Omnipotence?

Originally posted by LemonJello
I am basically making stuff up as I go along here, so I would start with a similar disclaimer.

[b]So the solution from this way round is that G can create S under O3 and G's inability to lift S does not violate O3, so G remains omnipotent in this sense.

But that seems like a clearly inadequate result. If, under O3-omnipotence G can create S, th ...[text shortened]... t means for G to be "omnipotent". Perhaps I am missing something here.[/b]

But that seems like a clearly inadequate result. If, under O3-omnipotence G can create S, then under O3-omnipotence there is some stone that G cannot lift. Then, I do not think O3-omnipotence really survives our common sense intuitions about 'omnipotence'.
Well I'm unsure as to how far we can get by relying on common sense notions of omnipotence in order to judge how successful O3 is, especially given that O3 was introduced precisely to fix problems arising from those very common sense notions. After all, exactly what is it that G cannot lift? The unliftatable. Not just any old stone.
One difficulty I can see is that you could construe the effect of O3 on the stone problem so as to give the result that it is logically impossible for G to create S. To do this, simply reflect that there is nothing logically contradictory about being able to lift stones, hence G ought to be able to lift any stone. Looked at this way, G is unable to create S because S is a stone, which is, in general, liftable by G. So G is faced with creating an unliftable liftable-thing.

So it is not clear whether O3 can decide whether G can create S or not.

You raised this same point in relation to importing some notion of omnipotence. I think O3 does have content though, because it stipulates that G can bring about any state of affairs that is not logically contradictory. We have already identified a potential problem of recursion because of the self referential element in the logical contradiction.

What I mean is that O3 handles G not being able to make a square circle with no difficulty, since the logical contradiction here does not refer to omnipotence under O3 directly.

With the stone case, we have to think whether 'unliftable' can be dealt with under O3 without circularity.

But how does that preserve the question?
The entailment preserves it. If G creates a stone that is unliftable simpliciter then G has created a stone that G cannot lift. However, you could reframe the problem as 'Can G create S such that G cannot lift S but Jones can lift S. So you are right, this fix doesn't really work.

I don't think it is needed though. Suppose S is unliftable-by-G, then can G bring about a state of affairs in which S exists? Yes, so long as there is no logical contradiction in doing so. Well where is the contradiction?

Originally posted by Lord Shark

I don't think it is needed though. Suppose S is unliftable-by-G, then can G bring about a state of affairs in which S exists? Yes, so long as there is no logical contradiction in doing so. Well where is the contradiction?

Can G do that -- and then change to a different state of affairs, at whim or at will?

Originally posted by LemonJello
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 ...[text shortened]... is something that would entail a logical contradiction (not just a suspension of physical laws).

This is my personal opinion, but I would say that if God can create universes with planets and suns, and then have such planets like earth, that have a multitude of complex free thinking and feeling life forms, that can replicate, and provide an ecological system that sustains itself and man,then.......God could create a square circle, but how and under what conditions that would occur, I couldn,t tell you.

vishva

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Can G do that -- and then change to a different state of affairs, at whim or at will?

I've been asking why not, and it seems Lord Shark does too.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Can G do that -- and then change to a different state of affairs, at whim or at will?

Thinking about the stone thing again, I realise I treated the unliftability of the stone as brute. But if the problem is framed as a stone too heavy for an omnipotent agent G to lift, then the contradiction is there from the start, because omnipotent agents can exert any amount of lifting force. So it reduces to 'can G who possesses an ability to exert irresistible force create an immovable object?'
O3 says no because this state of affairs is contradictory.

Originally posted by LemonJello
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 ...[text shortened]...
-----------
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

1-10 of 31 Entries
Next Results

S&H 249:12
Mind is not the author of matter, and the creator of ideas is not the creator of illusions. Either there is no omnipotence, or omnipotence is the only power. God is the infinite, and infinity never began, will never end, and includes nothing unlike God. Whence then is soulless matter?

S&H 344:32
In the Bible the word Spirit is so commonly applied to Deity, that Spirit and God are often regarded as synonymous terms; and it is thus they are uniformly used and understood in Christian Science. As it is evident that the likeness of Spirit cannot be material, does it not follow that God cannot be in His unlikeness and work through drugs to heal the sick? When the omnipotence of God is preached and His absoluteness is set forth, Christian sermons will heal the sick.

S&H 14:1
If we are sensibly with the body and regard omnipotence as a corporeal, material person, whose ear we would gain, we are not "absent from the body" and "present with the Lord" in the demonstration of Spirit. We cannot "serve two masters." To be "present with the Lord" is to have, not mere emotional ecstasy or faith, but the actual demonstration and understanding of Life as revealed in Christian Science. To be "with the Lord" is to be in obedience to the law of God, to be absolutely governed by divine Love,--by Spirit, not by matter.

S&H 15:25
Christians rejoice in secret beauty and bounty, hidden from the world, but known to God. Self-forgetfulness, purity, and affection are constant prayers. Practice not profession, understanding not belief, gain the ear and right hand of omnipotence and they assuredly call down infinite blessings. Trustworthiness is the foundation of enlightened faith. Without a fitness for holiness, we cannot receive holiness.

S&H 55:15
Truth's immortal idea is sweeping down the centuries, gathering beneath its wings the sick and sinning. My weary hope tries to realize that happy day, when man shall recognize the Science of Christ and love his neighbor as himself,--when he shall realize God's omnipotence and the healing power of the divine Love in what it has done and is doing for mankind. The promises will be fulfilled. The time for the reappearing of the divine healing is throughout all time; and whosoever layeth his earthly all on the altar of divine Science, drinketh of Christ's cup now, and is endued with the spirit and power of Christian healing.

S&H 78:21
Spirit is not materially tangible. How then can it communicate with man through electric, material effects? How can the majesty and omnipotence of Spirit be lost? God is not in the medley where matter cares for matter, where spiritism makes many gods, and hypnotism and electricity are claimed to be the agents of God's government.

S&H 109:32
The three great verities of Spirit, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience,--Spirit possessing all power, filling all space, constituting all Science,--contradict forever the belief that matter can be actual. These eternal verities reveal primeval existence as the radiant reality of God's creation, in which all that He has made is pronounced by His wisdom good.

S&H 202:31
Common opinion admits that a man may take cold in the act of doing good, and that this cold may produce fatal pulmonary disease; as though evil could overbear the law of Love, and check the reward for doing good. In the Science of Christianity, Mind --omnipotence--has all-power, assigns sure rewards to righteousness, and shows that matter can neither heal nor make sick, create nor destroy.

S&H 225:14
The history of our country, like all history, illustrates the might of Mind, and shows human power to be proportionate to its embodiment of right thinking. A few immortal sentences, breathing the omnipotence of divine justice, have been potent to break despotic fetters and abolish the whipping-post and slave market; but oppression neither went down in blood, nor did the breath of freedom come from the cannon's mouth. Love is the liberator.

S&H 228:25
There is no power apart from God. Omnipotence has all-power, and to acknowledge any other power is to dishonor God. The humble Nazarene overthrew the supposition that sin, sickness, and death have power. He proved them powerless. It should have humbled the pride of the priests, when they saw the demonstration of Christianity excel the influence of their dead faith and ceremonies.

http://www.spirituality.com/dt/book_search.jhtml#jumpto

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Cut-and-paste is no substitute for dialogue.

HilArious huhu, I do not care if I had not just built the conscious moment of thought to reflect my opinion for a reply, nor how another might view my care of share. Rather I have given information to the inquiry I cpy pst'd a quote of..

Originally posted by tacoandlettuce
HilArious huhu, I do not care if I had not just built the conscious moment of thought to reflect my opinion for a reply, nor how another might view my care of share. Rather I have given information to the inquiry I cpy pst'd a quote of..

I think my point stands...

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I think my point stands...

"How should we formulate the notion of 'omnipotence'. And, for those theists who hold that God is omnipotent, what exactly is meant by this?" is the question asked on this thread, and I just gave many ways to see it's meaning.

Originally posted by tacoandlettuce
"How should we formulate the notion of 'omnipotence'. And, for those theists who hold that God is omnipotent, what exactly is meant by this?" is the question asked on this thread, and I just gave many ways to see it's meaning.

The question has been asked and links to some very fiddly formulations have been given. Your cut-and-paste of Christian Scientist material and your idiosyncratic turn of phrase would put in doubt your ability to pass a Turing test so far, in my view.

Lettuce?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
The question has been asked and links to some very fiddly formulations have been given. Your cut-and-paste of Christian Scientist material and your idiosyncratic turn of phrase would put in doubt your ability to pass a Turing test so far, in my view.

Lettuce?

My friend, I did not graduate from High school, nor could I ever fathom to. However, what is considered knowledge that is earthly has never mattered to me.. True- knowledge is wisdom of spiritual understanding, which is all I have interest in attaining, not what "would be called" scholastic.