I would agree with you... But this would render existence incomprehensible, would it not? For all we have for certain is our own existences, existences in concern for existence.

Reason is a part of our existence. It authoritatively dictates things without compromise such as: you cannot use reason to doubt reason as that would be paradoxical. Reason dictates paradoxes are unacceptable. Are we in agreement on this?

Our understanding of Existence is not complete. But it is sufficient.

For example we know that Existence has to be defined in the following way: Existence = that which is all-existing. We also know that it has to be infinite and eternal. We know these things because reason dictates that the contrary would be paradoxical. I'll demonstrate:

A temporally finite Existence amounts to something coming from nothing (paradox). A spatially finite existence amounts to existence bordering non-existence (paradox). Existence not being omnipresent/all existing entails that existent things can be separate by non-existence (paradox).

These are examples of things we know for certain. They are certain because as demonstrated, reason dictates it. They suffice in saying that we have a sufficient understanding of Existence.

Our understanding is not complete because, for example we don't know if Existence can accommodate beings with a 100 senses or not. We don't know if such beings are possible. We don't know if existence has the potential to generate such beings. But this does not render our understanding of Existence as false. Does it?

The same applies to omnipotence and omniscience. We have a sufficient understanding but it is not complete. We know that that which is omnipotent = that which is almighty/can do all that is doable. We know this because reason dictates any other definition to be paradoxical.

We don't know if that which is omnipotent can produce a being with a 100 senses or not. We know it has the potential to produce unicorns but we don't know if it can create a creature with a 100 senses.

So, does this render our understanding of omnipotence as false?

But is omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence a rational concept? I think this premise is taken for granted.[/quote]
I've not taken that premise for granted. If you can think of any problems with the concepts, then let me know. I'm confident in my ability to give rational replies.

A square circle. It is not, as some think, a contradiction in terms because a circle is defined as the set of all points on a two-dimensional surface that are equidistant from a point called the 'centre', and a square is defined as a shape on a two-dimensional surface that consists of four 'straight' (geodesic) paths that meet at right angles.

So this is contradictory then is it not? You cannot have a square-circle. Right?

It can be proven that no such shape can exist but, because it is not a contradiction in terms (in Kant's terminology, the fact that it cannot exist is not an a priori truth), one can imagine it existing, and what one imagines is meaningful.

If something is a square, how can it be a circle at the same time? How can this be imagined in any way whatsoever? You can have a square, and then have a circle inside that square. No problems with it being meaningful here but to have a square that is also a circle at the same time generates absurdity/paradox/meaninglessness.

I see what you're saying. In order to better communicate what I'm saying, let's leave the concept of perfection for now and perhaps come back to it later. Consider the following premises:

(1) There is existence/Existence exists

(2) Everything that exists, does so only in existence

(3) We are fully dependent on existence

(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows

(5) Given 4, anything that is either rational/comprehensible/understandable, necessarily belongs to existence (existence accommodates it; as in either it is necessarily existent, or existence has the potential to create it or produce it. This why our minds classify it or recognise it as a hypothetical possibility and this is why it has meaning. So a unicorn is a potential thing that Existence can produce) On the other hand, anything that is either irrational or incomprehensible is necessarily non-existent (existence does not accommodate it. The potential for it to exist has never been there and will never be there. For example, no square-circles or married bachelors can never exist. Such phrases are absurd and makes no sense)

(6) Omnipotence and omniscience, are rational concepts that we have an understanding of. So Existence must accommodate these concepts. As highlighted by 5, to deny this is to commit to the paradox of something coming from nothing. Therefore, either:

6a) The potential is there for something to become omnipotent and omniscient, or 6b) Something is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

(7) Only Existence/that which is all-existing/omnipresent can be almighty/omnipotent and all-knowing/omniscient because the semantics of omnipotence are not satisfied if you don't have reach or access to all of Existence. Similarly, you can't be all-knowing if you don't have reach or access to all of Existence.

(8) Given 7, 6a must be false as nothing can become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state as nothing can substitute Existence. So the potential for something to become omnipresent is not there which entails that the potential for something to become omnipotent or omniscient is also not there.

(9) Given that 6a is false and that the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are not absurd, it follows that 6b is true.

(10) Only Existence/that which is all-existing/omnipresent can be almighty and all knowing.

(11) Given 5-10, Existence is necessary omnipotent and omniscient.

Do you see any problems with the argument?

So this is contradictory then is it not? — Philosopher19

One can deduce a contradiction from the assertion that a Riemannian manifold can have a square circle drawn upon it. My point is that it is not a contradiction in terms. Not all contradictions are contradictions in terms. Do you understand Kant's distinction between analytic and synthetic truths? Under Kant's approach, it is a synthetic, not an analytic truth that a Riemannian manifold cannot contain a square circle, just as it is a synthetic, not an analytic truth that 5+7=12 or that 5+7 <> 13.

If something is a square, how can it be a circle at the same time? How can this be imagined in any way whatsoever?

I can imagine it. You need to erase your mental image of a square and a circle, which contains many more properties than are stated in their bare definitions, and focus only on the bare definitions. It might help to start visualising what triangles on the surfaces of spheres look like. They have sides that from some perspectives look curved, and the sum of the angles is greater than 180 degrees. This is admittedly, quite difficult for those that have not worked with n on-Euclidean geometry before.

We use reason to make sense of our observations, it's not the other way round. We have paradigm shifts in science and we alter the foundations of science every time we make an observation that reason dictates as being paradoxical/at odds with the rest of the scientific theory we're working with when making the observation.

It's not just science. Whenever we use language, (be it in science, maths, law, any field for that matter) we acknowledge that we cannot have absurdities/paradoxes. We don't dictate this, reason dictates this. It's a correct/sound circle. — Philosopher19

But what dictates reason?

Humans don't have magical access to an infallible set of axiomatic laws from which we can reason, we have to first discover and model those laws, and therein lies the fallibility.

You cannot think of something meaningful that can never exist. — Philosopher19

By meaningful you mean non-paradoxical, and by non-paradoxical you mean rationally valid and sound. What you're saying is I cannot think of something that is rationally sound and valid that can never exist. This statement is kind of incoherent though: for something to be rationally sound and valid (non-paradoxical (meaningful)) it has to be a conclusion that rationally follows from true premises. So what you're asking for is if something can be a conclusion that rationally follows from true premises but not exist... I don't know how premises and a conclusion can be true but pertain to something which does not exist, so by virtue of that alone, no.

You say that omniscience and omnipotence are "meaningful" concepts, but do they rationally follow from true premises?

I can understand an infinite Existence, I can understand Infinite power/awareness/presence.

I don't think you can.

I can draw a picture of a battery next to the symbol for infinity, but that doesn't show I comprehend whatever it omnipotence is. "The power do do anything that is doable" isn't sufficient; we don't know what is or isn't doable so we don't know what omnipotence is.

In an infinite existence why would you not be able to have something that is infinitely long? Where would there be a paradox in that, it seems to have meaning does it not? So the potential for something to be infinitely long is there. — Philosopher19

So you agree that your argument would also establish the existence of an infinitely long pasta noodle?

Omnipotence (that which can do all that is doable)
Omniscience (that which knows all that there is to know)

They are sound because any other definition is paradoxical. — Philosopher19

How do you know other definitions are paradoxical? (read: not sound and valid) (note: omniscience and omnipotence have never been established as extant by any valid arguments from any true premises).

Mandela lifting a car is not a paradox. Mandela is a coherent and non-paradoxical definition for omnipotence. Why not?

Reason dictates that we would be forced to change the semantics such that the science and the math add up simply because reason and Existence are not absurd. Non-existence or the incorrect usage of reason is absurd/irrational/paradoxical. — Philosopher19

We change the models themselves. The kind of reason you're now referring to is called trial and error, and it's not deductive, it's inductive. We're not being led to truth through reason when we change science or math, we're being led to reason by showing evidence for truth directly (science is a system of reasoning, math is a system of reasoning; inductive reasoning is what underlies them as descriptions of the world, and we cannot do apriori induction whatsoever.

--------

In 6a-b you state that something meaningful must either potentially exist, or always have existed.

Why must meaningful things "potentially" exist, and why if they cannot "potentially exist" must they have always existed? Can't they just have never existed in the first place?

Existence not being omnipresent/all existing entails that existent things can be separate by non-existence (paradox). — Philosopher19

Sartre wrote a book maintaining this. 'Being and Nothingness'

Saying that it is rational that 'something' singular could be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent seems to be overstepping our boundary of knowledge. If all metaphysics presupposes a theory of knowledge then all theories of knowledge presuppose a metaphysics. Knowledge is as if, nothing more. Furthermore, knowledge is human, and reason is human, and there is nothing that proves that reason is infallible, and that our conclusions do indeed mean anything other than the meaning we give it, according to the faith we have in what it can do for us. In the end, knowledge is for us, not for anything else, and thus it is dictated not by reason itself but that which contains reason and uses it as an instrumentality. In any case, knowledge a priori can not suffice. There must be a synthetic conclusion, lest it remains imaginary.
But... Who is to say that what is imaginary is not real?
This primacy of knowledge is an illusion lest one dissolves into an idealism or realism, which is the source of endless philosophical debate devoid of coherent conclusion and thus completely absent of any knowledge.

All I maintain anymore is that I do not know. Probability seems to be the paragon of knowledge... And this is utterly unstable.

"An infinite existence/that which is omnipresent DOES NOT HAVE the potential to generate a universe/reality that contains omnipotence because omnipotence requires omnipresence and that which is omnipresent cannot create another omnipresent being"

Why not? There is no contradiction in 2 or more omnipresent beings. I read your premise based argument and it sounds to me like you're proving "existence" is omnipresent and omnipotent and I'm like "duh". I thought you set out to prove the existence of God but you proved the existence of the laws of physics. You cannot assign perfection to this entity you just proved, all you know, is that it knows everything, is everywhere and can do everything possible. That sounds like the laws of physics more than God to me. I totally agree with you if that's the case.

The omnipresent would be the omnipotent, e.g. because of the amount of latent energy present (infnite energy). Omnipresent + omnipotent = infinite actual.

An actually infinite being is perfect, you cannot add to it, it has everything already, nor would it need anything more, it's perfect.

Also, it is impossible to think that two gods could co-exist, one would kill the other, maybe feign a truce that lasts a trillionth of a femtosecond, and then one stabs the other in the back.

Love is of God because God is inifnite and one, therefore there's no hostility, all is peace. Love is the taste of an infinite actual lone God.

My point is: If there were more than one God, there would be mutual annihilation or at least constant war. The mere existence of Love proves this not to be the case. Also as l said: infinity is perfect, it already contains everything, needs nothing extra.

^^^^ at least 2 contradictions for multiple omnipotent beings, off the top of my head for you :))

You came to basically the same conclusion I did about his thought.

You will have to elucidate upon that please.

What is God?

shorthand for actual infinity, the focus of my post

But what dictates reason?

Humans don't have magical access to an infallible set of axiomatic laws from which we can reason, we have to first discover and model those laws, and therein lies the fallibility.

Reason itself is infallible otherwise using it would be absurd/paradoxical. One day reason would say the definition of a triangle is x another day it says something different. Reason is always right without fail. Our usage of it, is fallible. For example, when we say that Existence is finite, and think that this has meaning, it's like we haven't used reason at all because reason would always show that such a thing is paradoxical. Does reason tell you anything different to this?

don't know how premises and a conclusion can be true but pertain to something which does not exist, so by virtue of that alone, no./quote]

True. The statement that something can be meaningful but can never exist, is paradoxical. I meant to shift focus towards this paradox as it highlights the importance of Existence necessarily accommodating all meaningful things/having the potential to generate/produce all meaningful things

You say that omniscience and omnipotence are "meaningful" concepts, but do they rationally follow from true premises?

I believe so. Correct me if you see an error with any of the premises. 1) All meaningful/rational things are devoid of paradoxes
2) Omnipotence = that which can do all that is doable, Omniscience = that which knows all that is knowable
3) These are meaningful/understandable definitions (if you think the concepts are paradoxical, please demonstrate how it is impossible for something to be omnipotent/omniscient)
4) Any alternative definition would amount to something entirely different
5) Given 4, these definitions are accurate

I can draw a picture of a battery next to the symbol for infinity, but that doesn't show I comprehend whatever it omnipotence is. "The power do do anything that is doable" isn't sufficient; we don't know what is or isn't doable so we don't know what omnipotence is.

We don't have a picture of omnipresence/Existence yet we understand/comprehend it. We don't need to have a picture of omnipotence, we just need to understand it. You say the definition is insufficient. Consider this:

Existence/omnipresence = that which is all-existing
Omnipotence = that which is almighty (that which can do all that is doable)

I acknowledge that we don't have a full understanding of these class of concepts, but we do have a sufficient understanding of these concepts. I'll demonstrate:

We don't know if Existence can accommodate beings with a 100 senses or not. We don't know if such beings are possible. But this does not render our understanding of Existence as insufficient to the point that we don't understand what it is. Does it?

The same applies to omnipotence and omniscience. We have a sufficient understanding but it is not complete. We know that that which is omnipotent/Existence can generate a world with unicorns but we don't know if it can generate a being with a 100 senses.

Do you see where I'm coming from? To say that our understanding of omnipotence is insufficient is just like saying our understanding of omnipresence is insufficient. They are the exact same class of concepts that describe/denote the same semantical gap/thing

So you agree that your argument would also establish the existence of an infinitely long pasta noodle?

It establishes the possibility/potential of an infinitely long pasta noodle being produced by Existence. This concept is a potential/hypothetical possibility. This is not the same class of concepts as omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience that can't be produced/generated. They just necessarily are. An infinitely long pasta noodle does not rationally require to be omnipresent, but omnipotence/omniscience do and since nothing can ever become omnipresent from a non-omnipresent state, that which is omnipresent, has necessarily always been omnipotent/omniscient and will always be omnipotent/omniscient. Can you see how any alternative to this would be paradoxical?

How do you know other definitions are paradoxical?

I've tried and I discover that omnipotence is just like omnipresence. You cannot define omnipresence as anything other than that which is all-existing/present everywhere/that which sustains all that is sustainable. You cannot define omnipotence as anything other than that which is almighty (able to do all that is doable) If you can define it differently, then please share your definition.

Mandela lifting a car is not a paradox. Mandela is a coherent and non-paradoxical definition for omnipotence. Why not?

Mandela being omnipotent is paradoxical because in order for something to be omnipotent, it needs to be able to have reach and access to everything. In other words, omnipotence requires omnipresence. Only Existence is omnipresent. Mandela can never become omnipresent/Existence. In fact, nothing can ever become omnipresent/omnipotent from a non-omnipresent state. Omnipresence has always been omnipresent and will always be omnipresent. Anything other than this is paradoxical, is it not?

To better understand my view of reason and language, have a quick read of this if you have time:

Language is essentially made up of words that label semantical gaps. For example the Arabic word salam means peace in English. Here the semantical gap is what the words salam and peace refer to. There is an infinite amount of semantical gaps available.

It is important to note that just as there is only one existence, there is only one set of semantical gaps. Anyone that has awareness of semantical gaps or can focus on semantical gaps is aware of or focusing on the only set available in existence. How much of that set or which part of that set one focuses on or has access to may differ but the set itself has always been the same and will always be the same. So any suggestion that rational agents can have two different sets of semantical gaps is absurd. It would be like suggesting there can be two existences. Whilst there can be more than one reality, there cannot be more than one existence. I can create my own language, but I cannot create my own semantical gaps. I can only attach labels or sounds to the semantical gaps available in existence.

Even if I try to create my own concepts, for example a unidragon (a hybrid of unicorn and dragon) I haven't created this concept, I've essentially focused on a semantical gap available in existence and labelled it. If I then draw a picture of a unidragon and show it to people who speak different languages, they will probably label it differently but the semantical gap that their mind would focus on would either be exactly the same or at the very least, sufficiently similar to the one that I had focused on when drawing the picture and attaching the label unidragon to the semantical gap in question.

To be fair, even the label unidragon that I've attached to this semantical gap is what existence allows me to produce. There is a spectrum in terms of the sounds or words that any existent being can produce. Humans have their own limits. What sound or word you attach to a semantical gap is up to you. You can even change these labels as you please, however what you cannot do is alter the available semantical gaps. You'd require a different existence for that, and there is only one existence. Anything other than this is absurd.

Furthermore, knowledge is human, and reason is human, and there is nothing that proves that reason is infallible

My argument hinges on pure reason. Pure reason dictates that whilst we are in Existence, we are not Existence. To say that we are Existence is paradoxical.

Reason is not human just as sight is not human. We have access to these things. Reason is infallible. If reason wasn't infallible, then one day the definition of a triangle would be x another day it would be y. But this is never the case. Reason is infallible, our use of it is fallible.

Saying that it is rational that 'something' singular could be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent seems to be overstepping our boundary of knowledge.

We're not overstepping the boundary of our knowledge because these concepts have clear and sufficient meaning. If they made no sense like a square-circle or were entirely unknown like a being with 100 senses, then yes, we'd either be overstepping the boundary of our knowledge or falsely believing that absurdities were meaningful.

Reason clearly shows that rejecting omnipresence is absurd/paradoxical. We'd be failing reason by rejecting what it highlights to us as clearly paradoxical. If you acknowledge my argument, omnipotence and omniscience cannot be rationally denied either.

This primacy of knowledge is an illusion lest one dissolves into an idealism or realism, which is the source of endless philosophical debate devoid of coherent conclusion and thus completely absent of any knowledge.

I strongly disagree with this. Just because some gave up on reaching a paradox-free view of Existence, doesn't mean there isn't one for reason to show us.

Why not? There is no contradiction in 2 or more omnipresent beings. I read your premise based argument and it sounds to me like you're proving "existence" is omnipresent and omnipotent and I'm like "duh". I thought you set out to prove the existence of God but you proved the existence of the laws of physics. You cannot assign perfection to this entity you just proved, all you know, is that it knows everything, is everywhere and can do everything possible. That sounds like the laws of physics more than God to me. I totally agree with you if that's the case.

How can there be no contradiction in 2 or more omnipresent beings? Can you have two separate existences? What are they separated by, non-existence? Is this not absurd/paradoxical?

Then the laws of physics clearly demonstrate the existence of God do they not? Is God anything other than omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite and eternal? If the laws of physics demonstrate this, then they are in line with reason.

Descartes postion holds with respect to the imaginary. What he is showing in the argument is not the existence of God, but the self-sufficiency of reason.

God's perfection is an account of reason and knowledge itself. Descartes has a concept of the difference between a truthful experience and a falsehood. How is a truthful experience distinguished from a false one, despite them seemingly being inseperable in appearance?

The truthful reflects the perfection of God (and reason) It's the difference between an experience truthful about the world and"illusion" of the evil demon. In God, Descartes is effectively posing both a conceptual realism and empirical one. Truths are defined on the basis independent from experience or a representation.

Comparing this to Sartre, Descartes God is much like the existence which precedes essence. For Descartes, God is the reason for saying one thing is true rather than another, much like one's own existence and choices are for Sartre.

In this respect, Descartes argument holds even for the context of imaginary things. What am I imagining? In trying to answer this, I am trying to give not just an experience of some imagining, but a description of what I have imagined.

So what makes it true I have imagined something? It cannot be just an experience or representation I imagined it. Anyone might have that experience as an illusion. I need the reason for why it would describe me or not.

For Descartes, this reason is what I imagined is in the perfect mind of God. That's to say, the truth of what I imagined is defined independent of my representation. Or in Sartrian terms: I existed (and chose) imagining this.

A "perfection" which cannot be countered because it would for a contradiction in reason. If concept a reflects what is true in the perfect, all knowing mind, it's a contradiction to say it false. Similarly, if we try to say something than your own choices (and existence) are responsible for your being, we will find a contradiction.

To say that we are Existence is paradoxical. — Philosopher19

Then what are we? A monad?

I would say, instead, that we are indeed existence. A facet of existence. There is an infinite series of images that could constitute the whole of something, nevertheless unless one is referring to those empty husks (Hegel), the essence of something can be ascertained in the apprehension of any hemimorphic crystallization of it the base of which is clearly different. And as we are inevitably referring to being as hylomorphic, a glimpse into our existence as separate from 'Existenz,' we are a piece of which can be seen to be of form, and unmistakable differentiation, But it is not that we are separate. We are it. Are we to resort to Lacan's "I think where I am not therefore I am where I do not think."? If we, in any sense, take Lacan's statement as containing some sort of truthfulness, then the idea that pure reason constitutes a substantiation of the idea that we are not existence but rather of something else the truth of which is shown in pure reason (thought) is clearly not well based. I agree with Lacan in this regard. We are not nothing. But are everything we are not, and are not what we are... And that is precisely existence.

Sartre would undoubtedly say that a belief in God is bad faith though, wouldn't he? Because the belief in a God is a subterfuge of responsibility?

Reason is not human just as sight is not human. We have access to these things. — Philosopher19

Wittgenstein said that if an animal could speak, we still would not be able to understand it. According to this logic, sight is human... It is the only reference we have. How could we make any inference about a quality when it is fundamentally formed into an image... Our image! Anthropomorphized? To say that reason is not ours... That is grandiose.

Reason is infallible. If reason wasn't infallible, then one day the definition of a triangle would be x another day it would be y. But this is never the case. — Philosopher19

As long as humans are reasonable, perhaps they are infallible... But they can be unreasonable by virtue of reason itself. An example of this is synthetic a priori judgments, which give us absolutely no insight into the true nature of existence... And yet reason is infallible in understanding existence? We wish to make observations and gestures towards truth and knowledge of existence... And all we have is this lamely functioning reason, which has given us... ?

A triangle is analytically true a priori to be something with three sides equaling 180 degrees. This is not the only form of reason. Synthetic a priori judgments have absolutely no justification in reason, but in experience, in existence itself as human. And thus you have the inescapable dilemma of knowledge... Which, as I constantly maintain, is nothing but a game.

Reason clearly shows that rejecting omnipresence is absurd/paradoxical. We'd be failing reason by rejecting what it highlights to us as clearly paradoxical. If you acknowledge my argument, omnipotence and omniscience cannot be rationally denied either. — Philosopher19

Omnipresence is an illusion. What is everywhere all at once? God. God has not been shown to exist. Your circumlocution does nothing but uncover this unsturdy premise. Why should we even think that we know what omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience would be when we absolutely know nothing?

You think we know because we are part of a Godhead given to us by reason. And this is nothing more than a modern mutation of ancient mythology.

Depends what you mean by God. If you mean the notion of a being of the world, who you then try to pass off responsibility of existence to, sure.

On the other hand, if you mean independence of being, which amounts to the definition of truths without reference to representation, no. Sartre outright advocates we accept that-- e.g. our existence as beings is responsible, not any representation (i.e. essence).

Anyway, my point here is not to suggest Descartes didn't also have an existence of God in mind. The baggage of the time and the political context usually mean a God as an existing being is somehow attached. It's just that Descartes' argument about the perfection of God in relation to knowledge is not really talking about whether a being God exists. He's making a logical point of how truth is defined independent of representation.

agreed...

Though Descartes also supposedly brutalized dogs.

When I said perfect I meant morally perfect and this being (omnipotent and omnipresent) is BY DEFINITION not morally perfect since it is the CAUSE of all the evil by your definition

P1: Existence is a permanent, omnipotent, omnipresent being
P2: Existence encompasses all that exists
P3: Evil happens
C: Evil is due to existence

Yeah sure you can't ADD anything to an omnipotent, omnipresent being but neither can you REMOVE anything either. Since evil clearly exists in the world it's source MUST BE this being by your own argument.



Now as for the supposed "paradoxes" with two or more omnipresent omnipotent beings, think of it as the law of gravity and the law of electromagnetism. They're both omnipotent and omnipresent and they interact with each other without destroying each other. The ONLY properties we agree on for this being so far is 1) omnipotence, 2) omnipresence. Nothing there says "desire to be the only God" or "envy" or "bitterness". Omnipotence and omnipresence does not encompass those properties so no, 2 Gods wouldn't destory each other according to our definition of a God so far

I never said the laws of physics demonstrate the existence of God, I said that the laws of physics ARE God as you've proven. They're omnipotent, omnipresent and perfect by definition but that does not make them morally good or bad. You've said in your original comment that those attributes are attached later (and I don't think they should be). We only agree on the existence of an omnipotent omnipresent being, which is the laws of physics

Hi there, l did not read your other posts. I was just talking about God being actually perfect. My post was self contained.

k lul. Just so you know this guy didn't prove the existence of any religious God, just the existence of SOMETHING that is omnipresent and omnipotent so, the laws of physics... This isn't really the thread to defend that type of God but as a self contained defence yours makes sense

Hi there, I have not gone off topic, l have tackled your query (re: can there be multiple omnipresent beings?) head on and resolved it through reason, and thus have demonstrated how multiple omnipresent beings are not possible. I don't feel l've made only a defence of God that is somehow off-topic, l feel l have been cogent and successful in my argument.

I have satisfied your query about whether multiple omnipresent beings can exist, by extrapolating that (at least, in an infinite setting) an ominpresent being will also be omnipotent, and thus that being will be actual infinity, and thus that being will be God.

I then went on to say that God being actual infinity, is perfect because he is everything, therefore nothign is lacking.

Nothing is lacking, thus no need for an extra deity, nor will it even be logically possible to add an extra deity to actual infinity.

At a tangent to this, l showed that the existence of love points to one God, because mutliple Gods = endless war, whereas Love is both transcendant and peaceful, which can only be an exponent of one God, because that one actually infinite God will be perfect (being actual infinity) and at peace (being the only one, hence no wars) i.e. bliss.

Define: "Actual infinity". I always hear words like "the infinite" and "the transcended" from spiritual individuals (not saying you are one) and no one seems to say what that actually means. There is no reason to believe that omnipotence and omnipresence = constant war with any other omnipotent, omnipresent being. It is very easy to imagine the existence of 2 omnipotent omnipresent beings working in tandom without any warring and as the main commenter has said, the mind cannot imagine something that is not at least a potentiality. Also, if there truly was one God then as you said, there should be no war and there should be constant bliss. But clearly, that's not the case. What about murder? What about nuclear weapons, wars, genocides? Under a perfect omnipotent, good God, none of those things could happen. This could only mean 2 things

A) this God is willingly causing the unnecessary suffering
B) there are multiple Gods

And there is no way to tell between A and B. The Gods in B can also all be omnipotent and omnipresent and conflicting with each other and that would still satisfy the current state of the world. It's like seeing a ball in motion and trying to guess what are the forces acting on it. You can easily get the net force (A) but you can never know how many forces are actually acting on the ball and in what strength and direction to produce said net force (B). It could be the case that the net force is the result of only one force (A) but there is no reason to assume so (B)

Define: "Actual infinity".

An infinite quantity that is tangible to our senses e.g. infinite energy.

Omnipresent would mean infinite latent energy which would mean omnipotent. Energy is tangible, and thus we are are really talking about an actual infinite God, God being that which is actually infinite.

There is no reason to believe that omnipotence and omnipresence = constant war with any other omnipotent, omnipresent being. It is very easy to imagine the existence of 2 omnipotent omnipresent beings working in tandom without any warring

Yes, brother deity, let's work together, in harmony, without any warring. *Evil Smirks*

In a world with more than one God, the ONLY possibility is war. It is no longer pathological it is virtuous to murder the rival deities. Maybe draw it out by raping their offspring's wives and romancing statues etc. as per the pagan pantheons of old. But ultimately, kill all the others. It's the only way to be sure.

Also, if there truly was one God then as you said, there should be no war and there should be constant bliss. But clearly, that's not the case. What about murder? What about nuclear weapons, wars, genocides?

Give me some credit :) I know these things exist. We are not deities though. I am talking about war between deities.

Also, as l've explained, we cannot be real (well, l'm sure our souls, our essences, are real, but these are of God's soul), so much for interpersonal murders and whatnot.

"In a world with more than one God, the ONLY possibility is war"

Again, why? Reassertion is not proof. As long as it is imaginable it is potentially possible as the first commenter has said so yes, deities working together is a possibility you can't just rule out

"Also, as l've explained, we cannot be real (well, l'm sure our souls, our essences, are real, but these are of God's soul), so much for interpersonal murders and whatnot."

Wot? When did you explain that "we cannot be real". Also I'm pretty sure interpersonal murder would seem pretty real to you if it was about to happen to you (I know it would to me at least lol)

I demonstrated why war is the only possibility, by asking you to lower your guard and live in harmony with me as a fellow deity. Then evilly smirking behind your back. The material world has its roots in finite quantity (infinite quantity = 1 God, no materialism there), which has its roots in anything beyond the number 1. Unity = God. Anything other than one God = materialism = endless war.

You say it's possible for mutliple deities to live in peace because you can conceive of it.

But you cannot fully conceive of it as you are not infinite. Nor am l but l can give trenchant arguments as to why it will result in war e.g. can you trust me, forever? Really? If so, then you're a fool for trusting me and as you are a fool, you will die because you are thus weaker than me, unless this was your ploy all along and you will exit stage, then sneak around the back and kill me whilst l'm still smirking to myself at your idiocy, proving me to be the real idiot.

So really, can you trust me forever? Yes or no, either way, you die. Or l die.

"You die or i die" sounds like war to me.

Or hey, let's go by actual human experience. Still waiting for infinite peace to kick in after World War 1? What precedent is there, in human history, for lasting peace? Where are you getting the idea of infinite harmony between more than 1 deity from?

Multiple infinite deities will not be materialistic because they are infinite? But actual infinity = everything, already. How can you add a deity to that?


Re: we cannot be real, l've explained this already.

When? Was it on this discussion or somewhere else? The we are not real thingy. I can't exactly address an argument I haven't heard

"can you trust me, forever? Really?"
Yes.

Reassertion is not proof. You are dealing with one hypothetical (Greek gods with emotions, drama, etc) and not addressing the simple fact that the other hypothetical (emotionless, cold omnipotent entities) is also possible and wouldn't lead to the same conclusion. I don't understand why you keep personifying and characterizing this deity if yours and giving it attitudes, thoughts and emotions. The only properties that are agreed upon here are omnipotence and omnipresence and those do not cause any inconsistencies when there are multiple of them. Add "desire to be the only God" to the mix and THEN your hyoothecials make sense but that is not a property of omnipotence or omnipresence so it should not be assumed

OK first let me address an error l made.

I said materialism = anything beyond 1.
Yet the infinity of an infinite God = beyond 1.
So l said, okay, materialism = anything limited, finite.
BUT you are talking about multiple infinite deities.

OK so my counterargs are:
- Actual infinity (= the omnipresent, omnipotent that we were talking about originally) cannot have stuff added to it, so how can there be an extra infinite deity? Unless they have always co-existed?
- Evenso, the number of gods would be >1, and less than infinity, thus there would be a sort of materialism, and thus war is on the cards (= a struggle over something finite).



I have not merely reasserted. Please view my arguments.

What, you say l am projecting my own personal views of how a deity should behave / react to another deity? So are you, by insisting on infinite harmony, merely because you can conceive of it.

Well, l can conceive of infinite harmony being impossible, even the very notion of it. I can conceive of a camel passing through the eye of a needle and coming out alive. The devil is in the detail, i.e. how you actually reason it out. You are absolving yourself of reason, and moreover dismissing my reasoning. Things are getting really arbitrary, not philosophical.

OK good that you can trust me forever. Now turn around. I dare you. *Evil smirks*

Let me put it another way. You say you will trust me forever and will live harmoniously with me forever.

Can i trust you forever, then? From my POV, am i justified in trusting you forever? Yes or no.

If the answer is No, there is only one way that will end, because infinite paranoia is infinite pain, and l wouldn't want that. You'd have to die. Sorry.