From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Omniscience
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:02:28 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA10725; Wed, 16 Dec 92 10:47:24 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA27885; Wed, 16 Dec 92 10:47:11 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0465; Wed, 16 Dec 92 19:46:01 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Mathew types:

(Deletions)
>> I thought I have adressed that. Time is resolved by the omnipotent has to be
>> omnipotent all the time or it is not omnipotent (tm).

>But where did you pull that one from?  That's not part of any definition of
>'omnipotent' I'm familiar with.

From the definitions of my Catholic youth. Omnipotent meant being able to do
absolutely everything and anything.

(Deletions)
>It's as though the omnipotent being is standing at the junction of two
>corridors, both with turnstiles.  He's fully capable of walking through
>either turnstile.  However, once he walks through one, he can't walk through
>the other.

>I'm in such a situation every time I go on the Underground.  Can I walk
>through the left-hand barrier?  Yes.  Can I walk through the right-hand
>barrier?  Yes.  I am therefore able to walk through any Underground ticket
>barrier.  Protests that I'm not because I can't walk through all of them in
>succession are beside the point.

I understand that. You have the possibility of doing both things, one or
another. But you can't do both at once. A strong defintion of omnipotence
would imply that one can actually do AND another. I'll expand on that.


>>                                             You say the omnipotent can solve
>> A and can solve B. But it cannot (sic) solve both of them one after another.

>Yes.  Basically, that's it.  You have defined your problems A and B such that
>solving one renders the other insoluble (by rendering the solver
>non-omnipotent).

I don't agree. The point with the rock is different. 'Create a stone over that
you can't jump'. One cannot solve either A or B. In order to jump over the
stone it has to be created first - no other stone will do. B requires A.

>> Another counter example is to demand that it creates the rock it cannot lift
>> and to lift it at the same time.

>Then you are simply demanding "Solve p = ~p".  We can trivially prove from
>the definitions (i.e. meaning) of the question that it has no solution, so it
>tells you nothing about whoever you're addressing the problem to.

It tells me that the omnipotent and absolutely down to earth logic cannot
coexist in the same reference system. Thus, systems with tautologies and
their opposite do not allow the existence of an Omnipotent. In case you
give a reference system and a better definition of it, other people can do
the same, which will lead to the interesting question as whose omnipotent is
the biggest?


>You can't get profound statements out of the inability to solve problems
>which don't have a solution; otherwise you could just say "Solve sj jksdj
>sdfj ksjd dfj."

A and not A has a value, it is always wrong. That does not apply to the
sentence given, I assume.
You can't get profound statements? IMO, that the omnipotent can't exist
is an important clue to its discussion.

By the way, it applies to me as well that I can't solve problems that
haven't got a solution for me. I am afraid that this implies also that
I am Omnipotent, since I can by definition, solve all problems that have
a solution for me, and the others don't count.

If you imply that Omnipotent means 'can solve every problem anyone else can
solve within that system (and probably a few more)', its meaning is strongly
bound by its reference system. And I doubt that this is what religious people
try to imply with omnipotent.


>> I prefer (A and not A).
>Let me guess -- you're the AntiAynRand, right?

'Agnosticism Response'? Well, IMO, Ayn Rand has a point that it is a sign
of little intellectual integrity to let people come up with every conceivable
belief system and answer to it: I can't resolve whether it exists or not,
but I will neither believe it or disbelieve it.
However, one grows into a social system that says that there is some form of
evidence to certain beliefs or that they have a meaning, be it the number of
believers or whatever. And it is generally considered to be the burden of
the person who challenges common sensical convictions that they are based on
no true evidence.
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism