Is omniscience or omnipotence really possible?

[logician]

Free will is irrelevant to an omnipotent deity. God's will is unopposed, nothing challenges it.

God created all that is and all that is is good. He created man with free will to choose whether to do good or not do good.

Regards,
Scott

How could "free will" be irrelevant, under the conditions stated?

 

[Popeyesays]

How could "free will" be irrelevant, under the conditions stated?

A lot of conditions have been stated. Which are you refering to? Why should I accept them as logically correct?

Regards,
Scott

 

[logician]

Although it sounds contradictory, infinity is a limit. We say the function F(x)=1/x approaches zero as x approaches infinity.

Infinity also can come in different flavors - countably infinite (the set of natural numbers), and uncountably infinite (the set of rational numbers).

 

[Francine]

Infinity also can come in different flavors - countably infinite (the set of natural numbers), and uncountably infinite (the set of rational numbers).

And they don't even know where the set of all real numbers falls in the spectrum of cardinal infinities. This is the First Hilbert Problem.

Continuum hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[logician]

And they don't even know where the set of all real numbers falls in the spectrum of cardinal infinities. This is the First Hilbert Problem.

Continuum hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is interesting that some "infinities" seem to be larger than others, although appearances can be deceiving.

 

[mr.guy]

You get what you pays for.

Boy...to quote, "small town cheap", eh?

The statement "god has not freewill", is an absurdity, taken on its own, otherwise it could not answer prayer, or make decisions regarding good and evil (its job). But, maybe your god likes not to have freewll, I don't know.

Again, we've missed:

1)How does the above qualify as "absurd"? (besides your arbitrary declerations as such)

2)By what means have you proven freewill to be of such insurmountable value that it would be necessary for an omnipotent being?

Yes, i realize that you like it, but does that mean god does? Why?

You see to like to insult people, watch it, that will get you banned quickly on this board.

Button's right there on the top right. Go ahead, do us all a favour.

 

[yossarian22]

You get what you pays for.

What a great set up line.
But I have more tact than that

The statement "god has not freewill", is an absurdity, taken on its own, otherwise it could not answer prayer, or make decisions regarding good and evil (its job).

The statement "computers do not have freewill", is an absurdity, taken on its own, otherwise it could not make branch predictions, or calculate (its job)

But, maybe your god likes not to have freewll, I don't know.

Or maybe the concept of god transcends freewill?
Nah, relating an infinite being to the dilemma of humans seems to be in vogue now.

You see to like to insult people, watch it, that will get you banned quickly on this board.

I'm still going strong....

 

[thorman]

Free will is irrelevant to an omnipotent deity. God's will is unopposed, nothing challenges it.

God created all that is and all that is is good. He created man with free will to choose whether to do good or not do good.

Regards,
Scott

But if God's will is unopposed, how is it that man has free will? Aren't these two concepts at odds with each other. Either God is completely omnipotent and we have no free will or God is not omnipotent at all and we can do whatever we like.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hi Logician,

you said
god that is omniscient would know all of its future decisions, therefore is severely limited by its own knowledge, i.e. has no freewill.

Omniscience means all knowing,..end of story (unless you have a different understanding of omniscience). There is no reason for making decisions since there are no problems to be solved, and this could hardly be described as a severe limitation.

This seems an absurdity, therefore, at best a god can only be omniscient about all things and decisions unrelated to itself.

I'm not sure that a non-omniscient being such as man can determine if the state of omniscience is an absurdity. Certainly it does seem to be an absurdity to postulate an omniscience and then attribute to it the limit of only knowing about 'things' and 'decisions unrelated to itself'.

But this means it is not truly omniscient, as it cannot know the future, since it does not know the actions it will take. If it is not omniscient, it follows that it cannot be omnipotent, as it is usually taken that one implies the other.

Now that you have postulated a non-omniscient omniscience, everything you say from here is not dealing with omniscience but non-omniscience. Let me remind you that omniscience means,...All knowing,...end of story,..in the rhetorical sense.

 

[uss_bigd]

God knows the future ... except human beings choice between good and evil.

 

[Magic Man]

2)By what means have you proven freewill to be of such insurmountable value that it would be necessary for an omnipotent being?

Yes, i realize that you like it, but does that mean god does? Why?

The point is that to be omnipotent, you have to be able to do anything. That is the definition. So, if you believe there is good and evil in the universe, then an omnipotent being would, by definition, need to be able to choose either option, or else not be omnipotent.

 

[mr.guy]

The point is that to be omnipotent, you have to be able to do anything. That is the definition.

No it isn't. "To do anything" can be misleading, as this would include paradoxes, logic traps, anthropormorphic conflict, etc. Some linguistic, ideal, and moral concepts might not be applicable, as they're not real in the fashion/context that they're generally considered in.

I would still insist that "To do anything" is a limited statement; simply, "anything" would only be composed of what is in the set of "things that can be done".

So, if you believe there is good and evil in the universe, then an omnipotent being would, by definition, need to be able to choose either option, or else not be omnipotent.

How does belief in good and evil do that?

What is "choice", really?

I mean, with every possibility laid out in front of you with equal measure and ease, what is choice? What's it worth at this point?

 

[Magic Man]

No it isn't. "To do anything" can be misleading, as this would include paradoxes, logic traps, anthropormorphic conflict, etc. Some linguistic, ideal, and moral concepts might not be applicable, as they're not real in the fashion/context that they're generally considered in.

I would still insist that "To do anything" is a limited statement; simply, "anything" would only be composed of what is in the set of "things that can be done".


How does belief in good and evil do that?

What is "choice", really?

I mean, with every possibility laid out in front of you with equal measure and ease, what is choice? What's it worth at this point?

Your first point is my point. By definition, if I'm omnipotent I can both exist and not exist. That's impossible, but if I can't do both, I'm not omnipotent. Both of those fit into the set of thing that can be done.

If there are such things as good and evil, and I can't do one of them, I'm not omnipotent. If I can't choose, I'm also not omnipotent.

 

[mr.guy]

Your first point is my point.

As far as i can tell, one of us has probably misunderstood it, then.

By definition, if I'm omnipotent I can both exist and not exist. That's impossible, but if I can't do both, I'm not omnipotent. Both of those fit into the set of thing that can be done.

Great reply! I've never heard that one before.

However, can non-existing be "done"? While somethings can be said to not exist, i don't think they do so by activity. While i like the above enboldened statement, i think it incorrect.

If there are such things as good and evil, and I can't do one of them, I'm not omnipotent. If I can't choose, I'm also not omnipotent.

Two points:

a)Are good and evil necessarily contrary?

b)Is choice an appropriate assignment when results are absolutely guaranteed?
I'm saying that god can't make a decision, but pre-emptively suggesting that god has no decisions to make.

 

[Magic Man]

As far as i can tell, one of us has probably misunderstood it, then.

Great reply! I've never heard that one before.

However, can non-existing be "done"? While somethings can be said to not exist, i don't think they do so by activity. While i like the above enboldened statement, i think it incorrect.

Two points:

a)Are good and evil necessarily contrary?

b)Is choice an appropriate assignment when results are absolutely guaranteed?
I'm saying that god can't make a decision, but pre-emptively suggesting that god has no decisions to make.

I think non-existing can be done. Good and evil have to be contrary by our standards. That's all they are. If it's not good it's the opposite, evil.

Then you're suggesting that there's no such thing as a decision. That is false as we know it. If choice exists, which we know to be true, then the ability to decide must exist as a possible action.

 

[mr.guy]

I think non-existing can be done.

How so?

Good and evil have to be contrary by our standards. That's all they are. If it's not good it's the opposite, evil.

The distinction of the two might not be relative, though. That one is able to polarize things, to divide everything present and catagorize is useful activity only if they were previously unknown. This activity would be useless in the face of omniscience.

Opposites, though compelling, can also be demonstrated to be trumped by stronger force.

Then you're suggesting that there's no such thing as a decision. That is false as we know it. If choice exists, which we know to be true, then the ability to decide must exist as a possible action.

Indeed, there may not truely be such a thing as a decision, but certainly not when there are no unknowns; i would think that, if we go with my earlier assumption that omniscience suggests information as real and thus total, then the act of a decision could be nothing but arbitrary...for all of us.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

The point is that to be omnipotent, you have to be able to do anything. That is the definition. So, if you believe there is good and evil in the universe, then an omnipotent being would, by definition, need to be able to choose either option, or else not be omnipotent.

Like most people, you confuse "omnificient" and "omnipotent."

 

[logician]

Hi Logician,


I'm not sure that a non-omniscient being such as man can determine if the state of omniscience is an absurdity. Certainly it does seem to be an absurdity to postulate an omniscience and then attribute to it the limit of only knowing about 'things' and 'decisions unrelated to itself'.

Surely a god could have limitations, again this limited god would NOT be omniscient, I should have stated the limition not in terms of omniscience, but just of knowledge only of things and actions which do not involve its own decisions.

"
I would still insist that "To do anything" is a limited statement; simply, "anything" would only be composed of what is in the set of "things that can be done".

"

And how is this set determined, by you or this supposed god?

 

[Magic Man]

Like most people, you confuse "omnificient" and "omnipotent."

No, I'm actually not. The word omnipotent comes from the Latin words for "to be able to" and "everything". It means to have the power to do everything. That includes omnificence. Omnipotent is the umbrella under which omnificence falls. If you're omnipotent you are omnificent, but if you're omnificent, you're not necessarily omnipotent.

 

[Popeyesays]

Logician:
"Surely a god could have limitations, . . . "

Do you have the slightest reason for me to accept this as a condition?

Regards,
Scott