Omnipotence impossible?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. It is in the separation of us from that omnipotence that is causing us trouble in defining it. We are too close to it to see it. We are a part of that omnipotence as it relates to all we are. I will agree what I brought forth was a minor thing as it was meant to illustrate an omnipotent communication with out saying a word in a unity that we have in common that was displayed when my grand daughter stood vigil over her Mother. There was something in that even the child did not understand; but it was there nevertheless. Do we understand it. No, but it is recognizable when it occurs and if we slow down long enough we will observe it. Perhaps it is an omnipresence but I consider them the same.

william

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. It is in the separation of us from that omnipotence that is causing us trouble in defining it. We are too close to it to see it. We are a part of that omnipotence as it relates to all we are. I will agree what I brought forth was a minor thing as it was meant to illustrate an omnipotent communication with out saying a word in a unity that we have in common that was displayed when my grand daughter stood vigil over her Mother. There was something in that even the child did not understand; but it was there nevertheless. Do we understand it. No, but it is recognizable when it occurs and if we slow down long enough we will observe it. Perhaps it is an omnipresence but I consider them the same.

If I imagine "omnipotence," I can easily imagine a being who is potent enough to make humans whose minds are too limited to conceive of just how omnipotent this being is.

Our human logic is just that. In a way, it's comical for the human mind to call omnipotence impossible. The only limits to our conception of omnipotence are the limits of the human imagination. And true omnipotence would presumably surpass our imagination. But this too is part of our imagination?

Our imagination and logic arent the same thing. An object with 15 dimensions surpasses our imagination, but is a logical possibility (We could simulate one in a computer, as far as I know, anything that can be simulated in a computer is logically possible).

I respect what you're saying, but if logic is "transcendental" as Wittgenstein has it, then logic is nothing but the structure of thought. For me, this means that that a total logic can conceive of its own transcendence. We can create words that point beyond it. We can imagine a God that created a species, man, who is incapable of accurately imagining his power. We can use logos, word, to imagine the limits of logos/logic/word.

You mean that our imagination can go beyond the limits of logic?

If one examines the neodialectic paradigm of expression, one is faced with a choice: either accept predialectic patriarchial theory or conclude that truth is used to disempower the proletariat. However, a number of theories concerning the role of the writer as participant exist.
Hanfkopf[1] suggests that we have to choose between textual dematerialism and Lyotardist narrative. Thus, any number of semioticisms concerning predialectic patriarchial theory may be discovered.
The postcapitalist paradigm of narrative holds that consensus comes from the collective unconscious. Therefore, the characteristic theme of de Selby's[2] model of textual dematerialism is the bridge between language and society.

Our imagination and logic arent the same thing. An object with 15 dimensions surpasses our imagination, but is a logical possibility (We could simulate one in a computer, as far as I know, anything that can be simulated in a computer is logically possible).

It depends on what one means by logic. If one means logic in a grand sense as the structure of logos, then no, our phrases could not go beyond this. This would be a transcendental logic. I don't think it's possible, though, for language to finish describing itself.
I tihnk our "sub-transcendental" logics are reductive, especially if they ignore trope. For me, the limits of language and the limits of logic are the same limits. Logic is logos.
"Imagination" in this case is the ability to endlessly redescribe / create meaning.

I'm not sure I agree. The verbal imagination is logos, and therefore will conform to an ideal logic, which would just be the structure of logos.

If we can describe it, it is "logical." Of course logic is often thought of as a reduced or purified logos. In this sense, the verbal imagination is cramped by logic.

WHAT WAS THAT? I am not a student of philosophy, but I still fairly understood all the other replies. This one gave me the creeps.:Not-Impressed:

BTW, the original poster has fled the scene of the crime. And will be re-appearing with the thread title "Can god, the omnipotent draw a circle with corners?":shifty:

If we can describe it, it is "logical."

We can describe a contradiction, but I don't think we would call it logical. We would call it illogical.

I dont quite understand what you mean here, but I think that I agree with you are saying. If I am not wrong, you mean that imagination cannot go beyond the limits of language that are also the limits of logic, and I agree.

Yeah I didnt get that either, even if I searched the meaning of the words I dont know there would still be too many references to outside sources, and I dont wanna read all of that =)

Recon would have to answer if he's suggesting that you can't really separate the pattern from the content as we imagine we do with specialized "logic."

But I think the standard Christian meaning of an omnipotent God is one to whom all things are possible. He/It isn't something limited by possibility. He/It is the will that creates the way. That sort of thing.

When we use Logical as synonymous with Meaningful

WHAT WAS THAT? I am not a student of philosophy, but I still fairly understood all the other replies. This one gave me the creeps.:Not-Impressed:

It sounded intelligent though, huh? Ha!

William