- 3
- 0
As the title says. This wiki avoids using 'omnipotence'. Having a long discusssion about what it means before mentioning that seems unecessary.
On top of that, that discussion fails in its stated aim of giving the best cases for both sides, and mostliy seems to be pushing specifically the case of a single philosopher (Nicholas of Cusa), whose views are very much not the mainstream of theological thought. I'm not even entirely sure it's an accurate representation of Nicholas' thoughts, and seems to be based on a deiscussion of the nature of God which doesn't necessarily apply to any omnipotent being that could exist. And the stance in the article leads to the statement 'God is sinful' being true. That doesn't inherently make the conclusion wrong, but to illustrate just how far it is outside the mainstream, ask a bunch of philosophers if that's true or not.
I could discuss the theology problems at more length, but since my stance is that we shouldn't have a theology section at all, that seems pointless. What would this wiki lose if we didn't have that bit?
We wouldn't even lose the essay - it's in the 'Information Blogs' section.
Even were we to use omnipotence at some point, I'd argue that the way to do it would be to assume it meant 'can do anything logically possible under classical logic', plus any dialetheia they actually show the ability to do beyond that. Because regardless of the theology, that's what the term is more likely to actually mean in fiction[1]. And even though I can create a dialetheia right now (I can be both inside and not inside a room at the same time), I'd still have trouble with a square circle. So the ability to create one dialetheia doesn't imply the ability to create any dialethea.
And final note, I'm a dialetheist, and have read on the subject. Quantum physics is almost never used to justify it.
[1] It might not even mean that - there is genuine theological debate about whether God can lie, and if He can't, that implies that omnipotence can include some rather hard limits.
Side note, this is my first time posting any kind of thread, I'm not sure I did it all right?
On top of that, that discussion fails in its stated aim of giving the best cases for both sides, and mostliy seems to be pushing specifically the case of a single philosopher (Nicholas of Cusa), whose views are very much not the mainstream of theological thought. I'm not even entirely sure it's an accurate representation of Nicholas' thoughts, and seems to be based on a deiscussion of the nature of God which doesn't necessarily apply to any omnipotent being that could exist. And the stance in the article leads to the statement 'God is sinful' being true. That doesn't inherently make the conclusion wrong, but to illustrate just how far it is outside the mainstream, ask a bunch of philosophers if that's true or not.
I could discuss the theology problems at more length, but since my stance is that we shouldn't have a theology section at all, that seems pointless. What would this wiki lose if we didn't have that bit?
We wouldn't even lose the essay - it's in the 'Information Blogs' section.
Even were we to use omnipotence at some point, I'd argue that the way to do it would be to assume it meant 'can do anything logically possible under classical logic', plus any dialetheia they actually show the ability to do beyond that. Because regardless of the theology, that's what the term is more likely to actually mean in fiction[1]. And even though I can create a dialetheia right now (I can be both inside and not inside a room at the same time), I'd still have trouble with a square circle. So the ability to create one dialetheia doesn't imply the ability to create any dialethea.
And final note, I'm a dialetheist, and have read on the subject. Quantum physics is almost never used to justify it.
[1] It might not even mean that - there is genuine theological debate about whether God can lie, and if He can't, that implies that omnipotence can include some rather hard limits.
Side note, this is my first time posting any kind of thread, I'm not sure I did it all right?
