Nature of Power

[Hidden]

Is there any sense to the question: Can an omnipotent being create a rock s/he cannot lift? Leave out all religious considerations, any other characteristic of gods or the like, and just consider this as a question on the nature of power.

[Aucune Raison]

We're talking about OMNIPOTENT here. If the being in question is incapable of something, it is therefor not so.

[ikkuh2]

Wth does this have to do with nature, these are just useless semantics.

[Hidden]

Originally Posted by ikkuh2

Wth does this have to do with nature, these are just useless semantics.

This is how I thought of the question for a long time, but I'm not so sure. Does the question really end at:

Originally Posted by Ragione

We're talking about OMNIPOTENT here. If the being in question is incapable of something, it is therefor not so.

Consider: what precisely is it that the omnipotent being cannot do?

[ikkuh2]

I just don't see any use i pondering these kind of things, they don't lead to much and are much of an i'm right debate.

[Chevalier Sombre]

Consider: what precisely is it that the omnipotent being cannot do?

Anything that isn't possible within the real of logic.

Then again, the omnipotent being might very well escape any form of logic we try to use.

[Grace Assassin]

A question such as "Can an omnipotent being create a rock s/he cannot lift?" is an issue of semantics and logic. An omnipotent being could not create a rock which it could not lift. Said being is supposed to be "all powerful" not in the sense that it can "do anything" but in its ability to do anything intrinsically possible.

Let's take another statement to mind: Can an omnipotent being create a circular square? (The following is going to be difficult to understand so it may take some time to sink in, thought I'll try to convey it as best I can).

You might argue that if the being is only capable of doing what is possible, then it is not truly omnipotent. But you're looking at it in the context as if the "impossible" (the circular square) was a tangible "something" in non-existence. It's similar to how the human mind interprets "nothing" or other incomprehensible concepts such as "infinity." When you think of nothing, you don't actually think of nothing, you think of the absence of something (which you may identify as space, whiteness, etc). We see that circular square as a something that is not (since that is how our brains interpret the concept) when it is actually just two contradictory concepts meshed through the power of semantics (a circle + a square = a circular square). To say, then, that an omnipotent being can do the impossible is illogically based on a preconceived notion. The question itself is just utter nonsense.

Now, if you want to try the omnibenevolent card, that would be a different story.

[Hollow Bastion]

Can an omnipotent being remove its own omnipotence?

[Hidden]

Originally Posted by Chevalier Sombre

Anything that isn't possible within the real of logic.

Then again, the omnipotent being might very well escape any form of logic we try to use.

Originally Posted by Grace Assassin

A question such as "Can an omnipotent being create a rock s/he cannot lift?" is an issue of semantics and logic. An omnipotent being could not create a rock which it could not lift. Said being is supposed to be "all powerful" not in the sense that it can "do anything" but in its ability to do anything intrinsically possible.

Let's take another statement to mind: Can an omnipotent being create a circular square? (The following is going to be difficult to understand so it may take some time to sink in, thought I'll try to convey it as best I can).

You might argue that if the being is only capable of doing what is possible, then it is not truly omnipotent. But you're looking at it in the context as if the "impossible" (the circular square) was a tangible "something" in non-existence. It's similar to how the human mind interprets "nothing" or other incomprehensible concepts such as "infinity." When you think of nothing, you don't actually think of nothing, you think of the absence of something (which you may identify as space, whiteness, etc). We see that circular square as a something that is not (since that is how our brains interpret the concept) when it is actually just two contradictory concepts meshed through the power of semantics (a circle + a square = a circular square). To say, then, that an omnipotent being can do the impossible is illogically based on a preconceived notion. The question itself is just utter nonsense.

Now, if you want to try the omnibenevolent card, that would be a different story.

These both present a very interesting argument, though one that I hadn't intended to go into. I will thus limit myself to one question in response--is omnipotence itself logically incoherent?

Originally Posted by Hollow Bastion

Can an omnipotent being remove its own omnipotence?

Here is the seed of the question. It takes us directly into the nature of power.

I would only rephrase it thus: can an omnipotent being limit itself?

[Charlie]

Is there any sense to the question: Can an omnipotent being create a rock s/he cannot lift?

I'll take a crack at this and say -
Yes.

An omnipotent being would be able to remove that omnipotence because its power is limitless. So in that sense, it would also be able to strip away that godly quality because the only thing that can 'control' that being, is itself.

That omnipotence is a flexible force. There's no outside entity that can restrict it.
A solid 'yes' because it can change the range of its power. So if that being wants to try on a day where it can't lift something, for the hell of it - then the being's submission to that is under its strict control.

[Hidden]

Originally Posted by Square Ninja

y halo thar sophism

Not entirely. To continue...

Originally Posted by Vodka

I'll take a crack at this and say -
Yes.

An omnipotent being would be able to remove that omnipotence because its power is limitless. So in that sense, it would also be able to strip away that godly quality because the only thing that can 'control' that being, is itself.

That omnipotence is a flexible force. There's no outside entity that can restrict it.
A solid 'yes' because it can change the range of its power. So if that being wants to try on a day where it can't lift something, for the hell of it - then the being's submission to that is under its strict control.

An interesting response, though I differ from it on a number of points.

The first confusion has been touched upon by Chevalier Sombre, Grace Assassin, and Blueman: an omnipotent being is not logically coherent. We cannot comprehend or discuss such a being (so yes, it is semantics and it is sophism up to this point). It would be worthwhile to ask why we cannot discuss any being as omnipotent, so hopefully we'll come back to that point.

What we can discuss is the nature of power, even up to the point we would call omnipotence. Omnipotence is power without limit. You (Vodka) bring up an excellent point of definition when you say "There's no outside entity that can restrict it"--more to the point, there is no 'outside' entity at all, nothing that does not fall under its power. This is why the rock that cannot be lifted can't be introduced into the system; it would exist outside of that power, thus disqualifying it as omnipotence.

Here is how I claim this isn't sophism: I say all power moves only toward its own increase, 'aspires' in fact to omnipotence. Power is a system that does not/"cannot" limit itself (hence the omnipotent being cannot create a rock it cannot lift). And this power is something we are confronted with and must deal with at every given moment, from our government to our own survival; it's something we need to understand.

[Charlie]

What we can discuss is the nature of power, even up to the point we would call omnipotence. Omnipotence is power without limit. You (Vodka) bring up an excellent point when you say "There's no outside entity that can restrict it"--more to the point, there is no 'outside' entity at all, nothing that does not fall under its power. This is why the rock that cannot be lifted can't be introduced into the system; it would exist outside of that power, thus disqualifying it as omnipotence

Then in that sense, wouldn't the omnipotent being merely destroy itself?
Since there isn't anything that can restrict its power, or reduce it - Then that omnipotence (while trying to find a method to test a way to restrict itself) might destroy itself in the process.

In essence, its invincible.
Yet that invincibility would only apply to outside entities.
And that self control would only be penetrated from within.

I think that its a shot in the dark, response wise.
But I think that the 'nature' of power isn't only that its eternally desirable, but can only be limited by the person/entity that bears it.

[Hidden]

Originally Posted by Vodka

Then in that sense, wouldn't the omnipotent being merely destroy itself?
Since there isn't anything that can restrict its power, or reduce it - Then that omnipotence (while trying to find a method to test a way to restrict itself) might destroy itself in the process.

In essence, its invincible.
Yet that invincibility would only apply to outside entities.
And that self control would only be penetrated from within.

I think that its a shot in the dark, response wise.
But I think that the 'nature' of power isn't only that its eternally desirable, but can only be limited by the person/entity that bears it.

Though I started this thread with a question about an omnipotent being, we cannot really continue thinking in personal terms--desire, intention, self-control as we would apply them to persons. Power as we are discussing it here is absolutely impersonal--it is a system that disregards any human characteristics, disregards the very individuals who employ it and imagine themselves its 'possessors'.

Consider power in the same impersonal terms you would consider profit. It is a self-continuing system, one that people tap into to various ends, but the raison d'etre of the system itself is only its own increase. An individual may limit the extent of his own profit, true--but at that point, he has removed himself from that system; he is no longer engaged in making a profit.

Same with the individual in a position of power--he is only "in power" so long as he continues to do what is necessary to remain in power, so long as he continues to work within that system; this is the basic premise of Machiavelli's "The Prince". What I put forward is the idea that this system is not one that limits itself; power continuously moves to exceed itself, to exceed all limits. And yet we entrust ourselves to these 'limits' on a daily basis.

You bring up the point also of what 'omnipotence' would entail--in truth, it is another concept we cannot grasp; we can move infinitely close 'up to' that point, but we never arrive at it. For a very intriguing glimpse of how close we can get, however, I would turn to Orwell's 1984. I find Orwell's perceptions of power incredibly sharp and frightening.

[Q]

if there is a possibility of a rock beyond the limit of that being's power though, wouldn't that make the being not omnipotent

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by Ragione

We're talking about OMNIPOTENT here. If the being in question is incapable of something, it is therefor not so.

Well, wouldn't the being be able to create say, a pebble, and then render it's strength to that of a bacteria? It fits the quota, but is done on its own will, therefore allows it to still be omnipotent.

Or, more accurately, the being can create that rock that it cannot lift in its current state, but just as easily make itself able to lift it. Therefore, it can infinitely make the rock too heavy and itself strong enough to lift the rock.