Restating the Paradox

First i'd like to get a definition of omnipotence. Does God have the power to both 1) heat coffee so hot that he can't drink it and 2) be able to drink all coffee no matter what temperature? 1 and 2 contradict each other so either omnipotence doesn't exist, or omnipotence is defined as the power to do anything that is logically possible.

With the refined version of omnipotence it seems possible that God could create a world where free will exists. If I want to ride a bike today God can't stop me because he gave me power to prevent him from controlling my actions. But if God is omniscent then he knows that i want to ride a bike today. Can free will exist if God know what i'm going to do but can't decide directly for me?

[ZeeJustin]

Here is how I think omnipotence should be defined:

Complete control over the universe. Whatever makes up the universe, an omnipotent being can control 100%. He can create, destroy and rearrange all matter to his hearts content. He can speed up / slow down time. He cna change the laws of the unvierse so that gravity only affects cheese. Etc.

This prevents people from asking stupid questions like, "can he make a rock so heavy he can't lift it". That question makes no sense.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
So I'll give you my definition. Christians believe in God though we can't prove empirically 100% that He exists. Scientists believe in the order of nature even though they can't prove empirically 100% that it exists. You might want to check Hume on this and about a gazillion other philosophers. Both are faith positions.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, they are not. You are absolutely wrong.

Christians have *zero* empirical evidence to create any level of confidence that God exists. They have their belief and that is it.

On the other hand, all normal human beings have *vast* amounts of empirical evidence to support confidence in natural laws. And every time you do *anything* at all, your confidence level increases.

I'll repeat it again. Confidence as a result of evidence is *not* the same thing as belief in spite of no evidence. Understand? And yes, I'm well aware that Christians claim evidence, but the fact is that there is *zero* empirical evidence for the existence of any supernatural entities. There are no Christian explanations for God that cannot be explained more simply with natural arguments. "God" is an explanation only for things we don't know. That's been true for thousands of years. The more we learn, the less we attribute to any god.

Your position is intellectually dishonest. Context-dropping in the usage of a word is a logical fallacy.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
It's kinda splitting hairs semantically, but just refine the definition to say "an event whose outcome cannot be determined with 100% accuracy".


[/ QUOTE ]

It is not "semantically splitting hairs", at least not more than any such discussion about the uses and meanings of a very vague word.

[ QUOTE ]
just refine the definition to say "an event whose outcome cannot be determined with 100% accuracy".

[/ QUOTE ]

According to this, there are very very few kinds of "events" that are non-random, and that will make "non-random" (as opposed to "random") a superfluous term, which in turn will make "random" a superfluos term. However, this is not the case in the languages we speak. Randomness (and some variations on it) is and was a useful but obscure concept all along history. Thinking that it should be easy to define it and get over with this "semantic discussion", is not understanding the complexity and versatality of it, IMO.

Also, to be more specific and technical, your "refined" definition is clearly not in any accordance with the actual and normal uses of the word. All you need to do is look around 2+2 boards, where people constantly say things like "online poker is not really random". Do you mean to say that they are claiming that one can determine the outcome of the coming cards with 100% accuracy? This would not make any sense, of course. And clearly you can not say that all of these people don't understand the meaning of "random". They do, and you perfectly understand their use of the word (although you might not agree with their _argument_).

[jthegreat]

I thought it was obvious that when I say "an event", I'm not talking about 100k hands of poker. I mean *an* event. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I know it's not the simplest issue in the world, but saying that you can predict an outcome as a probability range and the event in question being random are pretty much two separate issues.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I'll give you my definition. Christians believe in God though we can't prove empirically 100% that He exists. Scientists believe in the order of nature even though they can't prove empirically 100% that it exists. You might want to check Hume on this and about a gazillion other philosophers. Both are faith positions.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, they are not. You are absolutely wrong.

Christians have *zero* empirical evidence to create any level of confidence that God exists. They have their belief and that is it.

On the other hand, all normal human beings have *vast* amounts of empirical evidence to support confidence in natural laws. And every time you do *anything* at all, your confidence level increases.

I'll repeat it again. Confidence as a result of evidence is *not* the same thing as belief in spite of no evidence. Understand? And yes, I'm well aware that Christians claim evidence, but the fact is that there is *zero* empirical evidence for the existence of any supernatural entities. There are no Christian explanations for God that cannot be explained more simply with natural arguments. "God" is an explanation only for things we don't know. That's been true for thousands of years. The more we learn, the less we attribute to any god.

Your position is intellectually dishonest. Context-dropping in the usage of a word is a logical fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very nicely stated!

[tonysoldier]

Haven't read any of the responses, but Leibniz has an answer, you decide if it's acceptable. God instantiates the best of all possible worlds. The fact that we were chosen is determined but our actions are not (altough they pretty much are).

[jthegreat]

Btw, I wanted to just state the fact that none of this is meant as a personal attack. It's hard to argue through this medium without it sounding that way, but I don't mean it like that. You're committing a few common logical mistakes and I am pointing them out (albeit a bit harshly at times). Words have different meanings in different concepts and you can't just ignore that.

[tonysoldier]

God choosing "destinies" does not limit human free will necessarily. Humans have free will, but they will do a certain thing - this is reasonable. One can still have a choice when one will eventually choose a certain thing. That is, choice is a property that inheres in an individual, if this individual is not aware of the pre-determined course, its pre-determination does not limit his act of choosing. Now, one could argue that this is not REALLY choice, and that's fine.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought it was obvious that when I say "an event", I'm not talking about 100k hands of poker. I mean *an* event.

[/ QUOTE ]

An event can be the outcome of 100K hands, or of a single dealt hand. There's no relevant or essential difference between the two, certainly not for the sake of this particular discussion.



[ QUOTE ]
saying that you can predict an outcome as a probability range and the event in question being random are pretty much two separate issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see exactly what you mean by "seperate issues", but again, for most normal uses in language, many kinds of events that have less than probability 1 (sometimes much less) are not considered "random" at all. That is, again, with regard to your last "refined" definition.