What if God wasn't omnipotent...

[Yahweh]

"Do you believe in God?"

"Yes."

"Ok, is god omnipotent?"

"Yes."

"That means he can do anything. He has unlimited power, right?"

"That's right."

"Well god can make a burrito can't he?"

"Yes."

"He can make it really hot can't he?"

"Yes, what's the point?"

"I wanted to ask this: Can God make a burrito so hot, that even he himself could not eat it?"

"Ummm... SHUTUP!"

"Ohh! I'm pointing and laughing at you because I caught you in a fit of logic."

"God exists outside of logic. He can make circles with corners."

[End of Dialogue]

Usually it doesn't take more than a few rationalizations to come to the conclusion that God cannot logically exist... no, that isn't what I did. I have created 2 possible godly conclusions:
1. God is not omnipotent.
2. Being god allows you to break the laws of logic.
How do I respond when someone says to me that God exists outside of logic?

[Yahweh]

Thinking about it, I think a circle with corners could exist. Dictionary.com defines a circle as "A plane curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the center." Technically if you use some visual spatial skills, you could possibly create a circle with corners that exists on a 3-dimensional space, just as long as every given point is the same distance from the center. Perhaps it wouldn't be a circle if it doesn't exist on a flat plane... damn geometry that I've never used... I've forgotten it years ago.

[sorgoth]

Quote:Perhaps it wouldn't be a circle if it doesn't exist on a flat plane...


No, it would be a sphere.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I have created 2 possible godly conclusions:
1. God is not omnipotent.
2. Being god allows you to break the laws of logic [and thus be omnipotent].
There is, at least, a couple more options.
3) We don't understand the laws of logic.
4) We don't understand what it means to be omnipotent.

Not that it helps you with your problem.
How do I respond when someone says to me that God exists outside of logic? Best way to respond is to nod your head and smile. If someone is a true believer (whatever the subject), there is no talking them out of it as their belief is not based on logic or reason but on faith.

[Yahweh]

Best way to respond is to nod your head and smile. If someone is a true believer (whatever the subject), there is no talking them out of it as their belief is not based on logic or reason but on faith.
It still confuses me as to why logic and rationality still fail the test when it's put up against inner convictions... somehow that seems unwholesome.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Yahweh

It still confuses me as to why logic and rationality still fail the test when it's put up against inner convictions... somehow that seems unwholesome. Perhaps. :con2:

The problem is that humans, in general, and human psychology, specifically, are complex critters. Simple logic is insufficient to explain their behaviors (i.e. why one can believe in two things that are contradictory at the same time). Worse, people like to think that simple logic is sufficient. It's called "common sense", which, after a point, is probably the biggest impediment to actual understanding.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Yahweh,

How do I respond when someone says to me that God exists outside of logic?

You could try pointing out to them that the statement "God exists outside of logic" is, by construction, either false or meaningless.

The statements "X exists" and "X does not exist" are logical statements. Likewise, the distinction between the two statements is a logical one. By definition, something which is not logically self-consistent does not exist. If a particular conception of God is not logically self-consistent, then it does not exist.

Thus the statement is either false (if you do not reject logic altogether), or meaningless (if you do).


Or you could skip all the philosophical mumbo-jumbo, and just tell him that if he believes that things which are not logically self-consistent can exist, then he is irrational, and there is no point in trying to have any kind of rational discussion with him about anything.

Dr. Stupid

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by sorgoth
Quote:Perhaps it wouldn't be a circle if it doesn't exist on a flat plane...


No, it would be a sphere.
How about a single line drawn through 3d space... much like those wireframe models that are used in 3d computer graphics design.

[Samus]

As I recall, we had this discussion a long while back, only the question was: "Can god create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?"

The rock question didn't really make sense in the context of what some people think god is, and would imply god could take a physical form and perform manual labor.

Such is the case with the burrito. Making a burrito so hot he can't eat it would imply that god has a mouth, and a digestive system, again pinning him down as a human form with superhuman powers.

Since no one can agree on a definition of god, or describe physical attributes for that god, your question is meaningless.

[Yahweh]

I was thinking about that earlier... about how physical attributes are useless. Can anyone think of a "logic" or "mental" attribute because obviously most people would define god as having some kind of consciousness and sentientness (spelling?).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by dwb
The rock question didn't really make sense in the context of what some people think god is, and would imply god could take a physical form and perform manual labor.But, being omnipotent, God has the potential to perform manual labor and take physical form. For God not to have this potential is for God to not be omnipotent.

[Yahweh]

I dont know how God is defined. I would assume it suggests unlimited power. Still, if god wasnt omnipotent, does that in some way bar him from being god.

[Dylab]

If I was a theist I would respond in this manner.

Being omnipotent only implies that you can do anything that is logically possible. A burrito (whats with the mexican food?) that is to hot for god to eat can not exist because god can eat everything thus one can not expect god to make something that logically can't exist.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I was thinking about that earlier... about how physical attributes are useless. Can anyone think of a "logic" or "mental" attribute...
Not a "logic" or "mental" attribute, but here is something that I think is the kind of thing you are looking for to create your paradox:

(1) Can god create something evil?
(2) Can god create something so evil that it is impossible for it to be (saved/redeemed/forgiven)?

For those who believe in god as being the creator, there is the question of whether god created evil or whether evil somehow came into creation through some other agency. That leads to the first question I suggest above, "Can god create evil?" If god is all-good, that creates a number of possible paradoxes.

If the person believes that god is capable of creating something evil, then the question of whether god can create something so evil that even god isn't able to turn it to good is a variation of the old "rock so heavy god can't lift it" which does not rely on god having physical-lifting attributes.

[ceo_esq]

Ask him if God has the power to destroy Himself utterly.

Seriously, though, we have discussed the subject of divine omnipotence in the past, and it generally gets bogged down in definitions. My view, which I think is the one prevalent among philosophers of religion, is that there are no non-logical limits to God's power. I accept that omnipotence denotes the power to do all things, but the inability to create a square circle or a married bachelor doesn't undermine omnipotence because those aren't really things at all, properly understood. They're just nonsensical semantic wordplay.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
But, being omnipotent, God has the potential to perform manual labor and take physical form. For God not to have this potential is for God to not be omnipotent. Without getting into too much wordplay, you're right. As long as it makes sense that a "spirit", if you will, can take a human form, then god can lift the rock. If taking a human form is beyond the logical limits of what a spirit can do, then the answer becomes obvious.

Being all powerful, and being able to perform actions that are not logically comprehensible, are not the same thing.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by dwb
Being all powerful, and being able to perform actions that are not logically comprehensible, are not the same thing. Agreed.

As I remember, there was a thread where the conclusion was drawn that the term "omnipotent" itself was logically inconsistant and couldn't, or shouldn't anyway, be applied to... well, anything that was proporting to be logically consistant.

A corollary of this idea would be that any argument using omnipotence as one of its premises is automatically logically inconsistant. So, if one wanted to create a logically consistant definition of God, one could not use "omnipotent" as a descriptor.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Thinking about it, I think a circle with corners could exist.
(snip)


A circle is a regular polygon with an infinite number of corners.

Trivial! Give God something harder. :)

[Beleth]

Yes, we have had this discussion many, many times before.

These kinds of questions all boil down to the question
"Can God do something He can't do?"

The answer, of course, is "no". But that is not to say that there's a limit on God's power. If one can do anything, then the set of things you can't do is the empty set.

In other words, God can't make a burrito so hot that even He can't eat it because no such burrito can be made. Not by God, not by anyone. Not even by a hypothetical being with more power than God. It's not that it's "merely" really, really hard to make such a burrito; it's unimaginable to make such a burrito.

Omnipotence means "as powerful as possible", not "powerful enough to do logically absurd things".

[Tricky]

And we always wind up with:

God can do anything that is consistant with the logical laws of the universe.

Therefore, God is subordinate to the logical laws of the universe the universe.

Therefore, God is not the highest power in the universe.

Next turtle, please.

[Beleth]

Who said anything about being consistent with the logical laws of the universe?

All I said was that God was consistent with logic.

Are you saying that there is a being who is so absurdly powerful that he can do things he can't do?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Yahweh
How do I respond when someone says to me that God exists outside of logic?
By pointing out that unicorns exist outside of logic. And elves. And pixies. And dragons. And Santa Claus. And the Easter Bunny. Etc.

Upchurch is right - the term "omnipotent" is inherently meaningless. Applying it to God renders God meaningless.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


A circle is a regular polygon with an infinite number of corners.

Trivial! Give God something harder. :)
A circle has no corners... some kind of 90-side-a-gon might eventually look like a circle, but it is not.

[Upchurch]

Aaaand we start the definition game:
Originally posted by Beleth
Omnipotence means "as powerful as possible", not "powerful enough to do logically absurd things". No, omnipotence (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=omnipotence) means "an agency or force of unlimited power". Unlimited (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=unlimited) meaning "not bounded by exceptions". So, omnipotent means an agency or force of power not bounded by exceptions.
These kinds of questions all boil down to the question
"Can God do something He can't do?"

The answer, of course, is "no". But that is not to say that there's a limit on God's power. If one can do anything, then the set of things you can't do is the empty set.And thus the reason that the concept of "omnipotence" is logically inconsistant. If an omnipotent being can't do something, there is a limit to that being's power and thus, the being isn't omnipotent. If there is nothing an omnipotent being can't do, then we get "Rock so heavy he can't lift it" type paradoxes.
In other words, God can't make a burrito so hot that even He can't eat it because no such burrito can be made.This, then, would be a limitation, thus negating God's claim to omnipotence.
Not by God, not by anyone. Not even by a hypothetical being with more power than God.This is not an argument against God or for a more powerful being but rather it is an argument against the concept of omnipotence.
It's not that it's "merely" really, really hard to make such a burrito; it's unimaginable to make such a burrito.There is a difference between things that are impossible and unimaginable. Something that is impossible is something, in this case, that is incapable of being or of occurring. Something that is unimaginable is something that can not be conceived. I can imagine a rock or a burrito with special properties, but they are impossible of occuring.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Applying it to God renders God meaningless. Applying it to God doesn't render God meaningless, per se. Defining God as omnipotent or using omnipotence as one of the premises of God renders God as meaningless.

But otherwise, thanks.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Beleth
Who said anything about being consistent with the logical laws of the universe?

All I said was that God was consistent with logic.

Are you saying that there is a being who is so absurdly powerful that he can do things he can't do?
No, just noting that if God is constrained by anything (either logic, or TLOP or whatever you like to call it), then He is not all-powerful. Of course it is nonsense, but that is because the concept of an omnipotent god is nonsense.

Other concepts of god, which do not include omnipotence, may not be nonsense. Some deists views of a god created along with the universe may be internally logical.

(But you and I have already been through this "God as The Creator", business, Beleth. I think we agreed to disagree. )
:wink8:

[whitefork]

If god is omnipotent, and omnipotent is unlimited, then god is by definition undefinable, since de-finit-ion means the making finite of something by showing the limits around it.

Same as making god infinte - no finitude - no definition.

So, if you're going to do any theology beyond "oh wow", you have to be speaking of the finitude of god - otherwise, you're merely throwing sounds around hoping that someone will think you're actually making an assertion.

If god's a thing that you can talk about and assign attributes to, then you might as well worship an idol.

If god's not a thing, then your assertions about his nature have no referent.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Upchurch
[quote]If an omnipotent being can't do something, there is a limit to that being's power and thus, the being isn't omnipotent. If there is nothing an omnipotent being can't do, then we get "Rock so heavy he can't lift it" type paradoxes.
This, then, would be a limitation, thus negating God's claim to omnipotence.The set of things that an omnipotent being cannot do is the empty set.

An omnipotent being cannot do things he cannot do. This is a tautology. It is not a limitation of omnipotence. It's a difficult concept to grasp. You have to look at the problem from the other side.

This is not an argument against God or for a more powerful being but rather it is an argument against the concept of omnipotence.Actually, it's an argument against the definition of omnipotence. I suggested "maxipotence" as a more accurate term in a previous thread.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Beleth
An omnipotent being cannot do things he cannot do. This is a tautology. It is not a limitation of omnipotence. It's a difficult concept to grasp. You have to look at the problem from the other side.
I can't do things I can't do either. So at some level, the omnipotent being constrained similarly to the way I am constrained.

Originally posted by Beleth
Actually, it's an argument against the definition of omnipotence. I suggested "maxipotence" as a more accurate term in a previous thread.
That is a much better word, (though it byasses the topic of this thread) and falls in with what I was talking about with deists. Such a being would be the most powerful of all the entities which were subject to the caprice of the universe.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Beleth
Actually, it's an argument against the definition of omnipotence.
Is there a difference?
I suggested "maxipotence" as a more accurate term in a previous thread. M'kay. I assume that by maxipotent" you mean, "that which is most potent (or powerful)"? Or do you mean, "that which has most possible potency (or power)"?

Actually, even that might even lead to some sticky paradoxes. Consider, that which is most potent should have, at least, the potency of those which are less potent than itself. Correct? However, a human has the potential, or ability, to die. Does God have the power to die?

[MartinGibbs]

what if this "god" is just some race of beings quite a bit more intelligent than we are, who created this universe in a jar and just haven't taken the lid off yet?

They're just watching this whole thing evolve....

or... whatever, nevermind.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by MartinGibbs
what if this "god" is just some race of beings quite a bit more intelligent than we are, who created this universe in a jar and just haven't taken the lid off yet?Well, the first question would then be, are they the most powerful beings in the universe? The second question would be, do they possess all the power that is possible?

If they meet either or both of those criteria, they would meet the conditions of being maxipotent. Whether or not they meet the condition of being "God" depends on whether or not the sole criteria for "God" is being maxipotent.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I assume that by maxipotent" you mean, "that which is most potent (or powerful)"? Or do you mean, "that which has most possible potency (or power)"?The latter.

There's quite a hierarchy of -potencies, isn't there?


Actually, even that might even lead to some sticky paradoxes. Consider, that which is most potent should have, at least, the potency of those which are less potent than itself. Correct? However, a human has the potential, or ability, to die. Does God have the power to die? I wouldn't call death a power. I'd call it a lack of power.

Consider two beings. One will die no matter what he does. The other can prevent himself from dying for as long as he wishes. Which one would you say is more powerful?

Consider two other beings. They both have the ability to kill themselves at any time. One chooses to kill himself, and does so. The other one chooses not to kill himself, and so does not. Which one of these two would you say is more powerful?

[MartinGibbs]

They would be the most powerful beings "in" our universe, but what about theirs?

See, they aren't really "in" ours, but in another "dimension" so to speak and now I have a headache.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Beleth
I wouldn't call death a power. I'd call it a lack of power.I disagree. As your following example shows, it is an ability, a degree of freedom if you will, that an immortal would be incapable of.
Consider two beings. One will die no matter what he does. The other can prevent himself from dying for as long as he wishes. Which one would you say is more powerful?

Consider two other beings. They both have the ability to kill themselves at any time. One chooses to kill himself, and does so. The other one chooses not to kill himself, and so does not. Which one of these two would you say is more powerful? Both are very excellent situations to consider. Obviously, you are correct in each. As long as death is a choice, it is an ability. Interestingly, if God is maxipotent, then God must have the ability to die, because if God were truly immortal and incapable of dying, then we mortals would have one ability that God does not. You're definition of maxipotent excludes that possibility.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by MartinGibbs
They would be the most powerful beings "in" our universe, but what about theirs?

See, they aren't really "in" ours, but in another "dimension" so to speak and now I have a headache. Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. Since the "gods" who made our universe are, themselves, in a universe, our universe would be a subset of theirs. When I refered to "the universe" in my questions, I was refering to the entire universe, not our subset of the entire universe.

[MartinGibbs]

Understood.

But that doesn't cure my headache.

Bottom line:

God seems to fail when logic is applied. I'm comfortable living with that thought.

[justsaygnosis]

Perhaps god attempted to make a burrito too hot to eat and kept on going exponentially ad infinututm.
Finally a fart of immeasurable proprotions burst forth and thus came the big bang.
It's a plausible guess at where s**theads came from.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Both are very excellent situations to consider. Obviously, you are correct in each.How can I be correct? I merely stated questions, I didn't answer them. Don't infer that I stated the answers just because I posed the questions.


As long as death is a choice, it is an ability. Interestingly, if God is maxipotent, then God must have the ability to die, because if God were truly immortal and incapable of dying, then we mortals would have one ability that God does not. I have to admit that I do not know where you are going with this one.

First off, I'm not sure whether "death" is a term that can apply to God. If we are talking about physical-body death, then I do not think that it applies to a being who can exist without a physical body. If we are talking about soul death, then I do not think that it has been shown that such a thing exists to begin with.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Beleth
How can I be correct? I merely stated questions, I didn't answer them. Don't infer that I stated the answers just because I posed the questions.My appologies. I took them for retorical questions.

To answer:
The being who can prevent himself from dying for as long as he wishes is more powerful than the being who will die no matter what he does.
The being who chooses to kill himself and the being who does not, even though he has the ability to, are equally powerful.
I have to admit that I do not know where you are going with this one.It is more of an explorative conversation for me rather than a debate where I am trying to prove a specific side. I just think that it is interesting that a "maxipotent", or even omnipotent, being logically must have the capacity for mortality, i.e. God is mortal. :eek:
First off, I'm not sure whether "death" is a term that can apply to God.Well, now that is my point. If we are to ascribe maxipotency to God, then God must be mortal or else wouldn't be "that which has most possible potency (or power)" because God would be lacking a possible potency.
If we are talking about physical-body death, then I do not think that it applies to a being who can exist without a physical body. If we are talking about soul death, then I do not think that it has been shown that such a thing exists to begin with. Well, if we're going to split hairs, I do not think it has been shown that a soul exists. How does one show that a soul ends if it hasn't been shown that there is such a thing in the first place?

Regardless, if a maxipotent being is to have all the potential that is possible and some beings have the potential for mortality, the maxipotent being must also have the potential for mortality, unless you want to revise the definition of maxipotent (it being your word, after all)?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Upchurch
if a maxipotent being is to have all the potential that is possible and some beings have the potential for mortality, the maxipotent being must also have the potential for mortality, unless you want to revise the definition of maxipotent (it being your word, after all)? I still don't buy it.

Mortality isn't a potential. It's a lack of potential.

The ability to die is not an ability. It is the absence of the ability to stay alive. The ability to die is a weakness, not a strength.

[arcticpenguin]

Well if God was impotent, he couldn't have knocked up that Mary chick, could he?

Wait, did I misread the thread title?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Yahweh

A circle has no corners... some kind of 90-side-a-gon might eventually look like a circle, but it is not.

:(

I thought that the limit of an n-sided regular polygon as n approaches infinity is a circle. I also thought that it was an alternate definition for a circle.

That's it, I renounce my faith in an omnipotent god.

[ceo_esq]

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that mortality is a potency:
CEO_ESQ: I have the power to destroy my physical body.

GOD: So? I have the power to destroy your physical body too.

CEO_ESQ: That’s not what I meant. I possess the capacity to shuffle off this mortal coil.

GOD: I’ve done that too.

CEO_ESQ: Okay, right… but that was just a physical form you assumed. When it died, you didn’t really snuff it because you continued to exist in non-physical form.

GOD: What makes you think the same thing won’t happen to you? You haven’t demonstrated that you possess a potential that I don’t.
I’m not sure this gets us anywhere.

[PogoPedant]

There's a claim that God making a burrito too hot for God to eat makes for a logical inconsistency. I don't buy it. If God is omnipotent, then surly it has the power to render itself powerless? If God creates this hot-hot-hot piece of divine chow, then God has destroyed it's own omnipotens. Why is that logically inconsistent? Surely it merely grants God one more power which is usable once, and only once.

Edited to remove an inconcistency of my own...

[Gregory]

I think many religious scholars dismiss this whole problem by simply granting that God is not really "all-powerful." This viewpoint is less unpopular among the religious community than you might expect; I believe that it was Saint Thomas Aquinas who argued that God was literally incapable of doing evil, and therefore more limited than humans in some ways.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Gregory
I think many religious scholars dismiss this whole problem by simply granting that God is not really "all-powerful." This viewpoint is less unpopular among the religious community than you might expect; I believe that it was Saint Thomas Aquinas who argued that God was literally incapable of doing evil, and therefore more limited than humans in some ways. I think Augustine was in this camp too. Seems to me I remember something about "God doesn't create evil, but only allows evil to be" or something to that effect.

[ceo_esq]

Here's a brief but interesting essay on the "stone" argument:

http://www.wiccan-refuge.com/omnipotence.html

Among other things, it considers an argument that not only can God create a burrito too hot to eat, but he can eat it too.

[voidx]

If all God does is lift unliftable rocks and eat inedible burrito's all day, is he really a necessary variable in explaining the universe? :D