Very strong argument, I am curious how you handle these thoughts:
1. An unstoppable force and an immovable object could simply pass through one another. Sometimes well reasoned arguments have a counter intuitive and sneaky solution.
2. I've read salvia trip reports where people claim to have entered realms where 1+1=3. Or where reason breaks entirely. A state of madness. Is this to be ignored?
3. I didn't grasp a definition of omnipotence in your article. I think omnipotence is better defined as 'the space that makes things possible' rather than 'able to change anything at anytime'. Just the premise that something exists rather than not is already mystical - suggesting something unexplainable is happening. There is no higher 'A causes B' for existence, it just exists. If something justified existence, it would have to occur within existence. It's a paradox, and yet here we are.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments, my responses to each are below:
1. Things can exist on different planes of existence (virtual and physical entities for example), but when we are discussing the same level of existence, the *ultimate level*, and if one "force" simply passes through another entity of the same existence plane, then such an unstoppable force isn't actually a force (it can't affect other things on its level of existence)
2. I cannot conceive of anything truly representing a world where 1+1=3. But let's say such a world is conceivable, and this world contains contradictions so that only the mad can "understand" it. We'd have to abandon Reason, as it cannot be a guide to this world, where everything becomes true (since everything follows from a contradiction). And if everything becomes true, then everything becomes meaningless (hence the title of God being powerless and meaningless). People think that fundamental chaos is a savior to their ideals (like in the context of free will, for instance), as freedom from a structured world, but it is still slavery, just of a different type.
3. I use two definitions of omnipotence (in P5 and P8 above, noting the capacity to do all things and capacity to do all "logicially possible" things) and God comes out powerless in either case. But this is because these two definitions aren't truly separete (not at least if we grant the PSR). If you aren't omnipotent under P5, then given the PSR, you aren't under P8 either. My next article will hopefully do a better job illustrating this point.
This seems like a good argument that there exists no beings which can change necessary truths. But it's not clear to me why that should be what omnipotence is. Contradictions are "things"--you've failed to describe anything coherent when you describe the negation of a necessary truth. So it doesn't seem like it's a limitation on a necessary being to be "unable" to change necessary truths, since there is nothing that being is unable to do.
If a being can't change necessary truths, and necessary truths govern contingent truths through the laws of causation (which can be explained using necessary truths of logic, pursuant to the PSR), then such a being could not change any truths (neither necessary nor contingent).
Well, that's just to deny that there are contingent truths. But, of course, the PSR does not entail necessitarianism. So, the PSR is consistent with the existence of contingent truths.
Yes its accepting determinism, where all facts would be necessary and lead to modal collapse. I'm fine with this belief and I think this is the predominant view (there are very few libertarian free-will types). But we can still understand certain facts as "contingent" although in an ultimate sense they are not.
Sure, but what is omnipotence? Does it mean changing creation after creating it, or being able to choose differently “before” creating it?
Do miracles violate noncontradiction?
I actually agree, at least intuitively, with your conclusion. I think the argument needs some work, though.
The issue of omnipotence could be seen as defeating the entire idea of god, or it could be seen as a theological side note. I am ignorant regarding what the theologians have actually said about it, but I imagine that persons who are otherwise convinced of Christianity would simply adjust their understanding of the significance and content (limitations? Haha) of omnipotence rather than conclude they should become atheists.
>Sure, but what is omnipotence? Does it mean changing creation after creating it, or being able to choose differently “before” creating it?
Either definition is fine for me. I argue that God can't do either.
>Do miracles violate noncontradiction?
True miracles yes, so true miracles cannot exist (otherwise, we'd have a contradiction, and everything would be true as a result of explosion, making miracles trivial)
>The issue of omnipotence could be seen as defeating the entire idea of god, or it could be seen as a theological side note. I am ignorant regarding what the theologians have actually said about it, but I imagine that persons who are otherwise convinced of Christianity would simply adjust their understanding of the significance and content (limitations? Haha) of omnipotence rather than conclude they should become atheists.
If one's god is not omnipotent, then that's fine, the article is N/A. Omnipotence is just not a coherent concept. And I'm not sure what the value of a God is if they are not omnipotent (they would just be another agent).
True miracles, yes, where an act defies logic making God the only explanation. And not physical laws being without exception, but laws of logic are. And laws of logic explain physical laws.
I use 2 definitions of omnipotence in the article, in P5 and P8 (although it’s unnecessary, since these two definitions aren’t truly “separate”, as I don’t believe the article sufficiently emphasized, but hopefully will in the next installment).
Your comments are very much appreciated and I’ll be sure to address these points (and any others you may have) when I discuss the counter arguments to the above.
Very strong argument, I am curious how you handle these thoughts:
1. An unstoppable force and an immovable object could simply pass through one another. Sometimes well reasoned arguments have a counter intuitive and sneaky solution.
2. I've read salvia trip reports where people claim to have entered realms where 1+1=3. Or where reason breaks entirely. A state of madness. Is this to be ignored?
3. I didn't grasp a definition of omnipotence in your article. I think omnipotence is better defined as 'the space that makes things possible' rather than 'able to change anything at anytime'. Just the premise that something exists rather than not is already mystical - suggesting something unexplainable is happening. There is no higher 'A causes B' for existence, it just exists. If something justified existence, it would have to occur within existence. It's a paradox, and yet here we are.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments, my responses to each are below:
1. Things can exist on different planes of existence (virtual and physical entities for example), but when we are discussing the same level of existence, the *ultimate level*, and if one "force" simply passes through another entity of the same existence plane, then such an unstoppable force isn't actually a force (it can't affect other things on its level of existence)
2. I cannot conceive of anything truly representing a world where 1+1=3. But let's say such a world is conceivable, and this world contains contradictions so that only the mad can "understand" it. We'd have to abandon Reason, as it cannot be a guide to this world, where everything becomes true (since everything follows from a contradiction). And if everything becomes true, then everything becomes meaningless (hence the title of God being powerless and meaningless). People think that fundamental chaos is a savior to their ideals (like in the context of free will, for instance), as freedom from a structured world, but it is still slavery, just of a different type.
3. I use two definitions of omnipotence (in P5 and P8 above, noting the capacity to do all things and capacity to do all "logicially possible" things) and God comes out powerless in either case. But this is because these two definitions aren't truly separete (not at least if we grant the PSR). If you aren't omnipotent under P5, then given the PSR, you aren't under P8 either. My next article will hopefully do a better job illustrating this point.
Interesting responses, thanks.
This seems like a good argument that there exists no beings which can change necessary truths. But it's not clear to me why that should be what omnipotence is. Contradictions are "things"--you've failed to describe anything coherent when you describe the negation of a necessary truth. So it doesn't seem like it's a limitation on a necessary being to be "unable" to change necessary truths, since there is nothing that being is unable to do.
If a being can't change necessary truths, and necessary truths govern contingent truths through the laws of causation (which can be explained using necessary truths of logic, pursuant to the PSR), then such a being could not change any truths (neither necessary nor contingent).
Well, that's just to deny that there are contingent truths. But, of course, the PSR does not entail necessitarianism. So, the PSR is consistent with the existence of contingent truths.
Yes its accepting determinism, where all facts would be necessary and lead to modal collapse. I'm fine with this belief and I think this is the predominant view (there are very few libertarian free-will types). But we can still understand certain facts as "contingent" although in an ultimate sense they are not.
Yes, what exactly is “omnipotent” accomplishing in the premise?
Our understanding of God is an omnipotent being. If you God is not omnipotent, then this article is N/A.
Sure, but what is omnipotence? Does it mean changing creation after creating it, or being able to choose differently “before” creating it?
Do miracles violate noncontradiction?
I actually agree, at least intuitively, with your conclusion. I think the argument needs some work, though.
The issue of omnipotence could be seen as defeating the entire idea of god, or it could be seen as a theological side note. I am ignorant regarding what the theologians have actually said about it, but I imagine that persons who are otherwise convinced of Christianity would simply adjust their understanding of the significance and content (limitations? Haha) of omnipotence rather than conclude they should become atheists.
>Sure, but what is omnipotence? Does it mean changing creation after creating it, or being able to choose differently “before” creating it?
Either definition is fine for me. I argue that God can't do either.
>Do miracles violate noncontradiction?
True miracles yes, so true miracles cannot exist (otherwise, we'd have a contradiction, and everything would be true as a result of explosion, making miracles trivial)
>The issue of omnipotence could be seen as defeating the entire idea of god, or it could be seen as a theological side note. I am ignorant regarding what the theologians have actually said about it, but I imagine that persons who are otherwise convinced of Christianity would simply adjust their understanding of the significance and content (limitations? Haha) of omnipotence rather than conclude they should become atheists.
If one's god is not omnipotent, then that's fine, the article is N/A. Omnipotence is just not a coherent concept. And I'm not sure what the value of a God is if they are not omnipotent (they would just be another agent).
Why do miracles entail contradictions? Do we know physical laws have no exceptions?
Are you sure you’re using the same concept as the targets of the criticism when you both mention omnipotence?
True miracles, yes, where an act defies logic making God the only explanation. And not physical laws being without exception, but laws of logic are. And laws of logic explain physical laws.
I use 2 definitions of omnipotence in the article, in P5 and P8 (although it’s unnecessary, since these two definitions aren’t truly “separate”, as I don’t believe the article sufficiently emphasized, but hopefully will in the next installment).
Your comments are very much appreciated and I’ll be sure to address these points (and any others you may have) when I discuss the counter arguments to the above.