kin@laidbak.UUCP (Kin Wong) (09/05/84)
Omnipotence, Omniscience and Physical Laws I like to bring out the following points, I think they belong to net.philosophy much more than net.religion, but I have included it in net.religion so that perhaps other, less philosophical minded may be able to bring in some light; and also because omnipotence and omniscience are generally associated with the Supreme Being of various religions. I would like to show that Omnipotence implies (ie include) Omniscience, but not the other way round: 1) We define Omnipotence as the capability for anything. 2) We define Omniscience as the ability to know everything. 3) It is therefore clear that if Y is omnipotent, Y would be capable of knowing everything, since otherwise it would mean that Y has not the capability to know everything, and therefore not omnipotent. therefore Omnipotence ==> Omniscience. 4) Suppose X is omniscience, ie X knows everything. We choose any physical law, such as that the speed of light is a constant, and we assume that this law is true (actually we can just use any physical law that is "absolutely true", if any). Now, even though X knows all these, that does not give X the capability to do anything with them; in fact, if it is true that light cannot go faster than 186,000 miles per second, then X would know that X is not omnipotent because X has not the capability to make light travel faster than 186000 miles per second. Therefore Omniscience does not imply Omnipotence if (and only if?) there exist any real (ie absolutely true) physical law. I wish I could express the above in more concise logical and mathematical terms, and I suspect that if the above is fallacious it would probably be because it is not concise enough. However, assuming that the above is correct, I would like to raise the following questions: 1)Doesn't that mean that the characteristics of being Omnipotent cannot exist in a Universe with any real physical laws? 2) Or , does it only imply that perhaps there is a faulty notion of what a physical law really is? 3) Or is it possible that physical laws are only a reflection of the capabilities of those making them, i.e. could Super Being(s) still exists, and that our physical laws just do not apply to It(them), and if this is the case, then could there be some beings of "intermediate" capabilities, who are not Omnipotent, who have the capability to disobey some of our physical laws, but some other kind of "physical laws" still apply to them? 4) Am I starting from the wrong foot? I hope I can get some discussion on this from the net. kin wong (..ihnp4!iwlc8!klw, ..laidbak!kin)
rsk@pucc-h (Rich Kulawiec) (09/05/84)
Actually, you're on the right track, I think...but I find
Occam's Razor a much faster way to demonstrate the non-existence
of an omnipotent/omniscient being.
--
---Rsk
UUCP: { decvax, icalqa, ihnp4, inuxc, sequent, uiucdcs } !pur-ee!rsk
{ decwrl, hplabs, icase, psuvax1, siemens, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk
And the thing that you're hearing is only the sound
Of the low spark of high-heeled boys...faustus@ucbvax.ARPA (Wayne Christopher) (09/06/84)
> 1)Doesn't that mean that the characteristics of being Omnipotent cannot > exist in a Universe with any real physical laws? > 2) Or , does it only imply that perhaps there is a faulty notion of > what a physical law really is? > 3) Or is it possible that physical laws are only a reflection of the > capabilities of those making them, i.e. could Super Being(s) still > exists, and that our physical laws just do not apply to It(them), and if > this is the case, then could there be some beings of "intermediate" > capabilities, who are not Omnipotent, who have the capability to disobey > some of our physical laws, but some other kind of "physical laws" > still apply to them? > 4) Am I starting from the wrong foot? Well, you have to understand that a physical law is not a law. A physical law is merely an observation of a regularity that there seems to be in nature. If in fact there are omnipotent beings, they must act with great regularity (if they cause the phenomena that we percieve), because the universe seems to be pretty regular. However, the very idea of an omnipotent being is incoherent in the first place, because of paradoxes like "Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" It's not enough to say "He wouldn't be stupid enough to try to do it" or something like that, and I doubt that anybody would be willing to grant that God can violate the laws of logic in addition to our (percieved) physical laws... Wayne
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/06/84)
Methinks some people invoke Occam's Razor to dispose of an
argument the way others invoke Scripture.
":-)"
--
Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd
The true light that enlightens every one was coming
into the world... (John 1:9)pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/06/84)
A: "Can God make a rock so big that he couldn't lift it?"
B: "Lift it off of what?"
--
Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd
The true light that enlightens every one was coming
into the world... (John 1:9)unbent@ecsvax.UUCP (09/07/84)
From: <1804@ucbvax.ARPA> > However, the very idea of an omnipotent being is incoherent in the > first place, because of paradoxes like "Can God create a rock too > heavy for Him to lift?" It's not enough to say "He wouldn't be stupid > enough to try to do it" or something like that, and I doubt that > anybody would be willing to grant that God can violate the laws of > logic in addition to our (percieved) physical laws... > > Wayne Not that old thing again! An omnipotent being can do anything *logically possible*. I.e., for any logically consistent task-description 'T', X is omnipotent iff X can do T. The restriction to *logically consistent* task-descriptions is pleonastic. If 'T' is logically inconsistent, 'T' doesn't describe a *task* at all. That is, there aren't two *kinds* of tasks -- logically consistent ones and logically inconsistent ones -- although there are two kinds of *expressions purporting to describe tasks*. Thus 'X is omnipotent' is simply equivalent to 'X can do any task'. OK. 'Lifting a rock' is a (consistent) task description. Hence, from 'God is omnipotent' it follows that God can lift a rock. You pick the rock. In fact, 'lifting every rock' is a consistent task description. Thus, from 'God is omnipotent' it follows that God can lift every rock. It therefore follows that 'a rock to heavy for God to lift' is NOT logically consistent but self-contradictory. Hence, in turn, 'creating a rock too heavy for God to lift' is NOT a consistent task-description. So the phrase fails to impose a limitation on God's omnipotence by specifying a *task* which an omnipotent being could not perform. Moral: No paradox, but only a pseudo-paradox. Like the classical case of the ostensible barber who shaves all and only those who do not shave themselves. The proper conclusion there: There can't be any such barber. (It's logically impossible.) Analogously: There can't be any such rock (given the hypothesis that God is omnipotent). This sort of stuff has been sorted out in the philosophical literature for years. [Not that the notion of omnipotence is entirely without its problems, to be sure. It's just that the putative "paradox" isn't one of them.] Yours for clearer concepts, --Jay Rosenberg Dept. of Philosophy ...mcnc!ecsvax!unbent Univ. of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC 27514
3b2adm1@ihuxo.UUCP (Lloyd Brock) (09/08/84)
Our thoughts of being omnipotent are finite. We would have to be God to know the complete meaning of omnipotent. Therefore the question, can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift?, is impossible for us to answer. If you would like to know the answer, follow his commandments, read the Bible, go to church, and ask God for wisdom and the strength to be a true Christian. Lloyd Brock ihuxo!3b2adm1
polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) (09/12/84)
Is there any reason why an omnipotent being is obliged to obey the
rules of logic, especially our puny mortal logic?
Any attribution by us mortals of anything to a superior
being such as God is surely an act of supreme hubris.
Things are what I say they are :-)
--
Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.)
{ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polardrcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (09/18/84)
> Our thoughts of being omnipotent are finite. We would > have to be God to know the complete meaning of omnipotent. Oh, Lordy...wait... Oh, my heav...no, wait, that's wrong too... Say whaaaa??? In other words, we have to be God to know what we're talking about? > Therefore the question, can God create a rock too heavy for > him to lift?, is impossible for us to answer. If you would like > to know the answer, follow his commandments, read the Bible, go > to church, and ask God for wisdom and the strength to be a true > Christian. And in the beginning there was the sales pitch. And everywhere was the proselyte. And all questions had one answer. (Shut up and shine your shoes; we'll be late to church:-) -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Keep your day job 'til your night job pays.
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/19/84)
> Is there any reason why an omnipotent being is obliged to obey the > rules of logic, especially our puny mortal logic? > Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.) > {ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard None whatever. God is not required to obey the rules of our puny mortal logic. Only our puny mortal thoughts about God, and our puny mortal statements about Him are required to obey the rules of our puny mortal logic. In fact, our thoughts and statements are so puny, they can't even be true without obeying our puny mortal logic. Perhaps I could go on, but I fear that I've already layed it on too thick. David Canzi, watmath!watdcsu!dmcanzi (Well, nobody else was responding to him, so I thought I might...)