xorbie
September 1, 2003, 08:38 PM
This is somewhat along the same lines as my last thread in here on the "can God do X" line of attack, but I want to get a bit more formal.
The God I am talking about has these characteristics:
(1) Eternal
(2) Omnipotent
(3) Omniscient
(4) Omnipresent (this is usually left out)
(5) Morally perfect
(6) Creator of the universe
Now I will define a couple terms:
Simple task - NL: This is a task such as "Lift this table" or "Understand this formula." What is important here is that the object (hope this grammar is correct) is not defined by the subject. For the two examples, the specific table or formula would be ovjectively defined, and not reliant on the lifter/understander.
Complex task - NL: This is a task such as "Create a rock so heavy you can't lift." It can be understood in two ways. One is that it is made of two simple tasks (create and lift). However, since lifting is technically not part of this task, we can also define a complex task as one in which the object is defined by the subject (a rock so heavy that the creator cannot lift, as opposed to objectively saying "15 kg table" or "100000000 kg rock")
The NL in these two stands for non-living, which means that the object will be assumed not to be living. So for now we will not deal with "Make Bob kill someone."
Now, Being X can only be omnipotent if they can do any simple-NL task that some other being can do. In fact, we might even say that Being X is omnipotent if he has the power to do any simple-NL task imaginable.
The one simple-NL task that is tricky is "Learn 2+2=4" or some equivilent. I can learn "2+2=4" (demonstrated by the fact that I have, in fact, learned this). God, it would seem, cannot, which follows from properties (3) and (4). But does it follow? First of all, God is not a biological entity. God does not "learn" or "know" things in the same sense that humans do. This especially follows if you are a strict materialist and believe that learning and knowing are just descriptions of what goes on in your brain.
One would be hard pressed to define "know," let alone "learn," for God. Now if anybody has a good definition of either or both of these terms, feel free to bring them up and I will see if they actually lead to a logical paradox.
I have yet to formalize my stance on simple-L and complex-L tasks (those dealing with living objects). Defintions should be forthcoming. I also hope people adopt the terms simple and complex, as they do facilitiate discussions (and if you think they are clumsy, please explain why).
The God I am talking about has these characteristics:
(1) Eternal
(2) Omnipotent
(3) Omniscient
(4) Omnipresent (this is usually left out)
(5) Morally perfect
(6) Creator of the universe
Now I will define a couple terms:
Simple task - NL: This is a task such as "Lift this table" or "Understand this formula." What is important here is that the object (hope this grammar is correct) is not defined by the subject. For the two examples, the specific table or formula would be ovjectively defined, and not reliant on the lifter/understander.
Complex task - NL: This is a task such as "Create a rock so heavy you can't lift." It can be understood in two ways. One is that it is made of two simple tasks (create and lift). However, since lifting is technically not part of this task, we can also define a complex task as one in which the object is defined by the subject (a rock so heavy that the creator cannot lift, as opposed to objectively saying "15 kg table" or "100000000 kg rock")
The NL in these two stands for non-living, which means that the object will be assumed not to be living. So for now we will not deal with "Make Bob kill someone."
Now, Being X can only be omnipotent if they can do any simple-NL task that some other being can do. In fact, we might even say that Being X is omnipotent if he has the power to do any simple-NL task imaginable.
The one simple-NL task that is tricky is "Learn 2+2=4" or some equivilent. I can learn "2+2=4" (demonstrated by the fact that I have, in fact, learned this). God, it would seem, cannot, which follows from properties (3) and (4). But does it follow? First of all, God is not a biological entity. God does not "learn" or "know" things in the same sense that humans do. This especially follows if you are a strict materialist and believe that learning and knowing are just descriptions of what goes on in your brain.
One would be hard pressed to define "know," let alone "learn," for God. Now if anybody has a good definition of either or both of these terms, feel free to bring them up and I will see if they actually lead to a logical paradox.
I have yet to formalize my stance on simple-L and complex-L tasks (those dealing with living objects). Defintions should be forthcoming. I also hope people adopt the terms simple and complex, as they do facilitiate discussions (and if you think they are clumsy, please explain why).