The so-called omnimax attributes

[Spock]

I have serious problems with the so called “omnimax” attributes. These are omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omnipresence, and they are not well defined. I have yet to see a coherent and rigorous definition of these terms. Take, whichever you want, and present a definition, so we can review it. Forget that these attributes are supposed to pertain to God. Let’s not drag God and his other alleged attributes into the discussion. I would prefer to examine these attributes on their own merit, and see if they make any sense. If the concepts themselves make sense, then (and only then) it can be examined if they can be properly attributed to God. If the concepts themselves are incoherent, they will not make sense, even if they are God’s attributes.

 

[Katholish]

On the contrary, all of the attributes seem to be painstakingly defined, but nothing wrong with re-examining it all.

Ok, lets start with omniscience. This means having all knowledge. Omni = all, sciencia = science or body of knolwedge.

Thus something which is omniscient knows all things, both actual and potential.

 

[Eucharisted]

Recommended Reading:

Fallacies
Omnipotence
Nature and Attributes of God
Relation of God to the Universe

 

[shoewindow3000]

I have serious problems with the so called “omnimax” attributes. These are omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omnipresence, and they are not well defined. I have yet to see a coherent and rigorous definition of these terms. Take, whichever you want, and present a definition, so we can review it. Forget that these attributes are supposed to pertain to God. Let’s not drag God and his other alleged attributes into the discussion. I would prefer to examine these attributes on their own merit, and see if they make any sense. If the concepts themselves make sense, then (and only then) it can be examined if they can be properly attributed to God. If the concepts themselves are incoherent, they will not make sense, even if they are God’s attributes.

People have written books on these attributes…

However, they are from a Catholic philosophical perspective, so you may not want to read them.

 

[Spock]

On the contrary, all of the attributes seem to be painstakingly defined, but nothing wrong with re-examining it all.

Ok, lets start with omniscience. This means having all knowledge. Omni = all, sciencia = science or body of knolwedge.

Thus something which is omniscient knows all things, both actual and potential.

Well, that is a starting point, for sure. But very hazy, in my opinion (despite the fact that it looks precise). As usual, the devil is in the details. Let me ask a specific question: would omniscience include the “knowledge” of the contents of a book, which was never written, since the author was never born (though the book could have been written, if the author had been born)? Or another question: “would an omniscient being know how Winnie the Pooh would have been written if Milne had a bad toothache?”.

As a point of interest, what do you call “knowledge”? I offer the definition: “to have correct information about something” - in other words “knowledge is a correct mental image about something”. The usual definition: “justified true belief” is not sufficient - since it contains “justified”, which is a subjective term. What is “justified” for one person may be insufficient for the other.

 

[Spock]

Recommended Reading:

Fallacies
Omnipotence
Nature and Attributes of God
Relation of God to the Universe

People have written books on these attributes…

However, they are from a Catholic philosophical perspective, so you may not want to read them.

I explicitly stated that I am interested in a purely philosophical discussion, not what is asserted about God’s attributes. If these terms cannot be defined without a reference to God and without a reference to God’s alleged attributes, then they are theological constructs and have no place in “pure” (non-theological) philosophy. If that is what you say, I have no problem with that.

 

[Katholish]

Spock, since omniscience would seem to include both what actually exists and what potentially exists, it would have to cover all theoretical contingencies as in the contents of a book of an author who was never born (but theoretically could have been born). There is some difference in kind between knowledge of what is actual and what is potential, but I am not sure that distinction is important for our purposes.

As for a definition of knowledge, while I might maintain that we do not fully understand God’s mode of knowing, we do understand that His knowledge is more complete than our own and is not lacking. I see not huge problem with your definition, “to have correct information about something”. I think it could be refined further as having a form in the intellect which corresponds to the thing in reality, but that is essentially what you have said. This also happens to be the definition for truth (the correspondence of a mental image with reality).

I don’t really have a sense yet what the basis is which you might consider such a concept of omniscience as incoherent, but I imagine you will make the argument when you see fit.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I have serious problems with the so called “omnimax” attributes. These are omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omnipresence, and they are not well defined. I have yet to see a coherent and rigorous definition of these terms. Take, whichever you want, and present a definition, so we can review it. Forget that these attributes are supposed to pertain to God. Let’s not drag God and his other alleged attributes into the discussion. I would prefer to examine these attributes on their own merit, and see if they make any sense. If the concepts themselves make sense, then (and only then) it can be examined if they can be properly attributed to God. If the concepts themselves are incoherent, they will not make sense, even if they are God’s attributes.

i dont see how you can separate them from the necessary being, even if we dont use the Holy Name. that state of maximal being, pure existence, perfection is necessary to talk about the omnimax attributes. they wouldnt make any sense apart from their foundation any more than a house could be built without a foundation. further, if you remove G-d, and only speak about the attributes in the terms of the necessary being, then you leave off some of the reasons why good is preferable to evil. as silly as that sounds, contrary to the human experience, there are some who would question such a bias. undoubtedly that is the driving motivation for the thread. bait taken. do your worst

 

[Spock]

Spock, since omniscience would seem to include both what actually exists and what potentially exists, it would have to cover all theoretical contingencies as in the contents of a book of an author who was never born (but theoretically could have been born). There is some difference in kind between knowledge of what is actual and what is potential, but I am not sure that distinction is important for our purposes.

There is a world of difference. And it is merely your proposition that omniscience includes both the actual and the potential.

But let’s take your point and examine it. You say that “omniscience includes the knowledge of potentially existing things” in other words: “omniscience includes the knowledge of something that does not exist, has never existed and will never exist”. In other words: “omniscince includes the knowledge of ‘nothing’”. I wonder what this means? How can “nothing be known”? As a matter of fact, it is very interesting to see different posters having different answers to the same question. A while ago I had a conversation with another Catholic poster, and he readily agreed that omniscience can only mean the “knowledge of what can be known”. He agreed that the proposition of “knowing a never written book” is pure nonsense. Of course, a lot hinges upon the way the question is presented.

As for a definition of knowledge, while I might maintain that we do not fully understand God’s mode of knowing, we do understand that His knowledge is more complete than our own and is not lacking. I see not huge problem with your definition, “to have correct information about something”. I think it could be refined further as having a form in the intellect which corresponds to the thing in reality, but that is essentially what you have said. This also happens to be the definition for truth (the correspondence of a mental image with reality).

Well, I am quite uninterested in God’s knowledge at this point. (Though we may get to it later). However, if we agree that knowledge is the correct mental image of reality, then omniscience cannot include the contents of a never written book, can it? After all, the “never written book” is not part of reality.

I don’t really have a sense yet what the basis is which you might consider such a concept of omniscience as incoherent, but I imagine you will make the argument when you see fit.

Yes, I sure will. Once we can agree on omniscience, I will offer an interesting thought experiment which will show the incompatibility of omniscience with our assumed “free will”.

 

[Spock]

i dont see how you can separate them from the necessary being, even if we dont use the Holy Name. that state of maximal being, pure existence, perfection is necessary to talk about the omnimax attributes. they wouldnt make any sense apart from their foundation any more than a house could be built without a foundation.

If a concept (the omnimax attributes) cannot be examined on their own right, if they are intelligible only in one specific context, then they are “unintelligible” as generic concepts. Which is what I contend anyway. You and the other posters are invited to prove me wrong, and produce a coherent, sensible defintion of these concepts. If you say that these concepts cannot be defined apart from God, then we can close the conversation as fruitless.

further, if you remove G-d, and only speak about the attributes in the terms of the necessary being, then you leave off some of the reasons why good is preferable to evil. as silly as that sounds, contrary to the human experience, there are some who would question such a bias. undoubtedly that is the driving motivation for the thread. bait taken. do your worst

Don’t judge, lest you want to be judged.

 

[Katholish]

Spock, I would want to be careful of over-simplifying the question of being and non-being. It was the error of the pre-Socratics to say simply that “being is, non-being is not” and make no possibility for a middle ground. Potency is not entirely non-being or is it entirely being. Without potency, there can be no accounting for real change (which again was the error of the pre-Socratics).

Further, potency is something that can be known, at least in theory, because there is a degree to which it is real even though it is not actualized (and perhaps in reality may never be actualized). Perhaps there would be some limitation in knowing what a potentially existing creature with a free will would do, this does not seem consistent with the notion of omniscience, because you would be saying that the omniscient being *does not know *what x would do in y circumstances.

Now, not everything that the human mind can piece together would necessarily have potential existence, as we are capable of piecing elements of unrelated things together without real regard for their viability. Not all contradictions are immediately apparent to us.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If a concept (the omnimax attributes) cannot be examined on their own right, if they are intelligible only in one specific context, then they are “unintelligible” as generic concepts. Which is what I contend anyway. You and the other posters are invited to prove me wrong, and produce a coherent, sensible defintion of these concepts. If you say that these concepts cannot be defined apart from God, then we can close the conversation as fruitless.

i dont see any problem in the omnimax attributes only making sense in the context of G-d as the maximal state of being, indeed, they would be impossible for any other being to have in totality. the definition of the words is a coherent, sensible definition, but as they can only be applied to one being, whats the problem with that?

if you want to speak about their coherency, fine, do so, these are the definitions i am willing to use.

omniscience- all knowing

omnipotence- newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm

omnibenevolevnce- all good

omnipresent- present everywhere.

Don’t judge, lest you want to be judged.

dont qoute Scripture if your unaware of its meaning, i havent judged your ultimate fate, that is not mine to decide.

 

[Spock]

Spock, I would want to be careful of over-simplifying the question of being and non-being. It was the error of the pre-Socratics to say simply that “being is, non-being is not” and make no possibility for a middle ground. Potency is not entirely non-being or is it entirely being. Without potency, there can be no accounting for real change (which again was the error of the pre-Socratics).

And that is where the problem lies. If I have a coin in my hand, and decide to flip it, I can “know” that the result will be either “heads” or “tails” (or maybe someone will catch it in mid-air, and the coin never lands). But that hardly qualifies as “omnisicence”, does it? To have “knowledge” about the potentials it is not sufficient to know all the possible alternatives, but also to “know” which one will be actualized.

Let’s finish up my previous question: “what does it mean that omniscience includes the knowledge of a never-happened event?”. I think that would be total nonsense. Something that never happened and will never happen, simply cannot be “known”. Do you agree with that?

Further, potency is something that can be known, at least in theory, because there is a degree to which it is real even though it is not actualized (and perhaps in reality may never be actualized). Perhaps there would be** some limitation **in knowing what a potentially existing creature with a free will would do, this does not seem consistent with the notion of omniscience, because you would be saying that the omniscient being *does not know *what x would do in y circumstances.

Right on the money! So if omniscience would “know” the outcome of free decision (which has not been made yet) that would present some other serious problems, which must be investigated later on. Looks like that “omniscience” is still very hazy, and problematic. If, as you say that “it does not seem to be consistent with omniscience”, then "omniscience has to be redefined. Obviously the suggested definition (knowing all) is incorrect.

 

[Spock]

if you want to speak about their coherency, fine, do so, these are the definitions i am willing to use.

That is precisely what I planned to do.

omniscience- all knowing

I would like you to read the exchange with Katholish, where we are in the middle of this discussion.

omnipotence- newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm

Strangely enough, early theologians and philosophers used the same literal translation as you did for “omniscience”. They asserted that God can do literally “everything”. But let’s concentrate on “omniscience”.

omnibenevolevnce- all good

Very hazy. What is good, and for whom is it good? What is good for the goose, is it automatically good for the gander? The existence of conflicting “goods” should not be overlooked. I propose to leave this one alone for the time being. Omniscience is complicated enough.

omnipresent- present everywhere.

Only “everywhere”? Or also “everywhen”? Even in non-existent places in never existed events? You see, the literal translation is quite unsatisfactory.

dont qoute Scripture if your unaware of its meaning, i havent judged your ultimate fate, that is not mine to decide.

Well, you did make a judgment call about my possible intent. And now you make another judgment call about my knowledge of the Scriptures. :tsktsk:

 

[liquidpele]

As I posed elsewhere, these terms don’t make sense within our reality, and thus are entirely fabricated. Nothing in our reality can know everything or be everywhere, or hold any other mis-understood kind of infinity. It’s essentially someone saying that God is made up of Green 3:00 PM. It just makes no sense even if can be written down.

The common explanation is that God is “outside” our reality, and that these terms only apply to God and other such things, but these are attempts to rationalize the irrational at best, and wilful deception of understanding at worst.

Lets look at a few:

Omnipotence - Infinite Power or Ability: Can God life a rock so heavy he can’t lift it? The usual answers are that God can do anything that “possible” or that God would never try so it’s irrelevant. Cop outs. If you have infinite power, by the nature there is no limit to the power, and thus by definition you would not create something you can’t do. It’s an obvious misrepresentation of power. Power cannot be infinite.

Omniscience - Infinite knowledge: What is knowledge? If God knows everything, does he take away free will? If God knows the aspects of everything… every single particle, then we might as well be his imagination. While this is probably possible in a Matrix kind of way, I think it’s just as like the movie - neat to think about but utterly unhelpful to real life.

omnibenevolent - All loving, infinitely good. And yet hell exists? He destroyed cities, punished people, etc? People argue these things, and this of course means that “good” is arguable! Whew, glad we can agree on that.

Anyway, I think the point is that all these are misrepresentations of the idea of infinite, and people should not view it as some kind of scale because real life doesn’t work that way. It’s a silly as me saying God has -13 points of thing X.

My $0.02

 

[Eucharisted]

I explicitly stated that I am interested in a purely philosophical discussion, not what is asserted about God’s attributes. If these terms cannot be defined without a reference to God and without a reference to God’s alleged attributes, then they are theological constructs and have no place in “pure” (non-theological) philosophy. If that is what you say, I have no problem with that.

Theology is a branch of philosophy. Do some more research, Spock.

The links I provided are for everyone, so quit it.

 

[Spock]

As I posed elsewhere, these terms don’t make sense within our reality, and thus are entirely fabricated.

Very true. However, the concepts themselves exist in our reality. The question, whether these concepts are sensible, or not - is a valid question. Are they akin to the concept of a “married bachelor” which is a nonsensical concept (even though the concept is part of the reality), or do they have a well-defined and intellible meaning? That is the aim of the game.

 

[Spock]

Theology is a branch of philosophy.

No one asserted otherwise. However, philophy is the wider category, and I am only interested in the non-theological underpinning of these concepts. Or, more precisely, if these concepts are meaningful or not. So far we are at the beginning of a conversation.

Do some more research, Spock. The links I provided are for everyone, so quit it.

Is that what people usually refer to as a “charitable” comment? I am not interested in your links. I am not interested in your comments, unless they pertain to the topic of this thread. If you just want to “rain” (rain is a substitute for another 4-letter word) on our parade, then your “non-contributory” remarks will be left unanswered.

 

[Eucharisted]

No one asserted otherwise. However, philophy is the wider category, and I am only interested in the non-theological underpinning of these concepts. Or, more precisely, if these concepts are meaningful or not. So far we are at the beginning of a conversation.

Here’s the irony of your words: You cannot discuss God in philosophy without it being theological. Because theology is simply the study of God, which you are doing in this thread. Like I said, you need to study more. For all the “I am well learned” atttitude you are showing, you are also showing your lack of learning. It is easy to tell who is really learned and who is just showing off.

Is that what people usually refer to as a “charitable” comment? I am not interested in your links. I am not interested in your comments, unless they pertain to the topic of this thread. If you just want to “rain” (rain is a substitute for another 4-letter word) on our parade, then your “non-contributory” remarks will be left unanswered.

Fine, but I’m sure others are interested in the links. Because as I said, they are for everyone.

 

[Spock]

Here’s the irony of your words: You cannot discuss God in philosophy without it being theological. Because theology is simply the study of God, which you are doing in this thread. Like I said, you need to study more. For all the “I am well learned” atttitude you are showing, you are also showing your lack of learning. It is easy to tell who is really learned and who is just showing off.

Except I am not discussing God at all. I am discussing a few secular (non-theological) concepts, which are habitually associated with God. That is not the same. Do you understand the difference? Are you sufficiently “learned” to comprehend this simple distinction? One can only hope, even if there in no real foundation to be hopeful.

Fine, but I’m sure others are interested in the links. Because as I said, they are for everyone.

Others can do whatever they want.