Different concepts of omnipotence.

[Metacrock]

who ray for logical omnipotence. Logical Omnipotence is my kind of deal

It was Urbie who first pointed out to me that omnipotence is an Aristotelian concept anyway.

[sgttomas]

Refer to "99 Names of ALLAH".

[Metacrock]

Refer to "99 Names of ALLAH".

see now here we have an example. obscure references to things most of us can't possibly know about. could you say a bit more to link these up with omnipotence?

[sgttomas]

Depends on how you internalize this:

Am I being obscure, or am I taking it easy on you by not ramming a lot of stuff down your throat?

I understand where you are coming from - I still do have posts where I explain things in detail. Like my recent post "On Disciplining the Soul", or my reply in the "Why Believe / Not Believe" thread. In each case I have *extensive* replies that detailed many nuances of Islamic theology and social thinking. No one replied with anything but the most minute amount of interest. And that's fine. I just recognize that the subject matter that I want to bring is effectively outside of the interest and mode of discussion that other people here are participating in. Whenever I actually do as you request, and elaborate on a matter that no one knows anything about, no one cares. And that doesn't surprise me. Traditional Islam is very very very much different from the kind of philosophy and religion that you guys are in to.

Often people will have a short quip about some philosopher I've never heard of, some apparently important book, or a scientific discovery that isn't broadly publicized. Occasionally these references will come with a complete explanation, but more often the quip is given as an impetus to learn more about the subject if the person is willing.

Besides, if you were to google "99 Names of ALLAH" and see what that concept means, the significance to this thread will be immediately obvious. "99 Names of ALLAH" is just the same as saying, "logical omnipotence, a la Aquinas". Do I really know what that means? I have the vaguest of ideas. I have never studied Aquinas. It's presumptive to assume that I would know about that subject, or care about it. But that's okay, it was a quip that was a reference to something about how God is supposed to be attributed.

I can go at length assuming that you actually care about the 99 Names, but maybe no one here actually does. And that's fine. And if you DO care about the 99 Names, maybe you care about some aspect that I don't know about, or haven't thought about, in which case I might say a bunch of stuff that misleads you into not looking into the notion further. But if you have an impetus to google a bit, and you have some ideas that come out of it, maybe we are a little bit further to having a discussion. Otherwise, I'm content with not having a significant contribution to this conversation because I don't think my perspective is going to fit in with the general thrust of what was brought up.

Instead of coming across as someone who wants to shoot people's ideas down and criticize and negate and undermine (which is what I think I would effectively have to do in this instance), I left it more neutral, more inviting, so that I don't come across as overbearing. sgttomas was typically overbearing. I don't know that I want to keep on with that approach anymore.

[met]

16. Al-Qahhaar
The Subduer, The Dominant, The One who has the perfect Power and is not unable over anything.

Is this the answer? Maybe I understand your reluctance to translate into Greek/X-ian terms, however.....

I once listened to Mahalia Jackson singing and then being interpreted by two semantic philosophers. After each song we would be told what she really meant. She then clomped a shod foot on the floor, exclaiming "Oh, no, that’s not it at all!" What then was it? She would ask the pianist to play it again, and she sang it again. That was "it."
http://www.religion-online.org/showarti ... title=1678

Is that..... "it?"

[sgttomas]

Historically, the occlusion of Greek philosophy with Islamic theology raised a whole host of incommensurables. There are a great many assumptions in the philosophy that mdsimpsion is putting on the table. These implicit metaphysical foundations are something that I intend on examining in my "Knowledge" thread. This is why I asked you (met) to integrate yourself with that conversation in response to the need to resolve paradoxical associations with God.

How can we possibly talk about God if we don't know how to situate ourselves in reality?

There is also the notion that you brought up with that beautiful woman (heart beauty!). Is her statement anti-intellectual, or the epitome of wisdom? Traditional Islamic scholars have asked us to be content with saying that ALLAH is as He describes Himself (in the Quran). What is the exact meaning of Al-Qahhaar? How can we stand in relation to this magnificent Being in order to be able to comprehend the limits of His power? I am not dogmatically refusing anyone to *try*, but what is the correct approach? Many people began with flimsy metaphysics (see: Greeks and their ilk) and then said abominable things about ALLAH - Glorious and Magnificent is He.

For a Muslim it begins with this: there is no power and no ability except by ALLAH. So by definition ALLAH is "All-Powerful" because there is nothing that is independently powerful. I understand the other notions on the table as extrapolations from our own conception of *our* power, or an extrapolation from our own conception of *our* existence. If we have neither correctly construed our power nor our existence then all associations with God's abilities will be false.

This is what I state.

You can, of course, ask the question of why we should accept my definition of God to begin with (since I just arbitrarily asserted something to which I held all else accountable to)? Well, firstly I am speaking from the Islamic perspective, so there are things that come along, such as the foundation of knowledge being the Quran. But am I denying that there can be foundational metaphysical insights that are both true to the Quran and necessary such that a disbeliever is also compelled to accept them? No, in fact I seem to be doing the exact opposite (in my Knowledge thread). The end result is a both/and solution. It is both true that ALLAH is as I described Him (because of how He describes Himself) and that you can conceive of something other than this - a different God. Not all gods are created equal.

There is no god but ALLAH.

So the difference between this notion Al Qahhaar and the Aquinas version is due to that reference of "logical possibility", and this also applies to the other notion of all powerful including the "logically impossible". These are relative to an idea that logic is a foundational attribute of reality that we can base an idea of Absolute Truth, Power, or other such things upon. Is it? I'm not willing to just accept that metaphysical basis without inspection. Al Qahhaar is different than that because it only reference ourselves to the extent that we are talking about ourselves, and it leaves the idea vague of what *we* are, except that *we* do not have an independent existence or ability except that ALLAH brings it to be. So for all practical purposes we have established an answer, and for the theoretical limits of extrapolation we first need to go back to our roots to determine what we are pushing away from, so that we don't veer off into to incoherence (and not even realize it!!!!). It's amazing what we can convince ourselves is coherent for a lack of insight into a circular form of reasoning that is ultimately inconsistent (and therefore useless for saying anything about truth or reality).

And regarding the notion of a participatory power - that should obviously be eliminated immediately. That is not the god I am talking about. Again, not all gods are created equal. ALLAH is powerful over all things, including that god.

[mdsimpson92]

For a Muslim it begins with this: there is no power and no ability except by ALLAH. So by definition ALLAH is "All-Powerful" because there is nothing that is independently powerful. I understand the other notions on the table as extrapolations from our own conception of *our* power, or an extrapolation from our own conception of *our* existence. If we have neither correctly construed our power nor our existence then all associations with God's abilities will be false.

I can see where your coming from there. Though I think you may have a point that our concept of omnipotence depends on our view of how reality works, which if they don't match up, can end up being inconistent. And due to my panentheistic leanings the "all-powerful" can potentially become quite literal, we cannot be wholly independent. But can we be autonomous? Being that we all seem to believe in free will, I guess I can assume yes unless you want Spinoza to be brought in which I am willing to (I enjoy that great heretic for some reason, plus there are some benefits to playing devil's advocate sometimes).

There is no god but ALLAH.

No issues there. Especially in terms of being "worthy of worship." All others would be secondary.

[mdsimpson92]

And regarding the notion of a participatory power - that should obviously be eliminated immediately. That is not the god I am talking about. Again, not all gods are created equal. ALLAH is powerful over all things, including that god.

You're referring to the process theist's God, yes? Well it would be interesting to see how Urbuild would respond to that, being a process theist. I'm not sure if omnipotence is denied or not. From what I have read they have a different concept of omnipotence because of their metaphysics.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proce ... vPowProEvi

[mdsimpson92]

Griffin warns against what he calls “the omnipotence fallacy.” This is the fallacy of assuming that if a state of affairs is logically possible—that is, its description involves no contradiction—then an omnipotent being could single-handedly bring it about (Griffin 1976, 263f). Griffin represents all process theists in considering it a fallacy, for it is their contention that there are logically possible states of affairs that no being, including God, could bring about by itself. For example, a contractual agreement between two individuals or parties is impossible unless each agrees to keep the conditions of the contract. This is expressed colloquially in English by saying, “It takes two to tango.” The example of making contracts is especially relevant since it is a theme in Jewish Scripture that God enters into numerous covenants with the creatures. The emphasis is invariably on the divine initiative in making the covenants and on God's reliability in keeping a promise; nevertheless, when “covenant” is not simply shorthand for God's promises, the agreements are two-sided affairs, including God's blessings and demands and human obligations. Arguably, the logic of contracts, agreements, and covenants, does not change when one of the parties is divine. These examples are evidence that there are logically possible states of affairs that require something more than the decisions of God.

[met]

So by definition ALLAH is "All-Powerful" because there is nothing that is independently powerful. I understand the other notions on the table as extrapolations from our own conception of *our* power, or an extrapolation from our own conception of *our* existence. If we have neither correctly construed our power nor our existence then all associations with God's abilities will be false.

This is what I state.

This is similar to my understanding of the implications of one of the Hebrew names of God - 'God Almighty' - 'The All-powerful God' - ie El Shaddai (iirc)

The conventional idea that md brought in is interesting tho. What's your stance? How do you understand the Mosaic Covenant?