, can an omnipotent being create any finite sized rock? Surely mathematically we end up with the age old problem of "any finite rock as size tends to infinity" being remarkably similar to "an infinite sized rock".
