Crazy Question about Omnipotence

[mickeyg13]

For the sake of argument, suppose that there is a God that created the universe and that He is omnipotent (as many of His followers believe He is). Presumably then in creating the universe, He decided upon the various scientific laws that appear to govern physical interactions within the universe (picking all of the equations and setting values for all the constants, etc). Did He also write the rules of logic? That sounds like a crazy question, but please hear me out. If He did not write the rules of logic, then it seems He would be bound by them, making Him not omnipotent. It seems many would use such an argument to conclude that a truly omnipotent God must not exist.

Before you make that conclusion, I'm wondering about the alternative. If He really were truly omnipotent, it would seem that He would not be bound by any laws (unless He wanted to be), so as the "inventor" of logic, He would be free to break the rules at will. That would seem to have all sorts of crazy implications. For example, all those weird questions about immovable objects and four-sided triangles could actually be solved in the affirmative if this truly omnipotent God is allowed to rewrite logic as He sees fit. I think if nothing else it's something interesting to think about.

Please don't get the wrong idea about me by that post. I'm not someone that hates logic and is trying to throw it out the window or something. Logic happens to be important to me and my area of study. Frankly I'm not sure how even I feel about the scenario, but I feel like it deserves at least some thought. People see a logical contradiction in the notion of omnipotence, but maybe omnipotence can counteract that problem somehow.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
For the sake of argument, suppose that there is a God that created the universe and that He is omnipotent (as many of His followers believe He is). Presumably then in creating the universe, He decided upon the various scientific laws that appear to govern physical interactions within the universe (picking all of the equations and setting values for all the constants, etc). Did He also write the rules of logic? That sounds like a crazy question, but please hear me out. If He did not write the rules of logic, then it seems He would be bound by them, making Him not omnipotent. It seems many would use such an argument to conclude that a truly omnipotent God must not exist.

Before you make that conclusion, I'm wondering about the alternative. If He really were truly omnipotent, it would seem that He would not be bound by any laws (unless He wanted to be), so as the "inventor" of logic, He would be free to break the rules at will. That would seem to have all sorts of crazy implications. For example, all those weird questions about immovable objects and four-sided triangles could actually be solved in the affirmative if this truly omnipotent God is allowed to rewrite logic as He sees fit. I think if nothing else it's something interesting to think about.

Please don't get the wrong idea about me by that post. I'm not someone that hates logic and is trying to throw it out the window or something. Logic happens to be important to me and my area of study. Frankly I'm not sure how even I feel about the scenario, but I feel like it deserves at least some thought. People see a logical contradiction in the notion of omnipotence, but maybe omnipotence can counteract that problem somehow.



[/ QUOTE ] Well obviously God isn't omnipotent. Show me in the bible where this word is used.

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the sake of argument, suppose that there is a God that created the universe and that He is omnipotent (as many of His followers believe He is). Presumably then in creating the universe, He decided upon the various scientific laws that appear to govern physical interactions within the universe (picking all of the equations and setting values for all the constants, etc). Did He also write the rules of logic? That sounds like a crazy question, but please hear me out. If He did not write the rules of logic, then it seems He would be bound by them, making Him not omnipotent. It seems many would use such an argument to conclude that a truly omnipotent God must not exist.

Before you make that conclusion, I'm wondering about the alternative. If He really were truly omnipotent, it would seem that He would not be bound by any laws (unless He wanted to be), so as the "inventor" of logic, He would be free to break the rules at will. That would seem to have all sorts of crazy implications. For example, all those weird questions about immovable objects and four-sided triangles could actually be solved in the affirmative if this truly omnipotent God is allowed to rewrite logic as He sees fit. I think if nothing else it's something interesting to think about.

Please don't get the wrong idea about me by that post. I'm not someone that hates logic and is trying to throw it out the window or something. Logic happens to be important to me and my area of study. Frankly I'm not sure how even I feel about the scenario, but I feel like it deserves at least some thought. People see a logical contradiction in the notion of omnipotence, but maybe omnipotence can counteract that problem somehow.



[/ QUOTE ] Well obviously God isn't omnipotent. Show me in the bible where this word is used.

[/ QUOTE ]

My post has nothing to do with the Bible. If you like, pretend that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is omnipotent and created the universe. Now ask yourselves those questions about omnipotence and the FSM.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
My post has nothing to do with the Bible. If you like, pretend that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is omnipotent and created the universe. Now ask yourselves those questions about omnipotence and the FSM.


[/ QUOTE ] duh. obviously. Whether I invoke the bible or not, makes no difference. God can't be omnipotent. Your analysis is correct. I wasn't disputing you.

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
Well obviously God isn't omnipotent. Show me in the bible where this word is used.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just for fun though, I thought I'd point out Revelations 19:6 according to the King James version:
"And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth."

That's not even the version of the Bible I use, but I just wanted to mention that.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Just for fun though, I thought I'd point out Revelations 19:6 according to the King James version:
"And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth."

That's not even the version of the Bible I use, but I just wanted to mention that.



[/ QUOTE ] You pwned me there. I didn't realize that that word was even mentioned in the Bible. Sorry. It's been a while since I read it.

[pokervintage]

Logic as with math is independent of an omnipotent power. Both have laws that are either true (universally) or false (universally). Knowing this and how to optimally employ each are some of the reasons for God's omnipotence. I guess.

pokervintage

[vhawk01]

Arent any discussions about God's omnipotence kind of silly and meaningless since none of us has the slightest clue wtf omnipotent means?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Arent any discussions about God's omnipotence kind of silly and meaningless since none of us has the slightest clue wtf omnipotent means?


[/ QUOTE ] I would certainly agree with your statement. Can God make 2 plus 2 equal 5? What exactly does omnipotence mean? Can he alter the law of physics or not? I'm not sure anyone knows the definition as used in the OP's biblical reference, as the bible didn't elaborate.

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
Arent any discussions about God's omnipotence kind of silly and meaningless since none of us has the slightest clue wtf omnipotent means?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does their silliness and/or meaninglessness have to do with whether or not they should be discussed? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I tried to be explicit that I meant a true omnipotence, I suppose essentially meaning that "a true omnipotent figure can do X" for all values of X, even if this leads to a contradiction. There are of course other variations, but for this thread I meant truly no limitations on power. It could be the case that there is an omnipotent creator that can do all things that are not logical contradictions, but I wasn't considering that here.

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
Can God make 2 plus 2 equal 5?

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't everyone know that 2+2=5 for all sufficiently large values of 2?

[Lestat]

God cannot be both omnipotent and omnisentient. He just can't.

If God is omnisentient, then He already knows that Sam will be fatally hit by a bus tomorrow at 2PM.

If God is omnipotent, then He should have the power to save Sam. But how is this possible?

Btw- I consider this to be different than the, "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it", or, "Can God create a square circle". The bus incident is not meant to be a mockery of theistic logic. It's a real event.

[tame_deuces]

Well, if god is omnipotent isn't it a given that he already knows everything that _can_ happen and also has the power to change it? Which would make omnisentience rather moot?

[madnak]

I used to think about this on a regular basis, but I always came to the same conclusions.

First, even if God supersedes logic, I don't. Logic is the best tool I have for interpreting the world around me. (It's possible that faith or emotion are the most reliable tools for some people, but not for me. My emotions are unreliable and conflicted, and I have only experienced faith as an emotion.)

Second, if God exists and if God created us, it seems that he granted us the ability to reason and wants us to use it. This is a circular argument, but I have few expressive alternatives. Maybe I'm too trusting, but here's reason, it "feels right," nothing else "feels right," I'm using reason.

As a result, I'll assume that logic holds true on general principle, and for my own sanity. If logic refutes a conception of God, then I will consider that conception of God an impossibility and proceed accordingly.

[madnak]

Oh yeah, this also refutes omnibenevolence because if God is truly benevolent he can prevent all suffering without any of the necessary consequences. For example, the logical argument "evil exists because free will exists" is easily transcended by a truly omnipotent God. Such a God could grant free will without evil.

(I think there are numerous other problems with that arguments, I'm just using it for the sake of an example. The point is that there is no justifiction for suffering, because God transcends justification. God can have justice and mercy at the same time, if he transcends reason.)

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
If God is omnisentient, then He already knows that Sam will be fatally hit by a bus tomorrow at 2PM.

[/ QUOTE ]

No he will not know this. He will only know the precise probability that Sam will be fatally hit by the Bus. When it comes to prediction that is all omniscience can do. But if he is also omnipotent, why then he can ensure that the Bus hits Sam.

pokervintage

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't everyone know that 2+2=5 for all sufficiently large values of 2?


[/ QUOTE ] I'll bite on this one. I don't have a math background, but any two sufficiantly large to make two plus two equal five would no longer be two.

But of course it wasn't my point to bicker. Can God make 2 plus 2 equal 6?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't everyone know that 2+2=5 for all sufficiently large values of 2?


[/ QUOTE ] I'll bite on this one. I don't have a math background, but any two sufficiantly large to make two plus two equal five would no longer be two.

But of course it wasn't my point to bicker. Can God make 2 plus 2 equal 6?

[/ QUOTE ]

What if it's 2.999... + 2.999...? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
What if it's 2.999... + 2.999...?



[/ QUOTE ]Madnak, my definition of two is different from yours. I don't see how 2.999 . . . is called two. Do mathemeticians see things differently than I? If so, put me out of my misery and teach me something, because right now, I'm not getting it.

edit - I can see how 2.999 . . . is called 3 but not two. I think you are delusional.

[madnak]

Just making a joke about an old thread.

Edit - I think mickey's also joking.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Just making a joke about an old thread.

Edit - I think mickey's also joking.


[/ QUOTE ] ha, I wasn't aware of the old thread. Also, I don't have a mathmatics background. And I am drunk. This proves to me once again that I am a genius.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
ha, I wasn't aware of the old thread. Also, I don't have a mathmatics background. And I am drunk. This proves to me once again that I am a genius.

[/ QUOTE ]

You look smarter than 99% of the people who posted in that thread (not to mention the airplane thread and the jason_t/John Nash thread).

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If God is omnisentient, then He already knows that Sam will be fatally hit by a bus tomorrow at 2PM.

[/ QUOTE ]

No he will not know this. He will only know the precise probability that Sam will be fatally hit by the Bus. When it comes to prediction that is all omniscience can do. But if he is also omnipotent, why then he can ensure that the Bus hits Sam.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm too lazy to look it up now, but I thought the definition of omnipotence was all-knowing? Or is my sarcasm meter on the fritz again?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
You look smarter than 99% of the people who posted in that thread (not to mention the airplane thread and the jason_t/John Nash thread).



[/ QUOTE ] I was joking about myself being a genius. I get smart attacks on occasion. But thanks for the reassuring words, it makes me feel good coming from you.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Well, if god is omnipotent isn't it a given that he already knows everything that _can_ happen and also has the power to change it? </font>

Omnipotence is all-powerful. Omniscience is all-knowing. So no, that doesn't follow.

If God knows whether or not Sam will be hit by a bus tomorrow, then He is powerless to change it. Hence, it cannot be omnipotent.

If God has the ability to stop Sam from being bit by a bus (or to cause a bus to hit Sam), then He could not have known what was going to happen before hand. Hence, He is not all-knowing.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm too lazy to look it up now, but I thought the definition of omnipotence was all-knowing? Or is my sarcasm meter on the fritz again?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just as there's lesser omnipotence (God can do anything, but he can't defy logic) and greater omnipotence (God can do anything), so there's lesser omniscience (God knows all, except outcomes) and greater omniscience (God knows all). It's "inherent" versus "total" omniscience.

[pokervintage]

omniscience- The capacity to know everything.

omnipotent - Having unlimited power, force or authority.

pokervintage

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm too lazy to look it up now, but I thought the definition of omnipotence was all-knowing? Or is my sarcasm meter on the fritz again?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just as there's lesser omnipotence (God can do anything, but he can't defy logic) and greater omnipotence (God can do anything), so there's lesser omniscience (God knows all, except outcomes) and greater omniscience (God knows all). It's "inherent" versus "total" omniscience.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I believe it's been well established that the biblical God knows the future. Hence, His omniscience should include knowing whether or not Sam gets hit by the bus (Jesus knew He would be betrayed, didn't He? -- He also knew Peter would deny Him 3 times before the [censored] crows, right?).

And if this is true, then the omnipotence God possessed would be tiny indeed. Since, any of us would be able to stop Sam from getting hit by a bus if we knew the exact time and place it would happen.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You look smarter than 99% of the people who posted in that thread (not to mention the airplane thread and the jason_t/John Nash thread).



[/ QUOTE ] I was joking about myself being a genius. I get smart attacks on occasion. But thanks for the reassuring words, it makes me feel good coming from you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I think you're very smart. But you have no idea how low I set the bar (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/postlist.php?Cat=&amp;Board=exchange) with that comment.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
omniscience- The capacity to know everything.

omnipotent - Having unlimited power, force or authority.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets not forget the killer: omni benevolent, for the well being of everything. Obviously, manifestly not experienced in the world (animal, human and any other(?) sentient being included). Having said that, the dude isn't to be trusted with whatever he says.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
omniscience- The capacity to know everything.

omnipotent - Having unlimited power, force or authority.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so why do you say: <font color="blue">"No he will not know this." </font> in response to:

<font color="green"> If God is omnisentient, then He already knows that Sam will be fatally hit by a bus tomorrow at 2PM. </font>

??

If God has the capacity to know everything, then He should know how and when Sam will die. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
But I believe it's been well established that the biblical God knows the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, but we aren't talking about the biblical God, are we? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Lestat]

I always default to the biblical God when a Christian brings up God. Silly me.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
omniscience- The capacity to know everything.

omnipotent - Having unlimited power, force or authority.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so why do you say: <font color="blue">"No he will not know this." </font> in response to:

<font color="green"> If God is omnisentient, then He already knows that Sam will be fatally hit by a bus tomorrow at 2PM. </font>

??

If God has the capacity to know everything, then He should know how and when Sam will die. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sold on this. We could just claim that god knows everything that _could_ happen (aka. anything since we assume omnipotency) and is free to chose which.

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
If God knows whether or not Sam will be hit by a bus tomorrow, then He is powerless to change it. Hence, it cannot be omnipotent.

If God has the ability to stop Sam from being bit by a bus (or to cause a bus to hit Sam), then He could not have known what was going to happen before hand. Hence, He is not all-knowing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously are not a gambler. God knows that if an unbiased random event occurs, he, even with his omniscient side, can only predict the probability of it occurring. However, if he wants to, since he is also omnipotent, he can control the elements of a physical event at the macro level and make the bus hit Sam. He also knows that even with his omniscience and omnipotence that he cannot measure (predict) with certainty the position of an electron in an atom. Believe it or not this follows and does not contradict his powers. You see he created the Atom as it is precisely so he could have something to bet on with other gods.

pokervintage

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Well, if god is omnipotent isn't it a given that he already knows everything that _can_ happen and also has the power to change it? </font>

Omnipotence is all-powerful. Omniscience is all-knowing. So no, that doesn't follow.

If God knows whether or not Sam will be hit by a bus tomorrow, then He is powerless to change it. Hence, it cannot be omnipotent.

If God has the ability to stop Sam from being bit by a bus (or to cause a bus to hit Sam), then He could not have known what was going to happen before hand. Hence, He is not all-knowing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's probably more to the point that he lets these things happen because it doesn't matter from his point of view. It's a very long view but he can always construct a paradise or hell for Sam depending on his character.

Omnibenevolence? Sure, it's a plausible concept but man is not benevolent as a matter of regard. It seems logical that such a powerful being would be all these things, but not necessary.

Having the power to change something is redundant. Let everything happen anyway and tinker with the results and solutions later. It's also worthwhile to bear in mind such a being would have a non-linear view of time and can go back and forth at will.

But that's just idle speculation. I don't believe such a being cannot be known, it's just human thought and nature limits how easily some concepts can be grasped. And it's very difficult to explain.

Why believers just shrug and place their faith in God, I suppose. It's too complex. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Omnibenevolence? Sure, it's a plausible concept but man is not benevolent as a matter of regard. It seems logical that such a powerful being would be all these things, but not necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

If man is not benevolent, then the actions of men aren't necessarily benevolent and some sucker ( /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) will suffer from it. Any god that allows that, would have to be doubted as benevolent itself.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Omnibenevolence? Sure, it's a plausible concept but man is not benevolent as a matter of regard. It seems logical that such a powerful being would be all these things, but not necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

If man is not benevolent, then the actions of men aren't necessarily benevolent and some sucker ( /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) will suffer from it. Any god that allows that, would have to be doubted as benevolent itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're probably right in a linear view. But if he understands he doesn't need to be benevolent but to let the natural laws of man arise and observe. It's a matter of perception, I suppose.

When I said it wasn't necessary, I meant he doesn't have to be completely omnibenevolent, and that there would be ample room for him to correct things. Then again I tend to think human perception of time as linear and cause and effect are fundamentally incorrect. Which allows me to speculate a scenario in where everything can happen but that there are limits to everything.

As for what or who imposes those limits, consider that a human mind can only take so much pain and suffering before it shuts down. Proof that there is a natural law there too perhaps? Nobody human can take on an infinite amount of pain and suffering.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You're probably right in a linear view. But if he understands he doesn't need to be benevolent but to let the natural laws of man arise and observe. It's a matter of perception, I suppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the perception of the victim is not relevant to a tyrant!

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're probably right in a linear view. But if he understands he doesn't need to be benevolent but to let the natural laws of man arise and observe. It's a matter of perception, I suppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the perception of the victim is not relevant to a tyrant!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tyranny and dispassion are two different things.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're probably right in a linear view. But if he understands he doesn't need to be benevolent but to let the natural laws of man arise and observe. It's a matter of perception, I suppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the perception of the victim is not relevant to a tyrant!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tyranny and dispassion are two different things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree although they can show congruence. If your view of god is a dispassionate one, I have no arguments, like I have no argument against greek, hindu, roman, and other mythologies. It all explain things much better than a compassionate god! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're probably right in a linear view. But if he understands he doesn't need to be benevolent but to let the natural laws of man arise and observe. It's a matter of perception, I suppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the perception of the victim is not relevant to a tyrant!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tyranny and dispassion are two different things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree although they can show congruence. If your view of god is a dispassionate one, I have no arguments, like I have no argument against greek, hindu, roman, and other mythologies. It all explain things much better than a compassionate god! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they do. And we seem to agree on the basic premise. However, I seem to be more optimistic, if only because I think a single event can happen multiple times, as many times as necessary to resolve the equation for that specific event.

And the final solution for a specific event isn't always benevolent. But in the greater sum, logic would dictate such. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif Having faith in more than just humanity being the be-all and end-all and a fair harmony to this universe isn't a bad thing, I suppose.

[mickeyg13]

OK I missed a lot of things while I slept.

First of all, the "2+2=5 for all sufficiently large values of 2" was in fact a joke. However, it's still sort of true vacuously :-P

With regards to omniscience and omnibenevolence, in the hypothetical I wasn't ascribing these properties to the hypothetical God, just omnipotence. You might argue omnipotence implies omniscience, but I think an omnipotent being could choose to make itself omniscient but wouldn't need to. There still would not be a contradiction with the bus though, because it might be that He just doesn't wish to stop it. In other words, my hypothetical doesn't concern the problem of evil (although I think that issue isn't as resolved as some make it, but that's another discussion).

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
For the sake of argument, suppose that there is a God that created the universe and that He is omnipotent (as many of His followers believe He is)

[/ QUOTE ]

View from the earth. Power has to do with Ahriman, better known as Mephistopheles (read Faust by Goethe) and is also known as "the deceiver" in Hebrew lore. The Heavens are a manifestation of "sacrifice" which is manifested in Christ even if his followers are wrapped up in "power". This only means there is work to be done.

The chicken flies , but is not an eagle.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Arent any discussions about God's omnipotence kind of silly and meaningless since none of us has the slightest clue wtf omnipotent means?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does their silliness and/or meaninglessness have to do with whether or not they should be discussed? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I tried to be explicit that I meant a true omnipotence, I suppose essentially meaning that "a true omnipotent figure can do X" for all values of X, even if this leads to a contradiction. There are of course other variations, but for this thread I meant truly no limitations on power. It could be the case that there is an omnipotent creator that can do all things that are not logical contradictions, but I wasn't considering that here.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he can then purple monkey rainbow dishes eat faxes Penelope.

See what I mean? If logic is whimsical then all our posts are gibberish, at least those trying to make some sort of point or argument. As opposed to just 80% of them being gibberish.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, this also refutes omnibenevolence because if God is truly benevolent he can prevent all suffering without any of the necessary consequences. For example, the logical argument "evil exists because free will exists" is easily transcended by a truly omnipotent God. Such a God could grant free will without evil.

(I think there are numerous other problems with that arguments, I'm just using it for the sake of an example. The point is that there is no justifiction for suffering, because God transcends justification. God can have justice and mercy at the same time, if he transcends reason.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if its a contradiction.

In short, NO ONE wants a truly omnipotent God.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If God knows whether or not Sam will be hit by a bus tomorrow, then He is powerless to change it. Hence, it cannot be omnipotent.

If God has the ability to stop Sam from being bit by a bus (or to cause a bus to hit Sam), then He could not have known what was going to happen before hand. Hence, He is not all-knowing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously are not a gambler. God knows that if an unbiased random event occurs, he, even with his omniscient side, can only predict the probability of it occurring. However, if he wants to, since he is also omnipotent, he can control the elements of a physical event at the macro level and make the bus hit Sam. He also knows that even with his omniscience and omnipotence that he cannot measure (predict) with certainty the position of an electron in an atom. Believe it or not this follows and does not contradict his powers. You see he created the Atom as it is precisely so he could have something to bet on with other gods.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

So you posted the definition of omniscience just so you could refute it or...what?

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
So you posted the definition of omniscience just so you could refute it or...what?

[/ QUOTE ]

NO. Omniscience means the capacity to know everything. But knowing everything does not mean controlling everything. Well, not exactly. If one tosses an unbiased coin and the result is truely random even an omniscient being could only at best predict the probability of the result, heads or tails. (or standing on edge if you consider that as a possible result). Certainly one could say that omniscience implies that the being would know every physical aspect of the toss and be able to predict with %100 percent sccuracy the result of the toss. However if all of the elements of a specific toss were known the toss would then not be random. Randomness means each result is equally likely. Now if the elements of the toss were known before hand that would negate the ability for each result to be equally likely so for our purposes in a random event all of the elements of the event cannot be known. Therefore omniscience cannot know anything more than there will be a toss, which is everything to be known at the tiem, and the best he can do is predict the probability of the results. Omniscience does not mean that one has the power to control events only to know everything there is to know about the event. It does not mean all powerful. If the only thing to know is that it is random then omniscience can only know that the possible results and the probability of each.

Now if we add omnipotence, all powerful, then the event itself can be controlled. And we can then run Sam over with the bus whenever we please. We still must be both Omnisicent and omnipotent because we need to KNOW initially where sam is so we can control the event of hitting him with our bus. Omniscience and omnipotence are not the same as someone has claimed. Not exactly. They are indeed different, somewhat, and one does not ultimtely and perfecty yield the other nor does one allow the other to also be simply true.

pokervintage

[Wubbie075]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you posted the definition of omniscience just so you could refute it or...what?

[/ QUOTE ]

NO. Omniscience means the capacity to know everything. But knowing everything does not mean controlling everything. Well, not exactly. If one tosses an unbiased coin and the result is truely random even an omniscient being could only at best predict the probability of the result, heads or tails. (or standing on edge if you consider that as a possible result). Certainly one could say that omniscience implies that the being would know every physical aspect of the toss and be able to predict with %100 percent sccuracy the result of the toss. However if all of the elements of a specific toss were known the toss would then not be random. Randomness means each result is equally likely. Now if the elements of the toss were known before hand that would negate the ability for each result to be equally likely so for our purposes in a random event all of the elements of the event cannot be known. Therefore omniscience cannot know anything more than there will be a toss, which is everything to be known at the tiem, and the best he can do is predict the probability of the results. Omniscience does not mean that one has the power to control events only to know everything there is to know about the event. It does not mean all powerful. If the only thing to know is that it is random then omniscience can only know that the possible results and the probability of each.

Now if we add omnipotence, all powerful, then the event itself can be controlled. And we can then run Sam over with the bus whenever we please. We still must be both Omnisicent and omnipotent because we need to KNOW initially where sam is so we can control the event of hitting him with our bus. Omniscience and omnipotence are not the same as someone has claimed. Not exactly. They are indeed different, somewhat, and one does not ultimtely and perfecty yield the other nor does one allow the other to also be simply true.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

The truly omnipotent and omniscient entity (using the definitions in this thread, at least) would have the power to change what he knows

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you posted the definition of omniscience just so you could refute it or...what?

[/ QUOTE ]

NO. Omniscience means the capacity to know everything. But knowing everything does not mean controlling everything. Well, not exactly. If one tosses an unbiased coin and the result is truely random even an omniscient being could only at best predict the probability of the result, heads or tails. (or standing on edge if you consider that as a possible result). Certainly one could say that omniscience implies that the being would know every physical aspect of the toss and be able to predict with %100 percent sccuracy the result of the toss. However if all of the elements of a specific toss were known the toss would then not be random. Randomness means each result is equally likely. Now if the elements of the toss were known before hand that would negate the ability for each result to be equally likely so for our purposes in a random event all of the elements of the event cannot be known. Therefore omniscience cannot know anything more than there will be a toss, which is everything to be known at the tiem, and the best he can do is predict the probability of the results. Omniscience does not mean that one has the power to control events only to know everything there is to know about the event. It does not mean all powerful. If the only thing to know is that it is random then omniscience can only know that the possible results and the probability of each.

Now if we add omnipotence, all powerful, then the event itself can be controlled. And we can then run Sam over with the bus whenever we please. We still must be both Omnisicent and omnipotent because we need to KNOW initially where sam is so we can control the event of hitting him with our bus. Omniscience and omnipotence are not the same as someone has claimed. Not exactly. They are indeed different, somewhat, and one does not ultimtely and perfecty yield the other nor does one allow the other to also be simply true.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

None of that makes any sense. Why doesnt omniscience extend to knowing the outcome of random events? You seem to have a notion that time is somehow important to an omniscient being but that doesnt make any sense.

The guy you are talking about isnt omniscient.

[bunny]

I think god is bound by logic. Although I dare say a large part of this is because I just couldnt understand anything if he wasnt. So I dont think he wrote the rules of logic - they're just "there". (For what it's worth, I also dont think he defined good, loving, moral etcetera. I think those are "there" too. I dont see how we can ascribe properties to god if those properties are solely defined by him in the first place.)

I think God is able to do everything it is logically possible to do and able to know everything it is logically possible to know.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I think god is bound by logic. Although I dare say a large part of this is because I just couldnt understand anything if he wasnt. So I dont think he wrote the rules of logic - they're just "there". (For what it's worth, I also dont think he defined good, loving, moral etcetera. I think those are "there" too. I dont see how we can ascribe properties to god if those properties are solely defined by him in the first place.)

I think God is able to do everything it is logically possible to do and able to know everything it is logically possible to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the question wasnt EXACTLY "do you believe that, of all the possible Gods that could exist, the one and only one that does is the type of God who is bound by logic?" But thats still a question worth responding to.

[FortunaMaximus]

If such a god started with nothing and emergent properties as described happened, they'd stay within his bounds of omniscience.

People seem to define it as all-knowing. Perhaps it's more like knowing all there is to be known, yet there is more to be known.

Seems simple enough to me. Linear perception is indeed an error when thinking of such definitions.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
If such a god started with nothing and emergent properties as described happened, they'd stay within his bounds of omniscience.

People seem to define it as all-knowing. Perhaps it's more like knowing all there is to be known, yet there is more to be known.

Seems simple enough to me. Linear perception is indeed an error when thinking of such definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

All there is to be known = all, right? Otherwise what does omni mean?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If such a god started with nothing and emergent properties as described happened, they'd stay within his bounds of omniscience.

People seem to define it as all-knowing. Perhaps it's more like knowing all there is to be known, yet there is more to be known.

Seems simple enough to me. Linear perception is indeed an error when thinking of such definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

All there is to be known = all, right? Otherwise what does omni mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Semantics as the definition goes but I'll try describing what I mean.

Knowledge grows over time or iterations, depending on how you see such. The more you run something, the more information you have.

So such a knowledge set would be in ceaseless expansion. So you could be omniscient and still have more to know. Knowing all that there is to be known at a certain point, yet still in motion and acquiring more knowledge.

And such a being would still know everything, but everything isn't fully known.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If such a god started with nothing and emergent properties as described happened, they'd stay within his bounds of omniscience.

People seem to define it as all-knowing. Perhaps it's more like knowing all there is to be known, yet there is more to be known.

Seems simple enough to me. Linear perception is indeed an error when thinking of such definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

All there is to be known = all, right? Otherwise what does omni mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Semantics as the definition goes but I'll try describing what I mean.

Knowledge grows over time or iterations, depending on how you see such. The more you run something, the more information you have.

So such a knowledge set would be in ceaseless expansion. So you could be omniscient and still have more to know. Knowing all that there is to be known at a certain point, yet still in motion and acquiring more knowledge.

And such a being would still know everything, but everything isn't fully known.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is time relevant to an omnipotent or omniscient being?

[jogsxyz]

If there were a God, the universe and time would be a cross-section of His world. He would be omnipotent and not bound by any of the our physical laws.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If such a god started with nothing and emergent properties as described happened, they'd stay within his bounds of omniscience.

People seem to define it as all-knowing. Perhaps it's more like knowing all there is to be known, yet there is more to be known.

Seems simple enough to me. Linear perception is indeed an error when thinking of such definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

All there is to be known = all, right? Otherwise what does omni mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Semantics as the definition goes but I'll try describing what I mean.

Knowledge grows over time or iterations, depending on how you see such. The more you run something, the more information you have.

So such a knowledge set would be in ceaseless expansion. So you could be omniscient and still have more to know. Knowing all that there is to be known at a certain point, yet still in motion and acquiring more knowledge.

And such a being would still know everything, but everything isn't fully known.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is time relevant to an omnipotent or omniscient being?

[/ QUOTE ]

Reference points, and a way to keep track of the data. No linear bias though, the being could change the data at will, but he'd have to find it first. When you think that way, you start to see many-worlds branching, but one dataset. It'd be effectively an expanding infinite one though.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
If there were a God, the universe and time would be a cross-section of His world. He would be omnipotent and not bound by any of the our physical laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. It just wouldn't be necessary to have active omnipotence. Would be useful if something got out of hand though, but not entirely necessary.

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you posted the definition of omniscience just so you could refute it or...what?

[/ QUOTE ]

NO. Omniscience means the capacity to know everything. But knowing everything does not mean controlling everything. Well, not exactly. If one tosses an unbiased coin and the result is truely random even an omniscient being could only at best predict the probability of the result, heads or tails. (or standing on edge if you consider that as a possible result). Certainly one could say that omniscience implies that the being would know every physical aspect of the toss and be able to predict with %100 percent sccuracy the result of the toss. However if all of the elements of a specific toss were known the toss would then not be random. Randomness means each result is equally likely. Now if the elements of the toss were known before hand that would negate the ability for each result to be equally likely so for our purposes in a random event all of the elements of the event cannot be known. Therefore omniscience cannot know anything more than there will be a toss, which is everything to be known at the tiem, and the best he can do is predict the probability of the results. Omniscience does not mean that one has the power to control events only to know everything there is to know about the event. It does not mean all powerful. If the only thing to know is that it is random then omniscience can only know that the possible results and the probability of each.

Now if we add omnipotence, all powerful, then the event itself can be controlled. And we can then run Sam over with the bus whenever we please. We still must be both Omnisicent and omnipotent because we need to KNOW initially where sam is so we can control the event of hitting him with our bus. Omniscience and omnipotence are not the same as someone has claimed. Not exactly. They are indeed different, somewhat, and one does not ultimtely and perfecty yield the other nor does one allow the other to also be simply true.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

No physical event in the universe is "truly" random. We can really only discuss probabilities when assuming a certain level of ignorance. Adding knowledge means that the probabilities change. Absent any amount of ignorance (as would be the case for an omniscient figure), and all events either have probability 1 or 0, even flipping a fair coin.

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
Why doesnt omniscience extend to knowing the outcome of random events?

[/ QUOTE ]

The very definition of a random event (with more than 1 possible outcomes) does not allow knowing before hand the result of any independent trial. Time is not a factor. If there is such a thing as an unbiased coin and it is tossed and the results are truly random one cannot, not even one that is omniscient, predict the outcome with any more than %50 accuracy. Omniscient does not meant having power to do anything just to know things.

For example Steven Hawkings may be the most knowledgeable scientist in the world when it come to Black Holes but he cannot lift his own spoon to feed himself (unfortunate and sad). Knowledge alone is not power just a good portion of it. Omnipotence and omnicience are not synonyms.

pokervintage

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
For what it's worth, I also dont think he defined good, loving, moral etcetera. I think those are "there" too. I dont see how we can ascribe properties to god if those properties are solely defined by him in the first place.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe theologians studied this centuries ago. They basically asked, "Does God like something because it is good, or is it good because God likes it?" I believe they concluded that it must be the case that things are good because God likes them, and not the other way around, for otherwise God (whose nature is good) would be limited in what he might like, which wouldn't be possible for an omnipotent God (which they supposed he was).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why doesnt omniscience extend to knowing the outcome of random events?

[/ QUOTE ]

The very definition of a random event (with more than 1 possible outcomes) does not allow knowing before hand the result of any independent trial. Time is not a factor. If there is such a thing as an unbiased coin and it is tossed and the results are truly random one cannot, not even one that is omniscient, predict the outcome with any more than %50 accuracy. Omniscient does not meant having power to do anything just to know things.

For example Steven Hawkings may be the most knowledgeable scientist in the world when it come to Black Holes but he cannot lift his own spoon to feed himself (unfortunate and sad). Knowledge alone is not power just a good portion of it. Omnipotence and omnicience are not synonyms.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

So you have an unbiased coin. You flip it. It comes up tails. You write it down. I cannot read that piece of paper? Do you get what I'm saying here? God isnt bound by time. So everything has already played out, including all of the random events. He knows what all the outcomes were, and he could "go back in time" and change them. Or whatever he wants. You are sort of imposing a lack of imagination or an anthropmorphized quality to this God here.

Also, I think mickey's point about randomness is legit as well.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think god is bound by logic. Although I dare say a large part of this is because I just couldnt understand anything if he wasnt. So I dont think he wrote the rules of logic - they're just "there". (For what it's worth, I also dont think he defined good, loving, moral etcetera. I think those are "there" too. I dont see how we can ascribe properties to god if those properties are solely defined by him in the first place.)

I think God is able to do everything it is logically possible to do and able to know everything it is logically possible to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the question wasnt EXACTLY "do you believe that, of all the possible Gods that could exist, the one and only one that does is the type of God who is bound by logic?" But thats still a question worth responding to.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was expanding perhaps - I intended it to include all possible gods though if that wasnt clear.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For what it's worth, I also dont think he defined good, loving, moral etcetera. I think those are "there" too. I dont see how we can ascribe properties to god if those properties are solely defined by him in the first place.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe theologians studied this centuries ago. They basically asked, "Does God like something because it is good, or is it good because God likes it?" I believe they concluded that it must be the case that things are good because God likes them, and not the other way around, for otherwise God (whose nature is good) would be limited in what he might like, which wouldn't be possible for an omnipotent God (which they supposed he was).

[/ QUOTE ]
If you accept their answer there, presumably you would accept that he cant be bound by logic either (or he would be limited in what he might do...etc).

I just dont think it means anything to say:

God is good.
What's good?
It's what God is.

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
No physical event in the universe is "truly" random. We can really only discuss probabilities when assuming a certain level of ignorance. Adding knowledge means that the probabilities change. Absent any amount of ignorance (as would be the case for an omniscient figure), and all events either have probability 1 or 0, even flipping a fair coin.


[/ QUOTE ]

The only part of this statement that I understand is that no event in the universe is truly random. It is only true because with our limited intelligence we cannot imagine a truly random event occurring in a physical universe. However, the Hiesenberg uncertainty priciple may actually make the statement false. I wish I understood it better. But either way an omniscient being would know for sure whether or not a physical event could be truly random. Since mickey is not omnicieint, maybe, I do not believe that he knows for sure that randomness cannot be achieved in the physical universe. Interestingly enough, even if it can't presently be achieved, an omnipotent being could make a random event happen. How? Don't ask me, I'm not omniscient.

[ QUOTE ]
So you have an unbiased coin. You flip it. It comes up tails. You write it down. I cannot read that piece of paper? Do you get what I'm saying here? God isnt bound by time. So everything has already played out, including all of the random events.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, God is not bound by time. Not because he is omniscient but because he is omnipotent. Were he just omniscient he would be bound by time. He could predict the future with probabilistic accuracy but could not travel between future, past and present without being omnipotent. So things for an omniscient but not omnipotent being would only travel forward in time.

I am not saying that God is not both omnipotent and omniscient. I am saying the two characteristics are distinct and separate (somewhat) and compliment the other.

pokervintage