Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Some Clarifications for Steven Carr

Steven Carr: No, the whole point is that 'the power of omnipotence' is a meaningless phrase indicating the total lack of thought that has gone into working out your views.
Apparently, any being other than a god can only win a chess game by playing better moves than his opponent, while in contrast, a god wins chess games by a different method - namely the power of omnipotence.
VR: Actually, it depends on what you want explained. Winning a chess game involves making better moves than one's opponent, granted. But now if we ask "OK, I have the scoresheet, and I know what God did to win the game. But how in the world did he figure out what the best moves were?" we would be ignoring God's omniscience.
Similarly, we might get a good deal more detail about what happened when God raised Jesus from the dead. A Laplacean demon might know in detail what all the physical, chemical, and biological changes were that brought Jesus back to life. That would identify in more detail what the miracle was. But, if we then ask "OK, I see all that, but isn't that impossible given the laws of physics, so how did God do that?" then it seems the interlocutor is simply forgetting that God, ex hypothesi, is omnipotent, and has the power to create the laws of physics or to produce effects that are not possible given the laws of physics, and we would be gratuitously presupposing naturalism, which is precisely what is at issue between the defender of miracles and the opponent of miracles.


16 comments:

William said...

From Star Trek (TV series, 2)


Data: "Can you recommend a way to counter the effect?"
Q: "Simple. Change the gravitational constant of the universe."
LaForge: "What?"
Q: "Change the gravitational constant of the universe, thereby
altering the mass of the asteroid."
LaForge: "Redefine gravity. And how am I supposed to do
that?"
Q: "You just do it! Ow! Where's that doctor anyway?"
Data: "Geordi is trying to say that changing the gravitational
constant of the universe is beyond our capabilities."
Q: "Oh. Well, in that case, never mind."
--"Deja Q"

jdhuey said...

In reading over the last couple of discussions I have performed two alternate mental substitutions whenever the concept of omnipotence (or omniscience) came up: 1.) substitute the phrase "I haven't the foggiest idea" and 2.) use the word "Magic" instead.

(And by "Magic", I don't mean the real magic that stage magicians use I mean the fake magic that witches, warlocks, fairies, genies, etc. use.)

Now whenever I did either one of those substitutions, I could not distinguish any difference in the meaning of the original statement. Except that with substitution number 1, I felt that the revised statements were just more honest.

Crude said...

Now whenever I did either one of those substitutions, I could not distinguish any difference in the meaning of the original statement.

I'll help you out.

Omnipotence is a fundamental property in this case. It's not something that you get as a result of doing X or Y - whereas magic involves exactly that. It's closer to, but obviously different from, fundamental physical explanations. Maybe you believe those amount to "I haven't the foggiest idea" as well.

Also, you said you used a substitution and could see no difference. So you think that witches, warlocks, fairies and genies are regarded as omnipotent, then?

jdhuey said...

I think of Gravity as a fundamental property (of matter). Now, with Newtonian physics there is absolutely no attempt to determine exactly what the essence of Gravity is, only a description of how it works. So, we have no attempt to determine what the nature of the ‘Force’ is, we get only a description of its effects on matter, the famous vector equation F=ma. However, with these descriptive equations there is a great deal of detail that can be deduced and predicted about how things will behave and that constitutes a satisfying explanation.

Now compare Gravity to Omnipotence: like with Gravity there is no attempt to determine exactly what Omnipotence is; however, unlike with Gravity there is no description of how it supposedly works. With omnipotence there is no ability to deduce or predict what effect it will have – this is because anything and everything can supposedly happen because of Omnipotence. The inability to predict or deduce effects is tantamount to not having the foggiest notion. And that is why Omnipotence does not constitute a satisfying explanation. That explanation simply pretends to have an insight that it simply doesn’t have.

I’ll grant that most descriptions of Magic incorporate some type of limitation on what can be done with that Magic (or how to get it) but honestly, that is because Magic with unlimited capabilities makes for a boring story. So, in what way is Omnipotence different than unlimited Magic?

Crude said...

However, with these descriptive equations there is a great deal of detail that can be deduced and predicted about how things will behave and that constitutes a satisfying explanation.

It's a satisfying explanation of everything but the very thing we're discussing to begin with - which is, the fundamental property itself.

You're making it sound as if it's non-problematic for there to exist fundamental properties - but only if there's some kind of pragmatic, predictable utility that comes with their existence. That's a non-sequitur. If you accept fundamental properties, period - if it doesn't matter how gravity 'does what it does', just that it does it - then there's no problem to speak of with omnipotence. At best there's a complaint that this doesn't help with any pragmatic predictability. But who cares?

Now compare Gravity to Omnipotence: like with Gravity there is no attempt to determine exactly what Omnipotence is; however, unlike with Gravity there is no description of how it supposedly works

There's no description of how gravity supposedly works either. There's a description of what it does - but HOW it does what it does is entirely opaque. It Just Does. Period. It's a fundamental force. (Well, you know, some people argue it's not - whatever, it works for our purposes here.)

The inability to predict or deduce effects is tantamount to not having the foggiest notion.

Not really, or at least not in a relevant sense. If the whole complaint reduces to 'There's no way to scientifically predict the efforts of an omnipotent God!', I think we can file this away as uninteresting.

I suppose I could make things more interesting and note that the standard operations of the physical world (such as what we call gravity) would be one more effect of an omnipotent, omniscient God - and if that constitutes some kind of explanation, well, it seems like omnipotence is an explanation even by your (as I argue, failed) standard. At worst, it's an incomplete description.

Nothing wrong with that.

but honestly, that is because Magic with unlimited capabilities makes for a boring story.

It's more that 'magic' is a word that doesn't mean anything at all, other than a few mental associations (It's what Harry Potter does!) and being derogatory. I think naturalistic worlds - complete with brute facts, expressly without explanation - is vastly more magical than the God of either classical theism or theistic personalism.

So, in what way is Omnipotence different than unlimited Magic?

Already explained. In what way is magic different from brute facts?

B. Prokop said...

jdhuey,

I have no problem with someone labeling something "magic", as long as that label does not carry along with it extra, unwarranted baggage (such as "impossible"). So before you think you've made some kind of argument (or even statement) here, you must define your terms.

As it is, I do not know whether you regard magic as by definition non-existent.

Crude said...

Bob,

I have no problem with someone labeling something "magic", as long as that label does not carry along with it extra, unwarranted baggage (such as "impossible").

That's the whole point of it. It's practically contentless aside from 'impossible' or 'ridiculous' or 'incredible' or the like. If it were something else - 'very counterintuitive', 'fundamental, having no apparent physical explanation', etc - then we'd likely be forced to say that magic exists, or that evidence points to it existing, or... etc.

Which I bet *you* are fine with, and *I* would be fine with to a point because I have a sense of humor. But then we'd need another derogatory word to apply to broad claims we dislike.

B. Prokop said...

I normally use "magic" in a quite positive sense. For instance, say I've just listened to a particularly beautiful piece of music, and I'll call it "pure magic". The word possesses no negative connotations to me.

jdhuey said...

@B. Prokop

Well, for the purpose of this discussion I wanted to use the term in its negative and derogatory sense.

B. Prokop said...

Sorry to hear that.

jdhuey said...

@B. Prokop

Yes, I do maintain that the only real magic is the fake magic that stage magicians use. Although, like you, whenever someone does something particularly well, I will use the term "magic" as a compliment. But that is not the intended usage here.

B. Prokop said...

Then what you have done (in your original posting) is argument by definition, i.e., you have merely defined your position to be correct. Very unconvincing.

jdhuey said...

It's a satisfying explanation of everything but the very thing we're discussing to begin with - which is, the fundamental property itself.

You're making it sound as if it's non-problematic for there to exist fundamental properties - but only if there's some kind of pragmatic, predictable utility that comes with their existence. That's a non-sequitur. If you accept fundamental properties, period - if it doesn't matter how gravity 'does what it does', just that it does it - then there's no problem to speak of with omnipotence. At best there's a complaint that this doesn't help with any pragmatic predictability. But who cares?


Well, physicists do spend a great deal of effort trying to get rid of things that are considered ‘fundamental’, so I don’t know if ‘non-problematic’ is the precise concept to apply but for the most part fundamental properties are not a problem given that you have a good handle on how those properties behave. Also, it is not really a question of pragmatism or utility (that is just a bonus) but predictability is key. Predictability is central to the entire enterprise of science to function. And I do see that as the basic problem with the concept of omnipotence. Even if omnipotence actually existed, there would be no way to predict how it would function in any particular circumstance.


There's no description of how gravity supposedly works either. There's a description of what it does - but HOW it does what it does is entirely opaque. It Just Does. Period. It's a fundamental force. (Well, you know, some people argue it's not - whatever, it works for our purposes here.)

Yup. I got a bit sloppy with the semantics. The distinction that I was trying for is that in the case of Gravity as a fundamental force we have a very good description of what it does – the bending of Spacetime in General Relativity or the generation of an attractive force in Newtonian physics. No such description of Omnipotence does or, I suspect, can exists.


Not really, or at least not in a relevant sense. If the whole complaint reduces to 'There's no way to scientifically predict the efforts of an omnipotent God!', I think we can file this away as uninteresting.

Actually, I agree but I think we mean two very different things. Given that even the existence of an omnipotent God is not demonstrated, and given that ‘There’s no way to scientifically predict the efforts of an omnipotent God (even if one existed)’ then as an explanation for anything the omnipotent God is indeed uninteresting. As others have said, there is no content there.


Already explained. In what way is magic different from brute facts?

I don’t know for sure, but it seems to me that with a brute fact of nature (e.g. mass bends Spacetime), there is always the hope that some new scientific insight or discovery will convert that brute fact into a deeper understanding. Magic and omnipotence offer no such prospect

Crude said...

Well, physicists do spend a great deal of effort trying to get rid of things that are considered ‘fundamental’, so I don’t know if ‘non-problematic’ is the precise concept to apply but for the most part fundamental properties are not a problem given that you have a good handle on how those properties behave.

No, you don't. You actually have zero idea of how a fundamental property does what it does. Again, that's that relevant point of reference here: you may explain the effects ascribed to a fundamental property. How the fundamental property, at the basic level, does what it does is itself unexplained.

Which, again, means that omnipotence as being discussed here comes out just fine as a concept. Now, that doesn't mean an omnipotent being exists, or that an omnipotent being can't be reasoned to with arguments, evidence, etc. It just means the particular argument you're going for here, fails.

Predictability is central to the entire enterprise of science to function.

Well, then it's a good thing science is non-exhaustive, has a limited scope, and that other methods of inquiry are entirely valid even if they aren't science.

The distinction that I was trying for is that in the case of Gravity as a fundamental force we have a very good description of what it does

Great. Again, so what? This just means that there's zero problem with not knowing 'how' an omnipotent being does what they do, even by your standards. Your complaint is that there is no 'science of the omnipotent', in essence. But who said there was, and why should we expect there to be?

Actually, I agree but I think we mean two very different things.

If you want to pretend that no statement is meaningful unless it can be scientifically tested and demonstrated, feel free. Positivism remains in vogue among a certain class of atheists who aren't all that concerned about consistency and reasoning - rather small in number, but you'll find comrades in your religion on the internet pretty easily.

I don’t know for sure, but it seems to me that with a brute fact of nature (e.g. mass bends Spacetime), there is always the hope that some new scientific insight or discovery will convert that brute fact into a deeper understanding.

So, brute facts aren't magical because you have blind faith in the possibility that they will be dispelled - in favor of yet more brute facts?

It looks like naturalism is vastly more magical than theism.

Papalinton said...

Be mindful jdhuey you are not conversing with people that value or recognise the difference between reality and mythology. They are people that imagine a 3-day old putrescent corpse revivified, ate, drank and headed a talkfest with a few mates, actually occurred, as a matter of demonstrable fact.

Omnipotence a fundamental property? Sheesh! A fundamental property of what?

Crude said...

As always, be mindful that Linton plagiarizes and copy-pastes words, passing them off as is own, to pretend he knows about what he does not. And he's a noted defender of Richard Dawkins, apologist of mild child pedophilia.

There, I rounded out your resume, Linny. ;)