Is omniscience or omnipotence really possible?

[logician]

A god that is omniscient would know all of its future decisions, therefore is severely limited by its own knowledge, i.e. has no freewill. This seems an absurdity, therefore, at best a god can only be omniscient about all things and decisions unrelated to itself.

But this means it is not truly omniscient, as it cannot know the future, since it does not know the actions it will take. If it is not omniscient, it follows that it cannot be omnipotent, as it is usually taken that one implies the other.

Any thoughts?

 

[sandandfoam]

That works if God thinks like you.

 

[camanintx]

Aren't you assuming that the concept of God has to be logical?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

By slapping on the labels of "omnipotent," "omniscient," and "omni-benevolent," we limit God with the chains of "thingliness." (Thanks Willamena for that one!)

 

[Magic Man]

If God exists, He doesn't fit into our limited concepts of omniscence and omnipotence. I believe that there is our concept of these things, and then there are the real versions of them, since we can't actually grasp the full concept.

 

[logician]

Maybe the problems are with god concepts themselves.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

A god that is omniscient would know all of its future decisions, therefore is severely limited by its own knowledge, i.e. has no freewill. This seems an absurdity, therefore, at best a god can only be omniscient about all things and decisions unrelated to itself.

But this means it is not truly omniscient, as it cannot know the future, since it does not know the actions it will take. If it is not omniscient, it follows that it cannot be omnipotent, as it is usually taken that one implies the other.

Any thoughts?

Can you think of a better reason to create a means by which the limitations of infinity can be escaped; i.e., the universe?

 

[sandandfoam]

Maybe the problems are with god concepts themselves.

Can you conceive a 'God concept' that wouldn't have these problems ?

 

[Popeyesays]

A god that is omniscient would know all of its future decisions, therefore is severely limited by its own knowledge, i.e. has no freewill. This seems an absurdity, therefore, at best a god can only be omniscient about all things and decisions unrelated to itself.

But this means it is not truly omniscient, as it cannot know the future, since it does not know the actions it will take. If it is not omniscient, it follows that it cannot be omnipotent, as it is usually taken that one implies the other.

Any thoughts?

You're making the mistake of thinking that God is part of Creation and therefore subject to time.

What would it appear to be if time was just a single expression of "Now"?

Time gives us the ability to look at events singly. We are subject to nature and have restrictions to time.

God is not subject to nature and not restricted to time.

So, am I able to be omniscient or omnipotent? NO! Restrictions with which I was created are not the restrictions of the Creator.

Regards,
Scott

 

[logician]

You're making the mistake of thinking that God is part of Creation and therefore subject to time.

What would it appear to be if time was just a single expression of "Now"?

Time gives us the ability to look at events singly. We are subject to nature and have restrictions to time.

God is not subject to nature and not restricted to time.

So, am I able to be omniscient or omnipotent? NO! Restrictions with which I was created are not the restrictions of the Creator.

Regards,
Scott

Sounds like a cop-out for the creator to me.

 

[Popeyesays]

Sounds like a cop-out for the creator to me.

Well, you're insisting on anthropomorphizing God.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Fluffy]

It is meaningless to say that it is possible to do the logically impossible because possibility is defined according to a limit and there is no limit outside of the logical for which such a range of acts can be placed in reference to.

Therefore, omnipotence and omniscience, the abilities to do and know everything, are meaningless (not logically incoherent but meaningless) when "everything" is understood to include the logically impossible. Therefore, "everything" should not be understood in this way. Problem solved.

 

[mr.guy]

A god that is omniscient would know all of its future decisions, therefore is severely limited by its own knowledge, i.e. has no freewill. This seems an absurdity, therefore, at best a god can only be omniscient about all things and decisions unrelated to itself.

How would you justify the lack of freewill as a bonafide "absurdity". Please, do put some effort into this one, 'kay?

But this means it is not truly omniscient, as it cannot know the future, since it does not know the actions it will take. If it is not omniscient, it follows that it cannot be omnipotent, as it is usually taken that one implies the other.

How does the supposed implication definitively rescind omnipotence?

What are the two concepts, really?

It is meaningless to say that it is possible to do the logically impossible because possibility is defined according to a limit and there is no limit outside of the logical for which such a range of acts can be placed in reference to.

I'm always confused about how regular "possibility" differs from "logical possibility".

Therefore, omnipotence and omniscience, the abilities to do and know everything, are meaningless (not logically incoherent but meaningless) when "everything" is understood to include the logically impossible. Therefore, "everything" should not be understood in this way. Problem solved.

I think there's a much simpler route than that.

My own dime-store etymology of omnipotence and omniscience shouldn't have to deal with "impossibilities" or paradox, or meaning in the slightest.

Firstly, much in the form of your first statement, i don't see how omnipotence necessarily attributes "limitlessness + infinity, etc." Potential, being the key word for me, is described in totality with the concept of god, as i see it. No centralisation is needed, nor motive. What is outside of the total potential of the universe, existence, or whatever is not within the realm and influence of that which i describe, fondly, of course, as the "horder of potential".

Omniscience seems even more benign. Being needn't even get involved in this one, as it only seems to imply that:

a)knowledge exists distinctly
b)the total set of knowledge is finite
c)thus, there is potential for everything to be known


Even having said this, omniscience doesn't denote a conscious agent. Here, i'm sure, many would disagree with my own flaky views on epistemology, where i may add

d)Everything that is knowable is, in some form, known.

What think you of that last one?

 

[logician]

It is meaningless to say that it is possible to do the logically impossible because possibility is defined according to a limit and there is no limit outside of the logical for which such a range of acts can be placed in reference to.

Therefore, omnipotence and omniscience, the abilities to do and know everything, are meaningless (not logically incoherent but meaningless) when "everything" is understood to include the logically impossible. Therefore, "everything" should not be understood in this way. Problem solved.

Exactly my point, which is why omniscience and omnipotence are impossible.

 

[logician]

1. How would you justify the lack of freewill as a bonafide "absurdity". Please, do put some effort into this one, 'kay?

2.How does the supposed implication definitively rescind omnipotence?

3.What are the two concepts, really?



I'm always confused about how regular "possibility" differs from "logical possibility".

I think there's a much simpler route than that.

My own dime-store etymology of omnipotence and omniscience shouldn't have to deal with "impossibilities" or paradox, or meaning in the slightest.

Firstly, much in the form of your first statement, i don't see how omnipotence necessarily attributes "limitlessness + infinity, etc." Potential, being the key word for me, is described in totality with the concept of god, as i see it. No centralisation is needed, nor motive. What is outside of the total potential of the universe, existence, or whatever is not within the realm and influence of that which i describe, fondly, of course, as the "horder of potential".

Omniscience seems even more benign. Being needn't even get involved in this one, as it only seems to imply that:

a)knowledge exists distinctly
b)the total set of knowledge is finite
c)thus, there is potential for everything to be known


Even having said this, omniscience doesn't denote a conscious agent. Here, i'm sure, many would disagree with my own flaky views on epistemology, where i may add

d)Everything that is knowable is, in some form, known.

What think you of that last one?

1. A god with no freewill? Please.

2. It generally is considered that if an entity is omniscient or omniopotent, it can make itself the other.

3. I think they have been defined many times on here.

Potential is an interesting concept, but again, as an atheist I don't believe any god concepts to be true, therefore, it's more an excercise in semantics, much as the discussion of omniscience or omnipotence.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Well, you're insisting on anthropomorphizing God.

Regards,
Scott

Atheists do that more than theists. Funny, isn't it?

 

[Popeyesays]

Atheists do that more than theists. Funny, isn't it?

Sillier than mere amusement
Have a couple t you can get a latte at Starbucks.

Regards,
Scotthousand frubals, with that and $2

 

[Guitar's Cry]

1. A god with no freewill? Please.

Mr. Guy has a valid point. Where is the absurdity in a God with no freewill?

2. It generally is considered that if an entity is omniscient or omniopotent, it can make itself the other.

Hm...unless of course It is lacking freewill. It is possible to be omnipotent, and lack the freedom in using it.

 

[mr.guy]

1. A god with no freewill? Please.

So, you won't explain the "absurdity" of the above? Yes or no will do.

Who am i kidding, i don't even expect that much.

All right...let me then ask another question that i fully expect to be dismissed:

What value would freewill hold to an all-powerful, all-knowing being?

Really.

Value, being relative to what one is capable of procuring or attaining, might not be quite the asset you paint it to be to god. I can value something by it's availability; concepts, like market goods, can also suffer inflation.

If I could do anything, one may presume that any action, being of equal effort (aka none) to any other might imply a futile course, a null-decision; there is no relative value to anything relative to myself, as i can do one thing just as simply as another. This grand equalizer makes value judgements, with all things actually being equal, useless.

So, goals are worthless, ambition non-existant, and freewill absurd.

2. It generally is considered that if an entity is omniscient or omniopotent, it can make itself the other.

I'll take that as a "i don't feel like thinking through that one". That's fine, i don't either.

3. I think they have been defined many times on here.

Not to my satisfaction, they haven't.

Potential is an interesting concept, ...

Potential is the central concept.

... it's more an excercise in semantics, much as the discussion of omniscience or omnipotence.

Then it should be fair game, no?

 

[frg001]

Atheists do that more than theists. Funny, isn't it?

Its not funny, and its not true. Maybe in arguments, here... but after all "god made man in his own image" - god anthropomorphised 'himself' according to the number 1 best seller.