I would imagine creation is somewhat outside the idea of this debate, Audible. This is about whether or not the idea of One Supreme God or Many Sureme Gods is the better system. LG claims that Many Supreme Gods make no sense. Cris claims One Supreme God makes no more sense than Many Supreme Gods.
One v. Multiple Supreme Gods - LG v. Cris
- Thread starter Prince_James
- Start date
As if you had the definition of god! What is it there oh! great one, may you answer as the pope can't even define the divine god, for it is "incomprehensible" he would say!
either the pope doesn't know scripture or you are quoting him out of context - I tend to favour the latter
in the interest of saving my fingers I will confer with prince james - if you want to take this issue up create a seperate thread because its not relevant to this one
Lg,
(1) A god has certain abilities, e.g. omnipotence, omniscience, etc, and with these it is capable of causing all causes.
(2) It actually does cause all causes.
The second does not logically need to be executed for a god to exist. Given that scenario we can conceive of the existence of more than one god.
Omnipotence simply means all powerful, and the definition does not exclude the possibility of more than one entity being all powerful.
Why can’t there be more than one god?
There are two parts to your claim of a definition.
(1) A god has certain abilities, e.g. omnipotence, omniscience, etc, and with these it is capable of causing all causes.
(2) It actually does cause all causes.
The second does not logically need to be executed for a god to exist. Given that scenario we can conceive of the existence of more than one god.
Omnipotence simply means all powerful, and the definition does not exclude the possibility of more than one entity being all powerful.
Why can’t there be more than one god?
How can several personalities be the cause of all causes?
Can a person claim to be caused by several mothers, even in an assembly of a million fertile women?
How can a potency be exhibited outside of a personality that is designated as omnipotent?
How could such a personality bear the title as all powerful, if a power was exhibited independent and seperate from them?
How could such a personality bear the title as all powerful, if a power was exhibited independent and seperate from them?
LG,
“How can omnipotence be shared by more than one god? “
I think you are attempting to impose the concept that omnipotence is somehow a separate and independent resource that when possessed by one god would not be available to another. But I see no justification for such a position.
Since we are considering issues of the supernatural and infinities then there seems no need to impose finite constraints of any type. If a god exists then by definition it would be all powerful, and if there is another god then it would also be all powerful. Given that we have no constraints then this could be extended to an infinite number of gods all with identical abilities.
Here omnipotence is not a resource but a skill or power, much like top Olympic athletes would all have similar abilities rather than have to share a single ability and possess it in turns, as you would want us to accept.
Why do you use such pompous, ambiguous, and confusing statements? This seems typical of the majority of your posts. I think a meaningful translation might read –
“How can omnipotence be shared by more than one god? “
I think you are attempting to impose the concept that omnipotence is somehow a separate and independent resource that when possessed by one god would not be available to another. But I see no justification for such a position.
Since we are considering issues of the supernatural and infinities then there seems no need to impose finite constraints of any type. If a god exists then by definition it would be all powerful, and if there is another god then it would also be all powerful. Given that we have no constraints then this could be extended to an infinite number of gods all with identical abilities.
Here omnipotence is not a resource but a skill or power, much like top Olympic athletes would all have similar abilities rather than have to share a single ability and possess it in turns, as you would want us to accept.
Again, another confusing statement. But it seems related to your earlier claim which I have answered above.
LG put me on ignore for demanding that he speak clearly and address the valid points raised during these so-called debates.
Pretty telling if you ask me.
Pretty telling if you ask me.
would'nt showing that one god is impossible as it would need to be perfect, whereas many gods would not be perfection, and a more reasonable fantasy then the former.
I think this is on topic.
however it is a pointless venture, LG is so heavily blinked, and stone walled no common sense get's through.
just take a look at his post.
Cris
Its probably a response to your tendency to overly reduce statements to suit your arguments
This is a corruption of omnipotency - you assume, no doubt due to a foundation in empricism, that the phenomenal world is simply some neutral environment that exists without the possibiltity of not existing - the phenomenal world, at least according to theism, is a potency of god - hence omnipotent means that the phenomenal world owes its cause to god - omnipotent does not simply mean very potent - omnipotent means completely potent - your analogy of a team of athletes doesn't hold up because the environment that their potencies can be calculated in is seperate from them -
So now, given that there are several such omnipotent gods in the same environment, and given that the environment itself is a potency of god, how do you explain how a potency can be exhibited outside of a personality that is designated as omnipotent? (obviously its not possible for the phenomenal world to be caused by all of them since an objective environment is singular by definition).
Alternatively you could argue that the phenomenal world is not a potency of god, in which case the phenomenal world would become superior to the assembly of (apparently) omnipotent gods - this, BTW, is the paradigm that polytheism works out of.
Its probably a response to your tendency to overly reduce statements to suit your arguments
This is a corruption of omnipotency - you assume, no doubt due to a foundation in empricism, that the phenomenal world is simply some neutral environment that exists without the possibiltity of not existing - the phenomenal world, at least according to theism, is a potency of god - hence omnipotent means that the phenomenal world owes its cause to god - omnipotent does not simply mean very potent - omnipotent means completely potent - your analogy of a team of athletes doesn't hold up because the environment that their potencies can be calculated in is seperate from them -
So now, given that there are several such omnipotent gods in the same environment, and given that the environment itself is a potency of god, how do you explain how a potency can be exhibited outside of a personality that is designated as omnipotent? (obviously its not possible for the phenomenal world to be caused by all of them since an objective environment is singular by definition).
Alternatively you could argue that the phenomenal world is not a potency of god, in which case the phenomenal world would become superior to the assembly of (apparently) omnipotent gods - this, BTW, is the paradigm that polytheism works out of.
Audible:
Finding perfection and other considerations would be considered here, yes. In so much that a focus on that would be fruitful, I'd say it is perfectly acceptable to continue on that thread.
Moreover, would anyone object to my participation in the debate itself?
Finding perfection and other considerations would be considered here, yes. In so much that a focus on that would be fruitful, I'd say it is perfectly acceptable to continue on that thread.
Moreover, would anyone object to my participation in the debate itself?
LG,
No it isn’t, as you will see below.
Yes this must be true because gods are considered creators. The world is an object that can be created or destroyed and can be non-existent. I.e. it is separate and independent of the creating source.
Clearly it is not and your interpretation of theism here is incorrect. All the time theism speaks of a creator then we can see that the world and the universe is not a part of a god but separate and independent from it. If you want to say that the universe and god is one and the same thing then that is not theism but pantheism and there we have an entirely different scenario.
Good, that supports my argument. The existence of the world is dependent on a creator that has omnipotent powers.
But this is still an ability that can logically be possessed by more than one god. There is still nothing in what you say that indicates that only one god can be omnipotent.
But that is true of a creator god and the objects it creates. The analogy remains entirely valid.
OK.
No that is not true all the time we consider a god as a creator, unless you want to discuss pantheism instead. The environment is not a part of a god but an object created/caused by a god. Even your term of cause of causes implies that a god is independent of his causes.
Because your attempt to redefine omnipotence is a corruption of the accepted theistic concepts of a creator and its creations.
Doesn’t apply since gods would be independent of their creations. Any one can be the cause which allows the logical possibility of the existence of multiple gods.
The statement of superiority does not follow from the initial premise. This is irrelevant.
I'm actually on your side here. the cause of causes as LG keeps calling it, could not be perfect and create. but any single imperfect god could, I see no reason why there should not be a multitude of gods, as you assert be they perfect or not.
I think it should really have read " would'nt showing that one god is impossible as it would need to be perfect, whereas many gods would not need to be perfect or imperfect"
Cris
If the phenomenal world is caused by god it is caused by a potency of god (In monotheism there are only two things - potencies and the source of potencies (god) - there is no third item). If the phenomenal world is the singular medium that displays all phenomena (ie the medium of objectivity), how can several omnipotent personalities lay claim to having caused it?
If you want to argue that these ominpotent gods are independent of the phenomenal world, the obvious question is where would they display their independence (since they wouldn't have access to a phenomenal world to display phenomena - ie they wouldn't have access to existence - no phenomena = no noumenan).
If you want to argue that they some how exist in a seperate independent alternative reality of phenomena then you are stuck with how several such personalities could be omniscient. If all several entities were omniscient to the degree that they could perceive the nature of each gods independent existence seperate from the phenomenal world, all you would have done is broadened the definition of the phenomenal world (- which would suffer the same problems given in the above paragraph)
this does not answer the issue - if a god is independent of the phenomenal world (their creation), what is the phenomena that would house their independence? (If they are independent they must still exist - what is the cause of the medium that they exist in?) All you are doing is broadening the definition of the phenomenal world - you have to explain how the medium of existence or being can owe its cause to several personalities since the medium of existence/being is obviously singular. The only logical conclusion is that reality is limited to housing one omnipotent and omniscient personality who has the capacity to be independent from their potencies - more than one such personality violates the definitons of omniscience and omnipotent
If you want to argue that such an argument is superfluous you have just established the standard of polytheism -ie - the medium of existence is the supreme cause and various powerful and not so powerfl (or alternatively equally powerful) personalities are seen to exhibit their potencies within it
If the phenomenal world is caused by god it is caused by a potency of god (In monotheism there are only two things - potencies and the source of potencies (god) - there is no third item). If the phenomenal world is the singular medium that displays all phenomena (ie the medium of objectivity), how can several omnipotent personalities lay claim to having caused it?
If you want to argue that these ominpotent gods are independent of the phenomenal world, the obvious question is where would they display their independence (since they wouldn't have access to a phenomenal world to display phenomena - ie they wouldn't have access to existence - no phenomena = no noumenan).
If you want to argue that they some how exist in a seperate independent alternative reality of phenomena then you are stuck with how several such personalities could be omniscient. If all several entities were omniscient to the degree that they could perceive the nature of each gods independent existence seperate from the phenomenal world, all you would have done is broadened the definition of the phenomenal world (- which would suffer the same problems given in the above paragraph)
you misunderstand - the athletes did not cause the physical nature of the race track which is the medium that they display their potencies. God however is the cause of the phenomenal world, which is the medium that potencies become apparent in.
this does not answer the issue - if a god is independent of the phenomenal world (their creation), what is the phenomena that would house their independence? (If they are independent they must still exist - what is the cause of the medium that they exist in?) All you are doing is broadening the definition of the phenomenal world - you have to explain how the medium of existence or being can owe its cause to several personalities since the medium of existence/being is obviously singular. The only logical conclusion is that reality is limited to housing one omnipotent and omniscient personality who has the capacity to be independent from their potencies - more than one such personality violates the definitons of omniscience and omnipotent
If you want to argue that such an argument is superfluous you have just established the standard of polytheism -ie - the medium of existence is the supreme cause and various powerful and not so powerfl (or alternatively equally powerful) personalities are seen to exhibit their potencies within it
Last edited:
I must side with Light Gigantic on this one, the idea of several supreme Gods is untenable.
Let's go down the list of attributes and see how many of them show this.
Omnipotence: Omnipotence can be defined as "infinite power". This means the ability to do anything which is not contradictory (I.E. create a square circle or make a rock that not even infinite power could move). Thus if two Gods were to put their power towards opposite ends, we'd be met with an perfectly acceptable action which nonetheless neither could perform. This would imply that neither of them is omnipotent.
Omniscience: Two beings can rightfully know everything.
Omnipresence: Omnipresence means existence everywhere and infinitely. If two Gods were to have this property, we'd be faced with the fact that it'd be impossible to distinguish one from the other, as they'd be occupying the same space, occupy the same mind, and otherwise be united. There would then be only one God.
Infinity: If two Gods are part of the same infinity, then they suffer from the problems of omnipresence. If they exist in separate infinites, then they are not infinite, as infinity can have no end, thus admit of no other.
Eternity: Assuming something finite could be eternal, two Gods are fine. Same with immutability.
Omnibenevolence: Two beings can be infinitely good, so long as that infinitely good allows another infinitely good being to act towards infinite goodness. Of course, infinite goodness is not something which is shown in this universe.
Moreover, Light Gigantic is correct: If we say that omnipotence means "the power behind all things", then one God would inevitably not be the cause of something, whilst the other God would be the one which caused that. Therefore, omnipotence of that variety precludes two Gods.
Let's go down the list of attributes and see how many of them show this.
Omnipotence: Omnipotence can be defined as "infinite power". This means the ability to do anything which is not contradictory (I.E. create a square circle or make a rock that not even infinite power could move). Thus if two Gods were to put their power towards opposite ends, we'd be met with an perfectly acceptable action which nonetheless neither could perform. This would imply that neither of them is omnipotent.
Omniscience: Two beings can rightfully know everything.
Omnipresence: Omnipresence means existence everywhere and infinitely. If two Gods were to have this property, we'd be faced with the fact that it'd be impossible to distinguish one from the other, as they'd be occupying the same space, occupy the same mind, and otherwise be united. There would then be only one God.
Infinity: If two Gods are part of the same infinity, then they suffer from the problems of omnipresence. If they exist in separate infinites, then they are not infinite, as infinity can have no end, thus admit of no other.
Eternity: Assuming something finite could be eternal, two Gods are fine. Same with immutability.
Omnibenevolence: Two beings can be infinitely good, so long as that infinitely good allows another infinitely good being to act towards infinite goodness. Of course, infinite goodness is not something which is shown in this universe.
Moreover, Light Gigantic is correct: If we say that omnipotence means "the power behind all things", then one God would inevitably not be the cause of something, whilst the other God would be the one which caused that. Therefore, omnipotence of that variety precludes two Gods.
LG,
The term “potency” here is redundant since we can simply say god created the world. Adding the term “potency” adds nothing to the argument.
I don’t know, it’s not something I am likely to say or said or implied. Not sure why you introduce it.
I am and they would be.
While I don’t accept your proposal let’s say Ok, but, so what? It would not stop them existing. Who really cares what they do with their time, that’s their business. How about creating other worlds or they could create universes in other dimensions, or they could do whatever they did before any of them created anything, or they could remain idle while they consider some other unfathomable problems beyond our comprehension, women perhaps, the list of what they might do or think is endless.
Why alternate? Why introduce complexity where it is not needed?
Why? I see absolutely no connection here. Omniscience simply means knowing everything. Why are you attempting to constrain that ability? I don’t see any reason why multiple gods would not all be omniscient.
If they are omniscient then they will know everything. There is no implication in the definition that it has any limitations or restrictions. There is no problem here other than you trying to contrive and concoct an artificial one.
Irrelevant attempt at misdirection. The issue is their ability to achieve athletic results. The analogy and comparison is with a god’s ability to be omnipotent and the key point that multiple entities can possess identical abilities.
Irrelevant to the analogy.
Who cares and who knows. Take the condition before anything was created. By your reasoning no gods would exist because they had not created anything. All you’ve done is created a paradox for yourself. They’ll continue to exist in whatever medium gods exist. There is no need for them to create anything for them to exist or for any worlds to exist to maintain their existence, they are gods and would be entirely independent of such things.
What? This is tiresome gibberish. I’ve answered this above.
No it doesn’t as I’ve explained above.