Then we have a corruption of terminolgy - you insist on using a god who is not the cause of all causes for your scenario - the reason god requires such a quality (the cause of ALL causes) is that the qualities of being all powerful and omnipotent are contingent on it. In other words you have to address the q indicated in bold. The only way around it would be if all these gods were operating out of the same sense of ego (which is the only way for a uniform consensus to manifest)
Lg, No, none of that is true. You have made three fundamental errors. (1) The action of causing all causes is not a quality but an optional result of exercising certain abilities. There is no logical necessity to use stated abilities. (2) The ability to cause all causes is contingent on omnipotence and not the reverse as you claim. (3) You make the invalid assumption that there is only one god and then incorrectly conclude that it must be the sole cause of all causes and nothing else is possible. Entirely irrelevant to the issue of the logical possibility of multiple gods.
Cris what are the certain abiltiies you are alluding to? Once that is known it will be possible to determine the logical necessity of them. No If a cause is visible that cannot be traced to the cause of all causes, then whatever one takes as the cause of all causes is not omnipotent (either that or you are working with corruptions of the terms "cause of all causes" or "omnipotence") so in otherwords you want to override the standard definitions of god - if you want to argue that polytheism is completely fallible I won't argue with you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Actually it is quite relevant to ascertain how all these apparently omniscient, omnipotent causes of all causes resolve differences of opinion
Lg, You already know them, it was your list that you told me earlier, omnipotence, etc. This has no meaning. By definition every cause will be the result of the cause of all causes otherwise it would not be the cause of all causes. Meaningless since your first statement was gibberish. But it is a non sequitur in any case. And why are you trying to divert the conversation to saying the cause of all causes is not omnipotent? You are rambling. I’ve dealt with this already. What’s a standard definition of a god? There are thousands of them and apparently there is no standard. If we are talking your particular god then since I have shown that there is no logical necessity that there be only one god then certainly the definitions you are using that state there can only be one god is indeed incorrect. My only objective here is to show you that the claim that there is only one god is logically unsound. What they think is entirely irrelevant to the logical possibilities of whether there can be multiple gods or not.
Cris you are the one advocating that there two entities that are the cause of all causes interacting in the same atmosphere - I pointed out at the beginning how that is clearly an oxymoron because if they are both independant and seperate they would obviously disrupt each others status quo Because you are advocating that two or more omnipotent cause of all causes can co-exist - gibberish is trying to determine how a singular phenomena owes it s ultimate cause to two or more sources hardly No There are thousands of names, just like there are thousands of names for water too - as far as recognizing the object that is dependant on recognizing the quality (like wetness is one such quality of water) - in the case of god we are working with very fundamental qualities such as omnipotence, omniscience and being the cause of all causes - you are yet to logically establish how two or more such seperate entities can exist in the same environment The only way you have shown that logical necessity is if you accept a corrupted definition of god (ie not the cause of all causes etc) unsound only in the presence of corrupted terminology - thats why I think you would be better off forming an argument against polytheism since you already have the platform for such a discussion Its not just what they think it is what they do - obviously in examining the nature of an assembly of omniscient omnipotent entities who are the cause of all causes serious questions are raised concerning how their activities interact with each other
Computer = current god in your face. All raise your heads and heed these words : you were bowed before me and will again ,this is your computer ty that is all
LG, No I didn’t and haven’t. All I have done is demonstrate that there is no logical inhibition to the existence of multiple gods each having the capabilities to be the cause of causes. Nowhere have I said or implied that more than one exercises their abilities at the same time. That was one of your previous attempts at rebutting me which I have refuted already. Please don’t repeat arguments we have already closed. And I have dealt with that already. I.e. their omniscience prevents any confusion. Please read previous posts where I have explained this already. Again I have dealt with this already. I have said several times already that multiple gods having the same abilities does not mean they need exercise their abilities concurrently. Only one need be the cause of causes. This does not prevent the existence of multiple gods. As explained already several times, the ability to cause all causes doesn’t mean there cannot be multiple gods with the same abilities. And again as has been explained already, the claim that a definition of a god is that it is the cause of all causes is in error because of the erroneous assumption that there can only be one god which I have shown earlier is not a logical necessity. But more importantly it is not relevant that your chosen definition says a god must be the cause of causes in the light of reasoned deductive logic that has demonstrated otherwise. In this case the claim for the definition as authoritative is a logical fallacy in the light of simple logic. Yes I have, go back and read my posts. You have not presented any argument that I have not refuted that shows that multiple gods cannot exist. There is no logical necessity that there be only one god. As explained already, that definition is based on a fallacy, i.e. that there can only be one god. Explained and refuted already, several times. That’s their problem not ours. What they think or do is irrelevant to whether there can be multiple gods or not.
Any further debate on multiple supreme gods should be directed to - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=59181
well not really...the absolute happiness would mean the highest degree of happiness, the basis of happiness, the origin of happiness, the essential happiness from which all forms of happiness are derived from there can only be one absolute.....
vital, Yet it can be shared and there can be many occurrences, right? If two of the best atheletes in the world compete in the olympics and achieve a dead heat then both have achieved the absolute in that context.
the absolute cannot be shared I don't know what you mean...but many people can achieve the absolute...but its never shared...like multiple people can achieve the ONE and ONLY absolute happiness...doesn't make it multiple
Vital, It is only a standard and so can be potentially achieved by many, right? Isn’t that sharing? Might just be a semantic issue, but that sounds a lot like sharing, surely? OK, what you mean is that there is a single standard that potentially many could achieve.
What you don't address is that there is a differenece between achieving a state of being and monopolizing a state of reality. Like for instance many people could arrive in NYC, but that doesn't make them NYC
So what the hell is satan? Satan is a god, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Errrr wait, my bad, satan wanted to be god! So god made satan god of earth, with his own realm, called hell right?? Can't you see the stupidity of all this LG? BTW your god invented evil, evil exist caused by god, yet you call "IT" benevolent. Why?
I can't follow your logic -( owing to a misappropriated version of xtianity you have obviously been exposed to I would say at a guess.) I am not sure how to respond - this is the closest thing that comes to explaining the dualistic concepts you are enamoured with BG 3.37 The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: It is lust only, Arjuna, which is born of contact with the material mode of passion and later transformed into wrath, and which is the all-devouring sinful enemy of this world.
