What does Divine Omnipotence really mean?

[bridgeforsale]

If you believe everything has a cause, then why did you float the idea that quantum fluctuations provide evidence that some things exist without a cause? And energy does not fit into the criteria, because somebody can always ask where energy came from. I have always limited God’s omnipotence in this discussion to His creation of the universe. Regardless of what you believe Aristotle’s definition of “omnipotence” to be, I don’t see how you could have a reasonable basis for denying the proposition that God is the ultimate cause of the universe.

First of all I’m arguing that god is probably not omnipotent (not that he doesn’t exist). I think it’s safe to say those are two very different arguments. However, energy can just as easily fit the criteria of first cause (I see no basis to say it can’t), at least based on the information we have now. The latter question is a scientific one, not a philosophical question. In fact philosophy is probably more of an obstruction to science at this point than an able assistant.

Because your method of induction logically (or not as the case may be) would allow you to come to the same conclusion. Your flawed method of inferring things from lack of evidence would allow you to conclude that God isn’t omnipotent regardless of whether you observed him create ex nihilo or not. More to the point, in an earlier post you affirmed your belief in the ability of science to regenerate a severed limb. Even if you personally witnessed the regrowth of an amputated limb, you would attribute it to a natural cause - perhaps aided by the human scientific intervention. What is garbage is your suggestion that if you saw a human limb spontaneously regenerate, suddenly you would be a believer in God. That is garbage.

I think what you’re saying here is if I witnessed science, using stem cell technology and some of the regenerative techniques that science actually is working with as we speak (for instance, limbs actually have been regenerated by science, it was only a finger, but the potential is amazing) I still wouldn’t believe god did it; and that’s simply not true. I would simply say it’s not necessary to think god did it (but, assuming god exists, and is an intelligent spirit of some sort, then yes I would assume he understood that we would progress to this point before he even created the universe in the first place). I would even say it’s possible that god influences our progress in very subtle ways, but this is really what I’m getting at. Very subtle ways is different than the monotheistic version of Zeus we sort of see in the bible. He’s not causing earthquakes and tossing thunder bolts down on us. We know what causes floods, earthquakes, and thunderbolts, and as far as we can tell it’s not a spirit in the sky.

I doesn’t matter if you place modifying language in your proposition. It is still an absolute. It is absolutely true according to you that “as a general rule, it’s fallacious to assert an absolute …” Then it is absolutely true that as a general rule it is fallacious to assert an absolute. It is still the assertion of an absolute. And you do assert an absolute below with respect to the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Fair enough (not a point that seems worth our continued quibbling over).

I’m not making any statement about omnipotence other than this: the existence of the universe had a cause, and that cause is what we call God. I’ve not made any other claim about God’s omnipotence than this. Not that he is a personal being. Not that he heals amputees. Nothing of the sort.

Great, but I think it’s fair to acknowledge that’s not a necessary conclusion (although I do think there’s some compelling evidence out there, which cannot be reasonably explained in any other way, besides acknowledging we may very well have a soul and there may very well be a god or something of some sort).

. . . continued

That is your issue. It isn’t Aristotle’s, Aqunias’, or mine. Even if you were correct about Aristotle on this issue - so what? How about deal with what ultimately caused the existence of the universe. That is all I, me, tdgesq, has ever asked of you. Are you going to deal with it or not?

What are you expecting here? Do you want me to endorse a particular cosmological theory

Continued …

 

[bridgeforsale]

You are wrong. Please name a single example of an accepted actual infinite, whether it comes from the mouth of a mathematician or not. The impossibility of infinity only applies to the material and corporeal world. This is not an arbitrary conclusion. Things that materially exist have the attribute of extension. Things that are immaterial do not.

You made a reference to set theory (and asserted a rule in set theory shows an infinite is impossible, or words to that effect), which is incorrect. Cantor (a devout Christian btw) invented set theory. Look up Cantor’s theorem, an infinite is possible in mathematics. There was (and maybe still is) a school of thought that believes an infinite is impossible, but that idea is rejected in mainstream mathematics at this point. You can talk about the chicken or the egg paradox, or Zeno’s infinity paradox, but these things cannot be demonstrated as absolute laws of nature (the best we can do is show their applicability in most cases, but not all cases).

So then the First Law of Thermodynamics is an absolute? Sure it is. The problem you have is that these laws are limited by there very formulation by processes involving a thermodynamic system. I agree with that. There weren’t any thermodynamic systems before the creation of the universe. Haven’t you ever wondered why scientists don’t seriously go around claiming that the First Law of Thermodynamics disproves the existence of God?

Yes I agree it doesn’t disprove the existence of god (of course I never said it did). However, no longer is it popular to say talking about anything “before the big bang” makes no sense (based on the idea that time, energy, etc. was all created by the big bang). Modern cosmology has moved beyond that idea; and most of the theories out there today posit there was a “before the big bang” (and I think most of those theories include the assumption that energy is always conserved, in other words it always existed). BTW although I disagree with Aristotle on one point, I think some people might fail to recognize Aristotle believed the universe always existed, which corresponds in a small way with the idea of energy conservation (although obviously he was wrong to say the universe per se always existed). It’s quite possible that energy has always existed. Obviously no one can say or deny that with any degree of certitude (although in all cases we know of energy is always conserved). There are quite a few very good ideas out there (including the idea of a cyclic universe). It may or may not have been a quantum fluctuation that triggered inflation, or even if the universe is cyclic it could be possible that at some point a quantum fluctuation still triggered inflation. My only point here is omnipotence (the way the word is commonly understood e.g. nothing is impossible with god) is neither a necessary idea or for that matter a probable one. You’re saying omnipotence is true (and perhaps necessary); but only to the extent things are “logically” possible. Using the example of regenerative technology (and regrowing a finger) – since science has accomplished this; we know it’s “logically” possible. Therefore, god must also be able to do it. The problem is that’s a paradox in itself (e.g. a chicken or the egg paradox, at least assuming god invented logic). So it wouldn’t make sense to say god is constrained by logic. It seems better to say logic is in some way representative of god (as is the process used to created the universe and biological life). If you don’t say that then you’re stuck imagining what came first, logic or god?

Sorry for the post length (I responded to both of your responses at the same time, and the character limits are pretty restrictive).

 

[Leela]

You are wrong. Please name a single example of an accepted actual infinite, whether it comes from the mouth of a mathematician or not. The impossibility of infinity only applies to the material and corporeal world. This is not an arbitrary conclusion. Things that materially exist have the attribute of extension. Things that are immaterial do not.

How about the number of locations in space? or the number of routes that one could take in travelling from one point to another? or the number of “nows” in an hour?

 

[JDaniel]

How about the number of locations in space? or the number of routes that one could take in travelling from one point to another? or the number of “nows” in an hour?

Large, but finite, finite and finite.

jd

 

[Leela]

Large, but finite, finite and finite.

jd

Really finite? Then how many “nows” are there in an hour? [hint: There are more than any number you could say, which is a way of saying that there are infinitely many. In fact, between any two instants are an infinite number of instants.]

 

[bridgeforsale]

The idea that an infinite is impossible would mean god is impossible (Cantor, the guy who invented set theory, was a devout Christian who was able to show “mathematically” an infinite IS not only possible, but demonstrable, and he in fact demonstrated it, which I think should settle the question, but apparently it hasn’t).

The theistic argument can only center around stuff like Zeno’s paradox, but that doesn’t prove anything (and it can’t be applied to an idea like an oscillating or cyclic universe, or the principal of energy conservation, or even the possibility of a quantum fluctuation triggering inflation). These arguments fail for the same reason Aristotle’s cosmological argument (premised on his metaphysical principals of causation) fails. No longer is it necessary to think intelligence is required to build intelligent things; and this basic idea is behind virtually every single argument in defense of theism. In fact evolutionary science is enough by itself to debunk the necessity of “formal” cause (so it’s been dead for a while, most apologists simply missed the funeral).

Back in Cantors day it was probably important to show an infinity was possible (because again if it’s not then god is impossible). Of course that creates another problem, and it boomerangs right back at you, since now that we can show an infinity is possible, we’re able to say nature could be infinite (and we wouldn’t need a god anyway). Apologists will never learn, god cannot be proven with logic or metaphysical word games. If they want to prove god exists, they actually have to put some work in to prove it (like the rest of us have to do when we venture to prove a theory without any evidentiary basis).

I’d say this whole debate can only end badly for theists. Logic supports the skeptic, and trying to engage the us in the area we govern (rational thinking) is like bringing a butter knife to a gun fight.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If our concept of god is a fiction then why would it matter if our self-created story coincidently corresponds with one or two aspects (e.g. infinite existence, no prior cause) of energy? It’s not energies fault we felt the need to invent religion, energy can’t think (it just exists, for no particular reason). If you like to call energy god, or a necessary truth, then fine (I’d probably agree with the latter).

But why should we *believe *that energy is a necessary truth? The nonexistence of energy is not contradictory. (“Necessary truth” is a specific term for those things whose falsity entails a contradiction).

If you want to redefine the classical definition of the word, then fine. To Aristotle it wasn’t just anything logically possible, it was anything at all. Moreover, what do you mean by logically possible? Are there any restrictions on god’s power? For instance, do you think god can create ex nihilo?

“Creating ex nihilo” is a contradiction. God is a cause, so how could He create without a cause?

God can only create logically coherent states of events. Perhaps there are other “limitations” on His power that we cannot fathom; even so, they hardly constitute any kind of limitation that calls into question omnipotence. Omnipotence ought to simply mean this: God is maximally powerful. What is so hard to understand about that?

Without further qualification and proofs, I’ll assume this is a bare assertion.

1. Assume determinism is true.
2. Assume energy has always existed, and energy caused the universe at T1 (time).
3. The event (E1) at T2 was determined by the events at T1, by the definition of determinism.
4. E2 at T3 was determined by the events at T1, via T2, and thus was determined fully by the first cause itself.
5. Etc.
6. All possible events have been determined by energy (the first cause).

In the above scenario, the first cause has been the agent causing all possible events to occur. Given determinism, only actual events are possible. The standard definition of omnipotence is “the ability to do anything possible”. Thus, any first cause is omnipotent (if determinism is true).

Well, yeah, energy would be a necessary truth, but phrasing it in the context of accidental or non-accidental is nonsensical. If god exists would you say something that itself has no predicate cause, and no reason for existing is either accidental or non-accidental? You can’t couch a necessary truth it those terms. Necessary truths just exist.

Necessary truths do have a reason for existing – because their nonexistence would be contradictory.

BTW I also think calling mathematics a necessary truth is debatable. After all the sciences tend to be descriptive of nature (not prescriptive). In other words math or physics merely describes our observations and deductions concerning nature (they don’t invent or create nature).

I have no idea how you can conflate math and physics like this. Mathematics is either a) merely a matter of the meanings of words, and thus a necessary truth, or b) a matter of metaphysical (synthetic) truth, and thus a necessary truth. Mathematics is definitely NOT descriptive of nature; rather, it is a precondition for describing nature!

Sorry if I’m off-topic!

 

[bridgeforsale]

But why should we *believe *that energy is a necessary truth? The nonexistence of energy is not contradictory. (“Necessary truth” is a specific term for those things whose falsity entails a contradiction).

The principal of non-contradiction is simply this. Z cannot be both Z and non-Z at the same time, the common example is you cannot have a square circle. However, this logic isn’t necessarily true in quantum mechanics. For instance, a q-bit can be 1 and non-1 (zero) at the same time.

“Creating ex nihilo” is a contradiction. God is a cause, so how could He create without a cause?

God can only create logically coherent states of events. Perhaps there are other “limitations” on His power that we cannot fathom; even so, they hardly constitute any kind of limitation that calls into question omnipotence. Omnipotence ought to simply mean this: God is maximally powerful. What is so hard to understand about that?

I don’t believe god is maximally powerful because the evidence doesn’t bear this out. As far as we can tell god cannot even interact with the material world in any detectable way (and I would call that a limitation).

1. Assume determinism is true.
2. Assume energy has always existed, and energy caused the universe at T1 (time).
3. The event (E1) at T2 was determined by the events at T1, by the definition of determinism.
4. E2 at T3 was determined by the events at T1, via T2, and thus was determined fully by the first cause itself.
5. Etc.
6. All possible events have been determined by energy (the first cause).

In the above scenario, the first cause has been the agent causing all possible events to occur. Given determinism, only actual events are possible. The standard definition of omnipotence is “the ability to do anything possible”. Thus, any first cause is omnipotent (if determinism is true).

Not necessarily (even though it doesn’t seem a point worth arguing over). Does it make sense to call energy omnipotent (assuming it was first cause)? No, because it’s fallacious to say omnipotence follows from determinism. The idea of omnipotence flows from the presumption that premeditation (e.g. conceptualization) is required to create complex structures. Energy doesn’t think, it can’t create a plan, and assuming energy always existed and something like a random quantum fluctuation triggered inflation (with no aforethough) – it wouldn’t make sense to call energy omnipotent (then your simply changing the common usage of the world; and this whole exercise becomes reduced to word play and semantics).

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The principal of non-contradiction is simply this. Z cannot be both Z and non-Z at the same time, the common example is you cannot have a square circle. However, this logic isn’t necessarily true in quantum mechanics. For instance, a q-bit can be 1 and non-1 (zero) at the same time.

You just said something that doesn’t make sense, unless 1 and 0 are nonexclusive properties. Care to provide any proof that 1 entails not-zero, in this case?

We cannot imagine what it would be like for the law of noncontradiction to false. Nor could we ever notice if it were false.

Not necessarily (even though it doesn’t seem a point worth arguing over). Does it make sense to call energy omnipotent (assuming it was first cause)? No, because it’s fallacious to say omnipotence follows from determinism. The idea of omnipotence flows from the presumption that premeditation (e.g. conceptualization) is required to create complex structures. Energy doesn’t think, it can’t create a plan, and assuming energy always existed and something like a random quantum fluctuation triggered inflation (with no aforethough) – it wouldn’t make sense to call energy omnipotent (then your simply changing the common usage of the world; and this whole exercise becomes reduced to word play and semantics).

I’ve looked up the definition of omnipotent, and I’ve heard a lot of discussions of it. Neither the dictionary, nor any encyclopedias, nor common usage suggests that an omnipotent entity must be sentient. But you seem to disagree, so I guess we’re at an impasse.

The conceptualization thesis is a metaphysical inference, based on observations about rationality and human activity. It is not falsifiable by empirical evidence, not even if monkeys regularly wrote War and Peace. Sorry.

 

[bridgeforsale]

You just said something that doesn’t make sense, unless 1 and 0 are nonexclusive properties. Care to provide any proof that 1 entails not-zero, in this case?

We cannot imagine what it would be like for the law of noncontradiction to false. Nor could we ever notice if it were false.

Quantum superposition (e.g. Schrodinger’s cat) is a problem for non-contradiction (and the law of excluded middle); as is the problem of something in nature actually existing in two states at once (e.g. a qbit). Here’s one paper and an abstract of an article if you’re interested

muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/yale_journal_of_criticism/v011/11.2norris.html

quantumbionet.org/admin/files/0611119.pdf

It’s obviously not a settled issue, but the potential problem for classical logic (and realism) presented by quantum mechanics isn’t a new subject.

I’ve looked up the definition of omnipotent, and I’ve heard a lot of discussions of it. Neither the dictionary, nor any encyclopedias, nor common usage suggests that an omnipotent entity must be sentient. But you seem to disagree, so I guess we’re at an impasse.

The conceptualization thesis is a metaphysical inference, based on observations about rationality and human activity. It is not falsifiable by empirical evidence, not even if monkeys regularly wrote War and Peace. Sorry.

To be honest, I’m absolutely fine with your definition of omnipotence (I just don’t think it’s a majority view among Christians). All I’ve postulated is that god didn’t create ex nihilo, because he’s not able to. In the same vein I think the apparent contradiction of a good and rational god with the problem of evil is solved by understanding the limitations on divine power. How can a claim such as god intervenes to help the occasional sick cancer patient yet stood by as a spectator to the holocaust withstand an attack by common sense? Either by inconsistent theological dogma (which in some cases reduces to the absurd), or by simply understanding that god was unable to stop Hitler.

Additionally, when you say the conceptualization thesis cannot be falsifiable by empirical evidence, I simply disagree. It already has been (e.g. evolutionary algorithms show that intelligence can form from randomness).

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Quantum superposition (e.g. Schrodinger’s cat) is a problem for non-contradiction (and the law of excluded middle); as is the problem of something in nature actually existing in two states at once (e.g. a qbit).

Schrodinger’s cat is a reductio ad absurdum. The cat is not both alive and dead, so there must be something wrong with our models of quantum mechanics.

Why is it a problem if something in nature exists in two states at once, if those two states are not mutually exclusive? That’s not a violation of classical logic, at all.

To be honest, I’m absolutely fine with your definition of omnipotence (I just don’t think it’s a majority view among Christians). All I’ve postulated is that god didn’t create ex nihilo, because he’s not able to. In the same vein I think the apparent contradiction of a good and rational god with the problem of evil is solved by understanding the limitations on divine power. How can a claim such as god intervenes to help the occasional sick cancer patient yet stood by as a spectator to the holocaust withstand an attack by common sense? Either by inconsistent theological dogma (which in some cases reduces to the absurd), or by simply understanding that god was unable to stop Hitler.

Hitler was able to stop himself. God gave him that power, and he rejected it, of his own free will. You seem to want God to be a tyrant, but He just isn’t.

Additionally, when you say the conceptualization thesis cannot be falsifiable by empirical evidence, I simply disagree. It already has been (e.g. evolutionary algorithms show that intelligence can form from randomness).

The theologian can always claim that the “randomness” was actually not random, but caused by God!

 

[bridgeforsale]

Schrodinger’s cat is a reductio ad absurdum. The cat is not both alive and dead, so there must be something wrong with our models of quantum mechanics.

Why is it a problem if something in nature exists in two states at once, if those two states are not mutually exclusive? That’s not a violation of classical logic, at all.

So then can something be both on and off at the same time? Imagine a light switch that’s both on and off (wouldn’t you say that violates the law of noncontradiction). In computing what do one and zero represent (hint, think binary code & an on/off switch)?

In quantum computational logic noncontradiction is violated:

The logic QCL turns out to be unsharp, because the non–contradiction principle
can be violated: the negation of a contradiction (¬( ∧ ¬)) is not necessarily
true

arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0211/0211190v2.pdf

See also,

indiana.edu/~iulg/qliqc/Natcomputing.pdf

Hitler was able to stop himself. God gave him that power, and he rejected it, of his own free will.

Interestingly these sort of statements never seem to consider the free will of the victim. If god had a hand in creating Hitler, knowing he would be a tyrant, then in a sense god was his accomplice. Simplistic maxims doesn’t get god off the hook.

You seem to want God to be a tyrant, but He just isn’t.

Yet you’re the one who believes god is a mass murderer of Egyptian infants and young children (and all sorts of other horrors), and apparently all this to give us ten rules and provide a pretext for things he planned to do later in history (laying the groundwork for a planned suicide mission to relieve us of the guilt caused by the way he created us in the first place)

Quite a god you guys invented! Oh yeah, but it was all really our fault (the exercise of free will). One fatal flaw in that whole bit of nonsense, wasn’t Adam and Eve initially created without knowledge of good and evil (and wasn’t their wrongful act committed while they lacked this knowledge)? In law we would say they lacked the mental capacity to form intent and the requisite culpability to impute guilt for wrongful conduct. Under our formulations of rational justice it would be unjust to punish such a person. We might confine them, either for their own benefit or for utilitarian purposes (e.g. the safety of society), but we wouldn’t punish them.

The theologian can always claim that the “randomness” was actually not random, but caused by God!

Theologians can claim flying pink elephants exist, it doesn’t mean I’m obligated to believe them. The point of all this is “formal cause” is not a necessary assumption; and therefore the sort of limitless omnipotence many imagine is a necessary attribute of god, is not only an unnecessary assumption, but it’s also highly unlikely.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So then can something be both on and off at the same time? Imagine a light switch that’s both on and off (wouldn’t you say that violates the law of noncontradiction). In computing what do one and zero represent (hint, think binary code & an on/off switch)?

A light switch being able to be on and off at the same time is a perfectly possible situation. The fact that “if an off-switch is on, then it is not off” is a contingent truth about the world. It is not an *accidental *truth, however. We have made on/off switches in such a way that they never are both on and off.

The only thing that makes the quantum observations interesting is that we believe 0 and 1 to be non-combinable properties. In the light switch example, we have a reason to believe on and off to be mutually exclusive; we made them that way! But what reason do we have to believe that qubits cannot be both 1 and 0, that “1 entails not-0”?

I am truly interested in your answer, because I’m trying to understand. I don’t have much science background, but I am quite convinced that, if non-contradiction were false in the real world, we could still never find any evidence against it. It is a precondition of all observation.

(FYI, I don’t have the background for the links you’re sending. But I’d be delighted if you explained them).

Simplistic maxims doesn’t get god off the hook.

You might be surprised, but I quite agree with you. I do believe that the problem of evil is real and important. To focus the question on historical atrocities, however, is skewing the evidence. The relevant question is this: what unbearable suffering have I, or those close to me, experienced, and can a loving God be reconciled with *my own *experiences?

Yet you’re the one who believes god is a mass murderer of Egyptian infants and young children …

This may also be skewing the evidence. For example, can you say *how *they were killed? Did they experience agony? If so, you have a point. If not, then what reason have we to say that God was unjustified in taking them from a place of great suffering to a place of great joy? It seems that their parents were the ones who really suffered.

Quite a god you guys invented! Oh yeah, but it was all really our fault (the exercise of free will). One fatal flaw in that whole bit of nonsense, wasn’t Adam and Eve initially created without knowledge of good and evil (and wasn’t their wrongful act committed while they lacked this knowledge)?

Read Genesis 3 carefully, my friend. Do you really think they are getting punished for eating from the tree, or for what came after?

Banishing them from the garden was the recognition of alienation, not a punishment. Did they not know what it meant that God warned them not to do something? Were they not told the consequence?

 

[bridgeforsale]

This may also be skewing the evidence. For example, can you say *how *they were killed? Did they experience agony? If so, you have a point. If not, then what reason have we to say that God was unjustified in taking them from a place of great suffering to a place of great joy? It seems that their parents were the ones who really suffered.

I guess I’d start out by saying from an evidentiary standpoint it seems unlikely the Exodus ever really happened anyway; but obviously that’s a debated issue (and I certainly don’t want to divert to that question). Nonetheless, I think wondering whether or not these children and infants experienced agony isn’t an immensely relevant question (but I guess I understand your reasoning). The fact is there’s really nothing to suggest these infants were wisked up to heaven. Post-hoc apologetics may try to make this assumption, but I don’t see the historical basis for it. I think in fact these children (according to the Christian rendition of the bible) would have not gone to heaven (at least not directly). They would have had to go to Hades or god’s waiting room (whatever it was exactly, I’m not even sure if theologians know) and wait for Jesus to make a trip down and preach to them. What happened from there is anyones best guess (perhaps they were able to trail Jesus into heaven if they made the right choice, which it seems to me wouldn’t be a difficult decision assuming they already lived in the “spirit world” and no longer required any convincing that there is an afterlife & god exists).

Who really knows right? It seems to me the more facts we bring in from the bible the more logically difficult it gets (and the more it strains credibility to think it accurately represents god).

Read Genesis 3 carefully, my friend. Do you really think they are getting punished for eating from the tree, or for what came after?

Banishing them from the garden was the recognition of alienation, not a punishment. Did they not know what it meant that God warned them not to do something? Were they not told the consequence?

Yes God did tell them the consequences, but if they didn’t know right from wrong then they lacked the necessary capacity to justly impute culpability for wrongful conduct. If you don’t know something is wrong then you couldn’t have intended to commit a wrongful act. So in effect god set them up for failure.

I concede my line of thinking is a development of our jurisprudence (and I suspect the “insanity defense” or similar capacity defenses wasn’t available to our ancient predecessors). But my idea of god is shaped by an assumption that he has an unimaginable amount of intelligence, which for me is far more critical than raw power (and I think this assumption is supported by the facts). Thus, I think it’s fair to assume god would understand it’s not righteous to punish people who can’t form intent (but I know there’s a warehouse of apologetics on this issue & I suppose reasonable minds can disagree)