I now find these definitions to be at best misleading and at worst incoherent; there's a paradox between the two.
Agent X is omnipotent and omniscient
Agent X uses omniscience to make a prediction
Agent X uses omnipotence to obviate the accuracy of its prediction
Conclusion:
Agent X is not capable of using omniscience to make reliable predictions if its omnipotence can interfere?
The more something is free to be omnipotent, the less free it is to be omniscient (maximum omniscience is not rigid or necessarily coherent unless you can predict your own future decisions)
-----
Agent X is omnipotent and omniscient
Agent X is capable of using omnipotence to take action Y
Agent X uses omniscience to predict that it will not take action Y
Conclusion:
Agent X is not capable of taking action Y?
The more agent X wishes to be omniscient, the less it can interact with the world, and if agent X can predict its own future decisions; in a sense it is not free to do anything other than what it is destined to do, and cannot alter its own course.
We don't know what a list of "all that is doable" would look like.
we don't know how long it would be
Can the almighty do all the things I can do, like brush my own teeth? But wouldn't it have to actually be me?
(1) Things exist = ✔
(2) Everything that exists, does so only in existence= ✘ (tautology)
(3) We are fully dependent on the existence of things = ✔
(4) All minds are limited by things that exist = ✘ (redundant: contained in (3) )
(5) Givenfour(3), anything that is either rational/comprehensible/understandable could exist. = ✘
(this does not follow from(four)3; what does and does not exist is a matter of fact, what can and cannot exist is a matter of fact, but what could possibly exist is a matter of perspective (of probability from limited information; sometimes we imagine comprehensible things that could exist but later discover they do not and cannot exist).
(6) Omnipotence and omniscience, are rational concepts that we have an understanding of = ✘
(questionable assumption: how can we possibly understand omniscience other than as an arbitrarily large amount of information?)
(6.1)So Existence must accommodate these concepts. To deny this is to commit to the paradox of something coming from nothing. = ✘ (falls apart without (5) and (6) )
Therefore, either:
6a) The potential is there for something to become omnipotent and omniscient, or 6b) Something is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient = ✘
(falls apart if we can imagine things which cannot exist, especially when we suppose comprehension where there is none)
(7) Only everything that exists can be omnipresent and can be almighty/omnipotent and all-knowing/omniscient because the semantics of omnipotence are not satisfied if you don't have reach or access to everything that exists. Similarly, you can't be all-knowing if you don't have reach or access to everything that exists = .✔
(this is fair enough, but now it seems we're left with two possibilities: everything that exists is either a thinking thing (a whole which thinks and perceives itself perfectly, somehow), or it is a not a thinking thing and nothing is actually omniscient or omnipotent, and to satisfy omnipresence we merely sum every thing that exists).
(8) Given 7, 6a must be false as nothing can become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state as nothing can substitute Existence. So the potential for something to become omnipresent is not there which entails that the potential for something to become omnipotent or omniscient is also not there. = ✘
(just because you cannot imagine something doesn't make it impossible. You need to rationally exclude the possibility with reason or evidence. I cannot rationalize imagine god but I don't say it's impossible. The unstated third option (6c) is that nothing is omnipotent or omniscient.)
(9) Given that 6a is false and that the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are not absurd, it follows that 6b is true. = ✘ (systematically incorrect or presumptuous, see above)
(10) Only everything that exists can be almighty and all knowing. = ✘ (redundant, contained in (7) )
(11) Given 5-10, everything that exists is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient. ✘ = it might also not be omnipotent and omniscient (or a thinking thing).
True.what does and does not exist is a matter of fact,
what can and cannot exist is a matter of fact, but what could possibly exist is a matter of perspective (of probability from limited information; sometimes we imagine comprehensible things that could exist but later discover they do not and cannot exist).
questionable assumption: how can we possibly understand omniscience other than as an arbitrarily large amount of information?)
(falls apart if we can imagine things which cannot exist, especially when we suppose comprehension where there is none)
(7) Only everything that exists can be omnipresent and can be almighty/omnipotent and all-knowing/omniscient because the semantics of omnipotence are not satisfied if you don't have reach or access to everything that exists. Similarly, you can't be all-knowing if you don't have reach or access to everything that exists = .✔
(this is fair enough, but now it seems we're left with two possibilities: everything that exists is either a thinking thing (a whole which thinks and perceives itself perfectly, somehow), or it is a not a thinking thing and nothing is actually omniscient or omnipotent, and to satisfy omnipresence we merely sum every thing that exists).
The problem of omniscience and omnipotence is that when we suppose they are infinite extremes, one limits the other. (if omniscient and omnipotent agent X knows absolutely what will happen in the future, then X is powerless to change the future; if agent X has the power to subvert its own predictions using omnipotence, then it knows nothing with certainty).
Both the person's thinking and the personal existence dependent upon the occurrence of the person's thinking are CONTINGENT because both can cease to occur. This is NOT paradoxical!! — Charles Ferraro
in fact, thinking is, in a sense, a non-thing, a non-entity which is best defined as an activity that is always oriented toward that which it distinguishes from itself and which it recognizes to be precisely not itself. Thinking is an activity (not a something, an item of thought, or a hypothetical possibility) that can cease to occur. Death is when a person's thinking ceases to occur. — Charles Ferraro
I am not sure what an omnipresent entity is. But from the point of view of the individual person, I suppose his/her personal consciousness could be called omnipresent; though I would hesitate to characterize it as an entity. — Charles Ferraro
Also, how would you characterize the "has an end but no beginning" option? — charles ferraro
How about the finite exhibiting the temporal dimensions of past, present, and future; whereas, the infinite is unlimited in the sense of being devoid of, or beyond, such temporal dimensions; infinity as timelessness? — charles ferraro
But descriptions of certain forms of mental illness clearly demonstrate that it is possible for persons to have sensory delusion(s) that are meaningful to them, but which do not exist. — charles ferraro
To me, this would be paradoxical, since it would conflict with such a deity's Infinite Benevolence, would it not? — charles ferraro
In other words, you can entertain an infinite number of simple, or complex, arguments for claiming that a truly Infinite Entity may exist, and it may very well exist, but human beings, by their very nature, are perpetually excluded from having a PERSONAL EXPERIENCE of that entity. — charles ferraro
Descartes’ argument that we cannot have an idea of a supremely perfect being without there actually being a supremely perfect being — Philosopher19
So, then, I have enjoyed very much interacting with you, but I will end our discourse by also agreeing that we will have to respectfully disagree.
Stay well!! — charles ferraro
This is clearly false. I can think of a unicorn; and it clearly does not manifest its existence. — god must be atheist
B may exist, or may not. Its independence is completely removed from being a function of my thoughts or imagination. — god must be atheist
If B existed BECAUSE A thought of it, there would be no god before creation. God exists in human thought; no human existed before the sixth day of the creation. — god must be atheist
I am sorry, philosopher, I have to run with what charles ferraro Proposed to you: respectfully tell you that we can't agree on several elements of what constitutes logical thinking. On this topic all future discourse would be futile. — god must be atheist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.