(January 7, 2013 at 2:43 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Absolute omnipotence isn't;

Then why call it "omnipotence?"

A concept doesn't have to be valid to have a name.

(January 7, 2013 at 2:41 pm)Tiberius Wrote: It beggars belief that you can even state that. I mean, did you even look up the definition before stating it? Clearly not:

1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.

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

Definition 2 is a practical (and technically incorrect) usage, but note which of the entries has God's name attached to it. And, here is where I have the verbal beef in this discussion: calling "almost unlimited power" omnipotence is like saying 9/10s equals 100%.

Quote:Logical rules are descriptive, not prescriptive. They define reality, they don't create it.

Of course. But, if God invented reality, he must have invented the rules, and if the creator of all things invents rules (as is assumed by his believers) and he cannot possibly circumvent them, then he is not all-powerful.

Quote:This isn't about whether God exists or not. This was merely about whether the concept of omnipotence is valid. Absolute omnipotence isn't; other forms of omnipotence are.

Anything less than technical omnipotence can only accurately be called "near-omnipotence", at best, especially when we're in a discussion about God, the only being to whom most would apply the word 'omnipotent' in any seriousness (except for the fictional characters people don't actually believe are real).

I've never quite understood why Christians, Muslims and Jews have decided to make their god omni-whatever. I mean it doesn't make sense in so many ways, plus it's not even consistent with their own holy books. Especially in the case of the early books in the old testament. I mean why bother making the claim even? Perhaps it's an extension of the time when Jews were polytheists and just believed that there god was the most powerful, eventually this one-upping led to omnipotence. Who knows? The claim certainly makes the modern Atheist's job a lot easier.

Quote:The claim certainly makes the modern Atheist's job a lot easier.

Definitely true. If God was portrayed as extremely powerful but imperfect, it would be a lot easier to understand the behavior ascribed to him, and the evolution from 'completely self-centered jealous sociopath' to 'hockey-playing Jesus' would make sense as the evolution of a bratty (but talented) child into a (more) rational, empathetic adult. You could sell the religions on the basis of "God may have started out shitty but he's kind of gotten better".

If you insist he's all-powerful and completely perfect, then his behavior suggests the worst imaginable evil.

(January 7, 2013 at 3:22 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Definition 2 is a practical (and technically incorrect) usage, but note which of the entries has God's name attached to it.

It's not technically incorrect. If it appears in the dictionary, it's a correct definition. This is supported by the list of meanings in the Wikipedia article as well.

It doesn't matter which definition has God's name attached to it. There is no reason why the second definition cannot apply to God either.

Quote:And, here is where I have the verbal beef in this discussion: calling "almost unlimited power" omnipotence is like saying 9/10s equals 100%.

No it isn't. What you are doing is the same thing Brian was doing. You're using the first definition to scrutinize the second. I'm well aware that the definitions are at odds with one another, but that is why they are different definitions, and not the same definition.

It's like the whole argument about the definition of an atheist. Originally, it means a person without God, from the Greek "atheos". However, additional meanings have been added over time, including "person who denies the existence of God", and "person who does not believe in God". One can argue that the last two are similar but have very different meanings; the "denial" being the stronger of the two.

However, one cannot use the "denial" definition to say that the "does not believe" definition is like saying 9/10s equals 100%.

Quote:Of course. But, if God invented reality, he must have invented the rules, and if the creator of all things invents rules (as is assumed by his believers) and he cannot possibly circumvent them, then he is not all-powerful.

Did God invent reality? Reality surely, is everything that exists. If God exists, he cannot have invented reality, since he would have already been in reality.

Quote:Anything less than technical omnipotence can only accurately be called "near-omnipotence", at best, especially when we're in a discussion about God, the only being to whom most would apply the word 'omnipotent' in any seriousness (except for the fictional characters people don't actually believe are real).

No it can't. You are simply using one definition of a word to try and devalue another definition of a word. It doesn't work like that. Omnipotence has multiple meanings; one is not more correct (as a definition) than any other, but in some situations, one is a more accurate definition of a concept.

In this case, the definition of omnipotence which limits a being to only being able to perform the logically possible is a more accurate definition of the kind of omnipotence the God of the Bible portrays.

(January 7, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Tiberius Wrote: In this case, the definition of omnipotence which limits a being to only being able to perform the logically possible is a more accurate definition of the kind of omnipotence the God of the Bible portrays.

Did you miss my posts or something? This "all things that are logically possible" thing is what you are arguing for, what some apologists present, but at some point someones going to have to explain why god himself (if we're running with it) seemed to be of a different opinion. The narrative makes no mention of "logically possible" while repeatedly making mention of how "all things are possible" - no qualifiers, no provisions. You've invested it with this meaning (as have apologists who choose to do so for whatever reason). Don't get me wrong, I like your definition better, but nothing suggests that the narrative uses the definition you've chosen (or that those who wrote it had any idea why they would need to add such a qualifier).

(January 7, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Tiberius Wrote: It's not technically incorrect. If it appears in the dictionary, it's a correct definition. This is supported by the list of meanings in the Wikipedia article as well.

It is a technically incorrect definition in that 'omni' implies totality. Words often enter dictionaries because of colloquial usage, even if that usage is incorrect.

It doesn't matter which definition has God's name attached to it. There is no reason why the second definition cannot apply to God either.

Quote:However, one cannot use the "denial" definition to say that the "does not believe" definition is like saying 9/10s equals 100%.

Apples and oranges, as 'non-belief in gods' is common to all of those definitions.

A better comparison would be as follows: Applying the term 'omnipotence' to a being whose powers have limits is the same as applying the term 'atheist' to a person who still holds some belief in gods.

Quote:Did God invent reality? Reality surely, is everything that exists. If God exists, he cannot have invented reality, since he would have already been in reality.

That's the other side of the coin. If God is an effect, he cannot be the First Cause.

Quote:In this case, the definition of omnipotence which limits a being to only being able to perform the logically possible is a more accurate definition of the kind of omnipotence the God of the Bible portrays.

We can quibble about this forever, but if a word is supposed to mean 'all power', anything less than that fails to qualify for the term, and a new, more accurate term is needed.

Point is, if God does not meet the technical definition of omnipotent, his alleged perfection is false, and it calls everything else into question. Watering down the term "omnipotent" so that God meets its criteria is nothing more than moving the goalposts.

Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it?

OH FUCK IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN!

(January 7, 2013 at 5:28 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it?

OH FUCK IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN!

THE BULL'S STRENGTH SPELL IS THE ANSWER, I TELLS YA! IT'S ONLY A SECOND LEVEL DIVINE SPELL! YOU JUST KNOW GOD CAN DO IT!

THE MAMMOTH TOUGHNESS SPELL IS FAR SUPERIOR!! TRUST ME ON THAT!!