By the way dude, please continue debating, but l've decided to quit the forum, forums are too addictive and l've got a very addictive personality, and am facing ruin after tonight's time spent on here! I'm not trying to have the last word, honest :^)

Let me clear something up here. The only properties we have agreed on for this deity are
A) omnipotence
B) omnipresence

Now as for your counter arguments

"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?"

I maintain that 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)."

Agreed. As I've said before, this war could be what's happening right now and it would still fit an emperical observation of the world. Just as there are infinite potential combinations of forces that can create the force A, so are there infinite combinations of gods (as defined above) to create the current state of the world

I don't understand how either of these pass as a counter argument when I've already addressed them

"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."

I am not insisting on infinite harmony because I can conceive of it I am insisting on it because God, as defined above, does not have emotions, thoughts or attitudes. Notice how I made no assumptions about this deity in any of my arguments other than the two above where you keep using hypotheticals where the god has children, brothers, wives, drama, etc. My version makes the fewest assumptions thus passing Occam's razor while yours does not.

We are within a Monad but we are not Monad.

I would say, instead, that we are indeed existence.

You can't because it's paradoxical/meaningless. We are in Existence is not paradoxical, nor is it the same.

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.

Existence and reality are not the same thing. That would be paradoxical. Different realities/potentials exist in Existence/the necessary. We can empirically observe that which is in our reality (the stuff we sense) we can theorise and describe these observations so long as they never ever amount to paradoxes like a particle going in an out of Existence. Going into another dimension or reality is fine, but certainly cannot say going into non-existence (absurd). Reason and language clearly dictate 4 categories: The necessary, the potential, the absurd and the unknown.

I think the mistake you make is that you treat Existence and reality as having the same semantics. Existence being infinite, has the potential to generate all hypothetical possibilities (see how this is paradox free?) Now if you consider any alternative to this, I guarantee you absurdity.

Reason dictates that Existence is not beyond what can be sensed. It is beyond/more than what we can sense but reason dictates that sensing something and understanding something are two different things. We understand that Existence may have aspects that we are unaware of (this is not paradoxical). 1) Reason tells us that we don't know if Existence has the potential to generate/sustain a being with a 100 senses, but we know it can generate/sustain a unicorn. 1 is not something that we sense, it is something that we understand.

We understand that there is Existence, because non-existence is absurd. We understand that Existence is infinite, because Existence being finite/us is absurd. So reason clearly dictates and demonstrates that we understand Existence is infinite (therefore, beyond/greater than our senses, as we are not infinite/Existence) Do you see the circle of truth?

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.

You're saying two different things can be omnipresent. If the law of gravity is x an the law of electromagnetism is y, then either these laws have no presence or if they have presence then only one of them is omnipresent because rejecting it is like saying something can be x all over and y all over at the same time. Do you see the paradox?

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

Omnipotence requires omnipresence and you can only have one omnipresent being.

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

You can't be omniscient if you lack consciousness. You can't be omnipotent if you lack consciousness.

God is perfect and so God does perfectly. Anything other than this is paradoxical.

It might be worth mentioning the following: People fault our universe as containing pain and suffering. The short version of how this does not contradict God doing perfectly is that whilst we know what being perfect constitutes (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinite, eternal) and what doing perfectly constitutes (God doing it), we also know that we lack omniscience and so we know we can't fully understand why our creation is the best that it can be. It's unknown to us, but not absurd. On the other hand, the perfect being doing imperfectly, is absurd. Absurdities are impossible, unknowns are not impossible.

So something like our full potential and the best way/environment to bring about our full potential, is unknown to us. Reason is clear, we don't deal with unknowns. We deal with knowns: God does perfectly.

Yeah, dude you've proven the existence of the laws of physics not God. Certainty not the Abrahamic God. An omnipresent omniscient entity that is morally questionable by humans, whose working we'll never understand. That is the laws of physics not God. I still don't agree with the impossibility of multiple omnipresent beings existing at the same time because there is nothing paradoxical about the definition. A exists everywhere, B exists everywhere. Nothing there spells contradiction for me. Think of it as an electric field and gravitational field overlapping. Nothing paradoxical there. You also CAN have knowledge without consciousness, like a computer so consciousness is not necessary for either omnipotence nor omnipresence. Also, your definition of "perfect" will never be grasped by a human because we don't know "God's plan" so to say and so you cannot assign moral perfection to your God. It is a morally ambiguous force of nature, in other words the laws of physics, not God, that you have proven

What is the problem with absurdity? Where is there anywhere that states that there has to be a solution to a question about existence? Because we are not given immediate answers that would resonate with our predilections we are licensed to say that is reason for thinking something to be absolutely true; that is, if the opposite seems absurd? Logic... Causality... When have these things ever given any truth about anything? What 'truth' worth anything is? The truths ascertained by language that are of highest worth are approximations, probabilities... LIES... Because the 'the opposite' of something cannot be true... This makes it true? And so a schizophrenic who sees a man walking in the hallway shouting at him or her, who is made to become aware that there was 'actually' no such thing that happened becomes to know through therapy that this is true and that the opposite of such a truth is false, which would be the nonexistence of such a truth, which is taken at face value to be the nonexistence of the man in the hallway; but this is not the case... The opposite of such a truth is what would be characterized to be false... Yet the whole truth and or falsehood is premised upon and rooted in the taken-to-be-in-some-way-true man in the hallway. Because the nonexistence of the man is true 'in reality'; this does not mean that the opposite of the existence of the man is its nonexistence. The opposite of the man is rather 'that which is uncovered' in the explanation which suffices at replacing the real-ness of the man, which only subsequently renders the man nonexistent with explicit regard to this (again, subsequent) formulation. The man is an existent. It existed and exhibited an effect. Even a fantasy is a fact, for such and such a fantasy could lead to a person losing their lives (Jung). The opposite of something is not nothing. Something is in itself something: the opposite of it would have to be something. The opposite of something is everything. For nothing is finite without an infinite reference point. And so because the idea of existence coming from non-existence is absurd... This does not make it any more logical to maintain otherwise. This is not an adequate substantiation. Existence, furthermore, is the only reality. There is no reality without existence, and no existence without reality. The two are tied together, and neither goes farther than the other.

Existence being infinite? I am really not sure what this means. What is infinity but a demarcation of a lack of further insight? Is infinity not absolutely incomprehensible? It is obviously a concept. But because we have a concept for something... this does not make it any more understood. Heidegger took this very premise and wrote Being and Time. If existence is infinite then it must be imcomprehensible, and furthermore reason must be a reductio ad infinitum... Reduction ad absurdum, if a may... And therefore reason itself is absurd...

But I am not afraid of the absurd. I am afraid of no concept. And I trust no concept.

I think the mistake you make is that you treat Existence and reality as having the same semantics. — Philosopher19

Because I am not deluded by the seemingly necessary distinction between subject and object, which has been reconciled in the principle of intentionality, explained by Husserl originally but culminated in Sartre, I think.

reason dictates that sensing something and understanding something are two different things. We understand that Existence may have aspects that we are unaware of (this is not paradoxical). 1) Reason tells us that we don't know if Existence has the potential to generate/sustain a being with a 100 senses, but we know it can generate/sustain a unicorn. 1 is not something that we sense, it is something that we understand. — Philosopher19

Which brings me back to reiterating that there is absolutely no synthetic a priori truth per reason itself, as if it could be proven... An example of this is 7 + 5 = 12. The 'conclusion' '12' is obviously synthetic and true absent of experience, which would render 12 a posteriori. But this truth, the course of which 12 is reached by this synthetic a priori method is quite different than what would be easily understood logically, piece by piece, causally, concatenated like what would be analytic a priori or synthetic a posteriori.
How does reason dictate that there is a difference between sensing something and understanding something? What would reason be without a posteriori 'knowledge?' Existence is known through sensation. Understanding is precisely sensation. "I sense that is correct." Or perhaps this is a vague, worthless metaphor?

What makes us 'aware' that something is such and such anyway? How could it go any further than the anthropomorphization it is based in?

Saying that existence is in a monad...

You are definitely in bad faith saying existence has the capacity to generate whatever. Why does there have to be something doing the generating?

Avoidance of responsibility?

Philosopher19 says:

"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"

Ok, I can accept that.

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

I'm not sure what you are saying there. It kind of sounds like you are sneaking in the idea that existence is a kind of space in which everything that exists is located. I'm not convinced that's the best way to think about existence.

"(3) We are fully dependent on existence"

We wouldn't exist if we didn't exist. But I don't really want to think about existence as something separate from existing things upon which they are all dependent.

"(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows"

We can certainly imagine counterfactual possibilities that don't actually exist. I can think of a square circle, even if I can't visualize it with my mind's eye. I can imagine Madrid being the capital of France.

"(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."

Are you including the realm of possibility in what you call "existence", so that anything imaginable must therefore be a possibility and all possibilities are somehow real?

I'm unclear on what the relationship is between conceivability, possibility and existence. I think that we might be sliding over some serious metaphysical questions there.

"On the other hand, anything that is either irrational or incomprehensible is necessarily non-existent (existence does not accommodate it."

I'm not convinced that an organism's limits of cognition define the limits of ontological possibility, even if the organism is human. That idea certainly isn't true for earthworms, cockroaches or chimpanzees. So I'm just skeptical that human beings represent the apex of all possible cognition. There may be space-aliens out there that are as far beyond humans as humans are beyond clams, able to conceive of aspects of reality that we can never even imagine. Which would suggest the possibility of something incomprehensible (to us) that nevertheless exists. One could make the same sort of argument for any and all cognizers, leaving open the possibility that there are aspects of reality that nothing that exists can conceive.

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

I certainly don't want to agree that anything that I can imagine must therefore exist. I think that we have the power to generate ideas, but that doesn't guarantee that something corresponding to the idea exists.

"Therefore either

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

Just because we can (supposedly) imagine omnipotence and omniscience?

Just because we can imagine things with varying degrees of power, and can therefore imagine power increasing more and more, doesn't have to suggest that we can actually picture a being with infinite power. We are just imaging a scale (of degrees of power) and an operation on the scale (extending it). We aren't really forming any clear conception of what might lie at the end and be the result of the operation.

And even if we could imagine such a thing, imagining it wouldn't guarantee that it has to exist.

What's more, what about the familiar old chestnut: Can God (supposedly omnipotent) create a task too difficult for God to perform? If he can create an impossible task, then there's something he can't do (the task), and if he can't create such a task, there's something he can't do (create the task). So omnipotence would seem to fall prey to logical problems much as 'square circle' does.

I certainly applaud the effort that you put into your argument (which reminds me of Aquinas, which is not a bad thing by any means). But I'm not personally buying it, for the reasons I suggested up above.

You also CAN have knowledge without consciousness, like a computer so consciousness is not necessary for either omnipotence nor omnipresence.

Dude, you can have information on a computer just as you can have information on a piece of paper. You need a conscious being to understand the information. Understanding information is knowledge. Information on its own is not knowledge.

So omnipresence doesn't amount to omniscience or omnipotence if it lacks consciousness.

I still don't agree with the impossibility of multiple omnipresent beings existing at the same time

Dude, consider this:
A square-circle = Something that is both a square and a circle at the same time. This is absurd. Right?
Having a circle inside a square at the same time is fine.

So, if x is omnipresent and y is omnipresent. That's like a thing being two different things at the same time. That's like a square-circle. Do you see the paradox? It doesn't matter what y or x is, it can never be both...at the same time.

Also, your definition of "perfect" will never be grasped by a human because we don't know "God's plan" so to say and so you cannot assign moral perfection to your God. It is a morally ambiguous force of nature, in other words the laws of physics, not God, that you have proven

We know what true perfection is objectively because any other definition than the one I've given would be paradoxical. Our understanding of true perfection is not complete but it is sufficient. This is the same for our understanding of Existence. Our understanding of it is not complete (how many different sense/dimensions does it sustain?) but it is sufficient (It is all-existining/omnipresent)

What is the problem with absurdity?

It means we used reason wrong somewhere. Think about the usage of language in every context. Law, science, maths, conversation with friends. Whenever what we say amounts to a paradox, It creates problems. Unless of course, the goal is humour. Chuck Norris once finished Super Mario without pressing the jump button once (that's absurd, but it may be funny depending on your sense of humour)

We say that guy's the killer but his alibi is solid (so he can't be the killer otherwise it would be paradoxical)

We make an observation that a particle is going in and out of Existence. We can't accept a bridge to non-existence so we say: Either our observation is faulty or incomplete. Incomplete in that perhaps the particle went to a another reality or dimension that we are unaware of.

We find ourselves with access to reason and we find it dictating things with authority. Of course we can deny it by saying things like I saw a square-circle, but nothing would make sense. Absurdity is literally the conclusive absence of meaning. It's literally absolute non-existence.

We can pick and mix what part of reason we adhere to but that creates problems. Things like war and poverty are the cause of our failure to fully adhere to reason. The world has enough to meet everyone's needs, not everyone's greed. It's because some pick and mix when they want to adhere to reason (purely because their desire is in excess of their will-power to exercise reason) that we have such problems.

Because the 'the opposite' of something cannot be true... This makes it true? And so a schizophrenic who sees a man walking in the hallway shouting at him or her, who is made to become aware that there was 'actually' no such thing that happened becomes to know through therapy that this is true and that the opposite of such a truth is false, which would be the nonexistence of such a truth

Yes, but this has to be correctly exercised. Reason dictates that a schizophrenic man (provided that what he describes is accurate) is actually seeing what he says he's saying. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean he can't. There is no paradox here. Only an unknown/unobservable for us and a known/observable for him. Rationally we cannot deny him as we have no way of observing what he observes and no paradox to counter him with. So we cannot deny him as it is not an instance of paradox. If he said something like I can see a square-circle, then we deny him and think that he is just inaccurately describing what he is seeing.

Him claiming to see something that we can't see (a man shouting) is an unknown. Him claiming to see a square-circle, is paradoxical.Paradoxes and unknowns are not the same.

The opposite of something is not nothing. Something is in itself something: the opposite of it would have to be something.

I agree. But paradoxes aren't opposites of things. They are the incorrect use of language that generate meaninglessness. Like a square-circle. Like the existence of non-existence. Non-existence is not the opposite of Existence. It is the negation of Existence which is absurd.

Existence, furthermore, is the only reality. There is no reality without existence, and no existence without reality. The two are tied together, and neither goes farther than the other.

If our reality or universe ends, does that mean Existence ends? I know for sure that even after our reality ends, Existence would continue to exist. Perhaps Existence creates other realities/beings (This, I don't know) Again, reason clearly distinguishes between that which is unknown and that which is paradoxical/irrational

Existence being infinite? I am really not sure what this means. What is infinity but a demarcation of a lack of further insight? Is infinity not absolutely incomprehensible? It is obviously a concept. But because we have a concept for something... this does not make it any more understood. Heidegger took this very premise and wrote Being and Time. If existence is infinite then it must be imcomprehensible, and furthermore reason must be a reductio ad infinitum... Reduction ad absurdum, if a may... And therefore reason itself is absurd...

There is a clear difference between 1) understanding something completely, 2) understanding something sufficiently, 3) not understanding something.

Infinity is not 3, it is 2. Your understanding of our Universe, is not 3, and it's not 1, so it's 2.

If reason itself is absurd, then how is anything at all meaningful? How are we able to use language to communicate if reason is absurd? As I mentioned in the first paragraph of this post, we find ourselves with access to reason and we recognise that it dictates things with authority that we cannot deny rationally. To doubt or to deny reason is paradoxical is it not?

If we truly believe that reason is absurd, then any activity that involves using reason is an act of hypocrisy.

Because I am not deluded by the seemingly necessary distinction between subject and object, which has been reconciled in the principle of intentionality, explained by Husserl originally but culminated in Sartre, I think.

Again, we find ourselves with access to reason and it dictates things with authority. We would be deluded/irrational to deny reason the authority it dictates. We cannot rationally deny an infinite Existence and we cannot pick and mix when we acknowledge reason and when we don't. We would be grossly inconsistent.

Which brings me back to reiterating that there is absolutely no synthetic a priori truth per reason itself, as if it could be proven... An example of this is 7 + 5 = 12. The 'conclusion' '12' is obviously synthetic and true absent of experience, which would render 12 a posteriori. But this truth, the course of which 12 is reached by this synthetic a priori method is quite different than what would be easily understood logically, piece by piece, causally, concatenated like what would be analytic a priori or synthetic a posteriori.

7+5=12 is something that is necessarily known and will always be the case without fail. What 7 things plus 5 equals 12 is a different matter. A matter of potential that is.

You can have 7 ducks and add another 5 ducks to get 12 ducks (this is aposteriori)

Aposteriori is essentially a matter of potential. Apriori is that which is necessary and always the case.

How does reason dictate that there is a difference between sensing something and understanding something? What would reason be without a posteriori 'knowledge?' Existence is known through sensation. Understanding is precisely sensation. "I sense that is correct." Or perhaps this is a vague, worthless metaphor?

Because it shows us that we understand things that we have not sensed or experienced. Our existence is experienced. Our experiences include sensation such as sight, yet we don't deny what we see. Our existence/experiences also include reason. And reason dictates with clear authority that we are not Existence. We are in Existence. It also dictates that Existence is infinite because it highlights the absurdity in something coming from nothing. Why deny reason here?

We have access to sight. We see further with telescopes because our sight is limited. What exists is not limited by our eyesight. We don't deliberately limit our own eyesight with regards to how far it can see.

We have access to reason. Just as we don't deliberately limit the application of our sight with regards to how far it can see, we shouldn't deliberately limit the application of our reason, which is what we would be doing every time we deny something that is meaningful/rational as not being meaningful/rational.

It would be like seeing something clearly, and then denying that we're seeing it.

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

I'm not sure what you are saying there. It kind of sounds like you are sneaking in the idea that existence is a kind of space in which everything that exists is located. I'm not convinced that's the best way to think about existence.

If Existence isn't some kind of thing, then what is it? Non-existence? Do you see the paradox?

"(3) We are fully dependent on existence"

We wouldn't exist if we didn't exist. But I don't really want to think about existence as something separate from existing things upon which they are all dependent.

There isn't an alternative though. Something has to sustain all existing things otherwise all existing things would be separated by non-existence (which is absurd). So, that which is all-existing/omnipresent sustains all existing things. Existence; we are in it, but we are not it.

"(4) All minds are limited to what existence allows"

We can certainly imagine counterfactual possibilities that don't actually exist. I can think of a square circle, even if I can't visualize it with my mind's eye. I can imagine Madrid being the capital of France.

Both a square, and a circle have meaning. But the statement: something that is a square and a circle at the same time is absurd. We understand what amounts to the paradox. This is not the same as understanding the paradox. Do we agree on this?

Madrid cannot be the capital of both France and Spain at the same time. This amounts to a paradox. It conclusively amounts to something that is not understandable/meaningful.

"(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."

Are you including the realm of possibility in what you call "existence", so that anything imaginable must therefore be a possibility and all possibilities are somehow real?

I'm unclear on what the relationship is between conceivability, possibility and existence. I think that we might be sliding over some serious metaphysical questions there.

None of what I'm proposing here is beyond what reason gives us access to.

Think about the following: Can you think of something that is meaningful but can never exist? If you see how this always amounts to a paradox, you will reach the following conclusion:

Existence being infinite and eternal means that it has the potential to produce all potentials (hypothetical possibilities)

So I'm just skeptical that human beings represent the apex of all possible cognition. There may be space-aliens out there that are as far beyond humans as humans are beyond clams, able to conceive of aspects of reality that we can never even imagine.

I agree. Our understanding of Existence is not complete, but it is sufficient.

We know that Existence is all-existing/omnipresent. We know it has the potential to produce all hypothetical possibilities (some of which, our imagination has access to). But we don't know, for example, if it can sustain an alien being with a 100 senses (this is what we don't have access to). These are unknowns to us and therefore we cannot apply reason to them. But existence being infinite and eternal is not unknown. It is necessary.

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

I certainly don't want to agree that anything that I can imagine must therefore exist. I think that we have the power to generate ideas, but that doesn't guarantee that something corresponding to the idea exists.

Yes but that's not what I'm proposing. There is a clear distinction between that which is hypothetically possible and that which is necessary. I'll try and demonstrate what I mean:

1) All meaningful things are possible
2) This means that existence has the potential to produce them

So I imagine a unicorn. This doesn't mean that unicorns are real, it means that it's possible for them to be real. An infinite and eternal existence can easily bring about a universe filled with unicorns.

3) All meaningful concepts fall into two categories: The potential (unicorns) and the necessary (Existence/omnipresence)

So necessary concepts like Existence aren't hypothetical possibilities. They are by default, have always been and will always be, existing.

4) We understand omnipotence. Our understanding dictates that only that which is omnipresent can be omnipotent.

5) You cannot have something become omnipresent/Existence from a non-omnipresent state.

6) So it is impossible for something to become omnipotent.

7) Therefore either omnipotence is absurd, or it is necessarily a trait of Existence.

8) Omnipotence is not absurd, so Existence/that which is omnipresent is omnipotent.

Omnipotence is different to something like a unicorn or Zeus. Existence has the potential to produce these beings but it does not have the potential to produce something omnipresent because it is itself omnipresent and you cannot have two omnipresent beings. Similarly, Existence cannot produce an omnipotent being because omnipotence requires omnipresence. So either that which is omnipresent is by default omnipotent (has always been and will always be) or omnipotence is an impossibility/absurdity/paradox. But just as omnipresence is clearly not paradoxical, omnipotence is also not paradoxical.

Do you see any paradoxes?

What's more, what about the familiar old chestnut: Can God (supposedly omnipotent) create a task too difficult for God to perform? If he can create an impossible task, then there's something he can't do (the task), and if he can't create such a task, there's something he can't do (create the task). So omnipotence would seem to fall prey to logical problems much as 'square circle' does.

The definition omnipotence is that which can do all that is doable. Saying something like can God/Existence do...and then follow it up with a paradox/irrationality/meaninglessness does not amount to something that can be done. It amounts to a paradox.

It's like saying can God know what it's like to exist and not exist at the same time. Or can God know what a square-circle is. If there are no such things to be known, then they are irrelevant to being omniscient are they not?

Similarly, saying can God create a square-circle is like saying can God do what is not doable. The definition of omnipotence is meaningful and without paradox. The statement: can a being do what is not doable, is paradoxical.

I concede that you need consciousness for knowledge but omniscience does not follow from omnipotence or omnipresence. We only agreed on omnipotence and omnipresence, not omniscience.

So, if x is omnipresent and y is omnipresent. That's like a thing being two different things at the same time — Philosopher19

Why?? Isn't that begging the question? You already assumed that x and y could not coexist when you said: "That's like a thing being two different things at the same time". Why did you say A THING, not THINGS? It is perfectly conceivable for two omnipresent beings to coexist and according to you, that must make it a possibility. I still don't see a paradox unless you define omnipresent as: "Exists everywhere and of which there is one instance" but we did not define it like that

I concede that you need consciousness for knowledge but omniscience does not follow from omnipotence or omnipresence. We only agreed on omnipotence and omnipresence, not omniscience.

You can't be omniscient if you're not omnipresent. So either there has never been and there never will be an omniscient being, or there has always been and there always will be an omniscient being. If omniscient is meaningful, then that means something has always been and will always be omniscient, otherwise you'd have the paradox.

Why?? Isn't that begging the question?

How is it begging the question?

You already assumed that x and y could not coexist when you said: "That's like a thing being two different things at the same time". Why did you say A THING, not THINGS?

Can two things exist in the same place at the same time? Existence/that which is omnipresent is everywhere. This means it covers all space and time. So how can you have two omnipresent beings/Existences?

unless you define omnipresent as: "Exists everywhere and of which there is one instance" but we did not define it like that

Dude, that's what my definition amounted to. I always maintained that there is one Existence/Omnipresent being. Do you see the paradox now?

unless you define omnipresent as: "Exists everywhere and of which there is one instance" but we did not define it like that

Dude, that's what my definition amounted to. I always maintained that there is one Existence/Omnipresent being. Do you see the paradox now? — Philosopher19

Seriously? Ok then, I define a new word. Omniticklishness. An omniticklish being is a being that tickles all beings to death in whatever universe it is in (is omnipresent) and of which one instance exists. Since an omniticklish being exists by definition, and since it has meaning, an omniticklish being exists. Ok now why am I not dead?

Can two things exist in the same place at the same time? — Philosopher19

Yes. Fields in physics for example.

You can't be omniscient if you're not omnipresent. So either there has never been and there never will be an omniscient being, or there has always been and there always will be an omniscient being. If omniscient is meaningful, then that means something has always been and will always be omniscient, otherwise you'd have the paradox. — Philosopher19

Incorrect. You yourself said that meaning means something EITHER exists OR is a potentiality so you can't say that because it has meaning it exists. It could be a potentiality like a unicorn. You also went from "you can't be omniscient if you're not omnipresent" to "since an omnipresent being exists, it must be omniscient" which is false. It's like saying "you have to have a horn to be a unicorn and since horns exist therefore unicorns must exist". You've already made this fallacy before but I let it slide

Seriously? Ok then, I define a new word. Omniticklishness. An omniticklish being is a being that tickles all beings to death in whatever universe it is in (is omnipresent) and of which one instance exists. Since an omniticklish being exists by definition, and since it has meaning, an omniticklish being exists. Ok now why am I not dead?

There's a clear difference between being omnipresent, and being present. No finite beings can ever be omnipresent, so they can only be present. Agreed?

Our universe is finite. So it can't be infinite can it? And if it can't be infinite, it can't be that which is omnipresent/Existence can it? So your word, omniticklish doesn't require omnipresence in it's definition does it? Omnipotence and omniscience do require omnipresence. You can't be omnipotent if you're limited to a finite presence can you? You can't be omniscient if you don't have reach and access to all of Existence/omnipresence can you?

Do you see the difference between omniticklish and omniscient/omnipotent?

No universes can be omnipresent, so you're word omniticklish is at best, a hypothetical possibility/potential.

Yes. Fields in physics for example.

Dude, I think you make the mistake of viewing our universe as Existence. This would be blatantly paradoxical.

And I'd like to reiterate that even in our universe (or any universe for that matter), you cannot have two things be present in the same location at the same time. That is paradoxical. If A is in location xyz at time t, how can B also be in location xyz at time t? Such a paradox is meaningless so it could never be a theory or a part of science.

Incorrect. You yourself said that meaning means something EITHER exists OR is a potentiality so you can't say that because it has meaning it exists.

I'm not just saying because it has meaning it exists. Check my reply to you on the difference between omniticklish and omnipotence/omniscience.

You also went from "you can't be omniscient if you're not omnipresent" to "since an omnipresent being exists, it must be omniscient" which is false. It's like saying "you have to have a horn to be a unicorn and since horns exist therefore unicorns must exist". You've already made this fallacy before but I let it slide

See my response to your comments on omniticklish. If that doesn't clarify, let me know.

So your word, omniticklish doesn't require omnipresence in it's definition does it? — Philosopher19

Yes it obviously does. You can't tickle someone if you're not there. There is no difference between it and omnipotence. Also it shouldn't matter whether or not it "needs" omnipresence in the definition or not. It is a perfectly unambiguous definition that has meaning so therefore according to you it must exist

Dude, I think you make the mistake of viewing our universe as Existence. This would be blatantly paradoxical — Philosopher19

I don't understand what that means at all

And I'd like to reiterate that even in our universe (or any universe for that matter), you cannot have two things be present in the same location at the same time. That is paradoxical. If A is in location xyz at time t, how can B also be in location xyz at time t? Such a paradox is meaningless so it could never be a theory or a part of science. — Philosopher19

Quantum mechanics has things popping in and out of existence as well as existing in multiple locations at the same time and sometimes overlapping so no, there is nothing paradoxical about two things being at the same place at the same time

Yes it obviously does. You can't tickle someone if you're not there.

Do you see the difference between being present and being omnipresent? Being present is not the same as being omnipresent (present everywhere)

I don't understand what that means at all

It means the universe is finite. It's not omnipresent like Existence is. The universe exists in Existence. The universe is not Existence. It's like saying that the universe is present in the omnipresent. If you're present in the omnipresent, then you're not omnipresent are you? You're just present.

Quantum mechanics has things popping in and out of existence

No it doesn't. Show me one credible source that says something like virtual particles pop in and out of existence. They may pop in and out of our universe/reality, but they certainly don't go into non-existence and then come back into existence. What bridges/borders Existence and non-existence? Do you see how this amounts to a paradox?

as well as existing in multiple locations at the same time

There's nothing paradoxical about this

and sometimes overlapping

I don't see what's paradoxical about things overlapping in Existence but you can't have something overlap Existence itself. Do you see the difference?

If X is Existence, then Y can't be Existence as well.

Ohhhhhhh. You make a distinction between existence and the universe. I get it now. My bad I didn't notice earlier. I was using existence and universe interchangeably. Ok now it sounds to me like you're proving the existence of existence not of God. X is existence, therefore it is also omnipotent. I'm fine with that.

I cannot find it; will someone be good enough to direct to the post where omnipotence was defined? That God might be omnipotent has long been understood as deeply problematic; I'd like to see how you-all resolved it.

That God might be omnipotent has long been understood as deeply problematic; I'd like to see how you-all resolved it — tim wood

They said the laws of physics are omnipotent.

Makes sense; we all do what we are told by the laws of physics so they are god-like in a sense.

They said the laws of physics are omnipotent.

Makes sense — Devans99

A very peculiar definition/use of omnipotent. Is English your first language?

Omnipresence has always been omnipresent and will always be omnipresent. Anything other than this is paradoxical, is it not? — Philosopher19

Well, no. Just because you cannot presently imagine how omnipotence could emerge doesn't mean that it cannot emerge. You're using an unverifiable assumption.

How do you know omnipotence cannot emerge from a state of non-omnipotence (note: you not being able to imagine it is not satisfactory evidence. I'm sure before radio communication you could never have imagined long distance wireless communication. Absence of evidence (of omnipotence emergence) is not evidence of absence (of omnipotence emergence)).

2) Omnipotence = that which can do all that is doable, Omniscience = that which knows all that is knowable — Philosopher19

I now find these definitions to be at best misleading and at worst incoherent; there's a paradox between the two.

Agent X is omnipotent and omniscient
Agent X uses omniscience to make a prediction
Agent X uses omnipotence to obviate the accuracy of its prediction
Conclusion:
Agent X is not capable of using omniscience to make reliable predictions if its omnipotence can interfere?
The more something is free to be omnipotent, the less free it is to be omniscient (maximum omniscience is not rigid or necessarily coherent unless you can predict your own future decisions)

-----

Agent X is omnipotent and omniscient
Agent X is capable of using omnipotence to take action Y
Agent X uses omniscience to predict that it will not take action Y

Conclusion:
Agent X is not capable of taking action Y?
The more agent X wishes to be omniscient, the less it can interact with the world, and if agent X can predict its own future decisions; in a sense it is not free to do anything other than what it is destined to do, and cannot alter its own course.

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) — Philosopher19

I'm at least willing to entertain the notion of either, but once you put them together they become relative/limited/misleading/incoherent.

4) Any alternative definition would amount to something entirely different — Philosopher19

The problem is your definitions are so poor that basically everyone looks at them and sees something entirely different.

We don't know what a list of "all that is doable" would look like. we don't know how long it would be, how variable and changing it could be, or what would be on it. You're alluding to a set of undefined powers, the extent of which we cannot know or even consistently imagine.

Existence/omnipresence = that which is all-existing
Omnipotence = that which is almighty (that which can do all that is doable) — Philosopher19

Strictly speaking the observable universe is quickly becoming devoid of "stuff" and energy is becoming unusable. It's getting harder and harder to coherently imagine these things the more you repeat your given definitions. In a sense I am omnipotent because I am capable of doing all that I am capable of doing. If I was something different then I could be capable of doing different things. What kind of thing is capable of doing all the things? Can the almighty do all the things I can do, like brush my own teeth? But wouldn't it have to actually be me?

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? — Philosopher19

Yes it does. It places us firmly in the "does not understand existence" category. We understand many things, but not the scope, scale, extent, or intent of existence.

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 — Philosopher19

It's not a semantic gap, it's a semiotic one. The problem is that you don't render your concepts meaningful (read: rational merit) just because you can offer vague allusions to what they are. We cannot lay hands on them, we cannot view them; we can only uniquely and impartially allude to them by warping aspects of the human perspective (things we can know, things we can do) to an incoherent extreme in our own imaginations.

You can understand the behavior of a single rain drop, but that doesn't mean you comprehend or can speak with confidence about the machinations of the storm.

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. — Philosopher19

How can we generate an infinitely long noodle? It's exactly the same kind of concept, and by your own logic we should be able to conclude that an infinitely long noodle necessarily exists, right?

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? — Philosopher19

Then I should propose an infinitely long pasta chef, so that I can use one proposition to explain why the other necessarily exists.

The non-paradoxical alternatives are that our understanding of omnipotence/omniscience, whatever they are, is flawed, or that neither of them exists.

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? — Philosopher19

You've made it clear that there is no God. Nothing can be omnipotent or omniscience except for "Existence" (capitalized why?), because that is the only thing that is omnipresent.

Then we're good :)

Omnipotence = that which can do all that is doable

Well, no. Just because you cannot presently imagine how omnipotence could emerge doesn't mean that it cannot emerge. You're using an unverifiable assumption.

It’s rationally verifiable because A) you could not have omnipresence/Existence emerge from non-existence. Nor can you have something that’s within the omnipresent/Existence, to expand to the point of omnipresence (thereby substituting Existence).

The thing about omnipotence is that B) you can’t be almighty/omnipotent if you don’t have reach or access to all of Existence. This is the same as saying you can’t be omnipotent if you’re not omnipresent .

Because of A and B, omnipotence is necessarily a trait of Existence. It’s not a potential as nothing can ever become omnipresent, but it’s a meaningful concept like omnipresence. Therefore it’s necessarily a trait of Existence.

Agent X is omnipotent and omniscient
Agent X uses omniscience to make a prediction
Agent X uses omnipotence to obviate the accuracy of its prediction
Conclusion:
Agent X is not capable of using omniscience to make reliable predictions if its omnipotence can interfere?
The more something is free to be omnipotent, the less free it is to be omniscient (maximum omniscience is not rigid or necessarily coherent unless you can predict your own future decisions)

Agent X never makes predictions as that would contradict it’s omniscience. Agent X always knows. Give me an example of something that agent X would have to predict whilst bearing in mind that agent X has full access/presence to the time dimension.

Agent X is omnipotent and omniscient
Agent X is capable of using omnipotence to take action Y
Agent X uses omniscience to predict that it will not take action Y
Agent X is not capable of taking action Y?
The more agent X wishes to be omniscient, the less it can interact with the world, and if agent X can predict its own future decisions; in a sense it is not free to do anything other than what it is destined to do, and cannot alter its own course.

That which is omniscient doesn’t need to predict. It knows all things. Prediction is exclusively an act that only those who lack full knowledge/omniscience do. So I’m guessing that you might say that there can be no omnipotent being because an omnipotent being can’t predict.

There are two ways to go about addressing this point. Both ways rationally retain the definitions of omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience.

Omnipresence entails that whatever we do in Existence, a part of Existence is doing it too. So if we predict, then a part of Existence is also predicting. That which is omniscient knows what it’s like to predict because a part of that which is omnipresent is predicting.

If for some reason this doesn’t satisfy you rationally, consider the second way:

That which is omnipotent never predicts

That which is omnipotent never predicts, but that’s because that which is omnipotent never lacks omniscience. But this does not render it non-omnipotent because (if the first way I proposed is rejected), your argument about prediction would ultimately amount to the following: Can that which is omnipotent, make itself non-omniscient. Which is paradoxical. Again, the definition of omnipotence is as follows:

That which can do all that is doable:

A) Making predictions whilst lacking omniscience/being a part of Existence is doable (not paradoxical)
B) Making predictions whilst being omniscient/omnipresent/the whole of Existence is paradoxical

Parts of Existence (us), make predictions. Existence as a whole, never makes predictions. But this is not the same as saying Existence never makes predictions. (Correction: Actually, I'm wrong here. Existence never makes predictions).

This isn’t a paradox in the definition of omnipotence. It’s a paradox in what is being proposed as a doable act. If you reject my first way, then what you’re proposing amounts to: can Existence be omnipresent and non-omnipresent at the same time/place. But this can never happen as all existing things in Existence lack infiniteness in terms of time and place/space. So at the same time and place is impossible as non-infinite beings cannot be in the same time/place as the infinite, whereas the infinite is in every time and place the finite are.

So Both the infinite and the finite are existing. The finite exists in the/by virtue of the infinite, and the infinite exists by virtue of being infinite.

I'm at least willing to entertain the notion of either, but once you put them together they become relative/limited/misleading/incoherent.

It would be paradoxical to separate them. You can't be omnipotent/omniscient if you're not omnipresent.

In a sense I am omnipotent because I am capable of doing all that I am capable of doing. If I was something different then I could be capable of doing different things. What kind of thing is capable of doing all the things? Can the almighty do all the things I can do, like brush my own teeth? But wouldn't it have to actually be me?

See my reply to your argument about prediction. It addresses this very point.

We don't know what a list of "all that is doable" would look like. we don't know how long it would be, how variable and changing it could be, or what would be on it. You're alluding to a set of undefined powers, the extent of which we cannot know or even consistently imagine

Of course we do, anything that is meaningful, is doable. They're not undefined/unknown like a 100th sense. They have clear meaning/definition.

How can we generate an infinitely long noodle? It's exactly the same kind of concept, and by your own logic we should be able to conclude that an infinitely long noodle necessarily exists, right?

It's not the same kind of concept. Infinity = that which has no beginning and no end. A noodle, by definition, must have a beginning. Do you agree that there is a clear difference in semantics? A distinction needs to be made between the infinite and the semi-infinite. Semi-infinite is that which has no end but has a beginning. I did not make this distinction clear in my last reply to you. I apologise.

You can have a semi-infinitely long noodle. No paradoxes in this; therefore it is a hypothetical possibility. It is not an absurdity (as is the case with a square-circle), and it is also not a necessity (as is the case with omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience)

Then I should propose an infinitely long pasta chef, so that I can use one proposition to explain why the other necessarily exists.

The non-paradoxical alternatives are that our understanding of omnipotence/omniscience, whatever they are, is flawed, or that neither of them exists.

Yes but all of this would amount to semi-infinites and not infinity. So you can have an immortal pasta chef (where immortal amounts to semi-infinite in the time dimension) and a semi-infinitely long noodle. Everything, that isn't omnipresent is either semi-infinite or finite. Only the infinite can be omnipotent/omniscient/ominpresent.

yay. Wouldn't call it any specific God though. Not the Abrahamic, Nordic, etc.. It seems to me like you've proven the existence of existence which I'm fine with

I don't about the Nordic description of God , but the Abrahamic description of God as being Almighty and All-knowing, is pretty much what I'm proposing here.

I'd say I've highlighted the nature of Existence via reason.

You say:
Let me clear something up here. The only properties we have agreed on for this deity are
A) omnipotence
B) omnipresence

Are you implying that l have said something arbitrary, something not logically derived from the above?
Let me clear something up: I have reasoned everything, and it falls to you to counter it, which you have consistently failed to do.


Your counterargument appears to be:
"It is very easy to imagine the existence of 2 omnipotent omnipresent beings working in tandom without any warring"
"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"



Now as for your counter arguments

I say: "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)."

You say: Agreed. As I've said before, this war could be what's happening right now and it would still fit an emperical observation of the world. Just as there are infinite potential combinations of forces that can create the force A, so are there infinite combinations of gods (as defined above) to create the current state of the world

You tell me that infinite harmony between multiple deities is conceivable therefore an absolute possibility. My counterargument is that conceiving of it is a fine thing but can you reason your concept out? For example, as l said: l could conceive of infinite war between multiple deities (at least until one dies) to be the only possibility. The difference between our opposition ideas is how we reason them out.

You seem to be offering, as reasoning, that there is war in the world.
How does that prove that infinite harmony between multiple deities is possible?

In my reasoning l said / am now saying such things as:
- Material world, the world of quantity = world of conflict
- We know from our own history that there has never been infinite peace, and that there has always been conflict over quantity of some sort (e.g. relative sphere of influence, ownership of resources)
- If we were both deities, you might want infinite peace with me, but you are unable to prove that l have any reason to trust your peaceful intentions
- Thus there will be infinite paranoia
- Infinite paranoia = infinite pain = absolute certainty that one deity will want to kill the other, if it were at all possible, assuming both deities want to exist (if any of them did not want to exist, then they would commit suicide if they could and if they could not, then they would at least war with, hopefully kill, whoever was adding to their misery by causing them infinite paranoia aka infinite pain)
- Also never forget that one deity may kill the other purely for the giggles

You say: I don't understand how either of these pass as a counter argument when I've already addressed them

No, you never addressed to me anything in the above list, never mind the new stuff l added to the list; you never addressed the old stuff in the list:
- about how the material world, the world of quantity = conflict,
- and how in our human history, we have never experienced infinite peace, thus your thoughts are unprecedented,
- moreover you have not addressed my assertion that infinite paranoia would result, and that would mean infinite pain, thus it would be reasonable, virtuous even, for one deity to eliminate all other deities.


I say: "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."

You say: I am not insisting on infinite harmony because I can conceive of it

Let me remind you of your counterargument as you have presented it to me:
"It is very easy to imagine the existence of 2 omnipotent omnipresent beings working in tandom without any warring"
"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"

You then say:
I am insisting on it because God, as defined above, does not have emotions, thoughts or attitudes. Notice how I made no assumptions about this deity in any of my arguments

I say: No assumptions? Other than the assumption that God has no emotions, thoughts or attitudes, which l fail to even see the relevance of

You also say: you keep using hypotheticals where the god has children, brothers, wives, drama, etc.

I say: Hello? This is because we are debating the possibility of multiple deities existing, and you are saying this is impossible, plus l never created a hypothetical where God has a brother or wives or drama (though l made reference to Greek dramas and called you a brother deity to bolster a subtle point that you missed). Also, hypotheticals are not assumptions ...

You say: My version makes the fewest assumptions thus passing Occam's razor while yours does not.

I say: I make zero assumptions as far as l'm aware, whereas you assume the following:
- Multiple deities can exist, because multiple deities can live in peace, because you can conceive of multiple deities living in peace (which you then add to by saying the constant war on our world is an expression of conflict between multiple deities born at the same time)
- God has no emotions / thoughts / attitudes (not even sure how it relates to the discussion on whether it's possible for multiple deities to exist).


Let me restate my argument:
- Multiple deities cannot exist as they will wipe each other out or at least they'd destroy all creation in endless wars, in which case our existence proves that only one deity exists.
- The fact that love exists is demonstration of, if not proof of, the existence of one infinite God, a God who has no wars, a God who is at infinite peace, a God who is perfect (actual infinity = perfection). Peace + Perfection = Bliss. Infinite Peace + Perfection = Infinite Bliss = the wellspring of Love that we feel.

Love is transcendant, and thus that bolsters the idea that it is otherworldly, of the reality of God, which is infinite bliss unlike our reality.

So yeh, Love is another sign of One Infinite God, not multiple deities.

Did you switch accounts or something? I don't remember talking to you but nonetheless.

Are you implying that l have said something arbitrary, something not logically derived from the above?
Let me clear something up: I have reasoned everything, and it falls to you to counter it, which you have consistently failed to do. — BaldMenFighting

Yes that is exactly what I'm implying. You have NOT reasoned everything and you DO keep adding properties to these dieties as I will show.

If we were both deities, you might want infinite peace with me, but you are unable to prove that l have any reason to trust your peaceful intentions — BaldMenFighting

Implies dirties have wants.

Thus there will be infinite paranoia — BaldMenFighting

Implies dieities have emotions.

Infinite paranoia = infinite pain = absolute certainty that one deity will want to kill the other, — BaldMenFighting

Again, implies that not only are these dieties killable but also implies they have emotions.

See the problem yet? You keep thinking of dieties as "super powerful humans" essentially. You keep thinking Zeus, Ares, etc. Again.

Let me clear something up here. The only properties we have agreed on for this deity are
A) omnipotence
B) omnipresence — BaldMenFighting

Yes it's me Snorring Kitten, back to answer a few criticisms.

You say that l imply that deities have wants. However, it was you that said you want eternal peace. I was answering to that. Plus the entire debate is predicated the reaction (= a positively existing thing, a new thing) of one omni deity to another.

In other words: something new that creeps in when one deity coexists with another. You could say there is no change, but that would mean they don't even acknowledge each other, which is hard to believe when they are omnipresent and omnipotent. Ignorance is not a trait one would associate with that.

So therefore, there a new thing that occurs between them.

I say the new thing is mutual annihilation or at the very least, eternal war. I gave my reasoning, much of which you have left unanswered.

You say the new thing is eternal peace, and then you say l am implying wants. However, your want for eternal peace (and it is a want, because it is a new thing that crops up between the deities) is a want, and moreover, the infinite paranoia - yes l suppose that is an emotion.

As is infinite pain.

However, it remains for you to show how infinite paranoia is avoidable.
Also, it now remains for you to show how such grand beings have no sense of emotion, no aesthetic, such that they cannot distinguish a Jackson Pollock from an infant messing around, and would invest heavily in the latter only to find out they've been had. Because they're not so grand if they fall so hard like that, over relatively basic stuff.

Peace is not a new thing that emerges between them. It is a predicted behavior of both beings having omnipotence and omnipresence and nothing else. I am not implying a "want for eternal peace", in fact, I am not implying anything at all other than omnipotence and omnipresence. All of your reasoning is based on extra properties you associate with the diety like emotions, consciousness, familial ties, etc. If you assume nothing but omnipresence and omnipotence then you get eternal peace (I don't like that phrase because it makes it sound mystical but that's what you used so here it is). You keep saying "prove to me that they don't have emotions" or "prove to me that they are not ignorant", I don't have to prove those things because the burden of proof is on YOU. You're the one adding emotions to these dieties (and very human emotions at that) and you expect me to prove to you why they don't have them? That's like a Christian saying "God must exist because you can't prove to me he doesn't". The burden of proof is on the Christian to prove God exists not the person he's talking with. I do not answer your reasoning because every time you keep appealing to properties we have not agreed upon for these dieties