Omnipotence as a Sum Process

ToothyMaw

This is my take on the unliftable rock contradiction mentioned so much.

Bartricks breaks down the problem pretty well and I find her argument compelling on its face: god must be able to divest themselves of their omnipotence by making an unliftable rock to be actually omnipotent. Put formally by Bartricks:

1. If a person is omnipotent, they are able to do anything.
2. If a person cannot divest themselves of some power, they are unable to do something.
3. Therefore, if a person is omnipotent they are able to divest themselves of some power.

To this I ask: do we view the act of divestment in two discrete spans of time - the span of time in which god is omnipotent and the span in which god has divested themselves of their omnipotence by creating the unliftable rock, or do we view it as a process spanning the sum of those two spans of time as they reflect a past and a possible future? If the latter, then I think there is a contradiction.

I say this because omnipotence likely transcends time and different futures; god must have virtually unlimited authority or influence in different possible worlds to be actually omnipotent.

Example: surely an omnipotent god would have to be able to, say, make you get smited by a bolt of lightning in a possible future as well as the present to be omnipotent?

I would say yes according to the common definition: having virtually unlimited authority or influence. Even according to more obscure definitions there is no stipulation that god’s power is restrained by time. So it seems to me that God cannot be omnipotent over the sum process described above if they divest themselves of their omnipotence.

You might say: omnipotence is a characteristic tied solely to god’s nature, not immutable, and not the actual ability to have unrestrained influence/authority/power over everything in different possible worlds, including themselves; but then you must admit that god stops being god if god does make the unliftable rock and divests themselves of their omnipotence as a characteristic, because it then means god loses that characteristic insofar as it defines God, without respect to god’s ability to have unrestrained influence/authority/power over the things that are left to them after making the unliftable rock.

180 Proof

Excerpt of a recent post:

The most charitable definition of "omnipotence" I've found is this: the ability of (a) being to do anything that is not impossible, or self-contradictory, to do instantly (i.e. just by thinking) and / or which no other being can do. So "no", (an) "omnipotent" being cannot make something "too heavy" for it to move if that something is moveable; it can, however, instantly move (with a thought) anything which is moveable. — 180 Proof

god must be atheist

↪180 Proof

is it possible to make something move? Yes. Is it possible to make something big? Yes. Can it make something so big that no other being can move it? Yes. Can it make it so big that God himself can't move it? No./Yes.
This is not a self-contradiction, it is a contradiction that presents a challenge of creation vs actualizing.

"I'm lying right now" is a self-contradictory statement. We can't ask God to say if this is true or false.

But with no self-contradiction, we can ask if a statement is true or false. And we expect an answer of yes or no, true or false.

In the irresistable force / immovable object example, each question can be answered with a "yes" or "no", or else with a "true" or "false". None of the tasks presented is unimaginable. All of the tasks presented can be answered.

Therefore I claim that the example does not violate

the ability of (a) being to do anything that is not impossible, or self-contradictory, to do instantly (i.e. just by thinking) and / or which no other being can do. — 180 Proof

Moving a stone is not impossible. Creating a stone is not impossible. Not being able to move a stone is not impossible. There is no self-contradiction anywhere; the denial of the possibility of omnipotence is not self-contradictory. It is a straightforward proposition. Its main thrust is that omnipotence can only exist if omnipotence does not exist. Therefore the NOTION of omnipotence, the meaning of it, is what is impossible, because it and by itself is a self-contradictory concept..

god must be atheist

So "no", (an) "omnipotent" being cannot make something "too heavy" for it to move if that something is moveable; it can, however, instantly move (with a thought) anything which is moveable — 180 Proof

You forget that it is the same authority, being, or god, that CREATES that stone. You are not mentioning creation in your example and argument. That is a violation, since the CREATION of the stone is also done by an omnipotent being.

Agent Smith

I want to bounce this off of you guys & gals.

Suppose I can't lift a stone weighing 30 kg.

So, I take a sledegehammer and break this stone into 3 pieces, each weighing 10 kg.

I now lift each of the 10 kg pieces one by one. I can manage 10 kg.

Question: Did I lift the original stone weighing 30 kg?

Agent Smith

Why is omnilogical not a God attribute?

Perhaps if it is, there really would be no way tell the difference between God and a supercomputer (super AI?), programmed to be always and perfectly logical.

unenlightened

I imagine God the programmer. In the beginning, God wrote the program of the world, and Ran it for a day, and was dissatisfied, So She halted the program and adjusted the parameters, and ran it again. And the morning and the evening were the 2nd day. [...] And on the 7th day, She just let it run.

This God is omnipotent in relation to Her creation, but not necessarily in relation to Her own being. She might even create an avatar, and give it super-powers and intervene in the world, appearing as a wise prophet and miracle-worker.

But to imagine that our piles of words, even most logically arranged, can oblige God to be like this or like that is magical thinking.

T Clark

↪180 Proof

Whenever I come across the old omnipotent God/immovable object argument I always want to ask "In a fight between Superman and Santa Claus, who would win." Your response is better.

ToothyMaw

Excerpt of a recent post:
The most charitable definition of "omnipotence" I've found is this: the ability of (a) being to do anything that is not impossible, or self-contradictory, to do instantly (i.e. just by thinking) and / or which no other being can do. So "no", (an) "omnipotent" being cannot make something "too heavy" for it to move if that something is moveable; it can, however, instantly move (with a thought) anything which is moveable.
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

Your definition is far more narrow than any definition of omnipotence I've seen. And while it might be convenient for your argument, the fact remains that if we go by the common definition - virtually unrestrained power of influence, as tied to God's nature - God should be able to do anything, including divesting themselves of their own omnipotence, or any of their other characteristics. No longer being omnipotent does not necessarily mean that god could never have been omnipotent.

I mean, why isn't it possible for God to make a rock too heavy to lift it and divest themselves of their omnipotence? That's the claim you're making, and you need to back it up. I backed up such an argument in the OP and no one has addressed it directly. Bartricks was right about this one (almost).

You forget that it is the same authority, being, or god, that CREATES that stone. You are not mentioning creation in your example and argument. That is a violation, since the CREATION of the stone is also done by an omnipotent being. — god must be atheist

Exactly.

↪T Clark

But this actually matters sort of - at least to philosophers of religion.

ToothyMaw

to imagine that our piles of words, even most logically arranged, can oblige God to be like this or like that is magical thinking. — unenlightened

Not when our piles of words reflect the nature of reality - which they often do. You could say the equations reflecting the motion of a projectile moving through space do not oblige said projectile to follow a parabolic path, but they do express a consistent pattern regardless.

ToothyMaw

↪180 Proof

While I'm at it, why do you always have to quote yourself from other threads? Why not actually engage with the OP? Is it even fun to copy paste yourself?

T Clark

Your definition is far more narrow than any definition of omnipotence I've seen. — ToothyMaw

Seems like a pretty good definition to me. Anyway, it doesn't matter what you think or what @180 Proof thinks the right definition is.

But this actually matters sort of - at least to philosophers of religion. — ToothyMaw

That just shows how silly philosophers can be - trying to trick God into a contradiction rather than worshiping him.

EugeneW

Gods made us, the world, and all creatures in the image of their world. Which means they are not omnipotent because no creature is. They have an extra power. The power of creation.

ToothyMaw

That just shows how silly philosophers can be - trying to trick God into a contradiction rather than worshiping him. — T Clark

I would say most philosophers of religion spend their time trying to fix the plethora of contradictions associated with the idea of an omnibenevolent/omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient god.

If you are referring to me, however, I am flattered.

ToothyMaw

↪EugeneW

I don't really understand. God created us in the image of the world? Could you elaborate on what you mean?

T Clark

If you are referring to me, however, I am flattered. — ToothyMaw

I was referring to the argument, not you.

EugeneW

↪ToothyMaw

The gods live in a similar world as ours. With animals, mountains, stars and seas. An eternal world which they (re)created. If we can't lift huge stones, they can't. Being omnipotent is being omni-impotent, for what should you do with infinite possibilities? They are bound just like us. The difference being that they have the power of creation. Which they used to create the universe.

ToothyMaw

↪T Clark

I meant the "silly philosophers" bit, not what you said about the argument. I would be flattered to be considered even a "silly" or misguided philosopher. That's what I was saying.

180 Proof

↪ToothyMaw

I prefer rational speculation (i.e. philosophy) to mere magical thinking (e.g. "common definition of omnipotence").
.

↪ToothyMaw

Why are there so damn many repeated OP-topics??? When I quote from my old posts it's because I've already engaged the topic multiple times before. Why don't you (and others) use the forum's search function before starting a thread on a topic which has been done to death – or at least come up with new and interesting ways of beating a dead horse? Is it laziness or lack of imagination? Probably both. :roll:

ToothyMaw

↪180 Proof

There is a common definition of omnipotence and more narrow ones. What makes yours superior to any other? It seems to me you are bereft of the capability to engage in anything even resembling honest debate or actual engagement with ideas, preferring to skirt around it with sophistry and bizarre comment formats.

Look - no one likes Bartricks or the idea of God on the forums, but you shouldn't deny that some arguments are cogent on the grounds of a cherrypicked definition.

ToothyMaw

↪180 Proof

I read the thread in which you made that comment, and I made a novel argument in this one. How about actually reading it and engaging with it?

180 Proof

That just shows how silly philosophers can be - trying to trick God into a contradiction rather than worshiping him. — T Clark

Every theistic conception of "God" I'm familiar with, TC, is "a contradiction" personified, which is why "God" can only be "worshipped" and/or misunderstood. After all, "God" is an anxiety (i.e. placebo-fetish), not an entity (i.e. "invisible friend"). :gasp:

There is a common definition of omnipotence and more narrow ones. What makes yours superior to any other? — ToothyMaw

:chin: I can't say it any clearer than I already have on this thread:

↪ToothyMaw I prefer rational speculation (i.e. philosophy) to mere magical thinking (e.g. "common definition of omnipotence"). — 180 Proof

↪ToothyMaw

I've engaged your "argument", TM, by providing a rationally speculative alternative. You're free to engage the alternative, of course, or not to engage it and carry on with the old time – not novel at all – sophistry you propose. :confused:

Tom Storm

Excerpt of a recent post:
The most charitable definition of "omnipotence" I've found is this: the ability of (a) being to do anything that is not impossible, or self-contradictory, to do instantly (i.e. just by thinking) and / or which no other being can do. So "no", (an) "omnipotent" being cannot make something "too heavy" for it to move if that something is moveable; it can, however, instantly move (with a thought) anything which is moveable.
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

I think this nails it.

T Clark

"God" is an anxiety (i.e. placebo-fetish), not an entity (i.e. "invisible friend"). :gasp: — 180 Proof

I don't consider your opinions about religious believers' beliefs or psychological motivations credible. You're just too biased.

ToothyMaw

↪180 Proof

The more common definition of omnipotence is magical thinking? What? The one I provide is coherent. And even according to your own, the formal argument in the OP still stands. And what about this:

You forget that it is the same authority, being, or god, that CREATES that stone. You are not mentioning creation in your example and argument. That is a violation, since the CREATION of the stone is also done by an omnipotent being. — god must be atheist

Do you have a response to that?

EricH

↪ToothyMaw

I could be mistaken, but as I see it the core concept behind @Bartricks' definition of omnipotence is that God is not bound by the Law of Noncontradiction (LNC).

So God can create a 4 sided triangle.

ToothyMaw

↪Tom Storm

It doesn't, because if God cannot divest themselves of their omnipotence, they are not truly omnipotent. Unless it is impossible for god to do so? But why would it be impossible? No one is addressing that.

180 Proof

↪ToothyMaw

Big whup.

↪ToothyMaw

"Omnipotence" does not entail 'doing what's logically impossible to do'; that's an ad hoc, arbitrary assumption – magical fiat. :sparkle:

T Clark

Why are there so many repeated OP-topics... Why don't you (and others) use the forum's search function before starting a thread on a topic which has been done to death — 180 Proof

Come on, 180, if we didn't repeat threads ad nauseum, we'd have nothing to talk about. I once counted six threads about free will active at the same time. It's the same as it ever was. It would be nice if people waited a couple of weeks between copycat threads, but don't hold your breath.

ToothyMaw

↪EricH

Bartricks makes the argument that the unliftable rock isn't a contradiction because God being able to divest himself of his omnipotence does not contradict the fact that he is - or once was - omnipotent. If he made the rock he would just cease to be omnipotent. Its that simple. You might point out that at that point god wouldn't be able to lift the rock, but that doesn't matter; no one is claiming he is still omnipotent.

That's my understanding of it.

ToothyMaw

↪EricH

But he makes that argument too, yes.

Omnipotence as a Sum Process

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions