One v. Multiple Supreme Gods - LG v. Cris

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

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

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)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's right, women are incomprehensible

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

Prince,

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.

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.

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

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

 

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).

 

Prince,

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

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

confused: ) or two persons who are not god

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

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?

sounds like polytheism to me

lol - definitely polytheism

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.

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

 

LG,

And unlimited means no restrictions.

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.

Yet that is what you are clearly trying to do.

Again there can be no restrictions to these abilities.

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 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.

 

Cris

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

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

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

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

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

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

It does however prevent the other contestants from winning the prize

 

LG,

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

Quaint term that seems irrelevant here.

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

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

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

Many gods, gosh I believe you are correct.

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

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

 

LG,

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

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

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.

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

Nope, BG has no supernatural element.

Surely we are way past dictionary definitions?

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

And again I have never said that.

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

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.

 

Cris

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)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

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

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

welcome to polythesimville

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

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

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

 

Cris

Omnipotency however is limited by the capacity to exhibit omnipotency

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

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

Correct? Obstinate perhaps ....

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

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

another wordless dismissal ...

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

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

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

 

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?

 

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?

 

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