Musings about omnipotence and perfection.

[Edwardo Piet]

Okay, now, first off: Even omnipotence can't do the logically impossible. Nothing can possibly do the logically impossible by definition. Nothing can defeat logic.

Therefore, if true omnipotence is supposed to evade logic, it can't exist.

However, if omnipotence is merely being able to do anything that is possible, omnipotence could be very unimpressive indeed because sometimes an omnipotent being may only be able to possibly do something very unimpressive.

Let's think about perfection now too. What is perfection? What does it mean for something to be perfect? Without flaws? Flawsless? Well, surely, that's only without possible flaws though, otherwise we're talking about an impossible kind of perfection...

So, if the only perfection possible at a given time seems far from what we would think of as 'perfect', that's still perfection if we're only, obviously, talking about possible perfection.

When something is happening then it is by definition happening that way, so when that really is happening that is all that is happening, and so that is both the best and worst that can be....

Would you really call anything perfect or omnipotent if it is really just an occurrence of both the best and worst possible world at any given time whether predetermined or probabilistic?

Thoughts?

Discuss.

[Ashendant]

If god is omnipotent why doesn't he just delete satan

[Darwinian]

By possible I presume you mean does not contradict the laws of nature. So, why is it unimpressive to be able to do anything that is possible?

[Edwardo Piet]

I mean "does not contradict logic". We can know when something is impossible when there's a logical contradiciton, and we can know something is possible when we detect it happening (whether it's a real of imagined actuality). But,if we don't find a contradiction to a proposition it still it might be actually impossible for that proposition to manifest, we may just not have found a contradiction yet.

[Minimalist]

Even omnipotence can't do the logically impossible.

The shitwits would dispute you right there. They have invented a sky-daddy who can do whatever they need to be done.

[Watson]

Who's to say omnipotence is not equivalent to logic?

[Edwardo Piet]

No one. But if it is, where's the significance besides the obvious?

[Watson]

Well think about it for a moment. Logic is in itself capable of explaining all that is possible, thus it is omnipotent; it has the capacity to enlighten and give understanding of all things. Logic can be applied to all things, if in the correct hands.

[Edwardo Piet]

What's at all miraculous, supernatural, spiritual or "Godly" about logic though? Surely "omnipotence" while technically correct, has a misleading connotation.

[FadingW]

If there really is such a being as can be called God, God need not be omnipotent.

Perhaps what is called omnipotence is a misunderstanding based on relative capability. If ants could understand humans, perhaps humans might seem omnipotent to them.

A being that could create the universe (not implying that any such being is needed for the universe to exist) might well be termed omnipotent without possessing true omnipotence.