Proof Doesn't Matter

[Neopergoss]

So you do believe that if a being with unlimited power existed then there would necessarily exist* evidence that you would find sufficient.
*Though you might not be aware of the evidence.

No, there could certainly be a being with unlimited power that exists but chose not to leave evidence of its own existence. There could also be an alien hiding in my closet right now. Until I'm presented with evidence of either one, however, I won't believe in them.

[OldTrees]

So you do believe that if a being with unlimited power existed then there would necessarily exist* evidence that you would find sufficient.
*Though you might not be aware of the evidence.

No, there could certainly be a being with unlimited power that exists but chose not to leave evidence of its own existence. There could also be an alien hiding in my closet right now. Until I'm presented with evidence of either one, however, I won't believe in them.

So if there was a being with unlimited power that did not wish to reveal itself, then you might be requiring impossible evidence to be convinced of its existence?

If so, what is your reasoning for requiring impossible evidence to be convinced?

[maverixk]

So you do believe that if a being with unlimited power existed then there would necessarily exist* evidence that you would find sufficient.
*Though you might not be aware of the evidence.

No, there could certainly be a being with unlimited power that exists but chose not to leave evidence of its own existence. There could also be an alien hiding in my closet right now. Until I'm presented with evidence of either one, however, I won't believe in them.

So if there was a being with unlimited power that did not wish to reveal itself, then you might be requiring impossible evidence to be convinced of its existence?

If so, what is your reasoning for requiring impossible evidence to be convinced?

Sort of a side note that may not have relevance, but here it is:
If the being left no evidence, then I don't think that believing or not believing in it would be of any importance, except the amount of time used on one or the other.
If it left no evidence, then I think it stands to reason that it has not had any impact on the universe, thus negating the importance of believing in it.
Now if it were to reveal itself later and only spare those who believed in it...well personally I think that's a misguided way of doing things and unlikely.

[OldTrees]

So you do believe that if a being with unlimited power existed then there would necessarily exist* evidence that you would find sufficient.
*Though you might not be aware of the evidence.

No, there could certainly be a being with unlimited power that exists but chose not to leave evidence of its own existence. There could also be an alien hiding in my closet right now. Until I'm presented with evidence of either one, however, I won't believe in them.

So if there was a being with unlimited power that did not wish to reveal itself, then you might be requiring impossible evidence to be convinced of its existence?

If so, what is your reasoning for requiring impossible evidence to be convinced?

Sort of a side note that may not have relevance, but here it is:
If the being left no evidence, then I don't think that believing or not believing in it would be of any importance, except the amount of time used on one or the other.
If it left no evidence, then I think it stands to reason that it has not had any impact on the universe, thus negating the importance of believing in it.
Now if it were to reveal itself later and only spare those who believed in it...well personally I think that's a misguided way of doing things and unlikely.

That is not as relevant as you might think. What I feel should be discussed is "Whether it can ever be rational to permanently exclude a possible option by requiring impossible evidence?" (and if so the how/why)

[darkrobe]

But an all powerful god can easily provide impossible evidence, by definition. So requiring impossible evidence to believe in an all powerful being doesnt seem too unrealistic. This doesnt apply in normal reasoning. but if we are talking about a being that exists outside of normal expectations and reasons....

[maverixk]

But an all powerful god can easily provide impossible evidence, by definition. So requiring impossible evidence to believe in an all powerful being doesnt seem too unrealistic. This doesnt apply in normal reasoning. but if we are talking about a being that exists outside of normal expectations and reasons....

Except for the fact that impossible means impossible. If the god can do it then it's not impossible.
Omnipotent does not mean that the deity can do the impossible, but that it can do everything that is possible.

[darkrobe]

false. omnipotent means that the being in question can do ANYTHING. even the logically impossible.

[OldTrees]

false. omnipotent means that the being in question can do ANYTHING. even the logically impossible.

If omnipotence means the ability to do what even an omnipotent being is unable to do then you are using a contradicting definition of omnipotence.

As such to preserve meaning we will continue to use the word impossible to mean "what even an omnipotent being is unable to do".

This would include things like "evidence even an omnipotent being would be unable to provide."

Is it ever rational to exclude an option from consideration by requiring evidence even an omnipotent being would be unable to provide?

Note: This is not about whether you should believe the claim. This is about whether you should ever require impossible evidence.

[darkrobe]

my general opinion is that omnipotence is a contradictory term. If it werent, it would not cause theologians so many issues.

So you may limit its definition for the sake of argument. but my point has deeper emphasis. If we describe an omnipotent being, we are in essence describing an irrational being (by that I mean a being that does not follow reason). as such, is it ever rational to include such a being as one of the possible options?

[OldTrees]

my general opinion is that omnipotence is a contradictory term. If it werent, it would not cause theologians so many issues.

So you may limit its definition for the sake of argument. but my point has deeper emphasis. If we describe an omnipotent being, we are in essence describing an irrational being (by that I mean a being that does not follow reason). as such, is it ever rational to include such a being as one of the possible options?

I have not encountered any theologians that use your extreme contradictory definition of omnipotence. Rather I hear the consistent definition of "able to do anything that can be done".

Is it ever rational to include self-contradicting options are part of the possible options? Not as long as you are using a logical algebra that assumes contradictions are false. As such most use Omnipotence to symbolize self-consistent concepts like "able to do anything that can be done".

[darkrobe]

There are multiple ways omnipotence is described. (The following is taken from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox))

1. "Y is absolutely omnipotent" means that "Y" can do everything absolutely. Everything that can be expressed in a string of words even if it can be shown to be self-contradictory, "Y"is not bound in action, as we are in thought by the laws of logic."  (position taken by Descartes)

2. "Y is omnipotent" means "Y can do X" is true if and only if X is a logically consistent description of a state of affairs. (position take by Thomas Aquinas)

3. "Y is omnipotent" means "Y can do X" is true if and only if "Y does X" is logically consistent. (another position taken by Aquinas)

4. "Y is omnipotent" means whenever "Y will bring about X" is logically possible, then "Y can bring about X" is true.

5. "Y is almighty" means that Y is not just more powerful than any creature; no creature can compete with Y in power, even unsuccessfully. (advocated by Peter Geach)



The only one of those that follows the actual definition of omnipotence is the first.

The idea that god is omnipotent. but cannot do anything that makes him not omnipotent. is in my opinion a mental cop out. (#2-#4)

Your definition of Omnipotent in this thread follows the last formulation (#5), which is not really omnipotence, but a lesser characteristic known as being "almighty".

[OldTrees]

1) Words do not have objective definitions. Rather they are vocal symbols we use to communicate the symbolized thought.
2) I do not see the differences between the versions 2-4 and my version.
3) I agree that almighty is not the same as either of the concepts we were/are using the symbol omnipotent to represent.