The Paradox of omnipotence

[Doc.]

You're making a lot of unsubstantiated claims there. As nasher18 pointed out, just because we can't comprehend it doesn't mean that it isn't true.

look at it this way, "true"=logical, meaning 1+1=2. since "those things" are outside our universe and they are not necessarily bound to logic 1+1=3 and therefore illogical they can not be "true".

 

[borrofburi]

"true"=logical

I reject that assumption (err, I reject that definition?).

meaning 1+1=2

So far as we know, that does not make it universal, induction is not 100% certain.

 

[Doc.]

how come? It's an axiom on which mathematics are built.

 

[borrofburi]

how come? It's an axiom on which mathematics are built.

Exactly, axiom, assumption. We take it as true because all our experience indicates it is true, but that is inductive reasoning, and you can't have 100% certainty from inductive reasoning.

 

[nasher168]

how come? It's an axiom on which mathematics are built.

On which OUR universe's mathematics are built. This isn't about our universe, rather an alternate one that does not necessarily follow the same laws as our own.

 

[scalyblue]

Wouldn't omniscience require that information travel faster than C? In our universe, anyway... Omnipotence begets omniscience.

It can be argued that omnipotence is just the ability to work on rules that are in a higher order than the rules that can be perceived. Aren't humans omnipotent in the viewpoint of ants? What we would consider omnipotence may just be the ability to manipulate whatever mechanism is behind the 'theory of everything'

 

[nasher168]

Wouldn't omniscience require that information travel faster than C?

No, because it is also omnipresent.

 

[Doc.]

I find it rather difficult to grasp, but I get your point.

 

[nemesiss]

You're making a lot of unsubstantiated claims there. As nasher18 pointed out, just because we can't comprehend it doesn't mean that it isn't true.

look at it this way, "true"=logical, meaning 1+1=2. since "those things" are outside our universe and they are not necessarily bound to logic 1+1=3 and therefore illogical they can not be "true".

incorrect 1+1=10.

also if he was/is omnipresent, could he ever return to the garden of eden to find adam and (st)eve eating apples?
if he really is onmipresent he can't travel because he is already there.

 

[Doc.]

incorrect 1+1=10.

hilarious

 

[Durakken]

I think it's pretty clear at least in the story of Satan's fall that the christian god doesn't play by the rules of logic.

God told all the Angels to only bow to god
God told all the Angels to bow to Adam
Satan saw that he could not adhere to both so followed the first command.
God saw this and tossed Satan out of heaven for disobeying him

That's actually the Muslim story of Satan's fall.

considering Muslims are one of 3 religions... though I don't really consider them separate from Judaism or Christianity or Mormons, but meh... that claim omnipotent god >.> I think that's a very damning thing to the case that god can be based on logic... or at least shows that god is illogical.

Stories of the creation of the Devil...

There is no Devil. God is just a douche (Judaism Bible)
Devil rebellion. (christian... no source?)
Devil is actually Jewish god El and the god Jesus refers to is a different set of entities. (Gnostic... no source? apocryphal Gnostic texts apparently)
Devil refuses to bow to Adam. (Muslim Qu'ran)
Devil is the brother of Jesus (Mormon ??? Don't know where that is in their book if it is but it's believed)

 

[5810Singer]

Alright, let's see if I can do this better. It works kind of like this: either we define omnipotence to be within the bounds of the logically possible (which you would argue is not true omnipotence, though I disagree (I'd say it's one version or flavor)), or we define omnipotence to not be subject to the rules of logic, in which case it is by definition logically impossible. The problem I have here is that if we define omnipotence to be outside the bounds of logic, we can't then say "hey look it's outside the bounds of logic therefore impossible!" any more than we can say reversing the second law of thermo is outside the bounds of physics and therefore omnipotence is impossible, for we have by definition excluded omnipotence from those rules; and in the same manner the statement "logically impossible!" is no more interesting a statement than "physically impossible!", at least as objections to the concept of omnipotence (indeed you could perhaps say they are *qualities* of omnipotence, especially as you have defined omnipotence).

My definition?

Here's an example of the definitions I've been using:

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=omnipotent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/omnipotent

http://www.brainyquote.com/words/om/omnipotent196160.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotent

http://www.yourdictionary.com/omnipotent

http://www.answers.com/topic/omnipotent

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/omnipotent

http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/omnipotent

http://dictionary.babylon.com/omnipotent

I'm trying to interpret the concept of omnipotence by using it's definition as it is most commonly expressed by English speaking people.
I reject the claim that it's "my" definition.

The result of examining the common definition of omnipotence, and trying to follow it to it's ultimate logical extension, has (for me at least) led to the uncovering of a logical impossibility/paradox.

I didn't start with any preconceived idea, and I arrived at my conclusion through a process of deductive reasoning, and the only definition of omnipotence that I have used is the one found in 99% of dictionaries.

The dictionary definition of omnipotence was the starting point of my thought process, not it's conclusion.


Next, there is no ambiguity in the term "self-contradictory".
When something contradicts it's own internal logic it is deemed to be self-contradictory.
The dictionary definition of the term omnipotence has certain implications. After following those implications to their ultimate extension I found myself facing a self-contradictory paradox.
Self-contradictory, IE: the ultimate implications of the common definition of omnipotence result in a breakdown of the internal logic of the concept.
It breaks it's own logic.

I care not wether the concept of omnipotence is logical or not outside of the bounds of it's common definition, all I have concerned myself with is it's internal logical impossibility.

I am unaware of any other definition of omnipotence other than the dictionary version, and so am unable to evaluate the concept/definition by any other standard.
If you have another definition of omnipotence inform me of it, and I will evaluate it in due course.


Finally, I wrote this at the end of my first post, adn I'd just like to draw your attention to it:

"In my view classical omnipotence is self contradictory, and is a fudging simplification of a concept that human beings can only dimly imagine the full implications of."

 

[borrofburi]

Here's an example of the definitions I've been using:

=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent#Meanings_of_omnipotencePerhaps you missed it, but:

1. A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do.
2. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do[5].
3. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
4. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[6]
5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan
6. A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible.

emphasis mine

I reject the claim that it's "my" definition.

I did not mean to say you made it up, I only meant to say you were picking a specific, but not the only possible, usage of the word.

The result of examining the common definition of omnipotence, and trying to follow it to it's ultimate logical extension, has (for me at least) led to the uncovering of a logical impossibility/paradox.

Again, logically impossible is no more interesting in this case than scientifically impossible, because the definition you are using has that *defined* into the term.

Next, there is no ambiguity in the term "self-contradictory".
When something contradicts it's own internal logic it is deemed to be self-contradictory.
...
Self-contradictory, IE: the ultimate implications of the common definition of omnipotence result in a breakdown of the internal logic of the concept.
It breaks it's own logic.

Please explain to me your concept of "internal" or "it's own" logic. The definition you are using is literally: able to do anything, whether scientifically or logically impossible. Then you point out that it means it can do logically impossible things and somehow that makes it self contradictory? To me this is no more valid than pointing out it can do scientifically impossible things and therefore an omnipotent being is impossible.

I am unaware of any other definition of omnipotence other than the dictionary version, and so am unable to evaluate the concept/definition by any other standard.
If you have another definition of omnipotence inform me of it, and I will evaluate it in due course.

Err... see wikipedia above...

 

[5810Singer]

I was going to address your points individually, and answer your direct questions, but I'm overcome with the feeling that this is simply an unproductive use of our time.

I'm going to print the entirety of that wiki entry in order to help explain why (it'll save people the bother of accessing the link as well):

Omnipotence (from Latin: Omni Potens: "all power") is unlimited power.
Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence to only the deity of whichever faith is being addressed. In the philosophies of most Western monotheistic religions, omnipotence is often listed as one of a deity's characteristics among many, including omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence. Within the trinity concept of Hinduism, omnipotence is the characteristic of Vishnu and Shiva among the three deities, manifestations of the Supreme God (Brahman).

Meanings of omnipotence

Between people of different faiths, or indeed between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do.
A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.
A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.
A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan
A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible.

Under many philosophical definitions of the term "deity", senses 2, 3 and 4 can be shown to be equivalent. However, on all understandings of omnipotence, it is generally held that a deity is able to intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics, since they are not part of its nature, but the principles on which it has created the physical world. However many modern scholars (such as John Polkinghorne) hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for a deity to go against its own laws unless there were an overwhelming reason to do so.

Scholastic definition

Thomas Aquinas acknowledged difficulty in comprehending a deity's power. Aquinas wrote that while "all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists." In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations upon a deity's power, as opposed to implying infinite abilities. There are certain things that even an omnipotent deity cannot do. Medieval theologians drew attention to some fairly trivial examples of restrictions upon the power of a deity. The statement "a deity can do anything" is only sensible with an assumed suppressed clause, "that implies the perfection of true power." This standard scholastic answer allows that creaturely acts such as walking can be performed by humans but not by a deity. Rather than an advantage in power, human acts such as walking, sitting or giving birth were possible only because of a defect in human power. The ability to 'sin', for example, is not a power but a defect or an infirmity. In response to questions of a deity performing impossibilities (such as making square circles) Aquinas says that "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God."

In recent times, C. S. Lewis has adopted a scholastic position in the course of his work The Problem of Pain. Lewis follows Aquinas' view on contradiction:

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God., Lewis, 18

Rejection or limitation of omnipotence

Some monotheists reject the view that a deity is or could be omnipotent, or take the view that, by choosing to create creatures with freewill, a deity has chosen to limit divine omnipotence. In Conservative and Reform Judaism, and some movements within Protestant Christianity, including process theology and open theism, deities are said to act in the world through persuasion, and not by coercion (for open theism, this is a matter of choice,a deity could act miraculously, and perhaps on occasion does so,while for process theism it is a matter of necessity,creatures have inherent powers that a deity cannot, even in principle, override). Deities are manifested in the world through inspiration and the creation of possibility, not necessarily by miracles or violations of the laws of nature.
The rejection of omnipotence often follows from either philosophical or scriptural considerations, discussed below.

Philosophical grounds

Process theology rejects unlimited omnipotence on a philosophical basis, arguing that omnipotence as classically understood would be less than perfect, and is therefore incompatible with the idea of a perfect deity. The idea is grounded in Plato's oft-overlooked statement that "being is power."
My notion would be, that anything which possesses any sort of power to affect another, or to be affected by another, if only for a single moment, however trifling the cause and however slight the effect, has real existence; and I hold that the definition of being is simply power., Plato, 247E

From this premise, Charles Hartshorne argues further that:

Power is influence, and perfect power is perfect influence ... power must be exercised upon something, at least if by power we mean influence, control; but the something controlled cannot be absolutely inert, since the merely passive, that which has no active tendency of its own, is nothing; yet if the something acted upon is itself partly active, then there must be some resistance, however slight, to the "absolute" power, and how can power which is resisted be absolute?, Hartshorne, 89

The argument can be stated as follows:

1) If a being exists, then it must have some active tendency.
2) If a being has some active tendency, then it has some power to resist its creator.
3) If a being has the power to resist its creator, then the creator does not have absolute power.

For example, though someone might control a lump of jelly-pudding almost completely, the inability of that pudding to stage any resistance renders that person's power rather unimpressive. Power can only be said to be great if it is over something that has defenses and its own agenda. If a deity's power is to be great, it must therefore be over beings that have at last some of their own defenses and agenda. Thus, if a deity does not have absolute power, it must therefore embody some of the characteristics of power, and some of the characteristics of persuasion. This view is known as dipolar theism.
The most popular works espousing this point are from Harold Kushner (in Judaism). The need for a modified view of omnipotence was also articulated by Alfred North Whitehead in the early 20th century and expanded upon by the aforementioned philosopher Charles Hartshorne. Hartshorne proceeded within the context of the theological system known as process theology.

Scriptural grounds

In the Authorized King James Version of the Bible, as well as several other versions, in Revelation 19:6 it is stated "...the Lord God omnipotent reigneth" (the original Greek word is παντοκράτωρ, "all-mighty"). Although much of the narrative of the Old Testament describes the Christian God as interacting with creation primarily through persuasion, and only occasionally through force.However, it could further be argued that the ability to conflict with truth is not an appropriate representation of accepted definitions of power, which negates the assertion that a deity does not have infinite powers.
Many other verses in the Christian bible do assert omnipotence of its deity without actually using the word itself. There are several mentions of the Christian deity being referred to as simply "Almighty", showing that the Christian bible supports the belief of an omnipotent deity. Some such verses are listed below:

Psalms 33:8-9: Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
Genesis 17:1: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. (The Hebrew word used here is "shadday")
Jeremiah 32:27: Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?
At his command a storm arose and covered the sea. (Psalm 107:25)

Paradoxes of omnipotence: Main article: Omnipotence Paradox

Belief that a deity can do absolutely anything can be thought to yield certain logical paradoxes. A simple example goes as follows: Can a deity create a rock so heavy that even the deity itself cannot lift it? If so, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting the deity's power. But if not, then the deity is still not omnipotent because it cannot create that rock. This question cannot be answered using formal logic due to its self-referential nature - see liar paradox. Combining omnipotence with omniscience can yield the difficulty of whether or not a deity can pose a question to which the deity would not know the answer.
Augustine, in his City of God, argued that God could not do anything that would make God non-omnipotent:
For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.
Thus Augustine argued that God could not do anything or create any situation that would in effect make God not God.
One response is that by definition an omnipotent being is set free from the grip of what is logically possible. An omnipotent being therefore would not be subject to what is logically possible. In this sense, an omnipotent being could create a rock that even itself could not lift, then lift it. An omnipotent being could also not exist and exist at the same time at any time. A being with knowledge of the concept of omnipotence could then see that omnipotence is by no way limited by logic.
Furthermore arguments in relation to a deity as a creator have been made that a creator of logic itself would not be subject to its creation and thus again could create a rock that even itself could not lift, then lift it.

Uncertainty and other views

All the above stated claims of power are each based on scriptual grounds and upon empirical human perception. This perception is limited to our senses. The power of a deity is related to its existence; for more info on the proof on the existence of God and methods see Existence of God.There are however other ways of perception like: reason, intuition, revelation, divine inspiration, religious experience, mystical states, and historical testimony.
According to the Hindu philosophy the essence of God or Brahman can never be understood or known since Brahman is beyond both existence and non-existence, transcending and including time, causation and space, and thus can never be known in the same material sense as one traditionally 'understands' a given concept or object.
So presuming there is a god-like entity consciently taking actions, we cannot comprehend the limits of a deity's powers.
Since the current laws of physics are only known to be valid in this universe, it is possible that the laws of physics are different in parallel universes, giving a God-like entity, more power. If the number of universes is unlimited, then the power of a certain God-like entity is also unlimited, since the laws of physics may be different in other universes, and accordingly making this entity omnipotent. Unfortunately concerning a multiverse there is a lack of empirical correlation. To the extreme there are theories about realms beyond this multiverse (Nirvana, Chaos, Nothingness).
Also trying to develop a theory to explain, assign or reject omnipotence on grounds of logic has little merit, since being omnipotent would mean the omnipotent being is above logic. A view supported by René Descartes. He issues this idea in his Meditations on First Philosophy.
Allowing assumption that a deity exists, further debate may be provoked that said deity is consciously taking actions. It could be concluded from an emanationism point of view, that all actions and creations by a deity are simply flows of divine energy (the flowing Tao in conjunction with qi is often seen as a river; Dharma (Buddhism) the law of nature discovered by Buddha has no beginning or end.) Pantheism and/or panentheism sees the universe/multiverse as 'the body of God', making 'God' everybody and everything. So if one does something, actually 'God' is doing it. We are 'God's' means according to this view.
In the Taoist religious or philosophical tradition, the Tao is in some ways equivalent to a deity or the logos. The Tao is understood to have inexhaustible power, yet that power is simply another aspect of its weakness.

It's true to say that I didn't read all of the Wiki entry, which was sloppy of me, and I apologise for that, but after reading the entirety of that wiki entry it would appear that your arguments and mine have been wrangled back and forth by the greatest minds of theology and philosophy for at least two millenia......

It would appear that a slim majority of people have taken my view, and a sizeable minority have taken your view, but noone's been able to nail the argument for either side,....the debate just seems to go round and round, like this one has.....

And that's why I'm going to withdraw from this debate,....so far neither of us has managed to raise a single point that hasn't been raised hundreds of years before, and allowing for changes in language usage we haven't even managed to reframe/rephrase a pre-existing point.

So if Plato, Tomas Aquinas, David Hume, and C.S. Lewis (amongst thousands of others of luminous philosophical minds) haven't been able to come to a resolution on this topic in two thousand years, then I doubt that we will either.

I guess you can accuse me of copping out, but I just don't think we're achieving anything.
Thank you for the debate though, I've enjoyed it.

 

[konstantine]

hey LoR its Konstantine... first time poster...

not sure i'm going to respond to your responses but i'll post anyway.

When one puts forth a logical argument towards God I really think of it as a dangerous thing. I think its important to make sure that when we argue against God's definition we must not change it. For example arguing that he can not be omnipotent, and reaching a conclusion logically about this would mean the argument itself would be changing the definition of God. Whether he exist or not. It's safe to say that if he exist, and his infinite properties span past paradox's like we are told, then we must address God under those terms. Basically an example of what i'm trying to say is a clip from the late movie known as "The Dark Knight". In which the joker sets up a logical stumper. He says that Him and Batman are like opposites. They are like the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object. The only way to make any sense of what would happen would be to change the definition of one. I apply this now to God verses logic. In the sense that God is like the unstoppable force and the logical impossibility that argues at one of his properties is like the immovable object. If we change the fact that God is above all logical situations then, yes, i would say you could come up with a solution. If you also change the situation as to make any person able to complete the task then , yes, i would say again you could come up with a solution.

Remember. If one starts with ..."If God is not God then,..........." the argument itself is pointless. If anything it simply proves that If we are talking about anyone one else but God this is true.

This is pending what God's properties actually are. If the bible tells us the truth about God then it would make sense that a logical argument that we impose on God can be discounted.

Let's review. We'll say a number is never divisible by three. Ever! If one says that, "well of course all numbers are divisible by three they just come out as decimals", they are changing the definition. Even if that means that the imposition itself does not make sense. If your going to talk about this number and keep validity to the argument you cannot change it's definition. Because if you do then........ your back to "If God is not God" ... "If this number is actually a different number". Easily discountable.

Isn't this convenient for God? Yes i would agree. But as long as were talking about the God of the bible and giving him all the credit and properties the bible does, we have to keep an untainted definition.

Kons out-

 

[Niocan]

The Paradox of Omnipotence is solved by including the ability to forget, or rather not address, your ability of all knowing-ness; The only way for the universe to know itself is to forget.

Edited for clarity..