Bill Craig on Omnipotence

[Adonael]

Now you object, why should we think that God must be capable of refraining from creating a quasi-maximally great being, since His refraining from creating it would be logically impossible? I think your question highlights the inadequacy of a definition of omnipotence simply in terms of what is logically possible for someone to do. To borrow a famous example, on this definition a person who is essentially capable of only scratching his ear could count as omnipotent since other actions are logically impossible for him to do! That is surely an inadequate concept of omnipotence!
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6155

Isn't Craig's analogy confusing logical possibility with physical possibility?

[Hamlet]

No. A person that is essentially capable of only scratching his ear, and can in fact scratch his ear, is omnipotent under the definition of omnipotence as the ability to do anything logically possible.

I see what you're trying to say, but Craig is right. The word essentially should leap off the page; it is the word that everything rides on. If a person is capable of only scratching his ear, then that person cannot physically do anything other than scratch his ear; of course, God, for example, could give him the power to, say, scratch his nose. And there is nothing logically impossible about God giving that person the ability, and nothing logically impossible about that person having the ability, to scratch his nose. But, if the person is essentially capable of only scratching his nose, then even God cannot give that person the ability to scratch his nose, for that person is essentially incapable of doing anything other than scratching his ear in the same way that a triangle is essentially incapable of having four sides.

So the person who is essentially capable of only scratching his ear is omnipotent under the definition being used; it is not logically possible for that person to do anything else.

[Civil1z@tion]

It is logically possible for a person to jump 900 feet in the air, as there is no logical contradiction to a person doing that, but a physical impossibility. Therefore he did mess up logical possibility and physical possibility.

[Adonael]

No. A person that is essentially capable of only scratching his ear, and can in fact scratch his ear, is omnipotent under the definition of omnipotence as the ability to do anything logically possible.




This is not the definition Craig is working with. Craig's definition is situated in a person context. Craig says "possible for someone to do" and in his analogy it is "impossible for him to do".

But, if the person is essentially capable of only scratching his nose, then even God cannot give that person the ability to scratch his nose, for that person is essentially incapable of doing anything other than scratching his ear in the same way that a triangle is essentially incapable of having four sides.

ahh, i see how he is using the word "essential". I dont agree with the definition of omnipotence having to be situated within the terms of a person's essence. omnipotence is the ability to do whatever is logically possible, not whatever is possible for that person. unless, of course, that person can do whatever is logically possible. My conception would escape Craig's analogy.

[Hamlet]

I dont agree with the definition of omnipotence having to be situated within the terms of a person's essence. omnipotence is the ability to do whatever is logically possible, not whatever is possible for that person.

That's the point of Craig's analogy.

[rhutchin]

I don't agree with the definition of omnipotence having to be situated within the terms of a person's essence. omnipotence is the ability to do whatever is logically possible, not whatever is possible for that person. unless, of course, that person can do whatever is logically possible. My conception would escape Craig's analogy.

Within the context of the Bible, the omnipotence of God refers to God's ability to do anything He wants and no one and nothing can stop Him from doing so. The more expansive definition of omnipotence that seems to be argued above does not necessarily apply to God. God is not limited in what he might want to do, and He not only has the power to accomplish all that he might want to do, but no one and nothing can stop Him should He exercise that power.

[Dogfish]

I don't agree with the definition of omnipotence having to be situated within the terms of a person's essence. omnipotence is the ability to do whatever is logically possible, not whatever is possible for that person. unless, of course, that person can do whatever is logically possible. My conception would escape Craig's analogy.

Within the context of the Bible, the omnipotence of God refers to God's ability to do anything He wants and no one and nothing can stop Him from doing so. The more expansive definition of omnipotence that seems to be argued above does not necessarily apply to God. God is not limited in what he might want to do, and He not only has the power to accomplish all that he might want to do, but no one and nothing can stop Him should He exercise that power.

Except for those pesky iron chariots the Canaanite had. :wave:

[rhutchin]

Within the context of the Bible, the omnipotence of God refers to God's ability to do anything He wants and no one and nothing can stop Him from doing so. The more expansive definition of omnipotence that seems to be argued above does not necessarily apply to God. God is not limited in what he might want to do, and He not only has the power to accomplish all that he might want to do, but no one and nothing can stop Him should He exercise that power.

Except for those pesky iron chariots the Canaanite had. :wave:

When God chooses to work with people to do something, it is not unusual to find that people are the weak link in the process.

[Deleet]

Isn't Craig's analogy confusing logical possibility with physical possibility?

I think so, yes. It may be physically impossible for someone to do anything else than scratching their ear, but I see no reason why it should be logically impossible. Unless, of course, that he defined the person as someone he can only scratch his ear.

[thedistillers]

Omnipotence is defined in such a way that it is impossible for us to know what God can and cannot do. Each time a skeptic asks: "why God doesn't do X", the theist can always answer "because it's not logically possible for God to do X". If most conceivable actions are not logically possible, then God's omnipotence is starting to look lame.

What is logically possible for God to do? According to theists, He can create our universe. He can perform miracles. If he can do that much, why can't he create people with free will, but without the ability to sin? That is when silly theological explanations come into play: "God allow people to sin because saving sinners makes him cool" and other nonsense.

[Deleet]

Omnipotence is defined in such a way that it is impossible for us to know what God can and cannot do. Each time a skeptic asks: "why God doesn't do X", the theist can always answer "because it's not logically possible for God to do X". If most conceivable actions are not logically possible, then God's omnipotence is starting to look lame.

What is logically possible for God to do? According to theists, He can create our universe. He can perform miracles. If he can do that much, why can't he create people with free will, but without the ability to sin? That is when silly theological explanations come into play: "God allow people to sin because saving sinners makes him cool" and other nonsense.

Then the theists will have a burden of proof to show that something is logically impossible i.e. self-contradictory.

Theists could argue that some evil is logically necessary.

[thedistillers]

The thing is: according to Christian theism, it is logically possible to have free will without having the predisposition towards sin: this is how it works in Heaven! So they cannot say that sin is logically necessary if we have free will. Otherwise Heaven would be a logical impossibility.

So Christian apologists have to come up with a story to explain why our current sinful, finite existence is necessary. The result is always inevitably comical.

[rizdek]

So Christian apologists have to come up with a story to explain why our current sinful, finite existence is necessary. The result is always inevitably comical.

Yep, I always get a laugh

[Dogfish]

Except for those pesky iron chariots the Canaanite had. :wave:

When God chooses to work with people to do something, it is not unusual to find that people are the weak link in the process.

What people are you talking about? They were CHARIOTS.
:huh:

[rhutchin]

When God chooses to work with people to do something, it is not unusual to find that people are the weak link in the process.

What people are you talking about? They were CHARIOTS.
:huh:

Who cares about CHARIOTS if not PEOPLE?:D

[rhutchin]

Omnipotence is defined in such a way that it is impossible for us to know what God can and cannot do. Each time a skeptic asks: "why God doesn't do X", the theist can always answer "because it's not logically possible for God to do X". If most conceivable actions are not logically possible, then God's omnipotence is starting to look lame.

What is logically possible for God to do? According to theists, He can create our universe. He can perform miracles. If he can do that much, why can't he create people with free will, but without the ability to sin? That is when silly theological explanations come into play: "God allow people to sin because saving sinners makes him cool" and other nonsense.

The question posed is irrelevant. Omnipotence results not from what God can do, but from the inability of anyone or anything to prevent God from doing whatever He wants. It does not matter what God wants to do. What matters is whether you, or anyone or anything, can stop Him once He decides to do anything he wants. For God to be all powerful, He must be more powerful than all that exists outside Himself, so that nothing exerts power over Him.

[Dogfish]

What people are you talking about? They were CHARIOTS.
:huh:

Who cares about CHARIOTS if not PEOPLE?:D

Dodge, dodge, weave, weave...

[GenesisNemesis]

The question posed is irrelevant. Omnipotence results not from what God can do, but from the inability of anyone or anything to prevent God from doing whatever He wants. It does not matter what God wants to do. What matters is whether you, or anyone or anything, can stop Him once He decides to do anything he wants. For God to be all powerful, He must be more powerful than all that exists outside Himself, so that nothing exerts power over Him.

Well, there's that "sneaky Devil"... :devil1:

[rhutchin]

The question posed is irrelevant. Omnipotence results not from what God can do, but from the inability of anyone or anything to prevent God from doing whatever He wants. It does not matter what God wants to do. What matters is whether you, or anyone or anything, can stop Him once He decides to do anything he wants. For God to be all powerful, He must be more powerful than all that exists outside Himself, so that nothing exerts power over Him.

Well, there's that "sneaky Devil"... :devil1:

So, how do you see him changing the situation? Can he do anything other than that which God allows?

[GenesisNemesis]

So, how do you see him changing the situation? Can he do anything other than that which God allows?

I don't see him changing the situation at all, or God allowing him to do anything, because they both don't exist. Sorry to burst your bubble there.

[rhutchin]

So, how do you see him changing the situation? Can he do anything other than that which God allows?

I don't see him changing the situation at all, or God allowing him to do anything, because they both don't exist. Sorry to burst your bubble there.

If you believe that, then why bring up an imaginary figure as you did? Maybe, you can't quite shake the thought that you don't really aren't sure that God does not exist.

[Dogfish]

I don't see him changing the situation at all, or God allowing him to do anything, because they both don't exist. Sorry to burst your bubble there.

If you believe that, then why bring up an imaginary figure as you did? Maybe, you can't quite shake the thought that you don't really aren't sure that God does not exist.

Surely you understand playing "devil's advocate" to point out a weak argument.

[rhutchin]

If you believe that, then why bring up an imaginary figure as you did? Maybe, you can't quite shake the thought that you don't really aren't sure that God does not exist.

Surely you understand playing "devil's advocate" to point out a weak argument.

Yep, but playing the "devil's advocate" does not mean that you mention the devil favorably in your argument. Right??? :D :D