Wouldn't omnipotence, by definition, include the ability to fudge a test of omnipotence?
That's not the issue. The issue is: what test would be sufficient to establish omnipotence?
How would you design a test to cover all the possibilities in a finite amount of time? You might say that a being who could reverse the directions of the planets around the sun was very likely omnipotent, but his power could be limited to our solar system. Logic implies that omnipotence cannot be proved in any finite way.
It would seem to me, that to envision all possibilities, would require an infinite imagination, of which, I'll be the first to admit, I fall a little short.
I agree. This is one of the core concepts when I say I am agnostic atheist. It is logically impossible to test for omnipotence because any knowledge we have must be inferred from supporting knowledge, so knowledge is inherently limited.
To begin with, I would question whether an omnipotent being could know he is omnipotent since it would take infinite time to perform every power; it's paradoxical. An omnipotent being that knows he is omnipotent would also know that, at any given time, he has only used an infinitely small, approaching 0, percent of his power; no matter how hard he tries, he will never reach his theoretical potential... But that contradicts omnipotence -- so I would actually conclude omnipotence, or omni-anything, is logically impossible.
In other words, even if you could simultaneously recite all the digits of pi, you would still fail...
@Jonathan - RE: "I would actually conclude...omni-anything, is logically impossible."
I can't 100% agree, I've SEEN omni-ignorance --
Omni-ignorance can't be omni since it approaches 0. But haha, I know where you're coming from.
Jonathan - are you forgetting that there are negative numbers?
If you are negatively ignorant, does that make you smart?
Reminiscent of "W," I view it as negatively intelligent.
But there's a cap, right? If you take every single bit of knowledge you were ever made aware of, and replaced it with idiocy, that's the most ignorant you could ever be. I don't think it's possible to be infinitely ignorant.
To be completely ignorant would be to lack any concept of any knowledge. For example, a rock, having no knowledge, is as ignorant as possible. So person striving for ignorance could only be as dumb as a rock as an endpoint.
But I guess it might be my mistake to view this in a singular scale. Surely there is some difference between a person that is made aware of, say, 10 pieces of knowledge and understands 10 pieces of knowledge; and a person that is made aware of 1000 pieces of knowledge, yet only understands 10 pieces of knowledge.
It's simplified, but perhaps if it's possible to be dumber than a rock, then it would be a person that's somehow made aware of god-like levels of knowledge, but understands absolutely none of it -- that might approach some negatively infinite level of intelligence.
I'm just throwing it out there for speculation Jonathan - I do that from time to time - sometimes someone else picks it up and runs with it, other times, it just lies there, while people step carefully over it.
At least you'll have something to think about this evening.
Hmm... It just struck me after reconsidering my musings on the logical impossibility of omnipotence: would agnosticism still make sense? I'm thinking it would, since it would still be impossible to test for a god that exists in a separate dimension, and designed the universe, but remains hidden, even if it is not omnipotent. Or would it? I'm going to have to dwell on this a bit. I doubt any of you care -- it's a bit late to be thinking this hard.