An interesting solution to the omnipotence paradox

[ProdglArchitect]

Then it would cease to be an electron, it would become a positron. Violation of the first law of logic, the law of identity.

…Did you even read my post? I acknowledge that. The miracle would be changing the charge, thereby changing it from an electron to a positron. I agree with you that we cannot violate teh law of identity.

What is the difference between a chair, and a table? Only the usage. You can sit on a table and place your food on a chair, and eat it from there. How many legs do they have? What are they made of? Can you stand on a table?

The point is simple. Every object has many attributes. We can arbitrarily choose some of them and declare that those are the “essence” , the rest are “accidents”. We are free to chose which attributes are which. It all depends on what we wish to use that object for! It is not intrinsic to the object, it is extrinsic and belongs to our “objective”.

Yeah, this is why Wesrock said it was a bad choice, and he was right, at least with someone as pedantic as you seem to be. A square is comprised of a set of qualifiers.

• Is a closed surface
• Is 2-Dimensional
• Has four sides
• Has each of equal length
• Has each side at 90 degree angles to adjacent sides

You can change the quality of length of side without changing the nature of a square, but you cannot change the number of sides, the angle of those sides in relation to each other, of the number of dimensions, without it ceasing to be a square. It has a fundamental reality, with unlimited possible expressions. Hence, a single essence with unlimited accidents.

Such a simplistic approach only works in axiomatic (deductive) systems - where we lierally define things “into existence”. They do not work in the inductive reality. Try to apply it to “cows”, “goats”, “horses”, “bisons”, etc… What is the “essence” of a “cow”?

A cow is going to be a cow, regardless of us defining it as a cow… I’ll be honest, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. We don’t define numbers into existence, we only find ways of expressing them that are relative to our experiences.

 

[Inquiry]

I was already tackling the issue as if it was not man made, I only got into the human definition side of it because you brought it up.

As far as we know, a finite circle cannot be straight lined in our world. That does not mean that God cannot envision or create a world where a square can be a circle, only that he has chosen not to create that one here.

 

[tafan2]

(3) to paint a square that is a circle: Yes, He can do this. But He never wants to do this, because this would violate the truth that there is not any square that is a circle.

Lets start with the most easy of your 3 examples. Simply put, no He cannot do this. It has nothing to do with omnipotence or a contradiction of omnipotence. Simply put, a circle has a very specific definition, as does a square. A circle is defined as all points being equidistance from the center. If God paints anything that does not have all outer points equidistance from the center, He did not paint a circle, He painted something else, something that be definition is NOT a circle. Its a matter of a definition, not a matter of what God can and cannot do.

 

[whatistrue]

It would have to be more than a different world, it would have to be a completely different frame of existence with different mathematical and geometric truths. I can’t even begin to image what it would have to be like; my math is not even close to good enough.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Most Catholic theologians, in my experience, go with the former.

Again, the point is that these “omnimax” attributes are philosophical and NOT theological concepts. They need a secular definition to make sense at all. Whether they describe something that ONLY God can have is a different matter. What is “omnipotence” and what is “omniscience”… that is the question?

All real and possible things are dependent upon the First Cause, and the corollary is that the First Cause has the power to effect all real and possible things. That is a quickly stated look at what is meant by omnipotence.

Omniscience is knowing all real and possible objects and concepts and all real and possible relationships between them.

Much ado has been made about the “omnimax” attributes by the New Atheists but I’m frankly not impressed by the criticisms which fall limp with any real study into the topic and the reasons why, for example, many theologians define them as I do above.

 

[Inquiry]

Exactly. It would certainly look nonsensical to us and would probably violate other things we think of as obvious.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

…Did you even read my post? I acknowledge that. The miracle would be changing the charge, thereby changing it from an electron to a positron. I agree with you that we cannot violate teh law of identity.

But that IS a violation of the law of identity. You could start with something we CALL a “cat”, keep on changing different attributes of it, and finally get something we usually CALL a “dog”.

A cow is going to be a cow, regardless of us defining it as a cow… I’ll be honest, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. We don’t define numbers into existence, we only find ways of expressing them that are relative to our experiences.

The point is that there is no such thing as an intrinsic “essence” called “cowness”.

 

[Wesrock]

Just a quick comment on the essence thing. I’m not sure Aquinas would even say a chair (as a whole object) has an essence. Thomists would generally look at a chair and other such artifacts (as opposed to substances) as having an accidental form.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

But that IS a violation of the law of identity. You could start with something we CALL a “cat”, keep on changing different attributes of it, and finally get something we usually CALL a “dog”.

No, it isn’t. It is changed from one thing to another. The identities of each corresponding category are preserved, only the object itself is changed by altering one physical property.

The point is that there is no such thing as an intrinsic “essence” called “cowness”.

That is arguable, but I’d probably agree with you. That doesn’t negate the entire principle, only that one particular example. There is such an essence for numbers.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

All real and possible things are dependent upon the First Cause, and the corollary is that the First Cause has the power to effect all real and possible things. That is a quickly stated look at what is meant by omnipotence.

Yes, this is a so-called “existential” approach in mathematics, as opposed to the “constructive” approach. But since you cannot know what are those “real” and “possible” things, it is just an empty definition. It sounds like “omnipotence is something that only God can do”. Which is a theological approach.

Just a quick comment on the essence thing. I’m not sure Aquinas would even say a chair has an essence. Thomists would generally look at a chair and other such artifacts (as opposed to substances) as having an accidental form.

There is a problem here. Christians assert that there are no natural, uncreated objects, everything is artificially created by God.

But, be as it may, what is the “essence” of a cow? What is “cowness” as opposed to “goatness”?

 

[Nicene]

From a catholic point of view personally I’ve never had a problem with the paradox:

”who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, ”

Jesus had a hard time carrying the cross, yet as God continued to hold the entire universe. Jesus answers the paradox.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Wesrock]

Yes, this is a so-called “existential” approach in mathematics, as opposed to the “constructive” approach. But since you cannot know what are those “real” and “possible” things, it is just an empty definition. It sounds like “omnipotence is something that only God can do”. Which is a theological approach.

There is no need to define every real and possible thing specifically to understand the definition. You’re being pedantic. The association of omnipotence and omniscience as defined with the First Cause and only that is also done through secular philosophy, not theology.

There is a problem here. Christians assert that there are no natural, uncreated objects, everything is artificially created by God.

Not all Christians claim everything is “artificial,” as you say. This here is actually a major criticism that Thomists have with Intelligent Design theorists like Paley who have a mechanistic philosophy of nature, because it just reduces everything down to artifacts with no intrinsic principles of their own. Suffice it to say an Aristotlean/Thomist approach is different.

But, be as it may, what is the “essence” of a cow? What is “cowness” as opposed to “goatness”?

This objection is just lame. The essence and existence distinction recognizes that all things have a commonality insofar as they exist, but that not everything is the same thing. That’s all it is. Nothing mystical. Whether every individual thing has a particular form or if there are some common forms is irrelevant to that initial distinction. Regarding commonality, though, it’s simply recognizing that cows have something universally in common with each other that they do not have universally in common with oak trees. Or if a reductionist that doesn’t hold to “complex” forms, that an electron has something really in common with another electron that it doesn’t have in common with a top quark. If one denies such real commonality it presents severe problems to a coherent philosophy of knowledge (epistemology) and philosophies of nature and science, for if there is no real commonality there is no basis for why observations of one electron should provide any indication as to what another electron actually is or does. Furthermore philosophy of the mind issues, for if there’s nothing in the knower that is really common to the external object (allegedly) being known it doesn’t make sense to speak of knowing at all. Certainly there are other frameworks out there and all kinds of nitty gritty, and I still say they have problems even if they’d disagree, but to just say “essences are incoherent” and to present “what’s the essence of a cow?” as the objection demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the issues to begin with and certainly gross ignorance of realist philosophies in general and their justifications for making the distinctions they do.

 

[zhoudu]

Yeah, that is the case. There are mainly those two positions. But my solution (just a possible solution, not necessarily correct) seems to be different from each of them. It can be summed up in the following:

God can do every thing, even including things that, if done, would lead to logical contradictions. BUT, in reality, there is never any logical contradiction, because God never does them.

One may still ask, what will happen if God creates a stone that He cannot lift? Will He still be able to lift it? My answer is that I do not know. But simply being able to create such a stone seems to be compatible with His omnipotence, as long as He does not actually do it. Of course, if He does it, then there may be contradiction to His omnipotence. But, being free from contradiction in reality instead of in all hypothetical cases seems to be already sufficient.

 

[Wesrock]

I am fairly certain, though, that “God cannot sin” is a formal doctrine of the Church.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

There is no need to define every real and possible thing specifically to understand the definition. You’re being pedantic.

To ask for precision may be called “pedantic”, but the lack of answer does not help.

Not all Christians claim everything is “artificial,” as you say.

Indeed. Let’s pick this up when the different Catholics can come to an agreement.

This objection is just lame.

Really? When you are unable to present an argument, the negative assessment of the question is not an answer. So, if you cannot present a distinction between “cowness” and “goatness”, then all you should admit that you don’t know. Which is obvious. Of course, you are not alone. No Thomist can, which means that the concept of essence is practically useless.

 

[Gorgias]

Defining things into existence is not allowed.

You confuse what God does not want to do with what God is unable to do or cannot do. Generally speaking God is unable perform actions

So, let me get this straight: Christians aren’t allowed to define God, but you are. Uhh… right.

Then again, as a counter-example to your claim, please tell me what the “first law of logic” (or “second law”, both of which you cite) is, without defining it into existence.
You can’t have it both ways, brother.

Actually, it is not that God is unable to do actions which we would consider “sinful” in others, but when God performs (or allows) them, it is perfectly fine.

Example, please.

Genocides and other atrocities come to mind.

Example, please.

Of course, if one starts with the definition that “sin” is to act contrary to God’s will, then God would be unable to sin. But that definition is only one of the possible definitions

OK. Let’s hear your definition, then.

What did you say? Freely asserted, freely denied? Yep, works both ways.

Except that, if you care to investigate it, you’ll find that this is precisely not “freely asserted”, but rather, is a cornerstone of philosophical and theological thought.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Then again, as a counter-example to your claim, please tell me what the “first law of logic” (or “second law”, both of which you cite) is, without defining it into existence.

Abstract concepts are defined. Actual objects’ attributes are what they are, they are not defined into existence.

 

[Dovekin]

The definitions being man made still doesn’t mean that a single figure could be both straight sided and completely round at the same time.

Aren’t longitudinal lines straight and circular at the same time? And perpendicular to lattitudinal lines? Have you considered all the possibilities God could have altered to make new geometries?

 

[Gorgias]

Abstract concepts are defined. Actual objects’ attributes are what they are, they are not defined into existence.

“First Law of Logic” is an abstract concept, not an “actual object’s attributes”. Nice try, though.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

There is no need to define every real and possible thing specifically to understand the definition. You’re being pedantic.

To ask for precision may be called “pedantic”, but the lack of answer does not help.

No, you’re being a pedant. Possible includes all metaphysical non-contradictions. It’s not an arbitrary list of this and that.

Not all Christians claim everything is “artificial,” as you say.

Indeed. Let’s pick this up when the different Catholics can come to an agreement.

Why wait? Your notion of artificiality isn’t a criticism that applies to Thomism or classical theology.

This objection is just lame.

Really? When you are unable to present an argument, the negative assessment of the question is not an answer. So, if you cannot present a distinction between “cowness” and “goatness”, then all you should admit that you don’t know. Which is obvious. Of course, you are not alone. No Thomist can, which means that the concept of essence is practically useless.

And the point goes over your head. That essence/existence and form/matter distinctions are real is something with sufficient justification. Defining specific examples isn’t necessary to do so. You are the one effectively claiming you see no real commonality between any cows and no real commonality between any goats and so cannot identify a real difference between one group and the other. Yet even though you claim to not believe in such distinction you still implicitly assume it in presenting me with goats and cows on the basis that I’ll understand what you mean by each without confusion. Your denial would essentalially result in the destruction of any possible philosophies of nature, science, mind, and epistemology and any methods derived from them, effectively rendering empiricism and the scientific method invalid.

Your denial applies even at the reductionist level, in which you’re basically saying there’s no real commonality between any two electrons or any two moons, rendering any scientific study, predictions, or application of that study beyond the sample impossible.

Anyway, the differences between goats and cows or any other specific example isn’t generally a matter of philosophy but an empirical study, probably the field of biology mostly.

Cows and goats may even have the same essence but have different substantial forms, which is clear from the different biology and taxonomical features of the two species.

Also, while you may view essences as medieval and ancient thinking, continental philosophy also holds to the essence and existence distinction, including German Idealists like Hegel. Heidegger also used the distinction.