One v. Multiple Supreme Gods - LG v. Cris

[lightgigantic]

cris

I think the plurality of your post arose because you responded without reading it in full first - it seems like you were focusing on each sentence as an individual argument and couldn't see how they inter related to point out weaknesses in your POV(to which you gave such replies as "who cares, who knows, its irrelevant etc)

....anyway

“ 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). ”

The term “potency” here is redundant since we can simply say god created the world. Adding the term “potency” adds nothing to the argument.

It does if you want to discuss the nature of omnipotent gods and the realtionship of the phenomenal world to them.

“ 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? ”

I don’t know, it’s not something I am likely to say or said or implied. Not sure why you introduce it.

It implies that objectivity (ie the phenomenal world) is singular (unless you can explain how two or more objective realities can co-exist) therefore its cause is also singular, and in your picture innvolving several omnipotent gods the paradoxical question arises "By whom's potency did objective nature emmanate from?" (Upon discovering the answer to this question, the other "omnipotent" personalities would be downgraded in status)

“ 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). ”

While I don’t accept your proposal let’s say Ok, but, so what? It would not stop them existing.

Then you have to explain how a noumenan (god) can exist without a phenomena (potency) - this like trying to show how fire (a noumenan) can exist without heat ( a phenomena) . In other words it is a logical fallacy

Who really cares what they do with their time, that’s their business.

since time itself is an inseperable quality of the phenomenal world, exactly what these several omnipotent gods are doing with it is a serious question that your argument hinges on. Your inability to address it is synonomous to defeat.

How about creating other worlds or they could create universes in other dimensions,

I already assumed you would make this argument - it is merely enlarging the standard definition of the phenomenal world - I can only assume that the reason you are offering this here however is because you are responding to the post without reading it in full first . the next paragraph addresses this - it is interesting to note your response there takes the opposite stance to what you are currently advocating here - (there you offer that the notion of creating other dimensions is an superfluous complexity that offers nothing to the discussion - make up your mind)

or they could do whatever they did before any of them created anything,

The problem is that if you cannot give details of this enigmatic "whatever" your argument fails
- if the "whatever" is phenomenal, it runs back to the same question over who created the medium that enables phenomenal existence
- if the "whatever" is a type of existence outside of phenomena, then it begs the question of how several personalities could be omniscient since you have alluded to a type of existence that is beyond objective perception

or they could remain idle while they consider some other unfathomable problems

an unfathomable problem is how can an entity, either active or idle, can exist bereft of a phenomenal world. When a person sits down to contemplate something it is not like they become invisible to the phenomenal world

beyond our comprehension, women perhaps, the list of what they might do or think is endless.

Its not clear how varieties of thinking solves the problems expressed earlier

“ If you want to argue that they some how exist in a seperate independent alternative reality ”

Why alternate? Why introduce complexity where it is not needed?

You already introduced this complexity in the introduction of this post - I am surprised that your memory can be so faulty to have missed the words you have just typed a few lines above

How about creating other worlds or they could create universes in other dimensions

At the moment we have two responses to the issue - "omnipotent gods are required to create universes in other dimensions to explain their existence" and "Gods are not required to create universes in other dimensions to explain their existence". Do you want to go for a third response?

“ 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) ”

If they are omniscient then they will know everything.

...there is an inextricable connection between omniscience, objectivity and the phenomenal world - and there is an inextricable connection between the phenomenal world (in the sense of determining its cause) and omnipotence.

The problem with your argument is that if we accept several gods as omnipotent then it becomes necessary for them to all have access to the ability to create objective reality - and if they can all create an objective reality each, then their omniscience is diminished. Unless of course you can explain how several interconnected objective realities is not actually one objective reality. - in otherwords you have to address how several objective realities can interact
PS - (good luck - its an oxymoron)

“ you misunderstand - the athletes did not cause the physical nature of the race track which is the medium that they display their potencies. ”

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.

How can they achieve athletic results if they have no medium to express their athletic potency?
How can a god be omnipotent if the medium for expressing potency (the phenomenal world) is singular by necessity and can only owe its cause to a singular entity?




“ 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?) ”

Who cares and who knows. Take the condition before anything was created.

The condition before anything was created is god, which happens to be the topic of discussion
If you care for the logical soundness of your argument, please tell us what that condition is and make sure it doesn't infringe on the definitions of omnipotence and omniscience

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.

Congratulations, this is a perfect description of an environment for a polytheists view - namely that the medium of existence (or "whatever", as you so eloquently phrased it) is the supreme element that juristics the capacities of several (apparently) omnipotent gods

“ .. 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. ”

What? This is tiresome gibberish. I’ve answered this above.

Do you want to concede?

 

[Godless]

or they could remain idle while they consider some other unfathomable problems beyond our comprehension, women perhaps,

That's right, women are incomprehensible

 

[Oniw17]

This is still going on? The prosperous years of poltheistic Rome, Greece, Egypt, China, etc. vs. the Dark Ages of monotheistic Europe and Asia minor, and times of imperialism? heh...

 

[Prince_James]

Polytheistic deities were never considered supreme.

 

[audible]

Polytheistic deities were never considered supreme.

what like Zeus,http://www.allaboutturkey.com/gods2.htm and Ra, Odin, Huitzilopochtli. http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0907770.html http://atheism.about.com/od/aztecgodsgoddesses/p/Huitzilopochtli.htm or the Taoist Trinity http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_25124.htm
and Chiuta http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/weatherwise/living/effects/beliefs.shtml
and even like Enlil http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/NIP/PUB93/NSC/NSC.html
no they were never concidered supreme, were they.

 

[Prince_James]

They were never given attributes of omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience (save perhaps Odin after he gouged out his eye and hanged himself). They were generally "greatest amongst similar beings". Kings but not the supreme of the universe.

You will note that Odin will die. Zeus killed his father. Ra needed protection from Set...

 

[Cris]

LG,

Omnipotence simply means all powerful, can do anything, without any restrictions or limitations.

Omniscience simply means all-knowing without restrictions.

These are super-superlative terms specifically devised by theists in an attempt to thwart any argument that atempts to restrict their god(s).

I am simply using the same approach taken by theists and applying it to multiple gods.

Your entire argument is all about trying to put limits and restrictions on these unlimitable concepts. You cannot succeed. Whatever limit you try to impose I can simply say there can be no limitation.

Once we sweep away your fallacious contrived attemts to limit unlimitable concepts we are left with no logical reason why there cannot be more than one god.

 

[Cris]

Prince,

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.

But that would apply to a single god as well. If it tried to use its power to do two opposite things at the same time then it would not succeed either. A god also cannot commit suicide because it is immortal, so yet another example where omnipotence cannot be possible.

I believe whatever you contrive to say that multiple gods cannot do because of a conflict then I believe the same would apply to a single god. A single god with infinite power could attempt to do an infinite number of conflicting activities in the same way that an infinite number of gods would conflict. It makes no difference whether there is a single god or multiple gods.

This incidentally leads to the paradox that a super superlative nonsense like omnipotence creates.

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.

Space is a natural concept that doesn’t apply to the supernatural. Within that paradigm an infinite number of separate entities could be everywhere instantly simply because natural rules do not apply. That we can’t tell who is who does not prevent the logical possibility of an infinite number of gods everywhere, perhaps we could assume they’d give themselves names or numbers when they introduce themselves.

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.

Nope, you need to think supernaturally, there can be no conflict or limitation.

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.

Again having an ability and not using it for that instance does not exclude the possibility of multiple gods.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

Omnipotence simply means all powerful, can do anything, without any restrictions or limitations.

Omniscience simply means all-knowing without restrictions.

These are super-superlative terms specifically devised by theists in an attempt to thwart any argument that atempts to restrict their god(s).

I am simply using the same approach taken by theists and applying it to multiple gods.

Your entire argument is all about trying to put limits and restrictions on these unlimitable concepts. You cannot succeed. Whatever limit you try to impose I can simply say there can be no limitation.

Once we sweep away your fallacious contrived attemts to limit unlimitable concepts we are left with no logical reason why there cannot be more than one god.

Originally I gave three alternative conclusions for the fallacious foundations of your arguments and you seem to be progressively moving down the list

1) You were describing not monotheism but polytheism

2) You were relying on corruptions of the terms omniscient or omnipotent

3) You were relying on corruptions of the term god

Your last post was mostly focused on fault 1).

This post is focused on fault 2)

Omniscient and omnipotent are specific terms about the nature of being unlimited - they help one determine in what environments and circumstances an infinite entity can exist.

My argument is not about limiting these terms. My argument is about what circumstances enable an entity that is both omnipotent and omniscient to exist. Your argument that numerous such omnipotent and omniscient entities can co-exist in the same environment violates the definitions of these terms, as outlined in my previous post (namely the problems that arise when all the said entities have the potency to create the medium of objective reality).

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince,

“ 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. ”

But that would apply to a single god as well. If it tried to use its power to do two opposite things at the same time then it would not succeed either. A god also cannot commit suicide because it is immortal, so yet another example where omnipotence cannot be possible.

Erm - suicide is a display of defeat not victory - it doesn't indicate potency but rather a lack of it

I believe whatever you contrive to say that multiple gods cannot do because of a conflict then I believe the same would apply to a single god. A single god with infinite power could attempt to do an infinite number of conflicting activities in the same way that an infinite number of gods would conflict. It makes no difference whether there is a single god or multiple gods.

God is the localized aspect of existence (infintity and eternity) - when you have two or more persons with the same job descripton you either have two objective realities confused: ) or two persons who are not god

This incidentally leads to the paradox that a super superlative nonsense like omnipotence creates.

Generally people come to such conclusions when they use their own limited existence as a protype for defining the extent of gods

“ 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. ”

Space is a natural concept that doesn’t apply to the supernatural.

Then you are falling back on the polytheistic paradigm of material nature (space) being the absolute. Remember, in monotheism there are only two things - god and his potencies - there is no third item, so how does space fit into such a definition?

Within that paradigm an infinite number of separate entities could be everywhere instantly simply because natural rules do not apply.

sounds like polytheism to me

That we can’t tell who is who does not prevent the logical possibility of an infinite number of gods everywhere, perhaps we could assume they’d give themselves names or numbers when they introduce themselves.

lol - definitely polytheism

“ 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. ”

Nope, you need to think supernaturally, there can be no conflict or limitation.

I think that is the point being made - since there can be no limitation it becomes a logical fallacy when two or more personalities are given the attributes of infinitity and omnipresence - infinity and omnipresence are specific defintions applicable to supernatural, so its not clear what you are alluding to.

“ 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. ”

Again having an ability and not using it for that instance does not exclude the possibility of multiple gods.

Then we would have a god that is not omnipotent because the structure of reality would prevent them from exhibiting their potency to create objective reality

 

[Cris]

LG,

Omniscient and omnipotent are specific terms about the nature of being unlimited

And unlimited means no restrictions.

- they help one determine in what environments and circumstances an infinite entity can exist.

There can be no qualifications; unlimited means just that, unlimited. To claim a specific environment or circumstances instantly implies there are environments and circumstances that cannot apply, but that requires restrictions to the unlimited nature of these abilities.

You are again trying to put limits on these unlimited concepts.

My argument is not about limiting these terms.

Yet that is what you are clearly trying to do.

My argument is about what circumstances enable an entity that is both omnipotent and omniscient to exist.

Again there can be no restrictions to these abilities.

Your argument that numerous such omnipotent and omniscient entities can co-exist in the same environment violates the definitions of these terms,

No it doesn’t. There is nothing inherently logically restrictive about one god being omnipotent that prevents another god from also being omnipotent. Omnipotence is an ability not a separate resource that can only have one owner.

as outlined in my previous post (namely the problems that arise when all the said entities have the potency to create the medium of objective reality).

As I have also repeated many times already, there is no logical reason why they cannot have the same ability. Possession and execution are two different states, but like winning a race, the winner gets the prize but that doesn’t prevent both runners from existing.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“ Omniscient and omnipotent are specific terms about the nature of being unlimited ”

And unlimited means no restrictions.

Therefore with intelligence we can determine what environments house an unlimited person and what environment cannot house an unlimited person

“ - they help one determine in what environments and circumstances an infinite entity can exist. ”

There can be no qualifications;

terminology indicates qualification - the logical examination of terms in environments or situations determines whether a term is being used correctly or not

unlimited means just that, unlimited. To claim a specific environment or circumstances instantly implies there are environments and circumstances that cannot apply, but that requires restrictions to the unlimited nature of these abilities.
You are again trying to put limits on these unlimited concepts.

So in other words I can say a piece of bubblegum on the pavement is infinite and eternal - anyone who presents evidence to the contrary can be quashed by saying "No - eternal and infinite have no limitations, therefore because I have labelled this bubble gum as eternal and infinite it is not possible for you to ascribe limitations to it"

In other words the reason I am bringing limitations to the definitions is because you are using them in inappropriately

“ My argument is not about limiting these terms. ”

Yet that is what you are clearly trying to do.


“ My argument is about what circumstances enable an entity that is both omnipotent and omniscient to exist. ”

Again there can be no restrictions to these abilities.

Just like there are no restrictions to a piece of bubblegum on the pavement huh? - Omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent do have restrictions - you can find out what those restrictions are in the dictionary - this helps us determine in what environments one can entertain the notion of omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent entities

“ Your argument that numerous such omnipotent and omniscient entities can co-exist in the same environment violates the definitions of these terms, ”

No it doesn’t. There is nothing inherently logically restrictive about one god being omnipotent that prevents another god from also being omnipotent. Omnipotence is an ability not a separate resource that can only have one owner.

Then you are always welcome to go back and respond to points raised in my previous post (13 Hours Ago 08:28 PM) rather than wordlessly dismissing them

“ as outlined in my previous post (namely the problems that arise when all the said entities have the potency to create the medium of objective reality). ”

As I have also repeated many times already, there is no logical reason why they cannot have the same ability.

Me “ “ 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? ”

You - I don’t know, it’s not something I am likely to say or said or implied. Not sure why you introduce it. ”

Me - It implies that objectivity (ie the phenomenal world) is singular (unless you can explain how two or more objective realities can co-exist) therefore its cause is also singular, and in your picture innvolving several omnipotent gods the paradoxical question arises "By whom's potency did objective nature emmanate from?" (Upon discovering the answer to this question, the other "omnipotent" personalities would be downgraded in status)

If this is one such example of your numerous refutations its understandable why I find them a bit lacking

Possession and execution are two different states, but like winning a race, the winner gets the prize but that doesn’t prevent both runners from existing.

It does however prevent the other contestants from winning the prize

 

[Cris]

LG,

Erm - suicide is a display of defeat not victory - it doesn't indicate potency but rather a lack of it

Irrelevant. The issue was about something omnipotent not being able to do something. And here suicide qualifies.

God is the localized aspect of existence (infintity and eternity)

Quaint term that seems irrelevant here.

- when you have two or more persons with the same job descripton you either have two objective realities ( ) or two persons who are not god

No, you simply have two people/entities with the same abilities. Whether they both have jobs or not is another issue.

Generally people come to such conclusions when they use their own limited existence as a protype for defining the extent of gods

No, its just recognizing that omnipotence is a non credible fantasy.

Then you are falling back on the polytheistic paradigm of material nature (space) being the absolute. Remember, in monotheism there are only two things - god and his potencies - there is no third item, so how does space fit into such a definition?

Absolutely as I was saying, space has no place in the supernatural.

sounds like polytheism to me

Many gods, gosh I believe you are correct.

I think that is the point being made - since there can be no limitation it becomes a logical fallacy when two or more personalities are given the attributes of infinitity and omnipresence - infinity and omnipresence are specific defintions applicable to supernatural, so its not clear what you are alluding to.

Umm, two or more entities having the same abilities. What’s the confusion?

Then we would have a god that is not omnipotent because the structure of reality would prevent them from exhibiting their potency to create objective reality

A logical fallacy. The existence of something possessing omnipotence is not contingent on the ability being used.

 

[Cris]

LG,

Therefore with intelligence we can determine what environments house an unlimited person and what environment cannot house an unlimited person

No, it’s the supernatural, there are no limitations.

terminology indicates qualification - the logical examination of terms in environments or situations determines whether a term is being used correctly or not

But not religious terms like omnipotence and omniscience. Only our imagination limits how these are defined.

So in other words I can say a piece of bubblegum on the pavement is infinite and eternal - anyone who presents evidence to the contrary can be quashed by saying "No - eternal and infinite have no limitations, therefore because I have labelled this bubble gum as eternal and infinite it is not possible for you to ascribe limitations to it"

No, because we know the properties of bubble-gum do not allow it to be infinite. Gods and the supernatural are an entirely different matter.

In other words the reason I am bringing limitations to the definitions is because you are using them in inappropriately

No, it is because you won’t accept that there can be no limitations, and it bugs you that I am correct.

Just like there are no restrictions to a piece of bubblegum on the pavement huh? –

Nope, BG has no supernatural element.

Omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent do have restrictions - you can find out what those restrictions are in the dictionary - this helps us determine in what environments one can entertain the notion of omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent entities

Surely we are way past dictionary definitions?

Then you are always welcome to go back and respond to points raised in my previous post (13 Hours Ago 08:28 PM) rather than wordlessly dismissing them

You didn’t raise anything new there other than repeat what I had already dealt with.

Me “ “ 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? ”

And again I have never said that.

Me - It implies that objectivity (ie the phenomenal world) is singular (unless you can explain how two or more objective realities can co-exist) therefore its cause is also singular, and in your picture innvolving several omnipotent gods the paradoxical question arises "By whom's potency did objective nature emmanate from?" (Upon discovering the answer to this question, the other "omnipotent" personalities would be downgraded in status)

OK so with that you agree that there can be more than one god.

“ Possession and execution are two different states, but like winning a race, the winner gets the prize but that doesn’t prevent both runners from existing. ”

It does however prevent the other contestants from winning the prize

Agreed, but the point remains that there are multiple contestants as there can be logically multiple gods. I never said that they all had to be winners.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“ Erm - suicide is a display of defeat not victory - it doesn't indicate potency but rather a lack of it ”

Irrelevant. The issue was about something omnipotent not being able to do something. And here suicide qualifies.

So in other words an entity can be omnipotent only if they can display that they are impotent?

Actually you are right

god does display that potency - he displays it through the living entity (the living entity is a potency of god)

“ God is the localized aspect of existence (infintity and eternity) ”

Quaint term that seems irrelevant here.

Rather than continually bluffing definitions as "irrelevant" you would be better off addressing why they are irrelevant, particularly since the success of your argument is fully dependant on such explanations

“ - when you have two or more persons with the same job descripton you either have two objective realities ( ) or two persons who are not god ”

No, you simply have two people/entities with the same abilities. Whether they both have jobs or not is another issue.

the problem is that such abilites contradict each other - for eg - how can two personalities create the objective world?

“ Generally people come to such conclusions when they use their own limited existence as a protype for defining the extent of gods ”

No, its just recognizing that omnipotence is a non credible fantasy.

especially if a person insists that omnipotence is characterized by numerous entities that display this quality in the same environment

“ Then you are falling back on the polytheistic paradigm of material nature (space) being the absolute. Remember, in monotheism there are only two things - god and his potencies - there is no third item, so how does space fit into such a definition? ”

Absolutely as I was saying, space has no place in the supernatural.

welcome to polythesimville

“ sounds like polytheism to me ”

Many gods, gosh I believe you are correct.

So its established how in a polytheism you don't have omnipotent personalities (therefore there are no gods in the true sense of th eword) since "space" is beyond anyone's potency to manifest - monotheism however doesn't suffer from this drawback

“ I think that is the point being made - since there can be no limitation it becomes a logical fallacy when two or more personalities are given the attributes of infinitity and omnipresence - infinity and omnipresence are specific defintions applicable to supernatural, so its not clear what you are alluding to. ”

Umm, two or more entities having the same abilities. What’s the confusion?

That their abilities contradict each other doesn't bother you?

“ Then we would have a god that is not omnipotent because the structure of reality would prevent them from exhibiting their potency to create objective reality ”

A logical fallacy. The existence of something possessing omnipotence is not contingent on the ability being used.

If an omnipotent entity is restricted from displaying a potency then they are obviously not omnipotent

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“ Therefore with intelligence we can determine what environments house an unlimited person and what environment cannot house an unlimited person ”

No, it’s the supernatural, there are no limitations.

Omnipotency however is limited by the capacity to exhibit omnipotency

“ terminology indicates qualification - the logical examination of terms in environments or situations determines whether a term is being used correctly or not ”

But not religious terms like omnipotence and omniscience. Only our imagination limits how these are defined.

Acting like this rather than addressing the significance of the words you use is synomous to defeat

“ So in other words I can say a piece of bubblegum on the pavement is infinite and eternal - anyone who presents evidence to the contrary can be quashed by saying "No - eternal and infinite have no limitations, therefore because I have labelled this bubble gum as eternal and infinite it is not possible for you to ascribe limitations to it" ”

No, because we know the properties of bubble-gum do not allow it to be infinite. Gods and the supernatural are an entirely different matter.

regardless of whatever you think regarding the nature of gods existence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence have very real applications in terms of logic

“ In other words the reason I am bringing limitations to the definitions is because you are using them in inappropriately ”

No, it is because you won’t accept that there can be no limitations, and it bugs you that I am correct.

Correct? Obstinate perhaps ....

“ Just like there are no restrictions to a piece of bubblegum on the pavement huh? – ”

Nope, BG has no supernatural element.

the words omnipresent etc however have distinguishing qualities ....

“ Omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent do have restrictions - you can find out what those restrictions are in the dictionary - this helps us determine in what environments one can entertain the notion of omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent entities ”

Surely we are way past dictionary definitions?

On th e contrary, it could be a humble beginning for you

“ Then you are always welcome to go back and respond to points raised in my previous post (13 Hours Ago 08:28 PM) rather than wordlessly dismissing them ”

You didn’t raise anything new there other than repeat what I had already dealt with.

another wordless dismissal ...

“ Me “ “ 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? ” ”

And again I have never said that.

Then why is objective reality outside the potency of an omnipotent personality?

“ Me - It implies that objectivity (ie the phenomenal world) is singular (unless you can explain how two or more objective realities can co-exist) therefore its cause is also singular, and in your picture innvolving several omnipotent gods the paradoxical question arises "By whom's potency did objective nature emmanate from?" (Upon discovering the answer to this question, the other "omnipotent" personalities would be downgraded in status) ”

OK so with that you agree that there can be more than one god.

yes - but there cannot be more than one omnipotent, omniscient etc god for reasons outlined above

“ “ Possession and execution are two different states, but like winning a race, the winner gets the prize but that doesn’t prevent both runners from existing. ”

It does however prevent the other contestants from winning the prize ”

Agreed, but the point remains that there are multiple contestants as there can be logically multiple gods. I never said that they all had to be winners.

If you are insisting on having your many gods being omnipotent you are

 

[spidergoat]

regardless of whatever you think regarding the nature of gods existence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence have very real applications in terms of logic

Yeah, like if God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yeah, like if God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent.

Why would he be required to change his mind?

 

[superluminal]

Yeah, like if God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent.

It's so incredibly obvious that the nature of a universal creator with the attributes of omniscience and omnipotence is completely selfcontradictory. How is any rational person to conclude that anyone who believes in such a being is anything other than delusional?

 

[superluminal]

Why would he be required to change his mind?

Because if the possibility of changing his mind is precluded by his nature, then god is an automaton and completely deterministic.