God does not beget sons: a limitation to omnipotence

[Ummon]

It's quite simple: the statement Islam makes that God doesn't beget sons, is essentially a way to establish a limit to the power of God. An omnipotent God by necessity, can do whatever He wishes. Another matter is, on the other hand, what He wishes.

My guess, in any case, is that this may quickly result in an immovable object vs. irresistible force thread. Let's see.

[johnny5000]

There's no such thing as god.
There's no such thing as an unmovable object.
There's no such thing as an irresistible force.

[Ummon]

I am glad that you know. But this is obviously off-topic, given that the thread implies conceding that God exists and is omnipotent.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Ehrm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_force_paradox.

[Ummon]

You see, though, that the wikipedia link, as always, doesn't consider, all factors. God could then, because He is omnipotent, make Himself able to lift the immovable object. In steps, the paradox disappears.

Now this can continue without being an irresistible vs immovable thread. :wink:

[Serious Spamurai]

This is applying something in our world to something outside of it. Especially the stone paradox. It's essentially counting God as a being or creature and not a force.

[Glade]

That implies that his power varies. If he can become more or less omnipotent that means that there are times when he isnt god. Since he doesnt have all the powers of god.

[Ummon]

This is applying something in our world to something outside of it. Especially the stone paradox. It's essentially counting God as a being or creature and not a force.

Not at all. God is merely described as will and power here. These two do not require matter, nor do they require anything material in God, nor time, or more precisely, it is not required that God is inside time for God to will anything, or to do anything.

Otherwise, the very concept of omnipotence becomes a hypostasis for "only state", which implies that God has no choice, nor freedom.

That implies that his power varies. If he can become more or less omnipotent that means that there are times when he isnt god. Since he doesnt have all the powers of god.

His power does not have comparison but itself here. Therefore it varies, and it does not, at the same time, according to each will expressed by God.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Could an omnipotent God create another omnipotent God?

[Irishman]

An omnipotent God by necessity, can do whatever He wishes.

Anything logically possible, yes.

You see, though, that the wikipedia link, as always, doesn't consider, all factors. God could then, because He is omnipotent, make Himself able to lift the immovable object. In steps, the paradox disappears.

You misunderstand the thought experience. The 'immovable' is part of the NATURE of the object, and the power to move anything is the NATURE of God, thus we have a contradiction.

If you claim that God can do anything (even the logically contradictory) then you have proven that God does not exist. There is a reason it is called a contradiction: under no circumstances of reality is it possible that such conditions exist.

Otherwise, the very concept of omnipotence becomes a hypostasis for "only state", which implies that God has no choice, nor freedom.

God must, in order to exist, be limited by the rule of contradiction, but this is not an actual limitation on God's power as much as it is a necessary condition for existence.

Most philosophers, both religious and not, agree with this.

[Ummon]

Anything logically possible, yes.


You misunderstand the thought experience. The 'immovable' is part of the NATURE of the object, and the power to move anything is the NATURE of God, thus we have a contradiction.

If you claim that God can do anything (even the logically contradictory) then you have proven that God does not exist. There is a reason it is called a contradiction: under no circumstances of reality is it possible that such conditions exist.

You misunderstand the answer, of course. The nature of an object is relative to the nature of the rest of the universe, by changing the latter the former changes as well.

An object has no existence by itself, and therefore, the paradox is a semplification. An undue one.

Could an omnipotent God create another omnipotent God?

The interesting question is, wouldn't these two be identical and one after that?

God must, in order to exist, be limited by the rule of contradiction, but this is not an actual limitation on God's power as much as it is a necessary condition for existence.

Most philosophers, both religious and not, agree with this.

This is necessarily false. It implies that the existence you know is the only form of existence, and establishes a limit to the power of God, which we did accept as omnipotent.

Undoubtedly, God can do something and its opposite at (in) the same time.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

The interesting question is, wouldn't these two be identical and one after that.

More like can you then call them omnipotent?

[Irishman]

An object has no existence by itself, and therefore, the paradox is a semplification.

Of course it is, but this is called a thought experiment. It uses simplified, specific guidelines and parameters to find out something interesting about the nature of an existence, namely omnipotence.

For instance, you are right, if one changes the nature of an object from unliftable to liftable, then God can lift it, but he is not lifting the unliftable, he is lifting the liftable, not answering the question. You are avoiding the thought experiment by changin the parameters, which cannot be done.

This is the form logically, I will write it out since I cannot do universal qualifiers on this Comp.

There is some object x which holds that for all (o) -Dox, where D means to lift. (meaning there no being can lift x)

There is some being (o) a that for all objects x, Dox. (meaning o can lift all objects x)

This is an inherent contradiction and such a case cannot come to pass in any existence.

You are claiming that A and -A can exist, its a contradiction.

[Ummon]

t0: God is in t0 (outside time)

t1: God creates an unliftable object: God cannot lift it in t1.

t2: God improves his own lifting capability: God can lift the object in t2.

Since God is neither limited to t1, t2 or any t, God does as He pleases, and is not limited by anything but His will, and paradoxes are but a byproduct of our perception of time.

More like can you then call them omnipotent?

Of course, they are both one and two, and each one is the same and omnipotent.

[Irishman]

Again, you can run from the contradiction all you want by changing the parameters, but you are only avoiding the real issue.

In t1, God cannot lift the unliftable (limitation on Gods Power)

In t2, there is no such thing as the unliftable.

You are running in circles. Saying that God cannot lift the unliftable, BUT if god MAKES the unliftable liftable (changing the parameters of the thought experiment) then he is not lifting the unliftable.

See how your ideas are accomplishing nothing? Taken the parameters of the thought experiment, you seem to agree that there is a paradox, but then you ascribe the power to God to change the nature of things (unliftable to liftable) which makes any conversation pointless because you are merely avoiding the issue. If God can change any definition at any time, then these discussions are pointless because they are definition based.


EDIT

Of course, there is the whole other problem that your "God" is in (as you put it) to, outside of time, which makes it logically impossible for him to act at all, meaning your God cannot lift even a piece of paper, let alone have a changing will.

[Ummon]

In t1 God cannot because He has willed so. All that He needs is willing something else.

The omnipotence of God being outside time, no permanent limit is ever possible to it. But it can be willed limited in a given moment.

EDIT

Of course, there is the whole other problem that your "God" is in (as you put it) to, outside of time, which makes it logically impossible for him to act at all, meaning your God cannot lift even a piece of paper, let alone have a changing will.

That again is a simplification. Time exists, and God can act in time whilst not being limited by it.

The ancient concept of emanation, by the way.

[Irishman]

In t1 God cannot because he has willed so. All that he needs is willing something else.

I have already addressed this as a way to escape the argument, not solve it.

The omnipotence of God being outside time, no permanent limit is ever possible to it. But it can be willed limited in a given moment.

Except the fact that the limitations of being outside of time provide, namely limiting God to inaction.

[Glade]

Can god cease to exist? If there is a time when god doesn't exist then he is not omnipotent. Since he is suppose to be everywhere at once.

[Ummon]

The question Glade poses is the most fascinating one. That is infact the only one we cannot answer.

I have already addressed this as a way to escape the argument, not solve it.

Except the fact that the limitations of being outside of time provide, namely limiting God to inaction.

Being outside time provides no limitation.

[Irishman]

If there is a time when god doesn't exist then he is not omnipotent.

God cannot cease to exist because God is 'outside of time'. Ceasing, and all other actions are temporally defined constructs, and thus God cannot act if he exists atemporally.

Being outside time provides no limitation.

It most certainly does. Being outside of time means that no temporal modifiers apply, thus any action implies temporal modifiers (a before, during, and after) which cannot be applied to God, thus, God cannot act by definition if he is atemporal.