Wikipedia:Featured article review/Omnipotence paradox/archive1

Omnipotence paradox

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary

Talk messages left at User talk:Anville and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy. Sandy 03:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This article has a one-paragraph lead section that does not come close to summarizing the article, as required by WP:LEAD. It has only seven total references and absolutley no in-line citations at all. These are the main criticisms that anyone can discover from a superifical scan. The prose is shoddy. It doesn't even come close to satisfying criterion 2a. Example, the very first sentence:

The omniptence paradox is a philosophical paradox that arise when logic is applied to the exitence of... How is logic applied to exitence? And how that does logic's being applied to something generate a paradox? Paradoxes arise within language (formal or informal). --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I altered that sentence and the lead paragraph, it may need more Bmorton3 20:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Example 2:

"Some philosophers see this argument as proof of the impossibility of the existence of any such entity; others assert that the paradox arises from a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the concept of omnipotence. In addition, several philosophers have considered the assumption that a being is either omnipotent or non-omnipotent to be a false dilemma, as it neglects the possibility of varying degrees of omnipotence (Haeckel)."

Whole paragraph violates WP:WEASEL. Some this, some that, others..., i addtion... A reference to Haekel does not cover all of that philosphical terrain--[[User:Lacatosia s|Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias]] 10:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Again I improved this Bmorton3 20:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to point out the article is only 20kb, so could the nominator please check these things before making ludicrous estimations (3 times over the actual amount). Other than that, all what he/she has said I agree with. There's no inline citations, and I find the prose real awkward and hard to follow also. LuciferMorgan 19:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Comment then: I actually think this is a well-written article. Most of the complaints, as far as I can tell, are because people disagree with the content, not because of problems with the article. I have no problem following it. Perhaps more care can be given to references, though the ones given are sufficient - a consistent method of using references might be an improvement: inline citations (footnotes) instead of references in the course of a sentence (like the example above). --Marinus 07:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:Yeah right. I could get my Italian grandmother who speaks no English to write a better article than this after lessons in English over the next three months. As to references, philosophy of mind, Hilary Putnam and Katyn Forest are examples of how FAs should be done. If this thing stays, I go!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you don't write "keep" or "remove" on a FAR. Please get an education and learn how to read instructions before commenting.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Francesco, your being on edge immediately puts everyone else on edge. Threatening to leave over the status of an article is not helpful and you don't need to be attackish with Marinus in disagreeing with him.

That said, it's good you brought this to everyone's attention. I have no idea why this article suffers so. Here is a dif round about the time of its promotion (the star was forgotten on the page for a while). It then worsened and shrank, was brought to FARC, and mass reverted by Carnildo here. Are these versions any more acceptable to you? Should we revert again and start from there? Marskell 10:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Damnit. It was cut to bits!! These things usually seem to blow-up into uncontrollable monsters. So how is all of this is supposed to be proof of the claim that the evolutionary process of Wikipedia actually improves articles over time?' All the FAs seem to turn to shit. I don't know what to tell you. The older versions are definetly better than the current one, IMO. It would seem to be much easier to bring in line wth current standards. Now that's just disappointing. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at those versions, one can see that the standrad were different fot citations and references at the time this was accorded FA status. Those problems would still need to be dealt with in any case. The weasel language is stiil there in at least one place, but that can be fuxed with cites. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Francesco, if you plan to work on it, would a revert to the older version give you a better starting place? It's looking to me like you are making very good progress on Free will. Perhaps others here can have a look in there, come to consensus about what else needs to be done there, and then you all can turn your attention to this article? (It is unfortunate that two philosophy articles were nominated at once: if more time is needed, please let us know, but you have made good progress on Free will.) Sandy 11:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I really don't know anything about this one. But, since it lies within philosophy, I can always look up references, check facts and so on. If others agree, I would suggest rving back to one of those pervious versions. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have overhauled this article a fair amount today. I could probably still use more references, and someone who understands wikifying better should probably convert all the references to one style or the other. Put cite needed tags where you think it still needs references and I'll try to find them or re-phrase. Bmorton3 20:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll go in later today and help clean up and format the references. Sandy 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, can we do "merge-revert"? That is, someone pull up one of the older versions noted, along with the present one and swap the better material into the present, while retaining good, recent changes? I commented on the initial FAC and I remember it: this article was good (if not up to the exacting present standards) and that good article is still in the history, even if parts have been lost. Marskell 22:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I saved the ancient version's much better lead section, and salvaged much of the Wittgenstein stuff from it. I don't think there is anything else there than needs to be in the current version, but I suppose you might try to salvage some of the stuff on the medieval context of the debates (although it contains some factual problems, and lots of irrelevancies). If you see anything else in the old version worth integration, do it or point it out to me. Bmorton3 14:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL - I just fixed the referencing mechanism. Well, if they decide to revert, I can do it again. Sandy 22:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good progress here too. It seems that FACS and FARS are the only way to get serious attention on philosophy articles. I'll look over the old boy myself this morning (my time). You guys work late night European time.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Since we seem to have reached consensus, how can go about putting this process to rest. Notice that I actually go about canclling my complaints and objects almost immeditiately as they are addressed. Mr. Yom over on the Free Will FAR, for example, has not even bothered to look at the article in the last six years. His goal is to simply tear down and slam other people's work. He did not actually expect that anyone wpuld be able to rescue such a monsrosity. It's a fun game, isn't it? There's your problem. I can rip your work, you can rip mine. Anonymously too!! Anybody can play that ridiculous, childish game. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah hah!! So, you have to be in good standing with Raul, eh?? Here's the concluding comment from the previous FAR:

It's been reverted, and in fact improved somewhat since (not all the edits in the reverted period were detrimental). I don't think we need to wait the full two-week period, or whatever's left of it. Whom should I pester to have this entry's withdrawal expedited—Raul654? Anville 18:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So let it be written, so let it be done.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I to conclude then Francesco that you think it's back in shape? Any other comments from people before closing? Marskell 15:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one very important procedural one. How do you close, who has the power to do that and why?? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 19:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The closing process here hasn't been formalized. Any party who stops by can suggest close and, for a unanimous keep like this one, close it. In this case, you should not close (because you nom'ed) and Bmorton should not (because he's done most of the work and he would be judging himself). Similarly, if it were to go to FARC anyone who notes "keep" or "remove" should not close. Beyond that, there is no formal rule. Of course, that isn't an invitation to have a anons come and along close things—in practice the people who have done closing have been quite involved in the FAR/FARC process. Joel and I have done most of them recently. Marskell 05:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre as usual. But I get the general idea.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case, since your at it, could have you also take a look at the Free will FAR?? Thanks --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This now looks back in shape to me too. Bmorton3 15:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Before closing There is a section, Other versions of the paradox, with a verify tag. Is it needed? Do Lacatosias and Bmorton3 feel that this section needs verification? Joelito (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• • BM3 put the tag up for that section. Now that you've sort of pressed me on it, I do think there are a few claims in there that need to be verified (absolutely no offense intended to Bmorton2 here, PLEASE!!). The problem is the only material I have on this is some stuff from other Encylopedias on the net. The main thing that Bmorton3 is concerned about is the section realted to Steven Hawking. Neither he nor I have a copy of "A Brief Histiry of Time". If anyone out there does, it should be easy for them to verify and source that.
    • OK we have now fixed both the Hawking's Stuff and the Averroes' stuff, with much thanks to Dbuckner and Lacatosias. I think there are no tags or things still to work on here that have been suggested, but if you find more, certainly mention them Bmorton3 16:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Very listy: I think that some of the explicitly formatted lists could be turned into running prose to reduce the disjointed, choppy visual appearance and reading experience. A related problem is the stubbiness of the subsections under "philosophical response". Last two sentences in the lead are a problem. Perhaps this one needs an extension here, since it appears to be unsuitable for listing at FARC. Tony 03:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, I think Lacatosias fixed the listiness, there is only one left, and it was a list in the source material. As he joked, analytic philosophers kinda dig, disjointed choppy visual appearance and reading experience, so that claims don't run into each other, (check out the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus some time. But we can do the other style, if you prefere. I put the pop culture in the lead, because I thought the function of the lead was to mirror the article in minature, as WP Lead says "It should contain several paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any." The pop culture references are surely one of the main points of the article as they get a whole section, and probably part of notability, but hey if you think they're a problem they're gone.Bmorton3 16:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (sorry about dropping my sig originally)

• • Bmorton3 is off for the weekend apparently. He's done the bulk of the work on sourcing this and so on. I'll do a bit of reading see what I can do in the meantime. The problem with this one, for me at least, is that I nominated it without knowing much about the topic. I feel a bit impotent about omnipotence (;.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The opening is awkwardly worded. I'm surprised Tony hasn't commented on the 'fat'. The word 'paradox' occurs too many times. The second sentence repeats much of the first. There is no clear statement in the introduction of what the paradox is (I have delved into Google and found some better ones – Peter Suber's is best). But worst of all, there is a confusion running through the whole article between the 'paradox of the stone', and 'omnipotence paradox'. The latter is really a family of paradoxes, which appear to follow from the assumption of an omnipotent being. The former is an instance of the latter. Also, there is no proper historical background of the stone paradox (Savage's article is not mentioned) nor of omnipotence paradoxes generally. Aquinas is correctly located but there is no reference for Averroes' role in the debate, despite his picture appearing. I think the article could be improved, but it does need a lot of work. I will help, but would like to see a consensus of the 'experts' before doing so. Dbuckner 07:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't vote to remove here. This is FAR (review and comment) not FARC (Removal candaidates). Just a procedural thing. The FAR can be extended, as I understand it, until reviewers (yourself inlcuded) decide that no progress is being made (or something like that). At this point, I have to admit that I think not much progress is being made. I'd like to hear what Bmorton, who has put some real work into this thing, has to say. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have changed. Dbuckner 11:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I suck at trimming fat, but someone else can try if they want. The opening is awkward, but I've tried a bunch of variations and been happy with none, maybe that's a stopper. I think the article focuses on the paradox of the stone but admits that there are other versions of the omniscience paradox. We are filling historical background in slowly as we find it, I certainly haven't found any published sources detailing the historical background yet, and the original FA version, had only a little and it was undocumented and flawed. The article would certainly be improved if we found such a thing, but I'm not sure it's out there. We do need to source the Ibn Rushd, claim, and it isn't in any of the stuff I've got laying around. It's probably in the Tahafut al-tahafut somewhere, and further I'll bet dimes to doughnuts Hawking gives a cite for it in Brief History, which seems to have heavily guided the early editors of this page. I actually think the intent stuff is pretty clear, but we definately at least need to nail down the Ibn Rushd cite before we close, I hadn't noticed that was missing. Bmorton3 14:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• • No, he was referring ot the original openening. I have since cut out those two horrid sentences and replaced them with something close to Suber's formulation. Dbickner has expressed his approval of this at the botton of the talk page. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• I feel the "Pop culture and humurous responses" still needs a overhaul before this is closed, more or less what Tony expressed in his comments. Until then, this FAR should stay open. LuciferMorgan 13:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll do my best on this aspect. I've converted all the other lists into prose and eliminated the stubbiness of one paragraph three-level indents that was there before. You guys can judge the "brilliancy" of it, as it were. But I cannot deal with the main problems: some missing references and other cintent issies that Dbuckner brings up. This is just not my area and the net has very little that is if use --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm wondering if Dbuckner is able himself to source/change some of the things he points out? Marskell 22:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • He is working on it, as you can see on the Talk:Omnipotence paradox page. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

New comment: It's not neutral with regard to theism and atheism. E.g., J.L. Mackie is presented as attempting to resolve the parodox. If I undertand the hisory of the "modern" debate on this, it was Mackie who revived the ommipotence paradox as an argument against the existence of god in "Evil and Omnipotence". Later, Geach, Plantinga and others responded to Mackie. I don't have the article, but I'll see what I can do on this score.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Just found it and scanned through it. He does, in fact, attempt to resolve the paradox. The main argument is a modern version of the problem of evil. Sorry about that.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• I went through and cleaned up a number of areas, starting with Geach's "four levels of omnipotence". I don't think the descriptions of levels 3 and 4 included anything notable that level 2 hadn't already covered. Level 2 ("Y can do X" is true if and only if X is a logically consistent description of a state of affairs) and level 3 ("Y can do X" is true if and only if "Y does X" is logically consistent) seem in no way differentiable from each other, and the language in which all of the levels' descriptions are phrased in was akward and problematic at best. Level 4 (whenever "Y will bring about X" is logically possible, then "Y can bring about X" is true) is equally redundant, bordering on nonsensical. It seems to me that there are two options: absolute omnipotence, and non-absolute omnipotence. An absolutely omnipotent being can do anything at all, including that which defies logic; this is the basis for level 1. A non-absolutely omnipotent being can do anything which does not defy logic, and is not required to do things that defy logic in order to maintain its omnipotence; this is the basis for levels 2, 3, and 4. Thus, when reduced in essence to levels 1 and 2, since Geach's definitions cover nothing that wasn't already addressed more concisely in the "Philosophical responses" section, I removed them entirely and all references thereto. As a side note, the definition of "almighty" had nothing to do with the omnipotence paradox because it had nothing to do with omnipotence to begin with. "More powerful than any creature" is not a useful definition of omnipotence, since the relative power of other "creatures" is not the standard by which the power that qualifies as omnipotence is measured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SOuj1ro (talk • contribs)

Level 3 doesn't include anything notable that level 2 doesnt? Look at Cowan's 1964 objection, or Geach in 1973 objection. There are lots of easy things that 2 requires but 3 doesn't. This is the heart of Mavrodes' argument. Cowan proves the difference between the two as a theorem, but here's an example. I am a homebrewer but not particularly strong. I have the ability to "create something which I cannot lift" by brewing a batch of beer so big I can't lift it. "X creates something which X cannot lift" is in general a logically possible state of affairs (after all I can do it). If Omnipotence requires definition #2, then God fails, because here is a logically possible state of affairs which I can do but God can't. But if omnipotence only requires #3, God's immune to this criticism. The difference between 3 and 4 has to do with the temporal mechanics dispute between Peter Damain, St. Jerome, and Aquinas and folks. It avoids the temporalist objection that God cannot change the past. You say a non-absolutely omnipotent being can do anything which does not "defy logic." Does it defy logic for "X to brew a batch of beer which X cannot lift"? Because then I can do it but God can't. Perhaps you argue that for "X to brew a batch of beer which X cannot lift" is a mixture of power and deficiency rather than a pure power, fair enough, but it is still a logically possible state of affairs, so it doesn't defy logic and you need to make further restrictions. "Almighty" does have something to do with the omnipotence paradox, Anselm argues that God is omnipotent despite the omnipotence paradox because omnipotent only means almighty, not something stronger. Geach argues that God isn't omnipotent, because of the omnipotence paradox, but that God is something else very close, namely "almighty." Mackie argued that it isn't enough for God to be "supreme" in the sense of McTaggert, but that something more was required, and Almighty was an attempt to spell out an attribute stronger than Supremecy but weaker than Omnipotence. I didn't even touch on omnificience. But probably this is a debate for the talk page rather than the FAR. Bmorton3 14:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildes. Geach's definitions may or may not be "nonsensical". That's not relevent. I think the two that you mentioned are, but then I'm an atheist who think's that omnipotence of any kind is nonsensical. This is a question of opinion and Original Research. However, where I do think you have a point is in the question: "Which of Geach's defintions is relevant to the pardadox?" It did seem almost as of they were thrown into the article simply becasue they had some relationship with the omnipotence. But which of them (allegedly) resolve the paradox and in what manner?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted these POV edits.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed some of SOuj1ro's concerns. Dbuckner voiced a few more concerns before he QUIT WP!! such as that we still don't know who first did the triangle version, or how much older than Mavrodes the stone version might be. Further, I have left some of the work of former editors from back in the original FA days, including some stuff on Ethan Allen, that Dbuckner thought, not unreasonably, now inhibited the flow of the article. This article is now vastly better than when it FA'd but yeah, Dbuckner is right there are still things we don't know about it, and would take even more hard work for me to find out and I'm tired of wasting my time in this puppy. Someone else can read the minor commentaries by Ibn Rushd for a while looking for evidence for the claim that he invented the triangle version of the paradox. I'm not ready to leave WP yet, but I am tired to trying to bring old philosophy FA's up to the new standards. Bmorton3 14:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: finding the original souirces of the "stone paradox". etc.. is NOT the new standards for FA candidates. This is a little bit like saying I have to find the first mention in the history of philosohy of something similar to the sense/reference distictnion in oder to refer to the sense/reference distinction in a Wikipedia article. Those are preposterously high stanrards that are the personal opinion of one man. And, expert though he may be, HE has not been able to find these sources and probably never will. I see no problem with the "Ethan Allen" thing either. The mention of a non-philosopher who has discussed these issues, makes the article more accessible to the lay reader. I strongly urge that this article be allowed to pass FAR. It is the best that can be done given the very limited scope of the subject. (just as an aside, the original FA was written by one of the current crop of "expert" rebeller's: Anville). --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 16:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Status? No more cite tags, listiness improved, pop culture appears reduced. Others should have a look to evaluate comprehensiveness, prose, etc. Sandy 10:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell 07:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This one has obviously vastly improved. However, I didn't get a definite "yes, close it" from the nominator and one of the other reviewers when I asked them, so I'm moving it to FARC to cover our bases. Marskell 07:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep citations are good for such a short article on a minor topic. The Ethan Allen paragraph in the third section may be a bit awkward, but it can be easily deleted and left in the pop cultute section if need be. No major problems that I can see.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep I feel that the FA criteria 1c is now in good shape. I argued against the current wording of (1a), and agreed to a craven compromise for the sake of consensus, only to have that too removed from the final draft. I beleive this article is now well written, but I also believe that there are vastly different interpretations of what well written means among reviewers of good-faith, and to what extent it includes or requires being well-edited, which I cannot attest to. Bmorton3 15:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Article is stable, referenced, lists and pop culture reduced, prose in better shape, and no one has objected on any other grounds. (I should mention that I worked on expanding and fixing refs, and removing external jumps.) Sandy 17:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The big push in the review period has created a much better article. What's happened to this one over time is unfortunate, so I think it should be kept on a few watchlists after the review. Marskell 19:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)