Yes, of course an omnipotent being can create another omnipotent being. He can do anything, so he can do that. — Bartricks

So can the omnipotent being create another being that is MORE omnipotent than him? If yes, then that newly created more omnipotent being can create yet another that is even more omnipotent. Lather, rinse and repeat and infinite number of times.

There will not be more than one omnipotent being. This is because otherwise one could frustrate the other and thus neither would truly be omnipotent. — Bartricks

So an omnipotent being cannot create another being that is equally omnipotent - that would be terribly frustrating for those poor omnipotent beings.

There will not be more than one omnipotent being. This is because otherwise one could frustrate the other and thus neither would truly be omnipotent. — Bartricks

Can an omnipotent being create another being more omnipotent than itself? If no, then such a being is not omnipotent because there is something that it cannot do.

If yes, then you have an infinite number of omnipotent beings, each of which creates a yet more omnipotent being - and thus there is no omnipotent being.

If you want to claim that this reasoning is invalid because you have defined the word omnipotent in such a way that there cannot be anything more omnipotent, then you are carving out an exception to your position that God is capable of doing everything. But if your version of God can illogically break the very definitions of every other word in the English language (create a square circle), then God your should also be able to break your definition of the word omnipotence. You can't have it both ways.

As many people in this thread have tried pointing out to you, the very notion of omnipotence is inherently illogical. But if you are attempting to use logic/reasoning to prove that logic/reasoning can be broken - then you cannot use logic/reasoning to prove anything - since there is no way of knowing that any such "proof" is truly valid. After all - it could be that there is an evil God who has created the rules of logic to deceive you into believing such things.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Look - I have close friends and relatives who are deeply religious - and I have seen first hand that religion helps people cope with life and provides a great source of comfort. And my religious friends/relatives do not feel the need to justify their beliefs - they just live them.

Religion is deeply and profoundly illogical. That's OK. Life is absurd. But for some reason, there are folks who cannot accept this and instead attempt to use all sorts of bizarre reasoning to "prove" the impossible. People much smarter than you & I have attempted to do this and have failed. Even people who believe in God cannot agree on the most basic definitions of words.

You cannot define things into existence (whatever you mean by existence).

Take a leap of faith.

- - - - - - -

BTW - There's no doubt that you are much more knowledgeable about medieval scholasticism & the history of philosophical thought than I. That in itself does not make your points any more valid.

So you have no answer. As I thought.

Then look up Dunning and Kruger and then ask yourself why you might be finding everything I say a bit nonsensical. — Bartricks

Truly ironic

I tried to create a non-sarcastic question but your posts are so bizarrely nonsensical that it slipped through. I apologize for that. That said, my request was sincere. I keep an open mind. Perhaps the phrase "laws of Reason" has some esoteric meaning in your philosophic world view that I'm not getting. I did google "laws of Reason" before I posted but did not find anything useful.

A law of Reason is an imperative or instruction to do or believe something. — Bartricks

I plead ignorance in this discussion. Would you kindly list the "laws of Reason". If this list is too long, perhaps you can supply the top 10?

This is a variation on Hanlon's Razor

I never even get past the notion of greatest. No idea what that means. Who is the greatest soccer player? What is the greatest tuna fish sandwich? Etc.

But if you're saying this is the worst example of violent behavior against the US government, I'm saying it's not. — Hanover

I'd agree with that - The Civil War was worse.

I don't think any scientist have found "something to come out of nothing (vacuum)" — hans solace

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

independent and transparent investigation — NOS4A2

If Trump and his supporters would be satisfied with the results of such an investigation there might be some merit in this proposal. But when that investigation came up with nothing would Trump say "OK, this was investigated and they found nothing. I concede - let me give a very belated congratulations to President Biden"?

Of course not. Trump (and his supporters) would reject such results and still find something wrong with any investigation. If Trump is not willing to take the word of Secretary General William Barr what on earth makes you think he would accept the results of an independent (i.e., bipartisan) investigation?

rephrase the question — TheMadFool

Maybe in your mind it is re-phrasing, but in fact it is an entirely different question.

Other than that, I yield to @L'Unico and @Mijin in this conversation. . .

Quantum fluctuations alone do not presuppose or prove an existence without a prior cause. Would you like to point out why you think we do? — Philosophim

Quantum mechanics shows that events at the sub-atomic level are random and "un-caused". These "un-caused" events behave in a statistically predictable pattern, but each event has no prior "cause".

Now if you want to postulate that quantum physics is incomplete and there is some underlying "causality" that science has not yet uncovered , then go for it. But people much, much smarter than you & I have been unable to do so.

BTW - I neglected yet another option

e) The whole notion of "causality" is nonsensical. In other words, we are like dogs looking at a computer screen - we have no idea what's going on out there.

At best, the notion that everything has a "prior cause" is a hypothesis that needs to be proven.

To Tim's list I would also add

d. Things can exist without a prior cause

If you think theology is well-defined, can you find that definition and reference it here? — tim wood

Of course there is no single precise definition of the word, but there is universal agreement that it has to do with the religion / God / etc.

From WIkipedia: "Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief. "

From Britannica: "Theology, philosophically oriented discipline of religious speculation and apologetics that is traditionally restricted, because of its origins and format, to Christianity but that may also encompass, because of its themes, other religions, including especially Islam and Judaism. The themes of theology include God, humanity, the world, salvation, and eschatology (the study of last times)."

I could go on and on. Search the phrase "definition of theology" and you get 2,200,000 hits.

None of the standard definitions remotely fits my thinking.

- - - - - - - -

This exchange reminds me of conversations I had with the now banned Frank Apisa - he had his own, umm, unique definition of the word "God" - which resulted in pointless looping back & forth debates.

But look. If expanding the definition of the word "theology" to include the position that the whole subject is incoherent - if that rocks your boat? Then go for it. If you could get all the theologians (or people who consider themselves to be theologians) to buy into your definition? That would be a most impressive achievement.

I dunno, maybe it's just me, but that sort of expands the definition of the word beyond all recognition. I did a quick search and I'm not seeing any dictionary definition that even remotely resembles my thinking.

By that I mean that every (intelligent) person must reconcile him- or herself to the sheer fact of mystery, or if you will, death. For each individual, that substance of that reconciliation becomes a theology. — tim wood

Who let the dogs out? Not only do I have no idea, I am reconciled to the fact that I will live out the rest of my life and die without ever knowing who let the dogs out. I simply add that to the list of absurd nonsensical questions that people post on the forum

I acknowledge that I will never understand life's mysteries. Are you saying that my acknowledgment of my limitations is a "theology"?

Okay I think I take your meaning. “God exists” is either true or false. — Brett

There is a third option - namely that the sentence "God exists" has no coherent meaning and thus you cannot assign a truth value to it.

Interesting. Nietzsche is one of those folks that I just "don't get" - but maybe I'll give it a second look one of these days

Indeed. It is sad and a tragedy. I never thought I'd look back fondly at Barry Goldwater.

Frivolous was wrong word. Bogus. And while there may have been a few useful idiots in there - the overwhelming majority of Repubs signing on to those lawsuits knew (and know) that they were bogus.

I am no scholar of American constitutional law, but surely the Trump campaign/GOP are veering really close to actual sedition. — Wayfarer

Filing frivolous lawsuits is not an act of sedition. Stupid, harmful to political discourse, divisive? Yes. But not close to seditious.

A very significant amount of effort and hard work is required to make sense of what appears to be incoherent nonsense at first glance. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have many more important things to do with my life than to make sense of incoherent nonsense.

So it appears to me, that what you are lacking is confidence in your own capacity to judge metaphysical principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

I cannot assert this with 100% certainty, but I have a high level of confidence that - at best - metaphysics is a form of poetry in which people attempt to express vague feelings of, umm, well - and here I get stuck - I'm not quite sure what it is they're trying to express. I get that you are dissatisfied with the notion that everything (whatever "everything" means) is explicable in terms of a physical reality (AKA physicalism). But once you get beyond the physical, language falls apart - there are no clear definitions and you end up with a word salad - and no two people can agree on anything.

I have found a way into it, through the contemplation of Platonic realism, . . . . and it’s given me a perspective from which to read the subject. — Wayfarer

Don't let my carping stop you folks. If believing this stuff helps you with your life then who am I to stop you? It seems harmless enough in the scheme of things.

And if you can come up with a set of metaphysical principals that you metaphysicians can agree on - and if they are not coherent nonsense? I will keep an open mind.

It seems like the modern trend back toward monism is simply a failure of our institutions to teach solid metaphysical principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

I apologize in advance for this disparaging comment - but this has to be one of the most unintentionally funny comments I have seen on the forum in a long time. "Solid metaphysical principles"? Talk about a contradiction in terms. :lol:

That out of the way, I then said to myself that I needed to be fair - perhaps there is some core set of metaphysical principals that I was previously not aware of. So I did a google search of "metaphysical principals" and, not unexpectedly, came up with a disparate set of contradictory information. Here are some of the top sites that came up:

Christian Philosophy / by Louis de Poissy

Live By These 11 Metaphysical Principles and Create the Life You Truly Desire

The First United Metaphysical Chapel

For completeness I also reviewed the Stanford Encyclopedia as well as Philosphy Basics

All of this confirms my initial reaction - when it comes to metaphysicas there is no agreement on even the most basic concepts.

But I try to keep an open mind - I am out on the forum to learn new things - so perhaps I am wrong. If there are any solid metaphysical principles that should be taught, then clearly all (or most) meta-physicians should agree upon them, yes? So what are these principals?

So ‘what is real’ is of greater scope than what exists. — Wayfarer

But that does not answer my question. What is the semantic difference between "physical" and "existence"?

What is the difference from "being physical" and "existing"? Aren't those two ways of saying the same thing?

All existing things exist. They cannot exist in non-existence. They all exist in something. Call this thing Existence. — Philosopher19

I'm a plain language person. So given the level of technical detail from fishfry et al, I'm jumping in here with more than a bit of trepidation. But fools rush in - I'll try to analyze what I think you're saying in my own clumsy way:

All existing things exist. — Philosopher19

Seems like a tautology to me, but just for completeness we need to extend the property of existence to energy fields & spacetime as well. Spacetime exists.

They cannot exist in non-existence. — Philosopher19

Not quite sure what you're getting at here - it seems like you're saying "Things do not have the property of non-existence"? But this falls out of the definitions of the words. So at best you're simply re-stating your first sentence in different words. Nothing wrong with that. :smile:

They all exist in something. Call this thing Existence. — Philosopher19

And here is where we go astray. I'm seeing two inter-related problems. The first is calling this "thing" Existence.. Using the word Existence leads to confusion - let's use the word universe. So now we have:

They all exist in something. Call this thing the universe.

Next using the word "something" looks wrong to me. The universe is not a thing. The universe does not contain itself. So to make this work, let's rephrase these two sentences like this:

They all exist in the universe.

This works. In fact we can now combine the two revised sentences:

All existing things exist in the universe.

That works. Then finally we have this:

Call the set of all existing things, Existence. Existence is the set of all existing things (including Itself because it Itself exists). — Philosopher19

And here is the third point where we disagree. I am far from an expert in Set Theory - but the basic concepts are clear and comprehensible to the average person. Sets are not real. Sets do not have the property of existence - they are mathematical constructs with mathematical properties according to various mathematical rules. The universe is not the set of all things that have the property of existence.

The universe IS all things.

Or put differently by this very smart philosopher guy I once read :razz:

The universe is all that is the case.

If I am wrong, then I am an idiot — Philosopher19

I agree with the hypothesis of that sentence, I disagree with the conclusion.

So next - would you personally prefer to live in a free / anarchic society OR would you prefer to live in a society which has clearly defined rules (and for the sake of this thought experiment you can choose the rules)

Don't tell me . . . — Book273

I'm not telling you anything. I understand your definition of the word "free" - and I am not criticizing your definition. OK - at least not yet . . .

But I am not seeing any distinction between your use of the word "free" and how I would use the word "anarchist".

So I'll repeat my question - As you define the words - do you see a distinction between a "free society" vs "anarchist society"? If so, please elaborate.

Just to be clear - do you make any distinction between "free" vs "anarchy"? Or are those two words interchangeable?

I'm not following your logic. You agree with me that the question is wrong/illogical - i.e., the question has no meaning. And yet you go ahead and attempt to answer it anyway.

A question has been asked — TheMadFool

No - a question has not been asked. A bunch of disconnected words have have been strung together and a question mark has been placed at the end. It may be some form of poetry - maybe analogous to religious talk - but it is not subject to any logical analysis.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but by your definition of "free society" am I free to kill someone I don't like?

1. Something
2. Nothing
3. Infinity
4. Zero — TheMadFool

For completeness, you might want to add this choice:

5. The question is wrong / illogical

I take my lead from Donald Trump - I only think the best thoughts. :joke:

Right - I was thinking of parachuting where you hit wind resistance. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but when you jump out of a plane, your inner ear detects acceleration (or so I've been told).

I'm not trying to sound critical, but it seems like you already answered your question even before you posed it. Did you think that someone here on the forum would come up with some magical formula to change your mind?

That said - do you like playing with other musicians of your caliber? If so, once the pandemic has eased, go out and join a band or go to some jam sessions. Have fun!

"Never compose anything unless the not composing of it becomes a positive nuisance to you." Gustav Holst

I am in a similar situation and deeply relate to what you're saying.

Do you enjoy the process of creating/composing? Do you enjoy listening to your music after is is completed? Do you feel that your music has merit and is worth listening to (don't compare to anything else)?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then I would encourage you to continue creating music - as I have.

You need to accelerate first to get to free fall velocity. Your inner ear detects acceleration.

Einsteinian Physics is counter-intuitive, because much of it is Meta-physical. — Gnomon

I was a physics major in college. I make no claims to being very good at it, but once you accept the two basic premises that that nothing can go faster than c and that the laws of physics are invariant in all frames of reference? There is nothing counter intuitive about it.

The math is indeed very hard (my stumbling block), but there is nothing "meta" about it. Special & general relativity are real & measurable. They have no intrinsic "meaning".

When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. — Gnomon

These statements have no literal meaning. They are very much like all religious statements, they are a type of imaginative poetry.

But don't let my grousing stop you - as far as these things go it's relatively harmless. . .

You can feel gravity. — EricH
How do you do that. — god must be atheist

Hmm - off the of of my head I can think of a few simple tests.

1) Lift your arms up and then relax them. You will feel your arms falling back to your sides.

Please be careful as you perform this next test.
2) Stand on a low chair or stool. You will feel a brief sense of acceleration as you are falling down. You will also feel some sudden de-acceleration as your feet hit the floor. To get the maximum experience of this effect, go sky diving (be sure to take a parachute. :razz:

I could be mistaken, but I believe the sensations you will experience from these experiments are the result of gravity acting on your arms (#1) or your whole body (#2)

I relate to your comments. One little nit-picking detail:

So...is gravity meta-physics? It is very real to me. And yet it is not something you can see, touch, smell or taste. — god must be atheist

You can feel gravity.