I do not follow your reasoning.

God is all powerful, by definition. So God can do anything. He is not constrained in any way. Thus he does have free will.

God knows everything - that is, he is in possession of all knowledge. Why does that imply he lacks free will? Note, because he is all powerful, he gets to determine what is and isn't an item of knowledge. So the body of knowledge does not operate to constrain God. God constrains what can be known, but knowledge does not constrain God.

And God determines what is good and what is bad - he wouldn't be all powerful unless this were so. So goodness and badness do not operate as constraints on God.

And God is not 'programmed', for who could program God save God himself? (And to program oneself is not to undermine one's free will, but is rather an exercise of it).

So God can do anything. — Bartricks

And how again do you resolve the old problem of God making something so heavy he cannot lift it? Better you said that since all description implies negation, God therefore cannot be described, at all. Either that or negation applies, and he not all powerful. Your problem trying to describe what you cannot describe, know what you cannot know, success in either case annihilating the possibility of what you're trying to describe

What problem? God can make a stone so heavy he cannot lift. There. Solved. (Not that anything needed solving).

Then he cannot lift it. I'd call that a limitation on power.

Yes, it would be. If he did it, then there'd be something he couldn't do - and so he'd have given up his omnipotence. Which is something he can do. (I mean, you are surely not so foolish as to think that being omnipotent involves being unable to give up any of one's powers? How would that be omnipotence worthy of the name? It would be a constraint on one, not empowering at all)

You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between being able to do something and doing it.

You are able to smash your face into the screen of your computer, yes? Are you doing that?

You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between being able to do something and doing it. — Bartricks

You mean he cannot do it because he cannot choose to do it? I'm thinking you do not understand the claim of omnipotence, being all-powerful.

God is all powerful, by definition. So God can do anything. He is not constrained in any way. — Bartricks

All means all.

You mean he cannot do it because he cannot choose to do it? I'm thinking you do not understand the claim of omnipotence, being all-powerful. — tim wood

No, I mean he can do it. I think you don't understand omnipotence. Being omnipotent means being able to do anything. So, he can create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift. I fail to see what you're having trouble grasping.

If he did that - if he created that stone - then he'd no longer be omnipotent. Being able to not be omnipotent is an ability an omnipotent being has. It's just an ability that an omnipotent being, by hypothesis, does not exercise.

This isn't hard.

It's just an ability that an omnipotent being, by hypothesis, does not exercise. — Bartricks

Why not? What would prevent him? Or, define "omnipotent," or find another word, to get around this problem.

This is actually, perhaps unintentionally, a really good question. Does one who theoretically has the power to do anything really have free will? You can do anything so in theory you would, because why wouldn't you? But that's a whole can of worms for another day. The question that relates to us normal people in the here and now is since we do NOT have the ability to do ANYTHING and/or EVERYTHING at any given moment, does that give us freedom or take away freedom? Sounds like an easy answer or nonsense, but just think about it for a moment. Heavy hangs the head that wears the crown.

Why not? What would prevent him? Or, define "omnipotent," or find another word, to get around this problem. — tim wood

Nothing prevents him. He just doesn't. Nothing is preventing me from hurling the boiling hot cup of coffee into my own face. But I am not hurling it into my own face.

You have yet to even raise a problem. Say what the problem is, and do so in a way that does not conflate having the ability to do something with actually doing it.

Does one who theoretically has the power to do anything really have free will? You can do anything so in theory you would, because why wouldn't you? — Outlander

That simply doesn't follow. Having the power to do something does not entail that one does it. Otherwise there would be a contradiction involved in supposing one to have the ability to do things one is not doing. Yet clearly there is no contradiction.

Imagine I can conceive of doing A. Well, I have free will over whether I do it or not. My conceiving of it does not in some way compel me to do it.

Now imagine I can conceive of all actions. Well, I still have free will over which one I perform. The fact I am now able to conceive of all actions does not in some way restrict my free will: far from it, it means I am able to do anything at all if I so choose.

Well, that would be God's situation, would it not? For were he unable to conceive of some actions, then he'd not be omnipotent - yet by definition he is. So he's as free as can be.

You're talking about a fictional character (although you neglected to say which one) so it can do whatever any book, preacher or vainglorious follower wants.

Having the power to do something does not entail that one does it. — Bartricks

Entailment has nothing to do with it. Either he can or he cannot. That's the consequence of omnipotence. You could argue that he could bifurcate the universe so that in one he lifts and in the other he makes what he cannot lift, but that just makes more manifest the silliness of the claim.

But we can try something else. If over there is somewhere where he does not happen to be, can he be here and over there at the same time? Or can he not be; and if he cannot be, then how does he again become?

You're talking about a fictional character — Tom Storm

What will you be to those who come after you who never met you. A vague idea or visage that exists solely in faded photographs and annoying holiday conversations. You may create your own fiction, but others will create your reality long after you're unable to.

I am in fact, God...

You have qualities of God, it is the other qualities that you equivalate with these that concern, believe it or not me more than you. Now, that is.

Huh?

You're not making any sense.

An omnipotent being can do anything. Wouldn't be omnipotent otherwise.

That means an omnipotent being has the power to cease to be omnipotent.

That's all the stone case illustrates. There isn't the beginning of a problem here.

Here's an analogy to illustrate the very confused way you think. Bachelors don't have wives. Does that mean that bachelors are unable to have wives? That, if you are a bachelor, there is a strange cosmic force preventing you from marrying?

No, clearly a bachelor 'can' marry. It is just that upon marrying, the person of the bachelor will cease to qualify as a bachelor.

So, bachelors do not have wives, but they have the ability to have them.

Similarly, an omnipotent being has the ability to create a rock she cannot lift. Were she to do so, she would cease to be omnipotent - indeed, she'd be making herself less than omnipotent as the means by which to create the rock, for until she makes herself less than omnipotent, there will be no rock she cannot lift.

Anyway, the moral of all this is that you're very confused.

It's an interesting approach and I see how it works.

I am in fact, God... — Tom Storm

That's good evidence you're not God: God doesn't know he's God.

That's good evidence you're not God: God doesn't know he's God. — Bartricks

But I don't know I'm god, I just said it for a cheap joke. :wink:

In that case it is possible - remotely possible - that you are God. Although all of God's jokes would be hilarious. So there's that.

:up:

Nicely done.

That means an omnipotent being has the power to cease to be omnipotent. — Bartricks

Fair enough. That means that either he will not/cannot do that thing. Either way he's constrained and thus not all-powerful. The trick with the bachelor is that he makes no such claim of omnipotence a fortiori that he makes no claim that he can be a married bachelor. All means all. Categorical claims can and do lead to contradiction. Can God contradict himself?

That means that either he will not/cannot do that thing. — tim wood

No it doesn't. It means he is not doing it. Once more, you are as confused as someone who thinks that as bachelors do not have wives, there is a curious forcefield preventing them from marrying.

The trick with the bachelor is that he makes no such claim of omnipotence a fortiori that he makes no claim that he can be a married bachelor. All means all. Categorical claims can and do lead to contradiction. Can God contradict himself? — tim wood

Well, I consider that gibberish apart from the last question.

And yes, God can do that. He can do anything. I mean, even I can contradict myself. So it would be manifestly absurd to think that little old me can do something God can't do.

All right. God is all-powerful, except that he chooses not to do the things he either cannot do, or those things that would make him no longer all-powerful. Well, that also applies to me. I am all-powerful, I just choose not to do a whole lot of things.

Sorry, I can engage with stupid nonsense only for so long. You have the floor.

Premise 1: somethings are pious while others are sin.
Premise 2: God decides which is pious or not because he is all knowing.

Deduction: if God decides somethings as pious and somethings as sin, he, before hand, was endowed with knowledge. He was programmed to be this God that labels some actions as pious and others as sin. if on the rather hand he decides these things after studying human actions, the foundation by which he uses to analyze actions to label them as pious or sin, are programmed. In both cases God becomes a programmed machine. If he is programmed it begs the question who is the programmer, which we can create another god and continue to infinity with other Gods. Which makes the whole idea obsolete.

This in turn makes his existence questionable. — Vanbrainstorm

In short, where did God got their morals from? They were just there, in the spacetime- and matter-free glorious and shining realm of their holy and undeniable existence, giving us the precious gift of life. We can follow them (and assign them properties like you do) or damn them. Take your pick.

Like I say, you're very confused. An omnipotent being can do anything. Thus an omnipotent being has the power to dispose of their omnipotence if they so wish.

What's happening here is that you think the whole "can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift?" question must raise a serious problem for the coherence of theism, because why else do smart alecks everywhere ask that question? That's your thought, right? But I've shown that there doesn't even begin to be a problem here. It's like asking "can God make some toast?". The answer is just a straightforward 'yes'. God can make some toast. And God can make a stone too heavy for him to lift. There's no problem. If you think there is one, articulate it. And I'll then show you that you have confused being able to do something with actually doing it.