You don't need logic to have constrained it, just definition.
Of course, omnipotence without definition is meaningless.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
i dont understand this omnipotent
- Thread starter The high master
- Start date
Of course, omnipotence without definition is meaningless.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
Well that would depend on the definition then wouldnt it? In that earlier context I was referring to "The ability to do anything it chooses to do" (and was ignoring the limitations on choice itself lol) as omnipotence; given that definition of omnipotence, it would indeed incorporate logical absurdities such as creating a simultaneously entirely black entirely white four legged chair with no legs - though I doubt such a chair could be created within OUR universe given the logical constraints of this universe, if we are to assume that god has the ability to do anything it chooses, that would include something as nonsensical as this chair ((which is the reason so many people are willing to concede the logical constraints on omnipotence, at least so far as it pertains to this existence))
Last edited:
And that's fine, but then let the definition of "impossible" be "cannot be done."
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Yes, but some people define omnipotent as meaning there is nothing that is impossible...
Fortunately, that's not the case here.
Edit: If we allow contradiction, then not just logic but definition also goes out the window. If "impossible" is unable to be defined because it is not allowed to be impossible (is made possible by being "done") then we have embraced a world where contradiction is the norm and then even god's omnipotence doesn't have to be omnipotence. Even god doesn't have to be god.
Last edited:
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
So what is it that you think The High Master is saying?Fortunately, that's not the case here.
Did I read the OP wrong? He is asking why the absolutist view upsets the human mind.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Perhaps you should read the posts AFTER the OP..?
Too much effort.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Fair enough.
To recount what I said, if omnipotence is the ability of god to do anything he wants, and if impossible is "cannot be done," then if god sets out to do what he really wants to do (the impossible) and does it (Yay, God!), he has at the same time entirely failed to do what he set out to do. He hasn't done something that cannot be done.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
The problem being that High Master has continually suggested that logic does not constrain such a being, so while impossible can be defined in such a manner, it does not apply to such a being.
Though perhaps we might contest that in such a situation it may well apply to the outcomes of the actions of such a being... perhaps therefore omnipotence even if we suggest it is not bound by logic per se, the outcomes of any actions of such an entity (if they occur within an existence where logic does characterise everything) ARE bound by logic.... so it would be a sort of omnipotence with regards to itself and its own nature, but its outcomes may be bounded by the environment in which they occur.
Truth is if one of your initial premises are 'logic does not define the being' well... you pretty quickly wind up in a situation where you are talking about illogical things.
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
It can be proven that an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god cannot exist. All other gods are not worthy of worship.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
Well if we are to use traditional definitions of those terms yes, such an entity may have a very different understanding of benevolence than we do for example... but it depends on what you mean by 'worthy of worship'; personally I think that even if there is a creator 'god', it would only be worthy of my gratitude and perhaps respect, but not my worship or obedience.
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
You make a good point that "benevolence" for a "godly"
viewpoint could be quite different than form ours, i.e. they would be looking at the big picture, and might think, oops, I screwed up this universe, better start over again.
But logic aside, definition contrains the world, that's the world "God" made. Without definition, the world is meaningless chaos.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
Why would such a being use words? Indeed would there even BE words in such an existence? Words are, but a poor attempt to reference concepts.
I understand the point, however in such an existence where we are talking about an entity unrestrained by logic, the vestments we have created within our universe such as linguistics, even epistemology.... would they still have any validity? The inability to rely on simply logic as being reliable means we are faced with considering a non rational existence not characterised by anything which we can reliably examine. :/ what would be nonsensical musings here may be reliable there; to suggest that logic does not constrain is a premise that defeats any attempt at examination >.<
I understand the point, however in such an existence where we are talking about an entity unrestrained by logic, the vestments we have created within our universe such as linguistics, even epistemology.... would they still have any validity? The inability to rely on simply logic as being reliable means we are faced with considering a non rational existence not characterised by anything which we can reliably examine. :/ what would be nonsensical musings here may be reliable there; to suggest that logic does not constrain is a premise that defeats any attempt at examination >.<
Last edited:
filthy tugboat
Active Member
Without logic, discussion or thought on the concepts are pointless. A concept not bound by logic cannot be meaningfully thought of, identified, defined or anything to humans. There is one logical law that if not true of something then that thing cannot be recognized by us at all. That is the law of identity. If God does not follow the laws of logic then God is not God. If he does not follow the law of identity then it is possible that he is not what he is. He has no attributes as well as having many attributes. This is why without logic, there's no meaningful discussion or thoughts.
Examination is impossible without logic, to suggest that God does not follow logic or is not constrained by logic defeats any attempt at examination.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
Exactly, which I have attempted to convey to THM in several threads and in about two dozen PM replies now....
If you wish to postulate an existence not restricted (and thus examinable) by logic then there is little point discussing it further; it is both potentially psychologically unhealthy and philosophically unproductive.
If you wish to postulate an existence not restricted (and thus examinable) by logic then there is little point discussing it further; it is both potentially psychologically unhealthy and philosophically unproductive.