Crazy Question about Omnipotence

[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! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[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! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] 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? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

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.