No, Wayfarer, it means the opposite. Stop being obtuse.

Google Graham Priest. It’s his speciality.

I do not really understand what you're saying, but it smells false and beside the point.

Can there be a being who can do anything? Yes, although we need to be clear that doing anything means what it means - it means anything at all. — Bartricks

It’s not beside the point in the sense that you are defining a “person” But then let’s remove all the limiting factors of human nature/ the conditions of personhood and then call it an “all powerful person”. How do we still call it a person in this case? You have the idea of a superhuman or superhero in mind. But one could equally argue them as alien to the human condition. A human cannot live forever nor exert ultimate force upon the universe. That is understood when we use the word human - a human; dies, is of a certain spectrum of intelligence and influence, has a reasonably consistent genetic code that only permits certain phenotypical traits. If a chimp and I share more than 99% of our components with each other... this god human is surely more distant in relation to what we decribe as human.

Supposing this “human” can be anywhere or do anything at any time why would it choose to be defined as simply “human”. Why ought it to statistically choose to be this one specific animal on this specific planet living a human life. It doesn’t make much sense in being productive. What’s much more Probable is that it interacts with itself and therefore must be all humans as well as the reality we occupy.

It’s like saying can there ever be a human that is actually a box that heats up and has the ability to cook any food and can be put in the kitchen. Yes there is ... it’s called an oven. The parameters of existence have changed so too must the definition.

So no I don’t believe there can be an all powerful god like human... there can only be the state of mind that one is god, or that others believe they are god, or that they understand reality so well that they could appreciate god (if it exists) better than the vast majority of other people and can teach in human examples of how this god is - like the prophets supposedly did.

My reasoning behind pointing to consciousness is that perhaps the mind or sentience that we have as humans is shared amongst a much larger set of things than we generally assume and that maybe this conscious entity in its entirety meets the omni-abilities of a god. That would mean we are a Technically a part of god, we can understand god to a degree but we as a human are not all of god and all of his /Hers /its properties.

Maybe in death we return to this base property. The largest consciousness. But who is to say?

If one is a master logician, all knowledge would be one's (omniscient), and given that knowledge is power, one would also be all-powerful (omnipotent). — TheMadFool

I don’t see how these two follow from your or bartricks’ arguments either could you explain?

Being a master logician would mean that you can tell, given premises, whether or not the conclusion is valid, not that you know everything.

Similarly, “knowledge is power” is hand waving. An omniscient person still couldn’t lift an airplane. If omniscience really did lead to omnipotence then "omnipotence" would be obsolete as an attribute of God and wouldn't have been mentioned.

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.

I thought there were too many of them.

By 'God' I mean a person who is all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient) and all-good (omnibenevolent). I take it that possession of those properties is sufficient to make one God. I do not want to debate this, it is just to tell you what I mean by 'God'. — Bartricks

Equal amount of good and bad in everything.

Has any human concept fostered more compassion and more suffering on this planet than God?

@Bartricks Can more than one god exist?

(This post is an edited version of an older post I forwarded on a different area. Because the subject matter is similar, I find it wastful for me to not simply reuse a large chunck of the post for present purposes. To clarify, I disagree with your God, as I am a Thomist, and instead forward that God is pure actuality. I hope that won't fall into too much conflict @Bartricks)

I'm sorry good sir, but you're argument is fundamentally flawed. The claim that God is omnipotent is certainly affirmed by classical theist of course, and they do believe it to have good foundation. However, we must distinguish between two very different perceptions of what God's omnipotence entails; on the one hand, there is the interpretation of the Thomist, which is that omnipotence is the power to exercise any given set of actions so long as they hold intelligibility - i.e whatever is logically possible. This follows from the idea that the divine will follows the intellect. The other interpretation is one pedaled by William of Ockham, a voluntarist, who forwarded the claim that God's omnipotence entails that all may be willed and accomplished, regardless of whether or not it is in any way intelligible. This followed from his idea that the divine intellect follows the will, and so what is willed is what is ultimately the foundation of reality, and thus the intellect conforms to the will to mark things as "intelligible".

Of course, many egregious implications are opened the moment this idea is accepted; for example, because there is not any law of logic or intelligibility that reality need conform to except for what God wills, propositions such as 2+2=6, although contradictive and incohesive, may become an accurate manner by which to conduct mathematics given that God wills it. The law of noncontradiction would of course be heavily violated, and as such undermine whatever argument William may have forwarded to bring him to voluntarism, but nonetheless it seems as if his ideas have spread further than it should, as this post seems to show.

(And I'd like to emphasize this point for present purposes. As to forward the idea of any entity or reality that can exercise the power to bring about self contridictory state of affairs would itself rely on consistency, cohesivness, intelligibility in order to be forwarded. However, that these things can be undermined results in the idea or argument which leads to such a conclusion to be defeated, as what supports the theisis that reason can reveal any truth if reality maybe unintelligible and thus "outside" the scope of reason? Indeed, any justification through rationality would itself beg the question. Of course, the only option left then is to reject the premise that leads to such result, for there is no gain for either Ockhamist, nor Scotist, nor Cartesion or even atheist in entertaining this idea, except of course the most extreme of skepticisms).

For given that you are arguing against the God of Ockham, of course these objections of "can God make a rock he can't lift" seem quite devastating - at least until you realize that Ockham would merely assert that God is not subordinate to logical cohesiveness (and not trivially but as a result of the very premise which brings us to this objection). But to a Thomist, or any one who takes the classical interpretation of God seriously, these objections are silly and can be answered quite easily: you simply do not understand omnipotence.

Omnipotence entails that what ever is intelligibly possible may be willed to occur. And as such, no, God cannot make a boulder that he can't lift because that is an unintelligible conception; it is not logically possible for actus purus (pure actuality) to be undermined in some capacity by what is a composite of potency and act. Nor can God will that a four sided triangle exist, or that the internal angles of a triangle be any more or less than 180 degrees in Euclidean space. And no, that does not mean that God is thus limited by some principle above him such as logic and thus is not highest being (which is also an absurd proposition, as highest being cannot be actus purus, only being itself can be). Instead, it is to say that the divine intellect, which is God, is first before the divine will, which is God, and as such God only acts in accordance with his intellect, which, as all perfect intellectual activities must be, is cohesive and noncontradictive.

(Again, I need to emphasize on this point in particular for the sake of the conversation. For, to be omnipotent is to be all powerful -i.e to have all the power - so to lack a power is to lack omnipotence. However, there simply cannot be a power which can bring forth contradictory state of affairs, as not only would such a power be completely incoherent and contradictory, any argumentation towards such an end would also be incoherent and self undermining, as shown above. Self contridictory state of affairs are inconceivable to the intellect and mental images not because they are beyond reason, but precisely because they are ludicrous and self defeating as it undermines any principle of sepetation between being (is and could) and nonbeing (isn't and couldn't), as what is self defeating yet exists is both in being and nonbeing. A more fundamental absurdity cannot be found, of course. As such, of course what is pure actuality - pure being itself - cannot bring forth nonbeing. Nor can anything do so, for that would require an existence - being - to be beyond being - but nothing can transcend being itself, as nothing is outside of being but nonbeing, and of course nonbeing cannot result in being. As such, pure being, God, cannot produce contridictory state of affairs, nor can anything be said to do so coherently to show something "above God". This is not because of some inherent flaw in omnipotence, but merely Ockhamist omnipotence. As such, because bringing self contridictory state of affairs is not a power for it cannot hold being, it does not participate in omnipotence and thus is not in God).

Thus, you're argument rests on more than a little questionable of a premise.

(Further, as for God's inability to reason badly, you have it all wrong. That is nearly the equivalent of saying "God cannot make himself not all powerful, which he should be able to do if hes all powerful, therefore God isnt all powerful". The theist can easily respond "no, to not be all powerful or to have bad reasoning are clearly deprivations of a power, not an "extra" power omnipotence doesn't hold. So for God to be able to do such things is to bring him down to imperfection. Such is, of course, a blatant inconsistency with God's pure actus essence; as such of course he can't and won't do these things."

As such, good sir, I believe your reasoning to be flawed and your conclusions incorrect.

They were on different topics - one was an exploration of what being all powerful involves and the other was about something's existence. Each debate was focused, but this is now a mess. It's like merging a thread about moral nihilism with one about moral relativism just because they're both about different aspects of morality.

You're not wrong. Bartrick's reasoning is flawed and his conclusions incorrect. I would go further still, but shall refrain - and instead thank you for your post. It was a pleasure to read. In its own terms, the logic seems irrefutable:

Omnipotence entails that what ever is intelligibly possible may be willed to occur. — Questio

Yet I disagree, because the omnibenevolence of God is not considered.

Presumably, by the term "God" we are speaking of the Creator of the Heaven and the earth, and not just some random omnipient hanging out in no-space. Indeed, there needs to be a Creation for Him to be benevolent toward. One cannot be good or bad alone.

All that so, God's omnipotence is hampered by his omniscience and benevolence. Any intervention in the Creation must necessarily have consequences, that at some remove are inconsistent with His perfect benevolence - and He would know any action would lead to consequences, that lead to consequences, that lead to consequences that are bad, because he's omniscient. Thus, God is impotent as a consequence of His own nature.

This thread is about....well who knows what it is about now!
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.

Look up normative reasons or normativity (actually, try using a properly edited book and not the internet). Laws of Reason are normative. That's fancy for 'they are directives to do and believe things'.

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

That they can does not mean that they will.

It does mean that they can't do things like destroy each other though. So they wouldn't be omnipotent.

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

:lol:

They could destroy each other; they are omnipotent.

That's question begging. They're not omnipotent for neither of them can do all things.

They can! they are omnipotent.

Question begging. And tedious. Up your game.

>>>Core to the argument: If a given belief/theory is semantically inconsistent (as in it is hypothetically impossible for it be true) then it must be rejected.<<<

according to your limited understanding perhaps. — MAYAEL

So what you're saying is this:

People can have semantically inconsistent beliefs. People should accept semantically inconsistent beliefs/theories.

You've got this very wrong.

I take it that you would agree that it is by using our reason that we find out about what actually exists?

Does an omnipotent being exist? Yes. Our reason reveals this when properly used.

And that omnipotent being can do anything at all - anything - as our reason reveals (including, of course, doing things that reason forbids, for the omnipotent being is the source of that forbidding and thus is not bound by it).

Can the omnipotent being that exists do things that our reason says are impossible - yes. However, that does not mean that our reason ceases to be our guide to what actually exists. For being 'able' to do things is not the same as doing them.

So, though God can make a four sided triangle and a married unmarried man, we know by the light of reason that there are no such things in reality. We know this without even having to inspect the place (God saves us the trouble, by telling us that they 'cannot' exist).

Our reason says that there cannot be more than one omnipotent being, for two beings with equal powers can frustrate and destroy each other (so their powers operate as limits on each other). Thus there is only one omnipotent being.

That omnipotent being could, if he so wished, create another omnipotent being (perhaps this was what you were getting at), for he can do anything including things that our reason says are impossible (as our reason itself tell us).

But is there more than one omnipotent being? No, there is just the one. And we can know this as certainly as we can know anything.

I cannot discern an original objection in what you say. Because this thread has now been made into an unfocussed mess, I assume that you are attacking my view on what omnipotence involves. And you are pointing out, as I myself did, that many theists interpret being able to do anything as the power to do that which Reason permits. And I am arguing that this cannot be correct, for being able to do anything includes the power to do what Reason forbids.

I don't see that you've said anything to challenge that view. The problem is that you're going to have to beg the question to make a case against me. That is, you're going to have to assume that Reason restricts an omnipotent being before you can show that it does. And that's question begging. So you can go on and on about how making a four sided triangle is not an ability, but your only evidence that this is not an ability is going to be that Reason forbids it (which is not in question).

By contrast, my view begs no questions. It also stands to reason, for it is self-evident to reason that a being who can do X has a power that a being that can't do X lacks.

Are you saying that there has to be an actual perfect existence that has existed or will exist at some point in time or does there only have to be a perfect existence that could theoretically exist but one that will never actually exist? In addition, wouldn’t a perfect universe be better than a perfect existence? I’m not understanding why you think that there’s nothing better than a perfect existence. — TheHedoMinimalist

I'm saying Existence is necessarily at least as real as you and me. So if Existence is necessarily Omnipresent (which It is because it exists everywhere, including in dreams), then something Omnipresent is necessarily at least as real as you and me.

Nothing can become Infinite from a finite state (you cannot count/expand to Infinity), nothing can become perfect from an imperfect state (an imperfect existence cannot become perfect if it wasn't always perfect because it is better to have been always perfect, and perfection = that which no greater than can be conceived of), nothing can become Omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state (as in nothing can substitute, or take the place of, or replace Existence).

In addition, wouldn’t a perfect universe be better than a perfect existence? — TheHedoMinimalist

Our universe is just a part of Existence. Wouldn't it be better if the whole of Existence was perfect rather than just part of it. If only a part of Existence is perfect whilst the rest of it is imperfect, then Existence is not perfect because it can be/exist better.

I don’t think that a perfect existence logically entails that everyone gets what they deserve because I don’t think anybody deserves anything or fails to deserve anything. — TheHedoMinimalist

I agree that we cannot 100% say Jack deserves to be punished because he did y. But this is only because we cannot be 100% sure as to whether Jack's intentions were evil or not. That which is Omniscient will know Jack's intentions. Jack will know his own intentions. Where one intends evil (to harm someone that one believes to not deserve to be harmed against their will and against their best interest...as is the case with rape and tyranny and oppression), then one deserves to be treated that way (to be harmed against his will and against his best interest). I'm saying the unrepentant rapist deserves Hell, because he would forever rape to satisfy himself.

Perfection is perfectly satisfied when unrepentant evil suffers. If this was not the case, then there would be nothing evil about being evil. If I committed evil and Existence was such that I did not suffer a loss of goodness as a result of this (so I did not get a headache, or go to prison, or Hell...depending on how extreme my evil was), then there was nothing evil about me being evil. If evil people wen to heaven and good people went to hell, then that's case of it literally being evil to be good and being good to be evil. That is semantically inconsistent with the semantic of Perfection, Existence, good, and evil.

It's only evil/bad for x to be evil/bad because it leads him to a loss of goodness consequentially (despite it not immediately seeming that way). If it did not lead to this, then one cannot say that it's evil/bad for x to be evil/bad. It's only bad/evil for x to be bad/evil when it's actually bad for him to be this way (as in it's against his best interest). Given the perfection of Existence, it is certainly bad for him to be this way. x knows he is in opposition to a perfect existence (God) when he commits evil. He just doesn't care.

Nor can God will that a four sided triangle exist, or that the internal angles of a triangle be any more or less than 180 degrees in Euclidean space. And no, that does not mean that God is thus limited by some principle above him such as logic and thus is not highest being (which is also an absurd proposition, as highest being cannot be actus purus, only being itself can be). Instead, it is to say that the divine intellect, which is God, is first before the divine will, which is God, and as such God only acts in accordance with his intellect, which, as all perfect intellectual activities must be, is cohesive and noncontradictive. — Questio

It most certainly does mean that he is limited by something above him. Freight what you say with as much latin as you like, the fact is you think God is limited in what he can do - you think he can't will that a four sided triangle exist. Even I can do that!!

He jolly well can will a four sided triangle to exist, and it with forthwith exist. He's God. He can do anything. If you think 'anything' means 'some things and not others' then you're just profoundly confused.

And you are, of course. The 'divine intellect' is not God. It's God's intellect. My intellect is not me. It's my intellect. And what does "God only acts in accordance with his intellect" mean if not "God does what he does"? And then you just pop in 'noncontradictive' at the bottom, out of nowhere.

That's not a case. It's just a convoluted way of saying "God can't do everything". He can do anything. Why? Because the laws of Reason tell us what is possible and what is not, and those laws are his laws and thus do not bind him.

You are just like the rest and think of God as straightjacketed. That's conceptually confused. It's also, of course, offensive to God - telling everyone that he can't do this and can't do that...the cheek of it!!

Wouldn't have this problem if someone didn't unban this idiot.

And you find that funny why? People with low levels of expertise on a subject often - perhaps invariably - dramatically overestimate just how expert they are on that subject. They also tend to judge those who have much greater expertise than they do to have much less. Which is understandable, of course, as those stupider than ourselves, and those cleverer than ourselves, will both often say things that don't make a great deal of sense to us.
Presumably the mirth is a result of you confidently believing that both EricH and yourself are more expert than I on matters philosophical, yes? Yet I'm about as qualified as it gets, whereas from the quality of your posts I doubt either of you has even a BA in philosophy.

Not hardly

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 think you should look up irony too.