Does "the power to do whatever I want" imply omnipotence?

[Yasa]

I'm going to be straight up. Me and Kame have been debating whether or not it does for like 6 pages in the thread "deafault claim for gods existence..."

I would like everyone's imput as to whether the statement "I have the power to do whatever I want" implies omnipotence.

I claim that it most certainly does unless we define limits to the wants. Without clarification of their restrictions, it is most definitely assumed that wants have the potential to be anything. In other words, if I have the power to do what I want, and my wants have the potential to be anything, I would therefore have the power to do anything (omnipotence). Please note that just because I have the potential to want anything, doesn't mean that I will. It's that potential that gives me unlimited power.

What do you guys think?

[Epistemologist]

I think they may not be the same. Even if I have the potential to do anything, my potential may be less than that of a more powerful entity. And that entity's potential may be less than another, and so on, until we reach a theoretical infinite potential called omnipotence.

While I have the potential to engage in sexual relations with men, I would most likely not operate on that potential because of intrinsic considerations of my own direction in life; a gay man has much more potential for this action than me corresponding to his larger possession of mechanisms for satisfying that potential (i.e. his gayness). And so, in the practical sense, wants, as alluded to by your statement "the power to do whatever I want," are naturally limited.

I think an omnipotent individual would have the maximum potential for all possible courses of action. While I don't have much potential for relations with other men, I have much more potential for relations with women than the gay man does. The omnipotent individual, though, has the max potential for relations with both. Of course, that individual may not act on all these potentials (i.e. would not necessarily be bisexual).

But if we go along with an axiomatic definition of wants as being unlimited, then yes, "the power to do whatever I want" would be the same as omnipotence. However, I truly doubt that definition.

[Kamehameha34]

Y >= X

What you're claiming is that Y must equal infinity for that equation to work at all.

That's not true, because X can equal any number of values less than infinity.

[Kamehameha34]

What I've been saying amounts to a proof, as follows-

1. Some possible gods would never want what is beyond their ability. (Premise)
2. Some possible gods would be able to provide for themselves whatever they want.


What you've been saying is that I need to state the first premise, or the second one is false.

I've demonstrated that to be false, because the phrase "some gods" could refer to any segment of possible gods. In this case, it refers to only the gods that the premise is true for.

You don't understand that, as the person who made that statement, it is up to me to decide which gods I'm referring to when I say "some gods". It's clearly defined which gods I'm referring to, given our shared view of omnipotence as physically impossible, with my statement that "some gods can provide whatever they want".

[Yasa]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Y >= X What you're claiming is that Y must equal infinity for that equation to work at all. That's not true, because X can equal any number of values less than infinity.

And this is claiming that infinity is an obtainable number. I'm saying the power must be infinite (un-obtainable, undefined) so that it can encompass any potential value of X. Until X is defined (which as epist said is probably naturally limited) it still has the potential for anything. It may very well be limited naturally, but until we say that it is, we can't assume so. Saying "some gods" doesn't tell us that those gods do in fact have natural limitations to those wants.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 What I've been saying amounts to a proof, as follows- 1. Some possible gods would never want what is beyond their ability. (Premise) 2. Some possible gods would be able to provide for themselves whatever they want. What you've been saying is that I need to state the first premise, or the second one is false.

The second one would be considered false if the first premise is to hold true because "some" does not define the wants. The wants define the limit of the power. You must state the first premise in order to clarify that it is not the wants that define the limits of the ability. As in, there is already a set limit of the ability and some gods would not want anything beyond it.

If we only state the second sentence, it is implied that the wants define the limitations of the gods power, something the intial premise contradicts. "Some" in the second statement only means "not all". We'd end up with the single statement "not all gods have the power to obtain whatever they want". Some can, some can't--the wants are still undefined.

[Kamehameha34]

And this is claiming that infinity is an obtainable number. I'm saying the power must be infinite (un-obtainable, undefined) so that it can encompass any potential value of X.

And you, again, show your lack of understanding for the implications of the word "some".

It's really a simple word - and I've explained its role in the statement many times. Restating your refuted argument, only underlining the words you think I missed, doesn't gain you any points.

[Yasa]

Some:
1. being an undetermined or unspecified one: Some person may object.
3. of a certain unspecified number
6. certain persons, individuals, instances, etc., not specified
7. an unspecified number, amount, etc., as distinguished from the rest

some - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Tell me again how "some" lets us know the limitations of the wants (which define the limits of the power in the statement "some gods can obtain whatever they want"). Because I definitely agree with you, I don't understand your implications of the word with regards to the definition of the limit of power. All the definitions have one thing in common: the word undefined or unspecified.

One last time. "Some" in the alone statement "Some gods can obtain whatever they want" does not imply in any way shape or form the limits of those wants, which in turn defines the limits of the power.

[Kamehameha34]

You skipped right over the relevant definition.

2. (used with plural nouns) certain: Some days I stay home.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You skipped right over the relevant definition.

Some days I stay home. Certain days I stay home.


Some gods have the power to obtain whatever they want.

Certain gods have the power to obtain whatever they want.

"some" or "certain" imply "not all".

"Not all gods have the power to obtain whatever they want; only certain ones do."

No matter how you put it, their power is still defined by their undefined wants. I'll repeat, in no way shape or form does saying "certain" define the gods wants, it only implies not all the gods, or a type or types of gods.

Certain types of gods have the power to obtain whatever they want. This does not tell us that those types of gods have limited wants and it IS assumed those wants could be anything unless otherwise stated.

An example that would suffice to not imply omnipotence:

Certain gods have the power to obtain what they want, however those wants are limited.

You cannot defend that "certain gods" defines the limitation of their wants, and in turn their power.

[Kamehameha34]

No matter how you put it, their power is still defined by their undefined wants.

And the "certain" gods I'm referring to are those whose wants are less than infinite.

Certain types of gods have the power to obtain whatever they want. This does not tell us that those types of gods have limited wants and it IS assumed those wants could be anything unless otherwise stated.

No. That isn't assumed. You haven't shown me any reason as to why that SHOULD be assumed - yet you continue to parrot that it should be.

You've not shown me one reason that my statement was logically invalid. You've shown me that it confused you. Nothing else.

[Kamehameha34]

As my last post on this thread, I'll close with an analogy.

I can say that "some fruits" are poisonous. According to your logic, all fruit would have to be poisonous for that statement to be true.

To quote a currently suspended member of the board:

/thread over.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No. That isn't assumed. You haven't shown me any reason as to why that SHOULD be assumed - yet you continue to parrot that it should be. You've not shown me one reason that my statement was logically invalid. You've shown me that it confused you. Nothing else.

Pick any number you want.

It is assumed based on the sole above statement that the number that you want could be anything. Important note: the number you want could in fact be limited, but that is not claimed.

Even if I told some or certain people in the room to pick a number, there is no reason to assume that their numbers couldn't be anything, even if they might not be.

[pikatore]

Once again, I see an argument that involves kame, and horribly drawn out semantics.

If I have the power to do whatever I want, I am omnipotent, as whatever I want can translate to ANYTHING.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 As my last post on this thread, I'll close with an analogy. I can say that "some fruits" are poisonous. According to your logic, all fruit would have to be poisonous for that statement to be true. To quote a currently suspended member of the board: /thread over.

Lol, your analogy is inaccurate. I've been claiming that "some" implies "not all" this whole time and that it has nothing to do with each individual power. Whether every god has the power to obtain what they want, or only some do is irrelevant. The point is, if you don't state those certain gods indeed DO have limited wants, it IS assumed otherwise. My previously posted analogy is my logical backup for this.

[Yasa]

Quote by: pikatore Once again, I see an argument that involves kame, and horribly drawn out semantics. If I have the power to do whatever I want, I am omnipotent, as whatever I want can translate to ANYTHING.

Exactly. Whatever I want translates to anything, unless otherwise limited.

I think that's a wrap.

[ZNFYRH]

I recently received a warning for saying that Kamehameha defines things in a way that requires one to suspend their common sense or completely ignore the published definition of the word.

This is one of those times.

Omnipotence cannot be relative. I can be almost absolutely sure that I can do things a 14-year old can't, so does that make me more omnipotent? No.

But turn it around. Can a 14-year old do the same things I can do?

And I don't mean legally, I mean capability.

Absolutely not. Simple example... could a 14-year talk my wife into having sex with him? No. Therefore, there is something he can't do, and that makes him not omnipotent.

[pikatore]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Absolutely not. Simple example... could a 14-year talk my wife into having sex with him? No. Therefore, there is something he can't do, and that makes him not omnipotent.

Let's just hope that your right :p

[ZNFYRH]

pikatore,

Heh heh... yeah.

If not preference, then at least fear of the consequences.

Regardless, I'm still dumb-founded that this thread was even a necessary topic.

I have to go to Maryland next week. I'll have to stop by Kame's house so he can show me his omnipotence.

[5010]

Quote by: Yasa I would like everyone's imput as to whether the statement "I have the power to do whatever I want" implies omnipotence.

Only if your wants are unlimited. Consider the statement "I can buy what I want". This doesn't mean you have unlimited funds. What if all you want is a stick of gum?

[Yasa]

Quote by: 5010 What if all you want is a stick of gum?

Then you need to state that at the start. If you don't, no one else knows what your wants are, and we assume they could be anything and that the power is infinite to have our bases covered.

If someone said "I can buy whatever I want" the logical next question is "well, what do you want?" The limits of those wants define the power, or money in this case. If we don't state that there are limits to those wants, we have to assume that they could be anything, and therefore until further specification of the wants, it's considered that the power/money is unlimited.