Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianLanier  No, the "problem" is with the notion of omnipotence qua omnipotence (this could be for God or anyone else). So the argument could be (as the one by Savage was) formed *neutral* to the questions of 1) whether God exists, and 2) whether God-is-omnipotent is a necessary truth. It doesn't *have* to be an "internal (using Van Tillian language) critique" of the biblical view of God.
I don't think I missed the the main point of your argument, it's just that other philosophers have constructed better arguments (this is not meant with any offense or rudeness) that don't beg the question and still conclude *affirming* God's omnipotence. |
Of course the "problem" is about omnipotence, but the "problem" for the Christian is cashed out in terms of an internal critique. Hence Brian Bosse's initial reductio. Omnipotence is said to be an attribute of the Christian God, so if the atheist (or anybody for that matter) is defining it a certain way, then that argument directly relates to the Christian God.
Besides, lets analyze the proposition that 'An omnipotent being is a being that can perform any task'. How about the ability to strip oneself of the attritbute of omnipotence? How about the ability to somehow make oneself less powerful (which is what my argument is partly attacking if you haven't noticed yet)? Omnipotence is somewhat like a parabola. When one has the ability to do too many things, like make oneself less powerful, make oneself cease to exist, create logical impossibilities, etc, one is not as powerful.
You have yet to show that my argument begs the question.
p.s. internal critique is not just Van Tilian language.