-1

I read Peter Geach's Omnipotence paper.

He said about distinguish Omnipotence two ways.

One. Omnipotence is God can't logically impossible.

Two. He made word(or Descarte made it) Absolute Omnipotence is Logically Impossible Can do Literally Anything.

So Here is question,

How is this possible.

Some philosophers and Religeon related people said Omnipotence Can't do logically Impossible.

But Omnipotence is Can do Anything (I thought is this Can do Anything even Impossible things)

  1. Omnipotence Can't Logically Impossible??

  2. Was Descarte made a new word Absolute Omnipotence??

  3. Later People Can make new word More Powerful than Omnipotence?

Improve this question
5
  • Omnipotence=can do Everything. Thus Everything can be done, i.e. can "happen". Thus, Everything is Possible, also "Logical Impossible"... we have an issue.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    May 10, 2022 at 14:06
  • See the article on omnipotence in the SEP. They go over a tendency now to parse omnipotence as maximal power instead of "all" power. Regarding "all power," one might think, "The sum of all powers," or, "Power over all things." It is that last one, "Power over all things," that leads people to debate God having power over logic, and hence to the dissolute idea of collapsing possibility and impossibility into each other, in the divine nature.
    – Kristian Berry
    May 10, 2022 at 15:37
  • The risk is to play with words... If we read "[God] Can do Literally Anything" at face value, we may conclude that God can annihilate itself. But God is "eternal and [has ] necessary existence".
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    May 10, 2022 at 16:29
  • I don't know how to reply. But Omni meaning is All. Then how can be Philosophers make sense that word Omnipotent(All-powerful) to Maximum Powerful? Is that no make sense to Language Logical.
    – Omnipotent
    May 11, 2022 at 1:24
  • Can you provide a cite to the Peter Geach paper?
    – Mark Andrews
    May 12, 2022 at 22:40

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
-1

I don't know how to comment, so I write here.

First Question: God can do anything" isn't "bad", it is FALSE. how can be False? Well, God is not Omnipotent make sense, but GOD is Omnipotent and Omnipotent meaning is Can do anything by Most dictionaries.

Yes, true is Language just not have one meaning, but strictly word is chair can't replace word table.

All is not Max, and Max is not All.

So I think Omni can't be replace word max. Maxpotent is not Omnipotent.

Second Question: I read today Peter Geach paper Omnipotence, and he said Descarte argue about Absolute Omnipotence( I saw first time this word).

But actually I can't find any he written that word in Descarte Paper.

especially, Many wiki sites wrote this word in meditations on first philosophy.

So I read it, and I can't find at all that word,

Conclusion is Peter Geach Misunderstood the word Absolute Omnipotence or is that really Descarte said? or not?

Improve this answer
-1

The first point to realize is that there are multiple meanings to every word in natural language, not just one.

The second is to realize that a definition of God, is a claim about the world, and that claim is testable, and refutable. And one of the most powerful tests, and refutations, in philosophy, is to show logical contradictions.

The definition "God can do anything" leads to contradictions. The most well known is "can God make a rock too heavy for Him to lift?". Either "yes" or "No" leads to a refutation of the claim in the definition.

"God can do anything" isn't "bad", it is FALSE.

Falsified claims about our world can be patched. That is what Peter Geach tried to do, with his proposed different definition of God. What his definition does, is assume that logic is prior to God, and cannot be violated by God. So God is all powerful, within the limits of logic.

This definition too has problems. It assumes there is a One True Logic to the universe. But logicians don't think that is true. They think there are multiple logics, and different logics apply to different parts of our world. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/abs/guide-to-logical-pluralism-for-nonlogicians/EDFDFA1C9EB65DB71848DABD6B12D877 So the assumption in this definition by Peter Geach is false as well.

An alternate definition could be that God is sufficiently powerful to have created this universe. Our universe is not infinite, so God need not be, for God to be a creator of everything. This alternate definition also gets one out of the problems with infinities that mess up the "God can do anything" definition, and also the problems which plural logic provides for "God can do anything except for what logic prohibits". And fits the bill for what monotheists need a Creator God to do.

Three prior questions on this subject include potentially useful answers as well:

Can strong omnipotence be decomposed into logically possible and logically impossible aspects?

Problems with the Omnipotence paradox

Can someone explain omnipotence to me?

Improve this answer
1
  • Is this too too short so I wrote up there.
    – Omnipotent
    May 11, 2022 at 13:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .