omnipotence (this thread started on behalf of Star of the Sea)

[Shroud of Akron]

omnipotence in god must be false if life has meaning for an individual. if god is all powerfull, then god must determine all events, therefore we make no decisions and only follow the path which god has directed us to take.

please begin proving me wrong now.

[c4ts]

I've posted enough already on that subject (see here: http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17872&perpage=40&pagenumber=2 ) but I will gladly refute you.

If God's omniscience negates free will, then He must be an active participant at all times. Otherwise, He may just know everything but choose not to give a damn about it. Where is your proof that God is controlling you?

[Shroud of Akron]

Well, if you agree that God is the highest of all powers, and if you agree that anything that could be called God would have to be moral (the idea is that without God, there could be no morality), then you must agree that God could make the things that are moral immoral, and the things that are immoral, moral, and that means someone can justify harm to others in the name of the Lord. Otherwise, you would have to acknowledge a power higher than God, because then morality would be some kind of universal laws that even God cannot change. if this is the statement you are referring to, then my statement still holds, should i accept the condition of morality, for the sake of my argument, i do accept this statement. besides acceptance of the argument you place forth, i further state that god caused me to harm on god's name.

If God's omniscience negates free will, then He must be an active participant at all times. Otherwise, He may just know everything but choose not to give a damn about it.omniscience is not the argument, omnipotence is. omnipotence implies absolute power, therefore all things are under the power of something that is omnipotent.

Where is your proof that God is controlling you?while i do not personally believe that there is a god, if it is omnipotent, by definition it must control me.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron

while i do not personally believe that there is a god, if it is omnipotent, by definition it must control me.

I do not think so. I think that omnipotence does not necessarily mean cognition or intelligence as we humans would understand it, nor do I think that this sort of power has the kind of influence that negates free will in any way. For example, if you drop a stone off the edge of a cliff, gravity doesn't push it around and tell it exactly where to go, yet the influence of the planetary mass of the Earth is present, and it can only fall in one direction. Other factors, such as wind resistance, may alter the course of the stone as it falls, but it cannot be prevented from falling until it hits something. If God were not understandibly cognizant, it could still constitute the underlying structure of the universe itself, and that would give it omnipotence. It would operate along the same lines as the law of gravity, never really fluxuating, but being true for all things. This means that God isn't necessarily controlling you, just limiting your potential. While God itself would have the potential to constantly restructure the universe so that each law makes you perform a specific action, it does not have to be a realized potential. This means omnipotence does not necessarily lead to the negation of free will, although it is not impossible. And if God is apathetic, or only thinking of itself, it may be too lazy to pre-determine everything that works within the system it becomes.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron
omnipotence in god must be false if life has meaning for an individual. if god is all powerfull, then god must determine all events, therefore we make no decisions and only follow the path which god has directed us to take.

please begin proving me wrong now.

The simple solution would be to say that there's a difference between having the power to actually control your every action, and actually doing so.

[stamenflicker]

if god is all powerfull, then god must determine all events, therefore we make no decisions

I'm not sure it's either / or... sorry to butt in btw.

Consider that our brain is pretty much all powerful when it comes to our bodies. It controls the moving and regulating of all our parts. At the same time, it also recieves input / stimuli and adjusts accordingly.... god's omnipotence could be seen in a similar light.

Flick

[Checkmite]

I agree with c4ts. "Omnipotence" means, literally, "all able". It carries with it the implication that the subject can do anything and everything, but not necessarily that it must.

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by c4ts

For example, if you drop a stone off the edge of a cliff, gravity doesn't push it around and tell it exactly where to go, yet the influence of the planetary mass of the Earth is present, and it can only fall in one direction. Other factors, such as wind resistance, may alter the course of the stone as it falls, but it cannot be prevented from falling until it hits something. If God were not understandibly cognizant, it could still constitute the underlying structure of the universe itself, and that would give it omnipotence. It would operate along the same lines as the law of gravity, never really fluxuating, but being true for all things.i think that this would insinuate that god is ever-present, and all influential. if i have complete control over you, then there is no boundary i cannot make you cross, therefore i am omnipotent to you. if i can only push you in a direction, physically or otherwise, then i have great influence over you.

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
I agree with c4ts. "Omnipotence" means, literally, "all able". It carries with it the implication that the subject can do anything and everything, but not necessarily that it must.
Originally posted by Leif Roar


The simple solution would be to say that there's a difference between having the power to actually control your every action, and actually doing so. dictionary.com gives this definition to the adjective:

om·nip·o·tent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-np-tnt)
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.

as of 1988 webster's dictionary gives this definition:

Omnipotent All-powerful; almighty; possesing unlimited power

let's use these definitions, as i think we can all agree on them. if we, or god somehow limit's god's power, then god is no longer omnipotent given the aforementioned definitions.

Originally posted by stamenflicker
if god is all powerfull, then god must determine all events, therefore we make no decisions

I'm not sure it's either / or... sorry to butt in btw.

Consider that our brain is pretty much all powerful when it comes to our bodies. It controls the moving and regulating of all our parts. At the same time, it also recieves input / stimuli and adjusts accordingly.... god's omnipotence could be seen in a similar light.

Flick our brain is integral, but not all powerful. although this is a more palatable description of god than an omnipotent one. should i ever choose to believe in a god, i hope it has this attribute.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron
dictionary.com gives this definition to the adjective:

om·nip·o·tent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-np-tnt)
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.

as of 1988 webster's dictionary gives this definition:

Omnipotent All-powerful; almighty; possesing unlimited power

let's use these definitions, as i think we can all agree on them. if we, or god somehow limit's god's power, then god is no longer omnipotent given the aforementioned definitions.

Are we going to play word games now? Are you saying that an omnipotent God could not choose to limit, or refrain from exercising, its power in some way? If so, it is you who is limiting God by saying God cannot refrain from exercising power in some fashion.

I hope that we can refrain from the old "Can God make a rock so big that even He can't lift it" stuff.


[off topic]
Chandler: Joey, what would you do if you were omnipotent?

Joey: Probably kill myself.

Chandler: What?

Joey: Well, if little Joey is dead, then...

Ross: Joey, OMnipotent

Joey: Ross, I'm so sorry.....

[/offtopic]

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron
omnipotence in god must be false if life has meaning for an individual. if god is all powerfull, then god must determine all events, therefore we make no decisions and only follow the path which god has directed us to take.

please begin proving me wrong now.

Now this is truely wierd, a polytheistic nihilist rising to the bait. Whats the point?

Omnipotence for god had nothing to do with the meaning of life, a god could be all powerful and want us to work things out on our own. I may have the power to tell my children what to do every moment of the day. then they learn nothing.

If god is all powerful he must determine all events, if he is into micromanagement.

Therefore we we make no decisions: this arguement was old when Locke, calvin and Hobbes had it out.

This is reminiscent of TLOP

Peace dancing david

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by Thanz


Are we going to play word games now? Are you saying that an omnipotent God could not choose to limit, or refrain from exercising, its power in some way? If so, it is you who is limiting God by saying God cannot refrain from exercising power in some fashion.

I hope that we can refrain from the old "Can God make a rock so big that even He can't lift it" stuff.i know full well the implications of the rock argument, which is an illogical argument. i defined omnipotent so that we could have a mutual understanding of what i mean by omnipotent. placing limitations to an omnipotent being clearly removes omnipotence from that being. arguing that "god could create a rock that it can't lift" is trying to prove a negative, and we both know that is bad logic.

Originally posted by Dancing David


Now this is truely wierd, a polytheistic nihilist rising to the bait. Whats the point?

Omnipotence for god had nothing to do with the meaning of life, a god could be all powerful and want us to work things out on our own. I may have the power to tell my children what to do every moment of the day. then they learn nothing.

If god is all powerful he must determine all events, if he is into micromanagement.

Therefore we we make no decisions: this arguement was old when Locke, calvin and Hobbes had it out.

This is reminiscent of TLOP

Peace dancing david i started this thread in the hopes that we could have the argument without the old crowd. i personally do not believe in my argument, i am arguing in the hopes of restarting an old argument without the inevitable trolling that would have ensued by now. i used to argue for free will with Franko often. by the way, Franko actually did explain to me his beliefs through some pm's, and didn't sound like a crackpot. i still disagree with him, but he is not a loon.

anywho...
If god is all powerful he must determine all events, if he is into micromanagement. according to this line, you seem to agree with the original argument, or at least can accept it given the constraints of the definitions.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron
omnipotence in god must be false if life has meaning for an individual. if god is all powerfull, then god must determine all events, therefore we make no decisions and only follow the path which god has directed us to take.

Your argument is just as illogical as the rock argument.

You are saying: if God is omnipotent, he can't have given us free will. God is not free to give us free will. If he has the power to control our lives, he must use that power. Being able to use/not use the power at will is central to the idea of Omnipotence - you cannot deny that choice to an omnipotent God.

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by Thanz


Your argument is just as illogical as the rock argument.

You are saying: if God is omnipotent, he can't have given us free will. God is not free to give us free will. good point, therefore i shall now believe that it is impossible for an omnipotent entity to exist.

If he has the power to control our lives, he must use that power. Being able to use/not use the power at will is central to the idea of Omnipotence - you cannot deny that choice to an omnipotent God. by saying this, i would have to accept that god is only sometimes omnipotent, which would defy the definitions i have given. so i refer back to the first part of my reply in this post, omnipotence is impossible.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron
by saying this, i would have to accept that god is only sometimes omnipotent, which would defy the definitions i have given. so i refer back to the first part of my reply in this post, omnipotence is impossible.

You seem really confused.

Why do you think that just because an omnipotent being CAN do something, it MUST do something? You have an incoherent vison of omnipotence, and that is leading you to think that it can't exist. Just like the rock argument.

Consider this example: There is a ball rolling across the table. I am God. I am omnipotent. I therefore have the ability to stop the ball from rolling, to turn into an elephant, to become the size of a planet, to turn it square, or any other number of options. If, instead, I decide to let the ball continue on its path and fall to the floor, how does this say anything about my omnipotence? It doesn't. There is no reason why an omnipotent God cannot give free will to a creation if it so chooses.

Omnipotence does not mean active control over everything, it just means the ability to control everything if God so desires it.

You really are sounding a bit like Franko and TLOP here.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Thanz

Why do you think that just because an omnipotent being CAN do something, it MUST do something?



This is a good point. I hadn't thought of this before..

[stamenflicker]

I agree with c4ts. "Omnipotence" means, literally, "all able". It carries with it the implication that the subject can do anything and everything, but not necessarily that it must.

I guess my point with the brain analogy is that you can't have omnipotence without omnipresence, the two are closely related. Since individuals are living proof that their bodies can function in a world without a deity it seems probably that these are places that the deity doesn't dwell-- either by choice or design. If this is the case then an omnipotent deity would still be capable of adjusting to anything outside himself...

Flick

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by Thanz


You seem really confused.

Why do you think that just because an omnipotent being CAN do something, it MUST do something? You have an incoherent vison of omnipotence, and that is leading you to think that it can't exist. Just like the rock argument.

Consider this example: There is a ball rolling across the table. I am God. I am omnipotent. I therefore have the ability to stop the ball from rolling, to turn into an elephant, to become the size of a planet, to turn it square, or any other number of options. If, instead, I decide to let the ball continue on its path and fall to the floor, how does this say anything about my omnipotence? It doesn't. There is no reason why an omnipotent God cannot give free will to a creation if it so chooses.

Omnipotence does not mean active control over everything, it just means the ability to control everything if God so desires it.

You really are sounding a bit like Franko and TLOP here. point taken, i never thought of that before. i concede my original argument and retract my second statement. by the way, i was purposely arguing like Franko, however, i am willing to accept that i am wrong on this issue. i need to learn to think more about my arguments thoroughly before i present them, and argue better.

[Star Of The Sea]

I don't believe in an interventionist God
But I know, darling, that you do
But if I did I would kneel down and ask Him
Not to intervene when it came to you
Not to touch a hair on your head
To leave you as you are
And if He felt He had to direct you
Then direct you into my arms


Nick Cave

:)

Seriously though, I would agree with previous posters who said that, just because a diety has omnipotence, that such a deity would not necessarily have to use it. According to Christian docrine, and those of other faiths also, we are free to reject or accept God and thus attain salvation. Of course this train of thought leads to many other problems such as why would a compassionate God allow suffering, why would a God with infinite knowledge create humans who would not be saved when he knew this would happen, etc.

Perhaps the only satisfactory theist position is that of God as first cause, who set the wheels of the universe in motion and does not interfere. This, as a metaphysical position, has the advantage of making no supernatural claims and being consistent with science. Indeed Stephen Hawking has described the quest for the 'Theory of Everything' as 'seeing the mind of God'. However this position does not have the comforting perspective of a supernatural patriarch keeping the believer safe from harm, the pleasant feeling of which is the real reason why omnipotence is still regarded as credible, rather than the more harsh 'god created the universe, but is now leaving us alone to get on with it' perspective, which is shared by, among others, the father of modern scepticism, Martin Gardner.

Personally I'll stick with taoism :)

regards,

Luke

[Michael Redman]

I think that, to an omniscient, omnipotent God, there would be no "events". No cause and effect. Time would not flow. God would exist in all time simultaneously, and would view it all at once, not as a series of events. God created the entire universe of space and time instantaneously. Everything that is, was, or ever will be. Therefore, the question of God's "control" is meaningless.