Omnipotence Doesn't Imply Seeing The Future.

[The once and future king]

I dont understand how this thread got this far.

Listen up people.

Any God that is Omni would exist in all time at the same time.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont understand how this thread got this far.

Listen up people.

Any God that is Omni would exist in all time at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Trying hard to asume DS's premise, he gets upset if we don't.

If god, being omnipotent an all, decided to create a temporal universe and exist within it so that it makes sense to talk of god existing differently at different times then it follows that god cannot forsee the future as DS says.

I think an omnipotent being could manage that without breaking sweat.

chez

[guesswest]

If you interpret the word omnipotent literally, ie powerful above and beyond the constraints of logic, space and time -then you really can't say anything at all about god in terms of philosophy. You can say 'yes he can' and 'no he can't' in the same breath about the original premise, or any premise, and it's not lacking in sense.

I think the literal interpretation of the word is reasonable, but if you go that route it has to end any debate about anything related to god's powers because it takes away all the tools we use to discuss.

[soon2bepro]

The once and future king: No, it does not mean that He exists at all times. Even if you assume He can change things that already happened (before they do, but after they did), He just might have the power to do so from whatever point in time He's in. That could be our time btw.

There's the possibility that the way we see time is flawed and God's omnipotence doesn't allow Him to go back in time and change something, but only to change it in the present (which wouldn't be much different, really, since He can alter things in any way he wants)

[soon2bepro]

guesswest: Omnipotence doesn't mean power above and beyond the constraints of logic. It could mean that, but it's not the meaning we're giving it. What we're saying (at least what i'm saying) is that omnipotence is power over all things logical. (I assume the universe worlks only logically, as I as a human being can't understand any other type of method)

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
guesswest: Omnipotence doesn't mean power above and beyond the constraints of logic. It could mean that, but it's not the meaning we're giving it. What we're saying (at least what i'm saying) is that omnipotence is power over all things logical. (I assume the universe worlks only logically, as I as a human being can't understand any other type of method)

[/ QUOTE ]

It's what a number of people on this thread were proposing. I'd say both definitions of the word are reasonable. I was just meaning to say that mixing and matching them doesn't work, if you take the literalist approach the topic doesn't lend itself to debate since logic is how we conduct debate. So you either have to say omnipotence functions within the parameters of logic, and we can discuss this, or say it doesn't, and write it off as unknowable. To say true omnipotence has no constraints whatsoever is reasonable, but you can't then use logic to infer or assert anything at all from that because the premise is logically non-sensical.

[hashi92]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
guesswest: Omnipotence doesn't mean power above and beyond the constraints of logic. It could mean that, but it's not the meaning we're giving it. What we're saying (at least what i'm saying) is that omnipotence is power over all things logical. (I assume the universe worlks only logically, as I as a human being can't understand any other type of method)

[/ QUOTE ]

It's what a number of people on this thread were proposing. I'd say both definitions of the word are reasonable. I was just meaning to say that mixing and matching them doesn't work, if you take the literalist approach the topic doesn't lend itself to debate since logic is how we conduct debate. So you either have to say omnipotence functions within the parameters of logic, and we can discuss this, or say it doesn't, and write it off as unknowable. To say true omnipotence has no constraints whatsoever is reasonable, but you can't then use logic to infer or assert anything at all from that because the premise is logically non-sensical.

[/ QUOTE ]

how is it illogical to say that someone who is all powerful can do something that is beyond logic. the whole idea of all powerful defies logic in the first place. but that is the definition. this is why there are so many religons people interpret things to fit their beliefs. if you look in the dictionary its right there in black and white.

[guesswest]

It's not illogical to arrive at that understanding of the definition, but the whole concept of unrestrained omnipotence is very obviously completely internally illogical, by definition.

My point wasn't to challenge that interpretation of the word though. What I said is, if you use that definition you can't then use logic to infer anything subsequent (ie the actions of that god, whether he see's the future, anything), because the premise is already logically compromised. Maybe you can use some tool other than logic to do this, that doesn't fail on it's own terms, but I don't know what it'd be.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
There's the possibility that the way we see time is flawed

[/ QUOTE ]

Yo!

I know someone would eventually stop definition chopping and say something interesting. Although I think this misses the point.

I would say that time is a human construction we superimpose on the universe to aid understanding. Rather than say it’s flawed, say at some point predictive models that use it will start to produce incorrect results. However I do believe that the key point is that we do appear to observe some pattern to consequential actions.

Now back to this omnipotent/God/time thing.

You can create a model with an object called God with an omnipotent property. You can even set up the definitions so that they are inherently inconsistent. This leaves to three possible conclusions.

1) Logic does not necessary hold in my model.
2) My model does not make sense.
3) Opps! I made a mistake.

Another option is to assume that we have an entity called God that’s really powerful. Lets call him omnipotent. Now what does omnipotent mean? Well just look at what God can do, and that will give us our definition. If we can show God can do something then that is something an omnipotent being can do, if we cannot show God can do something, then we cannot yet say that is something an omnipotent being can do.

How do we tell what a fictional entity can and cannot do. Well obviously we read the book and that will tell us.

Now take the bible (or other story that can define a God) to be a set of axioms, we can read it and see what God can and cannot do. Does the bible say God can accurately predict the future? Does the bible claim that God can guarantee his own predictions? Does the bible say that God exists in all time at the same time? etc.

The key point here is that you are not just inventing an entity and a property and combining them as some sort of thought experiment. Instead you are researching into what God has been recoded as doing, and building up a picture of his abilities. This process I believe would lead to a much more convincing definition of the omnipotent property as applied to an ALMIGHTY being.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If you interpret the word omnipotent literally, ie powerful above and beyond the constraints of logic, space and time -then you really can't say anything at all about god in terms of philosophy. You can say 'yes he can' and 'no he can't' in the same breath about the original premise, or any premise, and it's not lacking in sense.

I think the literal interpretation of the word is reasonable, but if you go that route it has to end any debate about anything related to god's powers because it takes away all the tools we use to discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]
It takes away all out tools to understand what omnipotence means. Its literaly beyond reason. Its even beyond faith in that you cant really believe something if you don't have some idea what it means.

That just leaves a vague kind of faith where you believe something is true just because someone says it is, even when you and the person who wrote it cant understood it. [so you have to believe its direct from a god who knows you cant understand it].

chez