Omnipotence and Achievement

[TheStrongAtheist]

This argument assumes the existence of an omnipotent god.

I will compare the achievement of God creating the world versus the achievement of a one-legged man winning the London Marathon by hopping alone. I will call this hypothetical man Boris.

Boris' achievement is remarkable. Almost all of the other runners had two legs and Boris beat them all. Is the achievement better, as good, or worse than that of someone who wins it with two legs (all other things being equal)? You probably (and rightly) have decided that it is a greater achievement for the one-legged man to win, than the two-legged man.

Why is that the conclusion we came to? The feat is of the same magnitude, they won the race. The only difference is that Boris had a handicap, and therefore his victory was more impressive.

So our conclusion is that the greater the handicap, the more impressive the achievement. A man who circumnavigates the globe on a raft is more impressive than a man who flies around the world on a jumbo jet.

God's omnipotence allows him to do anything. Creating the world should be no effort at all, since any effort would show a limitation (the limitation would be the inability to create a world easily) Given that anything and everything is possible, God has no barriers to overcome. Nothing God could possibly do is impressive, or remarkable. Dying on the cross? Childsplay. Creating the universe? No problems. God can create what he wants, however he wants.

The ease with which God does anything (it should be infinitely easy) means that nothing God does can be said to be impressive. Boris on the other hand outdid himself and his handicap, and achieved an impressive feat. We can say that Boris' achievement was more impressive that God's achievement.

I will apply this to the resurrection. If Jesus was "only" a man (like me) then rising from the dead would be impressive. Men cannot rise from the dead, so actually rising from the dead would be remarkable. If you are a god though, with the ability to rise from the dead at will, actually rising from the dead is really an everyday occurence (for a god). It doesn't bear even commenting about. Why not die and rise again? You may as well, given that its a doddle.

I can predict an objection. I will be told that God isn't trying to impress us or that I "just want to be impressed". That is really irrelevant. I don't care about being impressed, and we'll accept for the sake of argument that God doesn't want to impress us. Whatever God's intentions are, it doesn't stop the fact that we can comment on how impressive the feat is. Boris wasn't trying to impress us! In fact, he's shy and modest and only wanted to win the race to raise money for a charity. It's still impressive!

I posted the argument on a Christian forum in case anyone had any good refutations. They tried and failed. See it here (http://www.faithforum.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3039&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0).

Amen,
The Strong Atheist

[Tears In The Rain]

If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.
-Woody Allen

[Ruiner]

I totally get it. Not remarkable at all for an omni- god. Hell, god doesn't even need to be omnipotent for this to be a non-remarkable feat. If god DID do this, then he was capable to the Nth degree in approaching omnipotence. If god was incapable of doing so, then God didn't do it, ie the Nth degree is unattainable for god and would forever remain so.

If you want to make this a remarkable feat, you have to limit. Then in Christian theology you have to account for what made the Nth degree previously unattainable by god. Which was exactly what? The 'fall' of man? I'll await Christian speculation on this board, along with other well thought out skeptical reviews.

[TheStrongAtheist]

If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.
-Woody Allen

Ah yes, I forgot about that quote. What Woody misses is that God's omnipotence prevents even the possibility of achievement.

SA

[GakuseiDon]

I posted the argument on a Christian forum in case anyone had any good refutations. They tried and failed. See it here (http://www.faithforum.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3039&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0).
What is your actual argument, though? An argument is something like a series of statements, logically connected, that establishes a conclusion or position.

Is your argument that an omnipotent God is unable to make any impressive achievements? If so, I don't understand what you think needs to be refuted. What is the actual Christian position that is opposed to your argument?

[TheStrongAtheist]

What is your actual argument, though? An argument is something like a series of statements, logically connected, that establishes a conclusion or position.

Is your argument that an omnipotent God is unable to make any impressive achievements? If so, I don't understand what you think needs to be refuted. What is the actual Christian position that is opposed to your argument?

Oh, well just because I don't state it in the syllogistic form doesn't mean it's not an argument. A Christian said that we should be in awe of the amazing sacrifice that Jesus managed to pull off. I refuted it with this argument.

Maybe this'll help summarise it for you.

1) We should be impressed by great achievement.
2) An achievement's greatness is proportional to the feat minus the probability of success (which is inversely proportional to a handicap).
3) God is omnipotent and therefore the probability of success is 100%
4) Therefore the greatness of the achievement is absolute zero.
5) Therefore we should not be impressed at any of God's achievements.

That's basically what I wrote before in prose, I just used examples to help clarify the point.

It's not particularly important to real world, but I had never come across that argument before and wanted to share it and get feedback.

SA

[Peter Kirby]

Can we be awed without being impressed?

A virtuouso pianist could perform an easy piece; to someone who had never seen a piano, the very fact of the playing could be awe-inspiring. Even though, to judge by the difficulty, the pianist should not be impressed with himself.

I think the most likely conclusion is that God should not be impressed with God, and I think that God could be okay with that, if there were one.

On the other hand, he could be a neurotic mess at his plight of perpetual lack of achievement and absence of difficulty. :huh:

[TheStrongAtheist]

Maybe that's true, we can be impressed by the act compared to our own abilities, but really all we are impressed at is the ability itself, rather than the effort objectified in the achievement. A man winning the marathon on one leg is more impressive than the man with two legs, and yet his physical shape and probability of success are much poorer. We are impressed to the degree that the runners surpassed themselves.

I hope that makes sense.

SA

[GakuseiDon]

Maybe that's true, we can be impressed by the act compared to our own abilities, but really all we are impressed at is the ability itself, rather than the effort objectified in the achievement. A man winning the marathon on one leg is more impressive than the man with two legs, and yet his physical shape and probability of success are much poorer. We are impressed to the degree that the runners surpassed themselves.
Since what we are impressed by is largely subjective, assuming your argument is correct, what then?

[TheStrongAtheist]

Good point, but we should be consistent with our subjective reasoning. If a one-legged man winning a race is more impressive than a two-legged man winning it, we should use the same principle to judge God.

SA

[GakuseiDon]

Good point, but we should be consistent with our subjective reasoning. If a one-legged man winning a race is more impressive than a two-legged man winning it, we should use the same principle to judge God.
Yes, and so...? IOW, what now?

For example, assume that I argued successfully that we should be impressed by God's omnipotence because it is a unique characteristic that no-one else has. Why should anyone care?

[TheStrongAtheist]

We shouldn't care because there isn't a god, but I thought a new argument regarding omnipotence was long overdue!

SA

[GakuseiDon]

We shouldn't care because there isn't a god, but I thought a new argument regarding omnipotence was long overdue!

SA
It's not an argument regarding omnipotence, though. It may be an argument about what impresses people, but I just don't see alot of Christians being worried about convincing people who don't believe that God exists that they should be impressed by His omnipotence.

[TheStrongAtheist]

That's not the point, they themselves can no longer properly say "Jesus' sacrifice was impressive". And whether it concerns omnipotence, human judgement, human nature or marathons, I was just flexing my philosophical muscles and found this argument rather new and interesting.

SA

[Tears In The Rain]

Although I agree with the premise of the OP, I want to point out that the same idea can be applied to us as well to the point that we shouldn't really be impressed by anything. For example, the one-legged guy that won the race is in really good shape and worked really hard. You can say we should be impressed that he worked so hard, but he's a hard-working guy so that's what we should expect.

[TheStrongAtheist]

That might be true, although the fact that he did win doesn't mean that he would always win, or that the probability of winning was 1/1. With God, we can be certain that He can do whatever He wants without any chance of failure.

Also, the hard work you mention can be thought of as part of the act of winning since it requires planning and dedication. God's omnipotence is presumably part of his nature by chance alone and cannot be thought of as part of the achievement, since it is not the result of volition.

It's all getting rather confusing now, and I hope I haven't disproven all forms of impressiveness!

SA

[lpetrich]

This reminds me of the ancient philosopher Carneades's argument that an omnimax entity cannot be completely virtuous, since it would be unable to exercise those virtues that depend on limits on its abilities, like courage. In other words, how could an omnimax entity possibly be brave if it was invulnerable? It would be like switching on a god-mode cheat in a computer game.

[Tears In The Rain]

What about complimenting something on something that has nothing to do with any achievement.

"your puppy is cute"
"thanks"

"you have beautiful eyes"
"I was born with them"

[TheStrongAtheist]

This reminds me of the ancient philosopher Carneades's argument that an omnimax entity cannot be completely virtuous, since it would be unable to exercise those virtues that depend on limits on its abilities, like courage. In other words, how could an omnimax entity possibly be brave if it was invulnerable? It would be like switching on a god-mode cheat in a computer game.

Exactly!

SA

[TheStrongAtheist]

What about complimenting something on something that has nothing to do with any achievement.

"your puppy is cute"
"thanks"

"you have beautiful eyes"
"I was born with them"

Very true, but that's a different question really.

SA

[steamer]

...but I just don't see alot of Christians being worried about convincing people who don't believe that God exists that they should be impressed by His omnipotence.

You'd be surprized how often we're expected to be impressed. Many expect us to fear hell.

[lpetrich]

More on Carneades and his argument (http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/archives/carneades/), courtesy of Mitchell Stephens:
Some of the best thinking on this subject was done by Carneades, the second-century BCE Greek Skeptic. Here are some quotes from Sextus Empiricus' later account of Carneades' reasoning:
If the Divine exists, it is certainly...both virtuous and happy.... But it does not possess all the virtues unless it possesses both continence and fortitude. And it does not possess these virtues unless there are certain things which are hard for God to abstain from and hard to endure.... For it is the man who holds firm when he is being cut and burned that shows fortitude, and not the man who is drinking sweet wine. There will, then, exist certain things which are hard for God to endure and hard to abstain from... But if so, God is receptive of vexation and of change for the worse, and hence of decay also. So that if God exists, he is perishable....
This is an arguments that flaws are needed for virtues, and therefore that gods, which don't have flaws, can't have many of the virtues.
If the Divine is all-virtuous and possesses wisdom, it possesses sound-deliberation.... And if it deliberates, there is something which is non-evident to it.... It is impossible that...anything...should...be non-evident to God.... From which it follows that he does not exist at all.

[TheStrongAtheist]

Damn those Greeks were good!

Presumably God's omnipotence is part of his nature, and therefore outside his control. Who could admire someone who is powerful purely by chance?

SA