|
|
A common argument goes that the existence of a God who is both omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful) is that it creates a paradox wherein if such a God were to know how s/he was going to act, s/he would be powerless to change it and therefore not omnipotent.
This argument bugs me because it seems easy to - practically! - demonstrate that it is wrong. For example, tomorrow I will eat cereal for breakfast. This is both something I know with almost complete certainty (baring eg. a meteor strike) and also entirely my own choice. My breakfast routine isn't a paradox, so why do some people consider the foreknown decisions of a God to be one?
Look at it like this:
Omniscience is to know everything with absolute certainty. I.e. if you know that you're going to eat breakfast tomorrow, you know with absolute certainty that that's true. There is nothing in the entire world that could prevent it. It will happen.
However, if you're omnipotent, you should be able to do anything, regardless of the circumstances (eg. you should be able to create round squares or a stone that's too heavy for you to lift, but you should also be able to lift it). If you're omnipotent, you should be able to choose not to eat breakfast tomorrow. But if you do so, then your prediction was wrong. You didn't eat breakfast, and hence you're not omniscient.
I find the argument a bit unecessary. The concept of a being posessing both omnipotence and omniscience is illogical, yes. But omnipotence is illogical and impossible in itself. (Eg. due to the examples already given or because an omnipotent being should have the power to know everything with absolute certainty. Any omnipotent being is, by definition, also omniscient... but it is also non-omniscient.)
I'd also say that your breakfast-routine is indeed paradoxal since it relies on you having free will.
| catscratches wrote: | | I'd also say that your breakfast-routine is indeed paradoxal since it relies on you having free will. |
This is actually a pretty good point, when I think about it. Omnipotence is a fairly meaningless concept from a determinism viewpoint.
Assuming that free will does exist though, I think the omnipotence/omniscience paradox boils down to an order of operations issues: either one kicking in last could be seen to discount the other. You either have to define one as marginally less 'omni' than the other (can't change mind / can't predict changing mind) or ... well, if God's actions are deterministic then the paradoxical situations don't arise because the omniscience is logically absolute (nothing could have been different) and omnipotence amounts only to what IS done.
I feel like I should earn a +1 wisdom point now.
| Nameless wrote: | | This is both something I know with almost complete certainty (baring eg. a meteor strike) and also entirely my own choice. My breakfast routine isn't a paradox, so why do some people consider the foreknown decisions of a God to be one? |
"Almost" being the key word. There is no "almost" with an omniscient being. It's very likely you will have cereal for breakfast, but you cannot guarantee that. You cannot say with absolute certainty that you will have cereal. Your refrigerator might go out in the middle of the night and your milk could spoil. A rat may eat through all your cereal. Your car could break down so you can't go buy more milk or cereal. You may break your leg walking down steps and are unable to walk to the store.
A lot of things could go wrong which prevent your cereal festivities. Of course, they're somewhat unlikely events, but it's impossible for a non-omniscient being to have comparable knowledge to that of an omniscient being. You're simply playing the odds of some event occurring as a non-omniscient being; there are no odds or statistics with an omniscient being.
lol -> This sounds like a case of the maniac cereal killer who’s stases boxes of cheerio’s which are dominating his cupboards and closets. He will eat tomorrow even if it is without milk and honey. He does in fact belong to the Omni Group (look it up if you have to) and has plotted everything possible that can occur scientifically accurate of course, so that he never misses breakfast.
On the other hand omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful) are terms being used by those that want to prove or convince the none existence of God, by creating confusing paradox’s that distort common sense. Another way to say this is the reason for using these terms and how they apply to God is an important consideration to keep in mind in trying to understand them. As stated just previously, a non-believer will use them in persuasion which becomes nothing more than a mental exercise of futility. (hence your comment “This argument bugs me”) a believer of God might use these terms I suppose in an attempt to understand God or to communicate with someone that likes to understand God in those terms. Regardless conviction of belief is I think relevant to the explanation.
I read somewhere (sorry can’t find the source) that describing God is like describing an elephant. Everyone has a different view, all are perhaps correct but none are exactly alike or complete.
It is impossible for God to not be God. That is something that it cannot do (by earthly logic). But logic is the study of reason and reason is a product of primordial causality. A God (again by earthly logic) would have exist outside of such principals, if indeed, it created them. Albeit, requiring omnipotence. Herein lies the (earthly) paradox.
Or it could be that using words like "omniscient," "omnipotent," "omnitemporal," et al. to describe God... or even just assuming that we have any knowledge allowing us to even attempt to describe God, is utter folly. What is the nature of God, and what are God's qualities? (Assuming God exists) There's no way to know at the current time, and nothing from documented history! Any description is pure speculation.
But yes, in direct relation to the to adjectives of the OP, they are contradictory, and it causes a great deal of debate within the Christian community (let alone being a glaring mistake for those outside the Christian community). It generates discussion over whether omniscience extends into the future, or only applies to the past and present, what this says about determinism, etc. It generates discussion over whether or not God is paradoxically omnipotent (classic create a stone too big to lift paradox, etc), omnipotent with the exclusion of logical contradiction (ie. exclude the stone paradox), or actually has limits... This doesn't even get into the issues generated by combining the two descriptors.
Even the believers can't agree on the qualities of their gods, so it makes it pretty hard to have a meaningful, objective discussion of their qualities.
| catscratches wrote: | | I find the argument a bit unecessary. The concept of a being posessing both omnipotence and omniscience is illogical, yes. But omnipotence is illogical and impossible in itself. (Eg. due to the examples already given or because an omnipotent being should have the power to know everything with absolute certainty. Any omnipotent being is, by definition, also omniscient... but it is also non-omniscient.) |
Possessing just omniscience is also illogical, because if you know everything, you know how to accomplish everything - including making yourself omnipotent.
Basically, adding any infinity is an invitation for absurdity.
| Indi wrote: | | Possessing just omniscience is also illogical, because if you know everything, you know how to accomplish everything - including making yourself omnipotent. |
... Or you know with infinite certainty that spontaneously making yourself omnipotent is impossible. So not really.
| Nameless wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | Possessing just omniscience is also illogical, because if you know everything, you know how to accomplish everything - including making yourself omnipotent. |
... Or you know with infinite certainty that spontaneously making yourself omnipotent is impossible. So not really. |
Just "spontaneously"? If you're going to make up constraints that i never said and pretend that i said them, why not add a few more? Really, if you're going to put words in my mouth, go all out. Don't just go with half-measures; take some pride in your intellectual dishonesty, man!
Anyway, if it is possible to X then an omniscient being will know how to do it. This will be true for all X that are actually possible... for anyone, anywhere, anytime... including being omnipotent (and yes, spontaneously).
Put another way, an omniscient being will know how to do everything. Everything. That includes knowing how to become able to do everything. If you can do everything, then you're omnipotent.
Put yet another way:
An omnipotent being is defined as being able to do everything. But if you can do everything, then you must know how to do everything, including finding out everything you don't know. In other words, an omnipotent being will also be omniscient, if they choose to be.
An omniscient being is defined as knowing everything. But if you know how to do everything, then you can do everything, because you'll know how to make yourself able to do everything. In other words, an omniscient being will also be omnipotent, if they choose to be.
Or, put yet another way, the only things that an omniscient being will not know how to do, are things that there is no way at all to do; things that simply cannot be done ever. If an omnipotent being can do them, then they can be done. Therefore, an omniscient being will know how to do anything that an omnipotent being can do... which makes them also omnipotent.
Or to directly answer your challenge: an omnipotent being can make someone spontaneously omnipotent. Yes they can, because there is nothing an omnipotent being cannot do. And if an omnipotent being can do it, then an omniscient being will know how to do it... and how to make themselves able to do it. So your challenge is nonsense; an omniscient being will be able to make themselves spontaneously omnipotent, unless omnipotence itself is impossible (which it might be if you use the unlimited form of omnipotence, but is certainly possible if you're talking about "limited omnipotence"). If there is such thing as omnipotence, an omniscient being will know how to spontaneously generate it. If there is no such thing as omnipotence - if there is only "limited omnipotence" - then there can be no such thing as omniscience, only "limited omniscience".
| Indi wrote: | | Nameless wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | Possessing just omniscience is also illogical, because if you know everything, you know how to accomplish everything - including making yourself omnipotent. |
... Or you know with infinite certainty that spontaneously making yourself omnipotent is impossible. So not really. |
Just "spontaneously"? If you're going to make up constraints that i never said and pretend that i said them, why not add a few more? Really, if you're going to put words in my mouth, go all out. Don't just go with half-measures; take some pride in your intellectual dishonesty, man!
Anyway, if it is possible to X then an omniscient being will know how to do it. This will be true for all X that are actually possible... for anyone, anywhere, anytime... including being omnipotent (and yes, spontaneously).
Put another way, an omniscient being will know how to do everything. Everything. That includes knowing how to become able to do everything. If you can do everything, then you're omnipotent.
Put yet another way:
An omnipotent being is defined as being able to do everything. But if you can do everything, then you must know how to do everything, including finding out everything you don't know. In other words, an omnipotent being will also be omniscient, if they choose to be.
An omniscient being is defined as knowing everything. But if you know how to do everything, then you can do everything, because you'll know how to make yourself able to do everything. In other words, an omniscient being will also be omnipotent, if they choose to be.
Or, put yet another way, the only things that an omniscient being will not know how to do, are things that there is no way at all to do; things that simply cannot be done ever. If an omnipotent being can do them, then they can be done. Therefore, an omniscient being will know how to do anything that an omnipotent being can do... which makes them also omnipotent.
Or to directly answer your challenge: an omnipotent being can make someone spontaneously omnipotent. Yes they can, because there is nothing an omnipotent being cannot do. And if an omnipotent being can do it, then an omniscient being will know how to do it... and how to make themselves able to do it. So your challenge is nonsense; an omniscient being will be able to make themselves spontaneously omnipotent, unless omnipotence itself is impossible (which it might be if you use the unlimited form of omnipotence, but is certainly possible if you're talking about "limited omnipotence"). If there is such thing as omnipotence, an omniscient being will know how to spontaneously generate it. If there is no such thing as omnipotence - if there is only "limited omnipotence" - then there can be no such thing as omniscience, only "limited omniscience". |
The key word in this post is choose. Since an Indo has made himself to be omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful) absolutely he can also certainly have the power of choice absolutely. How do you explain that in the bible it is clearly stated that God can not lie which I am going to assume is a choice. However satan which I am going to assume is who you are choosing to model can be made to be omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful) but can not do ‘things’ that simply cannot be done ever. How is that so,,,,,, since you who are absolutely omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful), as again I am assuming that (all knowing) and (all powerful)) ... means that you can not do everything?
Maybe it means you can not do anything? 
Indi, there is a flaw in your logic.
| Indi wrote: | | That includes knowing how to become able to do everything. |
This is only true if it is possible to become able to do everything. If it is not possible to ascend to omnipotence, then ascending to omnipotence is not a 'thing' and therefore not included in knowing all 'things'.
Additionally, knowing how to do a thing does not imply that you are able to all-powerfully do that thing. I might know entirely every facet of how to set a table on fire, but that doesn't mean I can instantly explode it by clicking my fingers like an omnipotent god could.
'Knowing everything' is not the same thing as 'can do the impossible'. Knowing that something is impossible for you to do is a valid form of knowing everything if it is in fact impossible for you to do.
| Nameless wrote: | A common argument goes that the existence of a God who is both omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful) is that it creates a paradox wherein if such a God were to know how s/he was going to act, s/he would be powerless to change it and therefore not omnipotent.
This argument bugs me because it seems easy to - practically! - demonstrate that it is wrong. For example, tomorrow I will eat cereal for breakfast. This is both something I know with almost complete certainty (baring eg. a meteor strike) and also entirely my own choice. My breakfast routine isn't a paradox, so why do some people consider the foreknown decisions of a God to be one? |
I would like to add to this. If I am not omniscient and if I am not omnipotent, how can I know what the words mean? Being omniscient and omnipotent has to be in a dimension that transcends my own completely. And in that dimension the two may be one and the same thing or nothing at all.
| deanhills wrote: | | I would like to add to this. If I am not omniscient and if I am not omnipotent, how can I know what the words mean? |
Do you know what the word 'pig' means? Does this mean you are porcine. This is a ridiculous argument. We know what the words mean because (most of use) know that they convey a common understanding of what is meant, and if we are not sure we can look it up. | Quote: | | Being omniscient and omnipotent has to be in a dimension that transcends my own completely. |
Why? Where is that written? | Quote: | | And in that dimension the two may be one and the same thing or nothing at all. |
Why would the meaning change just because the dimensions did? If one is omniscient then on is omniscient across all dimensions.
| Bikerman wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | I would like to add to this. If I am not omniscient and if I am not omnipotent, how can I know what the words mean? |
Do you know what the word 'pig' means? Does this mean you are porcine. This is a ridiculous argument. We know what the words mean because (most of use) know that they convey a common understanding of what is meant, and if we are not sure we can look it up. |
Strange that you should bring pig up. Anyway, no, I don't think it is ridiculous. The fact that we are having this discussion ultimately is because you don't believe (OK ... I probably have the wording wrong .... and there is some highly sophisticated Bikerman way of expressing it) in the existence of God. So how can you bring God, omnipotent and omniscient together if God is not supposed to exist? That in its own is an enormous paradox to me. The rest I agree with nameless, I just don't get at all.
The word porcine came into my mind - I've always liked that word - so it is the example I used. There was no 'veiled' meaning intended.
It has nothing to do with belief. It is simple logic. You don't have to be a word to understand what it means. I don't have to be a hammer to know what a hammer is - this is surely obvious? The discussion is not limited to your Christian God, it concerns ANY supposed omniscient or omnipotent entity. The notion that there is some paradox in an atheist considering the logic is bizarre - like seeing a paradox in the fact that Christians should be involved in worldly politics.
The notion of 'extra dimensons' is a scientific one, so when you use it in relation to some paranormal superstition it naturally needs to be questioned. I don't see why the addition of another dimension should be necessary for omnipotence. Any omnipotent entity in x dimensions is, by definition, omnipotent in y dimensions where y can assume any possible value.i
Deanhills:
- We know what the words omniscient and omnipotent mean because words are defined by common usage and the concept is a fairly simple one ('knows everything'), how do you expect somebody to reply to that question. 
- It's true, omniscience may be unfathomable to mortal minds. But we're already having a hypothetical discussion here and pointing out as much isn't really adding to it. If we're going to limit ourselves to things we've experienced ourselves then we wouldn't have much of interest to discuss.
- Way to ad hominem Bikerman in your last post. And once again, how dare we discuss hypotheticals!
| Bikerman wrote: | | The notion of 'extra dimensons' is a scientific one, so when you use it in relation to some paranormal superstition it naturally needs to be questioned. |
That's not really true. Heaven or hell could be considered extra dimensions, ghosts could be supposed to exist on one, as well as all kinds of planes of existence proposed in magical fiction.
| Nameless wrote: |
- Way to ad hominem Bikerman in your last post. And once again, how dare we discuss hypotheticals!
|
What ad-hominem? Where did I make an ad-hom attack?
| Quote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | The notion of 'extra dimensons' is a scientific one, so when you use it in relation to some paranormal superstition it naturally needs to be questioned. |
That's not really true. Heaven or hell could be considered extra dimensions, ghosts could be supposed to exist on one, as well as all kinds of planes of existence proposed in magical fiction. |
Nope. That is just wrong use of English. A dimension is a measure of the minimum number of points needed to define a unique point. In two dimensions you need 2 points, in 3 you need 3 and so on.
I meant that deanhills used ad hominem against you ("because you don't believe", "some highly sophisticated Bikerman way of expressing it").[/quote]My mistake 
| Quote: | | The use of the word 'dimension' to refer to planes of existence, alternate realities etc. is fairly common, let's not get into semantics here. |
But it is important to do so, for two good reasons. Firstly this is philosophy and semantics are critical. Secondly, when we allow sloppy use of language, before long we end up arguing over interpretation of words, rather than real concepts.
If we allow that entities occupying a different dimension are not subject to the normal laws of physics...well one may as well just concede the whole debate.
| Nameless wrote: | Indi, there is a flaw in your logic.
| Indi wrote: | | That includes knowing how to become able to do everything. |
This is only true if it is possible to become able to do everything. If it is not possible to ascend to omnipotence, then ascending to omnipotence is not a 'thing' and therefore not included in knowing all 'things'.
Additionally, knowing how to do a thing does not imply that you are able to all-powerfully do that thing. I might know entirely every facet of how to set a table on fire, but that doesn't mean I can instantly explode it by clicking my fingers like an omnipotent god could.
'Knowing everything' is not the same thing as 'can do the impossible'. Knowing that something is impossible for you to do is a valid form of knowing everything if it is in fact impossible for you to do. |
No, you're still not wrapping your head around what "infinite" implies. "Infinite" is the ultimate 500 pound gorilla in philosophy; it blows "common sense" out of the water.
If omnipotence exists, then it must be possible to ascend to omnipotence... because obviously the omnipotent being can do it. Yes they can. And if you say, "no, the omnipotent being was already omnipotent, then can't asce-," i'd stop you right there and say, "Can't? Excuse me? Did you just say an omnipotent being can't do something? Then we're clearly not talking about an omnipotent being." If omnipotence exists - which it must, in limited form at least - then clearly an omnipotent being would be able to ascend to omnipotence; which means that ascending to omnipotence is indeed a "thing" that an omniscient mind would know all about.
Yes, knowing how to do a thing does not imply that you are able to do it... but knowing how to become able to do it does. And an omniscient being would know that.
Your table-igniting example actually highlights the limits of how you're perceiving the problem. To paraphrase, you're saying: "i may know everything about tables and fires and how to set tables on fire, but that doesn't mean i can just make it happen by just snapping my fingers." My response: "You mean, 'that doesn't mean that you also know how to just make it happen by just snapping your fingers'." And now you see the flaw. Because an omniscient being does know. However the omnipotent being manages to do it... the omniscient being knows (and probably knows an infinite number of alternative ways of doing it).
Just try this: whatever you're about to say that an omniscient being cannot do, reword it like this:
- An omniscient being cannot do X.
- An omniscient being does not have the ability to do X.
- An omniscient being does not know how to obtain and use the ability to do X.
- Oops.
And of course, this is true for any X that is possible. And any X that an omnipotent being can do is possible.
Rejecting common sense as the first point of your argument reads more as an admission of ridiculousness than a serious contemplation. The notion that 'infinity' is somehow beyond practical consideration is false anyway; mathematicians have been working with the concept for ages.
It's not meaningful to say that an omnipotent being can become omnipotent, any more than it's meaningful to say that a red brick can turn itself red. The omnipotent being could turn somebody else omnipotent, but if the omnipotent being weren't omnipotent then it couldn't turn itself omnipotent because it wouldn't be omnipotent to do so, even if it knew how an omnipotent being could do so. Yes this is redundant to point out, but you still falsely imply that because it is possible for some entity to do X, anybody with sufficient knowledge could do X without the necessary tools or abilities. You can recurse that with as many 'become able to's as you want, but eventually you're going to hit an impossible situation where knowledge alone isn't sufficient.
The only situation in which your theory works is where everybody already has the magical potential to do literally anything (aka we're already all gods and just don't realise it). I don't believe this is the case IRL!
And if you really want to get into semantics, knowing how to (become able to become able to become able to ...) become X doesn't mean you are X yet. The red brick is still just red now, even if it could grow legs and jump in a bucket of blue paint.
| Nameless wrote: | | Rejecting common sense as the first point of your argument reads more as an admission of ridiculousness than a serious contemplation. The notion that 'infinity' is somehow beyond practical consideration is false anyway; mathematicians have been working with the concept for ages. |
Rejecting (or at least ignoring) common-sense is not only not an admission of ridiculousness, it is required if you want to do modern science.
Think about the words - common sense - ie a view of the universe which is commonly held and which is based on the senses. The appeal to commonality is problematic, since most people are pretty ignorant of modern science. As for the senses....How much use are your senses in quantum physics (or relativity) ? Try to explain, in common-sense terms, the basis of 20th century physics if you can (if you can you are probably missing something important).
I'll briefly deal with the second point and leave the rest to Indi.
The fact that infinity is commonly used in mathematics tells us nothing about its existence as a 'real' phenomenon. We have no evidence, for example, that the universe itself is infinite (and before anyone adds anything, we have no strong evidence that it isn't, either). I think that the following is valid (though I stand to be corrected) : if the universe itself isn't infinite then it cannot contain an infinite quantity of anything substantive, since that would require an infinite universe.
You need to get your head out of the science books. Go smell a flower and when you do I hope you get stung on the nose by a bee. It might smarten you up! – 20th century physics
Common sense is not a scientific term, at least not the one I am familiar with. Commonly held for example I think is part of the scientific method but need not apply to common sense unless you refuse to see it any other way or refuse to comprehend that all knowledge need not be scientific.
"the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way" - Cambridge Dictionary,
| Quote: | | The fact that infinity is commonly used in mathematics tells us nothing about its existence as a 'real' phenomenon. We have no evidence, for example, that the universe itself is infinite (and before anyone adds anything, we have no strong evidence that it isn't, either). I think that the following is valid (though I stand to be corrected) : if the universe itself isn't infinite then it cannot contain an infinite quantity of anything substantive, since that would require an infinite universe. - Bikerman |
Define void, please. Does the universe by definition include it? Would it be infinite?
| Bluedoll wrote: | | You need to get your head out of the science books. Go smell a flower and when you do I hope you get stung on the nose by a bee. It might smarten you up! – 20th century physics |
Hmm...personal comment? Abuse? What you whine about all the time?
If you don't know anything about 20th century physics then you don't know anything much about science. If you don't know anything much about science then any comments you might make on the matter can be safely dismissed. This is exemplified in the next passage...
| Quote: | | Common sense is not a scientific term, at least not the one I am familiar with. Commonly held for example I think is part of the scientific method but need not apply to common sense unless you refuse to see it any other way or refuse to comprehend that all knowledge need not be scientific. |
I never said that scientific knowledge was all the knowledge there was so that would be a red herring. Common sense is NOT part of the scientific method. | Quote: | | Define void, please. Does the universe by definition include it? Would it be infinite?[/list] |
Why? I have never used the word, so why should I define it?
| Nameless wrote: | A common argument goes that the existence of a God who is both omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful) is that it creates a paradox wherein if such a God were to know how s/he was going to act, s/he would be powerless to change it and therefore not omnipotent.
This argument bugs me because it seems easy to - practically! - demonstrate that it is wrong. For example, tomorrow I will eat cereal for breakfast. This is both something I know with almost complete certainty (baring eg. a meteor strike) and also entirely my own choice. My breakfast routine isn't a paradox, so why do some people consider the foreknown decisions of a God to be one? |
I think part of the problem is that we view time as linear... an omniscient being might not.
If you were able to step out of the timeline and see the whole thing at once, the knowing you will choose vs. being free to choose paradox may disappear.
(For example, there would be no paradox because you foresaw that you would eat cereal, and decided to eat it, and ate it, all (to you) at the same "time".
ie, part of the reason an omniscient or omnipotent being looks illogical sometimes is that we assume that such a being perceives the universe in human fashion, which may not necessarily be true.
(And sometimes it just plain is illogical.)
| Nameless wrote: | | Rejecting common sense as the first point of your argument reads more as an admission of ridiculousness than a serious contemplation. |
Bikerman has already pointed out how ridiculous that claim is, but in my opinion he didn't go nearly far enough. Human common sense was developed over a hundred thousand years of living on African savannahs, and applies in full only to the limited set of experiences we had there. It is trivially easy to blow past the limits of human common sense, and move into territory that the human mind is not natively capable of comprehending. Skeptics run into examples all the time while debunking nonsense. If you want to really see human common sense choke up and fail spectacularly, look into statistics; try the Monty Hall problem, for example.
And as easy as it is to make common sense look stupid with finite problems (even things as simple as speeds a little faster than the speeds one would see in the animal kingdom), infinity REALLY blows common sense all to hell. Just look at all the confusion surrounding whether 0.999... = 1. There is no common, sensual way to understand infinity, so if you are relying on common sense to understand it, you've failed before you even started.
| Nameless wrote: | | Rejecting common sense as the first point of your argument reads more as an admission of ridiculousness than a serious contemplation. The notion that 'infinity' is somehow beyond practical consideration is false anyway; mathematicians have been working with the concept for ages. |
This is categorically false. The truth is that mathematicians have only recently begun to work with the concept of infinity; like in the last 150 years or so. Before that, infinity was a philosophical concept - not a mathematical one - and more often than not a pseudo-mystical one. If you read what past mathematicians wrote about infinity, it reads more like waxing poetic than anything mathematical. It wasn't until the mid/late-19th century that Cantor made infinity mathematical, and even he swung off into religious mumbo-jumbo at one point. And, in fact, infinity was a mess in modern math until the early 20th century, when modern set theory was developed (and it's still under development!).
And as a philosophical concept, infinity was very poorly understood until recently. A few examples that pop into my head: Samuel Clarke wrote a rebuttal to the idea that the universe could be infinitely old... and flubs it. Zeno's paradoxes are not really "paradoxes" so much as they are non-sequiturs about infinity, and weren't properly solved until modern times. Even you are messing it up, and i'll show you exactly where:
The definition of an omnipotent being is that the following statement can never be true for any X: an omnipotent being cannot do X.
And now, watch this:
| Nameless wrote: | | ... if the omnipotent being weren't omnipotent then it couldn't turn itself omnipotent... |
See?
In point of fact, an omnipotent being can make itself go from limited potency to omnipotency. Don't ask me how - if i knew (for example, if i were omniscient), i could make myself omnipotent. Despite your mocking, it doesn't necessarily have to involve magic (although, why rule it out?). As ocalhoun suggests, maybe it's just a matter of non-linear time. Who knows? The point is that any statement of the form "an omnipotent being cannot do X" must be false, so - somehow - an omnipotent being must be able to make itself go from non-omnipotent to omnipotent, whether by retroactive magic or some other trickery our limited minds are unable to grasp (but an omniscient mind, of course, could grasp).
Yes, it defies common sense. Welcome to the world of infinity.
Natter about the exact origins implications of 'common sense' notwithstanding, Indi, your "500 pound gorilla" statement was hand-waving rhetoric rather than an actual counterargument. (see also: "you've failed before you even started. ") Neither does the spiel about mathematicians only recently working with infinity actually have any relevance to the original argument; they do now, it is entirely possible, so what's your point?
Side note: I wasn't aware there WAS any confusion surrounding 0.99 reoccurring, at least among mathematicians. There might be confusion among random ignorant guy on the street about it, but that's true of pretty much everything.
The rest of your post is based on a misinterpreted quote, although that's probably my fault. Read the line as: "... if the said being wasn't already or had never been omnipotent then it couldn't turn itself omnipotent ..."
Err...after interjecting once, I can't let this go unanswered.
Your point was that mathematicians had been dealing with infinity for 'ages'. The point is wrong - as Indi pointed out. Infinity is a relatively new concept in maths (at least in any rigorous manner). Georg Cantor is the goto man on this. The wider point also still stands - just because a concept proves useful in maths does not mean it has some independent existence outside maths.
| Nameless wrote: | | Natter about the exact origins implications of 'common sense' notwithstanding, Indi, your "500 pound gorilla" statement was hand-waving rhetoric rather than an actual counterargument. (see also: "you've failed before you even started. ") Neither does the spiel about mathematicians only recently working with infinity actually have any relevance to the original argument; they do now, it is entirely possible, so what's your point? |
No, actually, it was quite clearly worded counterargument to your false statements about common-sense, mathematics and infinity. If you don't like "nattering", the only advice i can give is to not say anything that is wrong and needs correcting. The easiest way to do that is to make sure that what you're saying is right before you say it, rather than forcing people like me to correct it.
But if you really need me to distill the point i was making, sure:
You were wrong. Your statements were incorrect.
Details of exactly why, and corrections, can by found in my "nattering" if all that reading isn't too much for you.
Clear now?
As for why it was relevant to "natter" at all: it was necessary to clear up your confusion and ignorance before moving onto correct facts.
| Nameless wrote: | | Side note: I wasn't aware there WAS any confusion surrounding 0.99 reoccurring, at least among mathematicians. There might be confusion among random ignorant guy on the street about it, but that's true of pretty much everything. |
Side note: Yeah? Way to cherry pick and go after straw men. What about the second problem i mentioned, hmm? What about the Monty Hall problem, which is famous for tripping up PhDs in mathematics?
My point stands. Common sense does not work as well as you seem to think it does. And if you are continuing to use it, you will continue to fail to understand the problem. Trying to understand infinity in finite terms has literally driven people insane. i would advise you to stop trying, and instead try to understand infinity on its own terms.
| Nameless wrote: | | The rest of your post is based on a misinterpreted quote, although that's probably my fault. Read the line as: "... if the said being wasn't already or had never been omnipotent then it couldn't turn itself omnipotent ..." |
No, i didn't misinterpret your quote. You misinterpreted the response. Since you didn't get my last attempt to explain the solution - calling it "hand-waving rhetoric" i'll try again, but i don't know how much more i can dumb it down. It's not an easy thing to grasp, and it is especially hard to grasp if you're going to continue to cling to your "common sense" intuitions.
Firstly, let me point out that your suggested re-reading is utterly irrelevant. What you are trying to do is understand infinities in terms of non-infinities. It won't work. You'll probably write that off as more "hand-waving rhetoric", but i don't know how much clearer i can make that; it just won't work. When mathematicians finally formalized infinities, they did not do so in terms of finite sets... they defined infinities in terms of infinities.
So i'm going to try and do this step by step, using mathematical terms, because that's what you seem to be most comfortable with. Let's start with the definition of omnipotence. Let A be the set of all abilities. Everything. Every single "is able to X", for all Xs. Let O_A be the set of abilities an omnipotent being has. By definition O_can = A. That's what omnipotence means. Let O_cant be the set of things an omnipotent being cannot do, so O_cant = A ⊖ O_can. But since O_can = A, O_cant = ∅. So far, all of this should make perfect sense. An omnipotent being can do anything. The set of things that an omnipotent being can't do is null.
And i know you're screaming that i've missed your point yet again, but have patience.
Now, if omnipotence was impossible, then there will be some things in A that are utterly impossible. That means that if you take the union of the set of abilities of all creatures in the universe, past, present and future - call it E_can - E_can will not equal A. The set of things that no creature - ever - can do, E_cant, would not be ∅. One of the things in E_cant would be "make yourself omnipotent".
But now bring omnipotence into the equation. This is why omnipotence is the ultimate 500 pound gorilla. Because if you include an omnipotent being into the mix, E_can does equal A. And E_cant does equal ∅. They must, or you have an inconsistency. That is why omnipotence is such a game breaker; once you introduce omnipotence... you make everything possible.
Now, with the foundation built, it's time to directly address your claim.
What we've got so far tells us two things: that an omnipotent being can make itself omnipotent if it wasn't already omnipotent... and that it is possible for a non-omnipotent being to make themselves omnipotent. It must be possible, because it is in the set of things that an omnipotent being can do. So when you try and argue that "maybe a non-omnipotent being cannot make themselves omnipotent", my response is that if omnipotence exists, then your assertion cannot be true. Forget your common sense and look at the math. If omnipotence exists, then {make yourself omnipotent after you've made yourself non-omnipotent} must be in the set of things it can do (because the set of things it can't do is empty), so it must be possible for a non-omnipotent being to make themselves omnipotent.
And there's your answer. It defies common sense, i know, but we're dealing with infinities.
If omnipotence exists at all, then it must be possible for a non-omnipotent being to make themselves spontaneously omnipotent. (In fact, if omnipotence exists at all, then that means that anything must be possible; there's nothing special about this particular ability except that it's warping your mind trying to understand it. But think about it: suppose someone said it was impossible to turn a fish into a donkey; if an omnipotent being exists that person must be wrong, because the omnipotent being must be able to do it... or they wouldn't be omnipotent. The only thing bothering you about this particular ability is its self-referential nature... which doesn't (and can't) make it a problem for the omnipotent being at all.)
In summary, since there is no X for which the statement "an omnipotent being can't X" is true, then X = "turn themselves non-omnipotent then regain their omnipotence" must be possible... which means it must be possible for a non-omnipotent being to make themselves spontaneously omnipotent. Which means your "fixed" line is irrelevant... and wrong.
And, since it is possible for someone to gain omnipotence spontaneously, an omniscient being must know how to do it. And they must know how to spontaneously become able to do it. And they must know how to spontaneously become able to spontaneously be able to do it. And... so on, for infinity.
Conclusion: if omnipotence exists, then the ability of a non-omnipotent being to become omnipotent spontaneously is possible (or "flicking their omnipotence off then back on" would be something an omnipotent being cannot do, which is a contradiction, since an omnipotent being by definition can do anything). And if the ability is possible, an omniscient being will know how to accomplish it. Therefore, if omnipotence exists, an omniscient being can spontaneously make themselves omnipotent.
I never thought I would use this phrase in complete seriousness, but here we go: tl;dr. Still disagree with some of your base logic, but this discussion is clearly not getting anywhere.
I think it is rather rude to assert an error in logic after admitting you didn't read the posting. As far as I can see your points were addressed and refuted. Certainly the mathematical logic Indi uses seems robust to me - I can spot no error and I have a basic grounding in set theory.
If you are aware of a specific error in logic then you should point it out so we can test the assertion.
In my defence, I totally glanced over that post.
Okay, technically it's a couple of the base definitions or claims that I disagree with, not the logic per se, but I do not have the personal motivation to match that level of verbosity in repeating them. OH WELL, them's the breaks when arguing with a newbie to the internet philosophical debate forum.
Actually, WAIT. Change of plan. I just thought of a fairly succinct demonstration that I haven't used yet!
~
Scenario. Two gods exist. God A is omniscient, God B is omnipotent. God A knows all things, God B can do all things. God B could turn an entity omnipotent. God B could turn an entity mortal (non-omnipotent). God B could turn himself mortal and then resume omnipotence.
Question. Is turning yourself mortal and then resuming omnipotence one thing, or two separate things?
If it's two things ('turn an entity mortal' and 'turn an entity omnipotent'): God B turns himself mortal as one thing. God B is then unable to turn himself omnipotent, as he is no longer omnipotent. However, as he was able to do both things while omnipotent, his previous omnipotence remained valid. God A knows how God B would do either thing, but is unable to 'turn an entity omnipotent' as it requires omnipotence.
If it's one thing ('turn an entity mortal and have them turn omnipotent'): God B turns himself mortal and later resumes omnipotence as one thing. God A knows how God B did this one thing, but is unable to do so himself as the sequence requires omnipotence to begin.
Category error.
Either God A (or B) IS omnipotent or not.
If God B can make himself mortal, it is, by definition, no longer omnipotent and therefore has no way to become so again. I don't understand what you mean by | Quote: | | However, as he was able to do both things while omnipotent, his previous omnipotence remained valid. |
Both things? What things? It is ALREADY omnipotent so it need do nothing to remain so. If it renders itself non-omnipotent then there is no reason to suppose it could then reverse that.
But it gets worse - as I'm sure Indi will show (since I'm butting in here, I'll leave the more devastating refutation to Indi).
What happened to Dilbert?
| Nameless wrote: | ...God A knows how God B would do either thing, but is unable to 'turn an entity omnipotent' as it requires omnipotence...
...God A knows how God B did this one thing, but is unable to do so himself as the sequence requires omnipotence to begin. |
I think the point is that omnipotence is hardly any different from omniscience (I'd even say omnipotence = omniscience) since an omniscient being knows how to spontaneously turn an entity omnipotent, including itself.
i.e. An omniscient being must know how to become omnipotent, say, by using just a paper clip (if it chooses to use a tool), and so on and so forth- the same thing can be applied to a strand of hair, a grain of sand, a shred of paper, etc.
But it wouldn't need a tool either, since it must know how to become omnipotent without any effort at all.
I suspect you think of omniscience in the lines of knowing how to accomplish a goal only in a certain way (let that 'certain way' be X), and that it's possible the omniscient being isn't capable of doing X. But omniscience actually means knowing how to accomplish a goal in every way possible- from the most difficult to the simplest way.
| Nameless wrote: |
Still disagree with some of your base logic, but this discussion is clearly not getting anywhere.
|
The "logic" is yet another self appointed message board philosopher (who has become so successful in this field after decades of study and experience that he is finding time and credence for message-board philosophizing to prove it) espousing to have any flimsy grasp on logic whatsoever; being that our very finest human minds cannot fathom the infinite absolution of 100% itself even, let alone the imagined fallibility of perceived omnipotence. For example, while his post was completely useless, it did serve as a perfect instance of a bad example of how not to post. That is the paradox of being completely useless. The broken clock telling the correct time twice a day, etc. These two times seem to coincide precisely with the obligatory cheer-leading post about "grounding in set theory", being that - It doesn't matter what garbage you type, just whose embittered, dishonest demeanor it agrees with.
ROFLMAO,
this from someone who copies a passage from wiki, changes it to hide the plagiarism, and understands so little of what he has copied that he doesn't realise it is now meaningless.
Lessons on logic from an idiot. Lectures on dishonesty from a thief.
| Quote: | | espousing to have any flimsy grasp on logic whatsoever; |
Semi-literate dribbling. One does not 'espouse TO' anything.
| Quote: | | being that our very finest human minds cannot fathom the infinite absolution of 100% itself even |
More meaningless dribbling. Clearly the author believes 'absolution' means something other than its actual meaning, but even if it did mean 'absolute' (which it doesn't) the sentence would still be meaningless.
| Quote: | | it did serve as a perfect instance of a bad example of how not to post. |
Not entirely meaningless (though needlessly convoluted) - it actually means something totally different to what the author obviously intended - 'a good example of how not to post'. (The addition of 'perfect instance' indicates someone trying to appear clever and failing rather dismally).
| Dialogist wrote: | | Nameless wrote: |
Still disagree with some of your base logic, but this discussion is clearly not getting anywhere.
|
The "logic" is yet another self appointed message board philosopher (who has become so successful in this field after decades of study and experience that he is finding time and credence for message-board philosophizing to prove it) espousing to have any flimsy grasp on logic whatsoever; being that our very finest human minds cannot fathom the infinite absolution of 100% itself even, let alone the imagined fallibility of perceived omnipotence. For example, while his post was completely useless, it did serve as a perfect instance of a bad example of how not to post. That is the paradox of being completely useless. The broken clock telling the correct time twice a day, etc. These two times seem to coincide precisely with the obligatory cheer-leading post about "grounding in set theory", being that - It doesn't matter what garbage you type, just whose embittered, dishonest demeanor it agrees with. |
 Well said Dialogist . Although some of it is a bit beyond my capability of comprehension, you have a unique way of words - cheer-leading - right on. Bikerman in another thread mentioned something about being in the zone and that one cannot really get the "in the zone" when one is out of the "in the zone" zone. So ditto omnipotence for me. One could probably argue in the abstract, but never really get omnipotence, only the idea of omnipotence.
| Bikerman wrote: | | But it gets worse - as I'm sure Indi will show (since I'm butting in here, I'll leave the more devastating refutation to Indi). |
Nah, it's not worth my time. ^_^; Go nuts!
|
