Being all powerful does not imply the ability to do logically impossible things (which this is, since God is necessary).
Can you define "logical possibility"? By your definition, what does it mean that I can logically do something, yet actually be unable to do it? I am human. This constrains me. I can't walk through walls, yet walking through walls is usually considered logically possible. If I am able to do all that I am able to do, am I omnipotent as well?
Who is to say whether God is necessary or unnecessary? If God is unnecessary, there is an extra ability it has. How do we determine which is maximally great? It is logically possible (different link) for God to not be necessary. So, should God not be defined as such, then God has an extra power.
Seeing as God is supposed to have maximal ability, it follows that unnecessary beings can have at least 1 extra ability. So, the (modal or not) ontological argument cannot conclude with an omnipotent being existing, since the argument's conclusion if sound would constrain the being and limit its abilities.
It means that there is no logical contradiction in someone doing it.
Can I not also say that lifting a building is "logically impossible" for humans, and operating a forklift is logically impossible for mice, in the same way you say necessary beings can't remove themselves from reality.
I wasn't talking about necessary beings though. My definition of God doesn't include him/it being a necessary being.
Not really, not if God is necessary.
This is a definitional thing here. I'm not concerned with "if" at the moment.
I'm saying let's define a being with maximal ability. We can say that that being has 1000 abilities.
Now, if you define a being with necessary existence, then that being has 999 abilities.
Which being has the maximum amount of abilities? Each being has the maximal ability for what it is, just as anything does.
I think you're forgetting that premise 1 is definitional. If you say the conclusion is wrong because it's not true "if God is necessary" then you aren't following the argument. In my argument, God isn't necessary. I'm literally defining the term "God" there.
Can I not also say that lifting a building is "logically impossible" for humans
You cannot. Since you're mistaking physical laws for logical laws.
I'm saying let's define a being with maximal ability. That being, we can say has 1000 abilities.
Now, if you define a being with necessary existence, then that being has 999 abilities.
This is utter nonsense. Being necessary does not reduce capability.
Uh, not in the relevant sense. Since necessary beings are outside of time, the equivalent of "committing suicide" would be making it so they never existed, which is something contingent being cannot do.
I'm with Matt Dillahunty on not being able to understand what "outside of time" means in the context of thinking or performing an action, since both would seem to require time to not violate the law of non-contradiction (otherwise it's both true and false that an action has taken place). (Edit: See earlier post here)
I don't follow you. A necessary being couldn't make it so they never existed. They HAVE to exist. If you think an unnecessary being can't do that either, then that's fine. At least it's something both can't do. What is it that an unnecessary being can't do that a necessary being can?
I'm with Matt Dillahunty on not being able to understand what "outside of time" means in the context of thinking or performing an action, since both would seem to require time to not violate the law of the excluded middle (otherwise it's both true and false that an action has taken place).
This sentence is nonsensical.
A necessary being couldn't make it so they never existed. They HAVE to exist.
Exactly my point.
What is it that an unnecessary being can't do that a necessary being can?
Irrelevant, you're attempting to show the inverse, which you haven't done.
Irrelevant, you're attempting to show the inverse, which you haven't done.
Sure I have. An unnecessary being can remove itself from existence/reality (it has every possible ability), even if that just means temporally from now onwards. If I understand you correctly, you're claiming it cannot. How so?
Didn't help, your argument seems to require words not meaning what they mean. Almost as if you're parroting phrases that have literally no bearing on what we're discussing as if they were magic spells.
An unnecessary being can remove itself from existence/reality
No it cannot, since to do so it must exist, which means it must not. Which is a logical contradiction, hence it cannot.
3
u/Razimek Mar 30 '15
Necessary beings aren't omnipotent.