i dont understand this omnipotent

[The high master]

i dont understand this Absolutist view—God is absolutely able to do anything; that is, the answer to "Can God do x?" is always "yes," regardless of what x may be.

why does this upset the human mind

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It is a rather intriguing view, it holds that not only everything logical, but everything illogical is possible for one possessing this kind (there are other kinds, including those bounded by logic) of omnipotence.

One would therefore suggest that everything is possible for it - however at the same time, were we to attempt to pursue any argument or obtain and conclusion about such an existence, all such arguments rely on logic - because we have predetermined that logic does not characterise such an entity, any such arguments become unreliable. So everything is possible for it... except that any thought we can possibly have about it is unreliable; because all of our thoughts are based in rationality - even people who seem to be acting irrationally are merely operating under a very different rational system; for example even the most random numbers that humans are able to generate actually conform to highly complex heuristics (though much of those heuristics may be poorly understood depending on what is doing the generation such as a human kind)

 

[filthy tugboat]

i dont understand this Absolutist view—God is absolutely able to do anything; that is, the answer to "Can God do x?" is always "yes," regardless of what x may be.

why does this upset the human mind

Because it goes against everything we know to be true. The universe follows set laws and behaves predictably, God would necessarily be unpredictable as he is cable of all things or so the Bible would have us believe. If someone proposes that the controller of the universe is unpredictable and that the universe is predictable then I would say that they were wrong about one of those conclusions.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Well not necessarily, if God is not within the universe nor the universe within God then it might be possible for one to be predictable (given sufficient data) and the other to be unpredictable - though that stated, it is important to note that it is quite possible that the universe is ALSO unpredictable, just that we perceive it as largely predictable .

 

[The high master]

But this omnipotent types says that you can create things that are not things which would mean it's beyond everthinh

 

[InformedIgnorance]

'which would mean' indicates an argument, which is based in logic - hence it is unreliable when we are talking about something not bound by logic.

 

[The high master]

So in another words the being with this type of omnipotent can do it if he wants to

 

[InformedIgnorance]

As I have said before, it would be a logical assumption to make that such a being can do as it wants.

However, since you have stipulated the entity that is not bound by logic, therefore logical assumptions are unreliable

 

[The high master]

Can't a omnipotent be logical and illogical at the same time

 

[InformedIgnorance]

A being not bound by logic might perhaps choose to act within logical constraints - but YOU or any other being (except perhaps those not bound by logic), cannot with any credibility choose to assume that logic reliably applies to it - such as attempting to propose claims about such an entity, including it being capable of being logical and illogical at the same time.

 

[Meow Mix]

i dont understand this Absolutist view—God is absolutely able to do anything; that is, the answer to "Can God do x?" is always "yes," regardless of what x may be.

why does this upset the human mind

It "upsets the mind" because it's a nonsense statement, like "married bachelor" or "Euclidean square-circle." No such being can exist that can literally do anything, even the illogical. This is because such a being implies the existence of contradictory things in the same respect and at the same time: for instance, that old canard of "God lifting a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it."

The reason that's a nonsense scenario is because it posits the simultaneous existence of an irresistable force (God) and an immovable object (the rock).

If an irresistable force exists, then there cannot exist an immovable object (else the force isn't in fact irresistable), and vice versa. It's nonsense; just because it's possible to string together words that normally make sense on their own doesn't mean that some meaningful concept is actually being conveyed.

For this reason, most theologians agree that even God obeys logic -- this isn't a limitation on God per se, but just an observation that illogical things are meaningless: there's nothing outside of logic for any being to "do," because logic is the realm of how things exist.

Most theologians therefore use the following definition for omnipotence: "The capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs."

In this way, an omnipotent being can accomplish literally anything that's possible to accomplish without absurd self-contradictions.

 

[Meow Mix]

It is a rather intriguing view, it holds that not only everything logical, but everything illogical is possible for one possessing this kind (there are other kinds, including those bounded by logic) of omnipotence.

One would therefore suggest that everything is possible for it - however at the same time, were we to attempt to pursue any argument or obtain and conclusion about such an existence, all such arguments rely on logic - because we have predetermined that logic does not characterise such an entity, any such arguments become unreliable. So everything is possible for it... except that any thought we can possibly have about it is unreliable; because all of our thoughts are based in rationality - even people who seem to be acting irrationally are merely operating under a very different rational system; for example even the most random numbers that humans are able to generate actually conform to highly complex heuristics (though much of those heuristics may be poorly understood depending on what is doing the generation such as a human kind)

It isn't just that thought relies on logic, it's that reality itself relies on logic. Logic is essentially the fabric of reality. It has such indispensable rules, even for God, as:

1) Identity (A = A), that something, if it exists, is itself
2) Excluded middle (A v ¬A), that something is either what it is, or it's obviously something else if it isn't what it is.
3) Noncontradiction (¬[A ^ ¬A]), that something can't be itself and something else at the same time and in the same respect.

Even an omnipotent being is subject to these rules, else you end up with such absurdities as:

1) God existing and not existing at the same time and in the same respect
2) God omnisciently "knowing" that He does not exist -- nevermind that in order to "know" anything it requires existence
3) That infamous little "rock so big" ditty

It's a mistake to attribute this to a limitation in human thinking. It's not that we're finite creatures, just a speck in the universe, that we can't fathom God exceeding logic -- it's that it's meaningless in an absolute sense to assert that anything "transcends" logic.

 

[Meow Mix]

Because it goes against everything we know to be true. The universe follows set laws and behaves predictably, God would necessarily be unpredictable as he is cable of all things or so the Bible would have us believe. If someone proposes that the controller of the universe is unpredictable and that the universe is predictable then I would say that they were wrong about one of those conclusions.

However, there is an issue here:

The laws of logic are ontologically necessary: it's not possible for them to be different or to be false.

The physical laws of the universe, however, are contingent: they could be different without invoking absurdities. There is nothing explicitely contradictory about gravity causing things to fall up, or water changing into wine, or a dead man rising from the grave. Those things merely violate physical laws, not logical ones.

It's also improper to think of logic as a set of "laws," though they can be expressed as such for convenience -- logic is the essence of limitation. To exist at all, a thing must exist as something; and to be something is to be that thing rather than some other thing -- it is limited from being other than what it is. This isn't a "law" in the same sense that a natural, physical law is: this is the nature of what it means to "be" at all.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

For our reality that is completely true; however that does not necessarily hold true for ALL reality, perhaps there are other existences (similar to planes of existence perhaps) that are not bound by the same logical restraints (though the nature of such planes I could not begin to determine) it is merely a theoretical possibility, but one consistent with logic given logic's own theoretical (because it is a domain of human knowledge and thus inherits the limitation of human intellect used to develop and test it) limitation - though yes I know full well that logic is one of the sole 'proven' fields and I cannot perceive any potential failing in the logical framework, other than the purely theoretical one.

I do not believe it is meaningless to briefly consider the possibility of such an existence - but to attempt to define or describe such an entity to any extent IS meaningless.

Sorry, only part of my argument is within this thread (much of what have I said in the past agrees with many of the points you have raised) this discussion has occurred over several threads now, basically consisting of him asking variations of the same question (as all of his posts have been save for his welcome thread).

 

[Meow Mix]

But this omnipotent types says that you can create things that are not things which would mean it's beyond everthinh

Descartes and a few others fell into this trap: that perhaps God could create a Euclidean square-circle, or a married bachelor. It's nonsense in the full meaning of the word: the statement "God can create a square-circle" is about as meaningful as "T'was brillig, and the slithey toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe."

The fact of the matter is that if God has a nature, then God is logical. It must be that God has a nature if He exists: it defines what God is. Thomists and Descartes (at one point) attempted to get around this by saying God doesn't have a nature -- that His essence is the same as His substance, and so on and so forth (whole other subject here), but that reasoning is flawed: if God has any properties, then God has a nature.

Even if Thomists somehow argue that omniscience isn't a "property" of God, just as an example (given by Plantinga), it still doesn't excuse God from having attributes and thus a nature: after all, if God exists, and God is omniscient, then the proposition:

P1: God knows that God does not exist.

is false. God would have the property of "knowing that (P1) is false." Thus even in that scenario, God still has a nature, and so still must be logical. Nevermind that the notion that omniscience itself not being a property of God is itself nonsense.

This gives rise to an overwhelmingly important notion in theism, though underplayed by most theologians: the aseity-sovereignty paradox. If God has a nature -- and He does if He exists -- then God is subject to transcendental states of affairs, namely that which gives God the nature that God has. That's a different subject though; just tying it in here.

 

[Meow Mix]

For our reality that is completely true; however that does not necessarily hold true for ALL reality, perhaps there are other existences (similar to planes of existence perhaps) that are not bound by the same logical restraints (though the nature of such planes I could not begin to determine) it is merely a theoretical possibility, but one consistent with logic given logic's own theoretical (because it is a domain of human knowledge and thus inherits the limitation of human intellect used to develop and test it) limitation - though yes I know full well that logic is one of the sole 'proven' fields and I cannot perceive any potential failing in the logical framework, other than the purely theoretical one.

I do not believe it is meaningless to briefly consider the possibility of such an existence - but to attempt to define or describe such an entity to any extent IS meaningless.

Sorry, only part of my argument is within this thread (much of what have I said in the past agrees with many of the points you have raised) this discussion has occurred over several threads now, basically consisting of him asking variations of the same question (as all of his posts have been save for his welcome thread).

Well, there actually is a notation in modal ontological logic called "possible worlds semantics." It's a way of thinking about what necessarily exists as opposed to what only contingently exists; and it does so in exactly the way that you propose: by asserting the possibility that some other "world" (some other reality) could be different.

It's possible for other worlds to exist which have completely different physical laws -- where gravity falls up, where water is a solid, where it's possible to walk through walls, and any other number of things.

However, it's not possible for any world to exist without the exact same laws of logic (such as the three important notions I mentioned earlier: identity, excluded middle, and noncontradiction).

For instance, consider the absurdity of saying that some possible world Q might exist in which identity (the notion that something is what it is, A = A) is false.

But that's ludicrous: if we're talking about that world, Q, then it's obvious that Q is what it is!

Even if we say, "Q is a world where things aren't what they are," we've already contradicted ourselves: what is a world where things aren't what they are? Q? Necessarily, Q must be what it is rather than something else -- which negates the whole premise that it's a world where that isn't the case. Q = Q, even if we try to say it's a place where that doesn't happen -- by the very "fact" of existing, it must be what it is, and so vindicate logic yet again.

Does that make sense?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Well, there actually is a notation in modal ontological logic called "possible worlds semantics." It's a way of thinking about what necessarily exists as opposed to what only contingently exists; and it does so in exactly the way that you propose: by asserting the possibility that some other "world" (some other reality) could be different.

It's possible for other worlds to exist which have completely different physical laws -- where gravity falls up, where water is a solid, where it's possible to walk through walls, and any other number of things.

However, it's not possible for any world to exist without the exact same laws of logic (such as the three important notions I mentioned earlier: identity, excluded middle, and noncontradiction).

I understand that, I however disagree with the stipulation of the logical requirements, while I confess such an existence would be so absurdly out of human comprehension as to be nonsensical, that does not mean it is not possible.

The limitation in the logical framework that I spoke of as being only theoretical is that humans are limited in their intellectual capacity in envisaging the logical framework, analysing it for limitation and in (obviously) applying it. Disregarding potential extensions for the logical framework such as through fuzzy / three value logic, the simple logical truth is that a theoretically flawed logical framework, theoretically may not be reliably applied to all situations - particularly those that are removed from the intellectual experience represented by the logical framework. This is particularly apparent when dealing with metaphorical concepts.

For instance, consider the absurdity of saying that some possible world Q might exist in which identity (the notion that something is what it is, A = A) is false.

But that's ludicrous: if we're talking about that world, Q, then it's obvious that Q is what it is!

Even if we say, "Q is a world where things aren't what they are," we've already contradicted ourselves: what is a world where things aren't what they are? Q? Necessarily, Q must be what it is rather than something else -- which negates the whole premise that it's a world where that isn't the case. Q = Q, even if we try to say it's a place where that doesn't happen -- by the very "fact" of existing, it must be what it is, and so vindicate logic yet again.

Identity is the most beautiful of the three, but what if we are talking about an existence where identity was blurred, transient or in some other fashion unreliable? Actually strike transient, discussing it is interesting enough without getting into time (of which we know very little) What if Q actually refers to a range of multiple Q's, Q1-Qn (with some capacity to move between or blend Q's) or where its nature either non static in some fashion...

I have never accepted that the impossible proposition is indeed impossible within that possible world scenario - only unlikely.




I agree though that any outcomes of some 'God's involvement in this existence (or any other existence that is bounded by logic) would almost certainly have to comply with said logic (I cannot conceive of a way it could avoid that) hence being unable to create a Married Bachelor, however this does not mean that the nature of God itself would also have to comply with logic, or even God's actions, only the outcomes of those actions where they relate to a logic bound existence.


Edit: But now I run away, I am about to lose my internet connection

 

[filthy tugboat]

However, there is an issue here:

The laws of logic are ontologically necessary: it's not possible for them to be different or to be false.

The physical laws of the universe, however, are contingent: they could be different without invoking absurdities. There is nothing explicitely contradictory about gravity causing things to fall up, or water changing into wine, or a dead man rising from the grave. Those things merely violate physical laws, not logical ones.

It's also improper to think of logic as a set of "laws," though they can be expressed as such for convenience -- logic is the essence of limitation. To exist at all, a thing must exist as something; and to be something is to be that thing rather than some other thing -- it is limited from being other than what it is. This isn't a "law" in the same sense that a natural, physical law is: this is the nature of what it means to "be" at all.

The question was why humans largely have a problem with the notion that a being that is capable of anything controls the universe, so I gave the answer, humans largely find the universe o be predictable. Such a being would necessarily be unpredictable. If such a being were controlling the universe there is a discrepancy between what is and the way things should be. Whether the universe is truly predictable may be faulty, but none the less, people do largely believe it to be predictable, they live their lives based on that assumption.

 

[The high master]

God is absolutely able to do anything; that is, the answer to "Can God do x?" is always "yes," regardless of what x may be. if God has this omnipotent type can he do the following

create a better more potent type of power
remake the laws of logic to whatever it wants
create stuff that are not things
go beyond whatever All everthing

 

[9Westy9]

i dont understand this Absolutist view—God is absolutely able to do anything; that is, the answer to "Can God do x?" is always "yes," regardless of what x may be.

why does this upset the human mind

It's simple really. Once you accept that omnipotent means can do all things. Then God can do the imaginary and the things that don't make sense by definition. The real question then becomes does an omnipotent exist.