Proof that there is only 1 God
Omnipotent being = The most powerful being
God(s) is/are omnioptent being(s).
Assume: there are TWO omnipotent beings, x and y.
1. x is omnipotent
2. y is omnipotent
3. If x is omnipotent then x can kill y
4. If x can kill y then y can be dead
5. If y is omnipotent then y can't be killed
6. If y can't be killed then y can't be dead
7. y can be dead AND y can't be dead (contradiction)
So, our assumption that there are TWO omnipotent beings is false. This reasoning can be applied to any number of Gods.
Is my proof sound? Is there another proof that there exists only 1 god.
God(s) is/are omnioptent being(s).
Assume: there are TWO omnipotent beings, x and y.
1. x is omnipotent
2. y is omnipotent
3. If x is omnipotent then x can kill y
4. If x can kill y then y can be dead
5. If y is omnipotent then y can't be killed
6. If y can't be killed then y can't be dead
7. y can be dead AND y can't be dead (contradiction)
So, our assumption that there are TWO omnipotent beings is false. This reasoning can be applied to any number of Gods.
Is my proof sound? Is there another proof that there exists only 1 god.
Comments (185)
I wanted to avoid infinity in the discussion to avoid issues that trouble the concept. What does it mean to be ''infinitely'' powerful?
Quoting ?????????????
If you don't like that then substitute it with, for example, x creating an unstoppable spear and y creating an unpenetrable shield.
Another solution: there are different levels of power. Let's say our natural world is level 1 and any being omnipotent on level x is a level x+2 entity. So omnipotent gods are level 2 so they aren't omnipotent on level 2.
All powerful = capable of doing whatever can be done.
Your definition allows the possibility that some things can't be done e.g. a contradiction isn't possible. My definition is just that. There's a limit to omnipotence in that contradictions aren't possible. When you said I assumed you were alluding to unlimited power. You were not. So, why did you object to my definition of omnipotence?
Quoting ?????????????
Yes, there is a contradiction and that is used to prove that there can be only 1 God. An unstoppable spear created by omnipotent x is only a contradiction in relation to the impenetrable shield created by omnipotent y.
Quoting BlueBanana
Do you accept my proof then?
No, see:
Quoting BlueBanana
First of all, you need to label your points as postulates or conclusions. Hard to tell.
Second of all, the soundness (or lack of it) of your logic is hidden by the biases assumed by the reader. I for instance agree to none of your postulates or definitions.
So never mind my preconceptions. You've reduced deism down to a game of Stratego and defined god as the most powerful being, even if just a bunny rabbit, so long as it is at least as powerful as any other being.
I already see a flaw in the soundness in that you've left unstated that there are any beings at all. If there are no beings, there is no most-powerful one that would be the god.
1 and 2 contradict your stated goal: You postulate two identically powerful beings in hope to drive it to contradiction. All very well if it can be done.
3 does not follow, so I assume it is another postulate. 3 also implies that if there are two identically most-powerful beings, they can kill each other.
5 is contradictory with 3. 3/4 says they can be dead if both most powerful, and 5/6 says the opposite.
If these are conclusions, they don't follow. If they're postulates, they're mutually contradictory and thus proof of nothing.
Omnipotence is a relatively novel attribute of deities. None of the gods of polytheistic religions, for example, were claimed to have the power to do anything (as far as I know), and obviously not all of them were claimed to be the most powerful being (although often one of the gods was the most poweful, like Zeus, Odin, or Ra).
The simplest definition of a god is a supernatural being considered divine or sacred. Often they have a role in creating and controlling some part of the world.
It's only really in monotheistic religions that God is all-powerful, but given that the central tenet of such beliefs is that there's just a single, all-powerful god, your argument here is redundant.
But it would seem from evidence that the universe is no conscious or intentional. If it were intentional then it would not be omnipotent as to have an intention is to lack a result. God can want for nothing else god would not be omnipotent. Since it needs no intention, what would it want with consciousness anyway.
That's why I defined omnipotence as most powerful. I don't see the distinction between ''all powerful'' and ''most powerful''. Can you clarify?
Quoting ?????????????
Let x and y be two all-powerful beings.
Both x and y should be able to do anything that can be done. Both you and I accept that contradictions are impossible, even for omnipotent beings.
If you agree then x should be able to create an unstoppable spear. There's no contradiction in that. However, y, also being omnipotent, should be able to create an impenetrable shield.
Now, a contradiction arises. An unstoppable spear and an impenetrable shield. So, our assumption that there are two omnipotent beings is false. There can be only one omnipotent being.
If something is all powerful then it can do anything. If something is the most powerful then it can do more than anything else – but not necessarily anything.
I might be the strongest man in the Universe, but there might still be things too heavy for me to lift. I'm the strongest, but not "all-strong".
Then they're not Gods. What is the point of an impotent God?
Quoting noAxioms
My postulate is omnipotent beings exist. My assumption is that there are two. All propositions in my OP follow logically from there being two omnipotent beings. If they contradict each other that much the better as contradictions are proof that there can only be 1 omnipotent being.
Quoting Michael
Well prove to me that there aren't more than 1 omnipotent being.
Quoting charleton
I don't think power and want are linked in that manner. Perhaps you mean perfection, not omnipotence and that deserves its own thread.
Quoting Michael
You're right. An all-powerful being can do everything. Wouldn't that make him the most powerful being?
Yes, but the converse isn't true. The most powerful being might not be all-powerful.
I don't understand the relevance of this question to my comment.
So you're saying the most powerful being is NOT an all-powerful being? So, in what sense is the most powerful being the most powerful if it's not all-powerful?
For instance, 3: X being omnipotent does not imply that X can kill Y. It just means Y is no more powerful than X. There is also an unstated assumption that X is a living being than can meaningfully be dead or not dead.
5: Inability of Y to be dead similarly does not follow from Y being omnipotent. The logic is not valid at all.
None of the numbered points follow from the postulate you gave.
Your objections to my argument are content based. Can you focus on the structure of the argument - only on what omnipotence entails.
Let me clarify my argument:
x and y are omnipotent beings.
x being omnipotent can do anything.
y being omnipotent can block anything x can do and vice versa.
That means there are things x can't do because y will block it and vice versa.
And that implies that there are things x and y can't do. That makes them non-omnipotent and omnipotent.
So, our assumption that there are TWO omnipotent beings is false. There is only 1 and that is God.
You're right but they wouldn't be omnipotent.
No, I'm saying that the most powerful being is not necessarily an all-powerful being.
It's the most powerful if nothing is more powerful than it. Just as something is the strongest if nothing is stronger than it. But it doesn't then follow that the most powerful being can do anything, just as it doesn't then follow that the strongest being can lift anything.
There might be things too heavy for even the strongest being to lift, and there might be some things that even the most powerful being cannot do.
If there are 2 omnipotent beings, say x and y, then x should be able to do something which y doesn't want AND y should be able to block y from doing it. Thus rendering both non-omnipotent.
Quoting ?????????????
Exactly, disqualifying one of the two candidates for omnipotence.
Quoting Michael
I see. In my view the most powerful and all powerful exist in the same domail viz. ALL. So the distinction you make fails.
The distinction I'm making is a semantic one, and is accurate. Whether or not you believe that the terms refer to the same thing isn't relevant.
OK, so you're going with more classic definition of omnipotent then. Then we're back to true-Scotsman fallacy. God is not dependent on your insistence of certain qualities. God need not be all-powerful to do any of the acts attributed to God. God needs only be sufficiently powerful, and maybe this universe is a failed practice attempt in a class project in which a C- was given.
Firstly, gods. Not Gods. With a capital G it's a name, which is the name of Christian god.
Secondly, no definition of god I've ever heard includes omnipotence.
The Godhead, Christ, and the Holy Spirit all share their omnipotence in their trinity, although that even befuddled Aquinas. Allah and Yahweh are omnipotent.
This doesn't work. Omnipotence means only one. 2 beings cannot be all-powerful, and if the other one has any power, neither are omnipotent.
You have a point. Consider this though. How can a being be most powerful without being all powerful? The domain of discussion is ALL.
My bad. I should've put some restrictions on the argument. Anyway, can you confine the discussion on omnipotence alone. Set aside all other aspects of the God issue like the qualities of the universe and whether it's a good one or not. Just focus on omnipotence and its logical consequences.
Quoting ?????????????
Impossible only when there are more than 1 god.
Easy....have all other beings be less powerful; it's purely comparative.
I should've worded that better. Definitions of some specific gods include omnipotence, but I haven't heard any general definition for gods or deities that includes omnipotence.
Yes I though of that objection. Even if there's only 1 omnipotent being there is only the possibility of the contradiction unstoppable spear vs impenetrable shield. It never actualizes because the omnipotent being can choose not to do so. It can either make the unstoppable spear or the impenetrable shield but not both.
In the case of multiple omnipotent beings the situation is different. The only way the contradiction isn't actualized is through some kind of pact between omnipotent beings and this will preclude the creation of both the unstoppable spear and the impenetrable shield since their creation would undermine the power of one of the omnipotent beings.
Situation A
Only 1 omnipotent being A
Creating the unstoppable spear (Sp) AND the impenetrable shield (Sh) is a contradiction.
But A can create either Sp OR Sh. A can also destroy the Sp and create the Sh or vice versa. No contradiction.
Situation B
There are two omnipotent beings A and B
To maintain a balance of power A has to modify its actions on B's actions and vice versa. This constraint makes both non-omnipotent.
Assume: there are no omnipotent.
1. x is non existent
2. y is non existent
3. If x is non existent then x cannot kill y
4. If x cannot kill y then y cannot be dead
5. If y is non existent then y cannot be killed
6. If y cannot be killed then y cannot be dead
7. y cannot be dead AND y cannot be dead (non contradiction)
So, our assumption that there are TWO omnipotent beings is false. This reasoning can be applied to any number of Gods.
I think this works just fine because 0 is a number and this reasoning can be applied to any number of gods.
Does this prove there are no gods?
Think of USA and the erstwhile USSR. Did they not limit each other's influence. It was a deadlock. In our small world both were all-powerful. Yet they undermined each other.
I thought of that. It does seem, prima facie, that even one omnipotent God can't exist (stone paradox). But in the case of one omnipotent being it can choose not to create such a stone and there's no contradiction.
Regarding your initial post and the matter of God/s and omnipotence, I can only comment in refererence to my understanding of how the omnipotence of the Christian God is generally conceptualised today in mainstream trinitarian theology, still I hope you might find the essence of this conceptualisation is of some possible interest/help if I briefly outline it ? So here it is...
With respect to the Christian God, the attribute of "omnipotence" is not intended to be viewed in its (typical/standard) QUANTITATIVE sense. Let me explain...
Christians refer to their God as "God the Father Almighty" ( Lat: patrem omnipotentum) and it is very important here to understand that the conception "Almighty" receives its light from the conception "Father" and not vice versa. That is, it is an act of divine omnipotence through which God makes Himself known to humanity as "Father"; or, in other words, the revelation to humanity of God as Father in His Son Jesus Christ ( through the Holy Spirit) IS the act by which we come to know what it means to say that God is "omnipotent ( all-powerful). That is, to know the Father is to know Jesus Christ ( the Son) - and more specifically, the Jesus Christ who DIED then ROSE again ( was resurrected on the third day) and then ascended ( vertically) to the right hand of the Father in the kingdom of heaven.
The point is that to know God the Father is to believe ( through the complementary and mutually re-enforcing supernatural knowledge of faith AND the finite knowledge that is provided by our human reason) that He alone is the one who CIRCUMSCRIBES life and death; that He alone is the one who has power over life and death, and it is in THIS sense that He is spoken of as "omnipotent". Thus, when Christians refer to the omnipotence of God as something that CIRCUMSCRIBES life and death (I.e. ALL THINGS) the predicate "omnipotent" has a QUALITATIVE connotation that is radically distinct from the the typical QUANTITATIVE understanding of the term.
When the term omnipotent is used in its standard, quantitative sense, it generates questions such as:
"If God can do everything (a quantitative descriptor of omnipotence), can he create a rock so big ( again, a quantitative qualifier) that He cannot lift it ?"
This kind of question - like your question regarding the outcome of a violent life and death struggle between two omnipotent hypothetical gods, X and Y - is ill-guided, not only because it assumes a QUANTITATIVE framework for the answer, but because it assumes that omnipotence if first and foremost about FORCE rather than POWER ( and I do not, of course, not mean Power as it is quantitatively/ mathematically defined in classical mechanics as the quotient of Force and Time).
For Christians, God the Father is omnipotent in the precise sense that it is He and He alone who exercises the perogative over the MOST POWERFUL of ALL THINGS known to man; that which man fears most of all, and that from which none can escape. DEATH.
Regards
John
There's too bloody many already thank you.
Ok. They (USA & USSR) were most powerful on Earth. That's the point. They couldn't make themselves all powerful because they put a check on each other's influence.
Thanks for your post. Interesting POV. However, didn't God create the universe? Even if we interpret omnipotence qualitatively there's no avoiding the quantitative aspect of God's omnipotence. So the matter isn't resolved; at least not as you expected it.
Quoting Vajk
Imagine 2 omnipotent beings x and y. Either x can limit y's power or not. If it can then y isn't omnipotent. If it can't then x isn't omnipotent.
Imagine Socrates playing chess with God, whos going to win?
The One who knows everything, or the one who knows nothing?
What does the winner get? Everything? Nothing?
(Is it easier to imagine Socrates rather then God because of the writings, paintings, sculptures, etc or you do not belive that those items serves as proofs of his existence?)
Why bother?
If it is the 1st Cause, then isn't every subsequent caused, less.
I think this should be the Origo of this topic, becuse this statment allows everybodey to think whatever they want to think.
It does not say, that x or y omnipotence can do this and that, and x or y can not to his and that, it says bot of them is possible. Perhaps not necessary yet, but still...
If both are possible, then neither of them are necessary.
What is the opposite of God?
What's the opposite of God, for you.
Then there was a huge blow. I could not belive it, so I started to laugh, and i was laughing while I was born. What do you think, what should I nominee as an opposite for God? Mankind?!
I think the opposite of God is time...but I like your story.
Time is a menace, destroys everything, fully indifferent to all that occurs in it, & wholly necessary.
I don't believe in nothing.
Something what you can not belive in?
Depends on what you think "Time" is.
I think of it as metaphysical, as the opposite of God, order, law, perfection, necessity.
I don't know god, I don't live with god.
I live in a world that has no reason of its own, only what I give it.
My conclusion thus far, of course I think and read about such things.
Plato is one of my heroes, but I don't believe or agree with everything he wrote.
I don't believe in his forms, and I think he ended up having his doubts about the perfect realm.
I have to split (not in two).
nice chat, Ciao.
But I can Imagine the voice to telling peoples different things just as we read it From Plato´s Dialogues.
The "stone (omnipotence) paradox" is merely a problem in semantics. That is, questions such as "Could God square a circle ?" or "Could God create a stone so heavy that He could not lift it ?" Are formulated in human language, and human language is simply not capable of describing any attribute or characteristic of God as He is in Himself. When I say God " as He is in Himself" I mean God the divine Subject or God as what Christians refer to as "essential" or "ontological trinity".
The Biblical God - as He is in himself- is, with respect to humanity, transcendent and "wholly other". He the divine Subject, is utterly unknowable, incomprehensible, unspeakable and forever hidden from man's view. He , as the divine Subject, is totally mysterious. As it is written of God in the Old Testament( Book of Isaiah) : " His ways are not our ways, his thoughts are not our thoughts".
Given this, human language is not capable of describing the kind of power an omnipotent being like the Christian God possesses. Even attempting to formulate questions like the "stone (omnipotence) paradox" is an exercise in futility since human words cannot begin to refer to God as He is in Himself.
With regard to God's transcendance, Karl Barth - who was arguably the 20th century's most influential Christian (Protestant) theologian - explains the issue far more eloquently than ever I could. So I will quote him directly to help clarify the point I am making about the "stone paradox" being merely a semantic problem... a problem rooted in the fact that human language totally lacks any capacity to even begin to attempt a description of ANY aspect of the true nature of God as He is in Himself - the "wholly other"and utterly mysterious divine Subject.
Barth says of Him...
"For humankind God is always on the other side, new, removed, foreign/Unknown, superior, is never within reach, never his possession, whoever utters God always says miracle"..."There is, to be precise, no divine predicate/affirmation ( such as "omnipotent", "omniscient", "omnibenevolent, etc), no divine concept that contains in particular that which God is, there is, to be precise, only the divine Subject and in Him the fullness of His divine affirmation"..."Insofar as a confirmation by the human is concerned, insofar as a spiritual happening is determined and receives its direction from God and takes on the form of faith, the impossible, the miracle, the PARADOX"
, takes place."
Regards
John
And the irony is you use words to describe what, according to you, is indescribable. How do you get this kind of privileged knowledge?
). When God spoke directly to Isaiah about Himself, the prophet carefully wrote down what he was told, as follows...
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts
Nor are My ways (plans) " declares THE LORD.
"For as the heavens are higher than the earth
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts higher than your thoughts"
Do you geddit? Do you understand what God is saying? He is basically saying," Look, don't even THINK about trying to work me out because I am way, waaaaaay above and beyond anything you (human beings) could ever possibly imagine.
Check it out for yourself in the Old Testament (cf: Isaiah Chapter 55 verses 8-9)
Regards
John
What of all the other people who claim knowledge of God? Are they bogus?
Quoting Vajk
You may have a point but it's irrelevant to my argument.
His indescribability is a property of human language, not of God.
How do you know God is indescribable?
Taking a short sentence out of context does not aid argumentation.
"[i]God can want for nothing else god would not be omnipotent.
— charleton[/i]
You replied"I don't think power and want are linked in that manner. Perhaps you mean perfection, not omnipotence and that deserves its own thread."
A being with all power can have no needs, as he has all he wants; QED your objection is false.
In the same way omnipresence means that we would all have to be a part of god and not apart from god, BY DEFINITION.
Any argument with "omni-" can only apply to the universe and everything in it, and has no meaning, as there is nothing that is not the universe.BY DEFINITION.
Saint Augustine said of God, "Si Comprehendis non Deus est", - ( If you understand Him, he is not God).
Augustine means that If we (human beings) could , in fact, fully understand and describe God (I.e. accurately describe the ESSENCE of God,- the personal nature of God the divine Subject as He is in Himself)) using human language and human concepts, then "He" would not be God, would he? He would be nothing more than a mere human construct - a finite, false idol created by , and possessed by, man -a "Nicht Gott" like the God whose death Nietzsche famously announced in the 19th century. But the one true (and living) Christian God can never be a possession of mankind, human beings can never "put God in their pocket" as it were, and hold Him hostage to their mortal diktats and desires. Human beings cannot, in short, deem to tell Him- "God the Father Almighty" - what He is or is not. Any attempt to do so represents nothing more than a foolish, futile word game which very quickly goes "pear-shaped" in the form of semantic problems like the "stone paradox" and so on.
Regards
John
As a village worthy you should not practice sophistry.
Regards
John
And is that supposed to make my argument unsound? Trying to catch the wind somehow?
Quoting Vajk
We can't see unicorns but we can make the argument that it doesn't need gasoline.
Quoting John Gould
So, you don't know if he's omnipotent or not?
It does, assuming you mean the argument that God can't be indescribable.
I see. So, it's an assumption. Then I may work with assumption that we can know God. Can we now focus on my argument that there's only 1 God?
Thomas Aquinas has a similar argument using 'perfection' instead of 'omnipotence', as so:
P1: If two beings are distinct, it means that one possesses an attribute that the other does not possess.
P2: A perfect being in every way possesses all attributes that make it perfect.
C1: Therefore if two perfect beings existed, they would both possess all attributes that make them perfect, making them non-distinct, or one and the same.
C2: Therefore there can only be one perfect being.
I have one objection though. Differences can be perfection-related and non perfection-related. For instance position in space doesn't seem to be related to perfection. A perfect being at position x or y or z...is still perfect. So two perfect beings may share all perfection-related properties such as goodness but may not share the same position in space. Thus making them distinct but not affecting their perfection. Like identical twins. Taking physical attributes as perfection-related and spatial position as not, we can see how two distinct perfect beings may exist. Just saying...Thanks.
You assume that we can describe God. I disagree. Let's put God aside for a moment and focus our attention on buttons, like the buttons on a shirt. Could you give me a brief description of the perfect button?
With thanks
John
One that does its job properly.
I See, so others Ideas are irrelevant for your arguments, (I am assuming this because you can not see Ideas just like Unicorns) therefore this conversation just like your other conversasttions are pointless.
Thank you.
But there are lots and lots of buttons that do their job properly ! Iam only interested in nature of THE perfect button and apart from doing its job properly what physical properties ( for example) it possesses in terms of, say its size, shape, colour, mass, density,what substance it is made from( wood , metal, plastic?), how many thread holes it would possess, or is it the case that the perfect button is one that is not sewn onto a shirt or trousers with cotton, etc?) and so on? According to Anselm's ontological argument we can possess an idea of God as THE perfect being, now a button is a much humbler thing than God Almighty so surely you should have no difficulty providing me with a brief descriptive account of the nature of THE perfect button as it is in itself?
Thanks
John
Good point. I think a 'being in every way' is one that transcends all other things; otherwise it is not as perfect as a thing can be. As such, this being would transcend space and time, if that is logically possible, and thus have no space-time attributes.
To answer the question "what is a perfect button", we must first answer the question "what is a button", that is, what is its essence. I am guessing you mean a shirt button as opposed to a button you press to activate something. I think its essence is: a device designed to hold pieces of fabric together at one spot. Now, as mentioned, a perfect thing is one that does its job properly, or one that fulfills its nature perfectly. Thus a perfect button is a device that perfectly fulfills its nature of holding pieces of fabric together at one spot. After that, all physical properties that provide a means to that end is part of the perfect button, although these are relative to each situation.
Quoting John Gould
A perfect button, for me, would have to combine aesthetics, utility, comfort, durability, cost, etc.
You are presuming that the essential nature of a button MUST be defined in utilitarian terms. What if my friend Mr X insists that the essence of a button is fundamentally a question of aesthetics (beauty). The onus is now on you to prove that Mr X is mistaken and that his thesis that the perfect button is the most beautiful button is false.
The ball is now in your court. Please present your objection/s.
Regards
John
According to St Anselm and yourself THE perfect button exists and it is something that human beings can conceive of in their mind, that is, hold as an entity in their waking consciousness/phenomenal domain ( I.e. as an experienced entity, that presents itself in their perceptual and conceptual consciousness ). You mention that the perfect button has (amongst other attributes) a certain cost. Please tell me roughly what its value is in US currency as I am interested in purchasing it and would like to know if I can afford to buy it. Remember I am a serious man on a quest for the perfect button so don't waste my time.
Over to you.
Thanks
John
Does the most beautiful button do its job?
If it does not fulfill its purpose as a button then it cannot be qualified as a button(in either of the senses).
If it does fulfill its purpose as a button, then any other quality is secondary and therefore just a question of taste or adaption to use.
What is the purpose of this god you talk about? If it has no purpose then any or even no quality would make it perfect for the job.
Buttons having a purpose can be described in so many ways that are each perfect for the job they do, so there might be millions of perfect buttons.
If you insist on an answer to your question you will have to provide some sort of quality or purpose that can be compared to a button.
And maybe you could provide a similar list of qualities for your god.
With respect to the God I am referring to - the Biblical God - AS HE IS IN HIMSELF, that is, as what orthodox Christian theology refers to as God in his being as "essential" (or "ontological") Trinity , I am sorry to disappoint you but the answer is an emphatic "No, I cannot !". I absolutely cannot provide any such list of finite descriptive qualities or attributes as those you request. This is because the essential, "intrinsic" nature of God, the divine Subject, as essential/ontological Trinity is utterly unknowable, inconceivable, incomprehensible, unspeakable, transcendent (supernatural), "wholly other", and forever hidden from, humanity.
Regards
John
That is not in the least disappointing, I expected it.
Quoting John Gould
Could there be some reason for this? Or is that unknowable as well?
When dealing with other beings we quite often infer characteristics from their behavior, is it not possible to do this for your god?
You will find Nothing.
You seem to be implying that perfection isn't conceivable. Well, if you're looking for some universal standard then it's obvious you won't find it. We can't even agree on what food to order at a restaurant.
However, we may have our own conception of perfection, in a relative sense. This is possible and also a fact - people have ideals (read perfection) that guide them through life. I'm sure you have your own set of ideals to guide you - it's quite clear from your posts.
So, perfection isn't inconceivable. It is and even universal perfection is, if only we can agree.
Quoting Vajk
Did you read that somewhere? Is it your personal experience?
So you admit them the idea of your god being perfect is only relative to your own conception of perfection?
Did your search end in disappointment? Many seem to have found something.
It sounds that way. But we can come to some agreement on what perfection entails e.g. omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omniscience aren't controversial.
In answer to your question, there IS, in fact, a way that we (human beings) can know God, but it must be emphasised that the particular knowledge of God I am referring to is something that we are given; something that man can never earn or merit through his own efforts, and also that this knowledge is only ever INDIRECT- as opposed to - absolute, knowledge.
To begin with, it ALWAYS remains the case that there is no path from man to God; that is, there is no possibility whatsoever that man can ever know God (personally, I.e. as He is in Himself, as the divine Subject) through any process of human reasoning. No amount of philosophical "logic-chopping" however fervent nor rational analysis however rigorous and cogent nor application or scientific investigation even within a completed physical theory in the hypothetical future, none of our most compelling motivations, our most earnest strivings, our most heroic efforts to know Him will ever unveil God the Unknown. They are all futile and in vain. But while there is no direct path from man to God, there IS a path from God to man...
The good news is that God has chosen - of his own free will - to reveal Himself ( God self) to humanity. The choice or -in more theological terms - the "election" that God makes to reveal God self to man is, it must be stressed, the sole perogative of God; it is a choice that He and He alone elects to make solely at his own discretion. There is absolutely nothing man can do to force it or even to merit it. It (revelation) is, nonetheless, graciously GIVEN to man freely and regardl as a gift of the infinite love that God lavishes upon humanity. As St John rightly tells us, God's humanity can be summed up in three words: "Deus Caritas Est" ( God IS love). God, in graciously condescending to save a fallen and lost humanity through revelation of Himself is truly "Sir2u". Remember that and be grateful. And If you lack faith, then pray for it.
To continue. There are ,very briefly, a number of mediums through which God reveals Himself to man, the primary channel of communication being Jesus Christ. Christ is - if you like - the "go-between" or "middle man" through which God has freely chosen to reveal Himself to humanity. The resurrection of the man, Jesus of Nazareth, as Christ ( the risen Son of God) on the third day after he died an excruciating death on the Cross at Calvary, IS the revelation of God. Human beings cannot know God apart from His revelation in Jesus Christ. It is in the resurrection of Christ that all impossibilities are combined and all irreconcilables reconciled. Christ is the miraculous, paradoxical bridge that spans the profound chasms between God ( the Unknown and transcendent) and moral humanity, between the separate and distinct realms of time and eternity and between the domain of eternal death and that of hope for the promise of new life everlasting beyond the grave. In the resurrection of Christ, God reveals himself as the eschatological God, and it is in this precise fact that atheism in the postmodern era faces its greatest challenge. This ,however, is a matter that fully warrants a separate "thread" in its own right, so I will not discuss it any further here.
Finally, returning to the question at hand, and again very, very briefly, although man may ( in faith) know God through revelation, the knowledge he is given is, as I said above, only INDIRECT knowledge. For even after His revelation in the resurrection of Christ, God remains forever the Unknown and incomprehensible, "wholly other" God. (And) this is because in manifesting Himself, He is, ironically, actually even farther away than He was before. Put simply, the more mankind knows of God, then the more He is still to be known and the more there are of things of God which will yet remain unknown to him. Any serious scholar who has devoted an academic career - or even an entire lifetime - striving to master some particular subject matter in his field of interest- be it in the sciences, philosophy, mathematics or the humanities - will automatically confirm his experience of exactly the same kind of ultimate irony. It is through His revelation to man in the resurrection of Jesus Christ that God, in short, REALLY becomes a mystery. It is in Christ that He makes Himself known as the Unknown ; as He who speaks as the eternally silent One.
Regards
John
If these are not controversial I don't know what is.
For something to be perfect, should it not include these qualities? How is something that is not omnipotent going to be perfect, a perfect being has to be capable of doing anything.
So that is something like the Hollywood saying, "Don't call us, we'll call you".Quoting JohnGould
Since it was his fault in the beginning he should help clean up the mess. If he was perfect and made humans in his image then someone screwed up somewhere. I guess that would be a good enough reason for not wanting to be seen though.
To be absolutely honest, I read the book several times and all I see in it is a rather twisted sales pitch. 2000 year old propaganda meant to scare the shit out of people to make them behave in a certain way. Cocacola spend millions to convert people into believers and have not had half of the success of religions. I wonder what it will be like when people start going to war over brands.
It was not "God's fault" that humanity screwed up. Remember that it was God Himself who chose to endow human beings with the gift of free will ( freedom of choice) So Man, when he did ultimately screw up - and screw up "big time" -did so purely of his own volition. In any case, there was was no way, having already decided to granted mankind the gift of free will that God could (logically) intervene and act to prevent man's fall from grace before it happened. If He had done so, then it would have defeated the whole purpose of giving human being freedom of choice in the first place . Had God done this, man whom He created in His own image would have been reduced to nothing more than a mindless, (albeit righteous and well-behaved) puppet and He a mere puppet master predictably pulling the strings that would keep his toy on the straight and narrow , safe from harm's way.That's was never God's intention; apart from anything else he would have found it a very boring "gig". Rather the earth that God created for mankind was intended by Him to be a "vale of soul -making" , that is, a place where human beings could - through the process of erring and suffering the consequences of their mistakes, hopefully learn in a way that would eventually lead themto to freely choose Himself and the , infinite , burning love He so selflessly lavished on the humanity He created in. His very own image.
As for God and Hollywood, it is not so much a case of God saying "Don't call me, I'll call you." God has said that you are free to call Him anytime you like , AND He sincerely hopes that you will decide to give him a ring, it's just that you should expect that He is in any way obliged or "duty bound" to answer your call. Whether or not He chooses to pick up His iPhone when yo call Him and PERSONALLY talk to you is purely a matter for Him to decide, not you. He might pick up, then again, He might not...Like it or not, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.in this case and I'm afraid that there's nothing at all you personally or anyone else can do to change it.
Finally, with respect to having the shit scared out of oneself, I don't know about you, but nothing ever did that for me quite like the firm belief I once briefly held that there was no prospect of hope for redemption of the suffering that I and those I loved had endured - and would inevitably continue to endure - in this life... that all I ( and they ) had waiting in store was the grim reality of eternal death; of death, that is ,as FINIS ( where dead is dead).
Regards
John
But how can you keep saying this when god himself said he cannot even be imagined by humans? If we cannot even imagine his properties then you cannot write about them.
Which is what he actually created. Where did he get the idea to give them free will?Quoting John Gould
That is basically what the Hollywood saying means.
Quoting John Gould
Why is it that I have no fear of death? I am over 60, I fully realize that the biggest part of my life is probable over and that the rest is going to be down hill. It saddens me maybe that I won't be around to witness so many things, but it does not scare me.
Why are you scared of it?
You're right but that's a big IF isn't it? I'm familiar with the incomprehensible - I find math very difficult. However, that doesn't mean it's universally incomprehensible. I don't think my limits are yours and vice versa. The claim God is imcomprehensible to ALL is what I doubt. There are many who've seen God. Shouldn't we try?
I like gardening as a hobby, you get better return on time spent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X_2IdybTV0
I decide many years ago that I would search for the things I needed in my life, gods were never on the list of useful things to look out for along the way.
Quoting John Gould
Sorry for the late response on this discussion.
A property of a thing is essential if the thing no longer retains its identity once the property is removed. Is a beautiful button a button? Yes. Is an ugly button still a button? Yes. Therefore beauty is not an essential property of buttons. On the other hand, is "a button that cannot hold two pieces of fabric together" still a button? No; just scrap material.
I am impressed by your knowledge of God and the reasons for evil in the world.
One small disagreement is when you say we cannot have any knowledge of God. Thomas Aquinas says that while we cannot have complete knowledge of God, we can have some. For one thing, we can know what he is not: If he is perfect, then he has no properties that are imperfect (weak, shy, ...). We can know he is the first cause, from the cosmological argument. We can know that there can only be one perfect being, as argued here. Finally, we can know some things about the cause from its effects: If we are truly created in his image, then our image must be somewhat close to his, even if only a little.
If he were perfect, would he not have all of these qualities? How can a perfect being be missing qualities?
With reference to the Christian God, I have tried to emphasise in my posts above that mankind cannot have any knowledge of God AS HE IS IN HIMSELF; that is, as God the divine Subject ( the One who IS - what man has, amongst other things (futilely, in his desperate struggle to place Him within human reach) referred to as- the final, ultimate and absolute Truth) who is transcendent, and forever hidden from humanity. For mankind, God the divine Subject is always "wholly other": unspeakable, incomprehensible, unimaginable, unthinkable, wholly inconceivable and completely imperceptible. There simply ARE NO divine predicates/affirmations that we human beings can ever use to describe this God and that includes supernal adjectives like infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and so on. In orthodox Christian theology THIS God , i.e. God as He is in Himself is referred to as the "essential" or "ontological" Trinity.
Human beings CAN , as I say, know something of God through what God has chosen to REVEAL of God Self to mankind; that is, through GOD'S HUMANITY. This revealed knowledge is a gift freely given by God at his sole discretion to man, and it is important to appreciate that it is only ever INDIRECT knowledge.
God revealed God's humanity , for instance, in the incarnation , life, teaching and resurrection ( as Christ) of Jesus of Nazareth, and also in the written testimony of the Biblical prophets and apostles as we have it in the Old Testament and the Gospel. To genuinely know God through what He has revealed of Himself to human beings ( in sources like Christ and the written word of the Bible, for example) one must, however possess a special (supernatural) WAY of properly understanding what been revealed by God of God self. This special way (mode) of understanding revealed knowledge is called faith. Faith, very briefly, is also a freely given gift of God, and ultimately only God decides upon which particular human beings the gracious gift of faith will be bestowed. Through faith, we can have sure and certain knowledge of such things as that God IS love or that God is Almighty (omnipotent) or that God is an eschatological God who brings human beings ( through His revelation of the resurrection of the crucified Jesus of Nazareth and the ( vertical) ascension the risen Christ Jesus to the Right Hand of the God the heavenly Father above) or the good news that there is hope for a new life everlasting beyond the grave and eternal death with God in His Kingdom, and hope, as well, for a deliverance from evil and a redemption of suffering, etc, etc.
Regards
John
OK, so now all that is left is to prove that Jesus existed and that he was god's son. That should not be a big problem.
I'll check back later for your reply.
The notion of original sin is silly. Add to it the fact that God ‘condescended’ to sacrifice himself (as Christ) for our lost and fallen selves is sillier still. For God created us deformed and made us ‘born sinners’ from the start. Yet He was kind enough to save us from ourselves? God cannot be that wicked or arrogant. God doles out mercy when and where He wills. But to condemn the human race collectively (original sin) and then swoop in later to save the human race is not glorious, its illogical.
Amen to that brother. >:)
I didn't read through the entire thread, so I don't know if anyone else pointed out that you're assuming that omnipotent beings would want to kill other omnipotent beings.
How about this argument? I call it, "Proof that there can be more than one God".
x is god
y is god
gods are omnibenevolent
omnibenevolent beings have no desire to kill others
therefore it's possible that there are 2 (or more) gods
So...tell me what happens to you after die? What does your illustrious, daring human reason with its pristine rationalism, its earnest philosophical "logic-chopping" and it clever scientific methods nobly pursuing the Truth suggest? Let me see... Ummm, Eternal death isn't it? Do I have that right MC? That is, when you die you, it's "Goodnight Vienna ! " as they say in the football, - I.e. death as FINIS ( dead is dead). Death that is the stone- cold, perfect stillnes of oblivion... death as nothingness. For you there is no supernatural bullshit going on after you die, correct? But the (Eternal) Death you preach seems to me a pretty hard-core old thang buddy.? Because Eternal Death is the prospect that renders EVERY SINGLe lived experience you ever experienced - your every magical, miraculous moment of awareness in lived phenomenal consciousness your every: CONVIVIALITY, every love, every sadness, every joy, every triumph, every poignancy, every tenderness, every pang of the bitter-sweet, every sorrow, every remorse, every striving, every unguarded smile, every soaring of , and song in, your heart, every fervent hope, every act of kindness or charity you have offered, or gift of compassion you have received, every noble dream, every cherished thing or moment, ALL for naught..ALL OF THEM and the rest, all ultimately meaningless, purposeless, pointless, amoral and frankly absurd. Were they all purely futile and worthless? Just a collection of random biochemical reactions ? . YOU , and your own life on this Earth- the lives of your wife, your children, those you love and care for; are you and they nothing more, ultimately, than meaningless, worthless, purposeless biological automata wandering aimlessly here and there - Lumps of organic matter whose destiny and sole raisin d'etre was always to be no more , in the end, than fodder for the grave worm?
Is THIS what you SINCERELY believe?
John
My argument, if it's a good one, proceeds from the notion of ominipotence to the necessity of there having to be only 1 God.
Can you find a loophole in my argument?
Another of your unstated premises is: "a God can be killed".
I don't know what would happen if one God attacked another, but I can imagine that the God being attacked wouldn't even bother defending Himself if He couldn't be killed. And if the attacking God knew His attacks would be ineffective, He wouldn't even bother attacking in the first place.
All for naught. Even if that is true, so what?
But how could it even be for nothing? All of those things make up MY life. When I go, what good are they to anyone else?
It is not the memories of the things that has value, it was actually doing them. I had those experiences myself, no one has any right to them except me. So when I die I will take them into the big dark void of emptiness, the stone- cold, perfect stillness of oblivion, the nothingness with me. And the rest can keep their own lives.
Quoting John Gould
Did you not read in the bible the bit about ashes to ashes, dust to dust?
Well, you've moved to intentions. This is relevant but doesn't hurt my argument.
If there were only 1 God, he's faced with the well-known paradox of "Can God create a stone impossible for God to lift?" The only way out of this paradox is to say that God would never actually create such a stone i.e. he will not - an intention.
In the case of two/more omnipotent Gods this inhibition of intent doesn't exist. One God, through his omnipotence, create a stone impossible for the other to lift. However, this isn't possible because the other God is equally omnipotent and should be able to lift the stone. As you can see, it's a power deadlock. I referred on poster to the situation during the cold war between USA and USSR. They both wanted to become all powerful but that was impossible because they checked each other's power.
I'm not sure how the above helps your argument- if you're saying that the USSR and the US are like gods, then you must admit they both exist, and you've provided us with a counter-argument.
On the other hand, are you invoking this unstated premise? "Gods are like countries (both can be destroyed)." Isn't it rather the case that Gods can't be destroyed (killed), but countries can be?
How about this counter-argument?
Gods (immortal, all-powerful beings) can't be killed. Therefore any number of them could exist simultaneously (after all, many cultures envisioned a pantheon of gods).
Both couldn't achieve all powerful status because they checked each other's power. Similarly, 2 powerful Gods will prevent each other from achieving omnipotence.
Quoting anonymous66
Well, leave aside the killing part. Two all powerful beings won't be able to achieve omnipotence because of the country analogy I gave above.
Suppose there are 2 Gods (A and B) who are equally powerful. Imagine now that A creates an impenetrable shield. Now if A is omnipotent then B can't create an unstoppable spear - limiting B's power and thus B can't be omnipotent.
It looks like what you're saying is that God A can either make something that God B cannot destroy, or he can't. If God A can make something that cannot be destroyed by God B, then God B isn't omnipotent. If God A can't make something that God B can destroy, then God A isn't omnipotent. <--- is that a valid summation?
Weakness and shyness are not qualities, are they? They are properties that are considered negative, like ugliness and laziness. The perfect being would not possess these.
I agree with you that we can know God if God reveals himself to us, like through Jesus and the bible. But why do you claim that we cannot know God any other way? You have not provided any reasons for that claim. Can you refute any of the arguments stated here?
Hi. God did not create us deformed and 'born sinners'. In the bible, God created Adam and Eve without sin, but with free will (for free will is necessary for love). Free will is the ability to choose between good and evil. They chose evil, which damned them and their children. But God did not condemn us; Adam and Eve did. And this 'condemnation' may be a necessary result from willing evil, inasmuch as 4 necessarily results from 2+2.
Weakness and shyness are not qualities.
Quality:
An essential and distinguishing attribute of something or someone
A characteristic property that defines the apparent individual nature of something
They are qualities because they help to define, explain or describe what things are like.
The fact that you consider them as negative attributes makes no difference they are still qualities.
And surely the perfect being would be a combination of ALL possible properties. A being that only held the quality of boldness would be flawed.
There is no answer to that so just confess and suck up life like a man. That way you will be reborn when the time comes, maybe anyways.
There is no answer to your claim that you are paying for someone else's sins. If you want to be religious, you just have to live with it.
Fessing up to a priest will get you saved for eternity, at least that is what they say. Believe that if it makes you happy.
You put it better than me.
Actually I think that salvation answers that question precisely. This condamnation for another's sin would be unfair IF there was no salvation. But there is salvation, and so justice prevails in the end.
Now I admit I am a bit unconfortable with that answer because it sounds like this salvation act is done out of duty, rather than out of charity as taught in the Christian doctrine, and so I could be missing something. But it is a possible explanation.
I accept your definition of 'quality', but reject your definition of a 'perfect being'. A perfect being is one that possesses all good qualities and no bad ones. Possessing all possible qualities results in a contradiction because some qualities like omnibenevolent and omnimalevolent are contradictory.
If we were talking about a car I would agree, but this is supposed to be a complete being, so I would guess he needs to have every single possible property. And it could not be a contradiction because after all he is a god, and gods are capable of being everything they want to be.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
Sending your only son to die is a good quality?
Letting "your favorite group of people" wonder around a dessert after being slaves for a long time is a good trait?
Letting some nitwit that is not nearly as powerful as you bully you into letting him tempt your creation into doing bad is a good quality?
And the list goes on and on.
Completion is not synonymous with perfection. A perfect score on a multiple choice exam includes only the right answers and excludes the wrong ones.
Quoting Sir2u
Yes, it is all logically possible that these are good acts; inasmuch as it is good to allow a short-term evil for a long-term good. Jesus died for our salvation. God let his people wander around because they sinned and may have needed to learn a lesson. Etc.
So it is possible for something to be perfect even if it is incomplete?
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
Not worked out too well yet though has it? When are we supposed to be saved?
If by 'complete' we mean 'reaching its full potential', then no. But if we mean 'includes all properties', then yes.
Quoting Sir2u
After we die. Instead of ceasing to exist after death, we resurrect in the afterlife and the physical evil is gone, as well as the original sin.
Good and bad may be subjective or objective depending on its kind. Good and bad in taste is subjective. Good and bad in morality is objective. Everyone wants justice done to them; nobody wants injustice done to them.
One big argument from incredulity
The afterlife is either eternal boredom and thusly a hell of its own making or a state of perpetual amnesia/enjoyment that negates our free will therefore negating who we are. The only truly perfect end is neither sudden death or eternal life but a life well lived or deserved. Anything else is a hell to others or a hell to yourself.
How would you convince me that original sin actually exists (especially since Adam and Eve definitely probably didn't exist)?
Gods commonly associated with pantheons - like the Greek, or the Norse, for example - are not infinitely - or "all-powerful" as you put it - powerful. The concept of just an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent god is an idea that if applied to the concept of a pantheon, contradicts itself as your own post shows. The post of God - here understand God as, The One, Allah, Zurvan, and all its cultural versions - is unique and absolute, there can be none other than him in his place - if the meaning of "place" could be applied to something like "God" -.
Spinoza appears to offer one supposing God is substance and:
[Quote]
PROP. XIV. Besides God no substance can be granted or conceived.
Proof.—As God is a being absolutely infinite, of whom no attribute that expresses the essence of substance can be denied (by Def. vi.), and he necessarily exists (by Prop. xi.); if any substance besides God were granted, it would have to be explained by some attribute of God, and thus two substances with the same attribute would exist, which (by Prop. v.) is absurd; therefore, besides God no substance can be granted, or, consequently, be conceived. If it could be conceived, it would necessarily have to be conceived as existent; but this (by the first part of this proof) is absurd. Therefore, besides God no substance can be granted or conceived. Q.E.D.
[/Quote]
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3800/3800-h/3800-h.htm
But this would appear to be a pantheist conception of God, not an anthropomorphic god.
It looks like it's easier to prove the opposite. Anyway, sticking to my guns, I'd have to say that, with an attribute like omnipotence, there's a natural urge to think of one instead of any other number.
If we look at the omni-attributes of God and imagine a multitude of beings, say X, Y and Z possessing them, it follows that X = Y = Z. Given this to be the case and falling back on Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles principle, it seems we're forced to accept that there's only ONE God.
It looks like it's easier to prove the opposite of what than what? Was this a reply to Gus?
Quoting TheMadFool
This strikes me as a fast and loose, albeit formulated ostensibly differently, version of Spinoza:
[Quote]
There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute.
If several distinct substances be granted, they must be distinguished one from the other, either by the difference of their attributes, or by the difference of their modifications (Prop. iv.). If only by the difference of their attributes, it will be granted that there cannot be more than one with an identical attribute. If by the difference of their modifications—as substance is naturally prior to its modifications (Prop. i.),—it follows that setting the modifications aside, and considering substance in itself, that is truly, (Deff. iii. and vi.), there cannot be conceived one substance different from another,—that is (by Prop. iv.), there cannot be granted several substances, but one substance only. Q.E.D.
By substance, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception
By mode, I mean the modifications[1] of substance, or that which exists in, and is conceived through, something other than itself.
By attribute, I mean that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.
By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite—that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.
[/Quote]
If there were two or more substances - two or more of that which is conceived independently of anything else - and they had identical attributes/(constitutive essences) - then either they would be the same single substance or in any case we could never know which one of the 'many' we were conceiving of - and if there were one among many, they would presumably be contingent upon or subsist in a substance anterior to the 'many' whereby that which distinguishes one from another has its essence and subsistence. If they differed in modification, by definition this would lead us back to that which was modified which would find a similar unity.
[quote="TheMadFool;447065"]
Given this to be the case and falling back on Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles principle, it seems we're forced to accept that there's only ONE God.
[/Quote]
Spinoza appears to be in agreement here.
Yes, it was a reply to Gus Lamarch. I meant that it's much much easier to prove a pantheon of gods than one god. Look at all the chaos we see around us - each god is vying for superiority against another divine being.
Quoting Kevin
:up:
1. x is omnipotent
2. y is omnipotent
3. If x is omnipotent then x can kill y
4. If x can kill y then y can be dead
5. If y is omnipotent then y can't be killed
6. If y can't be killed then y can't be dead
7. y can be dead AND y can't be dead (contradiction)
So, our assumption that there are TWO omnipotent beings is false. This reasoning can be applied to any number of Gods.
Line 5- omnipotence does not mean the inability to die, it means they have the choice to die or not. Technically speaking an omnipotent being has unlimited power so they could make the choice to live or die.
The whole premise is also putting human limitations onto omnipotent beings. Why would beings with unlimited power even be interested in killing each other when they could do anything that their nature allows them to?
Gods are not biological beings, so can they even die or be killed?
So could it be logically deduced that only 1 omnipotent god exists? Yes, but not from this argument form. However, as aforementioned not all gods are omnipotent, so more than 1 god could exist at the same time. Omnipotence is really an attribute that monotheistic religions assign to their gods. Most polytheistic religions do not have 1 omnipotent god. Here is my argument proposing that more than 1 god may exist.
If a god is omnipotent, then there is only 1 god.
Not every god is omnipotent.
Therefore, more than 1 god may exist.
Here is my proposed argument for 2 omnipotent beings existing at the same moment in time and space. I chose not to use words like kill and die because that is putting human weakness and a power we lack onto higher beings.
Omnipotence means having unlimited power and the ability to do anything that omnipotent being wants to.
There are 2 omnipotent beings X and Y.
If X is omnipotent it can attempt to cause Y to cease to exist.
If Y is omnipotent it can choose to not exist at the hands of X or not.
Omnipotent being Y can attempt to cease X’s existence.
X can choose to not exist at the hands of Y or not.
Thus, 2 omnipotent beings can exist at the same moment in time and space.
This makes a lot of sense if applied to the abrahamic religions - because the three of them believe in the same god, only with different interpretations of how to worship god - Allah = God = Yhwh - -. If two or more omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Gods exist, their own existences cancel each other out and we would return to a scenario of gods warring against gods. In my view, a pantheon could only exist if the gods were not "all-powerful".
In ancient Greece, for example, multiple Gods were worshipped. Now, in this instance, if each God was stated to be omnipotent, your argument could be suitable: after all, these Gods were noted to have physical bodies, and to engage in physical pursuits (eating, running, and even getting headaches are all noted to be experienced by the Gods in Greek mythology.) Beings with physical bodies, generally speaking, are able to die or have their existence ended in some way. Therefore, if these gods had physical bodies, you could infer that dying would be a possibility for them, which would pose a problem to their omnipotence. However, that claim would be problematic, because the Greek Gods were never considered to be omnipotent, as demonstrated throughout Greek mythology: none of them were all-powerful, since there were Gods for different subjects and areas, and they were able to outwit each other.
For argument's sake, and to illustrate this, let's say that I tell you that I have a religion with ten gods, and none of them are omnipotent. Your argument is laid out in such a way that this would be impossible if the gods were omnipotent (as they would cancel out each other's omnipotence in a difficult paradox), but this example slips through a loophole: none of these ten hypothetical gods are omnipotent. I'll put this example in a standard argument form.
1. If a God does not necessarily have to be omnipotent, it poses an issue to this argument, which would not disprove the existence of multiple Gods.
2. Greek, Norse, Incan, and Mayan religions throughout history, to name a few examples, all involve Gods with limited powers, who do not have to be omnipotent.
3. Therefore, this argument is called into question, and the issue of omnipotence does not necessarily disprove the existence of multiple Gods. (1, 2 MP)
Further, if I change courses and say that I worship a religion with three Gods, and specify that they do not have corporeal forms in any way: no physical bodies, no atomic makeup, nothing, your argument does not contain language that could prove me wrong. P4 gives the impression that death is something that could be applicable within the context of a God's existence, at least enough to create a problem with a God's omnipotence. We don't know, and when formatting an argument, shouldn't assume that a God is capable of dying, particularly in the absence of concrete evidence of a God with a physical form. If a God doesn't exist in a physical body, and isn't "alive" by our definition of the word, it seems implausible to say that "death," again by our definition of the word, would be possible for them. The definition of omnipotence, or being all-powerful, does not necessarily need to concern or specify with regard to death at all.
Gradualism
I'm sort of fine with this definition if what we mean here is that we happen to search throughout the cosmos and of all beings catalogued we happen to find one that is more powerful than any previous being. You'd need to specify how you would measure this sense of being powerful or more powerful. If you mean by powerful as can actualize more things or states of affairs then two being could in number possess the same quantity of capabilities but differ largely in the nature of what they can both bring about.
Quoting TheMadFool
By comparison to beings with less of the capability of being powerful (not defined here). It's really childishly simple to understand that in comparison and put into a line up with some numerical understanding of how powerful each entity "x" is then the most powerful is the only entity that has no other existent entity "y" that is greater in power by comparison.
Quoting TheMadFool
Any what? Can he do things that contradict his ability to do things? Can he do impossible things (there by making them definitionally not impossible)? What can such a being do?
That there's only one god follows from this ability - the power to contradict himself/herself/itself. Were it that more than one god existed, there would be no contradictions for the simple reason that it's possible for two or more gods to oppose each other in views/actions. For instance Pax (god of peace) and Ares (god of war) are different gods. War and peace though in direct conflict with each other doesn't amount to a contradiction because two different beings are involved. Only when there's only ONE god does war and peace both emanating from the same source amount to a contradiction. Since to be omnipotent, and god has to be omnipotent, there has to be contradictions, it follows that there's only ONE god. :chin:
Technically if what a human being can understand or what actions a human being can perform metaphysically are determined/governed descriptively by the laws of classical logic then what a human being could understand or perform would remain within the classical regime. It would be impossible for a human being to understand or perform contradictory actions because by their own nature they are unable to do so.
Quoting TheMadFool
As far as you know and understand the ontological ramifications for these metaphysical descriptors that underlie many aspects of our analysis of reality which we dub classical logic.
Quoting TheMadFool
Why? Why defy the law of non-contradiction and not that of the law identity or hold onto any other tens of different non-classical logic? Do you know that what you could happen to derive in one may not be derivable in another so in some cases it wouldn't be considered more powerful to hold one set of axioms over another.
Quoting TheMadFool
Why should he be able to do contradictions? What makes this a necessary attribute of being omnipotent. . . especially given I nor you know the extant to which reality beyond our senses is more friendly to one axiomatic system of logic than another.
Quoting TheMadFool
I think you are playing loosely with your anthropomorphic biases here in defining god. Reality just is and while there are differences among it these could be considered merely aspects or parts of god that do not amount to the whole.
Quoting TheMadFool
I reject this premise as to be omnipotent you would merely need to exercise more power (not defined or specified) as an entity than any other entity in existence and perhaps in all potentialities capable that the future holds. It merely is "the most powerful entity that exists". This could entail that they do hold onto within their nature an arbitrary set of governing non-classical axioms but this could also easily mean one that is logically bound by classical logic yet can still possess more power (still ill-defined or specified) than any entity that does exist, will exist, has existed, or could potentially exist. The arbitrary logical grounding that underlies such an entity is really rather second in importance.
:ok:
Quoting substantivalism
Good question. The law of noncontradiction is the right choice if the objective is to do something impossible.
Quoting substantivalism
1. If there is omnipotence then there has to be contradictions
2. If there has to be contradictions then there's only one god
3. There is omnipotence (god is defined thus)
Ergo,
4. There has to contradictions (1, 3 modus ponens)
Ergo,
5. There's only one god (2, 4 modus ponens)
If you are able to do something that is impossible then it actually isn't impossible and rather not categorized correctly or specified. If something is impossible by definition then it CANNOT be possible if it's then clearly you do not understand your definitions enough to have changed your labeling.
If you are to abide by a non-classical logic then you can perform actions that would be consistent with the axioms of that logical structure chosen to ground the nature of such an entity. If the action is implicitly to be one that must abide by classical logic then actions which you cannot perform and would be impossible would be ones in which you aren't following classical logic.
Quoting TheMadFool
Something can only perform logically consistent actions with respect to classical logic and yet be more influential, powerful, or bring about more (perhaps infinitely many) various states of affairs than any other creature that does or could potentially (or did) exist. Thusly deserving of the label of being omnipotent. . . intuitively though you haven't really specified a PRECISE definition of omnipotence in our discussion.
It's also of suspect whether a being could exist, period, that could perform logically contradictory actions or better stated what specific axioms of logic can potentially differ (or actually are) versus those that are set in stone metaphysically.
Quoting TheMadFool
I wasn't disagreeing with the validity of your argument but rather its soundness. I reject premise one. . . though this would require you to precisely define what omnipotence is with no VAGUE notions.
It's not that there's failure in categorization of possible and impossible. You're using human logic to try and comprehend this particular aspect of divine omnipotence and it has led you to the conclusion that there's been a miscategorization. No such thing has occurred. A contradiction is impossible and this makes sense, it is also possible and this too makes sense, but only to god and not to us.
Is it possible under the accepted logical axiomatic structure (fuzzy logic, classical logic, para-consistent, etc) for such an action to be performed? Is this logic assumed to hold with such an entity? Then it's possible only with a certain logical structure otherwise it cannot be done with another logical structure. An entity not following nature wise classical logic can then perhaps perform an action that could not be done if said entity was by nature bound to classical logic.
Quoting TheMadFool
Is it possible for an entity to bring about a state of affairs (even one that is in classical logic to be considered contradictory) then it was never impossible in the first place. It was possible all along just that you had to have a non-classical logic for it to be the case.
It's impossible for a human being to jump thirty feet off the ground. This is implicit in the definition of a human being which would include our nomological restrictions and may include but is not limited to the inability to perform said action. Does this make jumping thirty feet impossible? Depending on your nature it may be rather hidden as a tautology that you could not so it wouldn't be possible if you desired to. So when we create a robotic entity that is able to jump thirty feet off the ground then it's rather implicit (or more explicit here) that its accompanying nomological restrictions do not force it to have a jump height of less than thirty feet so it's also possible. The key point here is that to say something is possible or not is vague as it doesn't specify the specific entity's nature or restrictions.