Originally posted by souverein This is more than two pence 😉. This weekend I will chew on it and will try to answer you soon after. Meanwhile I am curious about the outcome of a chess game between X and Y, assuming X and Y both decide to win?
Feel like playing a game?
Sure! though you'll have to challenge me because I'm short of my average rating at the moment (and so can't challenge you) due to massive skull fest a while ago :]
Originally posted by souverein Right! It proves that a separate being cannot be omnipotent. It leads to a myriad of paradoxes and will make your god rather powerless.
You agree with me that a separate (monotheistic) god cannot reproduce himself. But that means he is less powerful than any living being here on earth.
Only in a pantheistic universe you could escape that paradox and argue that god might be omnipotent.
I dont believe you can escape paradoxes if you earnestly study the universe/multiverse for long enough.
It is upto the individual to be truthful with him/herself . This most simplest of tasks seems to be a stumbling for the majority of the population of the world. Or so my experience leads me to hypothesize.
Originally posted by Doward mmmmmm...no. You make large assupmtions that are not apodeicticly true. A supreme being, all powerful and all knowing, [b]would not seperate himself. The being of perfect reason would see that as a paradox and reunite with itself, or as omniscient would know that doing so would be a paradox and would not do so.
Its a very illogical (ill thought out) road your taking, and not worth anymore of my time[/b]
Why is it not worth more of your time? Souverein seems to be quite open-minded...
Originally posted by Agerg [b]An omnipotent god should be able to reproduce himself.
But there can not be more than one omnipotent god On a purely philosophical level I'm not so sure about your contention there cannot be more than one omnipotent god (without other assumptions). Of course, if one takes
[i]"X is omnipotent" to mean that for all Y =/= X, Y is strictly less in pot ...[text shortened]... ught experiment than any attempt to vindicate the feasibility of an omnipotent god/(s).[/b]
My point was not so much to prove that there cannot be more than one omnipotent being but that 'one omnipotent being' is already an oxymoron. Because the duplication of such a being leads to an internal conflict. The duplication makes both beings less potent than one omnipotent being.
You tried to solve this by arguing they will remain equally potent, True, but such beings will be less potent than humans who are definitely non-omnipotent. 'Omnipotent beings can be less potent than non-omnipotent beings' is evidently a false statement.
They can be maximal potent, but omnipotent.
Originally posted by karoly aczel I dont believe you can escape paradoxes if you earnestly study the universe/multiverse for long enough.
It is upto the individual to be truthful with him/herself . This most simplest of tasks seems to be a stumbling for the majority of the population of the world. Or so my experience leads me to hypothesize.
Originally posted by souverein My point was not so much to prove that there cannot be more than one omnipotent being but that 'one omnipotent being' is already an oxymoron. Because the duplication of such a being leads to an internal conflict. The duplication makes both beings less potent than one omnipotent being.
You tried to solve this by arguing they will remain equally potent, T ipotent beings' is evidently a false statement.
They can be maximal potent, but omnipotent.
I'm not seeing where the duplication leads to internal conflict - dropping any assumptions about what gods should be (such as knowledgeable, benevolent, etc...) and assuming *only* omnipotence then we could suppose X omnipotent (i.e. no being can potentially be *more* potent ) duplicates itself to create X_2 for which it will also be true that no being can potentially be *more* potent than either of them.
As for less potency than humans, again I'm not seeing this.
Originally posted by Agerg I'm not seeing where the duplication leads to internal conflict - dropping any assumptions about what gods should be (such as knowledgeable, benevolent, etc...) and assuming *only* omnipotence then we could suppose X omnipotent (i.e. no being can potentially be *more* potent ) duplicates itself to create X_2 for which it will also be true that no being can pot ...[text shortened]... re* potent than either of them.
As for less potency than humans, again I'm not seeing this.
I guess it depends on how we define omnipotence. We seem to differ about its meaning.
You suggest that an being is omnipotent when his potency is more than or equal to the potency of any other being. But I think omnipotent = dowered with infinite, unlimited and universal power.
Originally posted by souverein I guess it depends on how we define omnipotence. We seem to differ about its meaning.
You suggest that an being is omnipotent when his potency is more than or equal to the potency of any other being. But I think omnipotent = dowered with infinite, unlimited and universal power.
I think there is a good degree of overlap though - if we consider all the logically valid things that a potent being can *potentially* do (whether they have ever been done or not); I merely define an omnipotent being to be X such that X can do all those things. another X, X_2, say, could also be omnipotent were it true it could also do all of those things. In this respect they both have infinite, universal, and with respect to what is logically viable, unlimited power.
I simply don't require uniqueness of omnipotent beings with my definition - and I'm not seeing why I necessarily should require that.
04 Mar '11 22:152 edits
Ontilogocal arguments (Agerg)
Back to Top