Is omnipotence intrinsically paradoxical?

[luxv66]

So, if God (if He exists) is not omnipotent, then who or what rules God? ... Happenstance?

Then we'd just have to argue about that thing's omnipotence.

 

[Iacchus32]

Well, if God didn't create everything, then it just begs the question. Who created God? ... At what point does God begin or, end?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well, if God didn't create everything, then it just begs the question. Who created God? ... At what point does God begin or, end?

Yes, infinite regress and lack of a first cause are big problems, but not only for the God concept . . . for any creation theory, even a scientific one.

I don't know if you've seen my "monism" thread over in metaphysics, but it is the idea that some sort of uncreated substance makes up everything there is. If you are interested, I'll offer a little essay on how I would rely on monism to answer your question. You'll have to be patient since it takes setting up a bit of groundwork before I can answer.

I believe infinite regress, the lack of a first cause, and a slew of other modeling issues can be resolved by adding an absolute uncaused foundational substance that exists in basic foundational conditions; the foundational substance is generally unevolved, but has the potential to be made to spontaneously evolve by the basic foundational conditions.

“Absolute” in the foundational context refers to the most deep-seated level of existence possible, the bottom line, that from which all things arise and return, and of which all existence is composed; and “uncaused” simply means it was never created, has always existed, and forever will exist. Necessary too is that this most foundational level of existence is some kind of “stuff,” a substance.

An important aspect of the ground state substance is that it must exist as an infinite ocean; we might call it the Ground State Ocean or GS Ocean. It must also be homogeneous. Homogeneity means there are no spaces (not anywhere) because to avoid duality the ground state substance has to exist uninterrupted in every possible direction, from the infinite smallest to the infinite largest measurement in its oceanic abode (the GS Ocean).

Some people find the simplicity of a ground state substance difficult to envision because creation seems so complex. How can everything come from and be the same substance? To try to make sense of the counterintuitive idea that a huge variety of things could all, without exception, start out as and still most essentially be exactly the same stuff, try this analogy.

Imagine our universe exists in an ocean of fluid called wawa. It’s sort of like water but it is a very finely translucent fluid and far more pliable than water. Just like if you were a fish in a water ocean, everywhere you go is wawa. There aren’t any spaces or gaps or holes in the ocean, it’s just wawa wawa everywhere. But the wawa ocean is different from a water ocean in several important ways.

The planet over there spinning around in the wawa ocean? Well that planet is made out of wawa, and so is the sun the planet is orbiting, and so are the life forms on the planet plus whatever consciousness/awareness is associated with life forms; and when any of the “forms” of wawa fully disintegrate, they become wawa again.

If you start traveling in the wawa ocean, you can rest assured you will never reach an end, it goes infinitely on and on beyond our finite universe no matter what direction you try. If you invent a shrinking machine and attempt to shrink yourself so tiny you will see some kind of structure in wawa, and maybe space between the structure, you won’t find either structure or space. It is absolutely homogeneous as infinely large as you look and as infinitely small as you look.

Anyone smart enough to invent a shrinking machine could invent a time machine too (you’d have to be really smart since wawa is timeless), so when yours is ready, and you travel back in time, no matter how far you go there is wawa in its infinite ocean. It’s eternal and uncaused. You can’t destroy it because it is existence and cannot not exist, and you can’t create it because there is no room for it (since it already exists everywhere). It just is.

Now, the tricky part is understanding how everything we see is made out of wawa. Let’s say we lived in a wholly wawa world so that the atmosphere was pure wawa vapor, solid ground was wawa ice, and the oceans were liquid wawa; you yourself are a complex ice sculpture breathing wawa vapor and with wawa flowing through your icy veins. In this case, the “forms” wawa have taken are dependent on two key things.

First, wawa must be flexible/pliable/malleable/mutable enough to exist in an assortment of states; and second, there must be a variety of conditions present which can cause the different states. In our analogy, a main condition is temperature which determines the state of the wawa, and there must also be conditions such as pressure, movement, ordering potential, etc. which can lead to complex structure.

Yet if wawa couldn’t become ice or a vapor or shaped into complex strutures, then the potentials for conditions to create a diversity of forms would be restricted; following that concept, we can see that the more flexible/pliable/malleable/mutable the ground state stuff is, the greater the range of shapes and states it will be able to assume. That, in fact, is a huge clue for modeling because if we assume there is a single substance at the foundation of creation, and since we know for certain that a vast array of things exist, then that tells us the ground state substance must be amazingly supple.

As important as suppleness is, for our understanding of a ground state substance it is GS Ocean conditions that tell us the most, because they must be such that they can cause the ground state substance to appear as an atom, or gravity, or consciousness, or . . . God?

Let's say we define God as consciousness, period. Then let's say that like eveything else, the consciousness which was to become God somehow spontaneously and naturally developed in the GS Ocean. That means, some set of natural conditions must prevail there which can form consciousness.

Of course, since we don't really know what consciousness is (even our own), it is difficult to imagine what sort of conditions exist in the GS Ocean which would produce consciousness. But let's just say that a trait of consciousness is that it is inherently evolutive. Sinc we know the ground state substance is uncreated, indestructible (eternally existent), and that if consciousness originated and began evolving in the GS Ocean it has an infinite amount of room to grow, we have the basis for this "God" consciousness to evolve to a vast degree.

And really, what sort of NATURAL skills and abilities might consciousness develop if it had eternity in which to evolve? Look at what a human consciousness can learn in a few decades, but imagine if you had zillions of eons of evolution under your belt. You might be able to concentrate, for example, so powerfully that you could compress a bunch of ground state substance to the point of a Big Bang, and then participate in the development a solar system, help shape a big blue planet, guide the formation of life, and maybe even cause a little bit of yourself to emerge through a nervous system as an "individual" little consciousness.

 

[loseyourname]

So, if God (if He exists) is not omnipotent, then who or what rules God? ... Happenstance?

Why does a non-omnipotent being need to be ruled by something? In order to be God, he must only be the most powerful being. He doesn't have to be all-powerful.

It seems that Aquinas, et al saw this as a contradiction, as it entailed the possibility of some being arising that is more powerful than God, which simply could not be allowed. Therefore, they mistranslated some Hebrew words to find biblical backing for the idea of an omnipotent, a being so powerful that it is not possible to be any more powerful. However, there is an alternative that still avoids the possibility of a being arising that is greater than God. You simply have to posit that God has the most power that any being can have. If it is impossible for any being to be omnipotent because it entails certain contradictions, fine, so be it. Then God is not omnipotent. He simply has the most power that any being could possibly have. There is, of course, still no evidential basis for such a belief, but at least it is true to the spirit of what Aquinas, et al were trying to accomplish.

 

[Iacchus32]

Why does a non-omnipotent being need to be ruled by something? In order to be God, he must only be the most powerful being. He doesn't have to be all-powerful.

If He draws his power from outside of himself, then obviously he must be "subject to" whatever that power source may be.

Then God is not omnipotent. He simply has the most power that any being could possibly have. There is, of course, still no evidential basis for such a belief, but at least it is true to the spirit of what Aquinas, et al were trying to accomplish.

Regardless, how does one establish the ground rules for anything to exist in the first place? How does something come from nothing ... unless that something (the proclivity for all things to exist) has always existed? Look at all the "potential" hidden within a single seed. Is it possible that a very similar scenario existed when the Universe sprang forth? Obviously we would have no Universe without any potential for it to exist prior to its inception.

 

[Iacchus32]

Yes, infinite regress and lack of a first cause are big problems, but not only for the God concept . . . for any creation theory, even a scientific one.

Yes.

Let's say we define God as consciousness, period.

To the extent that it was intelligent and articulate I would say yes.

Then let's say that like eveything else, the consciousness which was to become God somehow spontaneously and naturally developed in the GS Ocean. That means, some set of natural conditions must prevail there which can form consciousness.

Unfortunately you're still stuck with trying to explain how something can come from nothing. It doesn't explain how something intelligent and articulate can arise out of the lack thereof. Does structure beget stucture? Yes it does. Does nothing beget nothing? Again, that would be yes.

And really, what sort of NATURAL skills and abilities might consciousness develop if it had eternity in which to evolve? Look at what a human consciousness can learn in a few decades, but imagine if you had zillions of eons of evolution under your belt. You might be able to concentrate, for example, so powerfully that you could compress a bunch of ground state substance to the point of a Big Bang, and then participate in the development a solar system, help shape a big blue planet, guide the formation of life, and maybe even cause a little bit of yourself to emerge through a nervous system as an "individual" little consciousness.

I personally don't believe things evolve in-as-much-as they unfold. So, what we may deem as evolutionary change, is merely a matter of things unfolding according to their design. Which is to say, structure begets structure which, has always existed (at least in potential), in the mind of God. Hence the notion of God being omniscient.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Unfortunately you're still stuck with trying to explain how something can come from nothing.

Apparently you didn't read my post carefully. An eternally-existing ground state substance, in an infinite ground state ocean is not "nothing."

 

[Iacchus32]

Apparently you didn't read my post carefully. An eternally-existing ground state substance, in an infinite ground state ocean is not "nothing."

That still doesn't explain how it got here, especially when in its supposed to evolve into something we can recognize. Does that mean it's always been evolving then? So yes, you are still stuck with the notion of infinite regression. Whereas if things merely unfold as part of the overall plan, as I suggest, then who (or what) put the design into God ... i.e., if it wasn't already there?

 

[Les Sleeth]

That still doesn't explain how it got here, especially when in its supposed to evolve into something we can recognize.

I have to say again that it seems you didn't read what I wrote very carefully or I can't see why you would ask how it "got here."

I said, "I believe infinite regress, the lack of a first cause, and a slew of other modeling issues can be resolved by adding an absolute uncaused foundational substance . . . . 'uncaused' simply means it was never created, has always existed, and forever will exist."

Does that mean it's always been evolving then? So yes, you are still stuck with the notion of infinite regression.

To this I proposed "the foundational substance is generally unevolved, but has the potential to be made to spontaneously evolve by the basic foundational conditions."

That means the hypothetical ground state substance is on the whole unevolved and unevolving, but at one spot (at least) in the infinitely vast "ocean" of ground state substance, the GS ocean's natural dynamics accidentally caused that spot to begin to evolve. If the ground state substance can be made spontaneously evolve in one place in the GS ocean, then it seems likely there are other places where that has occurred as well. With this model, our "God" is just one spot where evolution of the ground state substance spontaneously began and kept going.

Whereas if things merely unfold as part of the overall plan, as I suggest, then who (or what) put the design into God ... i.e., if it wasn't already there?

But you haven't solved infinite regress at all! How did the "plan" get there? (By the way, the term "evolve" is derived from a Latin word that means to unfold.)

If some sort of creator consciousness has been part of the development of our universe, then according to the substance monism model, that consciousness began as an accidental event in the GS ocean. The idea is that those chaotic dynamics (such as, say, random compression-decompression dynamics) might have "accidentally" generated some sort of evolutive process in the GS ocean.

For that to happen, there must be 1) such ongoing dynamics, and 2) the ground state substance itself must be capable of being sent into an evolutive mode by those GS ocean dynamics. That model does away with infinite regress because 1) we are working with an uncaused high-potential substance, and 2) we know for a fact that generally chaotic dynamics can occasionally behave in an ordered way.

I don't see any possible way around infinite regress without a ground state substance and an accidental dynamic that eternally occurs (in the GS ocean), but which only rarely acts in some ordered way that generates the evolutive process that gave us our "God."

 

[Iacchus32]

Do you believe God exists as a spirit, in that He is not bound by time and space and subject to the laws thereof? That would pretty much make Him omnipotent over everything which is "physical" don't you think?

Sorry, but I've got to go.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Do you believe God exists as a spirit, in that He is not bound by time and space and subject to the laws thereof? That would pretty much make Him omnipotent over everything which is "physical" don't you think?

Well, what is "spirit"? Might spirit be thought of as the ground state substance? What is time? How can anyone answer if something is bound by time when nobody yet agrees what time is?

But let's say your hypothetical God is going to exist eternally from here on . . . does that mean he/she/it always existed? It might be that NOW God is eternal, but looking backward there could have been a point where God had a beginning.

If God is "over everything which is physical" as you suggest, that still doesn't mean God is omnipotent. Since the physical is finite, then all it logically indicates is that God is more powerful than however powerful physicalness is, which isn't infinite.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I honestly can't find a single reason for the belief that God is all powerful. Somebody appears to have dreamt it up a long time ago, made it Church dogma, and people have been taken with the idea ever since.

If God is responsible for creation and life and me, what difference does it make if God is infinitely powerful? However powerful God is, God was powerful enough to bring creation about, and gracious enough to bring about my existence. I would love such creator no matter how powerful, or not, he/she/it is.

Can you explain why it is so important to you that God is omnipotent? I haven't seen the logic or evidence of your belief yet, but maybe there is something you haven't communicated.

 

[Iacchus32]

Well, what is "spirit"? Might spirit be thought of as the ground state substance?

I believe that reason predates everything, including what you refer to as this ground state substance. Indeed, how do we describe any of these so-called events (suggesting that there must be a way everything is put together) without reason? ... Unless of course you're willing to suggest that this ground state substance existed and/or came about for no reason?

What is time? How can anyone answer if something is bound by time when nobody yet agrees what time is?

The rate of change, with respect to all things that are physical?

But let's say your hypothetical God is going to exist eternally from here on . . . does that mean he/she/it always existed?

Would you be willing to assess that the knowledge of God has always existed, including the knowledge of everything God entails, including us? In other words do you believe that reason has always exist and, can only be maintained via omniscience? I do.

It might be that NOW God is eternal, but looking backward there could have been a point where God had a beginning.

But who is willing to admit to Eternity, when all we have is the Big Bang, and apparently nothing beyond that?

If God is "over everything which is physical" as you suggest, that still doesn't mean God is omnipotent.

If you believe "the physical" is all there is, then that's exactly what it means. In which case there's really no need to take it beyond that. At the very least this ground state substance would have to exist ... which, isn't to say it isn't a direct manifestation of God.

Since the physical is finite, then all it logically indicates is that God is more powerful than however powerful physicalness is, which isn't infinite.

Yet who wants to admit to the existence of a spiritual world? It's enough just to try and grapple with Eternity and all-knowing don't you think?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I honestly can't find a single reason for the belief that God is all powerful. Somebody appears to have dreamt it up a long time ago, made it Church dogma, and people have been taken with the idea ever since.

I understand your prejudice against formalized religion.

If God is responsible for creation and life and me, what difference does it make if God is infinitely powerful? However powerful God is, God was powerful enough to bring creation about, and gracious enough to bring about my existence. I would love such creator no matter how powerful, or not, he/she/it is.

Does this mean it's possible for us to become like God some day? Sorry, I couldn't resist ... And yes, I do believe we are all the progeny of God, regardless.

If God has infinity and Eternity at His disposal, why shouldn't that make Him all-powerful?

Can you explain why it is so important to you that God is omnipotent? I haven't seen the logic or evidence of your belief yet, but maybe there is something you haven't communicated.

I believe it's important to believe that there's something greater than this physical Universe.

 

[loseyourname]

If He draws his power from outside of himself, then obviously he must be "subject to" whatever that power source may be.

I think you may an unwarranted leap of reasoning in there somewhere, Iacchus. A non-omnipotent being also does not have to draw his power from an external source. In fact, if this being is non-physical, it's "power" would not even be the kind of power studied in physics, that operates according to conservation and exchange laws.

And how exactly would making the hypothetical being omnipotent solve any issues that you brought up? Does the being that can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, and still lift it, draw power from within itself, whereas the being that can only create the rock but not lift it must draw power from somewhere else? Why?

Regardless, how does one establish the ground rules for anything to exist in the first place?

No system or postulate or axiom or anything else can establish the ground rule that says something will exist in the first place. No matter what you propose, you will always have that problem.

How does something come from nothing ... unless that something (the proclivity for all things to exist) has always existed? Look at all the "potential" hidden within a single seed. Is it possible that a very similar scenario existed when the Universe sprang forth? Obviously we would have no Universe without any potential for it to exist prior to its inception.

You're going to have to explain to me how this has anything to do with omnipotence, or anything else that was discussed in this thread before you entered.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I understand your prejudice against formalized religion.

In the past I've said that the ideal seeker of truth has no biases or a priori assumptions firmly in place when contemplating things. He is instead fully open to accepting the truth no matter what that turns out to be.

I strive to achieve that sort of objectivity, but I have to admit you are probably right about my prejudice. I have, however, studied religion more than most people trying to understand it and its history (my undergrad degree was religious studies).

What upsets me about religion is how many atheists it's created. Most atheists I know are pretty smart, but their atheism usually hasn't stemmed from contemplating the possibility of some sort of creationary consciousness being part of creation, but rather is usually almost entirely a reaction to religious concepts and the behavior, beliefs, and logic of religious devotees.

As someone interested in stimulating discussion about the possibility of a plausible creationary consciousness, religion has been the biggest thorn in my . . . oops, er obstacle. I do believe, however, that someone can be religious and also make sense. One could be a follower of Jesus for example, put one's faith totally in him and that's it. One needn't "believe" anything at all to do that. With total faith, questions about heaven, hell, omipotence, etc., or if Jesus rose from the dead or did miracles . . . all that is irrelevant because one's aim is to wholly trust the inner experience Jesus has to offer as sufficient.

Anyway, I can't honestly justify my prejudice, I wish I could get it out of my head. But I can say that my prejudice is against religion, and not against the religious who I judge on an individual by individual basis.

 

[Iacchus32]

No system or postulate or axiom or anything else can establish the ground rule that says something will exist in the first place. No matter what you propose, you will always have that problem.

Not even cause-and-effect?

 

[loseyourname]

Not even cause-and-effect?

How does cause and effect establish that something must exist? The law of causality isn't even properly basic, as it presupposes that there exist agents capable of having a causal relation to one another.

 

[Iacchus32]

Anyway, I can't honestly justify my prejudice, I wish I could get it out of my head. But I can say that my prejudice is against religion, and not against the religious who I judge on an individual by individual basis.

Yes, but how can one "live in the moment" and have someone ram the idea of it down your throat at the same time? Your prejudice is not unfounded.

 

[Iacchus32]

How does cause and effect establish that something must exist? The law of causality isn't even properly basic, as it presupposes that there exist agents capable of having a causal relation to one another.

What is the effect, generally, but the "hybrid" (result) which is generated by the relation between two or more things? Obviously, it is possible for one agent to induce an effect upon (and hence modify) another.

 

[bola]

Here's my idea on this.
First we must establish what god IS.

For god to be omnipotent, he cannot be a part of the universe, as in, he can't be made p of particles or strings and whatever else the universe consists of.
Why? Because if he was, he would be a slave to the laws of physics, and that's not very omnipotent.

So what we have left is an external god, one that can be called a creator.
The creator can be anything, but we know one thing, we can never interact, view, or touch him, because he is outside the universe system.

As for the infinite regress thing.
Well, something is obviously missing in the picture, we are indeed existing, in a physical universe.
The questions of infinity, time, and all such things, lie outside the human mind, so I would propose that the biggest question of them all is "what is existence?" "Why does existence exist?"

Existence lies beyond atoms and particles and strings, it lies beyond everything else.

 

[Iacchus32]

The creator can be anything, but we know one thing, we can never interact, view, or touch him, because he is outside the universe system.

Unless, of course, we ourselves have a spirit.

 

[phoenixthoth]

The omnipotence issue seems to be similar to the issue in the statement, "this statement is false."

When all is used (e.g., all powerful) or when a statement refers to itself or its truthfulness, then you are likely to get a paradoxical statement.

What does this mean?

What might it mean?

1. God does not exist because it "must" be omnipotent
2. God is not omnipotent and therefore is "no god at all"
3. ?

Anything else?

I think so and maybe you can help me prove option 3 or disprove it.

3. That natural language (meaning any known language) is incapable of fully and adequately describing God. So the following arguments are equivalent:
A. the rock paradox imples God is not omnipotent
B. uga buga... Ergo God is not omnipotent
C. uga buga... Ergo God is omnipotent.

 

[Temporarily Blah]

I don't believe in the idea of an omnipotent being, so i'll let my friends' words be typed. (Parenthesis are my notes)
"God CAN create a rock he can't lift; He'd create it, then lift it." (Someone explain this to me?)

"God is everywhere, encompassing anything that can possibly exist" (Same thing, explination please.)

"God could create another God, but they'd still be one being" (Hmm...)

Anyway, that's what my friend told me, and so I wrote. I don't believe in the existence, but I do believe the possibility.

 

[Sikz]

Yes, except in the instance of existence as a whole. The entirety of reality might be considered omnipotent, but for anything else it is a paradox.