? I can't make sense of your statement

? I can't make sense of your statement — Modern Conviviality

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.

First, your definition of omnipotence isn't correct. A being that is omnipotent is a being that can do anything that is logically possible. Moreover, your argument is contradictory, i.e., it's similar to asking if an omnipotent being can make a rock bigger than he can lift.

Hi Mad Fool, I like how you're trying to algebraically reason it out, but the logic breaks down at step 3 for me. Perhaps beef up your initial conditions for omnipotent beings and then set the logic into motion? Keep at it though, I look forward to your next post. It's a worthwhile topic.

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 — anonymous66

You put it better than me.

Please read here

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.

And surely the perfect being would be a combination of ALL possible properties. — Sir2u

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.

I accept your definition of 'quality', but reject your definition of a 'perfect being'. — Samuel Lacrampe

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.

A perfect being is one that possesses all good qualities and no bad ones. — 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.

this is supposed to be a complete being, so I would guess he needs to have every single possible property. — Sir2u

Completion is not synonymous with perfection. A perfect score on a multiple choice exam includes only the right answers and excludes the wrong ones.

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?. — 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.

Completion is not synonymous with perfection. — Samuel Lacrampe

So it is possible for something to be perfect even if it is incomplete?

Jesus died for our salvation. — Samuel Lacrampe

Not worked out too well yet though has it? When are we supposed to be saved?

On the idea of good and bad, it seems like that is in the eye of the beholder. I someone wants to stop you and they throw a rock at you, but I catch it. I've done good for you, but bad by them.

So it is possible for something to be perfect even if it is incomplete? — Sir2u

If by 'complete' we mean 'reaching its full potential', then no. But if we mean 'includes all properties', then yes.

Not worked out too well yet though has it? When are we supposed to be saved? — 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

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. — Samuel Lacrampe

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)?

Is my proof sound? Is there another proof that there exists only 1 god. — TheMadFool

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" -.

Is there another proof that there exists only 1 god. — TheMadFool

Spinoza appears to offer one supposing God is substance and:

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.

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.

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" -. — Gus Lamarch

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. — TheMadFool

It looks like it's easier to prove the opposite of what than what? Was this a reply to Gus?

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. — TheMadFool

This strikes me as a fast and loose, albeit formulated ostensibly differently, version of Spinoza:

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.

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.

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. — TheMadFool

Spinoza appears to be in agreement here.

It looks like it's easier to prove the opposite of what than what? Was this a reply to Gus? — Kevin

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.

Spinoza appears to be in agreement here. — Kevin

:up:

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.

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.

X = Y = Z — TheMadFool

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".

:ok:

I'd like to make a critique of this argument. One issue is the association of a God with omnipotence. This argument has the implicit premise that a God must be omnipotent, and indeed, it was stated before the argument was laid out, and in P1 and P2. The argument then associates the idea of omnipotence with that of an inability to be killed, as demonstrated in P5. This opens it up to counterarguments from a multitude of polytheistic religions.

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.

All of this talk and still no proof of any gods lol what a waste.

All of this talk and still no proof of any gods lol what a waste. — GTTRPNK

Gradualism

Gradualism could be used as a counter to creation. According to the bible god created adam and eve, not abiogenesis. So I'm not sure what hailmary you are convinced you've landed.

Omnipotent being = The most powerful being — TheMadFool

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.

So, in what sense is the most powerful being the most powerful if it's not all-powerful? — 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.

x being omnipotent can do anything. — 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?

I think it's safe to say that when we talk of god's omnipotence the gold standard for that should be the ability to defy the law of non-contradiction i.e. god is able to perform a contradiction. I say this because what's truly impossible in human terms are contradictions. We may one day rule the universe, create another one for all we know but we would never be able to both affirm and deny something at the same time without the whole thing morphing into nonsense. God, being omnipotent, would be able to do contradictions and still make complete sense.

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: