Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So the infinite rock fills up the infinite universe?
Hmm...
I guess I could see that. Any room for observers?

Yes. That's the beauty of infinity. A line is infinite, yet it is contained in a plane. You can also have a lot of infinite subsets contained in larger infinite sets.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Where does it fit?

What exactly is the logical contradiction?

Originally posted by LemonJello
What exactly is the logical contradiction?

I don't see one. You?

Originally posted by Palynka
Why would the answer to B 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).

I think a yes answer to B leads to contradiction. (That is, unless you make allowance for accidental omnipotence, as opposed to essential omnipotence. If you allow that X is only accidentally omnipotent, then it may make sense to talk about X's bringing it about that X is no longer omnipotent. There is some brief discussion on that in the stanford encyclopedia article I linked.)

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't see one. You?

Oh, okay. No, I do not see one either.

Originally posted by bbarr
What 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?

Yeah, not clear to me. I would tend to assume it can include both direct and indirect. What is your understanding on the default for discourse on that, if there is one?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Oh, okay. No, I do not see one either.

Well, I guess I could have been a touch more specific.

The reason I see no contradiction is the consideration of God prior to the creation of the universe: just Him, filling up all that was. Although there wasn't space/time in the sense that we know it, His existence was the entirety of anything that was. The infinite filling the infinite.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yeah, not clear to me. I would tend to assume it can include both direct and indirect. What is your understanding on the default for discourse on that, if there is one?

I don't think there is a default notion in play, but I know that there are some things it is impossible to do directly. Like, it is logically possible that I persuade you that P. But if God just brings it about directly that you are persuaded that P, it doesn't seem like persuasion at all, but rather just direct causation. I don't know, this is all a muddle for me because I don't have any dogs in this fight. I feel O.K. trying to draw out the implications of different notions of O, but I don't have any real intuitions about O itself.

Originally posted by LemonJello
But, to be clear, you are saying that there are possible worlds wherein logically impossible state(s) of affairs obtain? Seems self-contradictory to me.

No, your logic is faulty, because in other dimensions there are events that would be deemed illogical to you in this dimension....in that dimension those events would be a normality.

If God wanted to suspend the laws of physics in this world to accomplish an affect, it would not be out of Gods power to do so....but having said that, the world is perfectly functioning in such a way that suspending physical laws is unrequired.

You would have to ask yourself what would be the reason to have an impossible thing become possible,...what would that situation be, would it be just to satisfy LemonJello,s curiosity.

vishva

Originally posted by LemonJello
I think a yes answer to B leads to contradiction. (That is, unless you make allowance for accidental omnipotence, as opposed to essential omnipotence. If you allow that X is only accidentally omnipotent, then it may make sense to talk about X's bringing it about that X is no longer omnipotent. There is some brief discussion on that in the stanford encyclopedia article I linked.)

Thanks, just read it. It seems to say that accidental omnipotence is enough to "solve" the paradox, which was what I had in mind.

However, it states that traditional Western theism implies essential omnipotence but I'm not sure where they got that from... Can you shed some light on that?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
No, your logic is faulty, because in other dimensions there are events that would be deemed illogical to you in this dimension....in that dimension those events would be a normality.

If God wanted to suspend the laws of physics in this world to accomplish an affect, it would not be out of Gods power to do so....but having said that, the world is perfe ...[text shortened]... e,...what would that situation be, would it be just to satisfy LemonJello,s curiosity.

vishva

But what you are talking about here (suspension of physical laws) deals with the nomological, not strictly the logical. I agree that it is conceivable for there to be possible worlds with physical laws that differ from (or even contradict) our own, but I still think a possible world that features logically impossible stuff is self-contradictory.

Now I am not so clear on your position. Are you just saying that God could manipulate or suspend physical laws and do what we consider to be nomologically impossible? Or in addition to this, do you think God could do the logically impossible? For instance, could God create a square circle? This is something that would entail a logical contradiction (not just a suspension of physical laws).

Originally posted by Palynka
Thanks, just read it. It seems to say that accidental omnipotence is enough to "solve" the paradox, which was what I had in mind.

However, it states that traditional Western theism implies essential omnipotence but I'm not sure where they got that from... Can you shed some light on that?

I'm not entirely sure if their claim about traditional Western theism implying essential omnipotence is justified (or even what 'traditional Western theism' means exactly). But I could think of some considerations that might indicate some tension between such theism and accidental omnipotence. For instance, the accidental property tends to indicate change (or at least the capacity for change); but some traditional forms of theism champion an unchanging (or in some sense immutable) God. Also, relatedly, the accidental property tends to implicate temporal relations (such as that the property is held at some time but not at some different time); but some traditional forms of theism champion a God outside such temporal relations. Maybe these kinds of considerations are at issue.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm not entirely sure if their claim about traditional Western theism implying essential omnipotence is justified (or even what 'traditional Western theism' means exactly). But I could think of some considerations that might indicate some tension between such theism and accidental omnipotence. For instance, the accidental property tends to indicate chan ...[text shortened]... ion a God outside such temporal relations. Maybe these kinds of considerations are at issue.

Well, the temporal relations are not necessarily an issue for the theist in my view, as he can simply claim that such a God could limit his omnipotence...but why would he? As you note, capacity for change is not the same as executing change.

In fact, from a first glance it seems to me that such an accidental omnipotent God can actually do more than one that is constrained to not change. If I think of the ontological argument, it points out that such (willing) accidental omnipotence is then actually what the theists have more in mind.

Sorry if I'm hijacking your thread with this tangent...

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]"with God all things are possible."

Are we supposed to take that literally? Some things are logically impossible. Am I to think such things are still somehow possible with God? Is a square circle possible with God? Is it possible with God that 2+2=5? If so, omnipotence would seem to be incoherent.[/b]

What is incoherent is your attempt to disassociate omnipotence from the omnipotent.

God is omnipotent and there is nothing He can't do. God created the circle. He can uncreate it too. If it is possible, God can make a circle square.

What is impossible is that you can do nothing about it. You cannot take away from God nor can you add anything to Him. And therein lies the reason for your fruitless attempt to diminish God's omnipotence. You are inherently powerless. As am I.

Originally posted by LemonJello
What 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, ...[text shortened]... ually means that our lifting powers are limited (it's a negative disguised as a positive).

There are plenty of things we cannot do God can, for example speak a universe
into being, raise the dead, and so on. The lifting is either limited or the creating
is according to that rock example, so it is a square circle which in reality is either
a square or a circle not both.
Kelly