As many people in this thread have tried pointing out to you, the very notion of omnipotence is inherently illogical. — EricH

Yes, so? Again: Dunning Kruger. You think 'they' are the experts, right? After all, they must be becuase you are and you think I'm being illogical, and they all think I'm being illogical - so I must be being illogical. Your test for expertise is "does this person think roughly like me?" That's a good test if you're an expert, but really bad if you're not. And you're not.

Now, given Dunning and Kruger, what would we predict would happen if an expert in philosophy entered a forum populated mainly - perhaps exclusively- by non-experts? We'd predict that the expert would, in no time at all, be considered an idiot, yes? His arguments would be much better than others, and he'd defend them much more ably, but most of those on the site would think his arguments were bad, and that he's defending them badly. Right? Or do you think Dunning and Kruger would predict the opposite?

So, forget other people's assessment of my arguments and focus instead on the arguments themselves. And stop assuming that they're 'illogical' just because you don't quite understand them. That isn't the test of illogicality.

You're arguing very badly. You say this:

Can an omnipotent being create another being more omnipotent than itself? If no, then such a being is not omnipotent because there is something that it cannot do.

If yes, then you have an infinite number of omnipotent beings, each of which creates a yet more omnipotent being - and thus there is no omnipotent being. — EricH

I've already addressed this point, but I'll do so again. Yes, of course an omnipotent being can create another omnipotent being. He can do anything, so he can do that.

Does it follow from that - as you seem to think - that we'll then have an infinite number of omnipotent being? Er, no.

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. There's a missing premise. But if I had to guess, I'd say you've confused having the ability to do something with actually doing it.

But being able to do something does not mean one is doing it. The omnipotent being has not created another omnipotent being. He can. He hasn't. He can. He hasn't. He can. He hasn't.

How do I know that? My reason tells me that if there is an omnipotent being, there is only one.

Our reason is our guide to what's what. So, if you want to know what's actually the case, consult your reason. Our reason is also a guide to what powers God actually has. And it tells us that God's powers exceed what reason says is possible.

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
~Daniel Boorstein

That's the Dunning Kruger effect. You need to be an expert to recognize one. — Bartricks

Ass-backwards again! :rofl:

The D-K effect refers to one not being an expert (knowing what one does not know) enough to recognize that one is not an expert (not knowing that one does not know what one does not know) ... such as YOU. To wit:

"I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not." ~Socrates, Apology (21d)

:smirk:

My question is how reason implies the existence of god? Reason is a contingent property of minds and before we discuss properties of god's mind, we need to first prove god's existence. Basically, you can go from dog to brown dog but not from brown to brown dog. You've put the cart before the horse. — TheMadFool

I couldn't bother but I'm glad you did. :clap:

:up:

Is that the only point you plan on addressing? And you addressed in the form of putting words in my mouth? Because that's not what I said.
Let's tuch on say #3 which was

>>>Given 3, If something is meaningful or understandable, then it is certainly not hypothetically impossible. To reiterate: ALL hypothetical impossibilities are meaningless and not understandable.<<<

How on earth would you actually know this as a fact? Have you exhausted every thought possible? I highly doubt it so please elaborate on how you know this statement to be true and by true I mean fundamentally and not just your limited human perspective that only matters to you in your little bubble

I imagine it must be that time on the ward when you're allowed a bit of computer fun before din dins and drug induced catatonia.
You haven't addressed or understood anything I've argued. Now, you are manifesting the Dunning Kruger effect because you're hugely overestimating your own expertise and you think - are quite convinced, I'm sure - that I'm an idiot, yes? Of course, you won't be able to recognize that you are manifesting it until you become more expert, which is going to be hard given that experts strike you as idiots from whom you can learn nothing but who instead need educating by you.
Why don't you try actually reading the Apology rather than quoting from it.

:razz:

However, we must distinguish between two very different perceptions of what God's omnipotence entails; on the one hand, there is the interpretation of the Thomist, which is that omnipotence is the power to exercise any given set of actions so long as they hold intelligibility - i.e whatever is logically possible. This follows from the idea that the divine will follows the intellect. The other interpretation is one pedaled by William of Ockham, a voluntarist, who forwarded the claim that God's omnipotence entails that all may be willed and accomplished, regardless of whether or not it is in any way intelligible. — Questio

Thank goodness someone else has joined this conversation who understands this distinction! I tried to venture it earlier in the thread, which of course was brushed aside peremptorily. I’m not an expert in the matter, but I believe it’s a fundamental distinction and you’ve made a much better case for it than I was able to do. Suffice to say, I’m more persuaded by the Thomist philosophy than that of the Nominalists.

Yes, of course an omnipotent being can create another omnipotent being. He can do anything, so he can do that. — Bartricks

So can the omnipotent being create another being that is MORE omnipotent than him? If yes, then that newly created more omnipotent being can create yet another that is even more omnipotent. Lather, rinse and repeat and infinite number of times.

There will not be more than one omnipotent being. This is because otherwise one could frustrate the other and thus neither would truly be omnipotent. — Bartricks

So an omnipotent being cannot create another being that is equally omnipotent - that would be terribly frustrating for those poor omnipotent beings.

An interesting question would be “Why would an omnipotent being do anything?” Or “how do we know an omnipotent being isn’t doing everything, always?”.

Why would an omnipotent being do anything? We know the universe is rather massive, I’m sure this being is rather busy observing everything! The being is likely too busy absorbing and observing to take actions, what would be the purpose or meaning of such actions anyway?

How do we know an omnipotent being isn’t doing everything, always? could “The Big Bang” be this omnipotent being? Could the constant expansion of the universe be the action of this being? If it is omnipotent, wouldn’t everything we think exists be at the behest of this being? Perhaps it’s being is entirely consistent of “doing” everything all the time. Although I suppose then we would need to discuss if that counts as “doing” if it is really “being” and if there is time at all for such a being.

I’m sorry I haven’t read every post in this thread, I hope it is okay I just jumped in.

So can the omnipotent being create another being that is MORE omnipotent than him? If yes, then that newly created more omnipotent being can create yet another that is even more omnipotent. Lather, rinse and repeat and infinite number of times. — EricH

Yes, he can do all that. Are you on a sponsored go-slow or something? He can do anything. I then explained - goodness knows why - that 'can' doesn't mean 'is'. So, he 'can' create a being more powerful than himself, but he hasn't.

He can do contradictory things. But he hasn't. He can do things that make no sense to us. But he hasn't. And so on. Now please, kindly absorb that information and stop asking he if he can do this or that. The answer is 'yes' no matter what you ask.

So an omnipotent being cannot create another being that is equally omnipotent - that would be terribly frustrating for those poor omnipotent beings. — EricH

I didn't say he cannot do this, I said he has not done it. This isn't hard, or at least I didn't think it was.

Again: there's what 'is' the case, and there's what's possible.

Anything is possible. It is possible that you'll eventually grasp the point, for instance. But it 'is' the case that you aren't. And so on.

Our reason is our guide to what 'is' the case. But as God is not bound by reason, our reason is not our guide to what is possible, except insofar as it tells us that God, not being bound by reason but being its source, is capable of anything.

Why would an omnipotent being do anything? — Uglydelicious

Because he wants to, presumably.

How do we know an omnipotent being isn’t doing everything, always? — Uglydelicious

Reason and observation. Our reason is our guide to reality. And our reason tells us that some things are happening and others not and some things have been created and others not. And our reason tells us that if a proposition is true, it is not also false. And so if it is true that I exist, it is not also false that I exist. And thus I can conclude that I exist, and that an omnipotent being has not destroyed me, even though this is something he could do.

you will inevitably be destroyed, all your reason should tell you so. You will be a corpse someday and fade from this world, this existence. When I ask “is the omnipotent being doing everything, always” I should clarify that I am asking “is everything that is done, done by the omnipotent being”. What reason have you to believe that the wind doesn’t blow because the being wills it so?

He can do contradictory things. But he hasn't. — Bartricks

So, he 'can' create a being more powerful than himself, but he hasn't. — Bartricks

How do you know that He has not created a square circle in a galaxy 20 billion light years away from you? Perhaps He texted you? Or maybe He has a blog or website where He tells you exactly what He has and hasn't done.

So you're asking if everything that happens is happening 'due to' the omnipotent being?

On the face of it, it would seem not. I mean, what I am doing right now seems to be being done by me, not the omnipotent being.

As I noted much earlier in this thread (when this thread was two, much clearer, focussed threads), being omnipotent does not essentially involve having created everything.

For instance, our reason tells us that some things that exist, exist uncaused. Well, by hypothesis the omnipotent being has not created those things.

It is sufficient that the omnipotent being 'could' create all things and could destroy all things. THe omnipotent being does not, qua omnipotent being, have actually to have created everything. For not having created everything is not itself a deficiency in power.

I told you. Jeez. Ratiocination. Look it up.

I’m not an expert in the matter, — Wayfarer

You don't say!

Nor is Questio.

But you'll confirm each other. And that's good enough for you, yes?

If you're not an expert, why are you listening to yourself?

Why not listen to an expert?

The distinction that Questio drew is one that I drew right at the outset (and drew far more clearly). And then, despite my attempting to explain why a being who is bound by what is logically possible is less powerful than one who is not - something I'd have thought would be blindingly obvious to virtually everyone - you (and Questio) persist in mentioning this distinction again and again in the hope that somehow that'll constitute a refutation of what I've argued.

That's all you're doing. You're telling yourselves again and again that I'm unaware of a distinction that a moment's attention to anything I wrote will tell you I'm abundantly well aware of and that I am making it my business to show is a distinction between a being who is omnipotent and one who is not.

All Questio is doing with all this 'intellect' talk is suggesting that if the God's nature is fixed, then somehow this is not a constraint on the God's power. Which is obviously false.

Two problems. First: it 'is' a constraint for a God whose nature is not fixed will have greater power. Second, what, exactly, is constraining the God? God? In that case God's nature is not constrained and he can make himself however he wants. Or laws of nature are constraining it. n which case a being not constrained by those laws would be more powerful....and thus we no longer have a description of an omnipotent being on our hands.

See?

you’d be interesting, if you weren’t so arrogant.

Who's more arrogant, the expert who thinks he's an expert - that is, the person who has actually gone to the trouble to make himself what he believes himself to be - or the non-expert who thinks he's an expert?
Anyway, philosophy isn't a popularity contest. We're trying to figure out what's true, right? So one needs to get over oneself and get stuck in.

And now who's more powerful - someone who can do anything, or someone who can do some things but not others?

.

The Dunning Kruger paradox:

...those who raise the Dunning Kruger effect are those most likely suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect!

It is not semantical. The definition of omnipotence is an attempt at capturing a concept; the concept of an all powerful being.

If I define 'omnipotence' as 'a container of tea', I have not thereby shown that God is a teapot.

That's what those who define omnipotence as 'being able to do all logically possible things' are doing. They're not capturing the original concept, but replacing it with something else (as I did above).

So, who, of these two beings, has more power:

Tom God: Tom God can do all things that are logically possible.

Jenny God: Jenny God can do all things that are logically possible and all things that aren't.

Jenny, obviously.

Yes. The 'most likely' is important. Presumably you would not dismiss Dunning and Kruger's article on this basis?

How would one know that one is not manifesting the effect when raising it? Why, one considers whether one is an expert in the field in which one is declaring oneself to be.

If you do that, you will find that the answer is 'no'. It's 'yes' when I do it.

Also, he who smelt it, dealt it. Another profound philosophical truth for you.

And now who's more powerful - someone who can do anything, or someone who can do some things but not others? — Bartricks

I agree with @Questio, that your depiction of what 'omnipotence' means is incorrect, but I will leave it at that, I won't respond further to your posts.

I think you've made a rod for your own back - responding to every post on the thread, and now you're stressed out - and get bent out of shape when people want to discuss the question you posed among themselves. It's inhibiting the thread, and so you're getting some stick. Why not chill - step back, see what evolves, and chip in when you've something to add?

.

Ah, again with the advice. My posts do not inhibit others from posting. So that's false. And if someone talks 'about' me to another poster, I think it's perfectly appropriate for me to chip in. Anyway, I am going off to 'chill' as you put it, for I am off to the bar, as is my wont. Cheerio.

I done understand the first part of what you said or how it connects to what I said. At what point did I deny that words are malleable?

And as for the second part: I am arguing that the concept of Jenny God is a coherent one and that she exists.

↪EricH
So can the omnipotent being create another being that is MORE omnipotent than him? If yes, then that newly created more omnipotent being can create yet another that is even more omnipotent. Lather, rinse and repeat and infinite number of times.
— EricH — Bartricks

Is it possible to have something more infinite then infinity? How could something that goes on without end, have MORE without end?

Ah. That'll be it then.

Actually....