Musings about omnipotence and perfection.

[Watson]

I'd just like to point out that this is probably one of my favorite topics on this forum since joining, ever.

Oh and Jenny is a bitch. It ain't worth it, man.

[theVOID]

Gah, I'd already responded to this post, my connection must have dropped when submitting so i'll keep it short.

If statement A says something about God and nothing about X, and statement B says something about X and nothing about God, then statement A and B do not say the exact same thing—especially when statement A implicitly denies the fundamental laws of logic and statement B explicitly upholds them.

I've already agreed with this so let me be really clear here, My point of contention was with the idea that it was somehow 'more exact' to say statement A than statement B - Not an issue about omnipotence, I maintain that in terms of the various propositions we looked at, such as a square circle, there is no difference between saying that 'a square circle is not something that potentially exists to be produced' (statement A) and 'an omnipotent being cannot produce a square circle' (Statement B). Neither one of those statements is 'more exact' than the other because they yield the exact same results, they are two different ways of saying the exact same thing.

Statement A was, "God is not capable of actualizing self-contradiction X"—in other words, the problem with actualizing X is an extrinsic one (God). It denies the fundamental laws of logic because it implies that actualizing X is possible given the right extrinsic circumstances and that God cannot satisfy those.

I don't agree that it implies that at all, that which an omnipotent being cannot do isn't something that can possibly be done, saying that an omnipotent being cannot actualise x doesn't in any way suggest that x can be possible in some other context.

But its impossibility is not due to some extrinsic feature (that which it has in relation to some thing outside itself); what makes it impossible is not the fact that no agent can produce it. Rather, it is due to an intrinsic feature (that which it has in and of itself); what makes it impossible is the fact that it is incapable of production in and of itself, regardless of any circumstances real or supposed, because a self-contradiction is a logically impossible non-entity.

You really must have misjudged my intentions in contending that Aquinas phrase, because that is all shit i've already agreed with.

This is reminiscent of discussion I had early last year, where I had an atheist suggest to me that self-contradictions present a limitation to God's power (because they are something he cannot actualize) so therefore an omnipotent God is impossible. Rather baffled at how he could think that a non-existent nothing can limit anything, I nevertheless tried to answer him carefully with the following.

Yep, you're way off base here, that wasn't what I was contending at all.

Let me explain this as carefully as I can. By claiming that actualizing self-contradictions (e.g., making a square circle) is something God cannot do and thus presents a limitation to his power, you are claiming that contradictions are impossible for extrinsic reasons, that they are impossible only because God's power is insufficient for the task. There are two problems with this, which my post earlier addressed.

I wasn't claiming that.

First, such a claim violates how contradictions are defined; namely, contradictions are logically impossible for intrinsic reasons, not just metaphysically impossible for extrinsic reasons. The logically impossible "carries its impossibility within itself," as Lewis explained. Philosophers articulate the difference between two important categories of truth, necessary and contingent; the former refers to that which is necessarily true and cannot be otherwise (a square has four sides of equal length), while the latter refers to that which happens to be true but could be otherwise (stop signs are red). The fundamental laws of logic are necessary truths, not contingent truths; that is, the law of non-contradiction does not just happen to be true extrinsically (in relation to something else) and could be otherwise, but rather it is necessarily true intrinsically (in and of itself) and cannot be otherwise. So for you to claim that self-contradictions are impossible for extrinsic reasons, a limit of God's power, is to completely redefine the terms and toss logic on its head.

Again, I wasn't claiming that at all, I don't have a clue where I gave you that impression but it's dead wrong.

Second, it is true that nearly all the definitions of omnipotence use the word "unlimited" but please give attention to what is unlimited: power. This stems from the Latin potens, from posse (to be able) and therefore refers to the ability to actualize any state of affairs. And Scripture concurs by saying that all things are possible with God. But self-contradictions are neither things nor possible; they are logically impossible non-entities, nothing more than a meaningless combination of words. As non-existent nothings they are not a task to be performed nor an obstacle against the accomplishment of one. As I pointed out earlier, to hold that self-contradictions are only metaphysically impossible for extrinsic reasons is to hold that self-contradictions are possible, albeit extraordinarily difficult; i.e., that the logically impossible is logically possible (itself a meaningless logical contradiction).

I agree with all of this too.

JOHN: And there you have it. That is why the second statement is to be preferred, and the first statement should be rejected. That is, we do not say, "God is incapable of actualizing self-contradiction X," but rather we say, "Self-contradiction X is incapable of actualization."

They mean the exact same thing! For example, get a list of various propositions, some logically possible and some impossible, make a list of what ones are valid using either the criteria 'that which an omnipotent being cannot do' and 'that which cannot be done' and you'll get the exact same result.

Do you understand my contention now? No one phrase is more exact than the other.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

IN all seriousness though, perfection as a attribute to a being is so vaguely defined that the term is meaningless when used that way. Which is to say, how can a being be perfect?

Perfection is a little different to omnipotence I reckon, and I don't see how it is vaguely defined at all if we are to think of a perfect thing to be a thing without flaws. Perfect=flawless. A being can be perfect if it can be flawless.

It just depends whether you're talking about subjective flaws (i.e "flaws" according to whoever) or actual objective flaws (which do not exist).

I think you just answered your own question here between your response to me and your response to KichigaiNeko. Perfection as well as what does and does not constitute a human flaw is entirely subjective. If science has taught me anything about humans is that even what we generally view as our greatest imperfections have a purpose that has benefitted us in some manner or another whether we realize it or not. Even our own ideas on what constitutes a 'perfect' being is so inhuman and alien to us that we essentially define perfection by the very essence of the fact that we don't understand it. Angels, for example.

Because of that, the idea of perfection essentially works like the god of the gaps - it only works as an idea because it exists in the unknown.
Therefore, perfection is meaningless, though I would hypothosize that perfection as an idea is entirely representative of the unknown. It is in the sense that only the unknown can be perfect. Just a random thought, anyway, if it makes any sense. I'm barely awake at the moment.

[reverendjeremiah]

Omnipotence and perfection - two words that were just made up that have no bearing on measurable reality whatsoever and focuses SOLELY on the imaginations of the person using them. These two words were created for the sole purpose of being able to push the goal post back further and further to justify further useless and absurd bickering in the hopes of bamboozling the other person into accepting the bamboozlers personal preferences of whatever pet peeve or petty psychological need the user feels should be addressed and acknowledged.

-Pet peeve example
"Dont put that trash can there..you should put it here..there, thats perfect!"

-Psychological need example
fundy -"God loves me and he loves you and he knows your inner most feelings"
me -"I know Im probably going to kick myself for asking..but exactly how did you come to that conclusion?"
fundy -"Because god is all knowing! Isnt that great."
me - "Wonderful..then your god can tell the police who it was who raped and murdered that local kid a few years ago and help give the family some closure!"
fundy - "It doesnt work that way..blah blah. John 3:16..blah blah..thou shalt not test god..blah blah Free will..blah blah."
Me - *kicks self for asking*

File the terms "Omnipotent" and "Perfection" with others of its ilk..such as: "Eternity", "infinity", "infinitesimal", and "soul".

[theVOID]

I think perfection is a useful term when used by a person who believes an object/entity could not please them more, there doesn't have to be some objective perfection for the word to have value on a subjective basis.

[reverendjeremiah]

I think perfection is a useful term when used by a person who believes an object/entity could not please them more, there doesn't have to be some objective perfection for the word to have value on a subjective basis.

as I am sure you will keep doing Void, you always touch my moderate feelings about something. Just because I use such strong words about it first, doesnt mean that I would not use such words in casual and humorous conversation. But anything scientific I would toss them words out as soon as they left someones lips, and they would not leave mine.

Im easy going..Im not an extremist about words.. but I apreciate good definitions, and those words are nothing but fuzzy fuzzy fuzzy.

[Edwardo Piet]

Perfection in the sense of flawless is a subjective matter, because what constitutes a "flaw" is a subjective matter.

[reverendjeremiah]

Perfection can mean flawless, without flaws. And since what is a "flaw" is a subjective matter, so can perfection be a subjective matter.

hmm..good point..as I said before, I would not expect a scientist to use the word "perfect", but if I was playing a song on my bass and I got all the notes correct I would say "that was perfect", but if someone disagreed, I would not question it. Saying it is perfect means across the spectrum, that everyone shold consider it perfect without question. Hmm, I pretty much stand by what I originally posted, that perfection is pretty much opinion. Perhaps it depends on how complicated the system is.

If it is something as simple as counting from 1 to 10, and someone does it, then I suppose you can say "he flawlessly counted from one to ten..it was perfect." but that would be rather humorous to me to use such words with simplicity. The more complicated a system, then I would say the use of the word perfect or flawless would be difficult to justify.

How about that Heisenberg uncertainty principle.. the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured. kind of hard to get perfection when you cant tell locations with high precision now can we?

I feel that the words "perfect" is nothing more than a feel good word. A vocal blue ribbon.

[Edwardo Piet]

If something is without flaws then it really is perfect if perfect is to mean "flawless". The question is then in two parts "What constitutes a flaw?" and "Can I recognize any flaws in thing X?". If you can't recognize any flaws in X but there are still flaws to recognize in X, X still has flaws, you've just failed to recognize them.

However, if there are no flaws in a thing simply because you have failed to define anything as a "flaw" I doubt that that's worthy of being called "perfect" simply because you haven't bothered to define any possible flaws at all.

So I think it is rather like justice and injustice. Injustice can't work without the concept of justice. Imperfection can't really work without the concept of perfection. When you say someone doesn't deserve something you are not stating indifference on the matter of justice. Where is the midway between "You do deserve" and "You don't deserve"? Where is the midway between "That's perfect/flawless" or "You are imperfect/that's flawed", etc.

[reverendjeremiah]

Yeah..I can pretty much agree with that doubtvs. faith. That seems reasonable to me.