Friday, November 23, 2018

Inspiring Philosophy and Omnipotence

I've been getting a bunch of requests to review Inspiring Philosophy's video on omnipotence. You can view the link here.

Overall, I appreciate how IP tries to tear apart absolutism, but the way in which he goes about it is just bizarre. He seems to think that atheists are the only humans in existence who have ever held to the idea of absolutism, and he completely ignores the vast multitude of Christians who likewise hold a similar position. He also has a strangely binary view on the subject. He props up two opposing definitions for omnipotence as if they were the only ones in existence, and then he makes it out as if only Christians hold to the "good" view while only atheists ever defend the "bad" view. Lastly, his personal view of omnipotence is not at all common among mainstream Christian philosophy. He makes it out as if omnipotence is a kind ability to win fights. It's really weird, and I strongly doubt that other prominent Christian philosophers would find his perspective compelling.

For convenience, I've transcribed the main points of contention I have and then added a few points of discussion. Please enjoy!

IP: First, let's define omnipotence. Omnipotence simply means "all powerful." If a being is all-powerful, they would have power over everything else in existence.

While it is true that the Latin root for omnipotence does translate into "all power," that little statement is rife with ambiguity. There is no singularly "correct" definition for that term, and I have personally encountered at least a half-dozen variations in my own research on the subject. So for IP to just casually assert his own definition as the one and only definition worth considering is simply disingenuous. All you have to do is type "What is omnipotence?" into Google, and you'll find all sorts of competing definitions from authentic Christian sources. For example, the website AllAboutGod.com says this:

"He [God] has the ability and power to anything (omni=all; potent=powerful). This power is exercised effortlessly... God is all-powerful and able to do whatever he wills. Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do everything that is in harmony with his perfections."

Another website, FreeThinkingMinistries.com, says that

"God can do all things that are logically possible."

The Catholic encyclopedia likewise says

"Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible."

So in less than five minutes, I was able to find three online Christian authories who offer totally unique definitions from what IP has just given. That's not a very compelling start, dude.

Now in all fairness, there is nothing wrong with offering a definition of one's own. The problem with IP is that he gives zero mention of the existence of alternative schools of thought within mainstream Christianity. Consequently, he is basically tossing all of his fellow Christians under the bus and then pretending to speak on their collective behalf after the fact. That's just pretentious, to say the least.

IP: No other being, process, object, or combination of anything in existence could ever overpower an omnipotent being. Omnipotence simply means one is all powerful. It could never be defeated by anything else in existence. In other words, everything else in existence combined would still be less powerful than an omnipotent being.

The next thing that bothers me is the oddly combative nature of IP's new definition. For all practical purposes, he is essentially claiming that an omnipotent being is defined by its capacity to beat everything else in a fight. In his own words, you could take everything in the universe and pit it against an omnipotent being. By definition, the omnipotent being will emerge victorious and everything else will be "defeated." That's his entire definition in a nutshell. 

Another odd thing about this definition is that it says nothing about typical powers one might associate with a trait like omnipotence. For example, does the omnipotent being have the power to create a universe? Or to read minds? We cannot say. IP frames his entire definition in terms of victory and defeat. In principle, he could be very liberal with this definition to include such ideas, but that would quickly run into wacky problems. For example, maybe we could imagine a "universe creation" contest and challenge two beings to create a universe in the least amount of time or effort. In that sense, the omnipotent being would, by definition, always be the one to emerge victorious. However, once you allow for that sort of unrestricted word play, then it does not take long before paradoxes spring up again. For instance, I could challenge the being to a dying contest, or maybe a truly-state-the-following-proposition contest. The omnipotence paradox would then immediately emerge. 

IP: If this is all omnipotence means, there is nothing logically contradictory going on. There is nothing logically incoherent about being all powerful. And thus, there is no omnipotence paradox.

I agree. There is nothing logically contradictory about this definition. It's just really bizarre, and I'm quite sure the majority of mainstream Christian philosophers would be highly confused by it as well.

IP: The problem occurs when someone defines omnipotence differently. Instead of it meaning all-powerful, they define it as the ability to do anything, which is an incoherent concept.

This is a classic fallacy that I encounter all the time when discussing the philosophy of religion with theists. There is a strong tendency for people to argue as if their definition is somehow objectively correct and that all other definitions are somehow mistaken. Although IP never comes out and says it, it is strongly implied by the way he argues his point. He also has this weirdly binary understanding of omnipotence, as evidenced by the fact that he is only exploring two distinct definitions. Again, there are at least a half-dozen of them floating around in the philosophical literature, many of which come from highly respected Christian authorities.

IP: It is, in fact, logically impossible to be able to do anything. One cannot make a being that is married and also a bachelor. One cannot be evil and simultaneously morally perfect. One cannot have the ability to create the logically impossible like a square circle or a married bachelor. These concepts are logically impossible and no being can bring them into existence.

I completely agree. Absolutism is not a coherent perspective on omnipotence, and many academic philosophers further support that view. Even William Lane Craig has argued many times against absolutism. IP is just ignoring two important facts in this argument.

(1) It is perfectly common for Christians to defend absolutism.
(2) There are plenty of other definitions for omnipotence besides absolutism and IP's all-power. I've even personally offered some of them myself.

IP: Luckily, this is not what omnipotence has to mean, as we explained in the beginning of this video. It just means being all powerful over everything else in existence. If we have two definitions of omnipotence, and theists are using the first and some atheists are using the second, to say an omnipotent being cannot exist, then we have a straw man argument.

This little jab at atheists is entirely uncalled for. It is perfectly common for Christians to defend absolutism, and I have personally encountered several dozen of them on my own video comments. One of the most famous defendants of absolutism, Rene Descartes, was also a very devout Christian. My own atheist videos have even argued against absolutism, and many of my fans seem to agree with the conclusions. The idea that this is some kind of "theists versus atheists" dispute is just inexcusable. Either IP is embarrassingly ignorant of the broader social context, or he is just willfully lying about it.

IP: Everyone should get to define what they mean; not have definitions imposed upon them. Thus, claiming it is logically impossible for an omnipotent being to exist because of the second definition, doesn't mean it is logically impossible for an omnipotent being to exist because of the first definition. It is the height of irrationality to try and force theists to say omnipotence has to be defined in an incoherent way.

While I agree in principle, this argument is kind of hypocritical. IP is arguing that everyone should get to define what they mean, which is fine. But IP is also ignoring the fact that many Christian authorities hold to entirely different views of omnipotence from himself. He is therefore complaining about his inability to define what he means to atheists while simultaneously denying his fellow Christians that same courtesy.

The other strange part of this argument is that IP completely ignores the plain interpretations of the Bible itself. For example:

Matthew 19:26: But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Job 42:1-2: Then Job answered the LORD and said, "I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.

So sure, if IP wants to adopt a whole new definition for omnipotence, then that's fine. He just has to specifically deny the Bible in order to do so. It's a textbook example of kettle logic.

IP: But some still try to say that the first definition is not true omnipotence because it means the being is limited in certain ways, and if a being is limited, then it cannot be omnipotent.

This is one of those fun little games that IP likes to play in his videos. He says things like "some still try to say...," without ever telling us who those supposed people are. I've seen him do many times. It's a hugely dishonest ploy because we have no idea how popular this argument is. Is this something you hear from famous philosophers like Daniel Dennet? Or is this something he read once on a Facebook post from Billy, the angry 12-year old in his parents' basement? It's a classic example of weasel wording.

IP is also framing this argument as if only atheists are the ones who ever argue this. While I suspect that many atheists have indeed argued this in the past, I also have an entire comment section on my omnipotence video with dozens of Christians arguing this exact same point. It's a pointless "us versus them" mentality based on nothing.

IP: Well the answer to this is to point out that unlimited is not synonymous with unlimited. Increasing power doesn't necessarily mean removing limits. You remove certain types of limits, like ones caused by weakness, but other types of limits can appear with increased power. For example, let's picture a being that does not become omnipotent, but simply becomes extremely powerful over time. As their power increases, they remove limits caused by weakness, but can be limited by their ability to form relationships with others. As you increase in power, it might be harder to relate to other people who feel weak around you, or threatened by you, and thus power might limit one in this area.

IP: One is also limited in the amount of fear they have as their power increases, and thus, they are limited in what they can be afraid of. These limits, and other similar examples, don't decrease power. Having more or less fear is independent from the question of how much power you could have. In fact, one could argue some limits are good to have and necessary to increase power. For example, it is a bad thing to be unlimited in the amount of diseases you could contract. How exactly would having the ability to contract a disease make you more powerful? Or to have unlimited problems, which would also be a bad thing and potentially decrease power. Being unlimited in abilities is clearly not the same as being omnipotent, as certain limits are good to have and necessary to being all powerful, and some limits do not affect power at all.

I don't necessarily disagree with the consistency of IPs viewpoint here. It's just hilarious to me that he thinks omnipotence is basically the power to demolish everything in the universe. For example, just read this:

IP: Some try to argue that if an omnipotent being was also morally perfect, that would create a logical contradiction. As if you are morally perfect, you cannot lie for immoral gains, and thus you are limited by something that could be helpful and give you more power. But lying or other immoral actions are just abilities that do not necessarily increase power. They can for some, but they would be neutral abilities for a being that already has power over everything in existence. So if a being is already omnipotent, meaning one has power over everything in existence, having the ability to lie would not really help him. Lying is something we occasionally use to get out of a problem or away from people who have power over us. If you never have to worry about this because of your omnipotent, the ability to lie would not increase your power, and being limited in this way does not necessarily decrease power.

See? When you have the ultimate power to smash things, then it doesn't matter if you can tell a lie or not. It's all perfectly self-consistent.

IP goes on for a little while longer, but doesn't say anything fundamentally new after this. Basically, he thinks that absolutism is bad because violations of logic are not coherent ideas. In principle, I completely agree with him on this point. It's just sad to watch IP frame this as a purely atheistic phenomenon when there are countless examples of Christians doing the exact same thing. I also find his new definition to be really bizarre. I think most people will agree that omnipotence should entail more than a mere ability to defeat the universe in single combat.

13 comments:

hydrolythe said...

I admit that InspiringPhilosophy's video on omnipotence is hilariously flawed. If we define omnipotence as the ability to beat every single thing in existence it should be able to win Connect 4 against a computer that solved the game playing as the second player. Except that Connect 4, if perfectly played by both players, always results in a win for the first player. Therefore, God can't logically win against a computer that solved the game.

That being said, I do believe that the omnipotence paradox is not really a paradox at all. There is a way to solve at least the most popular definition of the paradox. If you want to I can show you the solution.

AnticitizenX said...

The easiest way to solve the omnipotence paradox is to simply redefine omnipotence. Find a definition that is self-consistent while also preserving the basic meaning we've come to associate with that word. But the moment you say something like "a capacity to do all that is logically possible," you've got problems.

hydrolythe said...

I agree that redefining omnipotence allows one to bystep the paradox. I do however think that there is an argument to be made that you can have a being that has a capacity to do all what is logically possible.

I want to warn heads up that I try prove by mathematical induction that such a being can exist. I suggest you read on how such a proof works before you read further, because it involves a similar process.

Suppose for a moment that we have an engineer capable of building an omnipotent machine. Now say to that engineer that it has to do the task for one of those machines to create a rock so heavy it can't lift it. If he creates one machine and it demonstrates that it can create a rock so heavy it can't lift it that machine's power is limited because it can't lift the rock. If it can lift it that machine's power is limited because it can't create a rock so heavy that it can't lift it.

Now we have N machines that are proven to be not omnipotent. We will now add a N+1th machine to the set. If the N+1th machine can lift the rock and the other N machines can or if it can't lift a rock the other N machines can't lift either we have conclusively proven that the machines are not omnipotent. If it is however the case that the N+1th machine can lift a rock so heavy that the other N machines can't lift it or if the N+1th machine can't lift a rock that the other N machines can we have conclusively proven that the machines are omnipotent.

Now I'll be honest that I do believe that this proof is not conclusive. Can you really have N+1 times the same machine? I do however think that it does posit a legitimate question about the nature of identity that I do think is worth tackling.

AnticitizenX said...

"Suppose for a moment that we have an engineer capable of building an omnipotent machine"

Full stop. You cannot presume an "omnipotence machine" when the very definition of omnipotence is the point in question. That's putting the cart before the horse.

hydrolythe said...

That's an interesting idea that I indeed did not take notice of. I do however have a problem with this idea and that is that the omnipotence paradox itself assumes the existence of an omnipotent being to prove that accepting the existence of such a being results in a contradiction. It's a classic reductio ad absurdum. Or am I missing something here? How would you redefine the omnipotence paradox in such a way that the definition of omnipotence comes before the attribution of omnipotence to a being?

AnticitizenX said...

"the omnipotence paradox itself assumes the existence of an omnipotent being to prove that accepting the existence of such a being results in a contradiction."

The omnipotence paradox does not assume the existence of omnipotence or omnipotent beings. It only presumes a definition for the word "omnipotence." The definition of omnipotence is typically given as:

Omnipotence: The capacity to perform all that is logically possible.

We then derive a contradiction from this definition. Nothing more. So if you're going to argue for or against omnipotence, you have to first propose a definition for that term.

hydrolythe said...

You're right. The omnipotence paradox does not imagine that an omnipotent being exists. All we have to do is him claim that he's omnipotent. I apologize for not realizing this sooner.

In hindisght I don't even have to assert that the engineer builds omnipotent machines. I can simply say that the builder builds machines and that we have to test whether or not these machines are omnipotent. I made a mistake in the Original premise by saying "Suppose for a moment that we have an engineer capable of building an omnipotent machine". I wanted to say "suppose we have an engineer who claims that his machines are omnipotent".

I present now to you the argument again in its retconned version:

Suppose we have an engineer who claims that his machines are omnipotent. You are a tester who has to test that claim. Now say to that engineer that it has to do the task for one of those machines to create a rock so heavy it can't lift it. If he creates one machine and it demonstrates that it can create a rock so heavy it can't lift it that machine's power is limited because it can't lift the rock. If it can lift it that machine's power is limited because it can't create a rock so heavy that it can't lift it.

Now we have N machines that are proven to be not omnipotent. We will now add a N+1th machine to the set and say to that N+1th machine that it should create a rock so heavy that the machine can't lift it. If the N+1th machine can lift the rock and the other N machines can or if it can't lift a rock the other N machines can't lift either we have conclusively proven that the machines are not omnipotent. If it is however the case that the N+1th machine can lift a rock so heavy that the other N machines can't lift it or if the N+1th machine can't lift a rock that the other N machines can we have conclusively proven that the machines are omnipotent.

In hindsight I do think this argument is flawed. The same line of reasoning can be used to claim that someone can create a married bachelor, but I just don't see where exactly where the fallacy lies. Can you help me out?

AnticitizenX said...

"You are a tester who has to test that claim"

I can't test for omnipotence if you do not tell me what omnipotence is supposed to be. What am I testing for? What properties must I measure before I can be satisfied that the machine is omnipotent? You are fixating on machines and rocks and lifting when you should be focused on the simple definition of that word.

hydrolythe said...

You're right. It does not prove that such a being is omnipotent. It merely proves that a set of machines can create a rock so heavy that they couldn't lift it and yet lift it. It does not prove omnipotence, it merely disproves the classic formulation of the paradox, if the logic would be correct.

I think I have to retcon it again:

Suppose we have an engineer who claims that his machines can create a rock so heavy that they can't lift it and can lift the same rock. You are a tester who has to test that claim. Now say to that engineer that it has to do the task for one of those machines to create a rock so heavy it can't lift it. If he creates one machine and it demonstrates that it can create a rock so heavy it can't lift it it can't lift the rock. If it can lift it it can't create a rock so heavy that it can't lift it.

Now we have N machines can't do this task. We will now add a N+1th machine to the set and say to that N+1th machine that it should create a rock so heavy that the machine can't lift it. If the N+1th machine can lift the rock and the other N machines can or if it can't lift a rock the other N machines can't lift either we have conclusively proven that the machines can't create a rock so heavy that they can't lift it and lift the same rock. If it is however the case that the N+1th machine can lift a rock so heavy that the other N machines can't lift it or if the N+1th machine can't lift a rock that the other N machines can we have conclusively proven that the machines can create a rock so heavy that they can't lift it and yet can lift the rock.

hydrolythe said...

I think I found the problem with this argument that tries to prove that the omnipotence paradox is not a paradox at all. It's that it tries to solve it using logic that's not used within framework of the paradox itself. The omnipotence paradox is written within the framework of binary logic. More specifically, it relies on the law of non-contradiction to work. When I used the idea of the machine that can't create a rock so heavy that they can't lift it it is analogous to supposing 2 real worlds where things in 1 world don't necessarily have to be true in the other. In world 1 the machine can't lift the rock it created and in world 2 the machine can lift the rock it created, therefore the omnipotence paradox doesn't apply to that situation. However, the logical rules in such a scenario would be vastly different from those in binary logic because they admit contradiction. Saying of an event that it happened in world 1 and didn't happen in world 2 is a fully valid sentence, even if it is at its core a contradiction.

Unknown said...

Hey can you make a in depth video of Thomas Aquinas five ways for the evidence of god which many apologetics (especially catholic which i use to be one) that is a combination of the Cosmological argument, Teleological Argument and Transcendental argument for God. For some reason that theist defend this argument to the grave and anybody that refute it on you tube like Milwaukee Atheist and Rationality Rules that in the comment section that they almost always say on the lines like you don't understand his argument/theology/definition and etc. and one comment said that all atheist and agnostic make this mistake and that is way they don't understand philosophy. Pleas read Thomas work Summa Theologica his point.

Alex0597 said...

Hydrolythe, I think you're trying to say that this engineer has built a set of machines that, when all their possible actions are summed together, consist of every logically possible action, thus making the set omnipotent by the disputed definition. If that's the case, then the flaw in your reasoning is that it doesn't test the maxhinma acting against one another. To reformulate the paradox, is the rock-making machine capable of making a rock so heavy that the rock-lifting machine can't lift it? Either way you answer, the machines aren't capable of doing the other, therefore that cannot do all that it logically possible.

I could be misunderstanding your analogy, though.

Unknown said...

Playing connect 4 goes against his essence, not because he can't do it but because IP's God would simply punch his opponent in the face.
The whole "creator of the universe" thesis pale in comparison to god's mighty knuckles