RE: Musings about omnipotence and perfection.
January 30, 2011 at 8:40 am
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2011 at 9:28 am by Edwardo Piet.)
(January 29, 2011 at 10:43 pm)Ryft Wrote: 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.
(January 29, 2011 at 10:43 pm)Ryft Wrote: 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.
(January 30, 2011 at 5:48 am)Welsh cake Wrote: 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.
(January 30, 2011 at 1:04 am)annatar Wrote:Quote: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.
(January 23, 2011 at 4:09 am)Watson Wrote: 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?
