the "god and the big rock" arguement... (church, atheist, marriage)

[cg81]

Originally Posted by Nikk

The reason that these questions are confusing people is because they are false questions.

God is all powerful because he is creator but can he create someone more powerful? First God's idea of Power is not ours. It is written that he does not delight in the strength of men's legs. So a muscle force is insignificant to the one who created muscles. He said if you wanted to be greatest then you must deny yourself and become the survant of all. So power in God's kingdom is love and servantude. To see others as valuable. So if we are to become powerful through love how can we become more loving than God. It is written "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". God gave all that he had, His Son, that we might have life and be able to spend eternity with him. Jesus took upon himself the Sin of the world. So he who knew no sin became sin for us.

So could God created another being who is more powerful than himself. Well he could create a being. That person with their free will could become more powerful (in God's eyes) by loving more than God. Yet the bible says that all have sinned all have fallen away, there is none left no not one. I think that if we would be able to even come close to the level of love that God has he would be vary proud and we would probably understand him better, but there is none that can do it. The bible says that God is love. How can someone love more than love itself. Love is defined by God who is love. If God created a person and forced them to love more than himself, that would be crazy because love is freely given. A person cannot be forced to love. So in essence God can create a person. That person can (the ability is potentially there just not realized) love as much as God because God desires us to. But even if we could love as much as God he is the limit to Love because he is love. Unfortunatly no one has been able to Love as much as God the Father except the Son. The son came in created form as a baby and yet took upon himself all of man's sin. So no one can love more than God. But Jesus in humanity was the instument of God's greatest act of love. So in a strange way God the Father did create someone who loved more than him and that is the Son. But since Jesus is God then we still have to say that God is the greatest and the limit.

The bible also says that God is truth, how can you have something more truthful than the truth. There is nothing that can be added to it to make it more truthful. So, God is the limit to love and to truth. No one can exceed this even God because it is his attributes. Since he is love and to love the most is all power, he is all powerful. All of us have the oportunity to match him but we have not. Since we are beings and we are created by him we can become powerful like him. But we are evidence that no created being can exceed God. So the question is in error because it is false, no being can be more powerful than God. It is not showing God's lack of ability to create.

As far as the rock is concerned it is part of the same false thinking. The errors of these philosophical ideas are based upon our lack of understanding of God.

Excellent post!

[nickcopernicus]

Originally Posted by Perceiver

haha. You speak as though two unexplained quotations from a lengthy religious text representing a complex theology could ever be 'clear'.

Nick:
My bad. I figured that the omnipotent creator of the universe would at the very least have the "power" to communicate effectively to its creation. I suppose I'll just have to take your "it's all a mystery" defense call it a day.
Now, why don't you "explain" how when Jesus said "...with god, all things are possible," what he really meant was "... it's not the case that with god all things are possible."

Perciever:
And we are looking for Philosophical clarity here.

Nick:
Fine.
Omnipotence defined...according to Matthew 19:26

omnipotence(df)= there is no action A such that A is impossible with god.
Let's look at it once more.

Argument for omnipotence:
1. Either it is the case that god can create a burrito so hot that he can't eat it or it's not the case that god create a burrito so hot that he can't eat it

2. if it is the case that god can create a burrito so hot that he can't eat it then god is not omnipotent

3. if it's not the case that god create a burrito so hot that he can't eat it then god is not omnipotent
ergo
4. god is not omnipotent.

Is my argument valid?
are the premises true?
If so, is the argument sound? Why or why not? Vauge accusations of undefined terms sounds like oh so much handwaiving in an attempt to obfuscate the point.


Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

I haven't posted in a few weeks (I think), and this has to be wicked quick, since I'm real busy. There's obviously disagreement over what, if any, are the limits to omnipotence. Descartes, for example, seemed to think that it is within God's power to make even IMPOSSIBLE things true -- maybe something like a 'square circle'. In other words, God chooses what is, and is not, possible.

Nick:
Yeah, but then Descartes, a rationalist would have to then admit that belief in god is not rational. If god is "above logic" or somehow not bound by logic, then we could not assign a truth value to the proposition "god exists," thereby making it unintelligible. It seems that modern apologists abandon the cocnept that their god is somehow "above" logic because rational discussion ends there.

Matrix:
Most other thinkers don't put impossible things in the scope of "all things" (as it occurs in "for God all things are possible"). So, God could do anything that CAN be done, which doesn't include logical impossibilities (e.g., anything contradictory) or anything metaphysically impossible (e.g., like making a stone so heavy he can't life it).

Nick:
Interesting. I think that the writers of Matthew and Mark goofed. Why did they not add qualifiers when they put those words in Jesus' mouth?

Further, I'd be interested in the justification for the claim of god's omnipotence in the first place.

Let's grant that "he" created the universe.....big deal....How exactly does that translate into "being able to do anything that's logically possible?" because "he said so?"

Cheers,

Nick

[The Matrix]

Originally Posted by nickcopernicus

Yeah, but then Descartes, a rationalist would have to then admit that belief in god is not rational. If god is "above logic" or somehow not bound by logic, then we could not assign a truth value to the proposition "god exists," thereby making it unintelligible. It seems that modern apologists abandon the cocnept that their god is somehow "above" logic because rational discussion ends there.

Hi Nick. I think it's great that you're approaching this with a logical argument, and that you took the time to formalize it. Now, about Descartes: I don't think his view would commit him to saying that the proposition "God exists" is not rational. He's a not a fideist, as far as I can tell (like, for example, Bayle--another 17th century thinker-or Kierkegaard). I don't see any reason (according to Descartes' thinking) why no truth value can be assigned to the proposition "God exists," because God is "above logic." According to Descartes, God assigns truth value to propositions--so there's no difficulty with saying that the proposition "God exists" is true.

Now, one criticism of Descartes is that, since God decrees what is true and what is false, he could have decreed that the proposition "God exists" be false. I think he's been heavily critiqued on this point--and to me, rightly so! But my only point in bringing up Descartes is that omnipotence has been vigorously debated, and many people disagree.

Originally Posted by nickcopernicus

Interesting. I think that the writers of Matthew and Mark goofed. Why did they not add qualifiers when they put those words in Jesus' mouth?

Poetic reasons? Or maybe Jesus actually said it, just like that? In any case, they weren't writing a logical treatise or textbook. For me, I would tend to think it is implied that God can't do what's impossible. But hermeneutics is another issue, another argument, which people have been discussing for hundreds and hundreds of years (well, maybe hermeneutics haven't been discussed for that long, but there have always been competing interpretations, I think).

Originally Posted by nickcopernicus

Further, I'd be interested in the justification for the claim of god's omnipotence in the first place.

You could start with the verse you're talking about. Also philosophical theology. But I think you already know all this.

Originally Posted by nickcopernicus

Let's grant that "he" created the universe.....big deal....How exactly does that translate into "being able to do anything that's logically possible?" because "he said so?"

It doesn't--not if we're talking strict logical entailment. But if a being created the universe, my gut reaction would be to say that such a being is all powerful. I don't understand how you could just say "big deal" to such an act of power, as if it wasn't impressive enough to warrant your judging it "omnipotent." The claim, when you boil off the logical concepts and implications, is this: God is powerful enough to do anything he wants. The logical puzzles and conundrums are fun, and sometimes important to discuss, but that's the core of it, in my opinion.

[nickcopernicus]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

Hi Nick. I think it's great that you're approaching this with a logical argument, and that you took the time to formalize it. Now, about Descartes: I don't think his view would commit him to saying that the proposition "God exists" is not rational. He's a not a fideist, as far as I can tell (like, for example, Bayle--another 17th century thinker-or Kierkegaard). I don't see any reason (according to Descartes' thinking) why no truth value can be assigned to the proposition "God exists," because God is "above logic." According to Descartes, God assigns truth value to propositions--so there's no difficulty with saying that the proposition "God exists" is true.

Nick:
Hello M. True, he wasn't a fideist AFAICT; and instead concluded that god exists in his famous Meditations on first philosophy. But that's another topic.

Interestingly enough, it seems strange to give god some sort of credit for assigning truth values to propositions....we all do that. The proposition "Nick replies to Matrix's post" is true.....becuase Nick did indeed reply to Matrix's post. Did I do that....or did god?

Matrix:
Now, one criticism of Descartes is that, since God decrees what is true and what is false, he could have decreed that the proposition "God exists" be false. I think he's been heavily critiqued on this point--and to me, rightly so! But my only point in bringing up Descartes is that omnipotence has been vigorously debated, and many people disagree.

Nick:
Yes, all of any god's attributes, specifically the omni-max attributes have been in dispute...probably because troublesome atheists such as myself will take a properly defined god, and show the concept to be inconsistent...thereby forcing the theist to redefine god. The question is...are we actually coming closer to describing what god is like...or are we just making stuff up as we go?

Matrix:
Poetic reasons? Or maybe Jesus actually said it, just like that? In any case, they weren't writing a logical treatise or textbook.

Nick:
Agreed. But tell that to a YEC (young earth creationalist) in reference to Genesis. I agree that the bible can be interpreted in different ways; but what did the authors truly think? If we were to look Exegetically (from the authors POV) as opposed to isogetically (from our POV) would we tentativally concluded that the writers of Matthew and Mark and perhaps Jesus himself thought that god could "do anything?" or do you think that when they had Jesus make this statment, what they really meant was:
(from Cambridge Companion to Atheism (2007, Patrick Grimm referring to T. Flint and A. Freddoso "Maximal) Power," p. 99)

S is omnipotent at time t in W if and only if for any state of affair p and world-type-for-S Ls such that p is not a member of Ls, if there is a World W* such that:

(i) Ls is true in W and W*, and

(ii) W* shares the same history with W at t, and

(iii) at t in W* somone actualizes p,

then S has the power at t in W to actualize p.

I somehow doubt it.

Matrix:
For me, I would tend to think it is implied that God can't do what's impossible.

Nick:
I'd agree wholeheartedly if the verses in question weren't directly referring to "what's possible." Would you at least agree that Jesus was being a bit overzealous? Should not he have said something like "with god, virtually anything's possible" A subtle, but distinct difference between "all things are possible." Similarly, Paul should have said "just about all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god." The writers of the bible use to many all inclusive and all exclusive phrases, in my opinion.

Matrix:
But hermeneutics is another issue, another argument, which people have been discussing for hundreds and hundreds of years (well, maybe hermeneutics haven't been discussed for that long, but there have always been competing interpretations, I think).

Nick:
True enough...but this does say something about the omipotent, omniscient author/inspirer of the texts' ability to communicate to different cultures, does it not?

Matrix:
You could start with the verse you're talking about. Also philosophical theology. But I think you already know all this.

Nick:
Yes, I do.

Matrix:
It doesn't--not if we're talking strict logical entailment. But if a being created the universe, my gut reaction would be to say that such a being is all powerful. I don't understand how you could just say "big deal" to such an act of power, as if it wasn't impressive enough to warrant your judging it "omnipotent." The claim, when you boil off the logical concepts and implications, is this: God is powerful enough to do anything he wants. The logical puzzles and conundrums are fun, and sometimes important to discuss, but that's the core of it, in my opinion.

Nick:
Indeed, the universe seems to be a very large "thing" or collection of "things." There is an enourmous amount of energy in the Universe (or none at all).
But then again, when you compare humans to ants....(although the comparison to an alleged creator of the universe is much more)....if an ant was able to reason, would we not seem "omnipotent" to the ant? what if an ant somehow "discovered" that a human made the anthill from scratch and cloned all the ants in the colony? The ant could think..."gee, these humans have powers I could never even come close to doing..like television, space travel...ect" but the ant would be mistaken.

Similarly, being the creator of the universe to me just makes one "really powerful."

In fact, the intelligent design argument that I DO respect (for the universe) serves as a counter factual to the claim of god being "omnipotent." The ID arguments usually run along the lines of "x cosmological constant had to be set with X parameters, else stars would never form" There's all these notes of how the universe had to be this way in order for life to emerge or survive. Well, if the universe had to be this way then the creator did not have much of a choice in the matter if he or she wanted to create life now did he or she?

Consider what we mean by "design" in intelligent design. It speaks of some sort of plan used in order to create something. When a carpenter wants to make some funuriture, he or she must operate given certain protocals (measurements of wood, specific wood for specific furniture), what's to say that this creator was not limited in a similar manner? Of course, we dont' know or even have emperical evidence to infer it...but the uncertainty of how limited the creator was when he or she created the universe or how much "energy" it took deprives us of making an inferrance that the creator of the universe was somehow "all powerful." Could this creator make the universe without the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics and still have the universe operate pretty much the way that it does (effects)? it's certainly logically possible to do so.... It's our inability to explore these questions that makes me doubt Even universal intelligent design could ever be considered "science."

I could make similar arguments about omniscience and omnibenevelonce or "morally perfect"...and "omnipresent." Well, I've went off topic enough for now.

cheers,

Nick

[FredNotBob]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

I don't understand how you could just say "big deal" to such an act of power, as if it wasn't impressive enough to warrant your judging it "omnipotent."

(I'm going to try and make sense here...bear with me...:P )

I don't think that was Nick's point -- the 'big deal', from my side of events, is that God, according to the accepted accounts, created the universe and all that's in it.

Since we can draw from the above the conclusion that there *was* no universe before God created it, that means that God must have created absolutely *everything*, including the concepts of 'logic' and 'illogic'.

Therefore, anything that's logical *is* logical because God created it to *be* logical.

In essence, it's 'logical' because 'God said' it was logical.

(Nick, I don't know if that *was* what you intended -- feel free to correct me!)

Ow...I think my brain just exploded....

Matrix, you saod:

The logical puzzles and conundrums are fun, and sometimes important to discuss, but that's the core of it, in my opinion.

To an extent, that's true. God is, indeed, powerful enough to do what he wants. When you explore the matter from a purely philosophical perspective, however, that quickly becomes 'not enough': God can do what he wants, sure, but what happens when 'what God wants to do' presents a catch-22 such as the 'Heavy Rock' paradox?

Basically, is God truly *omnipotent*, or just *vastly more powerful* than the human mind can possibly comprehend? There is a difference, albeit a very thinly defined one, between the two concepts.

If God is truly 'omnipotent', then he could, quite literally, do 'anything', without limit or boundary. If he's simply a vastly more powerful being, then there are, eventually, going to be 'upper limits' to his abilities -- even though such limits might be beyond our comprehension.

OW....now I *know* my brain just exploded... .:P

[nickcopernicus]

Originally Posted by FredNotBob

(I'm going to try and make sense here...bear with me...:P )

I don't think that was Nick's point -- the 'big deal', from my side of events, is that God, according to the accepted accounts, created the universe and all that's in it.

Nick:
Hello Frednotbob, Actually, I did mean exactly what I wrote there...."big deal." I acknowledge that the creation of our universe seems a mighty feat if a being or entity were to perform it. However, it's possible that a) this took all the the being's energy and every resource that the being had or b) this was like chewing bubble gum to the being...a trifle task. Unfortunately, this being is not avaliable for comment, nor are we able to back up the claims that this being could do far more.

Sure, it seems that creating a universe is extremely difficult if not impossible to us, however, there could be a whole "race" of creators and the one that created our universe was just creating his or her first universe. Now Ockham's Razor seems not to warrent such a matter...but the uncertainty of just how difficult this was to this alleged creator brings questions on omnipotence.

Think of the Jedeo-Christian God. Why would he "rest" on Saturday unless he was tired?

How is it that he was able to whip up whole universes between Sunday and Friday but all of a sudden he needs one of Adam's ribs to make Eve?

Curious.

FrednotBob:
Since we can draw from the above the conclusion that there *was* no universe before God created it, that means that God must have created absolutely *everything*, including the concepts of 'logic' and 'illogic'.

Therefore, anything that's logical *is* logical because God created it to *be* logical.

In essence, it's 'logical' because 'God said' it was logical.

(Nick, I don't know if that *was* what you intended -- feel free to correct me!)

Ow...I think my brain just exploded....

Nick:
Well, that mostly depends upon exactly what defintion of the universe we're working with. If we define the universe as "all that exists," then you'd be correct if we defined god as the "creator of all that exists (except go)"

However, the definition of "universe" that I have been referring to is all that was formed during and after the big bang. There very well could been and still are other universes or objects that are beyond our universe...I'm not arguing that they do or do not "exist," I'm just not factoring them into my definition of "universe" here.

That being said....I don't think it makes much sense to say that god is somehow the "source" of logic or that logic "flows from god" because such notions assume that logic is a "thing" that would have a source. I could say that the "source" of a river is a lake or a mountain, but I'd have a hard time arguing that the "source" of a triangle was a geometrist. In other words, Logic is not real the way a car or a radio is real, but it is a lanugage, much like mathematics, used to consistently show the results of our assumptions.
So "no," I'd not say that god is the sorce of logic at all. For that, one needs only turn to a very human thing....the imagination.

cheers,

Nick

[Nikk]

Originally Posted by nickcopernicus

Nick:
Hello Frednotbob, Actually, I did mean exactly what I wrote there...."big deal." I acknowledge that the creation of our universe seems a mighty feat if a being or entity were to perform it. However, it's possible that a) this took all the the being's energy and every resource that the being had or b) this was like chewing bubble gum to the being...a trifle task. Unfortunately, this being is not avaliable for comment, nor are we able to back up the claims that this being could do far more.

Sure, it seems that creating a universe is extremely difficult if not impossible to us, however, there could be a whole "race" of creators and the one that created our universe was just creating his or her first universe. Now Ockham's Razor seems not to warrent such a matter...but the uncertainty of just how difficult this was to this alleged creator brings questions on omnipotence.

Think of the Jedeo-Christian God. Why would he "rest" on Saturday unless he was tired?

How is it that he was able to whip up whole universes between Sunday and Friday but all of a sudden he needs one of Adam's ribs to make Eve?

Curious.

Nick:
Well, that mostly depends upon exactly what defintion of the universe we're working with. If we define the universe as "all that exists," then you'd be correct if we defined god as the "creator of all that exists (except go)"

However, the definition of "universe" that I have been referring to is all that was formed during and after the big bang. There very well could been and still are other universes or objects that are beyond our universe...I'm not arguing that they do or do not "exist," I'm just not factoring them into my definition of "universe" here.

That being said....I don't think it makes much sense to say that god is somehow the "source" of logic or that logic "flows from god" because such notions assume that logic is a "thing" that would have a source. I could say that the "source" of a river is a lake or a mountain, but I'd have a hard time arguing that the "source" of a triangle was a geometrist. In other words, Logic is not real the way a car or a radio is real, but it is a lanugage, much like mathematics, used to consistently show the results of our assumptions.
So "no," I'd not say that god is the sorce of logic at all. For that, one needs only turn to a very human thing....the imagination.

cheers,

Nick

The Judeo-Christian God did create all of the Universe. The term rested does not necessarily mean that a person is tired (ie. from doing work). To rest can me to stop for a period of time. God rested on the 7th day of the creation week. This was the first full day for man. Maybe he wanted to spend this time with his children which he had just created? In any case, God does not need to rest. Jesus said concerning the sabath, that today I work and so does my father. So, Jesus did do work on the Sabath, but since he is creator he can work therein. It is written that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabath. So the Bible is clear that the Sabath or the day of rest was not for God, but for man. God wanted one day in which Man rested and spent time with God. Which is similar to what I said earlier that God rested to spend time with his creation.

God did not "need" one of Adams ribs to create Eve. The passage before this specifically shows God recreating all of the animals so Adam can name them. Adam however could not find a mate. So God took Eve out of Adam. Adam when God presented Eve to him, explained why God took Woman out of Man. He said, "This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh, for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife". God wanted to reveal the relationship that he wanted a Man and Woman to have. When he presented Eve to Adam, this was the first wedding where the Father gave the bride away. Since Eve is Adam, Adam must love Eve as he loves himself. When Adam was hungry he ate, but he must also provide food for Eve because she is his bone and flesh. This is how a marriage must be to this day. A husband must love his wife like he loves himself. The bible latter reaffirms this relationship to us. It says, "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it". Jesus in his love for the Chruch "died" on the cross for it! So, us men must be willing to love our wives to the degree that we will be willing to die for them. Isn't this true love?

All logic is from God. Since he has set this Universe in order and it is governed by laws, this reflects the order and logic of the Creator. God who is creator also gave us laws to follow. These are the Ten Commandments.

[The Matrix]

I don't feel like writing a tome in response, so I'm going to keep this short. I just went on vacation for crying out loud! But you bring up some interesting points, and I'll try to give you some thoughtful answers in response.

But in general, you seem to have two different issues: (1) the consistency of omnipotence, and (2) the basis for saying God is omnipotent in the first place.

So, on the one hand you seem to argue that omnipotence is incoherent, and on the other that Christians have no rational basis for the claim that God is omnipotent in the first place. Is that about right?

I think the second claim is probably too much for you to try and establish. I'm not even sure what sort of argument you could give--it would need to be heavily historical, not only into Christian history, but Jewish history as well. OK, maybe you're just curious.

On the first thing, I just don't see the argument for the inconsistency of omnipotence working.

Originally Posted by nickcopernicus

Hello M. True, he wasn't a fideist AFAICT; and instead concluded that god exists in his famous Meditations on first philosophy. But that's another topic.

Exactly. The ontological argument. Good stuff

Originally Posted by nickcopernicus

Interestingly enough, it seems strange to give god some sort of credit for assigning truth values to propositions....we all do that. The proposition "Nick replies to Matrix's post" is true.....becuase Nick did indeed reply to Matrix's post. Did I do that....or did god?

I don't know about "strange." But the extent of God's causal involvement in the world has always been an issue. There are at least three kinds of causal involvement people have talked about: (1) he's the first cause, (2) the sustaining cause, and (3) the cooperative cause (i.e., his involvement is necessary for every individual action, in some capacity). Maybe we could also say God is the "final cause." Anyway, I don't quite understand the third option too well, or the second. But this is another topic.

Originally Posted by nickcopernicus

Yes, all of any god's attributes, specifically the omni-max attributes have been in dispute...probably because troublesome atheists such as myself will take a properly defined god, and show the concept to be inconsistent...thereby forcing the theist to redefine god.

That's hardly true at all. Modern day atheism is, well, modern day. Theologians and philosophers poked and prodded and had been having these discussions for almost two thousand years. But you make it seem as though it's only because of atheists that there is any thinking going on in Christianity at all. If that's even remotely what you're saying, it's incorrect (to say the least).

We could all benefit from trying to read the other position as charitably as possible. Having said that, I will try to read your statement as well-meaning.

Originally Posted by nickcopernicus

would we tentativally concluded that the writers of Matthew and Mark and perhaps Jesus himself thought that god could "do anything?"

I like the way Aquinas dealt with this. When Christians say God "can do anything" what do they mean? "Can" is, well, possibility. "Do" is an act of power. "Anything" is....a bit trickier. What's in the scope of this operator? Do we include only what is possible, or do we include the logically impossible, the incoherent, the irrational, the unintelligible, etc.? I would say, on a charitable reading, we would only include what is possible in the scope of "anything." On this issue Aquinas says that something which is not possible is not a thing at all. In other words, possibility, or logical consistency, is a prerequisite. So, that which is inconsistent is not a thing that happens to be logically contradictory--possible existence is the necessary condition for having the status of 'thing', so a "logically impossible thing" is nonsense. Otherwise, what criteria should we have for including contradictions in the realm of the possible? So to say that God can do impossible things (like create square circles) is to, in essence, talk unintelligibly, to speak nonsense.

I didn't state that as elegantly as I could have. But I hope it's clear enough. OK. The verse we're generally talking about is interesting:

Matthew 19:26 "And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.""

So, we have the general, more or less unqualified realm of possibility I talked about above. But there can be additional limits imposed. We could probably say that something possible for me might not be possible for somebody else (or the reverse). And something not possible for any human might be possible for God. These sorts of statements can be made within the scope of possibility I discussed above. So when Matthew writes that Jesus said: "with people this ["this" meaning salvation, I think] is impossible, but with God all things are possible," we can take this as sort of giving indexicals. In other words, what is "possible" or "impossible" can be sensitive to the context, and to the person to which we refer. We might say that, in the context of this verse, for God all things pertaining to the discussion are possible. Or we might say that Jesus means there are no such limits on God, as there are for humans--i.e., God has no human limitation, no limitation to power stemming from contingency or what have you. So God is not limited by anything other than logical limits--but these are not limits per se, since beyond them we do not find "impossible things" (as I suggest, following Aquinas), since there is no thing that is impossible.

There's another issue besides logical possibility--that of metaphysical possibility. And I think here, too, we can find limits to God's power. Maybe there are things that are possible for me, and yet not possible for God. For example, maybe a free action is something that, no matter what God does, he cannot bring it about unless I will it. So there could be possibilities that God cannot actualize.

But I don't see any of this as incoherent, or limiting omnipotence in any meaningful way.

Originally Posted by nickcopernicus

or do you think that when they had Jesus make this statment, what they really meant was:
(from Cambridge Companion to Atheism (2007, Patrick Grimm referring to T. Flint and A. Freddoso "Maximal) Power," p. 99)

S is omnipotent at time t in W if and only if for any state of affair p and world-type-for-S Ls such that p is not a member of Ls, if there is a World W* such that:

(i) Ls is true in W and W*, and

(ii) W* shares the same history with W at t, and

(iii) at t in W* somone actualizes p,

then S has the power at t in W to actualize p.

I somehow doubt it.

I'm not sure I complete follow this. What's 'Ls" stand for? I have that book somewhere, but I haven't read it yet (not sure when I'll get a chance to look at it). And what are Flint and Freddosa arguing?

Originally Posted by nickcopernicus

True enough...but this does say something about the omipotent, omniscient author/inspirer of the texts' ability to communicate to different cultures, does it not?

Why? because there are mysteries? The fact that we disagree about interpretations just means the texts are meaningful and difficult, not spoon-fed mush. but rather philosophically and theologically rich. Why should it all be easy and obvious? So we don't have to think for ourselves?

Originally Posted by nickcopernicus

In fact, the intelligent design argument that I DO respect (for the universe) serves as a counter factual to the claim of god being "omnipotent." The ID arguments usually run along the lines of "x cosmological constant had to be set with X parameters, else stars would never form" There's all these notes of how the universe had to be this way in order for life to emerge or survive. Well, if the universe had to be this way then the creator did not have much of a choice in the matter if he or she wanted to create life now did he or she?

I don't see why that follows. Do you know how many possible worlds, completely different from ours, there are, that could sustain life? Maybe infinitely many such worlds. Who are we to say?

[Perceiver]

[quote=nickcopernicus;2297002]Nick:
My bad. I figured that the omnipotent creator of the universe would at the very least have the "power" to communicate effectively to its creation. I suppose I'll just have to take your "it's all a mystery" defense call it a day.
Now, why don't you "explain" how when Jesus said "...with god, all things are possible," what he really meant was "... it's not the case that with god all things are possible."

Nick:
Fine.
Omnipotence defined...according to Matthew 19:26


Well for one, he is not communicating with his creation in general, he is communicating with a) Those who believe and b) those who have opened themself to belief (for them understanding may be a bit slower but they catch up).

As I said in another thread, human beings don't grasp spiritual things if their actually trying to resist them, that is simply the way it works, it is not logical thought. Now if you are sincere and open but at the same time questioning, then you can receive. God dosen't play games, and it is not as if the answering of this question would immediately cause you to surrender your life to Christ.

That is my answer when it comes to the scriptural discussion here, however If you want to simply discuss this on the philosophical level I certainly will.

First raise some objection on the details of my earlier post where I claim the term "all powerful" has been misdefined.