# Thread: The Power (ability) equation

1. P(L) = 1/L, over the interval (0, inf.)

P @ infinity is omnipotence...
L has to be > 0

where L is logic and P is power.

0 logic means power is undefined.

Not necessarily a numerical thing, but just to indicate why omnipotence is bounded by logic. What do you think?

*My calculus is rusty, so I'm not sure whether its (0, inf.) or [0, inf.]

2.

3. What your Function implies is that as logic increases so does power. On the graph at 0 logic there is also 0 power.

This statement would suggest that omnipotence is bound by math. I suggest that you can't fit omnipotence within the realm of math or logic because (if God exists as the creator) an omnipotent being put the rules in place and wrote the rules for each. So the power of the creator is greater than the realm he created.

I would also suggest that logic and power are independent. You may have great logic and no power or great power and no logic at all.

4. Originally Posted by couldbewrong
What your Function implies is that as logic increases so does power. On the graph at 0 logic there is also 0 power.
I disagree.
As logic increases, power decreases (because Power is 1/logic); where logic is zero, power is undefined.

Originally Posted by couldbewrong
This statement would suggest that omnipotence is bound by math. I suggest that you can't fit omnipotence within the realm of math or logic because (if God exists as the creator) an omnipotent being put the rules in place and wrote the rules for each. So the power of the creator is greater than the realm he created.
God is bounded by logic... that's what I'm trying to suggest.

Originally Posted by couldbewrong
I would also suggest that logic and power are independent. You may have great logic and no power or great power and no logic at all.
What I'm trying to do is show that power is undefined when there is no logic. It's not so much a numerical thing, but more of an illustration that without logic, power(and by this I mean ability) is impossible.

5. I gotcha :-D

So if there is a God then logic goes beyond this version of creation and has been present surrounding God throughout his existence?

So logic would not be a part of this creation but its existence is as present as God is and "saturates our existence?

So nothing exists outside of logic because logic encoumpases God?

Am I dancing anywhere near your proposition or just screwing everything up LOL.

Does your equation consider faulty logic as well?

6. ???

I'm not so much the equation guy, so I'm a bit confused right now.

But are you sure this doesn't prove that unlimited power is a logical fallacy?

7. Can something illogical be true? Can an illogical fallacy represent a truth?

8. Originally Posted by Obviously
???

I'm not so much the equation guy, so I'm a bit confused right now.

But are you sure this doesn't prove that unlimited power is a logical fallacy?
No, this just proves that power can't occur at zero logic.

Meaning that, although God has unlimited power, He never goes beyond logic (where there's no logic).

Edit: if you look at the graph as the graph goes toward infinity, it approaches zero logic, but never actually touches it, because at zero logic, power is undefined.

9. Originally Posted by couldbewrong
I gotcha :-D

So if there is a God then logic goes beyond this version of creation and has been present surrounding God throughout his existence?

So logic would not be a part of this creation but its existence is as present as God is and "saturates our existence?

So nothing exists outside of logic because logic encoumpases God?
Kind of the other way around: logic encompasses God, because nothing exists outside of logic.

Originally Posted by couldbewrong
Am I dancing anywhere near your proposition or just screwing everything up LOL.
No, it seems like you're getting it... it's not really easy to represent unquantifiable things mathematically, so it's easy to get confused.

Originally Posted by couldbewrong
Does your equation consider faulty logic as well?
Faulty logic would be illogical, and thereby outside of logic.

10. so in your view you beleive that logic is the highest authority?

Does all power have to have a source?

11. by power, i think you really mean "ability"

12. for the sake of the discussion would you say that all-powerful and having all-ability are equal?

13. Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
Originally Posted by Obviously
???

I'm not so much the equation guy, so I'm a bit confused right now.

But are you sure this doesn't prove that unlimited power is a logical fallacy?
No, this just proves that power can't occur at zero logic.

Meaning that, although God has unlimited power, He never goes beyond logic (where there's no logic).

Edit: if you look at the graph as the graph goes toward infinity, it approaches zero logic, but never actually touches it, because at zero logic, power is undefined.
Ah, ok So does this go against or for God's omnipotence? (I'm guessing against) :?

EDIT: As power increases infinitely, logic decreases infinitely even though it never touches zero, is this the correct understanding?

14. Originally Posted by Obviously
Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
Originally Posted by Obviously
???

I'm not so much the equation guy, so I'm a bit confused right now.

But are you sure this doesn't prove that unlimited power is a logical fallacy?
No, this just proves that power can't occur at zero logic.

Meaning that, although God has unlimited power, He never goes beyond logic (where there's no logic).

Edit: if you look at the graph as the graph goes toward infinity, it approaches zero logic, but never actually touches it, because at zero logic, power is undefined.
Ah, ok So does this go against or for God's omnipotence? (I'm guessing against) :?
For. It's supposed to show why omnipotence isn't a paradox.

Originally Posted by Obviously
EDIT: As power increases infinitely, logic decreases infinitely even though it never touches zero, is this the correct understanding?
Yup.

15. Originally Posted by couldbewrong
for the sake of the discussion would you say that all-powerful and having all-ability are equal?
I'm equating them in this case, so, yea.

16. Here would be the graph of f(x) = 1/x

17. A couple of questions.

Does this belong in the realm of mathematics?

This does show that the probability of omnipotence logically is infinitely low. Does this mean it's impossible or does it mean that only ONE entity can possess such a power?

And also, does this take into account that God's omnipotence is beyond his will? Or is it limited to his will?

18. "Does this belong in the realm of mathematics?"

It could help or confuse but if God is omnipotent Mathmatics would not be able to adequately measure or define the power of God except to say that "God is > x where x = anything"
----------------------------

"This does show that the probability of omnipotence logically is infinitely low. Does this mean it's impossible or does it mean that only ONE entity can possess such a power?"

Again in attempting to confine God to logic you are limiting the unlimited being. If logic is your highest standard then by your own standards you can never get a more accurate understanding of God
--------------------------

And also, does this take into account that God's omnipotence is beyond his will? Or is it limited to his will?

I think maybe His omnipotence is the product of His will. Possibly his omnipotence is the "vehivle" or "Meduim" of His will. It is the force that is enacted enforcing what He chooses and allowing what He Chooses.
--------------

Just some thoughts

19. Originally Posted by couldbewrong
"Does this belong in the realm of mathematics?"

It could help or confuse but if God is omnipotent Mathmatics would not be able to adequately measure or define the power of God except to say that "God is > x where x = anything"
----------------------------

"This does show that the probability of omnipotence logically is infinitely low. Does this mean it's impossible or does it mean that only ONE entity can possess such a power?"

Again in attempting to confine God to logic you are limiting the unlimited being. If logic is your highest standard then by your own standards you can never get a more accurate understanding of God
--------------------------

And also, does this take into account that God's omnipotence is beyond his will? Or is it limited to his will?

I think maybe His omnipotence is the product of His will. Possibly his omnipotence is the "vehivle" or "Meduim" of His will. It is the force that is enacted enforcing what He chooses and allowing what He Chooses.
--------------

Just some thoughts
Think I'll need to think over that one :wink: I feel that you're right that I shouldn't limit his powers to logic, but am I? I'm just trying to reason what omnipotence would mean and determine if it's fallacious. But then again, wouldn't omnipotence be beyond my comprehension? I'll think over it.

But I don't think omnipotence can be a product of will. That would mean that it is limited, and that doesn't make sence when it's not.

20. I've thought over it and come to the conclusion that if I can define his powers, then they are within my comprehension. His powers aren't called "uncomprehensible powers", they are called "unlimited power." I'm using logic only to understand his powers and determine if it's a fallacious assumptions. Does that sound logical at all?

21. Yes it is logical. Maybe if we think of it this way.

A Dodge Hemi produces 350 HP(horse power). We can evaluate Horsepower and keep it in logical mathematical terms. We have set a fixed amount of energy to represent 1 HP. But if we were to try to evaluate horsepower independant of an engine or motor we would have a difficult time. If you seperate the effect from the cause you remove a logical reason for the power to exist at all. There is no dodge hemi hense there is no horsepower. Lets shift it to terms of chemistry for logic sake.

Doge Hemi + fule + air => 350 HP (given it is all functioning properly)

God's will + his desire to influence => Omnipotent Power

The power would be a result of God not a measureable quantity without Him.

Of course there are many things that produce Horse Power and only one God so the analogy isn't perfect but maybe it will serve the purpose of this discussion.

Afterthought. Saying I don't know or saying I don't comprehend something doesn't mean we are less than intellegent. By admitting that we can't know or quantify somehthing we show honesty and integrity and humility. Those are big on the list of things God expects from us. There is no harm in trying to understand God better and studying Him and His creation.

Is this a logical statement: An all powerful creator can create a being that isn't capable of fully understanding it's creator.

22. Originally Posted by couldbewrong
Yes it is logical. Maybe if we think of it this way.

A Dodge Hemi produces 350 HP(horse power). We can evaluate Horsepower and keep it in logical mathematical terms. We have set a fixed amount of energy to represent 1 HP. But if we were to try to evaluate horsepower independant of an engine or motor we would have a difficult time. If you seperate the effect from the cause you remove a logical reason for the power to exist at all. There is no dodge hemi hense there is no horsepower. Lets shift it to terms of chemistry for logic sake.

Doge Hemi + fule + air => 350 HP (given it is all functioning properly)

God's will + his desire to influence => Omnipotent Power

The power would be a result of God not a measureable quantity without Him.

Of course there are many things that produce Horse Power and only one God so the analogy isn't perfect but maybe it will serve the purpose of this discussion.

Afterthought. Saying I don't know or saying I don't comprehend something doesn't mean we are less than intellegent. By admitting that we can't know or quantify somehthing we show honesty and integrity and humility. Those are big on the list of things God expects from us. There is no harm in trying to understand God better and studying Him and His creation.
But wouldn't unlimited power mean that it isn't bound to anything? I feel that you're bringing up the same argument in different versions, trying to limit the unlimited power by will. It's unlimited, it doesn't need to be driven by God's will.

Is this a logical statement: An all powerful creator can create a being that isn't capable of fully understanding it's creator.
I would say both yes and no. He should be able to create none, both and one that does and does not. Unlimited power has unlimited paradoxes as I see it. It would be logical if his powers were limited by his will, but this is not the case.

Unlimited power is impossible because it's a fallacious assumption.

23. Originally Posted by Obviously
I would say both yes and no. He should be able to create none, both and one that does and does not. Unlimited power has unlimited paradoxes as I see it. It would be logical if his powers were limited by his will, but this is not the case.

Unlimited power is impossible because it's a fallacious assumption.
This debate is evidence that he did create a bieng that could not understand him fully.

Just because he can do everything doesn't mean he has to.

I am restateing the same same point of view in different ways, as you have been refuting it in the same ways according to your point of view.

In summation you see omnipotence as greater than God, uncontrollable and independent. I see omnipotence as a product of God, an attribute of a being that is unlimited except by his own will.

The root of the disagrement I think is the difference in recognition of God as the ultimate authority to which all things answer (except where he grants temporary freedom).

I choose to recognize God as I beleive He wishes to be recognized and You choose not to recognize Him and have the ability to do so because of the freedom He granted you.

From your perspective I suppose that God doesnot exist becuase logically and mathematically he doesn't add up. In this Point of View the highest authority is logic and understanding and not the creator of logic and understanding.

You're point of view makes the creator subject to the creation thus limiting Him. Ergo, a limited god is not a god indeed and does not exist.

Am I close to right?

24. So according to your graph, if god has infinite power, he has zero reason. And if he has zero power, he has infinite reason. But can't one make an argument for infinte reason = infinte power? I mean if you have infine reason ability, you could do anything? That would mean that non-existence is needed for infinite logic to exist. God has infinite logic so he does NOT EXIST. And if he has close to infinite power, he would be an idiot.

I'm tired......

25. Originally Posted by KALSTER
So according to your graph, if god has infinite power, he has zero reason. And if he has zero power, he has infinite reason. But can't one make an argument for infinte reason = infinte power? I mean if you have infine reason ability, you could do anything? That would mean that non-existence is needed for infinite logic to exist. God has infinite logic so he does NOT EXIST. And if he has close to infinite power, he would be an idiot.

I'm tired......
The "logic" in the equation is not that of the specific being; rather, it is the logic of humans (our ability to understand it, if you like). That's why we can hardly comprehend an infinitely powerful being.

For atheists, the point at which the graph approaches an infinitely small value for logic (like 10^-50), is the point at which they stop believing (they assume the number to be zero). Theists, on the other hand, stretch our logic a little further. We think 10^-50, in terms of God, is not zero, but a very small number.

26. Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

The "logic" in the equation is not that of the specific being; rather, it is the logic of humans (our ability to understand it, if you like). That's why we can hardly comprehend an infinitely powerful being.

For atheists, the point at which the graph approaches an infinitely small value for logic (like 10^-50), is the point at which they stop believing (they assume the number to be zero). Theists, on the other hand, stretch our logic a little further. We think 10^-50, in terms of God, is not zero, but a very small number.
That makes perfect sense : P That is a good description of those who choose not to believe because omnipotence is illogical. I would think however that a theist would not agree to the terms of the graph. For a theist (admitedly this is sometimes to a fault) faith overrides logic. I think that the power God "wields" is totally logical. So in my experience logic is not negated by a rise in power.

27. Ok, that makes more sense. And I guess it's accurate to. From my perspective, having grown up in religion and moved to atheism, I can never move back to believing in a god. I can understand, for above mentioned reasons, why so many people are theists. I also had a deep faith once.

28. Originally Posted by couldbewrong
Originally Posted by Obviously
I would say both yes and no. He should be able to create none, both and one that does and does not. Unlimited power has unlimited paradoxes as I see it. It would be logical if his powers were limited by his will, but this is not the case.

Unlimited power is impossible because it's a fallacious assumption.
This debate is evidence that he did create a bieng that could not understand him fully.

Just because he can do everything doesn't mean he has to.

I am restateing the same same point of view in different ways, as you have been refuting it in the same ways according to your point of view.

In summation you see omnipotence as greater than God, uncontrollable and independent. I see omnipotence as a product of God, an attribute of a being that is unlimited except by his own will.

Then it is limited...

The root of the disagrement I think is the difference in recognition of God as the ultimate authority to which all things answer (except where he grants temporary freedom).

I choose to recognize God as I beleive He wishes to be recognized and You choose not to recognize Him and have the ability to do so because of the freedom He granted you.

From your perspective I suppose that God doesnot exist becuase logically and mathematically he doesn't add up. In this Point of View the highest authority is logic and understanding and not the creator of logic and understanding.

If logic really originated from one being, then we wouldn't have this disagreement. Unless he wanted us to? lol...

You're point of view makes the creator subject to the creation thus limiting Him. Ergo, a limited god is not a god indeed and does not exist.

Am I close to right?
The logical fallacy in which we assume something beyond our comprehension is ridiculous. Because that assumes that we will never know, so how do we know?

I'm not limiting God by understanding him. Because we will never know if he made us comprehend or not.

God couldn't create omnipotence (I doubt that is what you meant though) because omnipotence doesn't need a creator. You could almost say it created itself due to the definition of the word, unlimited.

Omnipotence would always be yes and no, because it's unlimited thus beyond any one choice.

If God was unlimited, then he would probably have control over the omnipotence, but since God is unlimited he can't limit himself (In other words his will would still be irrelevant).

29. Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
Originally Posted by KALSTER
So according to your graph, if god has infinite power, he has zero reason. And if he has zero power, he has infinite reason. But can't one make an argument for infinte reason = infinte power? I mean if you have infine reason ability, you could do anything? That would mean that non-existence is needed for infinite logic to exist. God has infinite logic so he does NOT EXIST. And if he has close to infinite power, he would be an idiot.

I'm tired......
The "logic" in the equation is not that of the specific being; rather, it is the logic of humans (our ability to understand it, if you like). That's why we can hardly comprehend an infinitely powerful being.

For atheists, the point at which the graph approaches an infinitely small value for logic (like 10^-50), is the point at which they stop believing (they assume the number to be zero). Theists, on the other hand, stretch our logic a little further. We think 10^-50, in terms of God, is not zero, but a very small number.
I think that is based on your perception. Which means this math is based on what you want thus it doesn't prove itself true. If you can define omnipotence then it's not uncomprehensible.

30. Originally Posted by Obviously
Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
Originally Posted by KALSTER
So according to your graph, if god has infinite power, he has zero reason. And if he has zero power, he has infinite reason. But can't one make an argument for infinte reason = infinte power? I mean if you have infine reason ability, you could do anything? That would mean that non-existence is needed for infinite logic to exist. God has infinite logic so he does NOT EXIST. And if he has close to infinite power, he would be an idiot.

I'm tired......
The "logic" in the equation is not that of the specific being; rather, it is the logic of humans (our ability to understand it, if you like). That's why we can hardly comprehend an infinitely powerful being.

For atheists, the point at which the graph approaches an infinitely small value for logic (like 10^-50), is the point at which they stop believing (they assume the number to be zero). Theists, on the other hand, stretch our logic a little further. We think 10^-50, in terms of God, is not zero, but a very small number.
I think that is based on your perception. Which means this math is based on what you want thus it doesn't prove itself true. If you can define omnipotence then it's not uncomprehensible.

I don't think I ever said the idea of omnipotence is uncomprehensible, either.

31. Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
Originally Posted by Obviously
Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
Originally Posted by KALSTER
So according to your graph, if god has infinite power, he has zero reason. And if he has zero power, he has infinite reason. But can't one make an argument for infinte reason = infinte power? I mean if you have infine reason ability, you could do anything? That would mean that non-existence is needed for infinite logic to exist. God has infinite logic so he does NOT EXIST. And if he has close to infinite power, he would be an idiot.

I'm tired......
The "logic" in the equation is not that of the specific being; rather, it is the logic of humans (our ability to understand it, if you like). That's why we can hardly comprehend an infinitely powerful being.

For atheists, the point at which the graph approaches an infinitely small value for logic (like 10^-50), is the point at which they stop believing (they assume the number to be zero). Theists, on the other hand, stretch our logic a little further. We think 10^-50, in terms of God, is not zero, but a very small number.
I think that is based on your perception. Which means this math is based on what you want thus it doesn't prove itself true. If you can define omnipotence then it's not uncomprehensible.

I don't think I ever said the idea of omnipotence is uncomprehensible, either.
Then sorry for my misunderstanding. I'll try to elaborate as well as I can:

it doesn't prove itself true
I said this because I don't think it's reasonable to to confuse what the math says to be true. Maybe it's better if I ask the question:

Is it logical/resonable to assume that as potence goes infinitely up, logic goes infinitely down?

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement