the default claim for God's existence...

[Yasa]

Please note that it's the potential that defines the limit to it's power, not what it will do.

[Kamehameha34]

Yet what "they could not attain" does not exist if potential infinite wants defines the limit to it's power.

Is it possible for a being to never want something?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Is it possible for a being to never want something? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

Yes, quite possible I suppose.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Yasa Yes, quite possible I suppose.

So is it possible for a god to never want something?

[Yasa]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 So is it possible for a god to never want something?

Possible yes, but the future has not happened, and thus potential still exists.

[Kamehameha34]

Possible yes

So, for those gods, they would have an incidental limit on what they want - correct?

and thus potential still exists.

You're assuming that this kind of "god" title is static.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 So, for those gods, they would have an incidental limit on what they want - correct?

Yeah, but you have to tell me that in order to rule out infinite potential wants--do you agree?

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You're assuming that this kind of "god" title is static.

What do you mean?

[Yasa]

Just agree that you need to tell me the limitations of your god(s) wants or else it is assumed that wants that are subject to change have the potential for infinite (even if they in fact don't surpase a certain limit, the potential still exists unless otherwise stated).

If you agree, then I agree your god(s) is not omnipotent, and cannot be claimed by default to be false.

[Kamehameha34]

Yeah, but you have to tell me that in order to rule out infinite potential wants--do you agree?

No. What I'm specifying is that "some gods can do whatever they want", not "all of "X" kind of gods can do what they want".

When I say "some", if it is true for any gods then my statement is correct.


This is pointless, anyway. This started as a question for why you would only consider omnipotent beings as "gods".

[Yasa]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No. What I'm specifying is that "some gods can do whatever they want"

Some gods can do whatever they want, so long as those wants don't exceed a limit. Such as, the want to defy the laws of physics, just like you claimed. If you leave your claim as is, those "some gods" are considered omnipotent because of one thing: potential. They may not ever want to break the laws of physics, but because we didn't put a limit on what they want (or ever could want), it's always a potential.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 This started as a question for why you would only consider omnipotent beings as "gods".

I don't consider any gods personally. However, many theists believe in omnipotent gods, something I am debating.

[Kamehameha34]

If you leave your claim as is, those "some gods" are considered omnipotent because of one thing..

No. "Some" denotes an unnamed category. You couldn't derive omnipotence from that, because you'd be assuming that the gods specified in the statement would want something that requires omnipotence.

"Potential" has nothing to do with it.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 "Potential" has nothing to do with it.

See, now we are getting somewhere. I strongly disagree. If I have the potential to do anything, my powers would be considered infinite (omnipotent). The president does not have to apply every power/right he has in order to be the president, the fact that he has the potential to apply presidential powers makes him the president.

[Kamehameha34]

If I have the potential to do anything, my powers would be considered infinite (omnipotent).

I didn't say they had the potential to do anything. I said they had the potential to do anything they wanted.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I didn't say they had the potential to do anything. I said they had the potential to do anything they wanted.

And I'm repeating myself when I say that what they want has the potential to be anything unless you describe the restrictions (such as will never want to break the laws of physics).

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Yasa And I'm repeating myself when I say that what they want has the potential to be anything unless you describe the restrictions (such as will never want to break the laws of physics).

And I'm repeating myself when I say that there's no need to specify those restrictions because of the placement of "some" at the beginning of the claim.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 And I'm repeating myself when I say that there's no need to specify those restrictions because of the placement of "some" at the beginning of the claim.

"Some gods have the power to do whatever they want." Meaning, not all gods have the power to do whatever they want. We still assume omnipotence for the gods that do have such a power, unless it's clarified that those wants have limitations (IE the god will never want to break the laws of physics). If you don't state it, it's safe to assume that the potential of that god's wants is infinite. Admit that claiming to have the power to do whatever one wants implies omnipotence.

[Kamehameha34]

If you don't state it, it's safe to assume that the potential of that god's wants is infinite.

No. It isn't.

If I were to write a proof, "A god could not accomplish something in contradiction to the laws of physics" would be the supressed premise.

There's no agnostic position, in this. It is possible for a god to go from it's conception to the end of its existence without wanting that which is beyond its ability. The gods that do so fit in this category. Those that don't, don't fit.

There's no "potential" for anything. That's just a word to account for our inability to predict anything to a 100% degree of certainty.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It is possible for a god to go from it's conception to the end of its existence without wanting that which is beyond its ability.

How do you define the limit of it's ability? Earlier you defined the limit of it's ability/power as "whatever it wants". Sure, it's possible for a god to never want to break the laws of physics, but if you don't state what the limits of it's wants are, they are assumed to have potential to be anything.

I can have whatever I want.

The previous sentence implies omnipotence because I have not set limits to my wants. Those wants are subject to change. They may in fact have limits, but since I did not state them, they are assumed to have the potential to be anything (infinite). I don't understand how you can deny such logic.

In order for the sentence to not imply omnipotence, you must write is in a similar way to this:

I can have whatever I want so long as I don't want anything that will violate existing proven laws (such as the laws of physics).

Notice how I added a limitation--something needed for people to understand that it is not omnipotent.

[Kamehameha34]

How do you define the limit of it's ability? Earlier you defined the limit of it's ability/power as "whatever it wants". Sure, it's possible for a god to never want to break the laws of physics, but if you don't state what the limits of it's wants are, they are assumed to have potential to be anything.

No. That is untrue, for the reasons I posted in the post you quoted.

If I were to write a proof, "A god could not accomplish something in contradiction to the laws of physics" would be the supressed premise. There's no agnostic position, in this. It is possible for a god to go from it's conception to the end of its existence without wanting that which is beyond its ability. The gods that do so fit in this category. Those that don't, don't fit. There's no "potential" for anything. That's just a word to account for our inability to predict anything to a 100% degree of certainty.

I'm not going to keep going in circles.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 There's no "potential" for anything.

Then you need to say that in the original statement.

If someone says to you "do whatever you want" why is it not assumed that those wants could be anything?

Honestly, I don't really understand your defense to this. Could you please elaborate and describe how the statement "power to do whatever you want" doesn't imply omnipotence. You either need to add "at a certain time" or "as long as your wants..." to negate the statement from implying omnipotence.

Like you said, let's not go in circles, so I'd like one last solid, detailed description of your argument against this. Start from the beginning of why you don't have to claim your god's wants limitation.

Another question would be, how should I adjust the statement "I have the power to do whatever I want" to imply omnipotence if it doesn't already?