0

Let us assume that an omnipotent god exists. He by definition can do anything that is logically possible. So if it is logically possible to prove that a being is omnipotent then an omnipotent god can prove to himself that he is omnipotent.

So we just need to show that it is logically possible to prove that a being is omnipotent, to show that an omnipotent god can find out that he is omnipotent.

Can anyone show that it is indeed possible to prove that a being is omnipotent?

I don't think it is possible. Like he can ask a question "Can I stop time?" and he will find out that he can. Next, he can ask "Can I create 1 more time dimension?" and he will find out that he can. Next, he can again ask "Can I create 1 more time dimension?". He can keep on asking that question. He also can ask "Can I find out whether this hypothesis is correct or false or undecidable in our axioms?" (This hypothesis can be any mathematical hypothesis. There are infinite of them). If he can not do something that is logically possible then he will have found that he is not omnipotent. So it is easy to prove nonomnipotence. So it seems to me that an omnipotent being can never understand that it is omnipotent.

Edit:Please do not answer this question with your own definition of Omnipotence. Here I clearly mentioned that omnipotence is bound by logic. That is the definition I am using.

Kasi Reddy Sreeman Reddy
  • 157
  • 9
  • The explanatory power of the god idea transcends the need to ask the questions you describe. He, she, it, they could be said to simply 'know everything' - if they are deemed omniscient - without having to rely on self-interrogation. There are issues with the tri-omni idea, such as the [paradoxes of omnipotence and omniscience](https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/20229/LECTURES/15-omnipotence-omniscience-2.pdf). [See this SE post for more](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/300/is-the-omniscient-omnipotent-omnipresent-definition-of-god-consistent). – Futilitarian Mar 14 '22 at 14:22
  • @Futilitarian I think you misunderstood my question. Even if omnipotence implies omniscience it would only say that he knows everything that can be known. My claim here is that. this doesn't belong to the "everything that can be known". – Kasi Reddy Sreeman Reddy Mar 14 '22 at 14:28
  • Mmm... but why would an omnipotent god be limited by your notion of 'everything that can be known'? There's nothing to say it couldn't transcend our notions of what is logically possible. – Futilitarian Mar 14 '22 at 14:31
  • @Futilitarian so you think an omnipotent god can even do things that are not logically possible? But most people (for example William Lain Craig) believe in a God who can only do things within the bounds of logic. – Kasi Reddy Sreeman Reddy Mar 14 '22 at 14:34
  • Who is 'most people'? I'm merely suggesting that the concept of omnipotence can be quite reasonably be understood to mean that it even the laws of logic might be defeated. As mentioned in the SE post I linked to, a god can be understood to have created everything including the laws of logic and to be unsusceptible to them. God is often described as tri-omni _and_ unknowable, incomprehensible, without limits. To state that such a god is limited by logic is inconsistent. Omnipotence can be said to imply 'without limit'. – Futilitarian Mar 14 '22 at 14:40
  • @Futilitarian if you assume God can break logic then there is no meaningful framework to talk about him. So believing such a god can only be done by blind irrational belief. But if we limit him by logic then there is a framework that makes the concept of God meaningful and you can use logic to argue for his existence (like the ontological argument etc) – Kasi Reddy Sreeman Reddy Mar 14 '22 at 14:44
  • Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/134760/discussion-between-futilitarian-and-kasi-reddy-sreeman-reddy). – Futilitarian Mar 14 '22 at 14:44
  • Finite beings like us need to learn about the universe through experience, so you are assuming God would need to learn about the universe through experience, but I don't think any modern concept of God would agree with that. – David Gudeman Mar 14 '22 at 16:58
  • our reality may be a mirage. logics are given on our beliefs and what we think is true or real.so may be our beliefs are different from omnipotent God's beliefs or may be he is beyond existence of reality and virtuality. He don't need to prove omnipotence for himself. So why would he do that. – Ishan Mar 14 '22 at 16:15
  • Theists who believe God is omniscient typically don't believe God's knowledge requires testing any hypotheses--your question seems to assume that the only way God could know He had a given ability would be to actually test it out, but you don't give any argument for this assumption. – Hypnosifl Mar 16 '22 at 16:50
  • @Hypnosifl then how do they think God obtains knowledge? – Kasi Reddy Sreeman Reddy Mar 16 '22 at 16:55
  • They don't think God "obtains" knowledge at all--at least in the Jewish/Christian/Muslim traditions, those who believe in the [omnimax God](https://atheism.fandom.com/wiki/Omnimax) typically see God as a timeless being with fixed, necessary traits, including omniscient knowledge of all truth. – Hypnosifl Mar 16 '22 at 17:48

1 Answers1

1

It is important in philosophy to be open to examining the assumptions one is making, and evaluate whether they are valid. Intrinsic to the definitions being used here, is the Aquinian assumption that there is One True Logic, and one can derive the nature of our world using logic. Also implicit to WLCraig's assumption is that this One True Logic is constraining on everything.

These assumptions are used to evaluate limit cases involving infinities around the Omni properties of God.

However, going from back to front on the assumptions, we know that the assumed One True Logic of classical logic, is NOT applicable nor constraining to our world. One simple test case, identity. A=A does not apply to any material object in our world, as all objects have subtle matter exchange, and minor structural variances all the time. Another test case, the LEM does not apply to any evaluation of our world, which uses a 4 state logic not the 2 state required by LEM: likely true, likely false, currently indeterminate, and incoherent/unevaluable question.

Kant demonstrated that one cannot derive the nature of the world thru logic, in his Critique of Pure Reason. Our universe is contingent, and one cannot evaluate contingent realities through logic.

Additionally, there is not "One True Logic". Logicians have established that there are likely ININITE logics: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/guide-to-logical-pluralism-for-nonlogicians/EDFDFA1C9EB65DB71848DABD6B12D877 If there are infinite logics, then all sorts of things in our universe will violate one or even possibly all of them. Hence a God violating classical logic -- and even deciding what logic if any applies to particular parts of our universe, is intrinsic to what we now know of logic.

Rather than focusing on limit cases involving definitions of infinities, it is more useful to evaluate the postulate that there is one being which is creator of all our universe. Such a being may not have INFINITE power or knowledge, but would have to have SUFFICIENT power and knowledge to create everything there is. The infinities test you describe, are therefore not particularly relevant to evaluating whether such a being exists. Instead, the teleological tests of design intention, such as the Problem of Evil, are the sorts of test cases one should focus on in evaluating such a claim.

Dcleve
  • 9,612
  • 1
  • 11
  • 44