Saying god cannot do what is logically impossible is not putting a restriction on his omnipotence. — Banno

Yes it is.

If it is restricting anything, it is restricting language. — Banno

No it isn't.

This comes back to your "Can we dispense with necessity?" thread. You showed there that you have not read much about modal logic. You are just a bit confused. — Banno

No, I'm not at all confused. I think necessity does not exist, so what could I learn from people who just take for granted that it does? That would be like telling someone who's made an argument for atheism "oh, why don't you just go to church and learn a thing or two about the bible before becoming an atheist?"

It's good to see you thinking about this stuff; it would be good to also see you learning a bit about it. — Banno

Thanks Pops. Wise as ever.

↪Athena It seems we agree - I don't know by how much. But I view science as valid knowledge of reality/Creation. I don't know if God exists - but if he does, understanding the Creation in which we are placed, and acting according to true knowledge of Creation is surely the path to God, for reality is, in effect - God's word made manifest. And worse case scenario - we'd make the world into a paradise and secure a prosperous sustainable future! — counterpunch

I like the word logos better than the word God. God implies a personality like Zues, or the jealous, revengeful, fearsome, and punishing God of the Bible. I do not believe such a god exists. However, there is universal order. I will use the word God when referring to universal order/logos because that is the word others use when speaking of the ultimate power.

However, logos can only do what is possible. Logos can not do what is impossible. I guess what god can do depends on if we are speaking reality or fantasy.

er, no. If you can do anything, you can do anything. — Bartricks

There is no human nor god that can break the laws of the universe.

There is no human nor god that can break the laws of the universe. — Athena

*tsk tsk*
In standard monotheism, the laws of the universe don't precede God.

I think necessity does not exist, — Bartricks

We'll just wait until your next toothache.

I prefer the words reality and science. Any implication to God is pure speculation. But if reality is Created, it follows that science is the word of God. Or logos!

In standard monotheism, the laws of the universe don't precede God. — baker

Do you mean I have to believe something that is unbelievable because that is what people who deify Jesus have done?

Well, you can make up your own religion; or, if you're going to discuss religion, work with the claims that a particular religion actually makes.

↪Athena I prefer the words reality and science. Any implication to God is pure speculation. But if reality is Created, it follows that science is the word of God. Or logos! — counterpunch

Almost but I am not comfortable with the notion that humans can know the word of God. We discover universal laws but the words we use to explain those laws are our own and our understanding will remain incomplete.

I think it is so important that in the beginning of the God of Abraham was a concept of an unknown god, beyond our comprehension. But in our humanness, we wanted a knowable, personal god. The result was deifying Jesus. Jesus was tailor-made for us and the jealous, revengeful war god became a personal, forgiving, and loving god. :heart:

But I lived in the sierra mountain range where heavy snow makes survival a challenge, and I know mother nature does not care if we live or die. She is not personal. She is just busy doing her own thing and what we do with our free will is up to us. Fortunately, we come with pretty good survival instincts but that is not always enough. Figuring out how to survive and evolving this into scientific knowledge is something only humans can do, giving them godlike powers. :wink:

Well, you can make up your own religion; or, if you're going to discuss religion, work with the claims that a particular religion actually makes. — baker

:rofl: Thank you for a good laugh. I am doing my best to work with the God of Abraham mythology. Perhaps the question of what a god can do should not be asked if a person can not argue that a god can not violate universal laws nor the will of man. Considering we are dealing with a pandemic and global climate change that is leading to extinctions, we might be interested in how things work. Sacrificing animals, saying prayers, and burning candles will not make things better. A god is not going to save our sorry asses and give us another planet like earth so we can destroy that one too. We need science to do better.

Omnipotence = being able to do all that is doable. It does not mean being able to do that which is not doable. That's like saying Omniscience involves being able to know that which is not knowable (like what a round square or gsjiogjsi is)

If x is a hypothetical possibility, then God can bring it about. There are no hypothetical possibilities that God cannot bring about. If there was, then by definition, God wouldn't be Omnipotent (being able to do all that is doable).

If interested in dealing with paradoxes with regards to God's Attributes, consider the following:

https://philosophyneedsgod.wordpress.com/why-it-is-absurd-for-existences-gods-attributes-to-be-paradoxical-absurd/

Skip the first two paragraphs to go straight into Omnipotence.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” ( John 1:1 )

The implication of these two passages together, seems to be that the Word, the Creator and the Creation are inseparable - and consequently, it would have been open to the Church to accept Galileo's "hypo-deductive methodology" (scientific method) as the means to discern the word of God made manifest in Creation.

Had they done so, a scientific understanding of reality would have been pursued, and had the moral authority of God's word. Technology would have been applied in accord with a scientifically valid understanding of reality, and we would have made a paradise of the world.

Instead, science was decried as a heresy, even while technology was used to drive the industrial revolution. So science and technology was applied for military and industrial power and profit - with no regard to a scientific understanding of reality. We applied the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons, and are now barrelling toward extinction.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” ( John 1:1 )

The implication of these two passages together, seems to be that the Word, the Creator and the Creation are inseparable - and consequently, it would have been open to the Church to accept Galileo's "hypo-deductive methodology" (scientific method) as the means to discern the word of God made manifest in Creation.

Had they done so, a scientific understanding of reality would have been pursued, and had the moral authority of God's word. Technology would have been applied in accord with a scientifically valid understanding of reality, and we would have made a paradise of the world.

Instead, science was decried as a heresy, even while technology was used to drive the industrial revolution. So science and technology was applied for military and industrial power and profit - with no regard to a scientific understanding of reality. We applied the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons, and are now barrelling toward extinction. — counterpunch

I love what you said. :clap:

Here is the crux to the problem. Maybe if in Galileo's day the Church had embraced his vision of reality history would have been dramatically different, but it is the protestants who developed technology and industry and they embrace science, as you said the church should have embraced science, until everyone realized the conflicts between science and religious mythology and then it was science that had to be closed out of our consciousness and this continues to this day. There was also a huge moral conflict with Prostestism. Peasants supported the great wealth of industry and they died very young, making Protestantism less moral than Catholicism which prevented economic growth.

While Catholicism was economically bust and crushed the development of capitalism and independent entrepreneurship. The problem is with the beginning of the God of Abraham religions and the notion that God is in control and our birth determines our destiny. The Church supported the feudal system which is slavery because serfs are owned and we are lying to ourselves to believe it was not as bad as the slavery of people of color. We can not judge the past with today's consciousness because we can not not think of what we know today, but back in the day there was no concept of industry and capitalism, and Christianity did not lead us to science, but the pagan temples the Christians destroyed were places of math and science. The crusades slowly brought that ancient knowledge into the present, and the middle ages gave way to modernization.

Some argue the middle ages were not dark but they were very dark. Yes, there was technological progress but that is not science!! Scientific thinking had to wait for rediscovery of ancient Greek and Roman documents.

.

By 'God' I mean a person who is all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient) and all-good (omnibenevolent). I take it that possession of those properties is sufficient to make one God. I do not want to debate this, it is just to tell you what I mean by 'God'. — Bartricks

My issue with the idea of a god in the form of human is the human capacity cannot meet these demands: when we define a human we restrict our concept by the parameters of “presence” (the space occupied by the body), “Potency” (the minimum and maximum Possible energy used by the human to survive) and sentience ( the greatest degree to which knowledge/ information that can be held by the human MinD at any one time) none of which are “omni-“ anything. We can’t be everywhere instantaneously and therefore cannot experience all information or levels of power.

However interestingly if we replace “human” with “consciousness” than perhaps it can be those things. What if we said that consciousness is fundamental to the universe just as energy is... then it is everywhere, experiences all forms, and all levels of power and information. And importantly is firmly connected to the human mind in that the human mind is a piece of it - a part that can appreciate the whole... just not fully

Only a universe can know what it is like to be a universe.

Technology would have been applied in accord with a scientifically valid understanding of reality, and we would have made a paradise of the world. — counterpunch

Hmm with all the technological and scientific advancement possible I still don’t think this means ultimate paradise. The creator of such things (humans in this case) are still very obviously capable of using tech and science to bad ends (atomic bomb - the most selfish and destructive invention ever).

So in order to create paradise we must transfigure ourselves from mere human to something unrecognisably beyond human nature. Maybe this is truly possible given enough time but leave it to the humans to try to prevent it haha

We broadly agree. I applaud your knowledge. Do I detect a hint of Max Weber - the Protestant ethic and the spirit of Capitalism?

You're right, that after the fall of Rome in 410 AD, there was a rediscovery of Roman and Greek knowledge, but that was largely a consequence of the Crusades from around 1000 AD to 1250 AD.

Generally dated from 1300 to 1700, the Renaissance brought an end to the Dark Ages. And by the time Galileo wrote Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems - in 1632, the Renaissance was at its height.

It's true that the Church had supported the feudal system - but serfdom was effectively ended in Britain by 1500, and finally made illegal in 1574. It was not that much different across Europe.

The banking houses of Lisbon and Amsterdam, the spice trade with the East and the Silk Road belay the idea that commerce was forbidden. Rather, the Church had a prohibition against usury - that is, lending money. Jews had no such prohibitions, and that set the subsequent tone of Christian attitudes towards Jews. We borrowed money from them and weren't particularly gracious about paying it back.

The Protestant reformation began about 1500, and drove a great deal of European colonialism, particularly to the Americas. Which brings us back to Max Weber's classic. The Protestant ethic played out in the US, while wars of religion raged across Europe for hundreds of years.

Galileo wrote Dialogue in 1632 and was received by a Church challenged on multiple fronts; and Galileo - while incredibly smart, was not terribly smart about how he presented his findings. He put the position of the Church:

1 Chronicles 16:30: Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
Psalm 93:1: The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and armed with strength; indeed, the world is established, firm and secure.
Psalm 96:10: Say among the nations, “The LORD reigns.” The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.
Psalm 104:5:He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
Job 9:6: He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.
Psalm 75:3: When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm
1 Samuel 2:8: “For the foundations of the earth are the LORD’s; on them he has set the world.

...in the mouth of Simplicio - a pun in common Italian, on Simpleton. One could argue that Galileo made it impossible for the Church to accept his proof that the earth orbits the sun, particularly given all the other challenges they faced. But it was a mistake; and one that effectively divorced science as an understanding of reality from science as a tool - used for military and industrial power.

The point of all this is not to look back in anger, but rather - to understand the causes of the challenges we face, and so, understand how to secure the future. Our mistake is simply this; we used the tools but didn't read the instructions. We need to recognise that a scientific understanding of reality is an instruction manual for the application of technology.

I wondered how long it would be before the bibleos came along and started discussing the God of the bible rather than thinking for themselves.

This thread is about whether an all powerful being can do anything - which is a philosophical question that can't be settled by appeal to the bible or anything else.

I do not really understand what you're saying, but it smells false and beside the point.

Can there be a being who can do anything? Yes, although we need to be clear that doing anything means what it means - it means anything at all.

How can there be such a being? Well, there are laws of logic. These laws tell us that some things can't happen - such as that no true proposition can also be false. But that is our only basis for thinking that no true proposition is also false. Indeed, when it comes to any aspect of reality whatsoever, our only source of insight into it - that is, into whether it truly exists and what is possible in respect of it - is our reason, yes?

So, if those laws of logic - and the other edicts of Reason - were the edicts of a person, then that person would be all-powerful. That is, he'd be able to do anything at all, including things that he forbids. For if their being impossible is itself determined by his will, then they are not impossible for him.

Thus, there can be - and is - an all powerful being. And that being can do anything.

"God" cannot be necessary and have free will at the same time. This is intuitively obvious to me. If he is necessary than he can't do evil. Not because of a compatabilism theory but from necessity. Then his essential initial acts are necessary and not free. He would then no longer be fully free, but bound by his self. Therefore God cannot be necessary

Question begging and absurd, as I keep emphasizing.

Being able to do anything, doesn't mean 'able to do some things and not others'. It means being able to do anything. Make a square circle and then carrot it. Anything and everything.

Can God commit a fallacy? Yes. Can I? Yes. How absurd would it be for me to be able to do what God cannot? How could you, with a straight face, describe as 'all powerful' a being who couldn't do something I can do?

If you try and restrict God's abilities in anyway, then you are positing something over and above God that binds him. That's incompatible with him being God. That's incompatible with him being all powerful. You're positing some higher God, some higher power, that restricts God's movements. Again: that's conceptually confused, given that by God we mean someone who is 'all' powerful.

Also how can God, being all happy and perfect as they say he is, even do anything truly moral, good, and virtuous. Applying these questions to God are not inappropriate but instead insightful

I wondered how long it would be before the bibleos came along and started discussing the God of the bible rather than thinking for themselves. This thread is about whether an all powerful being can do anything - which is a philosophical question that can't be settled by appeal to the bible or anything else. — Bartricks

I thought we'd agreed that discussion between us is pointless. I hoped you might learn that if you're a jerk - and you are, people won't want to play with you! I don't want to. I've shown that an all powerful Creator God is unable to do anything - at all, because he is aware of the long term consequences of his actions, and intervening in the Creation must necessarily have implications that contradict his perfect moral goodness, eventually!

Allow me to pre-empt your response so you don't have to type it:

"No, he's all powerful, he can do anything!"

But...

"No, he's all powerful, he can do anything!"

Can he get you to leave me alone?

Listen boyo, I started this thread and it's a place to discuss whether God can do anything, not discuss the bible. It's not my fault my arguments are so good no-one can refute them.

Apparently not! Thus disproving your argument!!

That made no sense.

And from this we can deduce that giving morons free will was a bad move on God's part!

That too made no sense.

There we go: a proof of God. — Bartricks

Which "God"?

er, God. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. Blimey, I'm not anticipating a good objection from this one!

If there are laws of Reason, then there is a mind whose laws they are — Bartricks

Which are the laws of reason? I know about the laws of physics and many scientific laws but laws of Reason is really new man.

Therefore, God exists. — Bartricks

Which God? from which religion? Why only one?