The whole is divided potentially, not actually. So to assume that the whole actually is parts is a category mistake. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you're committing a category mistake here by conceptualizing truth value in a materialistic sense.

When someone says ''it is raining'' is partly true it doesn't mean raining is decomposed into parts. All it means there's another possibility in truth viz. partly true.

We can have sex with any gender but we can't have gender with any sex.

The distinction I'm making is a semantic one, and is accurate. — Michael

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.

Creating an impenetrable shield isn't doable in principle, so it doesn't affect its omnipotence. — Πετροκότσυφας

Impossible only when there are more than 1 god.

"Partly" implies division such that true and not true are not said of the same thing, they are said of different parts, the parts being different parts of the same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

To the extent that I ''understood'' that's the gist of LEM. The partly true and the partly not true must refer to different things. If they're about the same thing then we have a contradiction which violates LEM.

But why? Why should U take precedence over O? — Chany

Because O is the assumption. U is a real possibility.

Why not? — lambda

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.

So, the creation of an unstoppable spear excludes the creation of an impenetrable shield. — Πετροκότσυφας

Exactly, disqualifying one of the two candidates for omnipotence.

No, I'm saying that the most powerful being is not necessarily an all-powerful being. — 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.

And I'm saying that if an omniscient being exists then U isn't possible. So your claim that U is possible begs the question by assuming that an omniscient being doesn't exist. — Michael

It's not that U isn't possible. O isn't possible.

If U can't be known at all, then how can we talk about U — Chany

We just did.

If multiple all-powerful beings are perfectly united in will and purpose then they can co-exist together without destroying one another. — lambda

You're right but they wouldn't be omnipotent.

None of the numbered points follow from the postulate you gave — noAxioms

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.

Yes, but the converse isn't true. The most powerful being might not be all-powerful. — Michael

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?

Did you understand PB and LEM distinction? Can you explain it to me please.

If it's partly true and partly false, and if false isn't true, then it's partly true and partly not true. — Michael

Partly true AND partly false = Partly true and partly not true. So this is a contradiction.

There is if there's an omniscient being. So your argument begs the question. You have to assume that there isn't an omniscient being to claim that an unknown thing is possible. — Michael

I haven't said U exists. My argument depends only on the possibility of U existing.

it knows absolutely everything, even if that means an infinite number of things. — BlueBanana

How will O answer the question:

What is the largest natural number?

The expected answer is that O will say ''no such number exists''. For me this answer doesn't disprove omniscience because infinity isn't a number. It's just a concept that represents, not ignorance, but limits of omniscience.

U contradicts itself. — Chany

U can't be known but U can exist. My argument depends only on the possibility of U's existence.

(Y) thanks a ton.

But not all gods are omnipotent. — BlueBanana

Then they're not Gods. What is the point of an impotent God?

If they're postulates, they're mutually contradictory and thus proof of nothing. — 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.

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 — Michael

Well prove to me that there aren't more than 1 omnipotent being.

God can want for nothing else god would not be omnipotent. — 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.

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 everything. — Michael

You're right. An all-powerful being can do everything. Wouldn't that make him the most powerful being?

No, contradictions are not allowed under the "all-powerful" definition. — Πετροκότσυφας

That's why I defined omnipotence as most powerful. I don't see the distinction between ''all powerful'' and ''most powerful''. Can you clarify?

Under that definition, why can't there be two all-powerful beings? — Πετροκότσυφας

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.

Because you define it that way. — BlueBanana

How do you define an omniscient being then?

So how much does O know? It knows everything, and the amount of information is infinite — BlueBanana

O can't know everything. That's my argument.

If God is good he forgives — BlueBanana

You're right. Forgiveness is essential to God's nature. However, if everything can be forgiven then there's no difference between good and bad. But the distinction good and bad is also an essential nature of God. A paradox. One of the following has to be discarded:
1. Forgiveness
2. Good-bad distinction

Since 2 can't be discarded because that is a foundation on which God rests, 1 has to be the one that's wrong. Perhaps you can do better.

Even if the reasoning was correct, only bad people would go to Hell, not non-believers. — BlueBanana

If you don't believe then you're bad.

Let us go with your definition:
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

Omnipotent = All-powerful, not "the most powerful".

I assumed you were alluding to unlimited power. You were not. So, why did you object to my definition of omnipotence?

But if you choose to define them in a contradictory fashion, then they're not possible (assuming that contradictions are not possible). It's all really a matter of definition. If your definitions are incoherent, you can't do much with them. — Πετροκότσυφας

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.

Two omnipotent beings contradict each other's omnipotence, this is true — BlueBanana

Do you accept my proof then?

Omnipotent = All-powerful, not "the most powerful". — Πετροκότσυφας

I wanted to avoid infinity in the discussion to avoid issues that trouble the concept. What does it mean to be ''infinitely'' powerful?

What does it even mean for a god or God to be alive or dead? Are gods or God biological beings — Πετροκότσυφας

If you don't like that then substitute it with, for example, x creating an unstoppable spear and y creating an unpenetrable shield.

According to some. — BlueBanana

The idea of Hell derives from the following reasonable argument

1. God is good
2. If God is good then God is just
3. If God is just then the bad must be punished
4. If the bad must be punished then hell must exist
So,
5. Hell must exist.

O and U contradict each other, so one doesn't exist. Why not U? — BlueBanana

Good point. My answer is it isn't possible to determine the nonexistence of a U because there are an infinite number of possible universes.

O has infinite knowledge, it's a part of its definition. — BlueBanana

Here I draw a distinction. We can have knowledge of infinity only as a concept, like we have.

I ask: What is the largest natural number?
O: There is no largest natural number.

O's answer doesn't make him non-omniscient because there's only one way of knowing infinity - as a concept.

What is a better question is, how does O know it's O — BlueBanana

That can be reduced to the U we're discussing.

I'm giving you a real-world example of how threat perception and calculations can be totally wrong. I'd like you to relate the 9/11 attacks to my God-dog argument.

Let's revisit the argument (I hope it doesn't bore you):

Threat assessment:

1. Probability of threat
2. Severity of threat

With a dog, which is real, the probability of threat has a undetermined non-zero value. Also, the severity of the threat is high (many cases of fatal dog attacks). So, it is rational to assume the existence of a dangerous dog in a park, in a house, etc.

With God, probability of threat is not zero but it is close to zero. However, the severity of threat is almost unimaginable (hell for eternity). So, on balance, it becomes rational to believe in God.

However, I disagree that there is no good in death, as I stated before — Anonymys

Can you list what is good in the dead?

I think you overlook a crucial detail. AI isn't a computer like your laptop or even a supercomputer for that matter. Perhaps the tag ''artificial'' is misleading. It's only relevance here is that AI isn't natural in the sense biological beings are. Beyond that ''artificial'' is the last thing AI is. What it is is intelligence - the singular, identifying, distinguishing quality of what it is to be human - extracted, purified, and perfected. In essence it is the self-actualization of humanity itself.

Thanks a lot(Y)

But what if there is something good in dying? — Anonymys

Can you name one morally good thing in dying? You can't. It's not an achievement in any form unless you want to count those who die for a cause. I don't want to get into that because exceptions are exceptions and so can be safely dismissed from consideration. Let's look at the many, the most, who die of disease and accidents. There's nothing achieved in those deaths. Yet, we the living, respect them. Since respect arises in good, we search for goodness in death but, as I said, nothing can be found. Yet we respect the dead. The only explanation can be that the goodness is not in the dead; it's in the living who recognize the finality of death and its complete annihilation of the person. The dead will never experience joy or love. This evokes, in us, respect for the dead.

think induction is pragmatic not truth bearing. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, I believe that's one accepted point of view. I think it makes sense to be practical and just get on with it, so to speak.

Observed events are everything; if only we would keep to them rather than fill our world's with made up shit we'd be a lot better off. — charleton

I guess it's a human weakness/strength, depending on how you look at it, to want absolute certainty.



We begin with observed events and we see a trend - observed events are a good guide to unobserved events. This we call the principle of uniformity of nature (PUN).

It becomes the foundation of induction.

Note that it's not arrived at deductively. So, it's just an assumption.

Now we need to prove this assumption.

All we can do is observe events and check if they're a good guide to unobserved events.

But that's exactly how we arrived at the PUN in the first place AND we know that that's not adequate proof. So, the PUN can't be proved deductively.

Respect is intimately linked to morality. All good qualities like honesty, wisdom, bravery, kindness, fortitude, genius, etc. elicit respect.

So, the question is ''What is good about the dead?''

Well, nuthin'. When I say this I'm being as inclusive as possible - ALL deaths. There are cases of bravery e.g. the soldier who takes the bullet for his comrades, the lover who sacrifices himself/herself, etc. But there are also cases which involve no bravery or goodness e.g. dying of old age, accidents, etc.

So, why respect the dead when there's nothing good achieved in dying?

We instinctively sense the complete defeat that death represents. The dead person loses everything - all that he loves - and in that his loss is permanent and irrevocable. He is also defenseless and anyone may do or say anything with complete impunity. This knowledge evokes respect from the living. We respect the dead, not because there's anything good in the dying or the dead but because we, the living, are good.

Well, I more or less copy-pasted the OP from the Stanford site.

I just didn't and don't get it.

After giving it some thought here's my version (the way I understand it):

Induction is predicated on the principle of the uniformity of nature (PUN)

PUN = unobserved events will resemble observed events

How do we proved PUN?

By observing events and checking if they resemble past observations.

But no number of observations will be enough to prove PUN because there's always the possibility that the next observation will disprove PUN.

So, PUN can only be proved if we assume it to be true. Circular argument.

Is my reading correct?

Biological life exists, but it does not lead to a "meaning of life" of the kind that we are looking for. If you do pick a "meaning of life" of the kind that we are looking for, — absoluteaspiration

Ok. I agree biological life isn't a good place to start for the kind of meaning that'll satisfy man. The meaning of life is ''survival of the fittest'' is too drab and boring.

you are left with definitions of life like vitality or totality. But if you pick those definitions, then life does not exist. — absoluteaspiration

You reject ''vitality'' (I assume you mean something nonmaterial) on scientific grounds. I think it's naive to assign a 100% credibility to science (even science doesn't claim absolute knowledge). There's enough room in science to accommodate a nonmaterialistic theory or two.

Secondly, using mathematical tools to reject, as you put it, the universal set is a misapplication of math. To talk of ALL life makes complete sense. There's no contradiction. So, I don't accept your view on the matter.

Sorry, should've been clearer. We had to start somewhere. You denied existence of life. I was showing that life does exist.

Yes the biological definition I gave isn't one that'll satisfy everyone. However, scientifically, that is the correct definition. Forget that for the moment. It seems you're looking for a meaning re how we define human life. That's ok by me. So, what is this meaning of life you have?

Having a definition of "unicorn" doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to argue for their existence. Why should it be different for life? — absoluteaspiration

Ok. The way it works is like this:

First we define a word (in this case ''life''). Then we see which entities fit the definition. If a certain object qualifies we put it in the class denoted by the word (in this case the class of living things). We don't argue a definition.

However, we may argue over whether an object fits the definition or not. Even so, the issue must rest on the quality of the definition itself.

What is your definition of life? — absoluteaspiration

The biological definition of life - nutrition, growth, reproduction, irritability, etc. very basic.

Where is the argument that life exists? — absoluteaspiration

Interesting question. In my humble opinion, Life is a definition and can't be argued unto. You can challenge the definition though.

Some people use life to mean "everything". This other definition of life is addressed in point 2. — absoluteaspiration

Your definition of life is different. Please clarify it further.

Does it matter to you if this soul, you ask about, dies?

If no, then it exists.
If yes, then I don't know.

1. Science no longer believes in vital principles or vital energies. Therefore, that kind of life doesn't exist. — absoluteaspiration

Science is not the ''soul'' authority on truth.

2. As for life in the sense of "everything", I believe in the Godelian chain of argumentation that there is no universal set. So life in the sense of totality doesn't exist either. — absoluteaspiration

But the set of all living things is not a living thing. So, if you talk of the universal set, you wouldn't be talking about ''life''. Let's talk of the subset of the universal set - living things.

You're right. We should assume all of these hypothetical situations you described to be true, including God.

Just to demonstrate. Take the 9/11 attacks

It was thought

1. Highly improbable
2. The threat assessment was low

Look what happened. Nearly a decade on and we're still in its shadow.

ok, so you should also always assume there is an alien under your bed, going to eat you. so never get off the bed, its the only practical conclusion. — PeterPants

Strawman.

When we evaluate threats two factors are important:

1. The likelihood of the threat
2. The magnitude of the threat

Your alien example is neither likely nor poses a grave a threat.

A dog meets both criteria as you kindly explained in your post.

In the case of God, His existence isn't impossible and the magnitude of the threat is immense. So, it's best to assume He exists.

I don't get it.

What is the meaning of life?