The Logistics of Omnipotence

Lots of people have replied but few so far seem to understand what I asked in my post. Is it badly worded?

Re: The Logistics of Omnipotence


One of the things I tried to say in my post is that we humans are either logical or illogical but never allogical. (<= Word I made up. :p) What I mean by this is that we simple understand things logically or not. (I'd venture to say the majority of us don't) But we can't really understand a situatian *outside* of logic, we're just not capable of it.

You've confused omnipotence with omniscience.

"One of the points I tried to make with my post is that if there is a god then humans could never understand its nature" Eryemil

I do not understand what your actual question is. Could you clarify a bit?

It seems to me you are running in circles. First of all, you are making an assumption that human beings' experience (the valid experience and understanding, anyways) is limited to logical thinking. Humans are either logical or illogical. Black or white.

I would argue that. But not right now.

You then go on to state that humans can not logically understand or explain an omniscient God. Ok, fine.
So speaking of it further is pointless, ain't it? If we (as people) can not understand Omni-God...how in the world can we talk about something which we do not know? And have not the ability to know?

Anyways, what's the q?

"From this it follows that no God can truly be omnipotent, since there is always at least one thing -his own omnipotence- about which he can never be certain"- Greyfan

How are we defining omnipotence? The definition used above seems to include Omnipresence and Omniscience . Where am I mistaken? How could any being (higher/hidden God) be unknown to God if omnipresence and omniscience were also assumed? To have all power does not require the knowledge of having all power- that is an aspect of omniscience(knowledge).



Omnipotence- all power
Omnipresence- all knowledge
Omniscience- in all places at all times

Eryemil

You are asking an epistemological question. By stressing logical/illogical/allogical You have assumed that "logic" is the "yardstick" behind what humans call "understanding". In my opening post I cited Piaget who showed that this was not the case.

Now if you had cited "causality" as a basis for "understanding" you might have had a much stronger case because the derivation of the concept of "logical implication" is from the "physical realm" of "nested sets". The assumption of temporally fixed properties which gives membership of such sets allows for "understanding" in terms of "prediction and control". However epistemologically speaking approaches involving "causality" would again fail because they tend to instrinsic problems of their own which manifest in the religious case as the "prime mover issue". (The "prime mover" has now been rejected by "scientific believers" such as Polkinghorne)

A second assumption you seem to make is that "religious concepts" such a "omnipotence" are epistemologically unique problems, when in fact they are merely exemplars of a more general philosophical issues. (e.g. Russell's Paradox) Epistemological questions (about knowledge and understanding) are significantly bound up with ontological ones about the "nature of existence" .You therefore beg the question with your problematic starting point ..."if a God exists then....." From then on you are doomed to go in epistemological circles!

All conjectures are "biased" in as much that they take a certain "line". Your own bias is "logicality",
mine is "epistemology". But note that mine transcends yours by inclusion and deconstruction.

You got those last two reversed.

I doubt seriously if anything framed in the subjunctive could be "begging the question."


Gobbledigook.

Welcome to the world of philosophy.

Now here's an interesting article:



If we use Jacquette's proposal, we can say that God does not exist, because he is not logically consistent. If God does not exist, he cannot be omnipotent.

Sorry Joe If I'd known you were itching to run your "rubbish fresco" program" I would have made things simpler for you !

Now lets see.....lets assume you've heard of Einstein's relativity transcending Newton's fixed frame reference view...and lets assume this transcedence is epitomised by delimiting the applicability of Newtonian mechanics by deconstructing the notion of absolute time.
Well now see if you can grasp the point that epistemological positions such as Piaget's transcend and deconstruct the notion of "logic" and its applicability in "understanding"......does that help ?

I certainly hope not.