Musings about omnipotence and perfection.

[Watson]

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

Miraculous, supernatural, spiritual, and 'Godly' are not anywhere close to the description of omnipotence, though. Sure, you could go that way with the word. But simply imagine that the universe is conscious of itself. Everything within it is still the same, so it isn't supernatural or miraculous for it to be omnipotent over itself. You could call this being 'God'...but of course...that might make a lot of sense, huh?

Regardless. Logic within this conscious universe would be omnipotent, in fact it would have to be. It would apply to all things within the universe itself.

[Ryft]

I wish to just clarify on DvF's excellent point. Omnipotence is about power, not logical possibility. To say that God is omnipotent is only to say that God has the power to do anything that power can do. (Far too many people leave off the clause that I emphasized there.) Logical possibility enters the picture only as a definitional point; i.e., if the logically impossible could be become possible given sufficient power, then it was never logically impossible to begin with but merely difficult. The logically impossible remains impossible necessarily, regardless of how much power might be applied. It is definitional.

It should also be noted that omnipotence has nothing to do with impressiveness, which is a psychological point irrelevant to either God or power. Knocking over a coffee cup is a matter of having sufficient power to do so (thus an omnipotent God could do so), but whether someone finds that impressive or not is irrelevant.

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.

That regards what is actual, which is separate from what is possible. That which is possible may or may not be actual, but that which is actual is necessarily possible. But more to your point here, that which is actual is not necessarily the best or worst it could possibly be. For example, the fact that Smith survived his car accident is actual; that he never had the accident in the first place is logically possible and the best, while dying in the accident is also logically possible and the worst.

[annatar]

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.

Then logical conclusion to that is, nothing can be omnipotent. If you claim to be omnipotent then you have to be able to do everything

[Welsh cake]

But simply imagine that the universe is conscious of itself. Everything within it is still the same, so it isn't supernatural or miraculous for it to be omnipotent over itself. You could call this being 'God'...but of course...that might make a lot of sense, huh?

Regardless. Logic within this conscious universe would be omnipotent, in fact it would have to be. It would apply to all things within the universe itself.

So one may reason that black holes are evidence that the universe has terminal cancer? What point are you trying to make Watson? Your current nonsensical statement is on par with someone asserting 'poetry within this self-aware universe would be omnipresent'. This is meaningless talk.

Please first demonstrate the cosmos is in fact sentient before we talk about its omnipotence.

I wish to just clarify on DvF's excellent point. Omnipotence is about power, not logical possibility. To say that God is omnipotent is only to say that God has the power to do anything that power can do. (Far too many people leave off the clause that I emphasized there.)

No, and I don't care that you're emphasising it to prevent a reponse either, to say that one of God's characteristics is omnipotence (in Latin: Omni Potens) is to say he has unlimited power, the ability to perform and accomplish tasks without restriction instantaneously and infinitely over. You are disregarding the point DvF was trying to make. Logic reveals omnipotence is self-contradicting because it cannot do the logically impossible like make a square circle. It would be more sensible for theists to acknowledge the disconfirmer, abandon the usage of words that involve "absolutes", and accept their god concept is merely 'very powerful' or 'most powerful' but not 'all-powerful' instead, but alas they need to simulate a "perfect god" so all sensibility gets thrown out the window.

It should also be noted that omnipotence has nothing to do with impressiveness, which is a psychological point irrelevant to either God or power. Knocking over a coffee cup is a matter of having sufficient power to do so (thus an omnipotent God could do so), but whether someone finds that impressive or not is irrelevant.

An unnecessary omission, of course a powerful deity can still opt to do nothing and stand idly by. We're not talking about what God doesn't want to do i.e. be put to the test; we're addressing what he can and cannot do.

[Edwardo Piet]

That regards what is actual, which is separate from what is possible.

But when thing X is by definition a certain way at time T, it cannot possibly be any different at that exact same time because that would contradict its own definition, which is logically impossible for it to do whilst being exactly the same thing at exactly the same time. And since it can't be any other way at that exact time because that would be a logical contradiction, in what sense is it actually 'possible' to be another way at that exact same time? How can it have a potential to become other than it is within a fixed moment where the concepts of 'potential' and 'becoming' make no sense? It would require at least a scope of two moments for 'becoming', 'potential' and 'possibility' to make any sense would it not?

I'd also like to point out something I find somewhat amusing. Since the Present is present and the Past and the Future aren't present does that make them absent? And if so, since the Present is already present how can it be any other way at the exact same time when it is already present in that exact same way at that exact same time? A change of essence would require another moment because change requires time.

---

For example, the fact that Smith survived his car accident is actual; that he never had the accident in the first place is logically possible and the best, while dying in the accident is also logically possible and the worst.

Ah, but then we're talking about more than one moment which is the only way 'possibility' can make any sense. In one instant Smith is a certain way and by definition can't be another way at that exact same time... for any other 'possibility' or potential to make sense would require more than one instant. In one specific moment that moment is both the best and worst possible moment providing that all other moments are not taken into account.

---

No, and I don't care that you're emphasising it to prevent a reponse either, to say that one of God's characteristics is omnipotence (in Latin: Omni Potens) is to say he has unlimited power, the ability to perform and accomplish tasks without restriction instantaneously and infinitely over.

Omnipotence obviously must be within the realm of logical possibility because everything must be within the realm of logical possibility.

Furthermore, atemporality is impossible because for something atemporal to ever exist contradicts its atemporality. Nothing can exist before or after the existence of time because the concepts of 'before' and 'after' imply time, and if it exists at the same time as time then it isn't beyond it.

God can't contradict logic nor can he exist 'before' or 'after' time so in that sense he can't be atemporal or omnipotent in the sense that he can't have impossible kinds of atemporality or omnipotence. Oh dear(!) He can't do the impossible(!!). Nothing can by definition!

...He can't be beyond logic or time itself but logic and time can both be part of his supreme essence.

---

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.

Then logical conclusion to that is, nothing can be omnipotent. If you claim to be omnipotent then you have to be able to do everything

Everything is logically possible. Nothing is logically impossible. A logically impossible thing is not a thing, it's nothing. So for omnipotence to be able to do everything is identical to it being able to do everything possible.

You can have illogical statements but that is a different definition of the word 'illogical'. That is illogical in the sense of 'logically contradictory' and not illogical in the sense of 'not logical'. Nothing that is truly non-logical can exist. A logical contradiction can exist because it's a logical contradiction and not an illogical contradiction. We must not equivocate the definition of illogical to mean 'logically contradictory' with the definition of illogical to mean 'not logical'. Something that is wholly not logical is something that is ultimately not tautological either and thereby contradicts its own definition and can't exist. A statement that is 'illogical' in the sense of 'logically contradictory' can exist because the statement isn't impossible it is merely what it refers to that is impossible.

Nothing can truly be non-illogical and exist. That's why we speak of logical contradictions and not illogical contradictions.

---

Miraculous, supernatural, spiritual, and 'Godly' are not anywhere close to the description of omnipotence, though.

Omnipotence is a property given to God though. So I'm saying that if omnipotence is identical to logic then how do you make the leap from it merely being omnipotence to being part of the essence of or a property of a supernatural creator of the universe?

[Welsh cake]

No, and I don't care that you're emphasising it to prevent a reponse either, to say that one of God's characteristics is omnipotence (in Latin: Omni Potens) is to say he has unlimited power, the ability to perform and accomplish tasks without restriction instantaneously and infinitely over.

Omnipotence obviously must be within the realm of logical possibility because everything must be within the realm of logical possibility.

Furthermore, atemporality is impossible because for something atemporal to ever exist contradicts its atemporality. Nothing can exist before or after the existence of time because the concepts of 'before' and 'after' imply time, and if it exists at the same time as time then it isn't beyond it.

God can't contradict logic nor can he exist 'before' or 'after' time so in that sense he can't be atemporal or omnipotent in the sense that he can't have impossible kinds of atemporality or omnipotence. Oh dear(!) He can't do the impossible(!!). Nothing can by definition!

...He can't be beyond logic or time itself but logic and time can both be part of his supreme essence.

It's not obvious. I know you're being very reasonable and trying to redefine the word into something more sensible, but this is bigger underlying problem with labels such 'omnipotence' and 'supernatural', in everyday application they're meaningless words.

The current accepted definition of omnipotent is "infinite power". That's it. We know this will contradict itself through simple thought experiments but we can't simply rationalise it after this by adding onto the label's meaning "limitless and boundless power... that is limited and within the bounds of logic", because that's not what omnipotence actually means.

You can talk to the majority of theists right now and they will argue a deity with omnipotence has the ability to do whatever it intends to, it made the reality in question; it can do anything with it, manipulate time and space, even the logically impossible.

Miraculous, supernatural, spiritual, and 'Godly' are not anywhere close to the description of omnipotence, though.

Omnipotence is a property given to God though. So I'm saying that if omnipotence is identical to logic then how do you make the leap from it merely being omnipotence to being part of the essence of or a property of a supernatural creator of the universe?

I'm starting to suspect Watson thinks the universe IS God. Okay, fine, why not just call it the "universe" then? Why seek to add the extra baggage to the word?

[Ryft]

Ah, but then we're talking about more than one moment which is the only way 'possibility' can make any sense. In one instant Smith is a certain way and by definition can't be another way at that exact same time. For any other 'possibility' or potential to make sense would require more than one instant. In one specific moment, that moment is both the best and worst possible moment, providing that all other moments are not taken into account.

I wonder if you are missing the crucial point here, which is that all three scenarios described are 'possible': (1) that he never had the accident is possible and not actual; (2) that he had the accident and surived is possible and actual; (3) that he had the accident and died is possible and not actual. The one thing that all three have in common is that they are all possible. Only one is actual, of course, but it is not the best or worst one possible; it is merely the one possible that was actual.

Every thing is logically possible. No thing is logically impossible. A logically impossible thing is not a thing; it's nothing. So for omnipotence to be able to do everything is identical to it being able to do everything possible.

Quoted for truth (which also cripples Welsh Cake's attempted rebuttal). Very sharp and astute, DvF.

[Minimalist]

I wish to just clarify on DvF's excellent point. Omnipotence is about power, not logical possibility. To say that God is omnipotent is only to say that God has the power to do anything that power can do. (Far too many people leave off the clause that I emphasized there.) Logical possibility enters the picture only as a definitional point; i.e., if the logically impossible could be become possible given sufficient power, then it was never logically impossible to begin with but merely difficult. The logically impossible remains impossible necessarily, regardless of how much power might be applied. It is definitional.

Different people seem to take the simple latin of omni potens ( all power) and come to remarkably different conclusions. Courtesy of Wiki, certainly not an omnipotent source.

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:

1. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do[1].
2. A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i.e., pure agency.[2]
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.[3]
5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.

How would you answer a fundie who, in a scientific discussion about the so-called flood and upon being informed that there is insufficient water on the planet to cover the land masses, informed me that "god can do anything."

[Welsh cake]

Every thing is logically possible. No thing is logically impossible. A logically impossible thing is not a thing; it's nothing. So for omnipotence to be able to do everything is identical to it being able to do everything possible.

Quoted for truth (which also cripples Welsh Cake's attempted rebuttal). Very sharp and astute, DvF.

Err no it doesn't. There are paradoxes, there are logical contradictions, and there are logical impossibilites.

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

When you feel mature enough to debate let us know.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's not obvious. I know you're being very reasonable and trying to redefine the word into something more sensible, but this is bigger underlying problem with labels such 'omnipotence' and 'supernatural', in everyday application they're meaningless words.

Yeah I guess I was wrong with my application of the word 'obvious'.

I'll try to make my point very simple: If true omnipotence is supposed to not be limited even by logic then true omnipotence doesn't exist.

However:

The current accepted definition of omnipotent is "infinite power".

Since nothing existent is non-logical in the sense of self-contradictory (statements can be self-contradictory but the things themselves that they refer to cannot be, a thing that is self-contradictory can't exist and so isn't a thing at all but is instead nothing) and logic itself may be infinite then in that sense omnipotence can exist.

You can talk to the majority of theists right now and they will argue a deity with omnipotence has the ability to do whatever it intends to, it made the reality in question; it can do anything with it, manipulate time and space, even the logically impossible.

Such theists must be wrong.

But, to reiterate, although logically impossible omnipotence indeed must be impossible, since logic itself may be infinite (as opposed to its concept which isn't) - in the same way that existence may be infinite - then omnipotence that can do anything logically possible may in that sense be infinitely powerful.

The conceptualization of logic cannot be infinite because it can contradict itself but the absoluteness of logic itself - the totality of all logical things in existence: In other words the totality of all things period - or in other words, existence itself may be infinite.

Furthermore: The so-called Paradox of Omnipotence commits the loaded question fallacy. It asks both "Can God create a rock?" and "Can he lift it?" in one go. It's like asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" rather than "Have you ever had a wife and beated her?...If so have you stopped beating her?".

---

I wonder if you are missing the crucial point here, which is that all three scenarios described are 'possible': (1) that he never had the accident is possible and not actual; (2) that he had the accident and surived is possible and actual; (3) that he had the accident and died is possible and not actual. The one thing that all three have in common is that they are all possible. Only one is actual, of course, but it is not the best or worst one possible; it is merely the one possible that was actual.

What I am saying is that for something to genuinely possibly be other than it is at any exact instant or moment that requires the actuality of at least one other instant or moment. If we have only one exact actualized instant or moment and no other exact actualized instant moments then in what sense can that one exact actualized instant moment 'possibly' be otherwise? Possibility would require an additional actual moment that is distinct from it. (And the one exact actualized instant moment itself can't be any different without changing into another additional moment because it would have to contradict its own definition and hence be non-tautological and therefore impossible by not conforming to the Law of Identity.)