4 ms·

> This is the omnipotence paradox[1]. I often help friends and relatives understand why my religion (or lack thereof, actually) is `Tooth Fairy Agnosticism' by

> This is the omnipotence paradox[1]. I often help friends and relatives understand why my religion (or lack thereof, actually) is `Tooth Fairy Agnosticism' by asking them whether or not God can create a stone that He can't lift. Lol, I've heard little kids ask that at church. Never heard an adult seriously ask that though, usually just as a gag.

acuozzo 15y ago
> Lol, I've heard little kids ask that at church. Did you happen to overhear any of them getting an answer? I'd love to read about how some church-going parents (guardians?) explain the omnipotence paradox to youngsters. In my experience, at least, I find that Jews treat the matter gracefully while managing to `uphold the faith', if you will. > Never heard an adult seriously ask that though, usually just as a gag. You don't know many Tooth Fairy Agnostics, do you?
- wbhart 15y ago
  Omnipotence means God has limitless power (or better, his power cannot be improved), not that he can do anything, whether logically impossible or not. This argument is a cavil, not a sound philosophical argument. Consider the set of natural numbers. You (given enough time and patience and brainspace) may have the ability to count up to any specified natural number. That does not imply you have the ability to count all natural numbers. Once you start dealing with infinities, your intuition goes out the window. The natural numbers can be algorithmically generated. Consider streams in Computer Science, for example. But note that the existence of streams does not imply the existence of an actual infinity in the computer's memory, only an algorithm to reach any finite member of the infinite set. As mentioned elsewhere. If God is the first cause of the physical universe, then his existence is necessary (in the philosophical sense) and therefore changeless (in the philosophical sense) and therefore eternal (as his existence is necessary - and he exists entirely apart from time). Once you start to enter into a discussion of infinite things like omnipotence, omniscience, necessary existence, etc, you enter the realm of infinite cardinalities, transfinite induction, the axiom of choice, Hilbert's Hotel, Russel's paradox, and so on. Philosophers have understood the issues regarding God's natural attributes for thousands of years, but only in the last 100 or so years have we had the mathematics to start saying things about infinities that are not nonsensical. Consider that, as a human being, you are only aware of the present. You remember the past, and you have no knowledge of the future. Now imagine a being who is as aware of the past as He is of the present. This is one who calls himself "I am". He says, "before Abraham was, I am". Or, he calls himself the "Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End". We aren't talking about a being with changing state and an awareness only of the present, as you or I. We have to be very careful with our intuition when examining such a subject. Only the most rigorous and methodical mathematical argument can hope to establish anything positive or negative about such an entity.
  - acuozzo 15y ago
    > Omnipotence means God has limitless power (or better, his power cannot be improved), not that he can do anything, whether logically impossible or not. I'd like to write a well-thought-out reply, but I'm a little confused. How is `power' defined (for God, that is)?
    - wbhart 15y ago
      If all that exists is God and his creation, then it is enough to state that God determines his own will (i.e. has free will) and that he has all power with relation to his creation. No force, whether moral, physical, spiritual or temporal has the ability to oppose God and ultimately prevail. Thus he has no limits on his power. It is limitless. This all stands to reason if God created time and space and matter ex nihilo. He has all the power there is. "For from Him and to Him and through him are all things"... forever. In fact, nothing that has power has so without it being given by Him. All power derives from God. As God is changeless, his power necessarily cannot be improved. I'll be honest and say that I do not know of any argument which proves in a direct way that a God who created the physical universe must be able to do any thing which is possible. Of course, that does not imply that there is not such an argument, nor that I do not believe it to be so. I think that the necessary existence of God implies that there exists no being greater than God.
      - gnaritas 15y ago
        > I think that the necessary existence of God implies There is no necessary existence of God nor can any logical argument establish it so.
        wbhart 15y ago
        Can you explain how the existence of a first cause can be contingent?
        gnaritas 15y ago
        As I already said, the notion of a first cause is absurd, it's an idea that has no basis in reality or evidence to support that such a thing is. Just because you can think a thought doesn't mean reality must reflect it. If you insist the universe had to come from something, then you can't solve the problem by inventing a god that doesn't. If you can accept that a god is eternal, then you must accept that the universe itself can be as well thus excluding any need to invent God. If you insist that God can be eternal but the universe can't be, or that the universe requires a creator but God doesn't, well... then you're just not being rational and there is not point in having a rational discussion.

acuozzo 15y ago

> Lol, I've heard little kids ask that at church. Did you happen to overhear any of them getting an answer? I'd love to read about how some church-going parents (guardians?) explain the omnipotence paradox to youngsters. In my experience, at least, I find that Jews treat the matter gracefully while managing to `uphold the faith', if you will. > Never heard an adult seriously ask that though, usually just as a gag. You don't know many Tooth Fairy Agnostics, do you?

wbhart 15y ago
Omnipotence means God has limitless power (or better, his power cannot be improved), not that he can do anything, whether logically impossible or not. This argument is a cavil, not a sound philosophical argument. Consider the set of natural numbers. You (given enough time and patience and brainspace) may have the ability to count up to any specified natural number. That does not imply you have the ability to count all natural numbers. Once you start dealing with infinities, your intuition goes out the window. The natural numbers can be algorithmically generated. Consider streams in Computer Science, for example. But note that the existence of streams does not imply the existence of an actual infinity in the computer's memory, only an algorithm to reach any finite member of the infinite set. As mentioned elsewhere. If God is the first cause of the physical universe, then his existence is necessary (in the philosophical sense) and therefore changeless (in the philosophical sense) and therefore eternal (as his existence is necessary - and he exists entirely apart from time). Once you start to enter into a discussion of infinite things like omnipotence, omniscience, necessary existence, etc, you enter the realm of infinite cardinalities, transfinite induction, the axiom of choice, Hilbert's Hotel, Russel's paradox, and so on. Philosophers have understood the issues regarding God's natural attributes for thousands of years, but only in the last 100 or so years have we had the mathematics to start saying things about infinities that are not nonsensical. Consider that, as a human being, you are only aware of the present. You remember the past, and you have no knowledge of the future. Now imagine a being who is as aware of the past as He is of the present. This is one who calls himself "I am". He says, "before Abraham was, I am". Or, he calls himself the "Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End". We aren't talking about a being with changing state and an awareness only of the present, as you or I. We have to be very careful with our intuition when examining such a subject. Only the most rigorous and methodical mathematical argument can hope to establish anything positive or negative about such an entity.
- acuozzo 15y ago
  > Omnipotence means God has limitless power (or better, his power cannot be improved), not that he can do anything, whether logically impossible or not. I'd like to write a well-thought-out reply, but I'm a little confused. How is `power' defined (for God, that is)?
  - wbhart 15y ago
    If all that exists is God and his creation, then it is enough to state that God determines his own will (i.e. has free will) and that he has all power with relation to his creation. No force, whether moral, physical, spiritual or temporal has the ability to oppose God and ultimately prevail. Thus he has no limits on his power. It is limitless. This all stands to reason if God created time and space and matter ex nihilo. He has all the power there is. "For from Him and to Him and through him are all things"... forever. In fact, nothing that has power has so without it being given by Him. All power derives from God. As God is changeless, his power necessarily cannot be improved. I'll be honest and say that I do not know of any argument which proves in a direct way that a God who created the physical universe must be able to do any thing which is possible. Of course, that does not imply that there is not such an argument, nor that I do not believe it to be so. I think that the necessary existence of God implies that there exists no being greater than God.
    - gnaritas 15y ago
      > I think that the necessary existence of God implies There is no necessary existence of God nor can any logical argument establish it so.
      - wbhart 15y ago
        Can you explain how the existence of a first cause can be contingent?
        gnaritas 15y ago
        As I already said, the notion of a first cause is absurd, it's an idea that has no basis in reality or evidence to support that such a thing is. Just because you can think a thought doesn't mean reality must reflect it. If you insist the universe had to come from something, then you can't solve the problem by inventing a god that doesn't. If you can accept that a god is eternal, then you must accept that the universe itself can be as well thus excluding any need to invent God. If you insist that God can be eternal but the universe can't be, or that the universe requires a creator but God doesn't, well... then you're just not being rational and there is not point in having a rational discussion.