Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Maybe the Bible was talking about popstars. I wouldn't mind seeing that fall.
Leftists
- Thread starter GhostWriter16
- Start date
No, the usual definition of "omnipotent" is the ability to do all those things (and only those things) that are logically possible, i.e. that don't involve a contradiction. On that definition even an omnipotent being could not (for example) make it the case that 2+2=5, or that P and not-P. Some people have thought that omnipotence involves the ability even to do these things - Descartes was famously among them, and Peter Damian is sometimes said to have thought this, although I don't think he did really - but it's very much a minority view because it causes so many difficulties, mainly that it removes any foundation we have for knowing anything, and makes absurdities possible (e.g. God could make it the case that it is true that he exists and also true that he doesn't exist at the same time).
Yared
That Guy
I don't get it. That's suddenly too absurd? When you believe in an all-mighty, all-knowing God, nothing is too absurd.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
I might jump in here; God's ability created a logical world. Not an illogical one. His abilities are known as limited to things that make sense (At least in our sphere of reality-recognition).
He is all-knowing and all-mighty and can create logic. As we know it, it'd be absurd if he didn't.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Isn't God supposed to be outside our limited world with regard to time and space and stuff? I bet he'd laugh in the face of a paradox if he had a sense of humour.
Not at all, if God is constrained by what is possible. On the classical conception of theism, according to which God is indeed constrained by what is possible, he can do nothing which is intrinsically impossible, such as bringing about inconsistencies. So there are many things which are too absurd on this conception of theism - such as the example I gave before, of God both existing and not existing. That is an outright contradiction and logical impossibility, which means that on the classical conception of God, he cannot bring about such a situation. Indeed, on the classical conception of God, he cannot even bring it about that there is no God, because (on the classical conception) it is a necessary truth that God exists. In other words, the God of classical theism cannot commit suicide. That does not mean he is not omnipotent, though, because omnipotence means only the ability to do whatever is possible, and the non-existence of God is supposedly an impossible situation.
Certainly, on classical theism, God transcends time and space and is not limited by the possibilities of time and space. This is because time and space are his creation and he decides what their limits are in the first place. But he is still bound by the laws of logic, because these are not his creation and he does not decide what their limits are.
Later scholastic theology put it nicely: God's knowledge of possibilities is pre-volitional, meaning that he knows what is possible before he makes any decisions, because whether something is possible or not is independent of God's decisions. But his knowledge of actualities is post-volitional, meaning that his knowledge of what is actual is based upon his knowledge of what he himself has decided. This is because whether something is actual or not is dependent upon God's decisions.
This is just a fancy way of saying that when God chooses what to do, he must choose within the realm of what is possible. He therefore cannot choose which things are possible. He knows which things are possible, because he is omniscient. And he can act within the boundaries of that knowledge, because he is omnipotent.
The upshot of which is that the God of classical theism (although perhaps not the God of other forms of theism, such as process theology) can, if he exists, certainly cause the stars to fall at the end of the world. Which means that our modern scientific knowledge of the world does not, in itself, prove that the eschatological discourses attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are false. Which has no bearing whatsoever on whether Jesus believed the world was going to end soon, that belief itself (not the truth or falsity of it) being the only thing of relevance to whether he held political opinions - which is where this whole not-very-relevant digression came from in the first place.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Christopher Hitchens hates everything. If he hasn't specified something, then it's simply because he hasn't gotten around to it yet.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
The man clearly doesn't hate sobriety.
Yared
That Guy
What do you base "omnipotence is being able to do anything logically possible" on? One would think that the word omni would cover everything, not just what is logically possible.
I don't base it on anything. That's just the usual definition, as you'll find if you investigate into what people have said about this. I suppose it's based on two main considerations: first, God is fundamentally rational; and second, the laws of logic are absolutely universal in applicability. If God can contravene logical laws neither of these holds.
As you can see here, Thomas Aquinas points out that someone has power in relation to what is possible. Therefore, God's power extends over all things that are possible. It doesn't extend over what is impossible, because that would make no sense. It's like saying that God's knowledge extends over all things that are knowable. He can't know what is not knowable. For example, he knows all things that are true (these things are knowable) but he does not know falsehoods. He does not know that 2+2=5, because it doesn't. (Of course, he knows that "2+2=5 is false", because that is true.) The same goes for us - no-one can know something that is false, because part of the definition of knowing something is that the thing known is true. When we think we know something that is in fact false, we do not really know it - we believe it erroneously. So in the case of omniscience, "omni" means not literally all things, but all true propositions - everything that is knowable, God knows. (It may be more complicated than that, but that's not relevant here.) Similarly, in the case of omnipotence, "omni" means not literally all things, but all possible situations. Everything that is possible, God can bring about.
As you can see here, Thomas Aquinas points out that someone has power in relation to what is possible. Therefore, God's power extends over all things that are possible. It doesn't extend over what is impossible, because that would make no sense. It's like saying that God's knowledge extends over all things that are knowable. He can't know what is not knowable. For example, he knows all things that are true (these things are knowable) but he does not know falsehoods. He does not know that 2+2=5, because it doesn't. (Of course, he knows that "2+2=5 is false", because that is true.) The same goes for us - no-one can know something that is false, because part of the definition of knowing something is that the thing known is true. When we think we know something that is in fact false, we do not really know it - we believe it erroneously. So in the case of omniscience, "omni" means not literally all things, but all true propositions - everything that is knowable, God knows. (It may be more complicated than that, but that's not relevant here.) Similarly, in the case of omnipotence, "omni" means not literally all things, but all possible situations. Everything that is possible, God can bring about.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
I wouldn't get into logic based arguments if I were you.
Gödel said:
Oerdin
Deity
QFT! This forum tends to be a bit more educated then the average cross section of America with better informed people who at least routinely interact and listen to people with different views.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Sorry to jump on you again Yared; omnipotence does mean it covers everything. Something that isn't part of everything isn't a possible something.
Yared
That Guy
Aha. When you put it next to omniscience, it makes sense. Like how God's omnipresence wouldn't extend to fictional places, since they don't exist.
Okay
Yared
That Guy
Sorry to jump on you again Yared; omnipotence does mean it covers everything. Something that isn't part of everything isn't a possible something.
It's okay. I come here to learn, so others are free to answer my questions.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
That's actually the only characteristic that makes one a constructive addition to a forum.
Yared
That Guy
That's actually the only characteristic that makes one a constructive addition to a forum.
Thanks.
I mean meteors, yes. But please be careful to not assume that Greek thought was traditional Jewish thought on matters natural. Scripture is full enough of dropping stars (from Daniel to Revelations) to imagine that the Jews thought that shootings stars were stars. As well, the Qur'an seems to have picked up this idea (despite its nod to Greek traditions).
Another example is the Jewish conception of the heart being the seat of emotions. This is throughout the OT and repeated by Jesus (as well as Paul, I think). This idea, though does not reflect Roman conceptions of emotions at the time - while there was debate, there was a strong suspicion amongst Roman scholars that the brain is what controlled emotions as well as urges.
Similar threads
