An unanswerable question?

[JohnDamian]

Very good observation. In a communication channel, there is a “sender”, a “message” and a “recipient”. The sender wishes to communicate the message. The recipient will either understand what the sender wanted to express, or not. In the latter case we have miscommunication. The meaning of the message is whatever the recipient “makes” out of it, regardless what the sender intended. If I would send this message to you in a language you do not speak, it would be “garbage” on your side. To be precise: “there is no inherent meaning”.

Well, first of all the concept of “omipotent” (or any other concept) is something that can be (and must be) examined without any reference to God. If you wish to assign that concept as one of God’s attributes, that can be done only as a second step - after the concept has been established in a rational manner and is found to be meaningful. But the definition comes first. What you suggest: “Genus of Power” is just an empty set of words. If you wish to fill them with meaning, please do so. But so far, they mean nothing to me, though I guess, they mean something to you. (By the way, the same observation applies to all of the “omnimax” attributes.)

You are correct; I should have been more precise about the definition of the "Genus of Power or Potency.

In the context I used it in it did make sense to me, but evidently I was ambiguous; I shall clarify:

Omnipotence as a concept means “all things in genus potency”

The genus potency extends to capacity of manipulation and generation of the effectively “real” - that is, things that have any form quiddatively predicated on existent or potentially existent things.

I say here that I hold the position of Realism (as opposed to Nominalism, Idealism etc.) in that I hold things such as universals, time and space to be quiddatively existent things.

Therein, I hold that if we take the concept of Potency; as I have elaborated on and extend it ad infinitum we are left with the capacity to generate or manipulate all things which are quiddatively predicated on an existent form.

This omni-potency, does not entail the capacity to generate or manipulate any material thing that is in existence quiddatively contradictiory; for the nature of the form of a “rock too large to lift” is essentially a contradiction; in that if potencys extension extends to the capacity wherein such a generation of a rock of infinite size is possible; so then as the extension of capacity generation is capacity manipulation by consequence extended as both are essential predicates in my definition of Potency.

Were I to have extended Generation to an infinite stage; yet had not extended manipulation to such a stage - such a rock would be possible, but not moveable by this agent – likewise – Were I too extend manipulation to infinity, such a manipulation would be possible by this agent, but there would be no capacity to generate said rock. – However, this is not the case; as I have predicated both generation and manipulation of “existents” to potency, and extended it infinitely.

I then take this definition of Omnipotency and apply it to God.

 

[Moonstruck888]

You are correct; I should have been more precise about the definition of the "Genus of Power or Potency.

In the context I used it in it did make sense to me, but evidently I was ambiguous; I shall clarify:

Omnipotence as a concept means “all things in genus potency”

The genus potency extends to capacity of manipulation and generation of the effectively “real” - that is, things that have any form quiddatively predicated on existent or potentially existent things.

I say here that I hold the position of Realism (as opposed to Nominalism, Idealism etc.) in that I hold things such as universals, time and space to be quiddatively existent things.

Therein, I hold that if we take the concept of Potency; as I have elaborated on and extend it ad infinitum we are left with the capacity to generate or manipulate all things which are quiddatively predicated on an existent form.

This omni-potency, does not entail the capacity to generate or manipulate any material thing that is in existence quiddatively contradictiory; for the nature of the form of a “rock too large to lift” is essentially a contradiction; in that if potencys extension extends to the capacity wherein such a generation of a rock of infinite size is possible; so then as the extension of capacity generation is capacity manipulation by consequence extended as both are essential predicates in my definition of Potency.

Were I to have extended Generation to an infinite stage; yet had not extended manipulation to such a stage - such a rock would be possible, but not moveable by this agent – likewise – Were I too extend manipulation to infinity, such a manipulation would be possible by this agent, but there would be no capacity to generate said rock. – However, this is not the case; as I have predicated both generation and manipulation of “existents” to potency, and extended it infinitely.

I then take this definition of Omnipotency and apply it to God.

In other words, what Oscar Klein and Theodore Kaluza did with numbers, you are doing with words. Being able to arrange numbers cleverly into dimensional arrays or being able to arrange words into nice little soundbites with Latin or Greek words in Italics does not demonstrate that what you are representing is actually anything more than an idea.

 

[JohnDamian]

In other words, what Oscar Klein and Theodore Kaluza did with numbers, you are doing with words. Being able to arrange numbers cleverly into dimensional arrays or being able to arrange words into nice little soundbites with Latin or Greek words in Italics does not demonstrate that what you are representing is actually anything more than an idea.

It just so happens philosophical terms will be used in a philosophy forum…

But yes, it does not demonstrate anything more than the logical nonsense of people arguing this stupid “Rock” question… It clearly demonstrates that that suggestion is nothing more than pop-metaphysics of the lowest kind.

 

[Moonstruck888]

It just so happens philosophical terms will be used in a philosophy forum…

But yes, it does not demonstrate anything more than the logical nonsense of people arguing this stupid “Rock” question… It clearly demonstrates that that suggestion is nothing more than pop-metaphysics of the lowest kind.

For once I’m forced to agree with you. The rock question is rather lackluster…

 

[Moonstruck888]

It clearly demonstrates that that suggestion is nothing more than pop-metaphysics of the lowest kind.

Here’s a question for you. Given that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent he has knowledge of all things, past, present and future.

Can God change his mind about something he is going to do in the future, given that he already knows the exact time and nature of every decision he will ever make?

 

[JohnDamian]

Here’s a question for you. Given that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent he has knowledge of all things, past, present and future.

Can God change his mind about something he is going to do in the future, given that he already knows the exact time and nature of every decision he will ever make?

Given that praxis is posterior to essence; then yes; for a (this or that) future exists contingently upon it’s actualisation; and God’s volition / nolition is as his essence is - free; and prior to his praxis.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Given that praxis is posterior to essence; then yes; for a (this or that) future exists contingently upon it’s actualisation; and God’s volition / nolition is as his essence is - free; and prior to his praxis.

How can praxis be posterior to essence if you’re omnipresent, to wit: everywhere and everywhen?

 

[JohnDamian]

How can praxis be posterior to essence if you’re omnipresent, to wit: everywhere and everywhen?

Well praxis is seperate from intellection; were he to even know what his act’s are; as he has free will; his intellection is an accident in relation to the actualisation of his volition.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Well praxis is seperate from intellection; were he to even know what his act’s are; as he has free will; his intellection is an accident in relation to the actualisation of his volition.

So, you’re basically saying that he isn’t actually omniscient? Praxis is different from intellection. He doesn’t already know everything he’s going to do?

 

[JohnDamian]

So, you’re basically saying that he isn’t actually omniscient? Praxis is different from intellection. He doesn’t already know everything he’s going to do?

This is the same argument as the omnipotency argument

Omniscience is an extension ad infinitum of all capacities within the genus: knowlege.

Therein, all things that are knoweable are known; yet as we extend in God’s case, an infinite volition it nessecarily follows that if we take volition to be prior to intellection that God nessecarily knows all occurences per potential; not per actuality - because otherwise a contradiction would be entailed.

One can be both omniscient and not know what one will do in the future.

 

[Moonstruck888]

This is the same argument as the omnipotency argument

Omniscience is an extension ad infinitum of all capacities within the genus: knowlege.

Therein, all things that are knoweable are known; yet as we extend in God’s case, an infinite volition it nessecarily follows that if we take volition to be prior to intellection that God nessecarily knows all occurences per potential; not per actuality - because otherwise a contradiction would be entailed.

One can be both omniscient and not know what one will do in the future.

That is self contradictory. Either God is omniscient and knows all occurences per potential and per actuality or he is not omniscient. He can’t be omniscient and not be omniscient. That is illogical.

 

[JohnDamian]

That is self contradictory. Either God is omniscient and knows all occurences per potential and per actuality or he is not omniscient. He can’t be omniscient and not be omniscient. That is illogical.

Evidently you are labouring under some misconception as to what is entailed by omniscience.

Whilst: *God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future. * his actualisation of this knowlege is truly free par the priorty of his will.

He knows what things will happen, and he knows he will actualise them - yet such certitude belies an absence of the will; hence as his will is prior to his intellection; his omniscience is accidental and not nessecary to his actions; and by consequence his omniscience extends (in our understanding) to what will happen - for ultimatly a “per actual” thing is only so when it is made so; before that all things are “per potential”. I do not see that as hard to understand at all.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Evidently you are labouring under some misconception as to what is entailed by omniscience.

Whilst: *God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future. * his actualisation of this knowlege is truly free par the priorty of his will.

He knows what things will happen, and he knows he will actualise them - yet such certitude belies an absence of the will; hence as his will is prior to his intellection; his omniscience is accidental and not nessecary to his actions; and by consequence his omniscience extends (in our understanding) to what will happen - for ultimatly a “per actual” thing is only so when it is made so; before that all things are “per potential”. I do not see that as hard to understand at all.

The difficult bit to understand is why I should accept such a plastic definition of omniscience.

It is so convenient, the way you define it, that it looks like you’ve started with the conclusion of what God is and then worked backwards to redefine words and concepts to try and explain this conclusion in a way that could possibly make some kind of logical sense.

This particular definition of omniscience, where omniscience is not quite omniscience in situations where it becomes awkward to explain, reeks of desperation and theodicity paradox.

 

[JohnDamian]

It is so convenient, the way you define it, that it looks like you’ve started with the conclusion of what God is and then worked backwards to redefine words and concepts to try and explain this conclusion in a way that could possibly make some kind of logical sense

I try to define words by what they mean… Omniscience means at best all-knowing… Therefore, only that which is logically atributable to knowlege can be known by an Omniscient. Therein, defining what is logically knowable, and extending it to an infinite will give you what Omniscience is.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I try to define words by what they mean… Omniscience means at best all-knowing… Therefore, only that which is logically atributable to knowlege can be known by an Omniscient. Therein, defining what is logically knowable, and extending it to an infinite will give you what Omniscience is.

So you agree that omniscient means possessing infinite knowledge, knowing everything that is knowable?

 

[JohnDamian]

So you agree that omniscient means possessing infinite knowledge, knowing everything that is knowable?

I agree with the latter (the boldened part); not the former.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I agree with the latter (the boldened part); not the former.

Okay, that gives us something to work with.

you agree that God knows everything that is knowable.

Do you agree that God is omnipresent? That he is every possible where and every possible when?

 

[JohnDamian]

Okay, that gives us something to work with.

you agree that God knows everything that is knowable.

Do you agree that God is omnipresent? That he is every possible where and every possible when?

It is neither helpful, wise nor nessecary to assume God exists outside of time; yet - it is sensible to state that God is present at every moment - just not in a simultaneous fashion.

I do hold that he is present spacially in a simultaneous fashion.

 

[Moonstruck888]

It is neither helpful, wise nor nessecary to assume God exists outside of time; yet - it is sensible to state that God is present at every moment - just not in a simultaneous fashion.

I do hold that he is present spacially in a simultaneous fashion.

It’s surely necessary to assume that God exists outside time if you wish to contend that he created the Universe?

Another contradiction?

 

[JohnDamian]

It’s surely necessary to assume that God exists outside time if you wish to contend that he created the Universe?

Another contradiction?

I don’t see why that constitutes a contradiction.