Omnipotence

[SteveH]

Remind me, British Home Stores - who wrote this earlier on the thread?

Indeed, but such is the nature of a reality that's probabilistic. How could we ever be certain of anything?

[Nearly Sane]

You are as stupid as you are unpleasant and childish. If there is quantum uncertainty, God can't know exactly what is going to happen.

Did your god create quantum uncertainty? If so, why? If not, is your god somehow subject to quantum effects that it cannot stop?

[SteveH]

L'Eau,

The irony of that will be lost on you, but ok...

Using reason and logic to unpick arguments isn't unpleasant and childish. Telling people to "go to hell" when you can't process that reason and logic is.

Then he's not omniscient.

God is omniscient because God knows everything that can be known. The future can't be known with certainty, because it doesn't exist yet. How difficult is that to understand?

[Nearly Sane]

Remind me, British Home Stores - who wrote this earlier on the thread?

While I'm sure blue regards himself a mighty fine fellow - I don't think he thinks he's a god, so I fail to the relevance of your point.

[Nearly Sane]

God is omniscient because God knows everything that can be known. The future can't be known with certainty, because it doesn't exist yet? How difficult is that to understand?

Why can't the future be known with certainty? How does the future occur? What generates it? Is it impossible then to be outside of time?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is just repeating your assertion, I was looking at the implications of it which seem to posit a 'god in time'. Does this mean that you see your idea of a god as subject to time? Or are you saying that it has chosen, like your idea of free will, to somehow limit its abilities by deciding to be subject to time? If it is subject to time, why isn't it also subject to other dimensions? Or if it has chosen to be subject to time, why didn't it chose that with other dimensions?

Do the future or the past actually exist?........or to put it another way, where have they put last Tuesday?

[Nearly Sane]

Do the future or the past actually exist?........or to put it another way, where have they put last Tuesday?

Dunno, timey wimey stuff is inherently difficult, but I'm not the ones making claims about a god being constrained in some way by it, but not other dimensions as L'eau is. Indeed your question is problematic for him since it challenges the idea of knowledge of the past if next Tuesday isn't where you last saw it.

[SteveH]

Vlad,

Wrong again. As you seem keen on Wiki, here are the first eight words of the entry on omnipotence:

"Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power."

Sounds pretty "usual" to me.

The

Wikipedia article

goes on to qualify that in various ways, including versions similar to my "able to do everything that can be done". There is a quotation from Thomas Aquinas to that effect, more or less, and an explanation of the God of Process theology, which says that God can persuade but not compel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dunno, timey wimey stuff is inherently difficult, but I'm not the ones making claims about a god being constrained in some way by it, but not other dimensions as L'eau is. Indeed your question is problematic for him since it challenges the idea of knowledge of the past if next Tuesday isn't where you last saw it.

If only the present exists then God could be said to be omniscient don't you think?

[Nearly Sane]

If only the present exists then God could be said to be omniscient don't you think?

Does the present exist? Surely it's even less of a thing since it's here today, this hour, this  picosecond etc and then is gone? Was it ever?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The  goes on to qualify that in various ways, including versions similar to my "able to do everything that can be done". There is a quotation from Thomas Aquinas to that effect, more or less, and an explanation of the God of Process theology, which says that God can persuade but not compel.

Thanks for that L'Eau, looks like he has been selective in his choice of cherries.I did point out that there were at least 6 definitions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

L'Eau,

God is omniscient because God knows everything that can be known. The future can't be known with certainty, because it doesn't exist yet? How difficult is that to understand?

Very, because it's gibberish. Specifically, the "because" is a non sequitur (yet another fallacy by the way). 

Just chucking in a terms you don't understand like "quantum uncertainty" because it sounds, like, you know, all sciency and stuff doesn't help you at all. This'll be lost on you, but an omniscient god could still know every possible thing and QU be preserved provided he keeps schtumm about it. Indeed he'd have to if he was to be omniscient. From our perspective the uncertainty would be preserved - the probability wave function wouldn't collapsed to use the jargon - so all would be fine and dandy in the real world.

The alternative you (inadvertently?) posited - a god who can't be surprised but can be surprised - is just incoherent.   

[Nearly Sane]

Moderator Various posts which were derails by simply being insults with no substantive point, or were discussing moderation have been removed.  Please refer to the Forum Rules on this http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=7765.0.

Should you wish to discuss Moderation Decisions then please PM the Moderation team. If you think a post has broken then rules, then please use the Report to Moderator Function for the post.


If a similar spat derails this thread again, then the thread will be locked and removed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Does the present exist? Surely it's even less of a thing since it's here today, this hour, this  picosecond etc and then is gone? Was it ever?

I tend to think that the question " does the present, the "is", exist ?" A bit of ontological nonsense.
Empirical science measures what is there after all. In view of that then, and the premium placed on science. The question of the future and past existing are more pertinent to this discussion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

L'Eau,

Remind me, British Home Stores - who wrote this earlier on the thread?

You presumably think you've made a point there but I'm blowed if I know what it's meant to be?

[Nearly Sane]

I tend to think that the question " does the present, the "is", exist ?" A bit of ontological nonsense.
Empirical science measures what is there after all. In view of that then, and the premium placed on science. The question of the future and past existing are more pertinent to this discussion.

But anything you measure isn't the present, and by the time you've looked at what the measurement is -. That you think it's an ontological nonsense doesn't illustrate anything. And as you are  a long term critic of empiricism as establishing philosophical reality I'm surprised you want to use the idea of empirical tests even leaving aside the problem noted to back up a position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But anything you measure isn't the present, and by the time you've looked at what the measurement is -. That you think it's an ontological nonsense doesn't illustrate anything. And as you are  a long term critic of empiricism as establishing philosophical reality I'm surprised you want to use the idea of empirical tests even leaving aside the problem noted to back up a position.

I think your introduction of it was as an evasion of the issue whether the past or future exist.
Somewhere in the above statement which firmly gets hold of the wrong end of sticks I think is a tacit declaration that the past is as real as the present.
If the future does not exist and God has all knowledge of past and present then God would be omniscient.
In your post you are also confusing empirical tests with empiricism.

[Walter]

I tend to think that the question " does the present, the "is", exist ?" A bit of ontological nonsense.
Empirical science measures what is there after all. In view of that then, and the premium placed on science. The question of the future and past existing are more pertinent to this discussion.

if god is master of the three OMNIs , the implication is this ; all that was, all that is and all that will be are happening simultaneously throughout the universe , time passes only locally .
This is not some wild idea I've made up and when I can remember who I read regarding this ill let you know . It is a very important concept and difficult to get your head around . 

[Nearly Sane]

I think your introduction of it was as an evasion of the issue whether the past or future exist.
Somewhere in the above statement which firmly gets hold of the wrong end of sticks I think is a tacit declaration that the past is as real as the present.
If the future does not exist and God has all knowledge of past and present then God would be omniscient.
In your post you are also confusing empirical tests with empiricism.

What are you referring to as my 'introduction' here? You asked me a question about their existence and I said I don't know, and I don't see that we can make a claim that the present exists either, whereas you seem to think it does.
You haven't made the case that the present is real, or the past, or the future.


 You haven't defined what real means here. Given all of this your sentence 'If the future does not exist and God has all knowledge of past and present then God would be omniscient.' is filled with things you have no definition for, appears to be meant to be a question but has no question mark, and begs the question that things called the past and the present are 'real'

And no I'm not confusing the tests with empiricism, that was you by talking about scientific test as a justification to declare what is real, and becoming an empiricist because of your confusion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

L’Eau

…goes on to qualify that in various ways, including versions similar to my "able to do everything that can be done".

None of which help you:

“The term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

1.A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.[1]”

This just relocates the problem. The choice precedes the action, but it doesn’t mean that any action at all isn’t possible if this “God” so chooses a priori. It’s a matter of choice, not of the possibility or otherwise of the action.
 
“2. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).”

See above. The “it’s nature” precedes the action but it doesn’t mean the action itself is impossible.

“3. It is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[2]”

That’s called begging the question. Why just assume that “it’s part of a deity’s nature to be consistent”, particularly when the claims of the religious suggest pretty much the opposite of that – the capriciousness with which prayers are apparently answered and ignored for example?

“4. A deity can bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for anyone to bring about in that situation.”

So? The “logically possible” I covered (but you ignored – four-sided triangles and all that) and surely it’s not for “anyone to bring about” there when it should be “for anyone thought to be omnipotent to bring about”.

“5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.”

Circular reasoning. You’d have to argue omniscience or argue omnipotence first, not make them co-dependent. It’s also begging the question again.

“6. Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being performed by the deity, either due to omni-immanence, or because all actions must be 'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity.”

So? What does that tell you about actions this supposedly omnipotent god can’t do?

There is a quotation from Thomas Aquinas to that effect, more or less, and an explanation of the God of Process theology, which says that God can persuade but not compel.

Is all process theology as daft as this? If, say, I’m driving one day and fiddling with the radio when a kid steps out and “God” decides to intervene (maybe he’s having a break from giving malaria to African babies) does he “compel” me to turn the steering wheel, or does he just “persuade” me – perhaps by popping into my head with a, “sorry to trouble you old chap, but would you mind awfully – you know, if it’s not too much trouble – not running over that kiddie I’ve just brought to your attention? Thanks everso”?   

[SusanDoris]

Would someone please tell me who l'Eau was before,-  if he was, as Synthetic Dave finds this very difficult to pronounce, and I have no idea who he is/was. Thank you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What are you referring to as my 'introduction' here? You asked me a question about their existence and I said I don't know, and I don't see that we can make a claim that the present exists either, whereas you seem to think it does.
You haven't made the case that the present is real, or the past, or the future.


 You haven't defined what real means here. Given all of this your sentence 'If the future does not exist and God has all knowledge of past and present then God would be omniscient.' is filled with things you have no definition for, appears to be meant to be a question but has no question mark, and begs the question that things called the past and the present are 'real'

And no I'm not confusing the tests with empiricism, that was you by talking about scientific test as a justification to declare what is real, and becoming an empiricist because of your confusion.

No I gave a benchmark Sane. That that which is subject to empirical measurement is real. I have never argued otherwise. Also it doesn't make one an empiricist/ philosophical empiricist. You were wrong to bring it up.

Given that Context then I accept an argument for the 'has existed'. But the future in this scheme doesn't and never has existed. I move therefore that if God knows what is happening and perfectly knows what has happened then He is omniscient.

[Nearly Sane]

No I gave a benchmark Sane. That that which is subject to empirical measurement is real. I have never argued otherwise. Also it doesn't make one an empiricist/ philosophical empiricist. You were wrong to bring it up.

Given that Context then I accept an argument for the 'has existed'. But the future in this scheme doesn't and never has existed. I move therefore that if God knows what is happening and perfectly knows what has happened then He is omniscient.

Thanks for this, that's a lot clearer. And it deserves a proper response. I don't have time to do that just now so will pick up later.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Susan,

Would someone please tell me who l'Eau was before,-  if he was, as Synthetic Dave finds this very difficult to pronounce, and I have no idea who he is/was. Thank you.

Not sure - the style is familiar ("I get really offended by arguments that undermine my faith belief but I can't counter then, so I'll get angry instead") but I can think of several previous incarnations that would fit. The "I'm offended" line is a common theistic trope by the way, to which Christopher Hitchens' "I'm still waiting for you to make an argument" and "Stephen Fry's "So f****** what?" seem to me to be perfectly good replies.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Susan,

Not sure - the style is familiar ("I get really offended by arguments that undermine my faith belief but I can't counter then, so I'll get angry instead") but I can think of several previous incarnations that would fit. The "I'm offended" line is a common theistic trope by the way, to which Christopher Hitchens' "I'm still waiting for you to make an argument" and "Stephen Fry's "So f****** what?" seem to me to be perfectly good replies.   

Apparently Stephen Fry was due to appear but couldn't go on stage because he felt a bit funny. His manager told him to get on quick before it wore off.