Omnipotence according to Wielenberg.

[Thomas Metcalf]

Erik Wielenberg's definition of omnipotence is different from the modern "state of affairs" versions of omnipotence. He decides that to figure out whether a being is omnipotent, we must ask whether its limitations are the result of a lack of power, or of something else.

He gives the example of Hercules, who might be the strongest possible man. When we're trying to figure out whether he really is the strongest possible man, we can put him through some tests. We can give him a 100 pound rock, and watch him lift it easily. If he couldn't lift it, then we could say with confidence that he wasn't the strongest possible man. We can keep performing this test, and if there's ever a rock he can't lift, he's not the strongest possible man.

However, if we gave him a 100 pound rock with a really slippery substance on it, he might not be able to lift the rock. But we couldn't conclude he wasn't the strongest possible man, because it wasn't a lack of strength that prevented him from lifting the rock. It was a lack of something else, maybe "gripping ability." So even if he couldn't lift the wrong, he still might be the strongest possible man.

Wielenberg suggests we do something similar for omnipotence. Not being able to do something doesn't count against omnipotence, to Wielenberg, if it's not a lack of power that prevents you from doing something. God can't create a rock he can't lift, but it's not a lack of power that prevents him from doing that -- in fact, it's his great power that prevents him from doing that. Maybe God can't learn, but it's not because of a lack of power -- it's simply because there's nothing for him to learn.

Does Wielenberg's definition work? Does it escape conflicts with other Divine attributes? Does it match our pre-theoretical conception of omnipotence?

[wordsmyth]

Originally posted by Thomas Metcalf
Wielenberg suggests we do something similar for omnipotence. Not being able to do something doesn't count against omnipotence, to Wielenberg, if it's not a lack of power that prevents you from doing something. God can't create a rock he can't lift, but it's not a lack of power that prevents him from doing that -- in fact, it's his great power that prevents him from doing that. Maybe God can't learn, but it's not because of a lack of power -- it's simply because there's nothing for him to learn.

Does Wielenberg's definition work? Does it escape conflicts with other Divine attributes? Does it match our pre-theoretical conception of omnipotence?

I disagree with Wielenberg on his view of omnipotence and I somewhat agree with his view on omniscience.

On the first, it seems counter-intuitive to say that God's great power somehow limits his ability. Is creating a rock beyond God's ability? Is lifting a rock beyond God's ability? The "riddle of the rock" as I call it, is simply a paradox of logic used to demonstrate the absurdity of omnipotence. When faced with the "riddle of the rock", the common theist solution is usually to attempt to redefine omnipotence to eliminate the obvious paradox. However, that just creates more problems.

On the second, I tend to agree with the notion that omniscience is not necessarily a limiting factor to omnipotence. In other words, a lack of anything that can be learned does not automatically mean a lack of ability to learn. For instance, if I learned in school yesterday that 2+2=4, we could say that today I am incapable of learning that 2+2=4, but only because I already know it and not because I lack the ability to learn.

I believe both omnipotence and omniscience is absurd and while I think the "riddle of the rock" is adequate to demonstrate the absurdity of omnipotence, I do not believe the the inability to learn due to pre-existing knowledge is adequate to show a problem between omnipotence and omniscience.

[Steven Carr]

What is the difference?
Christians already say omnipotence does not mean doing the logically impossible.

If God cannot lift a rock which he has made too slippy to grasp, that is already covered.

[Thomas Metcalf]

Originally posted by Steven Carr :

Christians already say omnipotence does not mean doing the logically impossible.

If God cannot lift a rock which he has made too slippy to grasp, that is already covered.

But "to create a rock that its creator cannot lift" is a logical possibility -- yet God cannot perform it.

[Philosoft]

I don't think the Hercules example is precisely analogous. Unless the slippery rock is defined as 'impossible to lift by any being who is capable of lifting', it seems there would be a logically possible world in which Hercules successfully lifts the slippery rock. I am under the impression, however, that there is no possible world in which God can create a rock too heavy for God to lift.

[Soundsurfr]

But "to create a rock that its creator cannot lift" is a logical possibility -- yet God cannot perform it.

All we're doing with statements like this is creating an arbitrary definition of omnipotence. We're saying that an omnipotent being must be able to defy logical contradictions in order to be omnipotent. We may all agree on that definition, but it is arbitrary nonetheless.

We can just as arbitrarily remove the requirement to define omnipotence in terms of human logic. By that definition, an omnipotent being is one that can create an object of any conceivable mass or weight and is also able to manipulate the object in any way.

The logical contradiction we're discussing is simply a limitation in our own ability to conceptualize. If we define an omnipotent being as not being limited in terms of its ability to move something, then we must accept the fact that if such a being exists, there is no such thing as an immovable object. It becomes simply a non-concept, an absurdity. To require it to still exist in the face of omnipotence is just an emotional human construct. Must an omnipotent being be able to create an object that is fully transparent, but at the same time, pink? That is equally absurd. Must the being be able to remove the absurdity in order to be omnipotent, or are we deliberately defining omnipotence as a logical contradiction in itself, because that suits us better?

As a last thought - perhaps, if an omnipotent being exists, it IS capable of removing the absurdity! How do we know it couldn't?

[Just_An_Atheist]

Just curious, but do you define omnipotence in the following way"

A person is omnipotent if, and only if, that person can perform any logically possible action that does not contradict it's other properties.

I think that Michael Martin dealt with this one just fine.

Imagine a person named McEar. This person could logically only perfom those actions that are associated with scratching his ear.

This person could produce any logically possible action that does not contradict his properties, or the properties associated with scratching his ear. Thus, if your definition is the one defined above, then McEar is omnipotent.

[Xeno]

I'm more prone to accept the comparative omnipotent definition, where power is determined by what can this being do compared to another being. If a being has maximal abilities then that being is necessarily omnipotent.

Where Weilenberg's definition fails is in the definition of power. Power must be precisely defined to mean physical strength. I could easily change the definition of power to mean gripping ability instead of physical strength (since it is powerful to have the ability of gripping strength when all rocks are slippery).

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Xeno
I'm more prone to accept the comparative omnipotent definition, where power is determined by what can this being do compared to another being. If a being has maximal abilities then that being is necessarily omnipotent.

Where Weilenberg's definition fails is in the definition of power. Power must be precisely defined to mean physical strength. I could easily change the definition of power to mean gripping ability instead of physical strength (since it is powerful to have the ability of gripping strength when all rocks are slippery).

I agree that you have hit on the problem with Wielenberg's notion of "power". With the Hercules example, the word "power" evidently just means brute force. But "omnipotence" does not mean merely having brute force, but includes the ability to wield one's brute force with finesse. An omnipotent being is not one that is analogous to a man with infinite brute strength alone. Otherwise, omnipotence would not include any skill whatsoever, such that an "omnipotent" being might not be able to perform a simple surgery that any competent doctor could perform.

It seems that there are no lengths of abusing language that religionists will not do in their attempts to "save" god from the problem of evil.

[JERDOG]

"omni" means all or unending.
"potent" of coarse means power.

Main Entry: 1om·nip·o·tent
Pronunciation: -t&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin omnipotent-, omnipotens, from omni- + potent-, potens potent
Date: 14th century
1 often capitalized : ALMIGHTY 1
2 : having virtually unlimited authority or influence
3 obsolete : ARRANT
- om·nip·o·tent·ly adverb